supplementation by ,david ,mc,clamrock ,,summa ,,theologica ,,third ,,part ,,iii1 ,tertia ,pars ,translated by ,fathers of the ,english ,dominican ,province ,,benziger ,,brothers ,,new ,,york ,,dedication ,to the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary ,immaculate ,seat of ,wisdom ,,note ,,to ,,this ,,electronic ,,edition ,the text of this electronic edition was originally produced by ,sandra ,k4 ,perry1 ,perrysburg1 ,ohio1 and made available through the ,christian ,classics ,ethereal ,library http3_/_/www4ccel4org4 ,i have eliminated unnecessary formatting in the text1 corrected some errors in transcription1 and added the dedication1 tables of contents1 ,prologue1 and the numbers of the questions and articles1 as they appeared in the printed translation published by ,benziger ,brothers4 ,each article is now designated by part1 question number1 and article number in brackets1 like this3 ,,second ,,article ,i1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,supreme ,good1 ,god1 ,is the ,cause of ,evil8 ,in a few places1 where obvious errors appeared in the ,benziger ,brothers edition1 ,i have corrected them by reference to a ,latin text of the ,summa4 ,these corrections are indicated by ,english text in brackets4 ,for example1 in ,part ,i1 ,question #de1 ,article #b1 the first sentence in the ,benziger ,brothers edition begins3 ,not only is it impossible that anything should be created by ,god4444 ,by reference to the ,latin1 non solum non est impossibile a ,deo aliquid creari 7emphasis added71 this has been corrected to ,not only is it not impossible that anything should be created by ,god4444 ,this electronic edition also differs from the ,benziger ,brothers edition in the following details 7as well as the obvious lack of the original page numbers and headers73 99 ,the repetitive expression ,we proceed thus to the next ,article does not appear directly below the title of each article4 99 ,italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end1 like this4 ,quotations and other quotable matter1 however1 are ordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this edition1 in accordance with common ,english usage1 even where they were set in italics with no quotation marks in the ,benziger ,brothers edition4 ,titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear in the text with no parentheses1 but not when the books are cited in parentheses4 99 ,bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated by colons1 like this3 ,dan4 #g3aj--not like this3 ,dan4 vii4 #aj4 ,small roman numerals have been retained where they appear in citations to books other than the ,bible4 99 ,any matter that appeared in a footnote in the ,benziger ,brothers edition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the footnote mark appeared4 99 ,greek words are presented in ,roman transliteration4 99 ,paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines4 99 ,numbered topics1 set forth at the beginning of each question and at certain other places1 are ordinarily presented on a separate line for each topic4 99 ,titles of questions are in all caps4 ,anything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to the content of the ,benziger ,brothers edition may be regarded as a defect in this edition and attributed to me 7,david ,mc,clamrock74 ,,contents ,,third ,,part 7,,qq4 #a-ij7 ,question #a4 ,of the ,fitness of the ,incarnation #b4 ,of the ,mode of ,union of the ,word ,incarnate #c4 ,of the ,mode of ,union on the ,part of the ,person ,assuming #d4 ,of the ,mode of ,union on the ,part of the ,human ,nature #e4 ,of the ,parts of ,human ,nature ,which ,were ,assumed #f4 ,of the ,order of ,assumption #g4 ,of the ,grace of ,christ as an ,individual ,man #h4 ,of the ,grace of ,christ as ,he ,is the ,head of the ,church #i4 ,of ,christ's ,knowledge in ,general #aj4 ,of the ,beatific ,knowledge of ,christ's ,soul #aa4 ,of the ,knowledge ,imprinted or ,infused on the ,soul of ,christ #ab4 ,of the ,acquired or ,empiric ,knowledge of ,christ's ,soul #ac4 ,of the ,power of ,christ's ,soul #ad4 ,of the ,defects of ,body ,assumed by the ,son of ,god #ae4 ,of the ,defects of ,soul ,assumed by ,christ #af4 ,of ,those ,things ,which ,are ,applicable to ,christ in ,his ,being and ,becoming #ag4 ,of ,christ's ,unity of ,being #ah4 ,of ,christ's ,unity of ,will #ai4 ,of the ,unity of ,christ's ,operation #bj4 ,of ,christ's ,subjection to the ,father #ba4 ,of ,christ's ,prayer #bb4 ,of the ,priesthood of ,christ #bc4 ,of ,adoption as ,befitting to ,christ #bd4 ,of the ,predestination of ,christ #be4 ,of the ,adoration of ,christ #bf4 ,of ,christ as ,called the ,mediator of ,god and ,man -- ,editorial ,note3 ,st4 ,thomas and the ,immaculate ,conception #bg4 ,of the ,sanctification of the ,blessed ,virgin #bh4 ,of the ,virginity of the ,mother of ,god #bi4 ,of the ,espousals of the ,mother of ,god #cj4 ,of the ,annunciation of the ,blessed ,virgin #ca4 ,of the ,matter ,from ,which the ,saviour's ,body ,was ,conceived #cb4 ,of the ,active ,principle in ,christ's ,conception #cc4 ,of the ,mode and ,order of ,christ's ,conception #cd4 ,of the ,perfection of the ,child ,conceived #ce4 ,of ,christ's ,nativity #cf4 ,of the ,manifestation of the ,newly ,born ,christ #cg4 ,of ,christ's ,circumcision1 and of the ,other ,legal ,observances ,accomplished in ,regard to the ,child ,christ #ch4 ,of the ,baptism of ,john #ci4 ,of the ,baptizing of ,christ #dj4 ,of ,christ's ,manner of ,life #da4 ,of ,christ's ,temptation #db4 ,of ,christ's ,doctrine #dc4 ,of the ,miracles ,worked by ,christ1 in ,general #dd4 ,of ,christ's ,miracles ,considered ,specifically #de4 ,of ,christ's ,transfiguration #df4 ,the ,passion of ,christ #dg4 ,of the ,efficient ,cause of ,christ's ,passion #dh4 ,of the ,efficiency of ,christ's ,passion #di4 ,of the ,effects of ,christ's ,passion #ej4 ,of the ,death of ,christ #ea4 ,of ,christ's ,burial #eb4 ,of ,christ's ,descent into ,hell #ec4 ,of ,christ's ,resurrection #ed4 ,of the ,quality of ,christ ,rising ,again #ee4 ,of the ,manifestation of the ,resurrection #ef4 ,of the ,causality of ,christ's ,resurrection #eg4 ,of the ,ascension of ,christ #eh4 ,of ,christ's ,sitting at the ,right ,hand of the ,father #ei4 ,of ,christ's ,judiciary ,power #fj4 ,what ,is a ,sacrament8 #fa4 ,of the ,necessity of the ,sacraments #fb4 ,of the ,sacraments' ,principal ,effect1 ,which ,is ,grace #fc4 ,of the ,other ,effect of the ,sacraments1 ,which ,is a ,character #fd4 ,of the ,causes of the ,sacraments #fe4 ,of the ,number of the ,sacraments #ff4 ,of the ,sacrament of ,baptism #fg4 ,of the ,ministers by ,whom the ,sacrament of ,baptism ,is ,conferred #fh4 ,of ,those ,who ,receive ,baptism #fi4 ,of the ,effects of ,baptism #gj4 ,of ,circumcision #ga4 ,of the ,preparations ,that ,accompany ,baptism #gb4 ,of the ,sacrament of ,confirmation #gc4 ,of the ,sacrament of the ,eucharist #gd4 ,of the ,matter of ,this ,sacrament #ge4 ,of the ,change of ,bread and ,wine into the ,body and ,blood of ,christ #gf4 ,of the ,way in ,which ,christ ,is in ,this ,sacrament #gg4 ,of the ,accidents ,which ,remain in ,this ,sacrament #gh4 ,of the ,form of ,this ,sacrament #gi4 ,of the ,effects of ,this ,sacrament #hj4 ,of the ,use or ,receiving of ,this ,sacrament in ,general #ha4 ,of the ,use ,which ,christ ,made of ,this ,sacrament at ,its ,institution #hb4 ,of the ,minister of ,this ,sacrament #hc4 ,of the ,rite of ,this ,sacrament #hd4 ,of the ,sacrament of ,penance #he4 ,of ,penance as a ,virtue #hf4 ,of the ,effect of ,penance1 ,as ,regards the ,pardon of ,mortal ,sin #hg4 ,of the ,remission of ,venial ,sin #hh4 ,of the ,return of ,sins ,which ,have ,been ,taken ,away by ,penance #hi4 ,of the ,recovery of ,virtue by ,means of ,penance #ij4 ,of the ,parts of ,penance1 in ,general ,,summa ,,theologica ,,third ,,part ,,iii1 ,tertia ,pars ,,prologue ,forasmuch as our ,saviour the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 in order to save ,his people from their sins 7,matt4 #a3ba71 as the angel announced1 showed unto us in ,his own ,person the way of truth1 whereby we may attain to the bliss of eternal life by rising again1 it is necessary1 in order to complete the work of theology1 that after considering the last end of human life1 and the virtues and vices1 there should follow the consideration of the ,saviour of all1 and of the benefits bestowed by ,him on the human race4 ,concerning this we must consider 7#a7 the ,saviour ,himself2 7#b7 the sacraments by which we attain to our salvation2 7#c7 the end of immortal life to which we attain by the resurrection4 ,concerning the first1 a double consideration occurs3 the first1 about the mystery of the ,incarnation itself1 whereby ,god was made man for our salvation2 the second1 about such things as were done and suffered by our ,saviour--i4e4 ,god incarnate4 ,,treatise ,,on ,,the ,,incarnation 7,,qq4 #a-ei7 ,,question #a ,,of ,,the ,,fitness ,,of ,,the ,,incarnation 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,concerning the first1 three things occur to be considered3 first1 the fitness of the ,incarnation2 secondly1 the mode of union of the ,word ,incarnate2 thirdly1 what follows this union4 ,under the first head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting for ,god to become incarnate8 7#b7 ,whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race8 7#c7 ,whether if there had been no sin ,god would have become incarnate8 7#d7 ,whether ,he became incarnate to take away original sin rather than actual8 7#e7 ,whether it was fitting for ,god to become incarnate from the beginning of the world8 7#f7 ,whether ,his ,incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of the world8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,god ,should ,become ,incarnate8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting for ,god to become incarnate4 ,since ,god from all eternity is the very essence of goodness1 it was best for ,him to be as ,he had been from all eternity4 ,but from all eternity ,he had been without flesh4 ,therefore it was most fitting for ,him not to be united to flesh4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,god to become incarnate4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is not fitting to unite things that are infinitely apart1 even as it would not be a fitting union if one were to paint a figure in which the neck of a horse was joined to the head of a man 99,horace1 ,ars4 ,poet41 line #a4 ,but ,god and flesh are infinitely apart2 since ,god is most simple1 and flesh is most composite--especially human flesh4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,god should be united to human flesh4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil is from the highest good4 ,but it was wholly unfitting that ,god1 ,who is the highest good1 should assume evil4 ,therefore it was not fitting that the highest uncreated spirit should assume a body4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is not becoming that ,he ,who surpassed the greatest things should be contained in the least1 and ,he upon ,whom rests the care of great things should leave them for lesser things4 ,but ,god--,who takes care of the whole world--the whole universe of things cannot contain4 ,therefore it would seem unfitting that ,he should be hid under the frail body of a babe in swathing bands1 in comparison with ,whom the whole universe is accounted as little2 and that this ,prince should quit ,his throne for so long1 and transfer the government of the whole world to so frail a body1 as ,volusianus writes to ,augustine 7,ep4 cxxxv74 ,on the contrary1 ,it would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of ,god should be made known2 for to this end was the whole world made1 as is clear from the word of the ,apostle 7,rom4 #a3bj73 ,for the invisible things of ,god 4 4 4 are clearly seen1 being understood by the things that are made4 ,but1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #a71 by the mystery of the ,incarnation are made known at once the goodness1 the wisdom1 the justice1 and the power or might of ,god--,his goodness1 for ,he did not despise the weakness of ,his own handiwork2 ,his justice1 since1 on man's defeat1 ,he caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man1 and yet ,he did not snatch men forcibly from death2 ,his wisdom1 for ,he found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt2 ,his power1 or infinite might1 for there is nothing greater than for ,god to become incarnate 4 4 4 ,i answer that1 ,to each thing1 that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature2 thus1 to reason befits man1 since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature4 ,but the very nature of ,god is goodness1 as is clear from ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 i74 ,hence1 what belongs to the essence of goodness befits ,god4 ,but it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others1 as is plain from ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature1 and this is brought about chiefly by ,his so joining created nature to ,himself that one ,person is made up of these three--the ,word1 a soul and flesh1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii74 ,hence it is manifest that it was fitting that ,god should become incarnate4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the mystery of the ,incarnation was not completed through ,god being changed in any way from the state in which ,he had been from eternity1 but through ,his having united ,himself to the creature in a new way1 or rather through having united it to ,himself4 ,but it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable1 should not always be in one way4 ,and therefore1 as the creature began to be1 although it had not been before1 so likewise1 not having been previously united to ,god in ,person1 it was afterwards united to ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to be united to ,god in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh1 according to its natural endowments1 since it was above its dignity2 nevertheless1 it was fitting that ,god1 by reason of ,his infinite goodness1 should unite it to ,himself for man's salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever differs from the ,creator has been established by ,god's wisdom1 and is ordained to ,god's goodness4 ,for ,god1 ,who is uncreated1 immutable1 and incorporeal1 produced mutable and corporeal creatures for ,his own goodness4 ,and so also the evil of punishment was established by ,god's justice for ,god's glory4 ,but evil of fault is committed by withdrawing from the art of the ,divine wisdom and from the order of the ,divine goodness4 ,and therefore it could be fitting to ,god to assume a nature created1 mutable1 corporeal1 and subject to penalty1 but it did not become ,him to assume the evil of fault4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,augustine replies 7,ep4 ad ,volusian4 cxxxvii73 ,the ,christian doctrine nowhere holds that ,god was so joined to human flesh as either to desert or lose1 or to transfer and as it were1 contract within this frail body1 the care of governing the universe4 ,this is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal things 4 4 4 ,god is great not in mass1 but in might4 ,hence the greatness of ,his might feels no straits in narrow surroundings4 ,nor1 if the passing word of a man is heard at once by many1 and wholly by each1 is it incredible that the abiding ,word of ,god should be everywhere at once8 ,hence nothing unfitting arises from ,god becoming incarnate4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,necessary for the ,restoration of the ,human ,race ,that the ,word of ,god ,should ,become ,incarnate8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race that the ,word of ,god should become incarnate4 ,for since the ,word of ,god is perfect ,god1 as has been said 7,i1 ,q4 #d1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 no power was added to ,him by the assumption of flesh4 ,therefore1 if the incarnate ,word of ,god restored human nature4 ,he could also have restored it without assuming flesh4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 for the restoration of human nature1 which had fallen through sin1 nothing more is required than that man should satisfy for sin4 ,now man can satisfy1 as it would seem1 for sin2 for ,god cannot require from man more than man can do1 and since ,he is more inclined to be merciful than to punish1 as ,he lays the act of sin to man's charge1 so ,he ought to credit him with the contrary act4 ,therefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature that the ,word of ,god should become incarnate4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to revere ,god pertains especially to man's salvation2 hence it is written 7,mal4 #a3f73 ,if1 then1 ,i be a father1 where is my honor8 and if ,i be a master1 where is my fear8 ,but men revere ,god the more by considering ,him as elevated above all1 and far beyond man's senses1 hence 7,ps4 #aab3d7 it is written3 ,the ,lord is high above all nations1 and ,his glory above the heavens2 and farther on3 ,who is as the ,lord our ,god8 which pertains to reverence4 ,therefore it would seem unfitting to man's salvation that ,god should be made like unto us by assuming flesh4 ,on the contrary1 ,what frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man4 ,but the mystery of the ,incarnation is such2 according to ,john #c3af3 ,god so loved the world as to give ,his only-begotten ,son1 that whosoever believeth in ,him may not perish1 but may have life everlasting4 ,therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that ,god should become incarnate4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways4 ,first1 when the end cannot be without it2 as food is necessary for the preservation of human life4 ,secondly1 when the end is attained better and more conveniently1 as a horse is necessary for a journey4 ,in the first way it was not necessary that ,god should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature4 ,for ,god with ,his omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways4 ,but in the second way it was necessary that ,god should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xii1 #aj73 ,we shall also show that other ways were not wanting to ,god1 to ,whose power all things are equally subject2 but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery4 ,now this may be viewed with respect to our furtherance in good4 ,first1 with regard to faith1 which is made more certain by believing ,god ,himself ,who speaks2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xi1 #b73 ,in order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth1 the ,truth itself1 the ,son of ,god1 having assumed human nature1 established and founded faith4 ,secondly1 with regard to hope1 which is thereby greatly strengthened2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii73 ,nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply ,god loved us4 ,and what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the ,son of ,god should become a partner with us of human nature8 ,thirdly1 with regard to charity1 which is greatly enkindled by this2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,catech4 ,rudib4 iv73 ,what greater cause is there of the ,lord's coming than to show ,god's love for us8 ,and he afterwards adds3 ,if we have been slow to love1 at least let us hasten to love in return4 ,fourthly1 with regard to well-doing1 in which ,he set us an example2 hence ,augustine says in a sermon 7xxii de ,temp473 ,man who might be seen was not to be followed2 but ,god was to be followed1 ,who could not be seen4 ,and therefore ,god was made man1 that ,he ,who might be seen by man1 and ,whom man might follow1 might be shown to man4 ,fifthly1 with regard to the full participation of the ,divinity1 which is the true bliss of man and end of human life2 and this is bestowed upon us by ,christ's humanity2 for ,augustine says in a sermon 7xiii de ,temp473 ,god was made man1 that man might be made ,god4 ,so also was this useful for our withdrawal from evil4 ,first1 because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself1 nor to honor him who is the author of sin2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #ag73 ,since human nature is so united to ,god as to become one person1 let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man1 because they have no bodies4 ,secondly1 because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity1 lest we should sully it with sin2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,vera ,relig4 xvi73 ,god has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures1 inasmuch as ,he appeared to men as a true man4 ,and ,pope ,leo says in a sermon on the ,nativity 7xxi73 ,learn1 ,o ,christian1 thy worth2 and being made a partner of the ,divine nature1 refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness4 ,thirdly1 because1 in order to do away with man's presumption1 the grace of ,god is commended in ,jesus ,christ1 though no merits of ours went before1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #ag74 ,fourthly1 because man's pride1 which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to ,god1 can be convinced and cured by humility so great1 as ,augustine says in the same place4 ,fifthly1 in order to free man from the thraldom of sin1 which1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #ac71 ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man ,jesus ,christ1 and this was done by ,christ satisfying for us4 ,now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race1 and ,god was not bound to satisfy2 hence it behooved ,jesus ,christ to be both ,god and man4 ,hence ,pope ,leo says in the same sermon3 ,weakness is assumed by strength1 lowliness by majesty1 mortality by eternity1 in order that one and the same ,mediator of ,god and men might die in one and rise in the other--for this was our fitting remedy4 ,unless ,he was ,god1 ,he would not have brought a remedy2 and unless ,he was man1 ,he would not have set an example4 ,and there are very many other advantages which accrued1 above man's apprehension4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this reason has to do with the first kind of necessity1 without which we cannot attain to the end4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways--first1 perfectly1 inasmuch as it is condign1 being adequate to make good the fault committed1 and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man cannot be sufficient for sin1 both because the whole of human nature has been corrupted by sin1 whereas the goodness of any person or persons could not be made up adequately for the harm done to the whole of the nature2 and also because a sin committed against ,god has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the ,divine majesty1 because the greater the person we offend1 the more grievous the offense4 ,hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency1 as being of ,god and man4 ,secondly1 man's satisfaction may be termed sufficient1 imperfectly--i4e4 in the acceptation of him who is content with it1 even though it is not condign1 and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man is sufficient4 ,and forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes some perfect thing1 by which it is sustained1 hence it is that satisfaction of every mere man has its efficiency from the satisfaction of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by taking flesh1 ,god did not lessen ,his majesty2 and in consequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing ,him1 which is increased by the increase of knowledge of ,him4 ,but1 on the contrary1 inasmuch as ,he wished to draw nigh to us by taking flesh1 ,he greatly drew us to know ,him4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #c ,whether1 ,if ,man ,had ,not ,sinned1 ,god ,would ,have ,become ,incarnate8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that if man had not sinned1 ,god would still have become incarnate4 ,for the cause remaining1 the effect also remains4 ,but as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #ag73 ,many other things are to be considered in the ,incarnation of ,christ besides absolution from sin2 and these were discussed above 7,a4 #b74 ,therefore if man had not sinned1 ,god would have become incarnate4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it belongs to the omnipotence of the ,divine power to perfect ,his works1 and to manifest ,himself by some infinite effect4 ,but no mere creature can be called an infinite effect1 since it is finite of its very essence4 ,now1 seemingly1 in the work of the ,incarnation alone is an infinite effect of the ,divine power manifested in a special manner by which power things infinitely distant are united1 inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is ,god4 ,and in this work especially the universe would seem to be perfected1 inasmuch as the last creature--viz4 man--is united to the first principle--viz4 ,god4 ,therefore1 even if man had not sinned1 ,god would have become incarnate4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin4 ,but after sin it is capable of the grace of union1 which is the greatest grace4 ,therefore1 if man had not sinned1 human nature would have been capable of this grace2 nor would ,god have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of4 ,therefore1 if man had not sinned1 ,god would have become incarnate4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,god's predestination is eternal4 ,but it is said of ,christ 7,rom4 #a3d73 ,who was predestined the ,son of ,god in power4 ,therefore1 even before sin1 it was necessary that the ,son of ,god should become incarnate1 in order to fulfil ,god's predestination4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the mystery of the ,incarnation was revealed to the first man1 as is plain from ,gen4 #b3bc4 ,this now is bone of my bones1 etc4 which the ,apostle says is a great sacrament 4 4 4 in ,christ and in the ,church1 as is plain from ,eph4 #e3cb4 ,but man could not be fore-conscious of his fall1 for the same reason that the angels could not1 as ,augustine proves 7,gen4 ad lit4 xi1 #ah74 ,therefore1 even if man had not sinned1 ,god would have become incarnate4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,verb4 ,apost4 viii1 #b71 expounding what is set down in ,luke #ai3aj1 ,for the ,son of ,man is come to seek and to save that which was lost2 ,therefore1 if man had not sinned1 the ,son of ,man would not have come4 ,and on #a ,tim4 #a3ae1 ,christ ,jesus came into this world to save sinners1 a gloss says1 ,there was no cause of ,christ's coming into the world1 except to save sinners4 ,take away diseases1 take away wounds1 and there is no need of medicine4 ,i answer that1 ,there are different opinions about this question4 ,for some say that even if man had not sinned1 the ,son of ,man would have become incarnate4 ,others assert the contrary1 and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion4 ,for such things as spring from ,god's will1 and beyond the creature's due1 can be made known to us only through being revealed in the ,sacred ,scripture1 in which the ,divine ,will is made known to us4 ,hence1 since everywhere in the ,sacred ,scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of the ,incarnation1 it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the ,incarnation was ordained by ,god as a remedy for sin2 so that1 had sin not existed1 the ,incarnation would not have been4 ,and yet the power of ,god is not limited to this2 even had sin not existed1 ,god could have become incarnate4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all the other causes which are assigned in the preceding article have to do with a remedy for sin4 ,for if man had not sinned1 he would have been endowed with the light of ,divine wisdom1 and would have been perfected by ,god with the righteousness of justice in order to know and carry out everything needful4 ,but because man1 on deserting ,god1 had stooped to corporeal things1 it was necessary that ,god should take flesh1 and by corporeal things should afford him the remedy of salvation4 ,hence1 on ,john #a3ad1 ,and the ,word was made flesh1 ,st4 ,augustine says 7,tract4 ii73 ,flesh had blinded thee1 flesh heals thee2 for ,christ came and overthrew the vices of the flesh4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the infinity of ,divine power is shown in the mode of production of things from nothing4 ,again1 it suffices for the perfection of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural manner to ,god as to an end4 ,but that a creature should be united to ,god in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a double capability may be remarked in human nature3 one1 in respect of the order of natural power1 and this is always fulfilled by ,god1 ,who apportions to each according to its natural capability2 the other in respect to the order of the ,divine power1 which all creatures implicitly obey2 and the capability we speak of pertains to this4 ,but ,god does not fulfil all such capabilities1 otherwise ,god could do only what ,he has done in creatures1 and this is false1 as stated above 7,i1 ,q4 #aje1 ,a4 #f74 ,but there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin4 ,for ,god allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom2 hence it is written 7,rom4 #e3bj73 ,where sin abounded1 grace did more abound4 ,hence1 too1 in the blessing of the ,paschal candle1 we say3 ,o happy fault1 that merited such and so great a ,redeemer6 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future things2 and hence1 as ,god predestines the salvation of anyone to be brought about by the prayers of others1 so also ,he predestined the work of the ,incarnation to be the remedy of human sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one to whom the cause is not revealed4 ,hence1 the mystery of the ,incarnation could be revealed to the first man without his being fore-conscious of his fall4 ,for not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,god ,became ,incarnate in ,order to ,take ,away ,actual ,sin1 ,rather ,than to ,take ,away ,original ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,god became incarnate as a remedy for actual sins rather than for original sin4 ,for the more grievous the sin1 the more it runs counter to man's salvation1 for which ,god became incarnate4 ,but actual sin is more grievous than original sin2 for the lightest punishment is due to original sin1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,julian4 v1 #aa74 ,therefore the ,incarnation of ,christ is chiefly directed to taking away actual sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 pain of sense is not due to original sin1 but merely pain of loss1 as has been shown 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #e74 ,but ,christ came to suffer the pain of sense on the ,cross in satisfaction for sins--and not the pain of loss1 for ,he had no defect of either the beatific vision or fruition4 ,therefore ,he came in order to take away actual sin rather than original sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,chrysostom says 7,de ,compunctione ,cordis ii1 #c73 ,this must be the mind of the faithful servant1 to account the benefits of his ,lord1 which have been bestowed on all alike1 as though they were bestowed on himself alone4 ,for as if speaking of himself alone1 ,paul writes to the ,galatians #b3bj3 ',christ 4 4 4 loved me and delivered ,himself for me4' ,but our individual sins are actual sins2 for original sin is the common sin4 ,therefore we ought to have this conviction1 so as to believe that ,he has come chiefly for actual sins4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3bi73 ,behold the ,lamb of ,god1 behold ,him ,who taketh away the sins ,vulg43 'sin' of the world4 ,i answer that1 ,it is certain that ,christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity1 but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it2 not that all are taken away 7and this is from men's fault1 inasmuch as they do not adhere to ,christ1 according to ,john #c3ai3 ,the light is come into the world1 and men loved darkness rather than the light71 but because ,he offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins4 ,hence it is written 7,rom4 #e3ae-af73 ,but not as the offense1 so also the gift 4 4 4 ,for judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation1 but grace is of many offenses unto justification4 ,moreover1 the more grievous the sin1 the more particularly did ,christ come to blot it out4 ,but greater is said in two ways3 in one way intensively1 as a more intense whiteness is said to be greater1 and in this way actual sin is greater than original sin2 for it has more of the nature of voluntary1 as has been shown 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,a4 #a74 ,in another way a thing is said to be greater extensively1 as whiteness on a greater superficies is said to be greater2 and in this way original sin1 whereby the whole human race is infected1 is greater than any actual sin1 which is proper to one person4 ,and in this respect ,christ came principally to take away original sin1 inasmuch as the good of the race is a more ,divine thing than the good of an individual1 as is said ,ethic4 i1 #b4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in the future award the pain of sense will not be meted out to original sin4 ,yet the penalties1 such as hunger1 thirst1 death1 and the like1 which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from original sin4 ,and hence ,christ1 in order to satisfy fully for original sin1 wished to suffer sensible pain1 that ,he might consume death and the like in ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,chrysostom says 7,de ,compunctione ,cordis ii1 #f73 ,the ,apostle used these words1 not as if wishing to diminish ,christ's gifts1 ample as they are1 and spreading throughout the whole world1 but that he might account himself alone the occasion of them4 ,for what does it matter that they are given to others1 if what are given to you are as complete and perfect as if none of them were given to another than yourself8 ,and hence1 although a man ought to account ,christ's gifts as given to himself1 yet he ought not to consider them not to be given to others4 ,and thus we do not exclude that ,he came to wipe away the sin of the whole nature rather than the sin of one person4 ,but the sin of the nature is as perfectly healed in each one as if it were healed in him alone4 ,hence1 on account of the union of charity1 what is vouchsafed to all ought to be accounted his own by each one4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,god ,should ,become ,incarnate in the ,beginning of the ,human ,race8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was fitting that ,god should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race4 ,for the work of the ,incarnation sprang from the immensity of ,divine charity1 according to ,eph4 #b3d1 #e3 ,but ,god 7,who is rich in mercy71 for ,his exceeding charity wherewith ,he loved us 4 4 4 even when we were dead in sins1 hath quickened us together in ,christ4 ,but charity does not tarry in bringing assistance to a friend who is suffering need1 according to ,prov4 #c3bh3 ,say not to thy friend3 ,go1 and come again1 and tomorrow ,i will give to thee1 when thou canst give at present4 ,therefore ,god ought not to have put off the work of the ,incarnation1 but ought thereby to have brought relief to the human race from the beginning4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,tim4 #a3ae73 ,christ ,jesus came into this world to save sinners4 ,but more would have been saved had ,god become incarnate at the beginning of the human race2 for in the various centuries very many1 through not knowing ,god1 perished in their sin4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,god should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the work of grace is not less orderly than the work of nature4 ,but nature takes its rise with the more perfect1 as ,boethius says 7,de ,consol4 iii74 ,therefore the work of ,christ ought to have been perfect from the beginning4 ,but in the work of the ,incarnation we see the perfection of grace1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,the ,word was made flesh2 and afterwards it is added3 ,full of grace and truth4 ,therefore ,christ ought to have become incarnate at the beginning of the human race4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,gal4 #d3d73 ,but when the fulness of the time was come1 ,god sent ,his ,son1 made of a woman1 made under the law3 upon which a gloss says that the fulness of the time is when it was decreed by ,god the ,father to send ,his ,son4 ,but ,god decreed everything by ,his wisdom4 ,therefore ,god became incarnate at the most fitting time2 and it was not fitting that ,god should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race4 ,i answer that1 ,since the work of the ,incarnation is principally ordained to the restoration of the human race by blotting out sin1 it is manifest that it was not fitting for ,god to become incarnate at the beginning of the human race before sin4 ,for medicine is given only to the sick4 ,hence our ,lord ,himself says 7,matt4 #i3ab1 #ac73 ,they that are in health need not a physician1 but they that are ill 4 4 4 ,for ,i am not come to call the just1 but sinners4 ,nor was it fitting that ,god should become incarnate immediately after sin4 ,first1 on account of the manner of man's sin1 which had come of pride2 hence man was to be liberated in such a manner that he might be humbled1 and see how he stood in need of a deliverer4 ,hence on the words in ,gal4 #c3ai1 ,being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator1 a gloss says3 ,with great wisdom was it so ordered that the ,son of ,man should not be sent immediately after man's fall4 ,for first of all ,god left man under the natural law1 with the freedom of his will1 in order that he might know his natural strength2 and when he failed in it1 he received the law2 whereupon1 by the fault1 not of the law1 but of his nature1 the disease gained strength2 so that having recognized his infirmity he might cry out for a physician1 and beseech the aid of grace4 ,secondly1 on account of the order of furtherance in good1 whereby we proceed from imperfection to perfection4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3df1 #dg73 ,yet that was not first which is spiritual1 but that which is natural2 afterwards that which is spiritual 4 4 4 ,the first man was of the earth1 earthy2 the second man from heaven1 heavenly4 ,thirdly1 on account of the dignity of the incarnate ,word1 for on the words 7,gal4 #d3d71 ,but when the fulness of the time was come1 a gloss says3 ,the greater the judge who was coming1 the more numerous was the band of heralds who ought to have preceded him4 ,fourthly1 lest the fervor of faith should cool by the length of time1 for the charity of many will grow cold at the end of the world4 ,hence 7,luke #ah3h7 it is written3 ,but yet the ,son of ,man1 when ,he cometh1 shall ,he find think you1 faith on earth8 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,charity does not put off bringing assistance to a friend3 always bearing in mind the circumstances as well as the state of the persons4 ,for if the physician were to give the medicine at the very outset of the ailment1 it would do less good1 and would hurt rather than benefit4 ,and hence the ,lord did not bestow upon the human race the remedy of the ,incarnation in the beginning1 lest they should despise it through pride1 if they did not already recognize their disease4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,augustine replies to this 7,de ,sex ,quest4 ,pagan41 ,ep4 cii71 saying 7,q4 #b7 that ,christ wished to appear to man and to have ,his doctrine preached to them when and where ,he knew those were who would believe in ,him4 ,but in such times and places as ,his ,gospel was not preached ,he foresaw that not all1 indeed1 but many would so bear themselves towards ,his preaching as not to believe in ,his corporeal presence1 even were ,he to raise the dead4 ,but the same ,augustine1 taking exception to this reply in his book 7,de ,perseverantia ix71 says3 ,how can we say the inhabitants of ,tyre and ,sidon would not believe when such great wonders were wrought in their midst1 or would not have believed had they been wrought1 when ,god ,himself bears witness that they would have done penance with great humility if these signs of ,divine power had been wrought in their midst8 ,and he adds in answer 7,de ,perseverantia xi73 ,hence1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #i3af71 'it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth1 but of ,god that showeth mercy'2 ,who 7succors whom ,he will of7 those who1 as ,he foresaw1 would believe in ,his miracles if wrought amongst them1 7while others7 ,he succors not1 having judged them in ,his predestination secretly yet justly4 ,therefore let us unshrinkingly believe ,his mercy to be with those who are set free1 and ,his truth with those who are condemned4 99,the words in brackets are not in the text of ,st4 ,augustine4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,perfection is prior to imperfection1 both in time and nature1 in things that are different 7for what brings others to perfection must itself be perfect72 but in one and the same1 imperfection is prior in time though posterior in nature4 ,and thus the eternal perfection of ,god precedes in duration the imperfection of human nature2 but the latter's ultimate perfection in union with ,god follows4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #a1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,incarnation ,ought to ,have ,been ,put ,off ,till the ,end of the ,world8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the work of the ,incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,for it is written 7,ps4 #ia3aa73 ,my old age in plentiful mercy--i4e4 in the last days1 as a gloss says4 ,but the time of the ,incarnation is especially the time of mercy1 according to ,ps4 #aja3ad3 ,for it is time to have mercy on it4 ,therefore the ,incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as has been said 7,a4 #e1 ad #c71 in the same subject1 perfection is subsequent in time to imperfection4 ,therefore1 what is most perfect ought to be the very last in time4 ,but the highest perfection of human nature is in the union with the ,word1 because in ,christ it hath pleased the ,father that all the fulness of the ,godhead should dwell1 as the ,apostle says 7,col4 #a3ai1 and #b3i74 ,therefore the ,incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what can be done by one ought not to be done by two4 ,but the one coming of ,christ at the end of the world was sufficient for the salvation of human nature4 ,therefore it was not necessary for ,him to come beforehand in ,his ,incarnation2 and hence the ,incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,hab4 #c3b73 ,in the midst of the years ,thou shalt make it known4 ,therefore the mystery of the ,incarnation which was made known to the world ought not to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,i answer that1 ,as it was not fitting that ,god should become incarnate at the beginning of the world1 so also it was not fitting that the ,incarnation should be put off till the end of the world4 ,and this is shown first from the union of the ,divine and human nature4 ,for1 as it has been said 7,a4 #e1 ad #c71 perfection precedes imperfection in time in one way1 and contrariwise in another way imperfection precedes perfection4 ,for in that which is made perfect from being imperfect1 imperfection precedes perfection in time1 whereas in that which is the efficient cause of perfection1 perfection precedes imperfection in time4 ,now in the work of the ,incarnation both concur2 for by the ,incarnation human nature is raised to its highest perfection2 and in this way it was not becoming that the ,incarnation should take place at the beginning of the human race4 ,and the ,word incarnate is the efficient cause of the perfection of human nature1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we have all received2 and hence the work of the ,incarnation ought not to have been put off till the end of the world4 ,but the perfection of glory to which human nature is to be finally raised by the ,word ,incarnate will be at the end of the world4 ,secondly1 from the effect of man's salvation2 for1 as is said ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 #hc1 it is in the power of the ,giver to have pity when1 or as much as1 ,he wills4 ,hence ,he came when ,he knew it was fitting to succor1 and when ,his boons would be welcome4 ,for when by the feebleness of the human race men's knowledge of ,god began to grow dim and their morals lax1 ,he was pleased to choose ,abraham as a standard of the restored knowledge of ,god and of holy living2 and later on when reverence grew weaker1 ,he gave the law to ,moses in writing2 and because the gentiles despised it and would not take it upon themselves1 and they who received it would not keep it1 being touched with pity1 ,god sent ,his ,son1 to grant to all remission of their sin and to offer them1 justified1 to ,god the ,father4 ,but if this remedy had been put off till the end of the world1 all knowledge and reverence of ,god and all uprightness of morals would have been swept away from the earth4 ,thirdly1 this appears fitting to the manifestation of the ,divine power1 which has saved men in several ways--not only by faith in some future thing1 but also by faith in something present and past4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this gloss has in view the mercy of ,god1 which leads us to glory4 ,nevertheless1 if it is referred to the mercy shown the human race by the ,incarnation of ,christ1 we must reflect that1 as ,augustine says 7,retract4 i71 the time of the ,incarnation may be compared to the youth of the human race1 on account of the strength and fervor of faith1 which works by charity2 and to old age--i4e4 the sixth age--on account of the number of centuries1 for ,christ came in the sixth age4 ,and although youth and old age cannot be together in a body1 yet they can be together in a soul1 the former on account of quickness1 the latter on account of gravity4 ,and hence ,augustine says elsewhere 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #dd7 that it was not becoming that the ,master by ,whose imitation the human race was to be formed to the highest virtue should come from heaven1 save in the time of youth4 ,but in another work 7,de ,gen4 cont4 ,manich4 i1 #bc7 he says3 that ,christ came in the sixth age--i4e4 in the old age--of the human race4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the work of the ,incarnation is to be viewed not as merely the terminus of a movement from imperfection to perfection1 but also as a principle of perfection to human nature1 as has been said4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says on ,john #c3aa1 ,for ,god sent not ,his ,son into the world to judge the world 7,hom4 xxviii73 ,there are two comings of ,christ3 the first1 for the remission of sins2 the second1 to judge the world4 ,for if ,he had not done so1 all would have perished together1 since all have sinned and need the glory of ,god4 ,hence it is plain that ,he ought not to have put off the coming in mercy till the end of the world4 ,,question #b ,,of ,,the ,,mode ,,of ,,union ,,of ,,the ,,word ,,incarnate 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,now we must consider the mode of union of the ,incarnate ,word2 and1 first1 the union itself2 secondly1 the ,person assuming2 thirdly1 the nature assumed4 ,under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the union of the ,word ,incarnate took place in the nature8 7#b7 ,whether it took place in the ,person8 7#c7 ,whether it took place in the suppositum or hypostasis8 7#d7 ,whether the ,person or hypostasis of ,christ is composite after the ,incarnation8 7#e7 ,whether any union of body and soul took place in ,christ8 7#f7 ,whether the human nature was united to the ,word accidentally8 7#g7 ,whether the union itself is something created8 7#h7 ,whether it is the same as assumption8 7#i7 ,whether the union of the two natures is the greatest union8 7#aj7 ,whether the union of the two natures in ,christ was brought about by grace8 7#aa7 ,whether any merits preceded it8 7#ab7 ,whether the grace of union was natural to the man ,christ8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,union of the ,incarnate ,word ,took ,place in the ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,union of the ,word ,incarnate took place in the nature4 ,for ,cyril says 7he is quoted in the acts of the ,council of ,chalcedon1 part ii1 act4 #a73 ,we must understand not two natures1 but one incarnate nature of the ,word of ,god2 and this could not be unless the union took place in the nature4 ,therefore the union of the ,word ,incarnate took place in the nature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,athanasius says that1 as the rational soul and the flesh together form the human nature1 so ,god and man together form a certain one nature2 therefore the union took place in the nature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 of two natures one is not denominated by the other unless they are to some extent mutually transmuted4 ,but the ,divine and human natures in ,christ are denominated one by the other2 for ,cyril says 7quoted in the acts of the ,council of ,chalcedon1 part ii1 act4 #a7 that the ,divine nature is incarnate2 and ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,ep4 i ad ,cledon47 that the human nature is deified1 as appears from ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f1 #aa74 ,therefore from two natures one seems to have resulted4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said in the declaration of the ,council of ,chalcedon3 ,we confess that in these latter times the only-begotten ,son of ,god appeared in two natures1 without confusion1 without change1 without division1 without separation--the distinction of natures not having been taken away by the union4 ,therefore the union did not take place in the nature4 ,i answer that1 ,to make this question clear we must consider what is nature4 ,now it is to be observed that the word nature comes from nativity4 ,hence this word was used first of all to signify the begetting of living beings1 which is called birth or sprouting forth1 the word natura meaning1 as it were1 nascitura4 ,afterwards this word nature was taken to signify the principle of this begetting2 and because in living things the principle of generation is an intrinsic principle1 this word nature was further employed to signify any intrinsic principle of motion3 thus the ,philosopher says 7,phys4 ii7 that nature is the principle of motion in that in which it is essentially and not accidentally4 ,now this principle is either form or matter4 ,hence sometimes form is called nature1 and sometimes matter4 ,and because the end of natural generation1 in that which is generated1 is the essence of the species1 which the definition signifies1 this essence of the species is called the nature4 ,and thus ,boethius defines nature 7,de ,duab4 ,nat473 ,nature is what informs a thing with its specific difference1 --i4e4 which perfects the specific definition4 ,but we are now speaking of nature as it signifies the essence1 or the what-it-is1 or the quiddity of the species4 ,now1 if we take nature in this way1 it is impossible that the union of the ,incarnate ,word took place in the nature4 ,for one thing is made of two or more in three ways4 ,first1 from two complete things which remain in their perfection4 ,this can only happen to those whose form is composition1 order1 or figure1 as a heap is made up of many stones brought together without any order1 but solely with juxtaposition2 and a house is made of stones and beams arranged in order1 and fashioned to a figure4 ,and in this way some said the union was by manner of confusion 7which is without order7 or by manner of commensuration 7which is with order74 ,but this cannot be4 ,first1 because neither composition nor order nor figure is a substantial form1 but accidental2 and hence it would follow that the union of the ,incarnation was not essential1 but accidental1 which will be disproved later on 7,a4 #f74 ,secondly1 because thereby we should not have an absolute unity1 but relative only1 for there remain several things actually4 ,thirdly1 because the form of such is not a nature1 but an art1 as the form of a house2 and thus one nature would not be constituted in ,christ1 as they wish4 ,secondly1 one thing is made up of several things1 perfect but changed1 as a mixture is made up of its elements2 and in this way some have said that the union of the ,incarnation was brought about by manner of combination4 ,but this cannot be4 ,first1 because the ,divine ,nature is altogether immutable1 as has been said 7,i1 ,q4 #i1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 hence neither can it be changed into something else1 since it is incorruptible2 nor can anything else be changed into it1 for it cannot be generated4 ,secondly1 because what is mixed is of the same species with none of the elements2 for flesh differs in species from any of its elements4 ,and thus ,christ would be of the same nature neither with ,his ,father nor with ,his ,mother4 ,thirdly1 because there can be no mingling of things widely apart2 for the species of one of them is absorbed1 e4g4 if we were to put a drop of water in a flagon of wine4 ,and hence1 since the ,divine ,nature infinitely exceeds the human nature1 there could be no mixture1 but the ,divine ,nature alone would remain4 ,thirdly1 a thing is made up of things not mixed nor changed1 but imperfect2 as man is made up of soul and body1 and likewise of divers members4 ,but this cannot be said of the mystery of the ,incarnation4 ,first1 because each nature1 i4e4 the ,divine and the human1 has its specific perfection4 ,secondly1 because the ,divine and human natures cannot constitute anything after the manner of quantitative parts1 as the members make up the body2 for the ,divine ,nature is incorporeal2 nor after the manner of form and matter1 for the ,divine ,nature cannot be the form of anything1 especially of anything corporeal1 since it would follow that the species resulting therefrom would be communicable to several1 and thus there would be several ,christs4 ,thirdly1 because ,christ would exist neither in human nature nor in the ,divine ,nature3 since any difference varies the species1 as unity varies number1 as is said 7,metaph4 viii1 text4 #aj74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this authority of ,cyril is expounded in the ,fifth ,synod 7i4e4 ,constantinople ,,ii1 coll4 viii1 can4 #h7 thus3 ,if anyone proclaiming one nature of the ,word of ,god to be incarnate does not receive it as the ,fathers taught1 viz4 that from the ,divine and human natures 7a union in subsistence having taken place7 one ,christ results1 but endeavors from these words to introduce one nature or substance of the ,divinity and flesh of ,christ1 let such a one be anathema4 ,hence the sense is not that from two natures one results2 but that the ,nature of the ,word of ,god united flesh to ,itself in ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,from the soul and body a double unity1 viz4 of nature and person--results in each individual--of nature inasmuch as the soul is united to the body1 and formally perfects it1 so that one nature springs from the two as from act and potentiality or from matter and form4 ,but the comparison is not in this sense1 for the ,divine ,nature cannot be the form of a body1 as was proved 7,i1 ,q4 #c1 ,a4 #h74 ,unity of person results from them1 however1 inasmuch as there is an individual subsisting in flesh and soul2 and herein lies the likeness1 for the one ,christ subsists in the ,divine and human natures4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f1 #aa71 the ,divine ,nature is said to be incarnate because ,it is united to flesh personally1 and not that ,it is changed into flesh4 ,so likewise the flesh is said to be deified1 as he also says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 #ae1 #ag71 not by change1 but by union with the ,word1 its natural properties still remaining1 and hence it may be considered as deified1 inasmuch as it becomes the flesh of the ,word of ,god1 but not that it becomes ,god4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,union of the ,incarnate ,word ,took ,place in the ,person8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the ,incarnate ,word did not take place in the person4 ,for the ,person of ,god is not distinct from ,his ,nature1 as we said 7,i1 ,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #a74 ,if1 therefore1 the union did not take place in the nature1 it follows that it did not take place in the person4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's human nature has no less dignity than ours4 ,but personality belongs to dignity1 as was stated above 7,i1 ,q4 #bi1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b74 ,hence1 since our human nature has its proper personality1 much more reason was there that ,christ's should have its proper personality4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,boethius says 7,de ,duab4 ,nat471 a person is an individual substance of rational nature4 ,but the ,word of ,god assumed an individual human nature1 for universal human nature does not exist of itself1 but is the object of pure thought1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa74 ,therefore the human nature of ,christ has its personality4 ,hence it does not seem that the union took place in the person4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read in the ,synod of ,chalcedon 7,part ii1 act4 #e73 ,we confess that our ,lord ,jesus ,christ is not parted or divided into two persons1 but is one and the same only-,begotten ,son and ,word of ,god4 ,therefore the union took place in the person4 ,i answer that1 ,person has a different meaning from nature4 ,for nature1 as has been said 7,a4 #a71 designates the specific essence which is signified by the definition4 ,and if nothing was found to be added to what belongs to the notion of the species1 there would be no need to distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature 7which is the individual subsisting in this nature71 because every individual subsisting in a nature would be altogether one with its nature4 ,now in certain subsisting things we happen to find what does not belong to the notion of the species1 viz4 accidents and individuating principles1 which appears chiefly in such as are composed of matter and form4 ,hence in such as these the nature and the suppositum really differ2 not indeed as if they were wholly separate1 but because the suppositum includes the nature1 and in addition certain other things outside the notion of the species4 ,hence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which has the nature as its formal part to perfect it2 and consequently in such as are composed of matter and form the nature is not predicated of the suppositum1 for we do not say that this man is his manhood4 ,but if there is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or its nature 7as in ,god71 the suppositum and the nature are not really distinct in it1 but only in our way of thinking1 inasmuch it is called nature as it is an essence1 and a suppositum as it is subsisting4 ,and what is said of a suppositum is to be applied to a person in rational or intellectual creatures2 for a person is nothing else than an individual substance of rational nature1 according to ,boethius4 ,therefore1 whatever adheres to a person is united to it in person1 whether it belongs to its nature or not4 ,hence1 if the human nature is not united to ,god the ,word in person1 it is nowise united to ,him2 and thus belief in the ,incarnation is altogether done away with1 and ,christian faith wholly overturned4 ,therefore1 inasmuch as the ,word has a human nature united to ,him1 which does not belong to ,his ,divine ,nature1 it follows that the union took place in the ,person of the ,word1 and not in the nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although in ,god ,nature and ,person are not really distinct1 yet they have distinct meanings1 as was said above1 inasmuch as person signifies after the manner of something subsisting4 ,and because human nature is united to the ,word1 so that the ,word subsists in it1 and not so that ,his ,nature receives therefrom any addition or change1 it follows that the union of human nature to the ,word of ,god took place in the person1 and not in the nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,personality pertains of necessity to the dignity of a thing1 and to its perfection so far as it pertains to the dignity and perfection of that thing to exist by itself 7which is understood by the word person74 ,now it is a greater dignity to exist in something nobler than oneself than to exist by oneself4 ,hence the human nature of ,christ has a greater dignity than ours1 from this very fact that in us1 being existent by itself1 it has its own personality1 but in ,christ it exists in the ,person of the ,word4 ,thus to perfect the species belongs to the dignity of a form1 yet the sensitive part in man1 on account of its union with the nobler form which perfects the species1 is more noble than in brutes1 where it is itself the form which perfects4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,word of ,god did not assume human nature in general1 but in atomo--that is1 in an individual--as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa7 otherwise every man would be the ,word of ,god1 even as ,christ was4 ,yet we must bear in mind that not every individual in the genus of substance1 even in rational nature1 is a person1 but that alone which exists by itself1 and not that which exists in some more perfect thing4 ,hence the hand of ,socrates1 although it is a kind of individual1 is not a person1 because it does not exist by itself1 but in something more perfect1 viz4 in the whole4 ,and hence1 too1 this is signified by a person being defined as an individual substance1 for the hand is not a complete substance1 but part of a substance4 ,therefore1 although this human nature is a kind of individual in the genus of substance1 it has not its own personality1 because it does not exist separately1 but in something more perfect1 viz4 in the ,person of the ,word4 ,therefore the union took place in the person4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,union of the ,word ,incarnate ,took ,place in the ,suppositum or ,hypostasis8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the ,word ,incarnate did not take place in the suppositum or hypostasis4 ,for ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xxxv1 xxxviii73 ,both the ,divine and human substance are one ,son of ,god1 but they are one thing 7aliud7 by reason of the ,word and another thing 7aliud7 by reason of the man4 ,and ,pope ,leo says in his letter to ,flavian 7,ep4 xxviii73 ,one of these is glorious with miracles1 the other succumbs under injuries4 ,but one 7aliud7 and the other 7aliud7 differ in suppositum4 ,therefore the union of the ,word ,incarnate did not take place in the suppositum4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 hypostasis is nothing more than a particular substance1 as ,boethius says 7,de ,duab4 ,nat474 ,but it is plain that in ,christ there is another particular substance beyond the hypostasis of the ,word1 viz4 the body and the soul and the resultant of these4 ,therefore there is another hypostasis in ,him besides the hypostasis of the ,word4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the hypostasis of the ,word is not included in any genus or species1 as is plain from the ,first ,part 7,q4 #c1 ,a4 #e74 ,but ,christ1 inasmuch as ,he is made man1 is contained under the species of man2 for ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 #a73 ,within the limits of our nature ,he came1 ,who far surpasses the whole order of nature supersubstantially4 ,now nothing is contained under the human species unless it be a hypostasis of the human species4 ,therefore in ,christ there is another hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the ,word of ,god2 and hence the same conclusion follows as above4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c1 #d1 #e73 ,in our ,lord ,jesus ,christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis4 ,i answer that1 ,some who did not know the relation of hypostasis to person1 although granting that there is but one person in ,christ1 held1 nevertheless1 that there is one hypostasis of ,god and another of man1 and hence that the union took place in the person and not in the hypostasis4 ,now this1 for three reasons1 is clearly erroneous4 ,first1 because person only adds to hypostasis a determinate nature1 viz4 rational1 according to what ,boethius says 7,de ,duab4 ,nat471 a person is an individual substance of rational nature2 and hence it is the same to attribute to the human nature in ,christ a proper hypostasis and a proper person4 ,and the holy ,fathers1 seeing this1 condemned both in the ,fifth ,council held at ,constantinople1 saying3 ,if anyone seeks to introduce into the mystery of the ,incarnation two subsistences or two persons1 let him be anathema4 ,for by the incarnation of one of the ,holy ,trinity1 ,god the ,word1 the ,holy ,trinity received no augment of person or subsistence4 ,now subsistence is the same as the subsisting thing1 which is proper to hypostasis1 as is plain from ,boethius 7,de ,duab4 ,nat474 ,secondly1 because if it is granted that person adds to hypostasis something in which the union can take place1 this something is nothing else than a property pertaining to dignity2 according as it is said by some that a person is a hypostasis distinguished by a property pertaining to dignity4 ,if1 therefore1 the union took place in the person and not in the hypostasis1 it follows that the union only took place in regard to some dignity4 ,and this is what ,cyril1 with the approval of the ,council of ,ephesus 7part iii1 can4 #c71 condemned in these terms3 ,if anyone after the uniting divides the subsistences in the one ,christ1 only joining them in a union of dignity or authority or power1 and not rather in a concourse of natural union1 let him be anathema4 ,thirdly1 because to the hypostasis alone are attributed the operations and the natural properties1 and whatever belongs to the nature in the concrete2 for we say that this man reasons1 and is risible1 and is a rational animal4 ,so likewise this man is said to be a suppositum1 because he underlies 7supponitur7 whatever belongs to man and receives its predication4 ,therefore1 if there is any hypostasis in ,christ besides the hypostasis of the ,word1 it follows that whatever pertains to man is verified of some other than the ,word1 e4g4 that ,he was born of a ,virgin1 suffered1 was crucified1 was buried4 ,and this1 too1 was condemned with the approval of the ,council of ,ephesus 7part iii1 can4 #d7 in these words3 ,if anyone ascribes to two persons or subsistences such words as are in the evangelical and apostolic ,scriptures1 or have been said of ,christ by the saints1 or by ,himself of ,himself1 and1 moreover1 applies some of them to the man1 taken as distinct from the ,word of ,god1 and some of them 7as if they could be used of ,god alone7 only to the ,word of ,god the ,father1 let him be anathema4 ,therefore it is plainly a heresy condemned long since by the ,church to say that in ,christ there are two hypostases1 or two supposita1 or that the union did not take place in the hypostasis or suppositum4 ,hence in the same ,synod 7can4 #b7 it is said3 ,if anyone does not confess that the ,word was united to flesh in subsistence1 and that ,christ with ,his flesh is both--to wit1 ,god and man--let him be anathema4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as accidental difference makes a thing other 7alterum71 so essential difference makes another thing 7aliud74 ,now it is plain that the otherness which springs from accidental difference may pertain to the same hypostasis or suppositum in created things1 since the same thing numerically can underlie different accidents4 ,but it does not happen in created things that the same numerically can subsist in divers essences or natures4 ,hence just as when we speak of otherness in regard to creatures we do not signify diversity of suppositum1 but only diversity of accidental forms1 so likewise when ,christ is said to be one thing or another thing1 we do not imply diversity of suppositum or hypostasis1 but diversity of nature4 ,hence ,gregory ,nazianzen says in a letter to ,chelidonius 7,ep4 ci73 ,in the ,saviour we may find one thing and another1 yet ,he is not one person and another4 ,and ,i say 'one thing and another'2 whereas1 on the contrary1 in the ,trinity we say one ,person and another 7so as not to confuse the subsistences71 but not one thing and another4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,hypostasis signifies a particular substance1 not in every way1 but as it is in its complement4 ,yet as it is in union with something more complete1 it is not said to be a hypostasis1 as a hand or a foot4 ,so likewise the human nature in ,christ1 although it is a particular substance1 nevertheless cannot be called a hypostasis or suppositum1 seeing that it is in union with a completed thing1 viz4 the whole ,christ1 as ,he is ,god and man4 ,but the complete being with which it concurs is said to be a hypostasis or suppositum4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in created things a singular thing is placed in a genus or species1 not on account of what belongs to its individuation1 but on account of its nature1 which springs from its form1 and in composite things individuation is taken more from matter4 ,hence we say that ,christ is in the human species by reason of the nature assumed1 and not by reason of the hypostasis4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,after the ,incarnation the ,person or ,hypostasis of ,christ ,is ,composite8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,person of ,christ is not composite4 ,for the ,person of ,christ is naught else than the ,person or hypostasis of the ,word1 as appears from what has been said 7,a4 #b74 ,but in the ,word1 ,person and ,nature do not differ1 as appears from ,first ,part 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore since the ,nature of the ,word is simple1 as was shown above 7,i1 ,q4 #c1 ,a4 #g71 it is impossible that the ,person of ,christ be composite4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 all composition requires parts4 ,but the ,divine ,nature is incompatible with the notion of a part1 for every part implicates the notion of imperfection4 ,therefore it is impossible that the ,person of ,christ be composed of two natures4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what is composed of others would seem to be homogeneous with them1 as from bodies only a body can be composed4 ,therefore if there is anything in ,christ composed of the two natures1 it follows that this will not be a person but a nature2 and hence the union in ,christ will take place in the nature1 which is contrary to ,a4 #b4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c1 #d1 #e71 ,in the ,lord ,jesus ,christ we acknowledge two natures1 but one hypostasis composed from both4 ,i answer that1 ,the ,person or hypostasis of ,christ may be viewed in two ways4 ,first as it is in itself1 and thus it is altogether simple1 even as the ,nature of the ,word4 ,secondly1 in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature2 and thus the ,person of ,christ subsists in two natures4 ,hence though there is one subsisting being in ,him1 yet there are different aspects of subsistence1 and hence ,he is said to be a composite person1 insomuch as one being subsists in two4 ,and thereby the solution to the first is clear4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this composition of a person from natures is not so called on account of parts1 but by reason of number1 even as that in which two things concur may be said to be composed of them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is not verified in every composition1 that the thing composed is homogeneous with its component parts1 but only in the parts of a continuous thing2 for the continuous is composed solely of continuous parts4 ,but an animal is composed of soul and body1 and neither of these is an animal4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #e ,whether in ,christ ,there ,is ,any ,union of ,soul and ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no union of soul and body4 ,for from the union of soul and body in us a person or a human hypostasis is caused4 ,hence if the soul and body were united in ,christ1 it follows that a hypostasis resulted from their union4 ,but this was not the hypostasis of ,god the ,word1 for ,it is eternal4 ,therefore in ,christ there would be a person or hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the ,word1 which is contrary to ,,aa4 #b1 #c4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 from the union of soul and body results the nature of the human species4 ,but ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c71 that we must not conceive a common species in the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,therefore there was no union of soul and body in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the soul is united to the body for the sole purpose of quickening it4 ,but the body of ,christ could be quickened by the ,word of ,god ,himself1 seeing ,he is the fount and principle of life4 ,therefore in ,christ there was no union of soul and body4 ,on the contrary1 ,the body is not said to be animated save from its union with the soul4 ,now the body of ,christ is said to be animated1 as the ,church chants3 ,taking an animate body1 ,he deigned to be born of a ,virgin 99,feast of the ,circumcision1 ,ant4 ii1 ,lauds4 ,therefore in ,christ there was a union of soul and body4 ,i answer that1 ,christ is called a man univocally with other men1 as being of the same species1 according to the ,apostle 7,phil4 #b3g71 being made in the likeness of a man4 ,now it belongs essentially to the human species that the soul be united to the body1 for the form does not constitute the species1 except inasmuch as it becomes the act of matter1 and this is the terminus of generation through which nature intends the species4 ,hence it must be said that in ,christ the soul was united to the body2 and the contrary is heretical1 since it destroys the truth of ,christ's humanity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this would seem to be the reason which was of weight with such as denied the union of the soul and body in ,christ1 viz4 lest they should thereby be forced to admit a second person or hypostasis in ,christ1 since they saw that the union of soul and body in mere men resulted in a person4 ,but this happens in mere men because the soul and body are so united in them as to exist by themselves4 ,but in ,christ they are united together1 so as to be united to something higher1 which subsists in the nature composed of them4 ,and hence from the union of the soul and body in ,christ a new hypostasis or person does not result1 but what is composed of them is united to the already existing hypostasis or ,person4 ,nor does it therefore follow that the union of the soul and body in ,christ is of less effect than in us1 for its union with something nobler does not lessen but increases its virtue and worth2 just as the sensitive soul in animals constitutes the species1 as being considered the ultimate form1 yet it does not do so in man1 although it is of greater effect and dignity1 and this because of its union with a further and nobler perfection1 viz4 the rational soul1 as has been said above 7,a4 #b1 ad #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this saying of ,damascene may be taken in two ways3 ,first1 as referring to human nature1 which1 as it is in one individual alone1 has not the nature of a common species1 but only inasmuch as either it is abstracted from every individual1 and considered in itself by the mind1 or according as it is in all individuals4 ,now the ,son of ,god did not assume human nature as it exists in the pure thought of the intellect1 since in this way ,he would not have assumed human nature in reality1 unless it be said that human nature is a separate idea1 just as the ,platonists conceived of man without matter4 ,but in this way the ,son of ,god would not have assumed flesh1 contrary to what is written 7,luke #bd3ci71 ,a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see ,me to have4 ,neither can it be said that the ,son of ,god assumed human nature as it is in all the individuals of the same species1 otherwise ,he would have assumed all men4 ,therefore it remains1 as ,damascene says further on 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa7 that ,he assumed human nature in atomo1 i4e4 in an individual2 not1 indeed1 in another individual which is a suppositum or a person of that nature1 but in the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,secondly1 this saying of ,damascene may be taken not as referring to human nature1 as if from the union of soul and body one common nature 7viz4 human7 did not result1 but as referring to the union of the two natures ,divine and human3 which do not combine so as to form a third something that becomes a common nature1 for in this way it would become predicable of many1 and this is what he is aiming at1 since he adds3 ,for there was not generated1 neither will there ever be generated1 another ,christ1 ,who from the ,godhead and manhood1 and in the ,godhead and manhood1 is perfect ,god and perfect man4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there are two principles of corporeal life3 one the effective principle1 and in this way the ,word of ,god is the principle of all life2 the other1 the formal principle of life1 for since in living things to be is to live1 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima ii1 #cg71 just as everything is formally by its form1 so likewise the body lives by the soul3 in this way a body could not live by the ,word1 ,which cannot be the form of a body4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,human ,nature ,was ,united to the ,word of ,god ,accidentally8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the human nature was united to the ,word of ,god accidentally4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,phil4 #b3g7 of the ,son of ,god1 that ,he was in habit found as a man4 ,but habit is accidentally associated with that to which it pertains1 whether habit be taken for one of the ten predicaments or as a species of quality4 ,therefore human nature is accidentally united to the ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whatever comes to a thing that is complete in being comes to it accidentally1 for an accident is said to be what can come or go without the subject being corrupted4 ,but human nature came to ,christ in time1 ,who had perfect being from eternity4 ,therefore it came to ,him accidentally4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whatever does not pertain to the nature or the essence of a thing is its accident1 for whatever is1 is either a substance or an accident4 ,but human nature does not pertain to the ,divine ,essence or ,nature of the ,son of ,god1 for the union did not take place in the nature1 as was said above 7,a4 #a74 ,hence the human nature must have accrued accidentally to the ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 an instrument accrues accidentally4 ,but the human nature was the instrument of the ,godhead in ,christ1 for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ae71 that the flesh of ,christ is the instrument of the ,godhead4 ,therefore it seems that the human nature was united to the ,son of ,god accidentally4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever is predicated accidentally1 predicates1 not substance1 but quantity1 or quality1 or some other mode of being4 ,if therefore the human nature accrues accidentally1 when we say ,christ is man1 we do not predicate substance1 but quality or quantity1 or some other mode of being1 which is contrary to the ,decretal of ,pope ,alexander ,,iii1 who says 7,conc4 ,later4 iii73 ,since ,christ is perfect ,god and perfect man1 what foolhardiness have some to dare to affirm that ,christ as man is not a substance8 ,i answer that1 ,in evidence of this question we must know that two heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the two natures in ,christ4 ,the first confused the natures1 as ,eutyches and ,dioscorus1 who held that from the two natures one nature resulted1 so that they confessed ,christ to be from two natures 7which were distinct before the union71 but not in two natures 7the distinction of nature coming to an end after the union74 ,the second was the heresy of ,nestorius and ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 who separated the persons4 ,for they held the ,person of the ,son of ,god to be distinct from the ,person of the ,son of man1 and said these were mutually united3 first1 by indwelling1 inasmuch as the ,word of ,god dwelt in the man1 as in a temple2 secondly1 by unity of intention1 inasmuch as the will of the man was always in agreement with the will of the ,word of ,god2 thirdly1 by operation1 inasmuch as they said the man was the instrument of the ,word of ,god2 fourthly1 by greatness of honor1 inasmuch as all honor shown to the ,son of ,god was equally shown to the ,son of man1 on account of ,his union with the ,son of ,god2 fifthly1 by equivocation1 i4e4 communication of names1 inasmuch as we say that this man is ,god and the ,son of ,god4 ,now it is plain that these modes imply an accidental union4 ,but some more recent masters1 thinking to avoid these heresies1 through ignorance fell into them4 ,for some conceded one person in ,christ1 but maintained two hypostases1 or two supposita1 saying that a man1 composed of body and soul1 was from the beginning of his conception assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,and this is the first opinion set down by the ,master 7,sent4 iii1 ,d1 #f74 ,but others desirous of keeping the unity of person1 held that the soul of ,christ was not united to the body1 but that these two were mutually separate1 and were united to the ,word accidentally1 so that the number of persons might not be increased4 ,and this is the third opinion which the ,master sets down 7,sent4 iii1 ,d1 #f74 ,but both of these opinions fall into the heresy of ,nestorius2 the first1 indeed1 because to maintain two hypostases or supposita in ,christ is the same as to maintain two persons1 as was shown above 7,a4 #c74 ,and if stress is laid on the word person1 we must have in mind that even ,nestorius spoke of unity of person on account of the unity of dignity and honor4 ,hence the fifth ,council 7,constantinople ,,ii1 coll4 viii1 can4 #e7 directs an anathema against such a one as holds one person in dignity1 honor and adoration1 as ,theodore and ,nestorius foolishly wrote4 ,but the other opinion falls into the error of ,nestorius by maintaining an accidental union4 ,for there is no difference in saying that the ,word of ,god is united to the ,man ,christ by indwelling1 as in ,his temple 7as ,nestorius said71 or by putting on man1 as a garment1 which is the third opinion2 rather it says something worse than ,nestorius--to wit1 that the soul and body are not united4 ,now the ,catholic faith1 holding the mean between the aforesaid positions1 does not affirm that the union of ,god and man took place in the essence or nature1 nor yet in something accidental1 but midway1 in a subsistence or hypostasis4 ,hence in the fifth ,council 7,constantinople ,,ii1 coll4 viii1 can4 #e7 we read3 ,since the unity may be understood in many ways1 those who follow the impiety of ,apollinaris and ,eutyches1 professing the destruction of what came together 7i4e4 destroying both natures71 confess a union by mingling2 but the followers of ,theodore and ,nestorius1 maintaining division1 introduce a union of purpose4 ,but the ,holy ,church of ,god1 rejecting the impiety of both these treasons1 confesses a union of the ,word of ,god with flesh1 by composition1 which is in subsistence4 ,therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions1 mentioned by the ,master 7,sent4 iii1 ,d1 #f71 which holds one hypostasis of ,god and man1 is not to be called an opinion1 but an article of ,catholic faith4 ,so likewise the first opinion which holds two hypostases1 and the third which holds an accidental union1 are not to be styled opinions1 but heresies condemned by the ,church in ,councils4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bf73 ,examples need not be wholly and at all points similar1 for what is wholly similar is the same1 and not an example1 and especially in ,divine things1 for it is impossible to find a wholly similar example in the ,theology1 i4e4 in the ,godhead of ,persons1 and in the ,dispensation1 i4e4 the mystery of the ,incarnation4 ,hence the human nature in ,christ is likened to a habit1 i4e4 a garment1 not indeed in regard to accidental union1 but inasmuch as the ,word is seen by the human nature1 as a man by his garment1 and also inasmuch as the garment is changed1 for it is shaped according to the figure of him who puts it on1 and yet he is not changed from his form on account of the garment4 ,so likewise the human nature assumed by the ,word of ,god is ennobled1 but the ,word of ,god is not changed1 as ,augustine says 7,qq4 #hc1 qu4 #gc74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,whatever accrues after the completion of the being comes accidentally1 unless it be taken into communion with the complete being1 just as in the resurrection the body comes to the soul which pre-exists1 yet not accidentally1 because it is assumed unto the same being1 so that the body has vital being through the soul2 but it is not so with whiteness1 for the being of whiteness is other than the being of man to which whiteness comes4 ,but the ,word of ,god from all eternity had complete being in hypostasis or person2 while in time the human nature accrued to it1 not as if it were assumed unto one being inasmuch as this is of the nature 7even as the body is assumed to the being of the soul71 but to one being inasmuch as this is of the hypostasis or person4 ,hence the human nature is not accidentally united to the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,accident is divided against substance4 ,now substance1 as is plain from ,metaph4 v1 #be1 is taken in two ways3 first1 for essence or nature2 secondly1 for suppositum or hypostasis--hence the union having taken place in the hypostasis1 is enough to show that it is not an accidental union1 although the union did not take place in the nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,not everything that is assumed as an instrument pertains to the hypostasis of the one who assumes1 as is plain in the case of a saw or a sword2 yet nothing prevents what is assumed into the unity of the hypostasis from being as an instrument1 even as the body of man or his members4 ,hence ,nestorius held that the human nature was assumed by the ,word merely as an instrument1 and not into the unity of the hypostasis4 ,and therefore he did not concede that the man was really the ,son of ,god1 but ,his instrument4 ,hence ,cyril says 7,epist4 ad ,monach4 ,aegyptii73 ,the ,scripture does not affirm that this ,emmanuel1 i4e4 ,christ1 was assumed for the office of an instrument1 but as ,god truly humanized1 i4e4 made man4 ,but ,damascene held that the human nature in ,christ is an instrument belonging to the unity of the hypostasis4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,union of the ,divine ,nature and the ,human ,is ,anything ,created8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the ,divine and human natures is not anything created4 ,for there can be nothing created in ,god1 because whatever is in ,god is ,god4 ,but the union is in ,god1 for ,god ,himself is united to human nature4 ,therefore it seems that the union is not anything created4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the end holds first place in everything4 ,but the end of the union is the ,divine hypostasis or ,person in which the union is terminated4 ,therefore it seems that this union ought chiefly to be judged with reference to the dignity of the ,divine hypostasis1 which is not anything created4 ,therefore the union is nothing created4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,that which is the cause of a thing being such is still more so 7,poster4 i74 ,but man is said to be the ,creator on account of the union4 ,therefore much more is the union itself nothing created1 but the ,creator4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever has a beginning in time is created4 ,now this union was not from eternity1 but began in time4 ,therefore the union is something created4 ,i answer that1 ,the union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the ,divine and the human nature1 inasmuch as they come together in one ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,now1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #g71 every relation which we consider between ,god and the creature is really in the creature1 by whose change the relation is brought into being2 whereas it is not really in ,god1 but only in our way of thinking1 since it does not arise from any change in ,god4 ,and hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in ,god1 except only in our way of thinking2 but in the human nature1 which is a creature1 it is really4 ,therefore we must say it is something created4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this union is not really in ,god1 but only in our way of thinking1 for ,god is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to ,god without any change in ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the specific nature of a relation1 as of motion1 depends on the subject4 ,and since this union has its being nowhere save in a created nature1 as was said above1 it follows that it has a created being4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a man is called ,creator and is ,god because of the union1 inasmuch as it is terminated in the ,divine hypostasis2 yet it does not follow that the union itself is the ,creator or ,god1 because that a thing is said to be created regards its being rather than its relation4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,union ,is the ,same ,as ,assumption8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that union is the same as assumption4 ,for relations1 as motions1 are specified by their termini4 ,now the term of assumption and union is one and the same1 viz4 the ,divine hypostasis4 ,therefore it seems that union and assumption are not different4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the mystery of the ,incarnation the same thing seems to be what unites and what assumes1 and what is united and what is assumed4 ,but union and assumption seem to follow the action and passion of the thing uniting and the united1 of the thing assuming and the assumed4 ,therefore union seems to be the same as assumption4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa73 ,union is one thing1 incarnation is another2 for union demands mere copulation1 and leaves unsaid the end of the copulation2 but incarnation and humanation determine the end of copulation4 ,but likewise assumption does not determine the end of copulation4 ,therefore it seems that union is the same as assumption4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,divine ,nature is said to be united1 not assumed4 ,i answer that1 ,as was stated above 7,a4 #g71 union implies a certain relation of the ,divine ,nature and the human1 according as they come together in one ,person4 ,now all relations which begin in time are brought about by some change2 and change consists in action and passion4 ,hence the first and principal difference between assumption and union must be said to be that union implies the relation3 whereas assumption implies the action1 whereby someone is said to assume1 or the passion1 whereby something is said to be assumed4 ,now from this difference another second difference arises1 for assumption implies becoming1 whereas union implies having become1 and therefore the thing uniting is said to be united1 but the thing assuming is not said to be assumed4 ,for the human nature is taken to be in the terminus of assumption unto the ,divine hypostasis when man is spoken of2 and hence we can truly say that the ,son of ,god1 ,who assumes human nature unto ,himself1 is man4 ,but human nature1 considered in itself1 i4e4 in the abstract1 is viewed as assumed2 and we do not say the ,son of ,god is human nature4 ,from this same follows a third difference1 which is that a relation1 especially one of equiparance1 is no more to one extreme than to the other1 whereas action and passion bear themselves differently to the agent and the patient1 and to different termini4 ,and hence assumption determines the term whence and the term whither2 for assumption means a taking to oneself from another4 ,but union determines none of these things4 ,hence it may be said indifferently that the human nature is united with the ,divine1 or conversely4 ,but the ,divine ,nature is not said to be assumed by the human1 but conversely1 because the human nature is joined to the ,divine personality1 so that the ,divine ,person subsists in human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,union and assumption have not the same relation to the term1 but a different relation1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,what unites and what assumes are not the same4 ,for whatsoever ,person assumes unites1 and not conversely4 ,for the ,person of the ,father united the human nature to the ,son1 but not to ,himself2 and hence ,he is said to unite and not to assume4 ,so likewise the united and the assumed are not identical1 for the ,divine ,nature is said to be united1 but not assumed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,assumption determines with whom the union is made on the part of the one assuming1 inasmuch as assumption means taking unto oneself 7ad se sumere71 whereas incarnation and humanation 7determine with whom the union is made7 on the part of the thing assumed1 which is flesh or human nature4 ,and thus assumption differs logically both from union and from incarnation or humanation4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #i ,whether the ,union of the ,two ,natures in ,christ ,is the ,greatest of ,all ,unions8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the two natures in ,christ is not the greatest of all unions4 ,for what is united falls short of the unity of what is one1 since what is united is by participation1 but one is by essence4 ,now in created things there are some that are simply one1 as is shown especially in unity itself1 which is the principle of number4 ,therefore the union of which we are speaking does not imply the greatest of all unions4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the greater the distance between things united1 the less the union4 ,now1 the things united by this union are most distant--namely1 the ,divine and human natures2 for they are infinitely apart4 ,therefore their union is the least of all4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 from union there results one4 ,but from the union of soul and body in us there arises what is one in person and nature2 whereas from the union of the ,divine and human nature there results what is one in person only4 ,therefore the union of soul and body is greater than that of the ,divine and human natures2 and hence the union of which we speak does not imply the greatest unity4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #aj7 that man is in the ,son of ,god1 more than the ,son in the ,father4 ,but the ,son is in the ,father by unity of essence1 and man is in the ,son by the union of the ,incarnation4 ,therefore the union of the ,incarnation is greater than the unity of the ,divine ,essence1 which nevertheless is the greatest union2 and thus the union of the ,incarnation implies the greatest unity4 ,i answer that1 ,union implies the joining of several in some one thing4 ,therefore the union of the ,incarnation may be taken in two ways3 first1 in regard to the things united2 secondly1 in regard to that in which they are united4 ,and in this regard this union has a pre-eminence over other unions2 for the unity of the ,divine ,person1 in which the two natures are united1 is the greatest4 ,but it has no pre-eminence in regard to the things united4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the unity of the ,divine ,person is greater than numerical unity1 which is the principle of number4 ,for the unity of a ,divine ,person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity1 not received into another by participation4 ,also1 it is complete in itself1 having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity2 and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part1 as in numerical unity1 which is a part of number1 and which is shared in by the things numbered4 ,and hence in this respect the union of the ,incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the ,divine ,person1 and not by reason of the human nature1 which is not the unity of the ,divine ,person1 but is united to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this reason regards the things united1 and not the ,person in ,whom the union takes place4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the unity of the ,divine ,person is greater than the unity of person and nature in us2 and hence the union of the ,incarnation is greater than the union of soul and body in us4 ,and because what is urged in the argument on the contrary rests upon what is untrue--namely1 that the union of the ,incarnation is greater than the unity of the ,divine ,persons in ,essence--we must say to the authority of ,augustine that the human nature is not more in the ,son of ,god than the ,son of ,god in the ,father1 but much less4 ,but the man in some respects is more in the ,son than the ,son in the ,father--namely1 inasmuch as the same suppositum is signified when ,i say man1 meaning ,christ1 and when ,i say ,son of ,god2 whereas it is not the same suppositum of ,father and ,son4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #aj ,whether the ,union of the ,incarnation ,took ,place by ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the ,incarnation did not take place by grace4 ,for grace is an accident1 as was shown above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #b74 ,but the union of the human nature to the ,divine did not take place accidentally1 as was shown above 7,a4 #f74 ,therefore it seems that the union of the ,incarnation did not take place by grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the subject of grace is the soul4 ,but it is written 7,col4 #b3i73 ,in ,christ ,vulg43 ',him' dwelleth all the fulness of the ,godhead corporeally4 ,therefore it seems that this union did not take place by grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every saint is united to ,god by grace4 ,if1 therefore1 the union of the ,incarnation was by grace1 it would seem that ,christ is said to be ,god no more than other holy men4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,praed4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,by the same grace every man is made a ,christian1 from the beginning of his faith1 as this man from ,his beginning was made ,christ4 ,but this man became ,christ by union with the ,divine ,nature4 ,therefore this union was by grace4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #a71 grace is taken in two ways3--first1 as the will of ,god gratuitously bestowing something2 secondly1 as the free gift of ,god4 ,now human nature stands in need of the gratuitous will of ,god in order to be lifted up to ,god1 since this is above its natural capability4 ,moreover1 human nature is lifted up to ,god in two ways3 first1 by operation1 as the saints know and love ,god2 secondly1 by personal being1 and this mode belongs exclusively to ,christ1 in ,whom human nature is assumed so as to be in the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,but it is plain that for the perfection of operation the power needs to be perfected by a habit1 whereas that a nature has being in its own suppositum does not take place by means of a habit4 ,and hence we must say that if grace be understood as the will of ,god gratuitously doing something or reputing anything as well-pleasing or acceptable to ,him1 the union of the ,incarnation took place by grace1 even as the union of the saints with ,god by knowledge and love4 ,but if grace be taken as the free gift of ,god1 then the fact that the human nature is united to the ,divine ,person may be called a grace1 inasmuch as it took place without being preceded by any merits--but not as though there were an habitual grace1 by means of which the union took place4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of the ,divinity participated by man4 ,but by the ,incarnation human nature is not said to have participated a likeness of the ,divine nature1 but is said to be united to the ,divine ,nature itself in the ,person of the ,son4 ,now the thing itself is greater than a participated likeness of it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,habitual grace is only in the soul2 but the grace1 i4e4 the free gift of ,god1 of being united to the ,divine ,person belongs to the whole human nature1 which is composed of soul and body4 ,and hence it is said that the fulness of the ,godhead dwelt corporeally in ,christ because the ,divine ,nature is united not merely to the soul1 but to the body also4 ,although it may also be said that it dwelt in ,christ corporeally1 i4e4 not as in a shadow1 as it dwelt in the sacraments of the old law1 of which it is said in the same place 7,col4 #b3ag7 that they are the shadow of things to come but the body is ,christ ,vulg43 ',christ's'1 inasmuch as the body is opposed to the shadow4 ,and some say that the ,godhead is said to have dwelt in ,christ corporeally1 i4e4 in three ways1 just as a body has three dimensions3 first1 by essence1 presence1 and power1 as in other creatures2 secondly1 by sanctifying grace1 as in the saints2 thirdly1 by personal union1 which is proper to ,christ4 ,hence the reply to the third is manifest1 viz4 because the union of the ,incarnation did not take place by habitual grace alone1 but in subsistence or person4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,any ,merits ,preceded the ,union of the ,incarnation8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the union of the ,incarnation followed upon certain merits1 because upon ,ps4 #cb3bb1 ,let ,thy mercy1 o ,lord1 be upon us1 as1 etc4 a gloss says3 ,here the prophet's desire for the ,incarnation and its merited fulfilment are hinted at4 ,therefore the ,incarnation falls under merit4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whoever merits anything merits that without which it cannot be4 ,but the ancient ,fathers merited eternal life1 to which they were able to attain only by the ,incarnation2 for ,gregory says 7,moral4 xiii73 ,those who came into this world before ,christ's coming1 whatsoever eminency of righteousness they may have had1 could not1 on being divested of the body1 at once be admitted into the bosom of the heavenly country1 seeing that ,he had not as yet come ,who1 by ,his own descending1 should place the souls of the righteous in their everlasting seat4 ,therefore it would seem that they merited the ,incarnation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 of the ,blessed ,virgin it is sung that she merited to bear the ,lord of all 99,little ,office of ,b4 ,v4 ,m41 ,dominican ,rite1 ,ant4 at ,benedictus1 and this took place through the ,incarnation4 ,therefore the ,incarnation falls under merit4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,praed4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,whoever can find merits preceding the singular generation of our ,head1 may also find merits preceding the repeated regeneration of us ,his members4 ,but no merits preceded our regeneration1 according to ,titus #c3e3 ,not by the works of justice which we have done1 but according to ,his mercy ,he saved us1 by the laver of regeneration4 ,therefore no merits preceded the generation of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,with regard to ,christ ,himself1 it is clear from the above 7,a4 #aj7 that no merits of ,his could have preceded the union4 ,for we do not hold that ,he was first of all a mere man1 and that afterwards by the merits of a good life it was granted ,him to become the ,son of ,god1 as ,photinus held2 but we hold that from the beginning of ,his conception this man was truly the ,son of ,god1 seeing that ,he had no other hypostasis but that of the ,son of ,god1 according to ,luke #a3ce3 ,the ,holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the ,son of ,god4 ,and hence every operation of this man followed the union4 ,therefore no operation of ,his could have been meritorious of the union4 ,neither could the needs of any other man whatsoever have merited this union condignly3 first1 because the meritorious works of man are properly ordained to beatitude1 which is the reward of virtue1 and consists in the full enjoyment of ,god4 ,whereas the union of the ,incarnation1 inasmuch as it is in the personal being1 transcends the union of the beatified mind with ,god1 which is by the act of the soul in fruition2 and therefore it cannot fall under merit4 ,secondly1 because grace cannot fall under merit1 for the principle of merit does not fall under merit2 and therefore neither does grace1 for it is the principle of merit4 ,hence1 still less does the ,incarnation fall under merit1 since it is the principle of grace1 according to ,john #a3ag3 ,grace and truth came by ,jesus ,christ4 ,thirdly1 because the ,incarnation is for the reformation of the entire human nature1 and therefore it does not fall under the merit of any individual man1 since the goodness of a mere man cannot be the cause of the good of the entire nature4 ,yet the holy ,fathers merited the ,incarnation congruously by desiring and beseeching2 for it was becoming that ,god should harken to those who obeyed ,him4 ,and thereby the reply to the ,first ,objection is manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is false that under merit falls everything without which there can be no reward4 ,for there is something pre-required not merely for reward1 but also for merit1 as the ,divine goodness and grace and the very nature of man4 ,and again1 the mystery of the ,incarnation is the principle of merit1 because of ,his fulness we all have received 7,john #a3af74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,blessed ,virgin is said to have merited to bear the ,lord of all2 not that she merited ,his ,incarnation1 but because by the grace bestowed upon her she merited that grade of purity and holiness1 which fitted her to be the ,mother of ,god4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #b1 ,art4 #ab ,whether the ,grace of ,union ,was ,natural to the ,man ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the grace of union was not natural to the man ,christ4 ,for the union of the ,incarnation did not take place in the nature1 but in the ,person1 as was said above 7,a4 #b74 ,now a thing is denominated from its terminus4 ,therefore this grace ought rather to be called personal than natural4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 grace is divided against nature1 even as gratuitous things1 which are from ,god1 are distinguished from natural things1 which are from an intrinsic principle4 ,but if things are divided in opposition to one another1 one is not denominated by the other4 ,therefore the grace of ,christ was not natural to ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 natural is that which is according to nature4 ,but the grace of union is not natural to ,christ in regard to the ,divine ,nature1 otherwise it would belong to the other ,persons2 nor is it natural to ,him according to the human nature1 otherwise it would belong to all men1 since they are of the same nature as ,he4 ,therefore it would seem that the grace of union is nowise natural to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xl73 ,in the assumption of human nature1 grace itself became somewhat natural to that man1 so as to leave no room for sin in ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,according to the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 v1 #e71 nature designates1 in one way1 nativity2 in another1 the essence of a thing4 ,hence natural may be taken in two ways3 first1 for what is only from the essential principles of a thing1 as it is natural to fire to mount2 secondly1 we call natural to man what he has had from his birth1 according to ,eph4 #b3c3 ,we were by nature children of wrath2 and ,wis4 #ab3aj3 ,they were a wicked generation1 and their malice natural4 ,therefore the grace of ,christ1 whether of union or habitual1 cannot be called natural as if caused by the principles of the human nature of ,christ1 although it may be called natural1 as if coming to the human nature of ,christ by the causality of ,his ,divine ,nature4 ,but these two kinds of grace are said to be natural to ,christ1 inasmuch as ,he had them from ,his nativity1 since from the beginning of ,his conception the human nature was united to the ,divine ,person1 and ,his soul was filled with the gift of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the union did not take place in the nature1 yet it was caused by the power of the ,divine ,nature1 which is truly the nature of ,christ1 and it1 moreover1 belonged to ,christ from the beginning of ,his nativity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the union is not said to be grace and natural in the same respect2 for it is called grace inasmuch as it is not from merit2 and it is said to be natural inasmuch as by the power of the ,divine ,nature it was in the humanity of ,christ from ,his nativity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the grace of union is not natural to ,christ according to ,his human nature1 as if it were caused by the principles of the human nature1 and hence it need not belong to all men4 ,nevertheless1 it is natural to ,him in regard to the human nature on account of the property of ,his birth1 seeing that ,he was conceived by the ,holy ,ghost1 so that ,he might be the natural ,son of ,god and of man4 ,but it is natural to ,him in regard to the ,divine ,nature1 inasmuch as the ,divine ,nature is the active principle of this grace2 and this belongs to the whole ,trinity--to wit1 to be the active principle of this grace4 ,,question #c ,,of ,,the ,,mode ,,of ,,union ,,on ,,the ,,part ,,of ,,the ,,person ,,assuming 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we must now consider the union on the part of the ,person assuming1 and under this head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether to assume is befitting to a ,divine ,person8 7#b7 ,whether it is befitting to the ,divine ,nature8 7#c7 ,whether the ,nature abstracted from the ,personality can assume8 7#d7 ,whether one ,person can assume without another8 7#e7 ,whether each ,person can assume8 7#f7 ,whether several ,persons can assume one individual nature8 7#g7 ,whether one ,person can assume two individual natures8 7#h7 ,whether it was more fitting for the ,person of the ,son of ,god to assume human nature than for another ,divine ,person8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,befitting for a ,divine ,person to ,assume8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not befitting to a ,divine ,person to assume a created nature4 ,for a ,divine ,person signifies something most perfect4 ,now no addition can be made to what is perfect4 ,therefore1 since to assume is to take to oneself1 and consequently what is assumed is added to the one who assumes1 it does not seem to be befitting to a ,divine ,person to assume a created nature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that to which anything is assumed is communicated in some degree to what is assumed to it1 just as dignity is communicated to whosoever is assumed to a dignity4 ,but it is of the nature of a person to be incommunicable1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #bi1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore it is not befitting to a ,divine ,person to assume1 i4e4 to take to ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 person is constituted by nature4 ,but it is repugnant that the thing constituted should assume the constituent1 since the effect does not act on its cause4 ,hence it is not befitting to a ,person to assume a nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum ii73 ,this ,god1 i4e4 the only-,begotten one1 took the form1 i4e4 the nature1 of a servant to ,his own ,person4 ,but the only-,begotten ,god is a ,person4 ,therefore it is befitting to a ,person to take1 i4e4 to assume a nature4 ,i answer that1 ,in the word assumption are implied two things1 viz4 the principle and the term of the act1 for to assume is to take something to oneself4 ,now of this assumption a ,person is both the principle and the term4 ,the principle--because it properly belongs to a person to act1 and this assuming of flesh took place by the ,divine action4 ,likewise a ,person is the term of this assumption1 because1 as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 the union took place in the ,person1 and not in the nature4 ,hence it is plain that to assume a nature is most properly befitting to a ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since the ,divine ,person is infinite1 no addition can be made to it3 ,hence ,cyril says 99,council of ,ephesus1 ,part ,i1 ch4 #bf3 ,we do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition2 just as in the union of man with ,god1 nothing is added to ,god by the grace of adoption1 but what is ,divine is united to man2 hence1 not ,god but man is perfected4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a ,divine ,person is said to be incommunicable inasmuch as ,it cannot be predicated of several supposita1 but nothing prevents several things being predicated of the ,person4 ,hence it is not contrary to the nature of person to be communicated so as to subsist in several natures1 for even in a created person several natures may concur accidentally1 as in the person of one man we find quantity and quality4 ,but this is proper to a ,divine ,person1 on account of its infinity1 that there should be a concourse of natures in it1 not accidentally1 but in subsistence4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #a71 the human nature constitutes a ,divine ,person1 not simply1 but forasmuch as the ,person is denominated from such a nature4 ,for human nature does not make the ,son of ,man to be simply1 since ,he was from eternity1 but only to be man4 ,it is by the ,divine ,nature that a ,divine ,person is constituted simply4 ,hence the ,divine ,person is not said to assume the ,divine ,nature1 but to assume the human nature4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,is ,befitting to the ,divine ,nature to ,assume8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not befitting to the ,divine ,nature to assume4 ,because1 as was said above 7,a4 #a71 to assume is to take to oneself4 ,but the ,divine ,nature did not take to ,itself human nature1 for the union did not take place in the nature1 as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,hence it is not befitting to the ,divine ,nature to assume human nature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,divine ,nature is common to the three ,persons4 ,if1 therefore1 it is befitting to the ,divine ,nature to assume1 it consequently is befitting to the three ,persons2 and thus the ,father assumed human nature even as the ,son1 which is erroneous4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to assume is to act4 ,but to act befits a person1 not a nature1 which is rather taken to be the principle by which the agent acts4 ,therefore to assume is not befitting to the nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,fulgentius7 says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum ii73 ,that nature which remains eternally begotten of the ,father 7i4e4 which is received from the ,father by eternal generation7 took our nature free of sin from ,his ,mother4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a71 in the word assumption two things are signified--to wit1 the principle and the term of the action4 ,now to be the principle of the assumption belongs to the ,divine ,nature in itself1 because the assumption took place by ,its power2 but to be the term of the assumption does not belong to the ,divine ,nature in itself1 but by reason of the ,person in ,whom ,it is considered to be4 ,hence a ,person is primarily and more properly said to assume1 but it may be said secondarily that the ,nature assumed a nature to ,its ,person4 ,and after the same manner the ,nature is also said to be incarnate1 not that it is changed to flesh1 but that it assumed the nature of flesh4 ,hence ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f73 ,following the blessed ,athanasius and ,cyril we say that the ,nature of ,god is incarnate4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,oneself is reciprocal1 and points to the same suppositum4 ,but the ,divine ,nature is not a distinct suppositum from the ,person of the ,word4 ,hence1 inasmuch as the ,divine ,nature took human nature to the ,person of the ,word1 ,it is said to take it to ,itself4 ,but although the ,father takes human nature to the ,person of the ,word1 ,he did not thereby take it to ,himself1 for the suppositum of the ,father and the ,son is not one1 and hence it cannot properly be said that the ,father assumes human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,what is befitting to the ,divine ,nature in ,itself is befitting to the three ,persons1 as goodness1 wisdom1 and the like4 ,but to assume belongs to ,it by reason of the ,person of the ,word1 as was said above1 and hence it is befitting to that ,person alone4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as in ,god what is and whereby it is are the same1 so likewise in ,him what acts and whereby it acts are the same1 since everything acts1 inasmuch as it is a being4 ,hence the ,divine ,nature is both that whereby ,god acts1 and the very ,god ,who acts4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,nature ,abstracted from the ,personality ,can ,assume8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that if we abstract the ,personality by our mind1 the ,nature cannot assume4 ,for it was said above 7,a4 #a7 that it belongs to the ,nature to assume by reason of the ,person4 ,but what belongs to one by reason of another cannot belong to it if the other is removed2 as a body1 which is visible by reason of color1 without color cannot be seen4 ,hence if the ,personality be mentally abstracted1 the ,nature cannot assume4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 assumption implies the term of union1 as was said above 7,a4 #a74 ,but the union cannot take place in the nature1 but only in the ,person4 ,therefore1 if the ,personality be abstracted1 the ,divine ,nature cannot assume4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it has been said above 7,i1 ,q4 #dj1 ,a4 #c7 that in the ,godhead if the ,personality is abstracted1 nothing remains4 ,but the one who assumes is something4 ,therefore1 if the ,personality is abstracted1 the ,divine ,nature cannot assume4 ,on the contrary1 ,in the ,godhead ,personality signifies a personal property2 and this is threefold1 viz4 ,paternity1 ,filiation and ,procession1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #cj1 ,a4 #b74 ,now if we mentally abstract these1 there still remains the omnipotence of ,god1 by which the ,incarnation was wrought1 as the angel says 7,luke #a3cg73 ,no word shall be impossible with ,god4 ,therefore it seems that if the ,personality be removed1 the ,divine ,nature can still assume4 ,i answer that1 ,the intellect stands in two ways towards ,god4 ,first1 to know ,god as ,he is1 and in this manner it is impossible for the intellect to circumscribe something in ,god and leave the rest1 for all that is in ,god is one1 except the distinction of ,persons2 and as regards these1 if one is removed the other is taken away1 since they are distinguished by relations only which must be together at the same time4 ,secondly1 the intellect stands towards ,god1 not indeed as knowing ,god as ,he is1 but in its own way1 i4e4 understanding manifoldly and separately what in ,god is one3 and in this way our intellect can understand the ,divine goodness and wisdom1 and the like1 which are called essential attributes1 without understanding ,paternity or ,filiation1 which are called ,personalities4 ,and hence if we abstract ,personality by our intellect1 we may still understand the ,nature assuming4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,because in ,god what is1 and whereby it is1 are one1 if any one of the things which are attributed to ,god in the abstract is considered in itself1 abstracted from all else1 it will still be something subsisting1 and consequently a ,person1 since it is an intellectual nature4 ,hence just as we now say three ,persons1 on account of holding three personal properties1 so likewise if we mentally exclude the personal properties there will still remain in our thought the ,divine ,nature as subsisting and as a ,person4 ,and in this way ,it may be understood to assume human nature by reason of ,its subsistence or ,personality4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,even if the personal properties of the three ,persons are abstracted by our mind1 nevertheless there will remain in our thoughts the one ,personality of ,god1 as the ,jews consider4 ,and the assumption can be terminated in ,it1 as we now say it is terminated in the ,person of the ,word4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if we mentally abstract the ,personality1 it is said that nothing remains by way of resolution1 i4e4 as if the subject of the relation and the relation itself were distinct because all we can think of in ,god is considered as a subsisting suppositum4 ,however1 some of the things predicated of ,god can be understood without others1 not by way of resolution1 but by the way mentioned above4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,one ,person ,without ,another ,can ,assume a ,created ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that one ,person cannot assume a created nature without another assuming it4 ,for the works of the ,trinity are inseparable1 as ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xxxviii74 ,but as the three ,persons have one essence1 so likewise ,they have one operation4 ,now to assume is an operation4 ,therefore it cannot belong to one without belonging to another4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as we say the ,person of the ,son became incarnate1 so also did the ,nature2 for the whole ,divine ,nature became incarnate in one of ,its hypostases1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f74 ,but the ,nature is common to the three ,persons4 ,therefore the assumption is4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as the human nature in ,christ is assumed by ,god1 so likewise are men assumed by ,him through grace1 according to ,rom4 #ad3c3 ,god hath taken him to ,him4 ,but this assumption pertains to all the ,persons2 therefore the first also4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 ii7 that the mystery of the ,incarnation pertains to discrete theology1 i4e4 according to which something distinct is said of the ,divine ,persons4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a71 assumption implies two things1 viz4 the act of assuming and the term of assumption4 ,now the act of assumption proceeds from the ,divine power1 which is common to the three ,persons1 but the term of the assumption is a ,person1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,hence what has to do with action in the assumption is common to the three ,persons2 but what pertains to the nature of term belongs to one ,person in such a manner as not to belong to another2 for the three ,persons caused the human nature to be united to the one ,person of the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this reason regards the operation1 and the conclusion would follow if it implied this operation only1 without the term1 which is a ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,nature is said to be incarnate1 and to assume by reason of the ,person in ,whom the union is terminated1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 and not as it is common to the three ,persons4 ,now the whole ,divine ,nature is said to be incarnate2 not that ,it is incarnate in all the ,persons1 but inasmuch as nothing is wanting to the perfection of the ,divine ,nature of the ,person incarnate1 as ,damascene explains there4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the assumption which takes place by the grace of adoption is terminated in a certain participation of the ,divine ,nature1 by an assimilation to ,its goodness1 according to #b ,pet4 #a3d3 ,that you may be made partakers of the ,divine ,nature2 and hence this assumption is common to the three ,persons1 in regard to the principle and the term4 ,but the assumption which is by the grace of union is common on the part of the principle1 but not on the part of the term1 as was said above4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,each of the ,divine ,persons ,could ,have ,assumed ,human ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that no other ,divine ,person could have assumed human nature except the ,person of the ,son4 ,for by this assumption it has been brought about that ,god is the ,son of ,man4 ,but it was not becoming that either the ,father or the ,holy ,ghost should be said to be a ,son2 for this would tend to the confusion of the ,divine ,persons4 ,therefore the ,father and ,holy ,ghost could not have assumed flesh4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by the ,divine ,incarnation men have come into possession of the adoption of sons1 according to ,rom4 #h3ae3 ,for you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear1 but the spirit of adoption of sons4 ,but sonship by adoption is a participated likeness of natural sonship which does not belong to the ,father nor the ,holy ,ghost2 hence it is said 7,rom4 #h3bi73 ,for whom ,he foreknew ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son4 ,therefore it seems that no other ,person except the ,person of the ,son could have become incarnate4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,son is said to be sent and to be begotten by the temporal nativity1 inasmuch as ,he became incarnate4 ,but it does not belong to the ,father to be sent1 for ,he is innascible1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #c2 ,first ,part1 ,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore at least the ,person of the ,father cannot become incarnate4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever the ,son can do1 so can the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost1 otherwise the power of the three ,persons would not be one4 ,but the ,son was able to become incarnate4 ,therefore the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost were able to become incarnate4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #d71 assumption implies two things1 viz4 the act of the one assuming and the term of the assumption4 ,now the principle of the act is the ,divine power1 and the term is a ,person4 ,but the ,divine power is indifferently and commonly in all the ,persons4 ,moreover1 the nature of ,personality is common to all the ,persons1 although the personal properties are different4 ,now whenever a power regards several things indifferently1 it can terminate its action in any of them indifferently1 as is plain in rational powers1 which regard opposites1 and can do either of them4 ,therefore the ,divine power could have united human nature to the ,person of the ,father or of the ,holy ,ghost1 as ,it united it to the ,person of the ,son4 ,and hence we must say that the ,father or the ,holy ,ghost could have assumed flesh even as the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the temporal sonship1 whereby ,christ is said to be the ,son of ,man1 does not constitute ,his ,person1 as does the eternal ,sonship2 but is something following upon the temporal nativity4 ,hence1 if the name of son were transferred to the ,father or the ,holy ,ghost in this manner1 there would be no confusion of the ,divine ,persons4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,adoptive sonship is a certain participation of natural sonship2 but it takes place in us1 by appropriation1 by the ,father1 ,who is the principle of natural sonship1 and by the gift of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who is the love of the ,father and ,son1 according to ,gal4 #d3f3 ,god hath sent the ,spirit of ,his ,son into your hearts crying1 ,abba1 ,father4 ,and therefore1 even as by the ,incarnation of the ,son we receive adoptive sonship in the likeness of ,his natural sonship1 so likewise1 had the ,father become incarnate1 we should have received adoptive sonship from ,him1 as from the principle of the natural sonship1 and from the ,holy ,ghost as from the common bond of ,father and ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it belongs to the ,father to be innascible as to eternal birth1 and the temporal birth would not destroy this4 ,but the ,son of ,god is said to be sent in regard to the ,incarnation1 inasmuch as ,he is from another1 without which the ,incarnation would not suffice for the nature of mission4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,several ,divine ,persons ,can ,assume ,one and the ,same ,individual ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that two ,divine ,persons cannot assume one and the same individual nature4 ,for1 this being granted1 there would either be several men or one4 ,but not several1 for just as one ,divine ,nature in several ,persons does not make several gods1 so one human nature in several persons does not make several men4 ,nor would there be only one man1 for one man is this man1 which signifies one person2 and hence the distinction of three ,divine ,persons would be destroyed1 which cannot be allowed4 ,therefore neither two nor three ,persons can take one human nature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the assumption is terminated in the unity of ,person1 as has been said above 7,a4 #b74 ,but the ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost are not one ,person4 ,therefore the three ,persons cannot assume one human nature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c1 #d71 and ,augustine 7,de ,trin4 i1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac71 that from the ,incarnation of ,god the ,son it follows that whatever is said of the ,son of ,god is said of the ,son of ,man1 and conversely4 ,hence1 if three ,persons were to assume one human nature1 it would follow that whatever is said of each of the three ,persons would be said of the man2 and conversely1 what was said of the man could be said of each of the three ,persons4 ,therefore what is proper to the ,father1 viz4 to beget the ,son1 would be said of the man1 and consequently would be said of the ,son of ,god2 and this could not be4 ,therefore it is impossible that the three ,persons should assume one human nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,incarnate ,person subsists in two natures4 ,but the three ,persons can subsist in one ,divine ,nature4 ,therefore they can also subsist in one human nature in such a way that the human nature be assumed by the three ,persons4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #e1 ad #a71 by the union of the soul and body in ,christ neither a new person is made nor a new hypostasis1 but one human nature is assumed to the ,divine ,person or hypostasis1 which1 indeed1 does not take place by the power of the human nature1 but by the power of the ,divine ,person4 ,now such is the characteristic of the ,divine ,persons that one does not exclude another from communicating in the same nature1 but only in the same ,person4 ,hence1 since in the mystery of the ,incarnation the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusianum cxxxvii71 we must judge of it in regard to the quality of the ,divine ,person assuming1 and not according to the quality of the human nature assumed4 ,therefore it is not impossible that two or three ,divine ,persons should assume one human nature1 but it would be impossible for them to assume one human hypostasis or person2 thus ,anselm says in the book ,de ,concep4 ,virg4 7,cur ,deus ,homo ii1 #i71 that several ,persons cannot assume one and the same man to unity of ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in the hypothesis that three ,persons assume one human nature1 it would be true to say that the three ,persons were one man1 because of the one human nature4 ,for just as it is now true to say the three ,persons are one ,god on account of the one ,divine ,nature1 so it would be true to say they are one man on account of the one human nature4 ,nor would one imply unity of person1 but unity in human nature2 for it could not be argued that because the three ,persons were one man they were one simply4 ,for nothing hinders our saying that men1 who are many simply1 are in some respect one1 e4g4 one people1 and as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 vi1 #c73 ,the ,spirit of ,god and the spirit of man are by nature different1 but by inherence one spirit results1 according to #a ,cor4 #f3ag3 ,he who is joined to the ,lord is one spirit4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in this supposition the human nature would be assumed to the unity1 not indeed of one ,person1 but to the unity of each ,person1 so that even as the ,divine ,nature has a natural unity with each ,person1 so also the human nature would have a unity with each ,person by assumption4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in the mystery of the ,incarnation1 there results a communication of the properties belonging to the nature1 because whatever belongs to the nature can be predicated of the ,person subsisting in that nature1 no matter to which of the natures it may apply4 ,hence in this hypothesis1 of the ,person of the ,father may be predicated what belongs to the human nature and what belongs to the ,divine2 and likewise of the ,person of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but what belongs to the ,person of the ,father by reason of ,his own ,person could not be attributed to the ,person of the ,son or ,holy ,ghost on account of the distinction of ,persons which would still remain4 ,therefore it might be said that as the ,father was unbegotten1 so the man was unbegotten1 inasmuch as man stood for the ,person of the ,father4 ,but if one were to go on to say1 ,the man is unbegotten2 the ,son is man2 therefore the ,son is unbegotten1 it would be the fallacy of figure of speech or of accident2 even as we now say ,god is unbegotten1 because the ,father is unbegotten1 yet we cannot conclude that the ,son is unbegotten1 although ,he is ,god4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,one ,divine ,person ,can ,assume ,two ,human ,natures8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that one ,divine ,person cannot assume two human natures4 ,for the nature assumed in the mystery of the ,incarnation has no other suppositum than the suppositum of the ,divine ,person1 as is plain from what has been stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f74 ,therefore1 if we suppose one ,person to assume two human natures1 there would be one suppositum of two natures of the same species2 which would seem to imply a contradiction1 for the nature of one species is only multiplied by distinct supposita4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in this hypothesis it could not be said that the ,divine ,person incarnate was one man1 seeing that ,he would not have one human nature2 neither could it be said that there were several1 for several men have distinct supposita1 whereas in this case there would be only one suppositum4 ,therefore the aforesaid hypothesis is impossible4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the mystery of the ,incarnation the whole ,divine ,nature is united to the whole nature assumed1 i4e4 to every part of it1 for ,christ is perfect ,god and perfect man1 complete ,god and complete man1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #g74 ,but two human natures cannot be wholly united together1 inasmuch as the soul of one would be united to the body of the other2 and1 again1 two bodies would be together1 which would give rise to confusion of natures4 ,therefore it is not possibly for one ,divine ,person to assume two human natures4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever the ,father can do1 that also can the ,son do4 ,but after the ,incarnation the ,father can still assume a human nature distinct from that which the ,son has assumed2 for in nothing is the power of the ,father or the ,son lessened by the ,incarnation of the ,son4 ,therefore it seems that after the ,incarnation the ,son can assume another human nature distinct from the one ,he has assumed4 ,i answer that1 ,what has power for one thing1 and no more1 has a power limited to one4 ,now the power of a ,divine ,person is infinite1 nor can it be limited by any created thing4 ,hence it may not be said that a ,divine ,person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another4 ,for it would seem to follow from this that the ,personality of the ,divine ,nature was so comprehended by one human nature as to be unable to assume another to its ,personality2 and this is impossible1 for the ,uncreated cannot be comprehended by any creature4 ,hence it is plain that1 whether we consider the ,divine ,person in regard to ,his power1 which is the principle of the union1 or in regard to ,his ,personality1 which is the term of the union1 it has to be said that the ,divine ,person1 over and beyond the human nature which ,he has assumed1 can assume another distinct human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a created nature is completed in its essentials by its form1 which is multiplied according to the division of matter4 ,and hence1 if the composition of matter and form constitutes a new suppositum1 the consequence is that the nature is multiplied by the multiplication of supposita4 ,but in the mystery of the ,incarnation the union of form and matter1 i4e4 of soul and body1 does not constitute a new suppositum1 as was said above 7,a4 #f74 ,hence there can be a numerical multitude on the part of the nature1 on account of the division of matter1 without distinction of supposita4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it might seem possible to reply that in such a hypothesis it would follow that there were two men by reason of the two natures1 just as1 on the contrary1 the three ,persons would be called one man1 on account of the one nature assumed1 as was said above 7,a4 #f1 ad #a74 ,but this does not seem to be true2 because we must use words according to the purpose of their signification1 which is in relation to our surroundings4 ,consequently1 in order to judge of a word's signification or co-signification1 we must consider the things which are around us1 in which a word derived from some form is never used in the plural unless there are several supposita4 ,for a man who has on two garments is not said to be two persons clothed1 but one clothed with two garments2 and whoever has two qualities is designated in the singular as such by reason of the two qualities4 ,now the assumed nature is1 as it were1 a garment1 although this similitude does not fit at all points1 as has been said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #f1 ad #a74 ,and hence1 if the ,divine ,person were to assume two human natures1 ,he would be called1 on account of the unity of suppositum1 one man having two human natures4 ,now many men are said to be one people1 inasmuch as they have some one thing in common1 and not on account of the unity of suppositum4 ,so likewise1 if two ,divine ,persons were to assume one singular human nature1 they would be said to be one man1 as stated 7,a4 #f1 ad #a71 not from the unity of suppositum1 but because they have some one thing in common4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,divine and human natures do not bear the same relation to the one ,divine ,person1 but the ,divine ,nature is related first of all thereto1 inasmuch as ,it is one with ,it from eternity2 and afterwards the human nature is related to the ,divine ,person1 inasmuch as it is assumed by the ,divine ,person in time1 not indeed that the nature is the ,person1 but that the ,person of ,god subsists in human nature4 ,for the ,son of ,god is ,his ,godhead1 but is not ,his manhood4 ,and hence1 in order that the human nature may be assumed by the ,divine ,person1 the ,divine ,nature must be united by a personal union with the whole nature assumed1 i4e4 in all its parts4 ,now in the two natures assumed there would be a uniform relation to the ,divine ,person1 nor would one assume the other4 ,hence it would not be necessary for one of them to be altogether united to the other1 i4e4 all the parts of one with all the parts of the other4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #c1 ,art4 #h ,whether it was more fitting that the ,person of the ,son rather than any other ,divine ,person should assume human nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not more fitting that the ,son of ,god should become incarnate than the ,father or the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for by the mystery of the ,incarnation men are led to the true knowledge of ,god1 according to ,john #ah3cg3 ,for this was ,i born1 and for this came ,i into the world1 to give testimony to the truth4 ,but by the ,person of the ,son of ,god becoming incarnate many have been kept back from the true knowledge of ,god1 since they referred to the very ,person of the ,son what was said of the ,son in ,his human nature1 as ,arius1 who held an inequality of ,persons1 according to what is said 7,john #ad3bh73 ,the ,father is greater than ,i4 ,now this error would not have arisen if the ,person of the ,father had become incarnate1 for no one would have taken the ,father to be less than the ,son4 ,hence it seems fitting that the ,person of the ,father1 rather than the ,person of the ,son1 should have become incarnate4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the effect of the ,incarnation would seem to be1 as it were1 a second creation of human nature1 according to ,gal4 #f3ae3 ,for in ,christ ,jesus neither circumcision availeth anything1 nor uncircumcision1 but a new creature4 ,but the power of creation is appropriated to the ,father4 ,therefore it would have been more becoming to the ,father than to the ,son to become incarnate4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,incarnation is ordained to the remission of sins1 according to ,matt4 #a3ba3 ,thou shalt call ,his name ,jesus4 ,for ,he shall save ,his people from their sins4 ,now the remission of sins is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost according to ,john #bj3bb1 #bc3 ,receive ye the ,holy ,ghost4 ,whose sins you shall forgive1 they are forgiven them4 ,therefore it became the ,person of the ,holy ,ghost rather than the ,person of the ,son to become incarnate4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #a73 ,in the mystery of the ,incarnation the wisdom and power of ,god are made known3 the wisdom1 for ,he found a most suitable discharge for a most heavy debt2 the power1 for ,he made the conquered conquer4 ,but power and wisdom are appropriated to the ,son1 according to #a ,cor4 #a3bd3 ,christ1 the power of ,god and the wisdom of ,god4 ,therefore it was fitting that the ,person of the ,son should become incarnate4 ,i answer that1 ,it was most fitting that the ,person of the ,son should become incarnate4 ,first1 on the part of the union2 for such as are similar are fittingly united4 ,now the ,person of the ,son1 ,who is the ,word of ,god1 has a certain common agreement with all creatures1 because the word of the craftsman1 i4e4 his concept1 is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him4 ,hence the ,word of ,god1 ,who is ,his eternal concept1 is the exemplar likeness of all creatures4 ,and therefore as creatures are established in their proper species1 though movably1 by the participation of this likeness1 so by the non-participated and personal union of the ,word with a creature1 it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection2 for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art1 whereby he fashioned his handiwork1 restores it when it has fallen into ruin4 ,moreover1 ,he has a particular agreement with human nature1 since the ,word is a concept of the eternal ,wisdom1 from ,whom all man's wisdom is derived4 ,and hence man is perfected in wisdom 7which is his proper perfection1 as he is rational7 by participating the ,word of ,god1 as the disciple is instructed by receiving the word of his master4 ,hence it is said 7,ecclus4 #a3e73 ,the ,word of ,god on high is the fountain of wisdom4 ,and hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that the very ,word of ,god should be personally united to human nature4 ,secondly1 the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union1 which is the fulfilling of predestination1 i4e4 of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance1 which is bestowed only on sons1 according to ,rom4 #h3ag3 ,if sons1 heirs also4 ,hence it was fitting that by ,him ,who is the natural ,son1 men should share this likeness of sonship by adoption1 as the ,apostle says in the same chapter 7,rom4 #h3bi73 ,for whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son4 ,thirdly1 the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent1 for which the ,incarnation supplied the remedy4 ,for the first man sinned by seeking knowledge1 as is plain from the words of the serpent1 promising to man the knowledge of good and evil4 ,hence it was fitting that by the ,word of true knowledge man might be led back to ,god1 having wandered from ,god through an inordinate thirst for knowledge4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,there is nothing which human malice cannot abuse1 since it even abuses ,god's goodness1 according to ,rom4 #b3d3 ,or despisest thou the riches of ,his goodness8 ,hence1 even if the ,person of the ,father had become incarnate1 men would have been capable of finding an occasion of error1 as though the ,son were not able to restore human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the first creation of things was made by the power of ,god the ,father through the ,word2 hence the second creation ought to have been brought about through the ,word1 by the power of ,god the ,father1 in order that restoration should correspond to creation according to #b ,cor4 #e3ai3 ,for ,god indeed was in ,christ reconciling the world to ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to be the gift of the ,father and the ,son is proper to the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but the remission of sins is caused by the ,holy ,ghost1 as by the gift of ,god4 ,and hence it was more fitting to man's justification that the ,son should become incarnate1 ,whose gift the ,holy ,ghost is4 ,,question #d ,,of ,,the ,,mode ,,of ,,union ,,on ,,the ,,part ,,of ,,the ,,human ,,nature 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the union on the part of what was assumed4 ,about which we must consider first what things were assumed by the ,word of ,god2 secondly1 what were co-assumed1 whether perfections or defects4 ,now the ,son of ,god assumed human nature and its parts4 ,hence a threefold consideration arises4 ,first1 with regard to the nature2 secondly1 with regard to its parts2 thirdly1 with regard to the order of the assumption4 ,under the first head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether human nature was more capable of being assumed than any other nature8 7#b7 ,whether ,he assumed a person8 7#c7 ,whether ,he assumed a man8 7#d7 ,whether it was becoming that ,he should assume human nature abstracted from all individuals8 7#e7 ,whether it was becoming that ,he should assume human nature in all its individuals8 7#f7 ,whether it was becoming that ,he should assume human nature in any man begotten of the stock of ,adam8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,human ,nature ,was ,more ,assumable by the ,son of ,god ,than ,any ,other ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that human nature is not more capable of being assumed by the ,son of ,god than any other nature4 ,for ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusianum cxxxvii73 ,in deeds wrought miraculously the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer4 ,now the power of ,god ,who wrought the ,incarnation1 which is a most miraculous work1 is not limited to one nature1 since the power of ,god is infinite4 ,therefore human nature is not more capable of being assumed than any other creature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 likeness is the foundation of the fittingness of the ,incarnation of the ,divine ,person1 as above stated 7,q4 #c1 ,a4 #h74 ,but as in rational creatures we find the likeness of image1 so in irrational creatures we find the image of trace4 ,therefore the irrational creature was as capable of assumption as human nature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the angelic nature we find a more perfect likeness than in human nature1 as ,gregory says3 7,hom4 de ,cent4 ,ovib42 xxxiv in ,ev471 where he introduces ,ezech4 #bh3ab3 ,thou wast the seal of resemblance4 ,and sin is found in angels1 even as in man1 according to ,job #d3ah3 ,and in ,his angels ,he found wickedness4 ,therefore the angelic nature was as capable of assumption as the nature of man4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 since the highest perfection belongs to ,god1 the more like to ,god a thing is1 the more perfect it is4 ,but the whole universe is more perfect than its parts1 amongst which is human nature4 ,therefore the whole universe is more capable of being assumed than human nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said 7,prov4 #h3ca7 by the mouth of ,begotten ,wisdom3 ,my delights were to be with the children of men2 and hence there would seem some fitness in the union of the ,son of ,god with human nature4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be assumable as being capable of being assumed by a ,divine ,person1 and this capability cannot be taken with reference to the natural passive power1 which does not extend to what transcends the natural order1 as the personal union of a creature with ,god transcends it4 ,hence it follows that a thing is said to be assumable according to some fitness for such a union4 ,now this fitness in human nature may be taken from two things1 viz4 according to its dignity1 and according to its need4 ,according to its dignity1 because human nature1 as being rational and intellectual1 was made for attaining to the ,word to some extent by its operation1 viz4 by knowing and loving ,him4 ,according to its need--because it stood in need of restoration1 having fallen under original sin4 ,now these two things belong to human nature alone4 ,for in the irrational creature the fitness of dignity is wanting1 and in the angelic nature the aforesaid fitness of need is wanting4 ,hence it follows that only human nature was assumable4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,creatures are said to be such with reference to their proper causes1 not with reference to what belongs to them from their first and universal causes2 thus we call a disease incurable1 not that it cannot be cured by ,god1 but that it cannot be cured by the proper principles of the subject4 ,therefore a creature is said to be not assumable1 not as if we withdrew anything from the power of ,god1 but in order to show the condition of the creature1 which has no capability for this4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the likeness of image is found in human nature1 forasmuch as it is capable of ,god1 viz4 by attaining to ,him through its own operation of knowledge and love4 ,but the likeness of trace regards only a representation by ,divine impression1 existing in the creature1 and does not imply that the irrational creature1 in which such a likeness is1 can attain to ,god by its own operation alone4 ,for what does not come up to the less1 has no fitness for the greater2 as a body which is not fitted to be perfected by a sensitive soul is much less fitted for an intellectual soul4 ,now much greater and more perfect is the union with ,god in personal being than the union by operation4 ,and hence the irrational creature which falls short of the union with ,god by operation has no fitness to be united with ,him in personal being4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,some say that angels are not assumable1 since they are perfect in their personality from the beginning of their creation1 inasmuch as they are not subject to generation and corruption2 hence they cannot be assumed to the unity of a ,divine ,person1 unless their personality be destroyed1 and this does not befit the incorruptibility of their nature nor the goodness of the one assuming1 to ,whom it does not belong to corrupt any perfection in the creature assumed4 ,but this would not seem totally to disprove the fitness of the angelic nature for being assumed4 ,for ,god by producing a new angelic nature could join it to ,himself in unity of ,person1 and in this way nothing pre-existing would be corrupted in it4 ,but as was said above1 there is wanting the fitness of need1 because1 although the angelic nature in some is the subject of sin1 their sin is irremediable1 as stated above 7,i1 ,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the perfection of the universe is not the perfection of one person or suppositum1 but of something which is one by position or order1 whereof very many parts are not capable of assumption1 as was said above4 ,hence it follows that only human nature is capable of being assumed4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,son of ,god ,assumed a ,person8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god assumed a person4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa7 that the ,son of ,god assumed human nature in atomo1 i4e4 in an individual4 ,but an individual in rational nature is a person1 as is plain from ,boethius 7,de ,duab4 ,nat474 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed a person4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f7 that the ,son of ,god assumed what ,he had sown in our nature4 ,but ,he sowed our personality there4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed a person4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing is absorbed unless it exist4 ,but ,innocent ,,iii 99,paschas4 ,diac41 ,de ,spiritu ,sanct4 ii says in a ,decretal that the ,person of ,god absorbed the person of man4 ,therefore it would seem that the person of man existed previous to its being assumed4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum ii7 that ,god assumed the nature1 not the person1 of man4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is taken into another4 ,hence1 what is assumed must be presupposed to the assumption1 as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion4 ,now a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption2 rather1 it is the term of the assumption1 as was said 7,q4 #c1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,for if it were presupposed1 it must either have been corrupted--in which case it was useless2 or it remains after the union--and thus there would be two persons1 one assuming and the other assumed1 which is false1 as was shown above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #f74 ,hence it follows that the ,son of ,god nowise assumed a human person4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,son of ,god assumed human nature in atomo1 i4e4 in an individual1 which is no other than the uncreated suppositum1 the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,hence it does not follow that a person was assumed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,its proper personality is not wanting to the nature assumed through the loss of anything pertaining to the perfection of the human nature but through the addition of something which is above human nature1 viz4 the union with a ,divine ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,absorption does not here imply the destruction of anything pre-existing1 but the hindering what might otherwise have been4 ,for if the human nature had not been assumed by a ,divine ,person1 the human nature would have had its own personality2 and in this way is it said1 although improperly1 that the ,person absorbed the person1 inasmuch as the ,divine ,person by ,his union hindered the human nature from having its personality4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,divine ,person ,assumed a ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,divine ,person assumed a man4 ,for it is written 7,ps4 #fd3e73 ,blessed is he whom ,thou hast chosen and taken to ,thee1 which a gloss expounds of ,christ2 and ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xi73 ,the ,son of ,god assumed a man1 and in him bore things human4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the word man signifies a human nature4 ,but the ,son of ,god assumed a human nature4 ,therefore ,he assumed a man4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,son of ,god is a man4 ,but ,he is not one of the men ,he did not assume1 for with equal reason ,he would be ,peter or any other man4 ,therefore ,he is the man whom ,he assumed4 ,on the contrary1 ,is the authority of ,felix1 ,pope and ,martyr1 which is quoted by the ,council of ,ephesus3 ,we believe in our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 born of the ,virgin ,mary1 because ,he is the ,eternal ,son and ,word of ,god1 and not a man assumed by ,god1 in such sort that there is another besides ,him4 ,for the ,son of ,god did not assume a man1 so that there be another besides ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,as has been said above 7,a4 #b71 what is assumed is not the term of the assumption1 but is presupposed to the assumption4 ,now it was said 7,q4 #c1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b7 that the individual to ,whom the human nature is assumed is none other than the ,divine ,person1 ,who is the term of the assumption4 ,now this word man signifies human nature1 as it is in a suppositum1 because1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #d1 #aa71 this word ,god signifies ,him ,who has human nature4 ,and hence it cannot properly be said that the ,son assumed a man1 granted 7as it must be1 in fact7 that in ,christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis4 ,but according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in ,christ1 it may fittingly and properly be said that the ,son of ,god assumed a man4 ,hence the first opinion quoted in ,sent4 iii1 ,d4 #f1 grants that a man was assumed4 ,but this opinion is erroneous1 as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #f74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these phrases are not to be taken too literally1 but are to be loyally explained1 wherever they are used by holy doctors2 so as to say that a man was assumed1 inasmuch as his nature was assumed2 and because the assumption terminated in this--that the ,son of ,god is man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the word man signifies human nature in the concrete1 inasmuch as it is in a suppositum2 and hence1 since we cannot say a suppositum was assumed1 so we cannot say a man was assumed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,son of ,god is not the man whom ,he assumed1 but the man whose nature ,he assumed4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,son of ,god ,ought to ,have ,assumed ,human ,nature ,abstracted from ,all ,individuals8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed human nature abstracted from all individuals4 ,for the assumption of human nature took place for the common salvation of all men2 hence it is said of ,christ 7#a ,tim4 #d3aj7 that ,he is the ,saviour of all men1 especially of the faithful4 ,but nature as it is in individuals withdraws from its universality4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed human nature as it is abstracted from all individuals4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is noblest in all things ought to be attributed to ,god4 ,but in every genus what is of itself is best4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed self-existing 7per se7 man1 which1 according to ,platonists1 is human nature abstracted from its individuals4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed this4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 human nature was not assumed by the ,son of ,god in the concrete as is signified by the word man1 as was said above 7,a4 #c74 ,now in this way it signifies human nature as it is in individuals1 as is plain from what has been said 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed human nature as it is separated from individuals4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa73 ,god the ,word ,incarnate did not assume a nature which exists in pure thought2 for this would have been no ,incarnation1 but a false and fictitious ,incarnation4 ,but human nature as it is separated or abstracted from individuals is taken to be a pure conception1 since it does not exist in itself1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa74 ,therefore the ,son of ,god did not assume human nature1 as it is separated from individuals4 ,i answer that1 ,the nature of man or of any other sensible thing1 beyond the being which it has in individuals1 may be taken in two ways3 first1 as if it had being of itself1 away from matter1 as the ,platonists held2 secondly1 as existing in an intellect either human or ,divine4 ,now it cannot subsist of itself1 as the ,philosopher proves 7,metaph4 vii1 #bf1 #bg1 #bi1 #ea71 because sensible matter belongs to the specific nature of sensible things1 and is placed in its definition1 as flesh and bones in the definition of man4 ,hence human nature cannot be without sensible matter4 ,nevertheless1 if human nature were subsistent in this way1 it would not be fitting that it should be assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,first1 because this assumption is terminated in a ,person1 and it is contrary to the nature of a common form to be thus individualized in a person4 ,secondly1 because to a common nature can only be attributed common and universal operations1 according to which man neither merits nor demerits1 whereas1 on the contrary1 the assumption took place in order that the ,son of ,god1 having assumed our nature1 might merit for us4 ,thirdly1 because a nature so existing would not be sensible1 but intelligible4 ,but the ,son of ,god assumed human nature in order to show ,himself in men's sight1 according to ,baruch #c3ch3 ,afterwards ,he was seen upon earth1 and conversed with men4 ,likewise1 neither could human nature have been assumed by the ,son of ,god1 as it is in the ,divine intellect1 since it would be none other than the ,divine ,nature2 and1 according to this1 human nature would be in the ,son of ,god from eternity4 ,neither can we say that the ,son of ,god assumed human nature as it is in a human intellect1 for this would mean nothing else but that ,he is understood to assume a human nature2 and thus if ,he did not assume it in reality1 this would be a false understanding2 nor would this assumption of the human nature be anything but a fictitious ,incarnation1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the incarnate ,son of ,god is the common ,saviour of all1 not by a generic or specific community1 such as is attributed to the nature separated from the individuals1 but by a community of cause1 whereby the incarnate ,son of ,god is the universal cause of human salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,self-existing 7per se7 man is not to be found in nature in such a way as to be outside the singular1 as the ,platonists held1 although some say ,plato believed that the separate man was only in the ,divine intellect4 ,and hence it was not necessary for it to be assumed by the ,word1 since it had been with ,him from eternity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although human nature was not assumed in the concrete1 as if the suppositum were presupposed to the assumption1 nevertheless it is assumed in an individual1 since it is assumed so as to be in an individual4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,son of ,god ,ought to ,have ,assumed ,human ,nature in ,all ,individuals8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed human nature in all individuals4 ,for what is assumed first and by itself is human nature4 ,but what belongs essentially to a nature belongs to all who exist in the nature4 ,therefore it was fitting that human nature should be assumed by the ,word of ,god in all its supposita4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,divine ,incarnation proceeded from ,divine ,love2 hence it is written 7,john #c3af73 ,god so loved the world as to give ,his only-begotten ,son4 ,but love makes us give ourselves to our friends as much as we can1 and it was possible for the ,son of ,god to assume several human natures1 as was said above 7,q4 #c1 ,a4 #g71 and with equal reason all4 ,hence it was fitting for the ,son of ,god to assume human nature in all its supposita4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a skilful workman completes his work in the shortest manner possible4 ,but it would have been a shorter way if all men had been assumed to the natural sonship than for one natural ,son to lead many to the adoption of sons1 as is written ,gal4 #d3e 7cf4 ,heb4 #b3aj74 ,therefore human nature ought to have been assumed by ,god in all its supposita4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa7 that the ,son of ,god did not assume human nature as a species1 nor did ,he assume all its hypostases4 ,i answer that1 ,it was unfitting for human nature to be assumed by the ,word in all its supposita4 ,first1 because the multitude of supposita of human nature1 which are natural to it1 would have been taken away4 ,for since we must not see any other suppositum in the assumed nature1 except the ,person assuming1 as was said above 7,a4 #c71 if there was no human nature except what was assumed1 it would follow that there was but one suppositum of human nature1 which is the ,person assuming4 ,secondly1 because this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate ,son of ,god1 as ,he is the ,first-born of many brethren1 according to the human nature1 even as ,he is the ,first-born of all creatures according to the ,divine1 for then all men would be of equal dignity4 ,thirdly1 because it is fitting that as one ,divine suppositum is incarnate1 so ,he should assume one human nature1 so that on both sides unity might be found4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to be assumed belongs to the human nature of itself1 because it does not belong to it by reason of a person1 as it belongs to the ,divine ,nature to assume by reason of the ,person2 not1 however1 that it belongs to it of itself as if belonging to its essential principles1 or as its natural property in which manner it would belong to all its supposita4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the love of ,god to men is shown not merely in the assumption of human nature1 but especially in what ,he suffered in human nature for other men1 according to ,rom4 #e3h3 ,but ,god commendeth ,his charity towards us2 because when as yet we were sinners 4 4 4 ,christ died for us1 which would not have taken place had ,he assumed human nature in all its supposita4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in order to shorten the way1 which every skilful workman does1 what can be done by one must not be done by many4 ,hence it was most fitting that by one man all the rest should be saved4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #d1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for the ,son of ,god to ,assume ,human ,nature of the ,stock of ,adam8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting for the ,son of ,god to assume human nature of the stock of ,adam1 for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3bf73 ,for it was fitting that we should have such a high priest 4 4 4 separated from sinners4 ,but ,he would have been still further separated from sinners had ,he not assumed human nature of the stock of ,adam1 a sinner4 ,hence it seems that ,he ought not to have assumed human nature of the stock of ,adam4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in every genus the principle is nobler than what is from the principle4 ,hence1 if ,he wished to assume human nature1 ,he ought to have assumed it in ,adam himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,gentiles were greater sinners than the ,jews1 as a gloss says on ,gal4 #b3ae3 ,for we by nature are ,jews1 and not of the ,gentiles1 sinners4 ,hence1 if ,he wished to assume human nature from sinners1 ,he ought rather to have assumed it from the ,gentiles than from the stock of ,abraham1 who was just4 ,on the contrary1 7,luke #c71 the genealogy of our ,lord is traced back to ,adam4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #ah73 ,god was able to assume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of ,adam1 who by his sin had fettered the whole human race2 yet ,god judged it better to assume human nature from the vanquished race1 and thus to vanquish the enemy of the human race4 ,and this for three reasons3 ,first1 because it would seem to belong to justice that he who sinned should make amends2 and hence that from the nature which he had corrupted should be assumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made for the whole nature4 ,secondly1 it pertains to man's greater dignity that the conqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered by the devil4 ,thirdly1 because ,god's power is thereby made more manifest1 since1 from a corrupt and weakened nature1 ,he assumed that which was raised to such might and glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ ought to be separated from sinners as regards sin1 which ,he came to overthrow1 and not as regards nature which ,he came to save1 and in which it behooved ,him in all things to be made like to ,his brethren1 as the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3ag74 ,and in this is ,his innocence the more wonderful1 seeing that though assumed from a mass tainted by sin1 ,his nature was endowed with such purity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as was said above 7ad #a7 it behooved ,him ,who came to take away sins to be separated from sinners as regards sin1 to which ,adam was subject1 whom ,christ brought out of his sin1 as is written 7,wis4 #aj3b74 ,for it behooved ,him ,who came to cleanse all1 not to need cleansing ,himself2 just as in every genus of motion the first mover is immovable as regards that motion1 and the first to alter is itself unalterable4 ,hence it was not fitting that ,he should assume human nature in ,adam himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,since ,christ ought especially to be separated from sinners as regards sin1 and to possess the highest innocence1 it was fitting that between the first sinner and ,christ some just men should stand midway1 in whom certain forecasts of 7,his7 future holiness should shine forth4 ,and hence1 even in the people from whom ,christ was to be born1 ,god appointed signs of holiness1 which began in ,abraham1 who was the first to receive the promise of ,christ1 and circumcision1 as a sign that the covenant should be kept1 as is written 7,gen4 #ag3aa74 ,,question #e ,,of ,,the ,,parts ,,of ,,human ,,nature ,,which ,,were ,,assumed 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the assumption of the parts of human nature2 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,son of ,god ought to have assumed a true body8 7#b7 ,whether ,he ought to have assumed an earthly body1 i4e4 one of flesh and blood8 7#c7 ,whether ,he ought to have assumed a soul8 7#d7 ,whether ,he ought to have assumed an intellect8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #e1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,son of ,god ,ought to ,have ,assumed a ,true ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a true body4 ,for it is written 7,phil4 #b3g71 that ,he was made in the likeness of men4 ,but what is something in truth is not said to be in the likeness thereof4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god did not assume a true body4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the assumption of a body in no way diminishes the dignity of the ,godhead2 for ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 de ,nativ47 that the glorification did not absorb the lesser nature1 nor did the assumption lessen the higher4 ,but it pertains to the dignity of ,god to be altogether separated from bodies4 ,therefore it seems that by the assumption ,god was not united to a body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 signs ought to correspond to the realities4 ,but the apparitions of the ,old ,testament which were signs of the manifestation of ,christ were not in a real body1 but by visions in the imagination1 as is plain from ,isa4 #fj3a3 ,i saw the ,lord sitting1 etc4 ,hence it would seem that the apparition of the ,son of ,god in the world was not in a real body1 but only in imagination4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #ac73 ,if the body of ,christ was a phantom1 ,christ deceived us1 and if ,he deceived us1 ,he is not the ,truth4 ,but ,christ is the ,truth4 ,therefore ,his body was not a phantom4 ,hence it is plain that ,he assumed a true body4 ,i answer that1 ,as is said 7,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 ii74 ,the ,son of ,god was not born in appearance only1 as if ,he had an imaginary body2 but ,his body was real4 ,the proof of this is threefold4 ,first1 from the essence of human nature to which it pertains to have a true body4 ,therefore granted1 as already proved 7,q4 #d1 ,a4 #a71 that it was fitting for the ,son of ,god to assume human nature1 ,he must consequently have assumed a real body4 ,the second reason is taken from what was done in the mystery of the ,incarnation4 ,for if ,his body was not real but imaginary1 ,he neither underwent a real death1 nor of those things which the ,evangelists recount of ,him1 did ,he do any in very truth1 but only in appearance2 and hence it would also follow that the real salvation of man has not taken place2 since the effect must be proportionate to the cause4 ,the third reason is taken from the dignity of the ,person assuming1 ,whom it did not become to have anything fictitious in ,his work1 since ,he is the ,truth4 ,hence our ,lord ,himself deigned to refute this error 7,luke #bd3cg1 #ci71 when the disciples1 troubled and frighted1 supposed that they saw a spirit1 and not a true body2 wherefore ,he offered ,himself to their touch1 saying3 ,handle1 and see2 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this likeness indicates the truth of the human nature in ,christ--just as all that truly exist in human nature are said to be like in species--and not a mere imaginary likeness4 ,in proof of this the ,apostle subjoins 7,phil4 #b3h7 that ,he became obedient unto death1 even to the death of the cross2 which would have been impossible1 had it been only an imaginary likeness4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by assuming a true body the dignity of the ,son of ,god is nowise lessened4 ,hence ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum ii73 ,he emptied ,himself1 taking the form of a servant1 that ,he might become a servant2 yet did ,he not lose the fulness of the form of ,god4 ,for the ,son of ,god assumed a true body1 not so as to become the form of a body1 which is repugnant to the ,divine simplicity and purity--for this would be to assume a body to the unity of the nature1 which is impossible1 as is plain from what has been stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #a73 but1 the natures remaining distinct1 ,he assumed a body to the unity of ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the figure ought to correspond to the reality as regards the likeness and not as regards the truth of the thing4 ,for if they were alike in all points1 it would no longer be a likeness but the reality itself1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bf74 ,hence it was more fitting that the apparitions of the old ,testament should be in appearance only1 being figures2 and that the apparition of the ,son of ,god in the world should be in a real body1 being the thing prefigured by these figures4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,col4 #b3ag73 ,which are a shadow of things to come1 but the body is ,christ's4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #e1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,son of ,god ,ought to ,have ,assumed a ,carnal or ,earthly ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ had not a carnal or earthly1 but a heavenly body4 ,for the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3da73 ,the first man was of the earth1 earthy2 the second man from heaven1 heavenly4 ,but the first man1 i4e4 ,adam1 was of the earth as regards his body1 as is plain from ,gen4 #a4 ,therefore the second man1 i4e4 ,christ1 was of heaven as regards the body4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is said 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ej73 ,flesh and blood shall not ,vulg43 'cannot' possess the kingdom of ,god4 ,but the kingdom of ,god is in ,christ chiefly4 ,therefore there is no flesh or blood in ,him1 but rather a heavenly body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whatever is best is to be attributed to ,god4 ,but of all bodies a heavenly body is the best4 ,therefore it behooved ,christ to assume such a body4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord says 7,luke #bd3ci73 ,a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4 ,now flesh and bones are not of the matter of heavenly bodies1 but are composed of the inferior elements4 ,therefore the body of ,christ was not a heavenly1 but a carnal and earthly body4 ,i answer that1 ,by the reasons which proved that the body of ,christ was not an imaginary one1 it may also be shown that it was not a heavenly body4 ,first1 because even as the truth of the human nature of ,christ would not have been maintained had ,his body been an imaginary one1 such as ,manes supposed1 so likewise it would not have been maintained if we supposed1 as did ,valentine1 that it was a heavenly body4 ,for since the form of man is a natural thing1 it requires determinate matter1 to wit1 flesh and bones1 which must be placed in the definition of man1 as is plain from the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 vii1 #ci74 ,secondly1 because this would lessen the truth of such things as ,christ did in the body4 ,for since a heavenly body is impassible and incorruptible1 as is proved ,de ,coel4 i1 #bj1 if the ,son of ,god had assumed a heavenly body1 ,he would not have truly hungered or thirsted1 nor would he have undergone ,his passion and death4 ,thirdly1 this would have detracted from ,god's truthfulness4 ,for since the ,son of ,god showed ,himself to men1 as if ,he had a carnal and earthly body1 the manifestation would have been false1 had ,he had a heavenly body4 ,hence 7,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 ii7 it is said3 ,the ,son of ,god was born1 taking flesh of the ,virgin's body1 and not bringing it with ,him from heaven4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is said in two ways to have come down from heaven4 ,first1 as regards ,his ,divine ,nature2 not indeed that the ,divine ,nature ceased to be in heaven1 but inasmuch as ,he began to be here below in a new way1 viz4 by ,his assumed nature1 according to ,john #c3ac3 ,no man hath ascended into heaven1 but ,he that descended from heaven1 the ,son of ,man1 ,who is in heaven4 ,secondly1 as regards ,his body1 not indeed that the very substance of the body of ,christ descended from heaven1 but that ,his body was formed by a heavenly power1 i4e4 by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,hence ,augustine1 explaining the passage quoted1 says 7,ad ,orosium 99,dial4 ,qq4 lxv1 qu4 #d1 work of an unknown author73 ,i call ,christ a heavenly man because ,he was not conceived of human seed4 ,and ,hilary expounds it in the same way 7,de ,trin4 x74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,flesh and blood are not taken here for the substance of flesh and blood1 but for the corruption of flesh1 which was not in ,christ as far as it was sinful2 but as far as it was a punishment2 thus1 for a time1 it was in ,christ1 that ,he might carry through the work of our redemption4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it pertains to the greatest glory of ,god to have raised a weak and earthly body to such sublimity4 ,hence in the ,general ,council of ,ephesus 7,p4 ,,ii1 ,act4 ,i7 we read the saying of ,st4 ,theophilus3 ,just as the best workmen are esteemed not merely for displaying their skill in precious materials1 but very often because by making use of the poorest clay and commonest earth1 they show the power of their craft2 so the best of all workmen1 the ,word of ,god1 did not come down to us by taking a heavenly body of some most precious matter1 but shewed the greatness of ,his skill in clay4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #e1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,son of ,god ,assumed a ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a soul4 ,for ,john has said1 teaching the mystery of the ,incarnation 7,john #a3ad73 ,the ,word was made flesh--no mention being made of a soul4 ,now it is not said that the ,word was made flesh as if changed to flesh1 but because ,he assumed flesh4 ,therefore ,he seems not to have assumed a soul4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a soul is necessary to the body1 in order to quicken it4 ,but this was not necessary for the body of ,christ1 as it would seem1 for of the ,word of ,god it is written 7,ps4 #ce3aj73 ,lord1 with ,thee is the fountain of life4 ,therefore it would seem altogether superfluous for the soul to be there1 when the ,word was present4 ,but ,god and nature do nothing uselessly1 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,coel4 i1 #cb2 ii1 #ef74 ,therefore the ,word would seem not to have assumed a soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 by the union of soul and body is constituted the common nature1 which is the human species4 ,but in the ,lord ,jesus ,christ we are not to look for a common species1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c74 ,therefore ,he did not assume a soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xxi73 ,let us not hearken to such as say that only a human body was assumed by the ,word of ,god2 and take 'the ,word was made flesh' to mean that the man had no soul nor any other part of a man1 save flesh4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,haeres4 #fi1 #ee71 it was first of all the opinion of ,arius and then of ,apollinaris that the ,son of ,god assumed only flesh1 without a soul1 holding that the ,word took the place of a soul to the body4 ,and consequently it followed that there were not two natures in ,christ1 but only one2 for from a soul and body one human nature is constituted4 ,but this opinion cannot hold1 for three reasons4 ,first1 because it is counter to the authority of ,scripture1 in which our ,lord makes mention of ,his soul1 ,matt4 #bf3ch3 ,my soul is sorrowful even unto death2 and ,john #aj3ah3 ,i have power to lay down ,my soul animam meam3 ,douay3 ',my life'4 ,but to this ,apollinaris replied that in these words soul is taken metaphorically1 in which way mention is made in the ,old ,testament of the soul of ,god 7,isa4 #a3ad73 ,my soul hateth your new moons and your solemnities4 ,but1 as ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #hj71 the ,evangelists relate how ,jesus wondered1 was angered1 sad1 and hungry4 ,now these show that ,he had a true soul1 just as that ,he ate1 slept and was weary shows that ,he had a true human body3 otherwise1 if these things are a metaphor1 because the like are said of ,god in the ,old ,testament1 the trustworthiness of the ,gospel story is undermined4 ,for it is one thing that things were foretold in a figure1 and another that historical events were related in very truth by the ,evangelists4 ,secondly1 this error lessens the utility of the ,incarnation1 which is man's liberation4 ,for ,augustine 99,vigilius ,tapsensis argues thus 7,contra ,felician4 xiii73 ,if the ,son of ,god in taking flesh passed over the soul1 either ,he knew its sinlessness1 and trusted it did not need a remedy2 or ,he considered it unsuitable to ,him1 and did not bestow on it the boon of redemption2 or ,he reckoned it altogether incurable1 and was unable to heal it2 or ,he cast it off as worthless and seemingly unfit for any use4 ,now two of these reasons imply a blasphemy against ,god4 ,for how shall we call ,him omnipotent1 if ,he is unable to heal what is beyond hope8 ,or ,god of all1 if ,he has not made our soul4 ,and as regards the other two reasons1 in one the cause of the soul is ignored1 and in the other no place is given to merit4 ,is ,he to be considered to understand the cause of the soul1 ,who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful transgression1 enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment of the habit of reason8 ,or how can ,his generosity be known to any one who says it was despised on account of its ignoble sinfulness8 ,if you look at its origin1 the substance of the soul is more precious than the body3 but if at the sin of transgression1 on account of its intelligence it is worse than the body4 ,now ,i know and declare that ,christ is perfect wisdom1 nor have ,i any doubt that ,he is most loving2 and because of the first of these ,he did not despise what was better and more capable of prudence2 and because of the second ,he protected what was most wounded4 ,thirdly1 this position is against the truth of the ,incarnation4 ,for flesh and the other parts of man receive their species through the soul4 ,hence1 if the soul is absent1 there are no bones nor flesh1 except equivocally1 as is plain from the ,philosopher 7,de ,anima ii1 #i2 ,metaph4 vii1 #cd74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when we say1 ,the ,word was made flesh1 flesh is taken for the whole man1 as if we were to say1 ,the ,word was made man1 as ,isa4 #dj3e3 ,all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the ,lord hath spoken4 ,and the whole man is signified by flesh1 because1 as is said in the authority quoted1 the ,son of ,god became visible by flesh2 hence it is subjoined3 ,and we saw ,his glory4 ,or because1 as ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #hj71 in all that union the ,word is the highest1 and flesh the last and lowest4 ,hence1 wishing to commend the love of ,god's humility to us1 the ,evangelist mentioned the ,word and flesh1 leaving the soul on one side1 since it is less than the ,word and nobler than flesh4 ,again1 it was reasonable to mention flesh1 which1 as being farther away from the ,word1 was less assumable1 as it would seem4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,word is the fountain of life1 as the first effective cause of life2 but the soul is the principle of the life of the body1 as its form4 ,now the form is the effect of the agent4 ,hence from the presence of the ,word it might rather have been concluded that the body was animated1 just as from the presence of fire it may be concluded that the body1 in which fire adheres1 is warm4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is not unfitting1 indeed it is necessary to say that in ,christ there was a nature which was constituted by the soul coming to the body4 ,but ,damascene denied that in ,jesus ,christ there was a common species1 i4e4 a third something resulting from the ,godhead and the humanity4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #e1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,son of ,god ,assumed a ,human ,mind or ,intellect8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a human mind or intellect4 ,for where a thing is present1 its image is not required4 ,but man is made to ,god's image1 as regards his mind1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiv1 #c1 #f74 ,hence1 since in ,christ there was the presence of the ,divine ,word itself1 there was no need of a human mind4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the greater light dims the lesser4 ,but the ,word of ,god1 ,who is the light1 which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world1 as is written ,john #a3i1 is compared to the mind as the greater light to the lesser2 since our mind is a light1 being as it were a lamp enkindled by the ,first ,light 7,prov4 #bj3bg73 ,the spirit of a man is the lamp of the ,lord4 ,therefore in ,christ ,who is the ,word of ,god1 there is no need of a human mind4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the assumption of human nature by the ,word of ,god is called ,his ,incarnation4 ,but the intellect or human mind is nothing carnal1 either in its substance or in its act1 for it is not the act of a body1 as is proved ,de ,anima iii1 #f4 ,hence it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a human mind4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum xiv73 ,firmly hold and nowise doubt that ,christ the ,son of ,god has true flesh and a rational soul of the same kind as ours1 since of ,his flesh ,he says 7,luke #bd3ci73 ',handle1 and see2 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4' ,and ,he proves that ,he has a soul1 saying 7,john #ag73 ',i lay down ,my soul ,douay3 'life' that ,i may take it again4' ,and ,he proves that ,he has an intellect1 saying 7,matt4 #aa3bi73 ',learn of ,me1 because ,i am meek and humble of heart4' ,and ,god says of ,him by the prophet 7,isa4 #eb3ac73 ',behold my servant shall understand4' ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,haeres4 #di1 #ej71 the ,apollinarists thought differently from the ,catholic ,church concerning the soul of ,christ1 saying with the ,arians1 that ,christ took flesh alone1 without a soul2 and on being overcome on this point by the ,gospel witness1 they went on to say that the mind was wanting to ,christ's soul1 but that the ,word supplied its place4 ,but this position is refuted by the same arguments as the preceding4 ,first1 because it runs counter to the ,gospel story1 which relates how ,he marveled 7as is plain from ,matt4 #h3aj74 ,now marveling cannot be without reason1 since it implies the collation of effect and cause1 i4e4 inasmuch as when we see an effect and are ignorant of its cause1 we seek to know it1 as is said ,metaph4 i1 #b4 ,secondly1 it is inconsistent with the purpose of the ,incarnation1 which is the justification of man from sin4 ,for the human soul is not capable of sin nor of justifying grace except through the mind4 ,hence it was especially necessary for the mind to be assumed4 ,hence ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f7 that the ,word of ,god assumed a body and an intellectual and rational soul1 and adds afterwards3 ,the whole was united to the whole1 that ,he might bestow salvation on me wholly2 for what was not assumed is not curable4 ,thirdly1 it is against the truth of the ,incarnation4 ,for since the body is proportioned to the soul as matter to its proper form1 it is not truly human flesh if it is not perfected by human1 i4e4 a rational soul4 ,and hence if ,christ had had a soul without a mind1 ,he would not have had true human flesh1 but irrational flesh1 since our soul differs from an animal soul by the mind alone4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #hj7 that from this error it would have followed that the ,son of ,god took an animal with the form of a human body1 which1 again1 is against the ,divine truth1 which cannot suffer any fictitious untruth4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,where a thing is by its presence1 its image is not required to supply the place of the thing1 as where the emperor is the soldiers do not pay homage to his image4 ,yet the image of a thing is required together with its presence1 that it may be perfected by the presence of the thing1 just as the image in the wax is perfected by the impression of the seal1 and as the image of man is reflected in the mirror by his presence4 ,hence in order to perfect the human mind it was necessary that the ,word should unite it to ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the greater light dims the lesser light of another luminous body2 but it does not dim1 rather it perfects the light of the body illuminated--at the presence of the sun the light of the stars is put out1 but the light of the air is perfected4 ,now the intellect or mind of man is1 as it were1 a light lit up by the light of the ,divine ,word2 and hence by the presence of the ,word the mind of man is perfected rather than overshadowed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the intellective power is not the act of a body1 nevertheless the essence of the human soul1 which is the form of the body1 requires that it should be more noble1 in order that it may have the power of understanding2 and hence it is necessary that a better disposed body should correspond to it4 ,,question #f ,,of ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,assumption 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the order of the foregoing assumption1 and under this head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,son of ,god assumed flesh through the medium of the soul8 7#b7 ,whether ,he assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit or mind8 7#c7 ,whether the soul was assumed previous to the flesh8 7#d7 ,whether the flesh of ,christ was assumed by the ,word previous to being united to the soul8 7#e7 ,whether the whole human nature was assumed through the medium of the parts8 7#f7 ,whether it was assumed through the medium of grace8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,son of ,god ,assumed ,flesh ,through the ,medium of the ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume flesh through the medium of the soul4 ,for the mode in which the ,son of ,god is united to human nature and its parts1 is more perfect than the mode whereby ,he is in all creatures4 ,but ,he is in all creatures immediately by essence1 power and presence4 ,much more1 therefore1 is the ,son of ,god united to flesh without the medium of the soul4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul and flesh are united to the ,word of ,god in unity of hypostasis or person4 ,but the body pertains immediately to the human hypostasis or person1 even as the soul4 ,indeed1 the human body1 since it is matter1 would rather seem to be nearer the hypostasis than the soul1 which is a form1 since the principle of individuation1 which is implied in the word hypostasis1 would seem to be matter4 ,hence the ,son of ,god did not assume flesh through the medium of the soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 take away the medium and you separate what were joined by the medium2 for example1 if the superficies be removed color would leave the body1 since it adheres to the body through the medium of the superficies4 ,but though the soul was separated from the body by death1 yet there still remained the union of the ,word to the flesh1 as will be shown 7,q4 #ej1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c74 ,hence the ,word was not joined to flesh through the medium of the soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusianum cxxxvi73 ,the greatness of the ,divine power fitted to itself a rational soul1 and through it a human body1 so as to raise the whole man to something higher4 ,i answer that1 ,a medium is in reference to a beginning and an end4 ,hence as beginning and end imply order1 so also does a medium4 ,now there is a twofold order3 one1 of time2 the other1 of nature4 ,but in the mystery of the ,incarnation nothing is said to be a medium in the order of time1 for the ,word of ,god united the whole human nature to ,himself at the same time1 as will appear 7,q4 #cj1 ,a4 #c74 ,an order of nature between things may be taken in two ways3 first1 as regards rank of dignity1 as we say the angels are midway between man and ,god2 secondly1 as regards the idea of causality1 as we say a cause is midway between the first cause and the last effect4 ,and this second order follows the first to some extent2 for as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 xiii71 ,god acts upon the more remote substances through the less remote4 ,hence if we consider the rank of dignity1 the soul is found to be midway between ,god and flesh2 and in this way it may be said that the ,son of ,god united flesh to ,himself1 through the medium of the soul4 ,but even as regards the second order of causality the soul is to some extent the cause of flesh being united to the ,son of ,god4 ,for the flesh would not have been assumable1 except by its relation to the rational soul1 through which it becomes human flesh4 ,for it was said above 7,q4 #d1 ,a4 #a7 that human nature was assumable before all others4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we may consider a twofold order between creatures and ,god3 the first is by reason of creatures being caused by ,god and depending on ,him as on the principle of their being2 and thus on account of the infinitude of ,his power ,god touches each thing immediately1 by causing and preserving it1 and so it is that ,god is in all things by essence1 presence and power4 ,but the second order is by reason of things being directed to ,god as to their end2 and it is here that there is a medium between the creature and ,god1 since lower creatures are directed to ,god by higher1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v72 and to this order pertains the assumption of human nature by the ,word of ,god1 ,who is the term of the assumption2 and hence it is united to flesh through the soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if the hypostasis of the ,word of ,god were constituted simply by human nature1 it would follow that the body was nearest to it1 since it is matter which is the principle of individuation2 even as the soul1 being the specific form1 would be nearer the human nature4 ,but because the hypostasis of the ,word is prior to and more exalted than the human nature1 the more exalted any part of the human nature is1 the nearer it is to the hypostasis of the ,word4 ,and hence the soul is nearer the ,word of ,god than the body is4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the aptitude and congruity of another1 and yet if it be taken away the other remains2 because although a thing's becoming may depend on another1 yet when it is in being it no longer depends on it1 just as a friendship brought about by some other may endure when the latter has gone2 or as a woman is taken in marriage on account of her beauty1 which makes a woman's fittingness for the marriage tie1 yet when her beauty passes away1 the marriage tie still remains4 ,so likewise1 when the soul was separated1 the union of the ,word with flesh still endured4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,son of ,god ,assumed a ,soul ,through the ,medium of the ,spirit or ,mind8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind4 ,for nothing is a medium between itself and another4 ,but the spirit is nothing else in essence but the soul itself1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,therefore the ,son of ,god did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is the medium of the assumption is itself more assumable4 ,but the spirit or mind is not more assumable than the soul2 which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are not assumable1 as was said above 7,q4 #d1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence it seems that the ,son of ,god did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that which comes later is assumed by the first through the medium of what comes before4 ,but the soul implies the very essence1 which naturally comes before its power--the mind4 ,therefore it would seem that the ,son of ,god did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xviii73 ,the invisible and unchangeable ,truth took a soul by means of the spirit1 and a body by means of the soul4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 the ,son of ,god is said to have assumed flesh through the medium of the soul1 on account of the order of dignity1 and the congruity of the assumption4 ,now both these may be applied to the intellect1 which is called the spirit1 if we compare it with the other parts of the soul4 ,for the soul is assumed congruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for ,god1 being in ,his likeness3 which is in respect of the mind that is called the spirit1 according to ,eph4 #d3bc3 ,be renewed in the spirit of your mind4 ,so1 too1 the intellect is the highest and noblest of the parts of the soul1 and the most like to ,god1 and hence ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f7 that the ,word of ,god is united to flesh through the medium of the intellect2 for the intellect is the purest part of the soul1 ,god ,himself being an intellect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the intellect is not distinct from the soul in essence1 it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as a power2 and it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,fitness for assumption is wanting to the angelic spirits1 not from any lack of dignity1 but because of the irremediableness of their fall1 which cannot be said of the human spirit1 as is clear from what has been said above 7,i1 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #h2 ,first ,part1 ,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the soul1 between which and the ,word of ,god the intellect is said to be a medium1 does not stand for the essence of the soul1 which is common to all the powers1 but for the lower powers1 which are common to every soul4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,soul ,was ,assumed ,before the ,flesh by the ,son of ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ was assumed before the flesh by the ,word4 ,for the ,son of ,god assumed flesh through the medium of the soul1 as was said above 7,a4 #a74 ,now the medium is reached before the end4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed the soul before the body4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul of ,christ is nobler than the angels1 according to ,ps4 #if3h3 ,adore ,him1 all you ,his angels4 ,but the angels were created in the beginning1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #df1 ,a4 #c74 ,therefore the soul of ,christ also 7was created in the beginning74 ,but it was not created before it was assumed1 for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #b1 #c1 #i71 that neither the soul nor the body of ,christ ever had any hypostasis save the hypostasis of the ,word4 ,therefore it would seem that the soul was assumed before the flesh1 which was conceived in the womb of the ,virgin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,john #a3ad73 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' full of grace and truth1 and it is added afterwards that of ,his fulness we have all received 7,john #a3af71 i4e4 all the faithful of all time1 as ,chrysostom expounds it 7,hom4 xiii in ,joan474 ,now this could not have been unless the soul of ,christ had all fulness of grace and truth before all the saints1 who were from the beginning of the world1 for the cause is not subsequent to the effect4 ,hence since the fulness of grace and truth was in the soul of ,christ from union with the ,word1 according to what is written in the same place3 ,we saw ,his glory1 the glory as it were of the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth1 it would seem in consequence that from the beginning of the world the soul of ,christ was assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #f73 ,the intellect was not1 as some untruthfully say1 united to the true ,god1 and henceforth called ,christ1 before the ,incarnation which was of the ,virgin4 ,i answer that1 ,origen 7,peri ,archon i1 #g1 #h2 ii1 #h7 maintained that all souls1 amongst which he placed ,christ's soul1 were created in the beginning4 ,but this is not fitting1 if we suppose that it was first of all created1 but not at once joined to the ,word1 since it would follow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the ,word2 and thus1 since it was assumed by the ,word1 either the union did not take place in the subsistence1 or the pre-existing subsistence of the soul was corrupted4 ,so likewise it is not fitting to suppose that this soul was united to the ,word from the beginning1 and that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the ,virgin2 for thus ,his soul would not seem to be of the same nature as ours1 which are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies4 ,hence ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 ad ,julian4 xxxv7 that ,christ's flesh was not of a different nature to ours1 nor was a different soul infused into it in the beginning than into other men4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a71 the soul of ,christ is said to be the medium in the union of the flesh with the ,word1 in the order of nature2 but it does not follow from this that it was the medium in the order of time4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,pope ,leo says in the same ,epistle1 ,christ's soul excels our soul not by diversity of genus1 but by sublimity of power2 for it is of the same genus as our souls1 yet excels even the angels in fulness of grace and truth4 ,but the mode of creation is in harmony with the generic property of the soul2 and since it is the form of the body1 it is consequently created at the same time that it is infused into and united with the body2 which does not happen to angels1 since they are substances entirely free from matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,of the fulness of ,christ all men receive according to the faith they have in ,him2 for it is written 7,rom4 #c3bb7 that the justice of ,god is by faith of ,jesus ,christ unto all and upon all them that believe in ,him4 ,now just as we believe in ,him as already born2 so the ancients believed in ,him as about to be born1 since having the same spirit of faith 4 4 4 we also believe1 as it is written 7#b ,cor4 #d3ac74 ,but the faith which is in ,christ has the power of justifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of ,god1 according to ,rom4 #d3e3 ,but to him that worketh not1 yet believeth in ,him that justifieth the ungodly1 his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of ,god4 ,hence because this purpose is eternal1 there is nothing to hinder some from being justified by the faith of ,jesus ,christ1 even before ,his soul was full of grace and truth4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,flesh of ,christ ,was ,assumed by the ,word ,before ,being ,united to the ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the flesh of ,christ was assumed by the ,word before being united to the soul4 ,for ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum xviii73 ,most firmly hold1 and nowise doubt that the flesh of ,christ was not conceived in the womb of the ,virgin without the ,godhead before it was assumed by the ,word4 ,but the flesh of ,christ would seem to have been conceived before being united to the rational soul1 because matter or disposition is prior to the completive form in order of generation4 ,therefore the flesh of ,christ was assumed before being united to the soul4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as the soul is a part of human nature1 so is the body4 ,but the human soul in ,christ had no other principle of being than in other men1 as is clear from the authority of ,pope ,leo1 quoted above 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore it would seem that the body of ,christ had no other principle of being than we have4 ,but in us the body is begotten before the rational soul comes to it4 ,therefore it was the same in ,christ2 and thus the flesh was assumed by the ,word before being united to the soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as is said 7,de ,causis71 the first cause excels the second in bringing about the effect1 and precedes it in its union with the effect4 ,but the soul of ,christ is compared to the ,word as a second cause to a first4 ,hence the ,word was united to the flesh before it was to the soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #b73 ,at the same time the ,word of ,god was made flesh1 and flesh was united to a rational and intellectual soul4 ,therefore the union of the ,word with the flesh did not precede the union with the soul4 ,i answer that1 ,the human flesh is assumable by the ,word on account of the order which it has to the rational soul as to its proper form4 ,now it has not this order before the rational soul comes to it1 because when any matter becomes proper to any form1 at the same time it receives that form2 hence the alteration is terminated at the same instant in which the substantial form is introduced4 ,and hence it is that the flesh ought not to have been assumed before it was human flesh2 and this happened when the rational soul came to it4 ,therefore since the soul was not assumed before the flesh1 inasmuch as it is against the nature of the soul to be before it is united to the body1 so likewise the flesh ought not to have been assumed before the soul1 since it is not human flesh before it has a rational soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,human flesh depends upon the soul for its being2 and hence1 before the coming of the soul1 there is no human flesh1 but there may be a disposition towards human flesh4 ,yet in the conception of ,christ1 the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who is an agent of infinite might1 disposed the matter and brought it to its perfection at the same time4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the form actually gives the species2 but the matter in itself is in potentiality to the species4 ,and hence it would be against the nature of a form to exist before the specific nature4 ,and therefore the dissimilarity between our origin and ,christ's origin1 inasmuch as we are conceived before being animated1 and ,christ's flesh is not1 is by reason of what precedes the perfection of the nature1 viz4 that we are conceived from the seed of man1 and ,christ is not4 ,but a difference which would be with reference to the origin of the soul1 would bespeak a diversity of nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,word of ,god is understood to be united to the flesh before the soul by the common mode whereby ,he is in the rest of creatures by essence1 power1 and presence4 ,yet ,i say before1 not in time1 but in nature2 for the flesh is understood as a being1 which it has from the ,word1 before it is understood as animated1 which it has from the soul4 ,but by the personal union we understand the flesh as united to the soul before it is united to the ,word1 for it is from its union with the soul that it is capable of being united to the ,word in ,person2 especially since a person is found only in the rational nature4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,whole ,human ,nature ,was ,assumed ,through the ,medium of the ,parts8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god assumed the whole human nature through the medium of its parts4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xviii7 that the invisible and unchangeable ,truth assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit1 and the body through the medium of the soul1 and in this way the whole man4 ,but the spirit1 soul1 and body are parts of the whole man4 ,therefore ,he assumed all1 through the medium of the parts4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,son of ,god assumed flesh through the medium of the soul because the soul is more like to ,god than the body4 ,but the parts of human nature1 since they are simpler than the body1 would seem to be more like to ,god1 ,who is most simple1 than the whole4 ,therefore ,he assumed the whole through the medium of the parts4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the whole results from the union of parts4 ,but the union is taken to be the term of the assumption1 and the parts are presupposed to the assumption4 ,therefore ,he assumed the whole by the parts4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #af73 ,in our ,lord ,jesus ,christ we do not behold parts of parts1 but such as are immediately joined1 i4e4 the ,godhead and the manhood4 ,now the humanity is a whole1 which is composed of soul and body1 as parts4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed the parts through the medium of the whole4 ,i answer that1 ,when anything is said to be a medium in the assumption of the ,incarnation1 we do not signify order of time1 because the assumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous4 ,for it has been shown 7,,aa4 #c1 #d7 that the soul and body were mutually united at the same time in order to constitute the human nature of the ,word4 ,but it is order of nature that is signified4 ,hence by what is prior in nature1 that is assumed which is posterior in nature4 ,now a thing is prior in nature in two ways3 ,first on the part of the agent1 secondly on the part of the matter2 for these two causes precede the thing4 ,on the part of the agent--that is simply first1 which is first included in his intention2 but that is relatively first1 with which his operation begins--and this because the intention is prior to the operation4 ,on the part of the matter--that is first which exists first in the transmutation of the matter4 ,now in the ,incarnation the order depending on the agent must be particularly considered1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusianum cxxxvii71 in such things the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer4 ,but it is manifest that1 according to the intention of the doer1 what is complete is prior to what is incomplete1 and1 consequently1 the whole to the parts4 ,hence it must be said that the ,word of ,god assumed the parts of human nature1 through the medium of the whole2 for even as ,he assumed the body on account of its relation to the rational soul1 so likewise ,he assumed a body and soul on account of their relation to human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,from these words nothing may be gathered1 except that the ,word1 by assuming the parts of human nature1 assumed the whole human nature4 ,and thus the assumption of parts is prior in the order of the intellect1 if we consider the operation1 but not in order of time2 whereas the assumption of the nature is prior if we consider the intention3 and this is to be simply first1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god is so simple that ,he is also most perfect2 and hence the whole is more like to ,god than the parts1 inasmuch as it is more perfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is a personal union wherein the assumption is terminated1 not a union of nature1 which springs from a conjunction of parts4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #f1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,human ,nature ,was ,assumed ,through the ,medium of ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god assumed human nature through the medium of grace4 ,for by grace we are united to ,god4 ,but the human nature in ,christ was most closely united to ,god4 ,therefore the union took place by grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as the body lives by the soul1 which is its perfection1 so does the soul by grace4 ,but the human nature was fitted for the assumption by the soul4 ,therefore the ,son of ,god assumed the soul through the medium of grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xv1 #aa7 that the incarnate ,word is like our spoken word4 ,but our word is united to our speech by means of breathing 7spiritus74 ,therefore the ,word of ,god is united to flesh by means of the ,holy ,spirit1 and hence by means of grace1 which is attributed to the ,holy ,spirit1 according to #a ,cor4 #ab3d3 ,now there are diversities of graces1 but the same ,spirit4 ,on the contrary1 ,grace is an accident in the soul1 as was shown above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #b74 ,now the union of the ,word with human nature took place in the subsistence1 and not accidentally1 as was shown above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #f74 ,therefore the human nature was not assumed by means of grace4 ,i answer that1 ,in ,christ there was the grace of union and habitual grace4 ,therefore grace cannot be taken to be the medium of the assumption of the human nature1 whether we speak of the grace of union or of habitual grace4 ,for the grace of union is the personal being that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the ,person of the ,word1 and is the term of the assumption4 ,whereas the habitual grace pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an effect following the union1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,his glory 4 4 4 as it were of the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth--by which we are given to understand that because this ,man 7as a result of the union7 is the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 ,he is full of grace and truth4 ,but if by grace we understand the will of ,god doing or bestowing something gratis1 the union took place by grace1 not as a means1 but as the efficient cause4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our union with ,god is by operation1 inasmuch as we know and love ,him2 and hence this union is by habitual grace1 inasmuch as a perfect operation proceeds from a habit4 ,now the union of the human nature with the ,word of ,god is in personal being1 which depends not on any habit1 but on the nature itself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the soul is the substantial perfection of the body2 grace is but an accidental perfection of the soul4 ,hence grace cannot ordain the soul to personal union1 which is not accidental1 as the soul ordains the body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,our word is united to our speech1 by means of breathing 7spiritus71 not as a formal medium1 but as a moving medium4 ,for from the word conceived within1 the breathing proceeds1 from which the speech is formed4 ,and similarly from the eternal ,word proceeds the ,holy ,spirit1 ,who formed the body of ,christ1 as will be shown 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #a74 ,but it does not follow from this that the grace of the ,holy ,spirit is the formal medium in the aforesaid union4 ,,question #g ,,of ,,the ,,grace ,,of ,,christ ,,as ,,an ,,individual ,,man 7,in ,thirteen ,articles7 ,we must now consider such things as were co-assumed by the ,son of ,god in human nature2 and first what belongs to perfection2 secondly1 what belongs to defect4 ,concerning the first1 there are three points of consideration3 7#a7 ,the grace of ,christ2 7#b7 ,his knowledge2 7#c7 ,his power4 ,with regard to ,his grace we must consider two things3 7#a7 ,his grace as ,he is an individual man2 7#b7 ,his grace as ,he is the ,head of the ,church4 ,of the grace of union we have already spoken 7,q4 #b74 ,under the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether in the soul of ,christ there was any habitual grace8 7#b7 ,whether in ,christ there were virtues8 7#c7 ,whether ,he had faith8 7#d7 ,whether ,he had hope8 7#e7 ,whether in ,christ there were the gifts8 7#f7 ,whether in ,christ there was the gift of fear8 7#g7 ,whether in ,christ there were any gratuitous graces8 7#h7 ,whether in ,christ there was prophecy8 7#i7 ,whether there was the fulness of grace in ,him8 7#aj7 ,whether such fulness was proper to ,christ8 7#aa7 ,whether the grace of ,christ was infinite8 7#ab7 ,whether it could have been increased8 7#ac7 ,how this grace stood towards the union8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #a ,whether in the ,soul of ,christ ,there ,was ,any ,habitual ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem there was no habitual grace in the soul assumed by the ,word4 ,for grace is a certain partaking of the ,godhead by the rational creature1 according to #b ,pet4 #a3d3 ,by ,whom ,he hath given us most great and precious promises1 that by these you may be made partakers of the ,divine ,nature4 ,now ,christ is ,god not by participation1 but in truth4 ,therefore there was no habitual grace in ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 grace is necessary to man1 that he may operate well1 according to #a ,cor4 #ae3aj3 ,i have labored more abundantly than all they2 yet not ,i1 but the grace of ,god with me2 and in order that he may reach eternal life1 according to ,rom4 #f3bc3 ,the grace of ,god 7is7 life everlasting4 ,now the inheritance of everlasting life was due to ,christ by the mere fact of ,his being the natural ,son of ,god2 and by the fact of ,his being the ,word1 by ,whom all things were made1 ,he had the power of doing all things well4 ,therefore ,his human nature needed no further grace beyond union with the ,word4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what operates as an instrument does not need a habit for its own operations1 since habits are rooted in the principal agent4 ,now the human nature in ,christ was as the instrument of the ,godhead1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ae74 ,therefore there was no need of habitual grace in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #aa3b73 ,the ,spirit of the ,lord shall rest upon ,him--which 7,spirit71 indeed1 is said to be in man by habitual grace1 as was said above 7,i1 ,q4 #h1 ,a4 #c2 ,q4 #dc1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f74 ,therefore there was habitual grace in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,it is necessary to suppose habitual grace in ,christ for three reasons4 ,first1 on account of the union of ,his soul with the ,word of ,god4 ,for the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause1 the more does it partake of its influence4 ,now the influx of grace is from ,god1 according to ,ps4 #hc3ab3 ,the ,lord will give grace and glory4 ,and hence it was most fitting that ,his soul should receive the influx of ,divine grace4 ,secondly1 on account of the dignity of this soul1 whose operations were to attain so closely to ,god by knowledge and love1 to which it is necessary for human nature to be raised by grace4 ,thirdly1 on account of the relation of ,christ to the human race4 ,for ,christ1 as man1 is the ,mediator of ,god and men1 as is written1 #a ,tim4 #b3e2 and hence it behooved ,him to have grace which would overflow upon others1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,and of ,his fulness we have all received1 and grace for grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is the true ,god in ,divine ,person and ,nature4 ,yet because together with unity of person there remains distinction of natures1 as stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 the soul of ,christ is not essentially ,divine4 ,hence it behooves it to be ,divine by participation1 which is by grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to ,christ1 inasmuch as ,he is the natural ,son of ,god1 is due an eternal inheritance1 which is the uncreated beatitude through the uncreated act of knowledge and love of ,god1 i4e4 the same whereby the ,father knows and loves ,himself4 ,now the soul was not capable of this act1 on account of the difference of natures4 ,hence it behooved it to attain to ,god by a created act of fruition which could not be without grace4 ,likewise1 inasmuch as ,he was the ,word of ,god1 ,he had the power of doing all things well by the ,divine operation4 ,and because it is necessary to admit a human operation1 distinct from the ,divine operation1 as will be shown 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #a71 it was necessary for ,him to have habitual grace1 whereby this operation might be perfect in ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the humanity of ,christ is the instrument of the ,godhead--not1 indeed1 an inanimate instrument1 which nowise acts1 but is merely acted upon2 but an instrument animated by a rational soul1 which is so acted upon as to act4 ,and hence the nature of the action demanded that he should have habitual grace4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #b ,whether in ,christ ,there ,were ,virtues8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there were no virtues4 ,for ,christ had the plenitude of grace4 ,now grace is sufficient for every good act1 according to #b ,cor4 #ab3i3 ,my grace is sufficient for thee4 ,therefore there were no virtues in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 vii1 #a71 virtue is contrasted with a certain heroic or godlike habit which is attributed to godlike men4 ,but this belongs chiefly to ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ had not virtues1 but something higher than virtue4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 all the virtues are bound together4 ,but it was not becoming for ,christ to have all the virtues1 as is clear in the case of liberality and magnificence1 for these have to do with riches1 which ,christ spurned1 according to ,matt4 #h3bj3 ,the ,son of man hath not where to lay ,his head4 ,temperance and continence also regard wicked desires1 from which ,christ was free4 ,therefore ,christ had not the virtues4 ,on the contrary1 on ,ps4 #a3b1 ,but ,his will is in the law of the ,lord1 a gloss says3 ,this refers to ,christ1 ,who is full of all good4 ,but a good quality of the mind is a virtue4 ,therefore ,christ was full of all virtue4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d71 as grace regards the essence of the soul1 so does virtue regard its power4 ,hence it is necessary that as the powers of the soul flow from its essence1 so do the virtues flow from grace4 ,now the more perfect a principle is1 the more it impresses its effects4 ,hence1 since the grace of ,christ was most perfect1 there flowed from it1 in consequence1 the virtues which perfect the several powers of the soul for all the soul's acts2 and thus ,christ had all the virtues4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,grace suffices a man for all whereby he is ordained to beatitude2 nevertheless1 it effects some of these by itself--as to make him pleasing to ,god1 and the like2 and some others through the medium of the virtues which proceed from grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a heroic or godlike habit only differs from virtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode1 inasmuch as one is disposed to good in a higher way than is common to all4 ,hence it is not hereby proved that ,christ had not the virtues1 but that ,he had them most perfectly beyond the common mode4 ,in this sense ,plotinus gave to a certain sublime degree of virtue the name of virtue of the purified soul 7cf4 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fa1 ,a4 #e74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy in regard to riches1 inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the extent of wishing to retain it1 so as to forego what ought to be done4 ,but he esteems them least who wholly despises them1 and casts them aside for love of perfection4 ,and hence by altogether contemning all riches1 ,christ showed the highest kind of liberality and magnificence2 although ,he also performed the act of liberality1 as far as it became ,him1 by causing to be distributed to the poor what was given to ,himself4 ,hence1 when our ,lord said to ,judas 7,john #ac3ba71 ,that which thou dost do quickly1 the disciples understood our ,lord to have ordered him to give something to the poor4 ,but ,christ had no evil desires whatever1 as will be shown 7,q4 #ae1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b72 yet ,he was not thereby prevented from having temperance1 which is the more perfect in man1 as he is without evil desires4 ,hence1 according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 vii1 #i71 the temperate man differs from the continent in this--that the temperate has not the evil desires which the continent suffers4 ,hence1 taking continence in this sense1 as the ,philosopher takes it1 ,christ1 from the very fact that ,he had all virtue1 had not continence1 since it is not a virtue1 but something less than virtue4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #c ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was ,faith8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was faith in ,christ4 ,for faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues1 e4g4 temperance and liberality4 ,now these were in ,christ1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,much more1 therefore1 was there faith in ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ did not teach virtues which ,he had not ,himself1 according to ,acts #a3a3 ,jesus began to do and to teach4 ,but of ,christ it is said 7,heb4 #ab3b7 that ,he is the author and finisher of our faith4 ,therefore there was faith in ,him before all others4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed4 ,but in the blessed there is faith2 for on ,rom4 #a3ag1 the justice of ,god is revealed therein from faith to faith1 a gloss says3 ,from the faith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight4 ,therefore it would seem that in ,christ also there was faith1 since it implies nothing imperfect4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #aa3a73 ,faith is the evidence of things that appear not4 ,but there was nothing that did not appear to ,christ1 according to what ,peter said to ,him 7,john #ba3ag73 ,thou knowest all things4 ,therefore there was no faith in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #a1 ,a4 #d71 the object of faith is a ,divine thing not seen4 ,now the habit of virtue1 as every other habit1 takes its species from the object4 ,hence1 if we deny that the ,divine thing was not seen1 we exclude the very essence of faith4 ,now from the first moment of ,his conception ,christ saw ,god's ,essence fully1 as will be made clear 7,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence there could be no faith in ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues1 seeing that it has to do with nobler matter2 nevertheless1 it implies a certain defect with regard to that matter2 and this defect was not in ,christ4 ,and hence there could be no faith in ,him1 although the moral virtues were in ,him1 since in their nature they imply no defect with regard to their matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the merit of faith consists in this--that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see1 according to ,rom4 #a3e3 ,for obedience to the faith in all nations for ,his name4 ,now ,christ had most perfect obedience to ,god1 according to ,phil4 #b3h3 ,becoming obedient unto death4 ,and hence ,he taught nothing pertaining to merit which ,he did not fulfil more perfectly ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as a gloss says in the same place1 faith is that whereby such things as are not seen are believed4 ,but faith in things seen is improperly so called1 and only after a certain similitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g4 ,art4 #d ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was ,hope8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was hope in ,christ4 ,for it is said in the ,person of ,christ 7,ps4 #cj3a73 ,in ,thee1 ,o ,lord1 have ,i hoped4 ,but the virtue of hope is that whereby a man hopes in ,god4 ,therefore the virtue of hope was in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 hope is the expectation of the bliss to come1 as was shown above 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #ag1 ,a4 #e1 ad #c74 ,but ,christ awaited something pertaining to bliss1 viz4 the glorifying of ,his body4 ,therefore it seems there was hope in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 everyone may hope for what pertains to his perfection1 if it has yet to come4 ,but there was something still to come pertaining to ,christ's perfection1 according to ,eph4 #d3ab3 ,for the perfecting of the saints1 for the work of the ministry1 for the building up ,douay3 'edifying' of the body of ,christ4 ,hence it seems that it befitted ,christ to have hope4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #h3bd73 ,what a man seeth1 why doth he hope for8 ,thus it is clear that as faith is of the unseen1 so also is hope4 ,but there was no faith in ,christ1 as was said above 7,a4 #a73 neither1 consequently1 was there hope4 ,i answer that1 ,as it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what one sees not1 so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what as yet one has not2 and as faith1 forasmuch as it is a theological virtue1 does not regard everything unseen1 but only ,god2 so likewise hope1 as a theological virtue1 has ,god ,himself for its object1 the fruition of ,whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of hope2 yet1 in consequence1 whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the ,divine aid in other things1 even as he who has the virtue of faith believes ,god not only in ,divine things1 but even in whatsoever is divinely revealed4 ,now from the beginning of ,his conception ,christ had the ,divine fruition fully1 as will be shown 7,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #d71 and hence he had not the virtue of hope4 ,nevertheless ,he had hope as regards such things as ,he did not yet possess1 although ,he had not faith with regard to anything2 because1 although ,he knew all things fully1 wherefore faith was altogether wanting to ,him1 nevertheless ,he did not as yet fully possess all that pertained to ,his perfection1 viz4 immortality and glory of the body1 which ,he could hope for4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this is said of ,christ with reference to hope1 not as a theological virtue1 but inasmuch as ,he hoped for some other things not yet possessed1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the glory of the body does not pertain to beatitude as being that in which beatitude principally consists1 but by a certain outpouring from the soul's glory1 as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #f74 ,hence hope1 as a theological virtue1 does not regard the bliss of the body but the soul's bliss1 which consists in the ,divine fruition4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the building up of the church by the conversion of the faithful does not pertain to the perfection of ,christ1 whereby ,he is perfect in ,himself1 but inasmuch as it leads others to a share of ,his perfection4 ,and because hope properly regards what is expected by him who hopes1 the virtue of hope cannot properly be said to be in ,christ1 because of the aforesaid reason4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #e ,whether in ,christ ,there ,were the ,gifts8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the gifts were not in ,christ4 ,for1 as is commonly said1 the gifts are given to help the virtues4 ,but what is perfect in itself does not need an exterior help4 ,therefore1 since the virtues of ,christ were perfect1 it seems there were no gifts in ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to give and to receive gifts would not seem to belong to the same2 since to give pertains to one who has1 and to receive pertains to one who has not4 ,but it belongs to ,christ to give gifts according to ,ps4 #fg3ai4 ,thou hast given gifts to men ,vulg43 ',thou hast received gifts in men'4 ,therefore it was not becoming that ,christ should receive gifts of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 four gifts would seem to pertain to the contemplation of earth1 viz4 wisdom1 knowledge1 understanding1 and counsel which pertains to prudence2 hence the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 vi1 #c7 enumerates these with the intellectual virtues4 ,but ,christ had the contemplation of heaven4 ,therefore ,he had not these gifts4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #d3a73 ,seven women shall take hold of one man3 on which a gloss says3 ,that is1 the seven gifts of the ,holy ,ghost shall take hold of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #a71 the gifts1 properly1 are certain perfections of the soul's powers1 inasmuch as these have a natural aptitude to be moved by the ,holy ,ghost1 according to ,luke #d3a3 ,and ,jesus1 being full of the ,holy ,ghost1 returned from the ,jordan1 and was led by the ,spirit into the desert4 ,hence it is manifest that in ,christ the gifts were in a pre-eminent degree4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,what is perfect in the order of its nature needs to be helped by something of a higher nature2 as man1 however perfect1 needs to be helped by ,god4 ,and in this way the virtues1 which perfect the powers of the soul1 as they are controlled by reason1 no matter how perfect they are1 need to be helped by the gifts1 which perfect the soul's powers1 inasmuch as these are moved by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is not a recipient and a giver of the gifts of the ,holy ,ghost1 in the same respect2 for ,he gives them as ,god and receives them as man4 ,hence ,gregory says 7,moral4 ii7 that the ,holy ,ghost never quitted the human nature of ,christ1 from ,whose ,divine nature ,he proceedeth4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in ,christ there was not only heavenly knowledge1 but also earthly knowledge1 as will be said 7,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #aj74 ,and yet even in heaven the gifts of the ,holy ,ghost will still exist1 in a certain manner1 as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #f74 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #f ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was the ,gift of ,fear8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was not the gift of fear4 ,for hope would seem to be stronger than fear2 since the object of hope is goodness1 and of fear1 evil1 as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #dj1 ,a4 #a2 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #db1 ,a4 #a74 ,but in ,christ there was not the virtue of hope1 as was said above 7,a4 #d74 ,hence1 likewise1 there was not the gift of fear in ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by the gift of fear we fear either to be separated from ,god1 which pertains to chaste fear--or to be punished by ,him1 which pertains to servile fear1 as ,augustine says 7,in ,joan4 ,tract4 ix74 ,but ,christ did not fear being separated from ,god by sin1 nor being punished by ,him on account of a fault1 since it was impossible for ,him to sin1 as will be said 7,q4 #ae1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,now fear is not of the impossible4 ,therefore in ,christ there was not the gift of fear4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,john #d3ah7 that perfect charity casteth out fear4 ,but in ,christ there was most perfect charity1 according to ,eph4 #c3ai3 ,the charity of ,christ which surpasseth all knowledge4 ,therefore in ,christ there was not the gift of fear4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #aa3c73 ,and ,he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the ,lord4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #db1 ,a4 #a71 fear regards two objects1 one of which is an evil causing terror2 the other is that by whose power an evil can be inflicted1 as we fear the king inasmuch as he has the power of putting to death4 ,now whoever can hurt would not be feared unless he had a certain greatness of might1 to which resistance could not easily be offered2 for what we easily repel we do not fear4 ,and hence it is plain that no one is feared except for some pre-eminence4 ,and in this way it is said that in ,christ there was the fear of ,god1 not indeed as it regards the evil of separation from ,god by fault1 nor as it regards the evil of punishment for fault2 but inasmuch as it regards the ,divine pre-eminence1 on account of which the soul of ,christ1 led by the ,holy ,spirit1 was borne towards ,god in an act of reverence4 ,hence it is said 7,heb4 #e3g7 that in all things he was heard for his reverence4 ,for ,christ as man had this act of reverence towards ,god in a fuller sense and beyond all others4 ,and hence ,scripture attributes to ,him the fulness of the fear of the ,lord4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness properly and of themselves2 but evil1 consequently2 since it pertains to the nature of virtue to render acts good1 as is said ,ethic4 ii1 #f4 ,and hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that evil which fear is concerned with1 but the pre-eminence of that goodness1 viz4 of ,god1 by ,whose power evil may be inflicted4 ,on the other hand1 hope1 as a virtue1 regards not only the author of good1 but even the good itself1 as far as it is not yet possessed4 ,and hence to ,christ1 ,who already possessed the perfect good of beatitude1 we do not attribute the virtue of hope1 but we do attribute the gift of fear4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this reason is based on fear in so far as it regards the evil object4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,perfect charity casts out servile fear1 which principally regards punishment4 ,but this kind of fear was not in ,christ4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,gratuitous ,graces ,were in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in ,christ4 ,for whoever has anything in its fulness1 to him it does not pertain to have it by participation4 ,now ,christ has grace in its fulness1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,full of grace and truth4 ,but the gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations1 bestowed distributively and particularly upon divers subjects1 according to #a ,cor4 #ab3d3 ,now there are diversities of graces4 ,therefore it would seem that there were no gratuitous graces in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is due to anyone would not seem to be gratuitously bestowed on him4 ,but it was due to the man ,christ that ,he should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge1 and to be mighty in doing wonderful works and the like1 all of which pertain to gratuitous graces3 since ,he is the power of ,god and the wisdom of ,god1 as is written #a ,cor4 #a3bd4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ to have the gratuitous graces4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of the faithful4 ,but it does not seem that a habit which a man does not use is for the benefit of others1 according to ,ecclus4 #bj3cb3 ,wisdom that is hid and treasure that is not seen3 what profit is there in them both8 ,now we do not read that ,christ made use of these gratuitously given graces1 especially as regards the gift of tongues4 ,therefore not all the gratuitous graces were in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dardan4 cclxxxvii7 that as in the head are all the senses1 so in ,christ were all the graces4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #c1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d71 the gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and spiritual doctrine4 ,for it behooves him who teaches to have the means of making his doctrine clear2 otherwise his doctrine would be useless4 ,now ,christ is the first and chief teacher of spiritual doctrine and faith1 according to ,heb4 #b3c1 #d3 ,which having begun to be declared by the ,lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard ,him1 ,god also bearing them witness by signs and wonders4 ,hence it is clear that all the gratuitous graces were most excellently in ,christ1 as in the first and chief teacher of the faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious acts both interior and exterior1 so likewise gratuitous grace is ordained to certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith1 as the working of miracles1 and the like4 ,now of both these graces ,christ had the fulness1 since inasmuch as ,his soul was united to the ,godhead1 ,he had the perfect power of effecting all these acts4 ,but other saints who are moved by ,god as separated and not united instruments1 receive power in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that act4 ,and hence in other saints these graces are divided1 but not in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is said to be the power of ,god and the wisdom of ,god1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,eternal ,son of ,god4 ,but in this respect it does not pertain to ,him to have grace1 but rather to be the bestower of grace2 but it pertains to ,him in ,his human nature to have grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles1 because they were sent to teach all nations2 but ,christ wished to preach personally only in the one nation of the ,jews1 as ,he ,himself says 7,matt4 #ae3bd73 ,i was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of ,israel2 and the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ae3h73 ,i say that ,christ ,jesus was minister of the circumcision4 ,and hence it was not necessary for ,him to speak several languages4 ,yet was a knowledge of all languages not wanting to ,him1 since even the secrets of hearts1 of which all words are signs1 were not hidden from ,him1 as will be shown 7,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #b74 ,nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed1 just as it is not useless to have a habit1 which we do not use when there is no occasion4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #h ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was the ,gift of ,prophecy8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was not the gift of prophecy4 ,for prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect knowledge1 according to ,num4 #ab3f3 ,if there be among you a prophet of the ,lord1 ,i will appear to him in a vision1 or ,i will speak to him in a dream4 ,but ,christ had full and unveiled knowledge1 much more than ,moses1 of whom it is subjoined that plainly and not by riddles and figures doth he see ,god 7,num4 #f3h74 ,therefore we ought not to admit prophecy in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as faith has to do with what is not seen1 and hope with what is not possessed1 so prophecy has to do with what is not present1 but distant2 for a prophet means1 as it were1 a teller of far-off things4 ,but in ,christ there could be neither faith nor hope1 as was said above 7,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,hence prophecy also ought not to be admitted in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel2 hence ,moses1 who was the greatest of the prophets1 as was said above 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #agd1 ,a4 #d7 is said 7,acts #g3ch7 to have spoken with an angel in the desert4 ,but ,christ was made lower than the angels1 not as to the knowledge of ,his soul1 but only as regards the sufferings of ,his body1 as is shown ,heb4 #b3i4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ was not a prophet4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written of ,him 7,deut4 #ah3ae73 ,thy ,god will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren1 and ,he says of ,himself 7,matt4 #ac3eg2 ,john #d3dd73 ,a prophet is not without honor1 save in his own country4 ,i answer that1 ,a prophet means1 as it were1 a teller or seer of far-off things1 inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from men's senses1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xvi1 #ah74 ,now we must bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing and announcing what is distant from others1 with whom he is not4 ,and this is clear in regard to place and time4 ,for if anyone living in ,france were to know and announce to others living in ,france what things were transpiring in ,syria1 it would be prophetical1 as ,eliseus told ,giezi 7#d ,kings #e3bf7 how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him4 ,but if anyone living in ,syria were to announce what things were there1 it would not be prophetical4 ,and the same appears in regard to time4 ,for it was prophetical of ,isaias to announce that ,cyrus1 ,king of the ,persians1 would rebuild the temple of ,god1 as is clear from ,isa4 #dd3bh4 ,but it was not prophetical of ,esdras to write it1 in whose time it took place4 ,hence if ,god or angels1 or even the blessed1 know and announce what is beyond our knowing1 this does not pertain to prophecy1 since they nowise touch our state4 ,now ,christ before ,his passion touched our state1 inasmuch as ,he was not merely a comprehensor1 but a wayfarer4 ,hence it was prophetical in ,him to know and announce what was beyond the knowledge of other wayfarers3 and for this reason ,he is called a prophet4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these words do not prove that enigmatical knowledge1 viz4 by dream and vision1 belongs to the nature of prophecy2 but the comparison is drawn between other prophets1 who saw ,divine things in dreams and visions1 and ,moses1 who saw ,god plainly and not by riddles1 and who yet is called a prophet1 according to ,deut4 #bd3aj3 ,and there arose no more a prophet in ,israel like unto ,moses4 ,nevertheless it may be said that although ,christ had full and unveiled knowledge as regards the intellective part1 yet in the imaginative part ,he had certain similitudes1 in which ,divine things could be viewed1 inasmuch as ,he was not only a comprehensor1 but a wayfarer4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,faith regards such things as are unseen by him who believes2 and hope1 too1 is of such things as are not possessed by the one who hopes2 but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the sense of men1 with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this state of life4 ,and hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of ,christ's beatitude2 but prophecy is not4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,angels1 being comprehensors1 are above prophets1 who are merely wayfarers2 but not above ,christ1 ,who was both a comprehensor and a wayfarer4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #i ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was the ,fulness of ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was not the fulness of grace4 ,for the virtues flow from grace1 as was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d74 ,but in ,christ there were not all the virtues2 for there was neither faith nor hope in ,him1 as was shown above 7,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,therefore in ,christ there was not the fulness of grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as is plain from what was said above 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaa1 ,a4 #b71 grace is divided into operating and cooperating4 ,now operating grace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified1 which has no place in ,christ1 ,who never lay under any sin4 ,therefore in ,christ there was not the fulness of grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,james #a3ag73 ,every best gift and every perfect gift is from above1 coming down from the ,father of lights4 ,but what comes thus is possessed partially1 and not fully4 ,therefore no creature1 not even the soul of ,christ1 can have the fulness of the gifts of grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3ad73 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' full of grace and truth4 ,i answer that1 ,to have fully is to have wholly and perfectly4 ,now totality and perfection can be taken in two ways3 ,first as regards their intensive quantity2 for instance1 ,i may say that some man has whiteness fully1 because he has as much of it as can naturally be in him2 secondly1 as regards power2 for instance1 if anyone be said to have life fully1 inasmuch as he has it in all the effects or works of life2 and thus man has life fully1 but senseless animals or plants have not4 ,now in both these ways ,christ has the fulness of grace4 ,first1 since ,he has grace in its highest degree1 in the most perfect way it can be had4 ,and this appears1 first1 from the nearness of ,christ's soul to the cause of grace4 ,for it was said above 7,a4 #a7 that the nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause1 the more it receives4 ,and hence the soul of ,christ1 which is more closely united to ,god than all other rational creatures1 receives the greatest outpouring of ,his grace4 ,secondly1 in ,his relation to the effect4 ,for the soul of ,christ so received grace1 that1 in a manner1 it is poured out from it upon others4 ,and hence it behooved ,him to have the greatest grace2 as fire which is the cause of heat in other hot things1 is of all things the hottest4 ,likewise1 as regards the virtue of grace1 ,he had grace fully1 since ,he had it for all the operations and effects of grace2 and this1 because grace was bestowed on ,him1 as upon a universal principle in the genus of such as have grace4 ,now the virtue of the first principle of a genus universally extends itself to all the effects of that genus2 thus the force of the sun1 which is the universal cause of generation1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 i71 extends to all things that come under generation4 ,hence the second fulness of grace is seen in ,christ inasmuch as ,his grace extends to all the effects of grace1 which are the virtues1 gifts1 and the like4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,faith and hope signify effects of grace with certain defects on the part of the recipient of grace1 inasmuch as faith is of the unseen1 and hope of what is not yet possessed4 ,hence it was not necessary that in ,christ1 ,who is the author of grace1 there should be any defects such as faith and hope imply2 but whatever perfection is in faith and hope was in ,christ most perfectly2 as in fire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the subject's defect1 but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it pertains essentially to operating grace to justify2 but that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it on the part of the subject1 in which sin is found4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ was justified by operating grace1 inasmuch as it was rendered just and holy by it from the beginning of ,his conception2 not that it was until then sinful1 or even not just4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the fulness of grace is attributed to the soul of ,christ according to the capacity of the creature and not by comparison with the infinite fulness of the ,divine goodness4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #aj ,whether the ,fulness of ,grace ,is ,proper to ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to ,christ4 ,for what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone4 ,but to be full of grace is attributed to some others2 for it was said to the ,blessed ,virgin 7,luke #a3bh73 ,hail1 full of grace2 and again it is written 7,acts #f3h73 ,stephen1 full of grace and fortitude4 ,therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what can be communicated to others through ,christ does not seem to be proper to ,christ4 ,but the fulness of grace can be communicated to others through ,christ1 since the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #c3ai73 ,that you may be filled unto all the fulness of ,god4 ,therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the state of the wayfarer seems to be proportioned to the state of the comprehensor4 ,but in the state of the comprehensor there will be a certain fulness1 since in our heavenly country with its fulness of all good1 although some things are bestowed in a pre-eminent way1 yet nothing is possessed singularly1 as is clear from ,gregory 7,hom4 ,de ,cent4 ,ovib42 xxxiv in ,ev474 ,therefore in the state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is possessed by everyone1 and hence the fulness of grace is not proper to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,the fulness of grace is attributed to ,christ inasmuch as ,he is the only-begotten of the ,father1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' as it were 4 4 4 the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth4 ,but to be the ,only-begotten of the ,father is proper to ,christ4 ,therefore it is proper to ,him to be full of grace and truth4 ,i answer that1 ,the fulness of grace may be taken in two ways3 ,first1 on the part of grace itself1 or secondly on the part of the one who has grace4 ,now on the part of grace itself there is said to be the fulness of grace when the limit of grace is attained1 as to essence and power1 inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest possible excellence and in its greatest possible extension to all its effects4 ,and this fulness of grace is proper to ,christ4 ,but on the part of the subject there is said to be the fulness of grace when anyone fully possesses grace according to his condition--whether as regards intensity1 by reason of grace being intense in him1 to the limit assigned by ,god1 according to ,eph4 #d3a3 ,but to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of ,christ--or as regards power1 by reason of a man having the help of grace for all that belongs to his office or state1 as the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #c3h73 ,to me1 the least of all the saints1 is given this grace 4 4 4 to enlighten all men4 ,and this fulness of grace is not proper to ,christ1 but is communicated to others by ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,blessed ,virgin is said to be full of grace1 not on the part of grace itself--since she had not grace in its greatest possible excellence--nor for all the effects of grace2 but she is said to be full of grace in reference to herself1 i4e4 inasmuch as she had sufficient grace for the state to which ,god had chosen her1 i4e4 to be the mother of ,his ,only-begotten4 ,so1 too1 ,stephen is said to be full of grace1 since he had sufficient grace to be a fit minister and witness of ,god1 to which office he had been called4 ,and the same must be said of others4 ,of these fulnesses one is greater than another1 according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher or lower state4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,apostle is there speaking of that fulness which has reference to the subject1 in comparison with what man is divinely pre-ordained to2 and this is either something in common1 to which all the saints are pre-ordained1 or something special1 which pertains to the pre-eminence of some4 ,and in this manner a certain fulness of grace is common to all the saints1 viz4 to have grace enough to merit eternal life1 which consists in the enjoyment of ,god4 ,and this is the fulness of grace which the ,apostle desires for the faithful to whom he writes4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these gifts which are in common in heaven1 viz43 vision1 possession and fruition1 and the like1 have certain gifts corresponding to them in this life which are also common to all the saints4 ,yet there are certain prerogatives of saints1 both in heaven and on earth1 which are not possessed by all4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #aa ,whether the ,grace of ,christ ,is ,infinite8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's grace is infinite4 ,for everything immeasurable is infinite4 ,but the grace of ,christ is immeasurable2 since it is written 7,john #c3cd73 ,for ,god doth not give the ,spirit by measure to ,his ,son 99',to ,his ,son' is lacking in the ,vulgate1 namely ,christ4 ,therefore the grace of ,christ is infinite4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 an infinite effect betokens an infinite power which can only spring from an infinite essence4 ,but the effect of ,christ's grace is infinite1 since it extends to the salvation of the whole human race2 for ,he is the propitiation for our sins 4 4 4 and for those of the whole world1 as is said 7#a ,john #b3b74 ,therefore the grace of ,christ is infinite4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every finite thing by addition can attain to the quantity of any other finite thing4 ,therefore if the grace of ,christ is finite the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as to reach to an equality with ,christ's grace1 against what is written 7,job #bh3ag73 ,gold nor crystal cannot equal it1 as ,gregory expounds it 7,moral4 xviii74 ,therefore the grace of ,christ is infinite4 ,on the contrary1 ,grace is something created in the soul4 ,but every created thing is finite1 according to ,wis4 #aa3ba3 ,thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight4 ,therefore the grace of ,christ is not infinite4 ,i answer that1 ,as was made clear above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #aj71 a twofold grace may be considered in ,christ2 the first being the grace of union1 which1 as was said 7,q4 #f1 ,a4 #f71 is for ,him to be personally united to the ,son of ,god1 which union has been bestowed gratis on the human nature2 and it is clear that this grace is infinite1 as the ,person of ,god is infinite4 ,the second is habitual grace2 which may be taken in two ways3 first as a being1 and in this way it must be a finite being1 since it is in the soul of ,christ1 as in a subject1 and ,christ's soul is a creature having a finite capacity2 hence the being of grace cannot be infinite1 since it cannot exceed its subject4 ,secondly it may be viewed in its specific nature of grace2 and thus the grace of ,christ can be termed infinite1 since it is not limited1 i4e4 it has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace1 and what pertains to the nature of grace is not bestowed on ,him in a fixed measure2 seeing that according to the purpose of ,god to ,whom it pertains to measure grace1 it is bestowed on ,christ's soul as on a universal principle for bestowing grace on human nature1 according to ,eph4 #a3e1 #f1 ,he hath graced us in ,his beloved ,son2 thus we might say that the light of the sun is infinite1 not indeed in being1 but in the nature of light1 as having whatever can pertain to the nature of light4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when it is said that the ,father doth not give the ,spirit by measure1 it may be expounded of the gift which ,god the ,father from all eternity gave the ,son1 viz4 the ,divine ,nature1 which is an infinite gift4 ,hence the comment of a certain gloss3 ,so that the ,son may be as great as the ,father is4 ,or again1 it may be referred to the gift which is given the human nature1 to be united to the ,divine ,person1 and this also is an infinite gift4 ,hence a gloss says on this text3 ,as the ,father begot a full and perfect ,word1 it is united thus full and perfect to human nature4 ,thirdly1 it may be referred to habitual grace1 inasmuch as the grace of ,christ extends to whatever belongs to grace4 ,hence ,augustine expounding this 7,tract4 xiv in ,joan47 says3 ,the division of the gifts is a measurement4 ,for to one indeed by the ,spirit is given the word of wisdom1 to another the word of knowledge4 ,but ,christ the giver does not receive by measure4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the grace of ,christ has an infinite effect1 both because of the aforesaid infinity of grace1 and because of the unity 99,perhaps we should read 'infinity'--,ed4 of the ,divine ,person1 to ,whom ,christ's soul is united4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the lesser can attain by augment to the quantity of the greater1 when both have the same kind of quantity4 ,but the grace of any man is compared to the grace of ,christ as a particular to a universal power2 hence as the force of fire1 no matter how much it increases1 can never equal the sun's strength1 so the grace of a man1 no matter how much it increases1 can never equal the grace of ,christ4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #ab ,whether the ,grace of ,christ ,could ,increase8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the grace of ,christ could increase4 ,for to every finite thing addition can be made4 ,but the grace of ,christ was finite4 ,therefore it could increase4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is by ,divine power that grace is increased1 according to #b ,cor4 #i3h3 ,and ,god is able to make all grace abound in you4 ,but the ,divine power1 being infinite1 is confined by no limits4 ,therefore it seems that the grace of ,christ could have been greater4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,luke #b3eb7 that the child ,jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with ,god and men4 ,therefore the grace of ,christ could increase4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3ad73 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' as it were 4 4 4 the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth4 ,but nothing can be or can be thought greater than that anyone should be the ,only-begotten of the ,father4 ,therefore no greater grace can be or can be thought than that of which ,christ was full4 ,i answer that1 ,for a form to be incapable of increase happens in two ways3 ,first on the part of the subject2 secondly1 on the part of the form itself4 ,on the part of the subject1 indeed1 when the subject reaches the utmost limit wherein it partakes of this form1 after its own manner1 e4g4 if we say that air cannot increase in heat1 when it has reached the utmost limit of heat which can exist in the nature of air1 although there may be greater heat in actual existence1 viz4 the heat of fire4 ,but on the part of the form1 the possibility of increase is excluded when a subject reaches the utmost perfection which this form can have by nature1 e4g4 if we say the heat of fire cannot be increased because there cannot be a more perfect grade of heat than that to which fire attains4 ,now the proper measure of grace1 like that of other forms1 is determined by the ,divine wisdom1 according to ,wis4 #aa3ba3 ,thou hast ordered all things in number1 weight and measure4 ,and it is with reference to its end that a measure is set to every form1 as there is no greater gravity than that of the earth1 because there is no lower place than that of the earth4 ,now the end of grace is the union of the rational creature with ,god4 ,but there can neither be nor be thought a greater union of the rational creature with ,god than that which is in the ,person4 ,and hence the grace of ,christ reached the highest measure of grace4 ,hence it is clear that the grace of ,christ cannot be increased on the part of grace4 ,but neither can it be increased on the part of the subject1 since ,christ as man was a true and full comprehensor from the first instant of ,his conception4 ,hence there could have been no increase of grace in ,him1 as there could be none in the rest of the blessed1 whose grace could not increase1 seeing that they have reached their last end4 ,but as regards men who are wholly wayfarers1 their grace can be increased not merely on the part of the form1 since they have not attained the highest degree of grace1 but also on the part of the subject1 since they have not yet attained their end4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,if we speak of mathematical quantity1 addition can be made to any finite quantity1 since there is nothing on the part of finite quantity which is repugnant to addition4 ,but if we speak of natural quantity1 there may be repugnance on the part of the form to which a determined quantity is due1 even as other accidents are determined4 ,hence the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima ii1 #da7 that there is naturally a term of all things1 and a fixed limit of magnitude and increase4 ,and hence to the quantity of the whole there can be no addition4 ,and still more must we suppose a term in the forms themselves1 beyond which they may not go4 ,hence it is not necessary that addition should be capable of being made to ,christ's grace1 although it is finite in its essence4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the ,divine power can make something greater and better than the habitual grace of ,christ1 yet it could not make it to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with the ,only-begotten ,son of the ,father2 and to this union1 by the purpose of the ,divine wisdom1 the measure of grace is sufficient4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways4 ,first inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased2 and in this way ,christ did not increase4 ,secondly1 as regards the effects1 i4e4 inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works2 and in this way ,christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age1 since in the course of time ,he did more perfect works1 to prove ,himself true man1 both in the things of ,god1 and in the things of man4 ,,thirteenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #g1 ,art4 #ac ,whether the ,habitual ,grace of ,christ ,followed ,after the ,union8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the habitual grace did not follow after the union4 ,for nothing follows itself4 ,but this habitual grace seems to be the same as the grace of union2 for ,augustine says 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,every man becomes a ,christian from the beginning of his belief1 by the same grace whereby this ,man from ,his beginning became ,christ2 and of these two the first pertains to habitual grace and the second to the grace of union4 ,therefore it would seem that habitual grace did not follow upon the union4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 disposition precedes perfection1 if not in time1 at least in thought4 ,but the habitual grace seems to be a disposition in human nature for the personal union4 ,therefore it seems that the habitual grace did not follow but rather preceded the union4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the common precedes the proper4 ,but habitual grace is common to ,christ and other men2 and the grace of union is proper to ,christ4 ,therefore habitual grace is prior in thought to the union4 ,therefore it does not follow it4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #db3a73 ,behold my servant1 ,i will uphold ,him 4 4 4 and farther on3 ,i have given ,my ,spirit upon ,him2 and this pertains to the gift of habitual grace4 ,hence it remains that the assumption of human nature to the unity of the ,person preceded the habitual grace of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,the union of the human nature with the ,divine ,person1 which1 as we have said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #aj2 ,q4 #f1 ,a4 #f71 is the grace of union1 precedes the habitual grace of ,christ1 not in order of time1 but by nature and in thought2 and this for a triple reason3 ,first1 with reference to the order of the principles of both4 ,for the principle of the union is the ,person of the ,son assuming human nature1 ,who is said to be sent into the world1 inasmuch as ,he assumed human nature2 but the principle of habitual grace1 which is given with charity1 is the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who is said to be sent inasmuch as ,he dwells in the mind by charity4 ,now the mission of the ,son is prior1 in the order of nature1 to the mission of the ,holy ,ghost1 even as in the order of nature the ,holy ,ghost proceeds from the ,son1 and love from wisdom4 ,hence the personal union1 according to which the mission of the ,son took place1 is prior in the order of nature to habitual grace1 according to which the mission of the ,holy ,ghost takes place4 ,secondly1 the reason of this order may be taken from the relation of grace to its cause4 ,for grace is caused in man by the presence of the ,godhead1 as light in the air by the presence of the sun4 ,hence it is written 7,ezech4 #dc3b73 ,the glory of the ,god of ,israel came in by the way of the east 4 4 4 and the earth shone with ,his majesty4 ,but the presence of ,god in ,christ is by the union of human nature with the ,divine ,person4 ,hence the habitual grace of ,christ is understood to follow this union1 as light follows the sun4 ,thirdly1 the reason of this union can be taken from the end of grace1 since it is ordained to acting rightly1 and action belongs to the suppositum and the individual4 ,hence action and1 in consequence1 grace ordaining thereto1 presuppose the hypostasis which operates4 ,now the hypostasis did not exist in the human nature before the union1 as is clear from ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #b4 ,therefore the grace of union precedes1 in thought1 habitual grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine here means by grace the gratuitous will of ,god1 bestowing benefits gratis2 and hence every man is said to be made a ,christian by the same grace whereby a ,man became ,christ1 since both take place by the gratuitous will of ,god without merits4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as disposition in the order of generation precedes the perfection to which it disposes1 in such things as are gradually perfected2 so it naturally follows the perfection which one has already obtained2 as heat1 which was a disposition to the form of fire1 is an effect flowing from the form of already existing fire4 ,now the human nature in ,christ is united to the ,person of the ,word from the beginning without succession4 ,hence habitual grace is not understood to have preceded the union1 but to have followed it2 as a natural property4 ,hence1 as ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xl73 ,grace is in a manner natural to the ,man ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the common precedes the proper1 when both are of the same genus2 but when they are of divers genera1 there is nothing to prevent the proper being prior to the common4 ,now the grace of union is not in the same genus as habitual grace2 but is above all genera even as the ,divine ,person ,himself4 ,hence there is nothing to prevent this proper from being before the common since it does not result from something being added to the common1 but is rather the principle and source of that which is common4 ,,question #h ,,of ,,the ,,grace ,,of ,,christ1 ,,as ,,he ,,is ,,the ,,head ,,of ,,the ,,church 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we must now consider the grace of ,christ as the ,head of the ,church2 and under this head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ is the ,head of the ,church8 7#b7 ,whether ,he is the ,head of men as regards their bodies or only as regards their souls8 7#c7 ,whether ,he is the ,head of all men8 7#d7 ,whether ,he is the ,head of the angels8 7#e7 ,whether the grace of ,christ as ,head of the ,church is the same as ,his habitual grace as an individual man8 7#f7 ,whether to be ,head of the ,church is proper to ,christ8 7#g7 ,whether the devil is the head of all the wicked8 7#h7 ,whether ,antichrist can be called the head of all the wicked8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,is the ,head of the ,church8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it does not belong to ,christ as man to be ,head of the ,church4 ,for the head imparts sense and motion to the members4 ,now spiritual sense and motion which are by grace1 are not imparted to us by the ,man ,christ1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #ab2 xv1 #bd71 not even ,christ1 as man1 but only as ,god1 bestows the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it does not belong to ,him as man to be ,head of the ,church4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is not fitting for the head to have a head4 ,but ,god is the ,head of ,christ1 as man1 according to #a ,cor4 #aa3c1 ,the ,head of ,christ is ,god4 ,therefore ,christ ,himself is not a head4 ,obj4 #c3 ,furthermore1 the head of a man is a particular member1 receiving an influx from the heart4 ,but ,christ is the universal principle of the whole ,church4 ,therefore ,he is not the ,head of the ,church4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #a3bb73 ,and ,he 4 4 4 hath made ,him head over all the ,church4 ,i answer that1 ,as the whole ,church is termed one mystic body from its likeness to the natural body of a man1 which in divers members has divers acts1 as the ,apostle teaches 7,rom4 #ab2 #a ,cor4 #ab71 so likewise ,christ is called the ,head of the ,church from a likeness with the human head1 in which we may consider three things1 viz4 order1 perfection1 and power3 ,order1 indeed2 for the head is the first part of man1 beginning from the higher part2 and hence it is that every principle is usually called a head according to ,ezech4 #af3be3 ,at every head of the way1 thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution--,perfection1 inasmuch as in the head dwell all the senses1 both interior and exterior1 whereas in the other members there is only touch1 and hence it is said 7,isa4 #i3ae73 ,the aged and honorable1 he is the head--,power1 because the power and movement of the other members1 together with the direction of them in their acts1 is from the head1 by reason of the sensitive and motive power there ruling2 hence the ruler is called the head of a people1 according to #a ,kings #ae3ag3 ,when thou wast a little one in thy own eyes1 wast thou not made the head of the tribes of ,israel8 ,now these three things belong spiritually to ,christ4 ,first1 on account of ,his nearness to ,god ,his grace is the highest and first1 though not in time1 since all have received grace on account of ,his grace1 according to ,rom4 #h3bi3 ,for whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son2 that ,he might be the first-born amongst many brethren4 ,secondly1 ,he had perfection as regards the fulness of all graces1 according to ,john #a3ad1 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' 4 4 4 full of grace and truth1 as was shown 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #i74 ,thirdly1 ,he has the power of bestowing grace on all the members of the ,church1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we have all received4 ,and thus it is plain that ,christ is fittingly called the ,head of the ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to give grace or the ,holy ,ghost belongs to ,christ as ,he is ,god1 authoritatively2 but instrumentally it belongs also to ,him as man1 inasmuch as ,his manhood is the instrument of ,his ,godhead4 ,and hence by the power of the ,godhead ,his actions were beneficial1 i4e4 by causing grace in us1 both meritoriously and efficiently4 ,but ,augustine denies that ,christ as man gives the ,holy ,ghost authoritatively4 ,even other saints are said to give the ,holy ,ghost instrumentally1 or ministerially1 according to ,gal4 #c3e3 ,he 4 4 4 who giveth to you the ,spirit4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in metaphorical speech we must not expect a likeness in all respects2 for thus there would be not likeness but identity4 ,accordingly a natural head has not another head because one human body is not part of another2 but a metaphorical body1 i4e4 an ordered multitude1 is part of another multitude as the domestic multitude is part of the civil multitude2 and hence the father who is head of the domestic multitude has a head above him1 i4e4 the civil governor4 ,and hence there is no reason why ,god should not be the ,head of ,christ1 although ,christ ,himself is ,head of the ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the head has a manifest pre-eminence over the other exterior members2 but the heart has a certain hidden influence4 ,and hence the ,holy ,ghost is likened to the heart1 since ,he invisibly quickens and unifies the ,church2 but ,christ is likened to the ,head in ,his visible nature in which man is set over man4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,is the ,head of ,men ,as to ,their ,bodies or ,only ,as to ,their ,souls8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ is not the ,head of men as to their bodies4 ,for ,christ is said to be the ,head of the ,church inasmuch as ,he bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on the ,church4 ,but a body is not capable of this spiritual sense and movement4 ,therefore ,christ is not the ,head of men as regards their bodies4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we share bodies with the brutes4 ,if therefore ,christ was the ,head of men as to their bodies1 it would follow that ,he was the ,head of brute animals2 and this is not fitting4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ took ,his body from other men1 as is clear from ,matt4 #a and ,luke #c4 ,but the head is the first of the members1 as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,therefore ,christ is not the ,head of the ,church as regards bodies4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #c3ba73 ,who will reform the body of our lowness1 made like to the body of ,his glory4 ,i answer that1 ,the human body has a natural relation to the rational soul1 which is its proper form and motor4 ,inasmuch as the soul is its form1 it receives from the soul life and the other properties which belong specifically to man2 but inasmuch as the soul is its motor1 the body serves the soul instrumentally4 ,therefore we must hold that the manhood of ,christ had the power of influence1 inasmuch as it is united to the ,word of ,god1 to ,whom ,his body is united through the soul1 as stated above 7,q4 #f1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence the whole manhood of ,christ1 i4e4 according to soul and body1 influences all1 both in soul and body2 but principally the soul1 and secondarily the body3 ,first1 inasmuch as the members of the body are presented as instruments of justice in the soul that lives through ,christ1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3ac73 secondly1 inasmuch as the life of glory flows from the soul on to the body1 according to ,rom4 #h3aa3 ,he that raised up ,jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies1 because of ,his ,spirit that dwelleth in you4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body first and principally1 but secondarily and instrumentally1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the body of an animal has no relation to a rational soul1 as the human body has4 ,hence there is no parity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although ,christ drew the matter of ,his body from other men1 yet all draw from ,him the immortal life of their body1 according to #a ,cor4 #ae3bb3 ,and as in ,adam all die1 so also in ,christ all shall be made alive4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,is the ,head of ,all ,men8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ is not the ,head of all men4 ,for the head has no relation except to the members of its body4 ,now the unbaptized are nowise members of the ,church which is the body of ,christ1 as it is written 7,eph4 #a3bc74 ,therefore ,christ is not the ,head of all men4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle writes to the ,ephesians 7#e3be1 #bg73 ,christ delivered ,himself up for the ,church that ,he might present it to ,himself a glorious ,church1 not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing4 ,but there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or the wrinkle of sin4 ,therefore ,christ is not the ,head of all the faithful4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,old ,law are compared to ,christ as the shadow to the body1 as is written 7,col4 #b3ag74 ,but the fathers of the ,old ,testament in their day served unto these sacraments1 according to ,heb4 #h3e3 ,who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things4 ,hence they did not pertain to ,christ's body1 and therefore ,christ is not the ,head of all men4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,tim4 #d3aj73 ,who is the ,saviour of all men1 especially of the faithful1 and 7#a ,john #b3b73 ,he is the propitiation for our sins1 and not for ours only1 but also for those of the whole world4 ,now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to ,christ as ,head4 ,therefore ,christ is the ,head of all men4 ,i answer that1 ,this is the difference between the natural body of man and the ,church's mystical body1 that the members of the natural body are all together1 and the members of the mystical are not all together--neither as regards their natural being1 since the body of the ,church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end--nor as regards their supernatural being1 since1 of those who are at any one time1 some there are who are without grace1 yet will afterwards obtain it1 and some have it already4 ,we must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act1 but as they are in potentiality4 ,nevertheless1 some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act1 and some are reduced at some time to act2 and this according to the triple class1 of which the first is by faith1 the second by the charity of this life1 the third by the fruition of the life to come4 ,hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general1 ,christ is the ,head of all men1 but diversely4 ,for1 first and principally1 ,he is the ,head of such as are united to ,him by glory2 secondly1 of those who are actually united to ,him by charity2 thirdly1 of those who are actually united to ,him by faith2 fourthly1 of those who are united to ,him merely in potentiality1 which is not yet reduced to act1 yet will be reduced to act according to ,divine predestination2 fifthly1 of those who are united to ,him in potentiality1 which will never be reduced to act2 such are those men existing in the world1 who are not predestined1 who1 however1 on their departure from this world1 wholly cease to be members of ,christ1 as being no longer in potentiality to be united to ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,those who are unbaptized1 though not actually in the ,church1 are in the ,church potentially4 ,and this potentiality is rooted in two things--first and principally1 in the power of ,christ1 which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race2 secondly1 in free-will4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to be a glorious ,church not having spot or wrinkle is the ultimate end to which we are brought by the ,passion of ,christ4 ,hence this will be in heaven1 and not on earth1 in which if we say we have no sin1 we deceive ourselves1 as is written 7#a ,john #a3h74 ,nevertheless1 there are some1 viz4 mortal1 sins from which they are free who are members of ,christ by the actual union of charity2 but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of ,christ actually1 but potentially2 except1 perhaps1 imperfectly1 by formless faith1 which unites to ,god1 relatively but not simply1 viz4 so that man partake of the life of grace4 ,for1 as is written 7,james #b3bj73 ,faith without works is dead4 ,yet such as these receive from ,christ a certain vital act1 i4e4 to believe1 as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the holy ,fathers made use of the legal sacraments1 not as realities1 but as images and shadows of what was to come4 ,now it is the same motion to an image as image1 and to the reality1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,de ,memor4 et ,remin4 ii74 ,hence the ancient ,fathers1 by observing the legal sacraments1 were borne to ,christ by the same faith and love whereby we also are borne to ,him1 and hence the ancient ,fathers belong to the same ,church as we4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,is the ,head of the ,angels8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ as man is not the head of the angels4 ,for the head and members are of one nature4 ,but ,christ as man is not of the same nature with the angels1 but only with men1 since1 as is written 7,heb4 #b3af73 ,for nowhere doth ,he take hold of the angels1 but of the seed of ,abraham ,he taketh hold4 ,therefore ,christ as man is not the head of the angels4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is the head of such as belong to the ,church1 which is ,his ,body1 as is written 7,eph4 #a3bc74 ,but the angels do not belong to the ,church4 ,for the ,church is the congregation of the faithful3 and in the angels there is no faith1 for they do not walk by faith but by sight1 otherwise they would be absent from the ,lord1 as the ,apostle argues 7#b ,cor4 #e3f1 #g74 ,therefore ,christ as man is not head of the angels4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 xix2 xxiii in ,joan471 that as the ,word which was in the beginning with the ,father quickens souls1 so the ,word made flesh quickens bodies1 which angels lack4 ,but the ,word made flesh is ,christ as man4 ,therefore ,christ as man does not give life to angels1 and hence as man ,he is not the head of the angels4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,col4 #b3aj71 ,who is the head of all ,principality and ,power1 and the same reason holds good with the other orders of angels4 ,therefore ,christ is the ,head of the angels4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 where there is one body we must allow that there is one head4 ,now a multitude ordained to one end1 with distinct acts and duties1 may be metaphorically called one body4 ,but it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one end1 which is the glory of the ,divine fruition4 ,hence the mystical body of the ,church consists not only of men but of angels4 ,now of all this multitude ,christ is the ,head1 since ,he is nearer ,god1 and shares ,his gifts more fully1 not only than man1 but even than angels2 and of ,his influence not only men but even angels partake1 since it is written 7,eph4 #a3bj-bb73 that ,god the ,father set ,him1 namely ,christ1 on ,his right hand in the heavenly places1 above all ,principality and ,power and ,virtue and ,dominion and every name that is named not only in this world1 but also in that which is to come4 ,and ,he hath subjected all things under ,his feet4 ,therefore ,christ is not only the ,head of men1 but of angels4 ,hence we read 7,matt4 #d3aa7 that angels came and ministered to ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's influence over men is chiefly with regard to their souls2 wherein men agree with angels in generic nature1 though not in specific nature4 ,by reason of this agreement ,christ can be said to be the ,head of the angels1 although the agreement falls short as regards the body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,church1 on earth1 is the congregation of the faithful2 but1 in heaven1 it is the congregation of comprehensors4 ,now ,christ was not merely a wayfarer1 but a comprehensor4 ,and therefore ,he is the ,head not merely of the faithful1 but of comprehensors1 as having grace and glory most fully4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,augustine here uses the similitude of cause and effect1 i4e4 inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies1 and spiritual things on spiritual things4 ,nevertheless1 the humanity of ,christ1 by virtue of the spiritual nature1 i4e4 the ,divine1 can cause something not only in the spirits of men1 but also in the spirits of angels1 on account of its most close conjunction with ,god1 i4e4 by personal union4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,grace of ,christ1 ,as ,head of the ,church1 ,is the ,same ,as ,his ,habitual ,grace1 ,inasmuch ,as ,he ,is ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the grace whereby ,christ is ,head of the ,church and the individual grace of the ,man are not the same4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ae73 ,if by the offense of one many died1 much more the grace of ,god and the gift1 by the grace of one man1 ,jesus ,christ1 hath abounded unto many4 ,but the actual sin of ,adam is distinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity4 ,hence the personal grace which is proper to ,christ is distinct from ,his grace1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,head of the ,church1 which flows to others from ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 habits are distinguished by acts4 ,but the personal grace of ,christ is ordained to one act1 viz4 the sanctification of ,his soul2 and the capital grace is ordained to another1 viz4 to sanctifying others4 ,therefore the personal grace of ,christ is distinct from ,his grace as ,he is the ,head of the ,church4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as was said above 7,q4 #f1 ,a4 #f71 in ,christ we distinguish a threefold grace1 viz4 the grace of union1 capital grace1 and the individual grace of the ,man4 ,now the individual grace of ,christ is distinct from the grace of union4 ,therefore it is also distinct from the capital grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3af73 ,of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,now ,he is our ,head1 inasmuch as we receive from ,him4 ,therefore ,he is our ,head1 inasmuch as ,he has the fulness of grace4 ,now ,he had the fulness of grace1 inasmuch as personal grace was in ,him in its perfection1 as was said above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #i74 ,hence ,his capital and personal grace are not distinct4 ,i answer that1 ,since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act1 it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts1 as it is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats4 ,yet not every act whereby anything is in act suffices for its being the principle of acting upon others4 ,for since the agent is nobler than the patient1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii1 #af7 and the ,philosopher 7,de ,anima iii1 #ai71 the agent must act on others by reason of a certain pre-eminence4 ,now it was said above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #g1 ,a4 #i7 grace was received by the soul of ,christ in the highest way2 and therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which ,he received1 it is from ,him that this grace is bestowed on others--and this belongs to the nature of head4 ,hence the personal grace1 whereby the soul of ,christ is justified1 is essentially the same as ,his grace1 as ,he is the ,head of the ,church1 and justifies others2 but there is a distinction of reason between them4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,original sin in ,adam1 which is a sin of the nature1 is derived from his actual sin1 which is a personal sin1 because in him the person corrupted the nature2 and by means of this corruption the sin of the first man is transmitted to posterity1 inasmuch as the corrupt nature corrupts the person4 ,now grace is not vouchsafed us by means of human nature1 but solely by the personal action of ,christ ,himself4 ,hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace in ,christ1 one corresponding to the nature1 the other to the person as in ,adam we distinguish the sin of the nature and of the person4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,different acts1 one of which is the reason and the cause of the other1 do not diversify a habit4 ,now the act of the personal grace which is formally to sanctify its subject1 is the reason of the justification of others1 which pertains to capital grace4 ,hence it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this difference4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,personal and capital grace are ordained to an act2 but the grace of union is not ordained to an act1 but to the personal being4 ,hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the essence of the habit2 but the grace of union does not1 although the personal grace can be called in a manner the grace of union1 inasmuch as it brings about a fitness for the union2 and thus the grace of union1 the capital1 and the personal grace are one in essence1 though there is a distinction of reason between them4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,it ,is ,proper to ,christ to ,be ,head of the ,church8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it is not proper to ,christ to be ,head of the ,church4 ,for it is written 7#a ,kings #ae3ag73 ,when thou wast a little one in thy own eyes1 wast thou not made the head of the tribes of ,israel8 ,now there is but one ,church in the ,new and the ,old ,testament4 ,therefore it seems that with equal reason any other man than ,christ might be head of the ,church4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is called ,head of the ,church from ,his bestowing grace on the ,church's members4 ,but it belongs to others also to grant grace to others1 according to ,eph4 #d3bi3 ,let no evil speech proceed from your mouth2 but that which is good to the edification of faith1 that it may administer grace to the hearers4 ,therefore it seems to belong also to others than ,christ to be head of the ,church4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ by ,his ruling over the ,church is not only called ,head1 but also ,shepherd and ,foundation4 ,now ,christ did not retain for ,himself alone the name of ,shepherd1 according to #a ,pet4 #e3d1 ,and when the prince of pastors shall appear1 you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory2 nor the name of ,foundation1 according to ,apoc4 #ba3ad3 ,and the wall of the city had twelve foundations4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not retain the name of ,head for ,himself alone4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,col4 #b3ai73 ,the head of the ,church is that from which the whole body1 by joints and bands being supplied with nourishment and compacted groweth unto the increase of ,god4 ,but this belongs only to ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ alone is ,head of the ,church4 ,i answer that1 ,the head influences the other members in two ways4 ,first1 by a certain intrinsic influence1 inasmuch as motive and sensitive force flow from the head to the other members2 secondly1 by a certain exterior guidance1 inasmuch as by sight and the senses1 which are rooted in the head1 man is guided in his exterior acts4 ,now the interior influx of grace is from no one save ,christ1 ,whose manhood1 through its union with the ,godhead1 has the power of justifying2 but the influence over the members of the ,church1 as regards their exterior guidance1 can belong to others2 and in this way others may be called heads of the ,church1 according to ,amos #f3a1 ,ye great men1 heads of the people2 differently1 however1 from ,christ4 ,first1 inasmuch as ,christ is the ,head of all who pertain to the ,church in every place and time and state2 but all other men are called heads with reference to certain special places1 as bishops of their ,churches4 ,or with reference to a determined time as the ,pope is the head of the whole ,church1 viz4 during the time of his ,pontificate1 and with reference to a determined state1 inasmuch as they are in the state of wayfarers4 ,secondly1 because ,christ is the ,head of the ,church by ,his own power and authority2 while others are called heads1 as taking ,christ's place1 according to #b ,cor4 #b3aj1 ,for what ,i have pardoned1 if ,i have pardoned anything1 for your sakes ,i have done it in the person of ,christ1 and #b ,cor4 #e3bj1 ,for ,christ therefore we are ambassadors1 ,god1 as it were1 exhorting by us4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the word head is employed in that passage in regard to exterior government2 as a king is said to be the head of his kingdom4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man does not distribute grace by interior influx1 but by exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xlvi in ,joan473 ,if the rulers of the ,church are ,shepherds1 how is there one ,shepherd1 except that all these are members of one ,shepherd8 ,so likewise others may be called foundations and heads1 inasmuch as they are members of the one ,head and ,foundation4 ,nevertheless1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xlvii71 ,he gave to ,his members to be shepherds2 yet none of us calleth himself the ,door4 ,he kept this for ,himself alone4 ,and this because by door is implied the principal authority1 inasmuch as it is by the door that all enter the house2 and it is ,christ alone by ,whom also we have access 4 4 4 into this grace1 wherein we stand 7,rom4 #e3b72 but by the other names above-mentioned there may be implied not merely the principal but also the secondary authority4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,devil ,is the ,head of ,all the ,wicked8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the devil is not the head of the wicked4 ,for it belongs to the head to diffuse sense and movement into the members1 as a gloss says1 on ,eph4 #a3bb1 ,and made ,him head1 etc4 ,but the devil has no power of spreading the evil of sin1 which proceeds from the will of the sinner4 ,therefore the devil cannot be called the head of the wicked4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by every sin a man is made evil4 ,but not every sin is from the devil2 and this is plain as regards the demons1 who did not sin through the persuasion of another2 so likewise not every sin of man proceeds from the devil1 for it is said 7,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 lxxxii73 ,not all our wicked thoughts are always raised up by the suggestion of the devil2 but sometimes they spring from the movement of our will4 ,therefore the devil is not the head of all the wicked4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 one head is placed on one body4 ,but the whole multitude of the wicked do not seem to have anything in which they are united1 for evil is contrary to evil and springs from divers defects1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,therefore the devil cannot be called the head of all the wicked4 ,on the contrary1 ,a gloss 99,st4 ,gregory1 ,moral4 xiv on ,job #ah3ag1 ,let the memory of him perish from the earth1 says3 ,this is said of every evil one1 yet so as to be referred to the head1 i4e4 the devil4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #f71 the head not only influences the members interiorly1 but also governs them exteriorly1 directing their actions to an end4 ,hence it may be said that anyone is the head of a multitude1 either as regards both1 i4e4 by interior influence and exterior governance1 and thus ,christ is the ,head of the ,church1 as was stated 7,a4 #f72 or as regards exterior governance1 and thus every prince or prelate is head of the multitude subject to him4 ,and in this way the devil is head of all the wicked4 ,for1 as is written 7,job #da3be73 ,he is king over all the children of pride4 ,now it belongs to a governor to lead those whom he governs to their end4 ,but the end of the devil is the aversion of the rational creature from ,god2 hence from the beginning he has endeavored to lead man from obeying the ,divine precept4 ,but aversion from ,god has the nature of an end1 inasmuch as it is sought for under the appearance of liberty1 according to ,jer4 #b3bj3 ,of old time thou hast broken my yoke1 thou hast burst my bands1 and thou saidst1 ',i will not serve4' ,hence1 inasmuch as some are brought to this end by sinning1 they fall under the rule and government of the devil1 and therefore he is called their head4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the devil does not influence the rational mind interiorly1 yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a governor does not always suggest to his subjects to obey his will2 but proposes to all the sign of his will1 in consequence of which some are incited by inducement1 and some of their own free-will1 as is plain in the leader of an army1 whose standard all the soldiers follow1 though no one persuades them4 ,therefore in the same way1 the first sin of the devil1 who sinneth from the beginning 7#a ,john #c3h71 is held out to all to be followed1 and some imitate at his suggestion1 and some of their own will without any suggestion4 ,and hence the devil is the head of all the wicked1 inasmuch as they imitate ,him1 according to ,wis4 #b3bd1 #be3 ,by the envy of the devil1 death came into the world4 ,and they follow him that are of his side4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,all sins agree in aversion from ,god1 although they differ by conversion to different changeable goods4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #h1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,antichrist ,may ,be ,called the ,head of ,all the ,wicked8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,antichrist is not the head of the wicked4 ,for there are not several heads of one body4 ,but the devil is the head of the multitude of the wicked4 ,therefore ,antichrist is not their head4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,antichrist is a member of the devil4 ,now the head is distinguished from the members4 ,therefore ,antichrist is not the head of the wicked4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the head has an influence over the members4 ,but ,antichrist has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him4 ,therefore ,antichrist is not the head of the wicked4 ,on the contrary1 ,a gloss 99,st4 ,gregory1 ,moral4 xv on ,job #ba3bi1 ,ask any of them that go by the way1 says3 ,whilst he was speaking of the body of all the wicked1 suddenly he turned his speech to ,antichrist the head of all evil-doers4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a71 in the head are found three things3 order1 perfection1 and the power of influencing4 ,but as regards the order of the body1 ,antichrist is not said to be the head of the wicked as if his sin had preceded1 as the sin of the devil preceded4 ,so likewise he is not called the head of the wicked from the power of influencing1 although he will pervert some in his day by exterior persuasion2 nevertheless those who were before him were not beguiled into wickedness by him nor have imitated his wickedness4 ,hence he cannot be called the head of all the wicked in this way1 but of some4 ,therefore it remains to be said that he is the head of all the wicked by reason of the perfection of his wickedness4 ,hence1 on #b ,thess4 #b3d1 ,showing himself as if he were ,god1 a gloss says3 ,as in ,christ dwelt the fulness of the ,godhead1 so in ,antichrist the fulness of all wickedness4 ,not indeed as if his humanity were assumed by the devil into unity of person1 as the humanity of ,christ by the ,son of ,god2 but that the devil by suggestion infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than into all others4 ,and in this way all the wicked who have gone before are signs of ,antichrist1 according to #b ,thess4 #b3g1 ,for the mystery of iniquity already worketh4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the devil and ,antichrist are not two heads1 but one2 since ,antichrist is called the head1 inasmuch as the wickedness of the devil is most fully impressed on him4 ,hence1 on #b ,thess4 #b3d1 ,showing himself as if he were ,god1 a gloss says3 ,the head of all the wicked1 namely the devil1 who is king over all the children of pride will be in him4 ,now he is said to be in him not by personal union1 nor by indwelling1 since the ,trinity alone dwells in the mind 7as is said ,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 lxxxiii71 but by the effect of wickedness4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as the head of ,christ is ,god1 and yet ,he is the ,head of the ,church1 as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 so likewise ,antichrist is a member of the devil and yet is head of the wicked4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,antichrist is said to be the head of all the wicked not by a likeness of influence1 but by a likeness of perfection4 ,for in him the devil1 as it were1 brings his wickedness to a head1 in the same way that anyone is said to bring his purpose to a head when he executes it4 ,,question #i ,,of ,,christ',s ,,knowledge ,,in ,,general 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider ,christ's knowledge2 concerning which the consideration will be twofold4 ,first1 of ,christ's knowledge in general2 secondly1 of each particular kind of knowledge ,he had4 ,under the first head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ had any knowledge besides the ,divine8 7#b7 ,whether ,he had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have8 7#c7 ,whether ,he had an imprinted or infused knowledge8 7#d7 ,whether ,he had any acquired knowledge8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #i1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,had ,any ,knowledge ,besides the ,divine8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no knowledge except the ,divine4 ,for knowledge is necessary that things may be known thereby4 ,but by ,his ,divine knowledge ,christ knew all things4 ,therefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the lesser light is dimmed by the greater4 ,but all created knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge of ,god is as the lesser to the greater light4 ,therefore there shone in ,christ no other knowledge except the ,divine4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the union of the human nature with the ,divine took place in the ,person1 as is clear from ,q4 #b1 ,a4 #b4 ,now1 according to some there is in ,christ a certain knowledge of the union1 whereby ,christ knew what belongs to the mystery of the ,incarnation more fully than anyone else4 ,hence1 since the personal union contains two natures1 it would seem that there are not two knowledges in ,christ1 but one only1 pertaining to both natures4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,incarnat4 vii73 ,god assumed the perfection of human nature in the flesh2 ,he took upon ,himself the sense of man1 but not the swollen sense of the flesh4 ,but created knowledge pertains to the sense of man4 ,therefore in ,christ there was created knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,as said above 7,q4 #e71 the ,son of ,god assumed an entire human nature1 i4e4 not only a body1 but also a soul1 and not only a sensitive1 but also a rational soul4 ,and therefore it behooved ,him to have created knowledge1 for three reasons4 ,first1 on account of the soul's perfection4 ,for the soul1 considered in itself1 is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things4 since it is like a tablet on which nothing is written1 and yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect1 whereby it may become all things1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #ah4 ,now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act4 ,but it was fitting that the ,son of ,god should assume1 not an imperfect1 but a perfect human nature1 since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means4 ,hence it behooved the soul of ,christ to be perfected by a knowledge1 which would be its proper perfection4 ,and therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in ,christ besides the ,divine knowledge1 otherwise the soul of ,christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men4 ,secondly1 because1 since everything is on account of its operation1 as stated ,de ,coel4 ii1 #ag1 ,christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if ,he had not understood by it2 and this pertains to created knowledge4 ,thirdly1 because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul1 viz4 that whereby we naturally know first principles2 since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect4 ,now nothing natural was wanting to ,christ1 since ,he took the whole human nature1 as stated above 7,q4 #e74 ,and hence the ,sixth ,council 99,third ,council of ,constantinople1 ,act4 #d condemned the opinion of those who denied that in ,christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ knew all things with the ,divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very ,essence of ,god2 since ,god's understanding is ,his substance1 as the ,philosopher proves 7,metaph4 xii1 text4 #ci74 ,hence this act could not belong to the human soul of ,christ1 seeing that it belongs to another nature4 ,therefore1 if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of ,christ1 it would have known nothing2 and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose1 since everything is on account of its operation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if the two lights are supposed to be in the same order1 the lesser is dimmed by the greater1 as the light of the sun dims the light of a candle1 both being in the class of illuminants4 ,but if we suppose two lights1 one of which is in the class of illuminants and the other in the class of illuminated1 the lesser light is not dimmed by the greater1 but rather is strengthened1 as the light of the air by the light of the sun4 ,and in this manner the light of knowledge is not dimmed1 but rather is heightened in the soul of ,christ by the light of the ,divine knowledge1 which is the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world1 as is written ,john #a3i4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,on the part of what are united we hold there is a knowledge in ,christ1 both as to ,his ,divine and as to ,his human nature2 so that1 by reason of the union whereby there is one hypostasis of ,god and man1 the things of ,god are attributed to man1 and the things of man are attributed to ,god1 as was said above 7,q4 #c1 ,,aa4 #a1 #f74 ,but on the part of the union itself we cannot admit any knowledge in ,christ4 ,for this union is in personal being1 and knowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #i1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,had the ,knowledge ,which the ,blessed or ,comprehensors ,have8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed or comprehensors4 ,for the knowledge of the blessed is a participation of ,divine light1 according to ,ps4 #ce3aj3 ,in ,thy light we shall see light4 ,now ,christ had not a participated light1 but ,he had the ,godhead ,itself substantially abiding in ,him1 according to ,col4 #b3i3 ,for in ,him dwelleth all the fulness of the ,godhead corporeally4 ,therefore in ,christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed1 according to ,john #ag3c3 ,this is eternal life3 that they may know ,thee1 the only true ,god1 and ,jesus ,christ ,whom ,thou hast sent4 ,but this ,man was blessed through being united to ,god in person1 according to ,ps4 #fd3e3 ,blessed is ,he ,whom ,thou hast chosen and taken to ,thee4 ,therefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to man belongs a double knowledge--one by nature1 one above nature4 ,now the knowledge of the blessed1 which consists in the vision of ,god1 is not natural to man1 but above his nature4 ,but in ,christ there was another and much higher supernatural knowledge1 i4e4 the ,divine knowledge4 ,therefore there was no need of the knowledge of the blessed in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,the knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of ,god4 ,but ,he knew ,god fully1 even as ,he was man1 according to ,john #h3ee3 ,i do know ,him1 and do keep ,his word4 ,therefore in ,christ there was the knowledge of the blessed4 ,i answer that1 ,what is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act2 for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot4 ,now man is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed1 which consists in the vision of ,god2 and is ordained to it as to an end2 since the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge1 inasmuch as he is made in the image of ,god4 ,now men are brought to this end of beatitude by the humanity of ,christ1 according to ,heb4 #b3aj3 ,for it became ,him1 for ,whom are all things1 and by ,whom are all things1 ,who had brought many children unto glory1 to perfect the author of their salvation by ,his passion4 ,and hence it was necessary that the beatific knowledge1 which consists in the vision of ,god1 should belong to ,christ pre-eminently1 since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,godhead is united to the manhood of ,christ in ,person1 not in essence or nature2 yet with the unity of ,person remains the distinction of natures4 ,and therefore the soul of ,christ1 which is a part of human nature1 through a light participated from the ,divine ,nature1 is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby it sees ,god in essence4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by the union this ,man is blessed with the uncreated beatitude1 even as by the union ,he is ,god2 yet besides the uncreated beatitude it was necessary that there should be in the human nature of ,christ a created beatitude1 whereby ,his soul was established in the last end of human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent above the nature of the rational soul1 inasmuch as it cannot reach it of its own strength2 but in another way it is in accordance with its nature1 inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature1 having been made to the likeness of ,god1 as stated above4 ,but the uncreated knowledge is in every way above the nature of the human soul4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #i1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,had an ,imprinted or ,infused ,knowledge8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was not in ,christ another infused knowledge besides the beatific knowledge4 ,for all other knowledge compared to the beatific knowledge is like imperfect to perfect4 ,but imperfect knowledge is removed by the presence of perfect knowledge1 as the clear face-to-face vision removes the enigmatical vision of faith1 as is plain from #a ,cor4 #ac3aj1 #ab4 ,since1 therefore1 in ,christ there was the beatific knowledge1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 it would seem that there could not be any other imprinted knowledge4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 an imperfect mode of cognition disposes towards a more perfect1 as opinion1 the result of dialectical syllogisms1 disposes towards science1 which results from demonstrative syllogisms4 ,now1 when perfection is reached1 there is no further need of the disposition1 even as on reaching the end motion is no longer necessary4 ,hence1 since every created cognition is compared to beatific cognition1 as imperfect to perfect and as disposition to its term1 it seems that since ,christ had beatific knowledge1 it was not necessary for ,him to have any other knowledge4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as corporeal matter is in potentiality to sensible forms1 so the possible intellect is in potentiality to intelligible forms4 ,now corporeal matter cannot receive two forms at once1 one more perfect and the other less perfect4 ,therefore neither can the soul receive a double knowledge at once1 one more perfect and the other less perfect2 and hence the same conclusion as above4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,col4 #b3c7 that in ,christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 it was fitting that the human nature assumed by the ,word of ,god should not be imperfect4 ,now everything in potentiality is imperfect unless it be reduced to act4 ,but the passive intellect of man is in potentiality to all intelligible things1 and it is reduced to act by intelligible species1 which are its completive forms1 as is plain from what is said ,de ,anima iii1 #cb1 #ch4 ,and hence we must admit in the soul of ,christ an infused knowledge1 inasmuch as the ,word of ,god imprinted upon the soul of ,christ1 which is personally united to ,him1 intelligible species of all things to which the possible intellect is in potentiality2 even as in the beginning of the creation of things1 the ,word of ,god imprinted intelligible species upon the angelic mind1 as is clear from ,augustine 7,gen4 ad lit4 ii1 #h74 ,and therefore1 even as in the angels1 according to ,augustine 7,gen4 ad lit4 iv1 #bb1 #bd1 #cj71 there is a double knowledge--one the morning knowledge1 whereby they know things in the ,word2 the other the evening knowledge1 whereby they know things in their proper natures by infused species2 so likewise1 besides the ,divine and uncreated knowledge in ,christ1 there is in ,his soul a beatific knowledge1 whereby ,he knows the ,word1 and things in the ,word2 and an infused or imprinted knowledge1 whereby ,he knows things in their proper nature by intelligible species proportioned to the human mind4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the imperfect vision of faith is essentially opposed to manifest vision1 seeing that it is of the essence of faith to have reference to the unseen1 as was said above 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #a1 ,a4 #d74 ,but cognition by infused species includes no opposition to beatific cognition4 ,therefore there is no parity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,disposition is referred to perfection in two ways3 first1 as a way leading to perfection2 secondly1 as an effect proceeding from perfection2 thus matter is disposed by heat to receive the form of fire1 and1 when this comes1 the heat does not cease1 but remains as an effect of this form4 ,so1 too1 opinion caused by a dialectical syllogism is a way to knowledge1 which is acquired by demonstration1 yet1 when this has been acquired1 there may still remain the knowledge gained by the dialectical syllogism1 following1 so to say1 the demonstrative knowledge1 which is based on the cause1 since he who knows the cause is thereby enabled the better to understand the probable signs from which dialectical syllogisms proceed4 ,so likewise in ,christ1 together with the beatific knowledge1 there still remains infused knowledge1 not as a way to beatitude1 but as strengthened by beatitude4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the beatific knowledge is not by a species1 that is a similitude of the ,divine ,essence1 or of whatever is known in the ,divine ,essence1 as is plain from what has been said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,a4 #b72 but it is a knowledge of the ,divine ,essence immediately1 inasmuch as the ,divine ,essence itself is united to the beatified mind as an intelligible to an intelligent being2 and the ,divine ,essence is a form exceeding the capacity of any creature whatsoever4 ,hence1 together with this super-exceeding form1 there is nothing to hinder from being in the rational mind1 intelligible species1 proportioned to its nature4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #i1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,had ,any ,acquired ,knowledge8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no empiric and acquired knowledge4 ,for whatever befitted ,christ1 ,he had most perfectly4 ,now ,christ did not possess acquired knowledge most perfectly1 since ,he did not devote ,himself to the study of letters1 by which knowledge is acquired in its perfection2 for it is said 7,john #g3ae73 ,the ,jews wondered1 saying3 ,how doth this ,man know letters1 having never learned8 ,therefore it seems that in ,christ there was no acquired knowledge4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing can be added to what is full4 ,but the power of ,christ's soul was filled with intelligible species divinely infused1 as was said above 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore no acquired species could accrue to ,his soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 he who already has the habit of knowledge1 acquires no new habit1 through what he receives from the senses 7otherwise two forms of the same species would be in the same thing together72 but the habit which previously existed is strengthened and increased4 ,therefore1 since ,christ had the habit of infused knowledge1 it does not seem that ,he acquired a new knowledge through what ,he perceived by the senses4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #e3h73 ,whereas 4 4 4 ,he was the ,son of ,god1 ,he learned obedience by the things which ,he suffered1 i4e4 experienced1 says a gloss4 ,therefore there was in the soul of ,christ an empiric knowledge1 which is acquired knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,as is plain from ,a4 #a1 nothing that ,god planted in our nature was wanting to the human nature assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,now it is manifest that ,god planted in human nature not only a passive1 but an active intellect4 ,hence it is necessary to say that in the soul of ,christ there was not merely a passive1 but also an active intellect4 ,but if in other things ,god and nature make nothing in vain1 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,coel4 i1 #ca2 ii1 #ei71 still less in the soul of ,christ is there anything in vain4 ,now what has not its proper operation is useless1 as is said in ,de ,coel4 ii1 #ag4 ,now the proper operation of the active intellect is to make intelligible species in act1 by abstracting them from phantasms2 hence1 it is said 7,de ,anima iii1 #ah7 that the active intellect is that whereby everything is made actual4 ,and thus it is necessary to say that in ,christ there were intelligible species received in the passive intellect by the action of the active intellect--which means that there was acquired knowledge in ,him1 which some call empiric4 ,and hence1 although ,i wrote differently 7,sent4 iii1 ,d1 xiv1 ,a4 #c2 ,d1 xviii1 ,a4 #c71 it must be said that in ,christ there was acquired knowledge1 which is properly knowledge in a human fashion1 both as regards the subject receiving and as regards the active cause4 ,for such knowledge springs from ,christ's active intellect1 which is natural to the human soul4 ,but infused knowledge is attributed to the soul1 on account of a light infused from on high1 and this manner of knowing is proportioned to the angelic nature4 ,but the beatific knowledge1 whereby the very ,essence of ,god is seen1 is proper and natural to ,god alone1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,a4 #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since there is a twofold way of acquiring knowledge--by discovery and by being taught--the way of discovery is the higher1 and the way of being taught is secondary4 ,hence it is said 7,ethic4 i1 #d73 ,he indeed is the best who knows everything by himself3 yet he is good who obeys him that speaks aright4 ,and hence it was more fitting for ,christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery than by being taught1 especially since ,he was given to be the ,teacher of all1 according to ,joel #b3bc3 ,be joyful in the ,lord your ,god1 because ,he hath given you a ,teacher of justice4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the human mind has two relations--one to higher things1 and in this respect the soul of ,christ was full of the infused knowledge4 ,the other relation is to lower things1 i4e4 to phantasms1 which naturally move the human mind by virtue of the active intellect4 ,now it was necessary that even in this respect the soul of ,christ should be filled with knowledge1 not that the first fulness was insufficient for the human mind in itself1 but that it behooved it to be also perfected with regard to phantasms4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,acquired and infused habits are not to be classed together2 for the habit of knowledge is acquired by the relation of the human mind to phantasms2 hence1 another habit of the same kind cannot be again acquired4 ,but the habit of infused knowledge is of a different nature1 as coming down to the soul from on high1 and not from phantasms4 ,and hence there is no parity between these habits4 ,,question #aj ,,of ,,the ,,beatific ,,knowledge ,,of ,,christ',s ,,soul 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,now we must consider each of the aforesaid knowledges4 ,since1 however1 we have treated of the ,divine knowledge in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ad71 it now remains to speak of the three others3 7#a7 of the beatific knowledge2 7#b7 of the infused knowledge2 7#c7 of the acquired knowledge4 ,but again1 because much has been said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab7 of the beatific knowledge1 which consists in the vision of ,god1 we shall speak here only of such things as belong properly to the soul of ,christ4 ,under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the soul of ,christ comprehended the ,word or the ,divine ,essence8 7#b7 ,whether it knew all things in the ,word8 7#c7 ,whether the soul of ,christ knew the infinite in the ,word8 7#d7 ,whether it saw the ,word or the ,divine ,essence clearer than did any other creature8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,comprehended the ,word or the ,divine ,essence8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ comprehended and comprehends the ,word or ,divine ,essence4 ,for ,isidore says 7,de ,summo ,bono i1 #c7 that the ,trinity is known only to ,itself and to the ,man assumed4 ,therefore the ,man assumed communicates with the ,holy ,trinity in that knowledge of ,itself which is proper to the ,trinity4 ,now this is the knowledge of comprehension4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ comprehends the ,divine ,essence4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to be united to ,god in personal being is greater than to be united by vision4 ,but as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f71 the whole ,godhead in one ,person is united to the human nature in ,christ4 ,therefore much more is the whole ,divine ,nature seen by the soul of ,christ2 and hence it would seem that the soul of ,christ comprehended the ,divine ,essence4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what belongs by nature to the ,son of ,god belongs by grace to the ,son of ,man1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #ac74 ,but to comprehend the ,divine ,essence belongs by nature to the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore it belongs by grace to the ,son of ,man2 and thus it seems that the soul of ,christ comprehended the ,divine ,essence by grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #ad73 ,whatsoever comprehends itself is finite to itself4 ,but the ,divine ,essence is not finite with respect to the soul of ,christ1 since ,it infinitely exceeds it4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ does not comprehend the ,word4 ,i answer that1 ,as is plain from ,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #a1 #f1 the union of the two natures in the ,person of ,christ took place in such a way that the properties of both natures remained unconfused1 i4e4 the uncreated remained uncreated1 and the created remained within the limits of the creature1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #c1 #d74 ,now it is impossible for any creature to comprehend the ,divine ,essence1 as was shown in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d1 #g71 seeing that the infinite is not comprehended by the finite4 ,and hence it must be said that the soul of ,christ nowise comprehends the ,divine ,essence4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,man assumed is reckoned with the ,divine ,trinity in the knowledge of ,itself1 not indeed as regards comprehension1 but by reason of a certain most excellent knowledge above the rest of creatures4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,not even in the union by personal being does the human nature comprehend the ,word of ,god or the ,divine ,nature1 for although it was wholly united to the human nature in the one ,person of the ,son1 yet the whole power of the ,godhead was not circumscribed by the human nature4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusian4 cxxxvii73 ,i would have you know that it is not the ,christian doctrine that ,god was united to flesh in such a manner as to quit or lose the care of the world's government1 neither did ,he narrow or reduce it when ,he transferred it to that little body4 ,so likewise the soul of ,christ sees the whole ,essence of ,god1 yet does not comprehend ,it2 since it does not see ,it totally1 i4e4 not as perfectly as ,it is knowable1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,a4 #g74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this saying of ,augustine is to be understood of the grace of union1 by reason of which all that is said of the ,son of ,god in ,his ,divine ,nature is also said of the ,son of ,man on account of the identity of suppositum4 ,and in this way it may be said that the ,son of ,man is a comprehensor of the ,divine ,essence1 not indeed by ,his soul1 but in ,his ,divine ,nature2 even as we may also say that the ,son of ,man is the ,creator4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,son of ,god ,knew ,all ,things in the ,word8 ,obj4 #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ does not know all things in the ,word4 ,for it is written 7,mk4 #ac3cb73 ,but of that day or hour no man knoweth1 neither the angels in heaven nor the ,son1 but the ,father4 ,therefore ,he does not know all things in the ,word4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the more perfectly anyone knows a principle the more he knows in the principle4 ,but ,god sees ,his ,essence more perfectly than the soul of ,christ does4 ,therefore ,he knows more than the soul of ,christ knows in the ,word4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ does not know all things in the ,word4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the extent depends on the number of things known4 ,if1 therefore1 the soul of ,christ knew in the ,word all that the ,word knows1 it would follow that the knowledge of the soul of ,christ would equal the ,divine knowledge1 i4e4 the created would equal the uncreated1 which is impossible4 ,on the contrary1 on ,apoc4 #e3ab1 ,the ,lamb that was slain is worthy to receive 4 4 4 divinity and wisdom1 a gloss says1 i4e4 the knowledge of all things4 ,i answer that1 ,when it is inquired whether ,christ knows all things in the ,word1 all things may be taken in two ways3 ,first1 properly1 to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is1 will be1 or was done1 said1 or thought1 by whomsoever and at any time4 ,and in this way it must be said that the soul of ,christ knows all things in the ,word4 ,for every created intellect knows in the ,word1 not all simply1 but so many more things the more perfectly it sees the ,word4 ,yet no beatified intellect fails to know in the ,word whatever pertains to itself4 ,now to ,christ and to ,his dignity all things to some extent belong1 inasmuch as all things are subject to ,him4 ,moreover1 ,he has been appointed ,judge of all by ,god1 because ,he is the ,son of ,man1 as is said ,john #e3bg2 and therefore the soul of ,christ knows in the ,word all things existing in whatever time1 and the thoughts of men1 of which ,he is the ,judge1 so that what is said of ,him 7,john #b3be71 ,for ,he knew what was in man1 can be understood not merely of the ,divine knowledge1 but also of ,his soul's knowledge1 which it had in the ,word4 ,secondly1 all things may be taken widely1 as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time1 but even to such things as are in potentiality1 and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act4 ,now some of these are in the ,divine power alone1 and not all of these does the soul of ,christ know in the ,word4 ,for this would be to comprehend all that ,god could do1 which would be to comprehend the ,divine power1 and1 consequently1 the ,divine ,essence4 ,for every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do4 ,some1 however1 are not only in the power of ,god1 but also in the power of the creature2 and all of these the soul of ,christ knows in the ,word2 for it comprehends in the ,word the essence of every creature1 and1 consequently1 its power and virtue1 and all things that are in the power of the creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,arius and ,eunomius understood this saying1 not of the knowledge of the soul1 which they did not hold to be in ,christ1 as was said above 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a71 but of the ,divine knowledge of the ,son1 ,whom they held to be less than the ,father as regards knowledge4 ,but this will not stand1 since all things were made by the ,word of ,god1 as is said ,john #a3c1 and1 amongst other things1 all times were made by ,him4 ,now ,he is not ignorant of anything that was made by ,him4 ,he is said1 therefore1 not to know the day and the hour of the ,judgment1 for that ,he does not make it known1 since1 on being asked by the apostles 7,acts #a3g71 ,he was unwilling to reveal it2 and1 on the contrary1 we read 7,gen4 #bb3ab73 ,now ,i know that thou fearest ,god1 i4e4 ,now ,i have made thee know4 ,but the ,father is said to know1 because ,he imparted this knowledge to the ,son4 ,hence1 by saying but the ,father1 we are given to understand that the ,son knows1 not merely in the ,divine ,nature1 but also in the human1 because1 as ,chrysostom argues 7,hom4 lxxviii in ,matth471 if it is given to ,christ as man to know how to judge--which is greater--much more is it given to ,him to know the less1 viz4 the time of ,judgment4 ,origen1 however 7in ,matth4 ,tract4 xxx71 expounds it of ,his body1 which is the ,church1 which is ignorant of this time4 ,lastly1 some say this is to be understood of the adoptive1 and not of the natural ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god knows ,his ,essence so much the more perfectly than the soul of ,christ1 as ,he comprehends it4 ,and hence ,he knows all things1 not merely whatever are in act at any time1 which things ,he is said to know by knowledge of vision1 but also what ever ,he ,himself can do1 which ,he is said to know by simple intelligence1 as was shown in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #i74 ,therefore the soul of ,christ knows all things that ,god knows in ,himself by the knowledge of vision1 but not all that ,god knows in ,himself by knowledge of simple intelligence2 and thus in ,himself ,god knows many more things than the soul of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the extent of knowledge depends not merely on the number of knowable things1 but also on the clearness of the knowledge4 ,therefore1 although the knowledge of the soul of ,christ which ,he has in the ,word is equal to the knowledge of vision as regards the number of things known1 nevertheless the knowledge of ,god infinitely exceeds the knowledge of the soul of ,christ in clearness of cognition1 since the uncreated light of the ,divine intellect infinitely exceeds any created light received by the soul of ,christ2 although1 absolutely speaking1 the ,divine knowledge exceeds the knowledge of the soul of ,christ1 not only as regards the mode of knowing1 but also as regards the number of things known1 as was stated above4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,can ,know the ,infinite in the ,word8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ cannot know the infinite in the ,word4 ,for that the infinite should be known is repugnant to the definition of the infinite which 7,phys4 iii1 #fc7 is said to be that from which1 however much we may take1 there always remains something to be taken4 ,but it is impossible for the definition to be separated from the thing defined1 since this would mean that contradictories exist together4 ,therefore it is impossible that the soul of ,christ knows the infinite4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the knowledge of the infinite is infinite4 ,but the knowledge of the soul of ,christ cannot be infinite1 because its capacity is finite1 since it is created4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ cannot know the infinite4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there can be nothing greater than the infinite4 ,but more is contained in the ,divine knowledge1 absolutely speaking1 than in the knowledge of ,christ's soul1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,therefore the soul of ,christ does not know the infinite4 ,on the contrary1 ,the soul of ,christ knows all its power and all it can do4 ,now it can cleanse infinite sins1 according to #a ,john #b3b3 ,he is the propitiation for our sins1 and not for ours only1 but also for those of the whole world4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ knows the infinite4 ,i answer that1 ,knowledge regards only being1 since being and truth are convertible4 ,now a thing is said to be a being in two ways3 ,first1 simply1 i4e4 whatever is a being in act2 secondly1 relatively1 i4e4 whatever is a being in potentiality4 ,and because1 as is said ,metaph4 ix1 #bj1 everything is known as it is in act1 and not as it is in potentiality1 knowledge primarily and essentially regards being in act1 and secondarily regards being in potentiality1 which is not knowable of itself1 but inasmuch as that in whose power it exists is known4 ,hence1 with regard to the first mode of knowledge1 the soul of ,christ does not know the infinite4 ,because there is not an infinite number in act1 even though we were to reckon all that are in act at any time whatsoever1 since the state of generation and corruption will not last for ever3 consequently there is a certain number not only of things lacking generation and corruption1 but also of things capable of generation and corruption4 ,but with regard to the other mode of knowing1 the soul of ,christ knows infinite things in the ,word1 for it knows1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 all that is in the power of the creature4 ,hence1 since in the power of the creature there is an infinite number of things1 it knows the infinite1 as it were1 by a certain knowledge of simple intelligence1 and not by a knowledge of vision4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as we said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #h1 ,a4 #a71 the infinite is taken in two ways4 ,first1 on the part of a form1 and thus we have the negatively infinite1 i4e4 a form or act not limited by being received into matter or a subject2 and this infinite of itself is most knowable on account of the perfection of the act1 although it is not comprehensible by the finite power of the creature2 for thus ,god is said to be infinite4 ,and this infinite the soul of ,christ knows1 yet does not comprehend4 ,secondly1 there is the infinite as regards matter1 which is taken privatively1 i4e4 inasmuch as it has not the form it ought naturally to have1 and in this way we have infinite in quantity4 ,now such an infinite of itself1 is unknown3 inasmuch as it is1 as it were1 matter with privation of form as is said ,phys4 iii1 #fe4 ,but all knowledge is by form or act4 ,therefore if this infinite is to be known according to its mode of being1 it cannot be known4 ,for its mode is that part be taken after part1 as is said ,phys4 iii1 #fb1 #fc4 ,and in this way it is true that1 if we take something from it1 i4e4 taking part after part1 there always remains something to be taken4 ,but as material things can be received by the intellect immaterially1 and many things unitedly1 so can infinite things be received by the intellect1 not after the manner of infinite1 but finitely2 and thus what are in themselves infinite are1 in the intellect of the knower1 finite4 ,and in this way the soul of ,christ knows an infinite number of things1 inasmuch as it knows them not by discoursing from one to another1 but in a certain unity1 i4e4 in any creature in whose potentiality infinite things exist1 and principally in the ,word ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,there is nothing to hinder a thing from being infinite in one way and finite in another1 as when in quantities we imagine a surface infinite in length and finite in breadth4 ,hence1 if there were an infinite number of men1 they would have a relative infinity1 i4e4 in multitude2 but1 as regards the essence1 they would be finite1 since the essence of all would be limited to one specific nature4 ,but what is simply infinite in its essence is ,god1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #b74 ,now the proper object of the intellect is what a thing is1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #bf1 to which pertains the notion of the species4 ,and thus the soul of ,christ1 since it has a finite capacity1 attains to1 but does not comprehend1 what is simply infinite in essence1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,but the infinite in potentiality which is in creatures can be comprehended by the soul of ,christ1 since it is compared to that soul according to its essence1 in which respect it is not infinite4 ,for even our intellect understands a universal--for example1 the nature of a genus or species1 which in a manner has infinity1 inasmuch as it can be predicated of an infinite number4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,that which is infinite in every way can be but one4 ,hence the ,philosopher says 7,de ,coel4 i1 #b1 #c7 that1 since bodies have dimensions in every part1 there cannot be several infinite bodies4 ,yet if anything were infinite in one way only1 nothing would hinder the existence of several such infinite things2 as if we were to suppose several lines of infinite length drawn on a surface of finite breadth4 ,hence1 because infinitude is not a substance1 but is accidental to things that are said to be infinite1 as the ,philosopher says 7,phys4 iii1 #cg1 #ch72 as the infinite is multiplied by different subjects1 so1 too1 a property of the infinite must be multiplied1 in such a way that it belongs to each of them according to that particular subject4 ,now it is a property of the infinite that nothing is greater than it4 ,hence1 if we take one infinite line1 there is nothing greater in it than the infinite2 so1 too1 if we take any one of other infinite lines1 it is plain that each has infinite parts4 ,therefore of necessity in this particular line there is nothing greater than all these infinite parts2 yet in another or a third line there will be more infinite parts besides these4 ,we observe this in numbers also1 for the species of even numbers are infinite1 and likewise the species of odd numbers are infinite2 yet there are more even and odd numbers than even4 ,and thus it must be said that nothing is greater than the simply and in every way infinite2 but than the infinite which is limited in some respect1 nothing is greater in that order2 yet we may suppose something greater outside that order4 ,in this way1 therefore1 there are infinite things in the potentiality of the creature1 and yet there are more in the power of ,god than in the potentiality of the creature4 ,so1 too1 the soul of ,christ knows infinite things by the knowledge of simple intelligence2 yet ,god knows more by this manner of knowledge or understanding4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,sees the ,word or the ,divine ,essence ,more ,clearly ,than ,does ,any ,other ,creature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ does not see the ,word more perfectly than does any other creature4 ,for the perfection of knowledge depends upon the medium of knowing2 as the knowledge we have by means of a demonstrative syllogism is more perfect than that which we have by means of a probable syllogism4 ,but all the blessed see the ,word immediately in the ,divine ,essence ,itself1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore the soul of ,christ does not see the ,word more perfectly than any other creature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the perfection of vision does not exceed the power of seeing4 ,but the rational power of a soul such as is the soul of ,christ is below the intellective power of an angel1 as is plain from ,dionysius 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv74 ,therefore the soul of ,christ did not see the ,word more perfectly than the angels4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god sees ,his ,word infinitely more perfectly than does the soul of ,christ4 ,hence there are infinite possible mediate degrees between the manner in which ,god sees ,his ,word1 and the manner in which the soul of ,christ sees the ,word4 ,therefore we cannot assert that the soul of ,christ sees the ,word or the ,divine ,essence more perfectly than does every other creature4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #a3bj1 #ba7 that ,god set ,christ on ,his right hand in the heavenly places1 above all principality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is named not only in this world1 but also in that which is to come4 ,but in that heavenly glory the higher anyone is the more perfectly does he know ,god4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ sees ,god more perfectly than does any other creature4 ,i answer that1 ,the vision of the ,divine ,essence is granted to all the blessed by a partaking of the ,divine light which is shed upon them from the fountain of the ,word of ,god1 according to ,ecclus4 #a3e3 ,the ,word of ,god on high is the fountain of ,wisdom4 ,now the soul of ,christ1 since it is united to the ,word in person1 is more closely joined to the ,word of ,god than any other creature4 ,hence it more fully receives the light in which ,god is seen by the ,word ,himself than any other creature4 ,and therefore more perfectly than the rest of creatures it sees the ,first ,truth itself1 which is the ,essence of ,god2 hence it is written 7,john #a3ad73 ,and we saw ,his glory1 the glory as it were of the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full not only of grace but also of truth4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,perfection of knowledge1 on the part of the thing known1 depends on the medium2 but as regards the knower1 it depends on the power or habit4 ,and hence it is that even amongst men one sees a conclusion in a medium more perfectly than another does4 ,and in this way the soul of ,christ1 which is filled with a more abundant light1 knows the ,divine ,essence more perfectly than do the other blessed1 although all see the ,divine ,essence in itself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the vision of the ,divine ,essence exceeds the natural power of any creature1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ab1 ,a4 #d74 ,and hence the degrees thereof depend rather on the order of grace in which ,christ is supreme1 than on the order of nature1 in which the angelic nature is placed before the human4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #ab71 there cannot be a greater grace than the grace of ,christ with respect to the union with the ,word2 and the same is to be said of the perfection of the ,divine vision2 although1 absolutely speaking1 there could be a higher and more sublime degree by the infinity of the ,divine power4 ,,question #aa ,,of ,,the ,,knowledge ,,imprinted ,,or ,,infused ,,in ,,the ,,soul ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul of ,christ1 and under this head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ knows all things by this knowledge8 7#b7 ,whether ,he could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms8 7#c7 ,whether this knowledge was collative8 7#d7 ,of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge2 7#e7 ,whether it was a habitual knowledge8 7#f7 ,whether it was distinguished by various habits8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #a ,whether by ,this ,imprinted or ,infused ,knowledge ,christ ,knew ,all ,things8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that by this knowledge ,christ did not know all things4 ,for this knowledge is imprinted upon ,christ for the perfection of the passive intellect4 ,now the passive intellect of the human soul does not seem to be in potentiality to all things simply1 but only to those things with regard to which it can be reduced to act by the active intellect1 which is its proper motor2 and these are knowable by natural reason4 ,therefore by this knowledge ,christ did not know what exceeded the natural reason4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 phantasms are to the human intellect as colors to sight1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #ah1 #ca1 #ci4 ,but it does not pertain to the perfection of the power of seeing to know what is without color4 ,therefore it does not pertain to the perfection of human intellect to know things of which there are no phantasms1 such as separate substances4 ,hence1 since this knowledge was in ,christ for the perfection of ,his intellective soul1 it seems that by this knowledge ,he did not know separate substances4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it does not belong to the perfection of the intellect to know singulars4 ,hence it would seem that by this knowledge the soul of ,christ did not know singulars4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #aa3b7 that the ,spirit of wisdom and understanding1 of knowledge and counsel shall fill ,him 99,vulg43 ',the ,spirit of the ,lord shall rest upon ,him1 the ,spirit of wisdom and understanding1 the ,spirit of counsel 4 4 4 the ,spirit of knowledge 4 4 4 '2 cf4 ,ecclus4 #ae3e1 under which are included all that may be known2 for the knowledge of all ,divine things belongs to wisdom1 the knowledge of all immaterial things to understanding1 the knowledge of all conclusions to knowledge 7scientia71 the knowledge of all practical things to counsel4 ,hence it would seem that by this knowledge ,christ had the knowledge of all things4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a71 it was fitting that the soul of ,christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its powers reduced to act4 ,now it must be borne in mind that in the human soul1 as in every creature1 there is a double passive power3 one in comparison with a natural agent2 the other in comparison with the first agent1 which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a natural agent can reduce it1 and this is usually called the obediential power of a creature4 ,now both powers of ,christ's soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge4 ,and hence1 by it the soul of ,christ knew3 ,first1 whatever can be known by force of a man's active intellect1 e4g4 whatever pertains to human sciences2 secondly1 by this knowledge ,christ knew all things made known to man by ,divine revelation1 whether they belong to the gift of wisdom or the gift of prophecy1 or any other gift of the ,holy ,ghost2 since the soul of ,christ knew these things more fully and completely than others4 ,yet ,he did not know the ,essence of ,god by this knowledge1 but by the first alone1 of which we spoke above 7,q4 #aj74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this reason refers to the natural power of an intellective soul in comparison with its natural agent1 which is the active intellect4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the human soul in the state of this life1 since it is somewhat fettered by the body1 so as to be unable to understand without phantasms1 cannot understand separate substances4 ,but after the state of this life the separated soul will be able1 in a measure1 to know separate substances by itself1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #hi1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 and this is especially clear as regards the souls of the blessed4 ,now before ,his ,passion1 ,christ was not merely a wayfarer but also a comprehensor2 hence ,his soul could know separate substances in the same way that a separated soul could4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the knowledge of singulars pertains to the perfection of the intellective soul1 not in speculative knowledge1 but in practical knowledge1 which is imperfect without the knowledge of singulars1 in which operations exist1 as is said ,ethic4 vi1 #g4 ,hence for prudence are required the remembrance of past things1 knowledge of present things1 and foresight of future things1 as ,tully says 7,de ,invent4 ii74 ,therefore1 since ,christ had the fulness of prudence by the gift of counsel1 ,he consequently knew all singular things--present1 past1 and future4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,could ,use ,this ,knowledge by ,turning to ,phantasms8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ could not understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms1 because1 as is stated ,de ,anima iii1 #ah1 #ca1 #ci1 phantasms are compared to man's intellective soul as colors to sight4 ,but ,christ's power of seeing could not become actual save by turning to colors4 ,therefore ,his intellective soul could understand nothing except by turning to phantasms4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's soul is of the same nature as ours4 otherwise ,he would not be of the same species as we1 contrary to what the ,apostle says 7,phil4 #b3g7 4 4 4 being made in the likeness of men4 ,but our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms4 ,hence1 neither can ,christ's soul otherwise understand4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 senses are given to man to help his intellect4 ,hence1 if the soul of ,christ could understand without turning to phantasms1 which arise in the senses1 it would follow that in the soul of ,christ the senses were useless1 which is not fitting4 ,therefore it seems that the soul of ,christ can only understand by turning to phantasms4 ,on the contrary1 ,the soul of ,christ knew certain things which could not be known by the senses1 viz4 separate substances4 ,therefore it could understand without turning to phantasms4 ,i answer that1 ,in the state before ,his ,passion ,christ was at the same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor1 as will be more clearly shown 7,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #aj74 ,especially had ,he the conditions of a wayfarer on the part of the body1 which was passible2 but the conditions of a comprehensor ,he had chiefly on the part of the soul4 ,now this is the condition of the soul of a comprehensor1 viz4 that it is nowise subject to its body1 or dependent upon it1 but wholly dominates it4 ,hence after the resurrection glory will flow from the soul to the body4 ,but the soul of man on earth needs to turn to phantasms1 because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject to and dependent upon it4 ,and hence the blessed both before and after the resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms4 ,and this must be said of the soul of ,christ1 which had fully the capabilities of a comprehensor4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this likeness which the ,philosopher asserts is not with regard to everything4 ,for it is manifest that the end of the power of seeing is to know colors2 but the end of the intellective power is not to know phantasms1 but to know intelligible species1 which it apprehends from and in phantasms1 according to the state of the present life4 ,therefore there is a likeness in respect of what both powers regard1 but not in respect of that in which the condition of both powers is terminated4 ,now nothing prevents a thing in different states from reaching its end by different ways3 albeit there is never but one proper end of a thing4 ,hence1 although the sight knows nothing without color2 nevertheless in a certain state the intellect can know without phantasms1 but not without intelligible species4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the soul of ,christ was of the same nature as our souls1 yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact1 but only in hope1 i4e4 the state of comprehension4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the soul of ,christ could understand without turning to phantasms1 yet it could also understand by turning to phantasms4 ,hence the senses were not useless in it2 especially as the senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge1 but for the need of animal life4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,this ,knowledge ,is ,collative8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ had not this knowledge by way of comparison4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ad73 ,we do not uphold counsel or choice in ,christ4 ,now these things are withheld from ,christ only inasmuch as they imply comparison and discursion4 ,therefore it seems that there was no collative or discursive knowledge in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 man needs comparison and discursion of reason in order to find out the unknown4 ,but the soul of ,christ knew everything1 as was said above 7,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence there was no discursive or collative knowledge in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the knowledge in ,christ's soul was like that of comprehensors1 who are likened to the angels1 according to ,matt4 #bb3cj4 ,now there is no collative or discursive knowledge in the angels1 as ,dionysius shows 7,div4 ,nom4 vii74 ,therefore there was no discursive or collative knowledge in the soul of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ had a rational soul1 as was shown 7,q4 #e1 ,a4 #d74 ,now the proper operation of a rational soul consists in comparison and discursion from one thing to another4 ,therefore there was collative and discursive knowledge in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,knowledge may be discursive or collative in two ways4 ,first1 in the acquisition of the knowledge1 as happens to us1 who proceed from one thing to the knowledge of another1 as from causes to effects1 and conversely4 ,and in this way the knowledge in ,christ's soul was not discursive or collative1 since this knowledge which we are now considering was divinely infused1 and not acquired by a process of reasoning4 ,secondly1 knowledge may be called discursive or collative in use2 as at times those who know1 reason from cause to effect1 not in order to learn anew1 but wishing to use the knowledge they have4 ,and in this way the knowledge in ,christ's soul could be collative or discursive2 since it could conclude one thing from another1 as it pleased1 as in ,matt4 #ag3bd1 #be1 when our ,lord asked ,peter3 ,of whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute1 of their own children1 or of strangers8 ,on ,peter replying3 ,of strangers1 ,he concluded3 ,then the children are free4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,from ,christ is excluded that counsel which is with doubt2 and consequently choice1 which essentially includes such counsel2 but the practice of using counsel is not excluded from ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this reason rests upon discursion and comparison1 as used to acquire knowledge4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the blessed are likened to the angels in the gifts of graces2 yet there still remains the difference of natures4 ,and hence to use comparison and discursion is connatural to the souls of the blessed1 but not to angels4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #d ,whether in ,christ ,this ,knowledge ,was ,greater ,than the ,knowledge of the ,angels8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this knowledge was not greater in ,christ than in the angels4 ,for perfection is proportioned to the thing perfected4 ,but the human soul in the order of nature is below the angelic nature4 ,therefore since the knowledge we are now speaking of is imprinted upon ,christ's soul for its perfection1 it seems that this knowledge is less than the knowledge by which the angelic nature is perfected4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the knowledge of ,christ's soul was in a measure comparative and discursive1 which cannot be said of the angelic knowledge4 ,therefore the knowledge of ,christ's soul was less than the knowledge of the angels4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the more immaterial knowledge is1 the greater it is4 ,but the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the knowledge of ,christ's soul1 since the soul of ,christ is the act of a body1 and turns to phantasms1 which cannot be said of the angels4 ,therefore the knowledge of angels is greater than the knowledge of ,christ's soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3i73 ,for we see ,jesus1 ,who was made a little lower than the angels1 for the suffering of death1 crowned with glory and honor2 from which it is plain that ,christ is said to be lower than the angels only in regard to the suffering of death4 ,and hence1 not in knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,the knowledge imprinted on ,christ's soul may be looked at in two ways3 ,first1 as regards what it has from the inflowing cause2 secondly1 as regards what it has from the subject receiving it4 ,now with regard to the first1 the knowledge imprinted upon the soul of ,christ was more excellent than the knowledge of the angels1 both in the number of things known and in the certainty of the knowledge2 since the spiritual light1 which is imprinted on the soul of ,christ1 is much more excellent than the light which pertains to the angelic nature4 ,but as regards the second1 the knowledge imprinted on the soul of ,christ is less than the angelic knowledge1 in the manner of knowing that is natural to the human soul1 i4e4 by turning to phantasms1 and by comparison and discursion4 ,and hereby the reply to the objections is made clear4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,this ,knowledge ,was ,habitual8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no habitual knowledge4 ,for it has been said 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a7 that the highest perfection of knowledge befitted ,christ's soul4 ,but the perfection of an actually existing knowledge is greater than that of a potentially or habitually existing knowledge4 ,therefore it was fitting for ,him to know all things actually4 ,therefore ,he had not habitual knowledge4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 since habits are ordained to acts1 a habitual knowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless4 ,now1 since ,christ knew all things1 as was said 7,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #b71 ,he could not have considered all things actually1 thinking over one after another1 since the infinite cannot be passed over by enumeration4 ,therefore the habitual knowledge of certain things would have been useless to ,him--which is unfitting4 ,therefore ,he had an actual and not a habitual knowledge of what ,he knew4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower4 ,but perfection is more noble than the thing perfected4 ,if1 therefore1 in the soul of ,christ there was any created habit of knowledge1 it would follow that this created thing was nobler than the soul of ,christ4 ,therefore there was no habitual knowledge in ,christ's soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,the knowledge of ,christ we are now speaking about was univocal with our knowledge1 even as ,his soul was of the same species as ours4 ,but our knowledge is in the genus of habit4 ,therefore the knowledge of ,christ was habitual4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #d71 the mode of the knowledge impressed on the soul of ,christ befitted the subject receiving it4 ,for the received is in the recipient after the mode of the recipient4 ,now the connatural mode of the human soul is that it should understand sometimes actually1 and sometimes potentially4 ,but the medium between a pure power and a completed act is a habit3 and extremes and medium are of the same genus4 ,thus it is plain that it is the connatural mode of the human soul to receive knowledge as a habit4 ,hence it must be said that the knowledge imprinted on the soul of ,christ was habitual1 for ,he could use it when ,he pleased4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in ,christ's soul there was a twofold knowledge--each most perfect of its kind3 the first exceeding the mode of human nature1 as by it ,he saw the ,essence of ,god1 and other things in ,it1 and this was the most perfect1 simply4 ,nor was this knowledge habitual1 but actual with respect to everything ,he knew in this way4 ,but the second knowledge was in ,christ in a manner proportioned to human nature1 i4e4 inasmuch as ,he knew things by species divinely imprinted upon ,him1 and of this knowledge we are now speaking4 ,now this knowledge was not most perfect1 simply1 but merely in the genus of human knowledge2 hence it did not behoove it to be always in act4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,habits are reduced to act by the command of the will1 since a habit is that with which we act when we wish4 ,now the will is indeterminate in regard to infinite things4 ,yet it is not useless1 even when it does not actually tend to all2 provided it actually tends to everything in fitting place and time4 ,and hence neither is a habit useless1 even if all that it extends to is not reduced to act2 provided that that which befits the due end of the will be reduced to act according as the matter in hand and the time require4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,goodness and being are taken in two ways3 ,first1 simply2 and thus a substance1 which subsists in its being and goodness1 is a good and a being2 secondly1 being and goodness are taken relatively1 and in this way an accident is a being and a good1 not that it has being and goodness1 but that its subject is a being and a good4 ,and hence habitual knowledge is not simply better or more excellent than the soul of ,christ2 but relatively1 since the whole goodness of habitual knowledge is added to the goodness of the subject4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #aa1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,this ,knowledge ,was ,distinguished by ,divers ,habits8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in the soul of ,christ there was only one habit of knowledge4 ,for the more perfect knowledge is1 the more united it is2 hence the higher angels understand by the more universal forms1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ee1 ,a4 #c74 ,now ,christ's knowledge was most perfect4 ,therefore it was most one4 ,therefore it was not distinguished by several habits4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our faith is derived from ,christ's knowledge2 hence it is written 7,heb4 #ab3b73 ,looking on ,jesus the author and finisher of faith4 ,but there is only one habit of faith about all things believed1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #f74 ,much more1 therefore1 was there only one habit of knowledge in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 knowledge is distinguished by the divers formalities of knowable things4 ,but the soul of ,christ knew everything under one formality1 i4e4 by a divinely infused light4 ,therefore in ,christ there was only one habit of knowledge4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,zech4 #c3i7 that on one stone1 i4e4 ,christ1 there are seven eyes4 ,now by the eye is understood knowledge4 ,therefore it would seem that in ,christ there were several habits of knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,,aa4 #d1 #e71 the knowledge imprinted on ,christ's soul has a mode connatural to a human soul4 ,now it is connatural to a human soul to receive species of a lesser universality than the angels receive2 so that it knows different specific natures by different intelligible species4 ,but it so happens that we have different habits of knowledge1 because there are different classes of knowable things1 inasmuch as what are in one genus are known by one habit2 thus it is said 7,poster4 i1 #db7 that one science is of one class of object4 ,and hence the knowledge imprinted on ,christ's soul was distinguished by different habits4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as was said 7,a4 #d71 the knowledge of ,christ's soul is most perfect1 and exceeds the knowledge of angels with regard to what is in it on the part of ,god's gift2 but it is below the angelic knowledge as regards the mode of the recipient4 ,and it pertains to this mode that this knowledge is distinguished by various habits1 inasmuch as it regards more particular species4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,our faith rests upon the ,first ,truth2 and hence ,christ is the author of our faith by the ,divine knowledge1 which is simply one4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the divinely infused light is the common formality for understanding what is divinely revealed1 as the light of the active intellect is with regard to what is naturally known4 ,hence1 in the soul of ,christ there must be the proper species of singular things1 in order to know each with proper knowledge2 and in this way there must be divers habits of knowledge in ,christ's soul1 as stated above4 ,,question #ab ,,of ,,the ,,acquired ,,or ,,empiric ,,knowledge ,,of ,,christ',s ,,soul 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the acquired or empiric knowledge of ,christ's soul2 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ knew all things by this knowledge8 7#b7 ,whether ,he advanced in this knowledge8 7#c7 ,whether ,he learned anything from man8 7#d7 ,whether ,he received anything from angels8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ab1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,knew ,all ,things by ,this ,acquired or ,empiric ,knowledge8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not know everything by this knowledge4 ,for this knowledge is acquired by experience4 ,but ,christ did not experience everything4 ,therefore ,he did not know everything by this knowledge4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 man acquires knowledge through the senses4 ,but not all sensible things were subjected to ,christ's bodily senses4 ,therefore ,christ did not know everything by this knowledge4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the extent of knowledge depends on the things knowable4 ,therefore if ,christ knew all things by this knowledge1 ,his acquired knowledge would have been equal to ,his infused and beatific knowledge2 which is not fitting4 ,therefore ,christ did not know all things by this knowledge4 ,on the contrary1 ,nothing imperfect was in ,christ's soul4 ,now this knowledge of ,his would have been imperfect if ,he had not known all things by it1 since the imperfect is that to which addition may be made4 ,hence ,christ knew all things by this knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,acquired knowledge is held to be in ,christ's soul1 as we have said 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #d71 by reason of the active intellect1 lest its action1 which is to make things actually intelligible1 should be wanting2 even as imprinted or infused knowledge is held to be in ,christ's soul for the perfection of the passive intellect4 ,now as the passive intellect is that by which all things are in potentiality1 so the active intellect is that by which all are in act1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #ah4 ,and hence1 as the soul of ,christ knew by infused knowledge all things to which the passive intellect is in any way in potentiality1 so by acquired knowledge it knew whatever can be known by the action of the active intellect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the knowledge of things may be acquired not merely by experiencing the things themselves1 but by experiencing other things2 since by virtue of the light of the active intellect man can go on to understand effects from causes1 and causes from effects1 like from like1 contrary from contrary4 ,therefore ,christ1 though ,he did not experience all things1 came to the knowledge of all things from what ,he did experience4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although all sensible things were not subjected to ,christ's bodily senses1 yet other sensible things were subjected to ,his senses2 and from this ,he could come to know other things by the most excellent force of ,his reason1 in the manner described in the previous reply2 just as in seeing heavenly bodies ,he could comprehend their powers and the effects they have upon things here below1 which were not subjected to ,his senses2 and for the same reason1 from any other things whatsoever1 ,he could come to the knowledge of yet other things4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by this knowledge the soul of ,christ did not know all things simply1 but all such as are knowable by the light of man's active intellect4 ,hence by this knowledge ,he did not know the essences of separate substances1 nor past1 present1 or future singulars1 which1 nevertheless1 ,he knew by infused knowledge1 as was said above 7,q4 #aa74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ab1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,advanced in ,acquired or ,empiric ,knowledge8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not advance in this knowledge4 ,for even as ,christ knew all things by ,his beatific and ,his infused knowledge1 so also did ,he by this acquired knowledge1 as is plain from what has been said 7,a4 #a74 ,but ,he did not advance in these knowledges4 ,therefore neither in this4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to advance belongs to the imperfect1 since the perfect cannot be added to4 ,now we cannot suppose an imperfect knowledge in ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ did not advance in this knowledge4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bb73 ,whoever say that ,christ advanced in wisdom and grace1 as if receiving additional sensations1 do not venerate the union which is in hypostasis4 ,but it is impious not to venerate this union4 ,therefore it is impious to say that ,his knowledge received increase4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #b3eb73 ,jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with ,god and men2 and ,ambrose says 7,de ,incar4 ,dom4 vii7 that ,he advanced in human wisdom4 ,now human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human manner1 i4e4 by the light of the active intellect4 ,therefore ,christ advanced in this knowledge4 ,i answer that1 ,there is a twofold advancement in knowledge3 one in essence1 inasmuch as the habit of knowledge is increased2 the other in effect--e4g4 if someone were with one and the same habit of knowledge to prove to someone else some minor truths at first1 and afterwards greater and more subtle conclusions4 ,now in this second way it is plain that ,christ advanced in knowledge and grace1 even as in age1 since as ,his age increased ,he wrought greater deeds1 and showed greater knowledge and grace4 ,but as regards the habit of knowledge1 it is plain that ,his habit of infused knowledge did not increase1 since from the beginning ,he had perfect infused knowledge of all things2 and still less could ,his beatific knowledge increase2 while in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #ae71 we have already said that ,his ,divine knowledge could not increase4 ,therefore1 if in the soul of ,christ there was no habit of acquired knowledge1 beyond the habit of infused knowledge1 as appears to some 99,blessed ,albert the ,great1 ,alexander of ,hales1 ,st4 ,bonaventure1 and sometime appeared to me 7,sent4 iii1 ,d1 xiv71 no knowledge in ,christ increased in essence1 but merely by experience1 i4e4 by comparing the infused intelligible species with phantasms4 ,and in this way they maintain that ,christ's knowledge grew in experience1 e4g4 by comparing the infused intelligible species with what ,he received through the senses for the first time4 ,but because it seems unfitting that any natural intelligible action should be wanting to ,christ1 and because to extract intelligible species from phantasms is a natural action of man's active intellect1 it seems becoming to place even this action in ,christ4 ,and it follows from this that in the soul of ,christ there was a habit of knowledge which could increase by this abstraction of species2 inasmuch as the active intellect1 after abstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms1 could abstract others1 and others again4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of ,christ's soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power1 which could produce the whole at once2 and thus in neither knowledge did ,christ advance2 since from the beginning ,he had them perfectly4 ,but the acquired knowledge of ,christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once1 but successively2 and hence by this knowledge ,christ did not know everything from the beginning1 but step by step1 and after a time1 i4e4 in ,his perfect age2 and this is plain from what the ,evangelist says1 viz4 that ,he increased in knowledge and age together4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,even this knowledge was always perfect for the time being1 although it was not always perfect1 simply and in comparison to the nature2 hence it could increase4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this saying of ,damascene regards those who say absolutely that addition was made to ,christ's knowledge1 i4e4 as regards any knowledge of ,his1 and especially as regards the infused knowledge which is caused in ,christ's soul by union with the ,word2 but it does not regard the increase of knowledge caused by the natural agent4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ab1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,learned ,anything from ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ learned something from man4 ,for it is written 7,luke #b3df1 #dg7 that1 ,they found ,him in the temple in the midst of the doctors1 hearing them1 and asking them questions4 ,but to ask questions and to reply pertains to a learner4 ,therefore ,christ learned something from man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems more noble than to acquire it from sensible things1 since in the soul of the man who teaches the intelligible species are in act2 but in sensible things the intelligible species are only in potentiality4 ,now ,christ received empiric knowledge from sensible things1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,much more1 therefore1 could ,he receive knowledge by learning from men4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 by empiric knowledge ,christ did not know everything from the beginning1 but advanced in it1 as was said above 7,a4 #b74 ,but anyone hearing words which mean something1 may learn something he does not know4 ,therefore ,christ could learn from men something ,he did not know by this knowledge4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #de3d73 ,behold1 ,i have given ,him for a witness to the people1 for a leader and a master to the ,gentiles4 ,now a master is not taught1 but teaches4 ,therefore ,christ did not receive any knowledge by the teaching of any man4 ,i answer that1 ,in every genus that which is the first mover is not moved according to the same species of movement2 just as the first alterative is not itself altered4 ,now ,christ is established by ,god the ,head of the ,church--yea1 of all men1 as was said above 7,q4 #h1 ,a4 #c71 so that not only all might receive grace through ,him1 but that all might receive the doctrine of ,truth from ,him4 ,hence ,he ,himself says 7,john #ah3cg73 ,for this was ,i born1 and for this came ,i into the world2 that ,i should give testimony to the truth4 ,and thus it did not befit ,his dignity that ,he should be taught by any man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,origen says 7,hom4 xix in ,luc473 ,our ,lord asked questions not in order to learn anything1 but in order to teach by questioning4 ,for from the same well of knowledge came the question and the wise reply4 ,hence the ,gospel goes on to say that all that heard ,him were astonished at ,his wisdom and ,his answers4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,whoever learns from man does not receive knowledge immediately from the intelligible species which are in his mind1 but through sensible words1 which are signs of intelligible concepts4 ,now as words formed by a man are signs of his intellectual knowledge2 so are creatures1 formed by ,god1 signs of ,his wisdom4 ,hence it is written 7,ecclus4 #a3aj7 that ,god poured wisdom out upon all ,his works4 ,hence1 just as it is better to be taught by ,god than by man1 so it is better to receive our knowledge from sensible creatures and not by man's teaching4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,jesus advanced in empiric knowledge1 as in age1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,now as a fitting age is required for a man to acquire knowledge by discovery1 so also that he may acquire it by being taught4 ,but our ,lord did nothing unbecoming to ,his age2 and hence ,he did not give ear to hearing the lessons of doctrine until such time as ,he was able to have reached that grade of knowledge by way of experience4 ,hence ,gregory says 7,sup4 ,ezech4 ,lib4 i1 ,hom4 ii73 ,in the twelfth year of ,his age ,he deigned to question men on earth1 since in the course of reason1 the word of doctrine is not vouchsafed before the age of perfection4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ab1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,received ,knowledge from the ,angels8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ received knowledge from the angels4 ,for it is written 7,luke #bb3dc7 that there appeared to ,him an angel from heaven1 strengthening ,him4 ,but we are strengthened by the comforting words of a teacher1 according to ,job #d3c1 #d3 ,behold thou hast taught many and hast strengthened the weary hand4 ,thy words have confirmed them that were staggering4 ,therefore ,christ was taught by angels4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv73 ,for ,i see that even ,jesus--the super-substantial substance of supercelestial substances--when without change ,he took our substance upon ,himself1 was subject in obedience to the instructions of the ,father and ,god by the angels4 ,hence it seems that even ,christ wished to be subject to the ordinations of the ,divine law1 whereby men are taught by means of angels4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as in the natural order the human body is subject to the celestial bodies1 so likewise is the human mind to angelic minds4 ,now ,christ's body was subject to the impressions of the heavenly bodies1 for ,he felt the heat in summer and the cold in winter1 and other human passions4 ,therefore ,his human mind was subject to the illuminations of supercelestial spirits4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vii7 that the highest angels question ,jesus1 and learn the knowledge of ,his ,divine work1 and of the flesh assumed for us2 and ,jesus teaches them directly4 ,now to teach and to be taught do not belong to the same4 ,therefore ,christ did not receive knowledge from the angels4 ,i answer that1 ,since the human soul is midway between spiritual substances and corporeal things1 it is perfected naturally in two ways4 ,first by knowledge received from sensible things2 secondly1 by knowledge imprinted or infused by the illumination of spiritual substances4 ,now in both these ways the soul of ,christ was perfected2 first by empirical knowledge of sensible things1 for which there is no need of angelic light1 since the light of the active intellect suffices2 secondly1 by the higher impression of infused knowledge1 which ,he received directly from ,god4 ,for as ,his soul was united to the ,word above the common mode1 in unity of person1 so above the common manner of men was it filled with knowledge and grace by the ,word of ,god ,himself2 and not by the medium of angels1 who in their beginning received the knowledge of things by the influence of the ,word1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 ii1 #h74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this strengthening by the angel was for the purpose not of instructing ,him1 but of proving the truth of ,his human nature4 ,hence ,bede says 7on ,luke #bb3dc73 ,in testimony of both natures are the angels said to have ministered to ,him and to have strengthened ,him4 ,for the ,creator did not need help from ,his creature2 but having become man1 even as it was for our sake that ,he was sad1 so was it for our sake that ,he was strengthened1 i4e4 in order that our faith in the ,incarnation might be strengthened4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,dionysius says that ,christ was subject to the angelic instructions1 not by reason of ,himself1 but by reason of what happened at ,his ,incarnation1 and as regards the care of ,him whilst ,he was a child4 ,hence in the same place he adds that ,jesus' withdrawal to ,egypt decreed by the ,father is announced to ,joseph by angels1 and again ,his return to ,judaea from ,egypt4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,son of ,god assumed a passible body 7as will be said hereafter 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a77 and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a2 ,a4 #d74 ,hence ,his body was rightly subject to the impression of heavenly bodies2 but ,his soul was not subject to the impression of heavenly spirits4 ,,question #ac ,,of ,,the ,,power ,,of ,,christ',s ,,soul 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the power of ,christ's soul2 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,he had omnipotence simply8 7#b7 ,whether ,he had omnipotence with regard to corporeal creatures8 7#c7 ,whether ,he had omnipotence with regard to ,his own body8 7#d7 ,whether ,he had omnipotence as regards the execution of ,his own will8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ac1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,had ,omnipotence8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ had omnipotence4 ,for ,ambrose 99,gloss1 ,ord4 says on ,luke #a3cb3 ,the power which the ,son of ,god had naturally1 the ,man was about to receive in time4 ,now this would seem to regard the soul principally1 since it is the chief part of man4 ,hence since the ,son of ,god had omnipotence from all eternity1 it would seem that the soul of ,christ received omnipotence in time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as the power of ,god is infinite1 so is ,his knowledge4 ,but the soul of ,christ in a manner had the knowledge of all that ,god knows1 as was said above 7,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore ,he had all power2 and thus ,he was omnipotent4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the soul of ,christ has all knowledge4 ,now knowledge is either practical or speculative4 ,therefore ,he has a practical knowledge of what ,he knows1 i4e4 ,he knew how to do what ,he knows2 and thus it seems that ,he can do all things4 ,on the contrary1 ,what is proper to ,god cannot belong to any creature4 ,but it is proper to ,god to be omnipotent1 according to ,ex4 #ae3b1 #c3 ,he is my ,god and ,i will glorify ,him1 and further on1 ,almighty is ,his name4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ1 as being a creature1 has not omnipotence4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #a7 in the mystery of the ,incarnation the union in person so took place that there still remained the distinction of natures1 each nature still retaining what belonged to it4 ,now the active principle of a thing follows its form1 which is the principle of action4 ,but the form is either the very nature of the thing1 as in simple things2 or is the constituent of the nature of the thing2 as in such as are composed of matter and form4 ,and it is in this way that omnipotence flows1 so to say1 from the ,divine ,nature4 ,for since the ,divine ,nature is the very uncircumscribed ,being of ,god1 as is plain from ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 v71 it has an active power over everything that can have the nature of being2 and this is to have omnipotence2 just as every other thing has an active power over such things as the perfection of its nature extends to2 as what is hot gives heat4 ,therefore since the soul of ,christ is a part of human nature1 it cannot possibly have omnipotence4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by union with the ,person1 the ,man receives omnipotence in time1 which the ,son of ,god had from eternity2 the result of which union is that as the ,man is said to be ,god1 so is ,he said to be omnipotent2 not that the omnipotence of the ,man is distinct 7as neither is ,his ,godhead7 from that of the ,son of ,god1 but because there is one ,person of ,god and man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,according to some1 knowledge and active power are not in the same ratio2 for an active power flows from the very nature of the thing1 inasmuch as action is considered to come forth from the agent2 but knowledge is not always possessed by the very essence or form of the knower1 since it may be had by assimilation of the knower to the thing known by the aid of received species4 ,but this reason seems not to suffice1 because even as we may understand by a likeness obtained from another1 so also may we act by a form obtained from another1 as water or iron heats1 by heat borrowed from fire4 ,hence there would be no reason why the soul of ,christ1 as it can know all things by the similitudes of all things impressed upon it by ,god1 cannot do these things by the same similitudes4 ,it has1 therefore1 to be further considered that what is received in the lower nature from the higher is possessed in an inferior manner2 for heat is not received by water in the perfection and strength it had in fire4 ,therefore1 since the soul of ,christ is of an inferior nature to the ,divine ,nature1 the similitudes of things are not received in the soul of ,christ in the perfection and strength they had in the ,divine ,nature4 ,and hence it is that the knowledge of ,christ's soul is inferior to ,divine knowledge as regards the manner of knowing1 for ,god knows 7things7 more perfectly than the soul of ,christ2 and also as regards the number of things known1 since the soul of ,christ does not know all that ,god can do1 and these ,god knows by the knowledge of simple intelligence2 although it knows all things present1 past1 and future1 which ,god knows by the knowledge of vision4 ,so1 too1 the similitudes of things infused into ,christ's soul do not equal the ,divine power in acting1 i4e4 so as to do all that ,god can do1 or to do in the same manner as ,god does1 ,who acts with an infinite might whereof the creature is not capable4 ,now there is no thing1 to know which in some way an infinite power is needed1 although a certain kind of knowledge belongs to an infinite power2 yet there are things which can be done only by an infinite power1 as creation and the like1 as is plain from what has been said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #de74 ,hence ,christ's soul which1 being a creature1 is finite in might1 can know1 indeed1 all things1 but not in every way2 yet it cannot do all things1 which pertains to the nature of omnipotence2 and1 amongst other things1 it is clear it cannot create itself4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's soul has practical and speculative knowledge2 yet it is not necessary that it should have practical knowledge of those things of which it has speculative knowledge4 ,because for speculative knowledge a mere conformity or assimilation of the knower to the thing known suffices2 whereas for practical knowledge it is required that the forms of the things in the intellect should be operative4 ,now to have a form and to impress this form upon something else is more than merely to have the form2 as to be lightsome and to enlighten is more than merely to be lightsome4 ,hence the soul of ,christ has a speculative knowledge of creation 7for it knows the mode of ,god's creation71 but it has no practical knowledge of this mode1 since it has no knowledge operative of creation4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ac1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,had ,omnipotence with ,regard to the ,transmutation of ,creatures8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,for ,he ,himself says 7,matt4 #bh3ah73 ,all power is given to ,me in heaven and on earth4 ,now by the words heaven and earth are meant all creatures1 as is plain from ,gen4 #a3a3 ,in the beginning ,god created heaven and earth4 ,therefore it seems that the soul of ,christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul of ,christ is the most perfect of all creatures4 ,but every creature can be moved by another creature2 for ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iii1 #d7 that even as the denser and lower bodies are ruled in a fixed way by the subtler and stronger bodies2 so are all bodies by the spirit of life1 and the irrational spirit of life by the rational spirit of life1 and the truant and sinful rational spirit of life by the rational1 loyal1 and righteous spirit of life4 ,but the soul of ,christ moves even the highest spirits1 enlightening them1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vii74 ,therefore it seems that the soul of ,christ has omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's soul had in its highest degree the grace of miracles or works of might4 ,but every transmutation of the creature can belong to the grace of miracles2 since even the heavenly bodies were miraculously changed from their course1 as ,dionysius proves 7,ep4 ad ,polycarp74 ,therefore ,christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,on the contrary1 ,to transmute creatures belongs to ,him ,who preserves them4 ,now this belongs to ,god alone1 according to ,heb4 #a3c3 ,upholding all things by the word of ,his power4 ,therefore ,god alone has omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,therefore this does not belong to ,christ's soul4 ,i answer that1 ,two distinctions are here needed4 ,of these the first is with respect to the transmutation of creatures1 which is three-fold4 ,the first is natural1 being brought about by the proper agent naturally2 the second is miraculous1 being brought about by a supernatural agent above the wonted order and course of nature1 as to raise the dead2 the third is inasmuch as every creature may be brought to nothing4 ,the second distinction has to do with ,christ's soul1 which may be looked at in two ways3 first in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of grace2 secondly1 as it is the instrument of the ,word of ,god1 personally united to ,him4 ,therefore if we speak of the soul of ,christ in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of grace1 it had power to cause those effects proper to a soul 7e4g4 to rule the body and direct human acts1 and also1 by the fulness of grace and knowledge to enlighten all rational creatures falling short of its perfection71 in a manner befitting a rational creature4 ,but if we speak of the soul of ,christ as it is the instrument of the ,word united to ,him1 it had an instrumental power to effect all the miraculous transmutations ordainable to the end of the ,incarnation1 which is to re-establish all things that are in heaven and on earth 99,eph4 #a3aj4 ,but the transmutation of creatures1 inasmuch as they may be brought to nothing1 corresponds to their creation1 whereby they were brought from nothing4 ,and hence even as ,god alone can create1 so1 too1 ,he alone can bring creatures to nothing1 and ,he alone upholds them in being1 lest they fall back to nothing4 ,and thus it must be said that the soul of ,christ had not omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,jerome says 7on the text quoted73 ,power is given ,him1 i4e4 to ,christ as man1 ,who a little while before was crucified1 buried in the tomb1 and afterwards rose again4 ,but power is said to have been given ,him1 by reason of the union whereby it was brought about that a ,man was omnipotent1 as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,and although this was made known to the angels before the ,resurrection1 yet after the ,resurrection it was made known to all men1 as ,remigius says 7cf4 ,catena ,aurea74 ,now1 things are said to happen when they are made known 99,hugh of ,st4 ,victor3 ,qq4 in ,ep4 ad ,philip44 ,hence after the ,resurrection our ,lord says that all power is given to ,him in heaven and on earth4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although every creature is transmutable by some other creature1 except1 indeed1 the highest angel1 and even it can be enlightened by ,christ's soul2 yet not every transmutation that can be made in a creature can be made by a creature2 since some transmutations can be made by ,god alone4 ,yet all transmutations that can be made in creatures can be made by the soul of ,christ1 as the instrument of the ,word1 but not in its proper nature and power1 since some of these transmutations pertain to the soul neither in the order of nature nor in the order of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was said in the ,second ,part 7,q4 #agh1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a71 the grace of mighty works or miracles is given to the soul of a saint1 so that these miracles are wrought not by his own1 but by ,divine power4 ,now this grace was bestowed on ,christ's soul most excellently1 i4e4 not only that ,he might work miracles1 but also that ,he might communicate this grace to others4 ,hence it is written 7,matt4 #aj3a7 that1 having called ,his twelve disciples together1 ,he gave them power over unclean spirits1 to cast them out1 and to heal all manner of diseases1 and all manner of infirmities4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ac1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,had ,omnipotence with ,regard to ,his ,own ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to ,his own body4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bj1 #bc7 that all natural things were voluntary to ,christ2 ,he willed to hunger1 ,he willed to thirst1 ,he willed to fear1 ,he willed to die4 ,now ,god is called omnipotent because ,he hath done all things whatsoever ,he would 7,ps4 #aac3aa74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the body4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 human nature was more perfect in ,christ than in ,adam1 who had a body entirely subject to the soul1 so that nothing could happen to the body against the will of the soul--and this on account of the original justice which it had in the state of innocence4 ,much more1 therefore1 had ,christ's soul omnipotence with regard to ,his body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the body is naturally changed by the imaginations of the soul2 and so much more changed1 the stronger the soul's imagination1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aag1 ,a4 #c1 ad #c74 ,now the soul of ,christ had most perfect strength as regards both the imagination and the other powers4 ,therefore the soul of ,christ was omnipotent with regard to ,his own body4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #b3ag7 that it behooved ,him in all things to be made like unto ,his brethren1 and especially as regards what belongs to the condition of human nature4 ,but it belongs to the condition of human nature that the health of the body and its nourishment and growth are not subject to the bidding of reason or will1 since natural things are subject to ,god alone ,who is the author of nature4 ,therefore they were not subject in ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ's soul was not omnipotent with regard to ,his own body4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 ,christ's soul may be viewed in two ways4 ,first1 in its proper nature and power2 and in this way1 as it was incapable of making exterior bodies swerve from the course and order of nature1 so1 too1 was it incapable of changing its own body from its natural disposition1 since the soul1 of its own nature1 has a determinate relation to its body4 ,secondly1 ,christ's soul may be viewed as an instrument united in person to ,god's ,word2 and thus every disposition of ,his own body was wholly subject to ,his power4 ,nevertheless1 since the power of an action is not properly attributed to the instrument1 but to the principal agent1 this omnipotence is attributed to the ,word of ,god rather than to ,christ's soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this saying of ,damascene refers to the ,divine will of ,christ1 since1 as he says in the preceding chapter 7,de ,fide ,orth4 xix1 #ad1 #ae71 it was by the consent of the ,divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what was proper to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was no part of the original justice which ,adam had in the state of innocence that a man's soul should have the power of changing his own body to any form1 but that it should keep it from any hurt4 ,yet ,christ could have assumed even this power if ,he had wished4 ,but since man has three states--viz4 innocence1 sin1 and glory1 even as from the state of glory ,he assumed comprehension and from the state of innocence1 freedom from sin--so also from the state of sin did ,he assume the necessity of being under the penalties of this life1 as will be said 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if the imagination be strong1 the body obeys naturally in some things1 e4g4 as regards falling from a beam set on high1 since the imagination was formed to be a principle of local motion1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #i1 #aj4 ,so1 too1 as regards alteration in heat and cold1 and their consequences2 for the passions of the soul1 wherewith the heart is moved1 naturally follow the imagination1 and thus by commotion of the spirits the whole body is altered4 ,but the other corporeal dispositions which have no natural relation to the imagination are not transmuted by the imagination1 however strong it is1 e4g4 the shape of the hand1 or foot1 or such like4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ac1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,soul of ,christ ,had ,omnipotence ,as ,regards the ,execution of ,his ,will8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ had not omnipotence as regards the execution of ,his own will4 ,for it is written 7,mk4 #g3bd7 that entering into a house1 ,he would that no man should know it1 and ,he could not be hid4 ,therefore ,he could not carry out the purpose of ,his will in all things4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a command is a sign of will1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #ab74 ,but our ,lord commanded certain things to be done1 and the contrary came to pass1 for it is written 7,matt4 #i3cj1 #ca7 that ,jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been opened1 saying3 ,see that no man know this4 ,but they going out spread ,his fame abroad in all that country4 ,therefore ,he could not carry out the purpose of ,his will in everything4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a man does not ask from another for what he can do himself4 ,but our ,lord besought the ,father1 praying for what ,he wished to be done1 for it is written 7,luke #f3ab73 ,he went out into a mountain to pray1 and ,he passed the whole night in the prayer of ,god4 ,therefore ,he could not carry out the purpose of ,his will in all things4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,qq4 ,nov4 et ,vet4 ,test41 qu4 #gg73 ,it is impossible for the will of the ,saviour not to be fulfilled3 nor is it possible for ,him to will what ,he knows ought not to come to pass4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's soul willed things in two ways4 ,first1 what was to be brought about by ,himself2 and it must be said that ,he was capable of whatever ,he willed thus1 since it would not befit ,his wisdom if ,he willed to do anything of ,himself that was not subject to ,his will4 ,secondly1 ,he wished things to be brought about by the ,divine power1 as the resurrection of ,his own body and such like miraculous deeds1 which ,he could not effect by ,his own power1 except as the instrument of the ,godhead1 as was said above 7,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,qq4 ,nov4 et ,vet4 ,test41 qu4 #gg73 ,what came to pass1 this ,christ must be said to have willed4 ,for it must be remarked that this happened in the country of the ,gentiles1 to whom it was not yet time to preach4 ,yet it would have been invidious not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith4 ,hence ,he did not wish to be heralded by ,his own1 and yet ,he wished to be sought2 and so it came to pass4 ,or it may be said that this will of ,christ was not with regard to what was to be carried out by it1 but with regard to what was to be done by others1 which did not come under ,his human will4 ,hence in the letter of ,pope ,agatho1 which was approved in the ,sixth ,council 99,third ,council of ,constantinople1 ,act4 iv1 we read3 ,when ,he1 the ,creator and ,redeemer of all1 wished to be hid and could not1 must not this be referred only to ,his human will which ,he deigned to assume in time8 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,gregory says 7,moral4 xix71 by the fact that ,our ,lord charged ,his mighty works to be kept secret1 ,he gave an example to ,his servants coming after ,him that they should wish their miracles to be hidden2 and yet1 that others may profit by their example1 they are made public against their will4 ,and thus this command signified ,his will to fly from human glory1 according to ,john #h3ej1 ,i seek not ,my own glory4 ,yet ,he wished absolutely1 and especially by ,his ,divine will1 that the miracle wrought should be published for the good of others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ prayed both for things that were to be brought about by the ,divine power1 and for what ,he ,himself was to do by ,his human will1 since the power and operation of ,christ's soul depended on ,god1 ,who works in all ,vulg43 'you'1 both to will and to accomplish 7,phil4 #b3ac74 ,,question #ad ,,of ,,the ,,defects ,,of ,,body ,,assumed ,,by ,,the ,,son ,,of ,,god 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the defects ,christ assumed in the human nature2 and first1 of the defects of body2 secondly1 of the defects of soul4 ,under the first head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,son of ,god should have assumed in human nature defects of body8 7#b7 ,whether ,he assumed the obligation of being subject to these defects8 7#c7 ,whether ,he contracted these defects8 7#d7 ,whether ,he assumed all these defects8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ad1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,son of ,god in ,human ,nature ,ought to ,have ,assumed ,defects of ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,son of ,god ought not to have assumed human nature with defects of body4 ,for as ,his soul is personally united to the ,word of ,god1 so also is ,his body4 ,but the soul of ,christ had every perfection1 both of grace and truth1 as was said above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #i2 ,q4 #i1 seqq474 ,hence1 ,his body also ought to have been in every way perfect1 not having any imperfection in it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul of ,christ saw the ,word of ,god by the vision wherein the blessed see1 as was said above 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #b71 and thus the soul of ,christ was blessed4 ,now by the beatification of the soul the body is glorified2 since1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dios4 cxviii71 ,god made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness of its blessedness there pours over even into the lower nature 7i4e4 the body71 not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and vision1 but the fulness of health 7i4e4 the vigor of incorruptibility74 ,therefore the body of ,christ was incorruptible and without any defect4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 penalty is the consequence of fault4 ,but there was no fault in ,christ1 according to #a ,pet4 #b3bb3 ,who did no guile4 ,therefore defects of body1 which are penalties1 ought not to have been in ,him4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his proper end4 ,but by such like bodily defects1 the end of the ,incarnation seems to be hindered in many ways4 ,first1 because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing ,him1 according to ,isa4 #ec3b1 #c3 ,there was no sightliness that we should be desirous of ,him4 ,despised and the most abject of men1 a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity1 and ,his look was1 as it were1 hidden and despised1 whereupon we esteemed ,him not4 ,secondly1 because the desire of the ,fathers would not seem to be fulfilled1 in whose person it is written 7,isa4 #ea3i73 ,arise1 arise1 put on ,thy strength1 ,o ,thou ,arm of the ,lord4 ,thirdly1 because it would seem more fitting for the devil's power to be overcome and man's weakness healed1 by strength than by weakness4 ,therefore it does not seem to have been fitting that the ,son of ,god assumed human nature with infirmities or defects of body4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #b3ah73 ,for in that1 wherein ,he ,himself hath suffered and been tempted1 ,he is able to succor them also that are tempted4 ,now ,he came to succor us4 ,hence ,david said of ,him 7,ps4 #abj3a73 ,i have lifted up my eyes to the mountains1 from whence help shall come to me4 ,therefore it was fitting for the ,son of ,god to assume flesh subject to human infirmities1 in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for the body assumed by the ,son of ,god to be subject to human infirmities and defects2 and especially for three reasons4 ,first1 because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the ,son of ,god1 having taken flesh1 came into the world4 ,now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other4 ,but these bodily defects1 to wit1 death1 hunger1 thirst1 and the like1 are the punishment of sin1 which was brought into the world by ,adam1 according to ,rom4 #e3ab3 ,by one man sin entered into this world1 and by sin death4 ,hence it was useful for the end of the ,incarnation that ,he should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead1 according to ,isa4 #ec3d1 ,surely ,he hath borne our infirmities4 ,secondly1 in order to cause belief in the ,incarnation4 ,for since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects1 if the ,son of ,god had assumed human nature without these defects1 ,he would not have seemed to be true man1 nor to have true1 but imaginary1 flesh1 as the ,manicheans held4 ,and so1 as is said1 ,phil4 #b3g3 ,he 4 4 4 emptied ,himself1 taking the form of a servant1 being made in the likeness of men1 and in habit found as a man4 ,hence1 ,thomas1 by the sight of ,his wounds1 was recalled to the faith1 as related ,john #bj3bf4 ,thirdly1 in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects4 ,hence it is said 7,heb4 #ab3c7 that ,he endured such opposition from sinners against ,himself1 that you be not wearied1 fainting in your minds4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the penalties one suffers for another's sin are the matter1 as it were1 of the satisfaction for that sin2 but the principle is the habit of soul1 whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another1 and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy1 for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity1 as will be explained 7,supp41 ,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence1 it behooved the soul of ,christ to be perfect as regards the habit of knowledge and virtue1 in order to have the power of satisfying2 but ,his body was subject to infirmities1 that the matter of satisfaction should not be wanting4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,from the natural relationship which is between the soul and the body1 glory flows into the body from the soul's glory4 ,yet this natural relationship in ,christ was subject to the will of ,his ,godhead1 and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the soul1 and did not flow into the body2 but the flesh suffered what belongs to a passible nature2 thus ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ae7 that1 it was by the consent of the ,divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,punishment always follows sin actual or original1 sometimes of the one punished1 sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers the punishment satisfies4 ,and so it was with ,christ1 according to ,isa4 #ec3e3 ,he was wounded for our iniquities1 ,he was bruised for our sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the infirmity assumed by ,christ did not impede1 but greatly furthered the end of the ,incarnation1 as above stated4 ,and although these infirmities concealed ,his ,godhead1 they made known ,his ,manhood1 which is the way of coming to the ,godhead1 according to ,rom4 #e3a1 #b3 ,by ,jesus ,christ we have access to ,god4 ,moreover1 the ancient ,fathers did not desire bodily strength in ,christ1 but spiritual strength1 wherewith ,he vanquished the devil and healed human weakness4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ad1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,was of ,necessity ,subject to ,these ,defects8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not of necessity subject to these defects4 ,for it is written 7,isa4 #ec3g73 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will2 and the prophet is speaking of the offering of the ,passion4 ,but will is opposed to necessity4 ,therefore ,christ was not of necessity subject to bodily defects4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bj73 ,nothing obligatory is seen in ,christ3 all is voluntary4 ,now what is voluntary is not necessary4 ,therefore these defects were not of necessity in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 necessity is induced by something more powerful4 ,but no creature is more powerful than the soul of ,christ1 to which it pertained to preserve its own body4 ,therefore these defects were not of necessity in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #h3c7 that ,god sent ,his own ,son in the likeness of sinful flesh4 ,now it is a condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying1 and suffering other like passions4 ,therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in ,christ's flesh4 ,i answer that1 ,necessity is twofold4 ,one is a necessity of constraint1 brought about by an external agent2 and this necessity is contrary to both nature and will1 since these flow from an internal principle4 ,the other is natural necessity1 resulting from the natural principles--either the form 7as it is necessary for fire to heat71 or the matter 7as it is necessary for a body composed of contraries to be dissolved74 ,hence1 with this necessity1 which results from the matter1 ,christ's body was subject to the necessity of death and other like defects1 since1 as was said 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 it was by the consent of the ,divine will that the flesh was allowed to do and suffer what belonged to it4 ,and this necessity results from the principles of human nature1 as was said above in this article4 ,but if we speak of necessity of constraint1 as repugnant to the bodily nature1 thus again was ,christ's body in its own natural condition subject to necessity in regard to the nail that pierced and the scourge that struck4 ,yet inasmuch as such necessity is repugnant to the will1 it is clear that in ,christ these defects were not of necessity as regards either the ,divine will1 or the human will of ,christ considered absolutely1 as following the deliberation of reason2 but only as regards the natural movement of the will1 inasmuch as it naturally shrinks from death and bodily hurt4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is said to be offered because it was ,his own will1 i4e4 ,divine will and deliberate human will2 although death was contrary to the natural movement of ,his human will1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bc1 #bd74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this is plain from what has been said4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nothing was more powerful than ,christ's soul1 absolutely2 yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more powerful in regard to this or that effect1 as a nail for piercing4 ,and this ,i say1 in so far as ,christ's soul is considered in its own proper nature and power4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ad1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,contracted ,these ,defects8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ contracted bodily defects4 ,for we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth4 ,but ,christ1 together with human nature1 derived ,his bodily defects and infirmities through ,his birth from ,his mother1 whose flesh was subject to these defects4 ,therefore it seems that ,he contracted these defects4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is caused by the principles of nature is derived together with nature1 and hence is contracted4 ,now these penalties are caused by the principles of human nature4 ,therefore ,christ contracted them4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is likened to other men in these defects1 as is written ,heb4 #b3ag4 ,but other men contract these defects4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ contracted these defects4 ,on the contrary1 ,these defects are contracted through sin1 according to ,rom4 #e3ab3 ,by one man sin entered into this world and by sin1 death4 ,now sin had no place in ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ did not contract these defects4 ,i answer that1 ,in the verb to contract is understood the relation of effect to cause1 i4e4 that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause4 ,now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin1 since by sin death entered into this world1 according to ,rom4 #e3ab4 ,and hence they who incur these defects1 as due to sin1 are properly said to contract them4 ,now ,christ had not these defects1 as due to sin1 since1 as ,augustine 99,alcuin in the ,gloss1 ,ord41 expounding ,john #c3ca1 ,he that cometh from above1 is above all1 says3 ,christ came from above1 i4e4 from the height of human nature1 which it had before the fall of the first man4 ,for ,he received human nature without sin1 in the purity which it had in the state of innocence4 ,in the same way ,he might have assumed human nature without defects4 ,thus it is clear that ,christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon ,himself as due to sin1 but by ,his own will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the flesh of the ,virgin was conceived in original sin1 99,see introductory note to ,q4 #bg and therefore contracted these defects4 ,but from the ,virgin1 ,christ's flesh assumed the nature without sin1 and ,he might likewise have assumed the nature without its penalties4 ,but ,he wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out the work of our redemption1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,therefore ,he had these defects--not that ,he contracted them1 but that ,he assumed them4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the cause of death and other corporeal defects of human nature is twofold3 the first is remote1 and results from the material principles of the human body1 inasmuch as it is made up of contraries4 ,but this cause was held in check by original justice4 ,hence the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin1 whereby original justice is withdrawn4 ,and thus1 because ,christ was without sin1 ,he is said not to have contracted these defects1 but to have assumed them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ was made like to other men in the quality and not in the cause of these defects2 and hence1 unlike others1 ,he did not contract them4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ad1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,ought to ,have ,assumed ,all the ,bodily ,defects of ,men8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f1 #ah73 ,what is unassumable is incurable4 ,but ,christ came to cure all our defects4 ,therefore ,he ought to have assumed all our defects4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further it was said 7,a4 #a71 that in order to satisfy for us1 ,christ ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of body4 ,now as regards the soul1 ,he assumed the fulness of all grace4 ,therefore as regards the body1 ,he ought to have assumed all defects4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief place4 ,now ,christ assumed death4 ,much more1 therefore1 ought ,he to have assumed other defects4 ,on the contrary1 ,contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the same4 ,now some infirmities are contrary to each other1 being caused by contrary principles4 ,hence it could not be that ,christ assumed all human infirmities4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 ,christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature1 and for this it was necessary for ,him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace in ,his soul4 ,hence ,christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature1 yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace4 ,and thus it was not fitting for ,him to assume all human defects or infirmities4 ,for there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace1 as ignorance1 a proneness towards evil1 and a difficulty in well-doing4 ,some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent1 but are caused in some men by certain particular causes1 as leprosy1 epilepsy1 and the like2 and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man1 e4g4 from inordinate eating2 sometimes by a defect in the formative power4 ,now neither of these pertains to ,christ1 since ,his flesh was conceived of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who has infinite wisdom and power1 and cannot err or fail2 and ,he ,himself did nothing wrong in the order of ,his life4 ,but there are some third defects1 to be found amongst all men in common1 by reason of the sin of our first parent1 as death1 hunger1 thirst1 and the like2 and all these defects ,christ assumed1 which ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 i1 #aa2 iii1 #bj7 calls natural and indetractible passions --natural1 as following all human nature in common2 indetractible1 as implying no defect of knowledge or grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all particular defects of men are caused by the corruptibility and passibility of the body1 some particular causes being added2 and hence1 since ,christ healed the passibility and corruptibility of our body by assuming it1 ,he consequently healed all other defects4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to ,christ's soul of itself1 from the fact of its being assumed by the ,word of ,god2 and hence ,christ assumed all the fulness of knowledge and wisdom absolutely4 ,but ,he assumed our defects economically1 in order to satisfy for our sin1 and not that they belonged to ,him of ,himself4 ,hence it was not necessary for ,him to assume them all1 but only such as sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,death comes to all men from the sin of our first parent2 but not other defects1 although they are less than death4 ,hence there is no parity4 ,,question #ae ,,of ,,the ,,defects ,,of ,,soul ,,assumed ,,by ,,christ 7,in ,ten ,articles7 ,we must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul2 and under this head there are ten points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether there was sin in ,christ8 7#b7 ,whether there was the fomes of sin in ,him8 7#c7 ,whether there was ignorance8 7#d7 ,whether ,his soul was passible8 7#e7 ,whether in ,him there was sensible pain8 7#f7 ,whether there was sorrow8 7#g7 ,whether there was fear8 7#h7 ,whether there was wonder8 7#i7 ,whether there was anger8 7#aj7 ,whether ,he was at once wayfarer and comprehensor8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,there ,was ,sin in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was sin in ,christ4 ,for it is written 7,ps4 #ba3b73 ,o ,god1 ,my ,god 4 4 4 why hast ,thou forsaken ,me8 ,far from ,my salvation are the words of ,my sins4 ,now these words are said in the person of ,christ ,himself1 as appears from ,his having uttered them on the cross4 ,therefore it would seem that in ,christ there were sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ab7 that in ,adam all have sinned--namely1 because all were in ,adam by origin4 ,now ,christ also was in ,adam by origin4 ,therefore ,he sinned in him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3ah7 that in that1 wherein ,he ,himself hath suffered and been tempted1 ,he is able to succor them also that are tempted4 ,now above all do we require ,his help against sin4 ,therefore it seems that there was sin in ,him4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is written 7#b ,cor4 #e3ba7 that ,him that knew no sin 7i4e4 ,christ71 for us ,god hath made sin4 ,but that really is1 which has been made by ,god4 ,therefore there was really sin in ,christ4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xi71 in the man ,christ the ,son of ,god gave ,himself to us as a pattern of living4 ,now man needs a pattern not merely of right living1 but also of repentance for sin4 ,therefore it seems that in ,christ there ought to have been sin1 that ,he might repent of ,his sin1 and thus afford us a pattern of repentance4 ,on the contrary1 ,he ,himself says 7,john #h3df73 ,which of you shall convince ,me of sin8 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a71 ,christ assumed our defects that ,he might satisfy for us1 that ,he might prove the truth of ,his human nature1 and that ,he might become an example of virtue to us4 ,now it is plain that by reason of these three things ,he ought not to have assumed the defect of sin4 ,first1 because sin nowise works our satisfaction2 rather1 it impedes the power of satisfying1 since1 as it is written 7,ecclus4 #cd3bc71 ,the ,most ,high approveth not the gifts of the wicked4 ,secondly1 the truth of ,his human nature is not proved by sin1 since sin does not belong to human nature1 whereof ,god is the cause2 but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bj74 ,thirdly1 because by sinning ,he could afford no example of virtue1 since sin is opposed to virtue4 ,hence ,christ nowise assumed the defect of sin--either original or actual--according to what is written 7#a ,pet4 #b3bb73 ,who did no sin1 neither was guile found in ,his mouth4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #be71 things are said of ,christ1 first1 with reference to ,his natural and hypostatic property1 as when it is said that ,god became man1 and that ,he suffered for us2 secondly1 with reference to ,his personal and relative property1 when things are said of ,him in our person which nowise belong to ,him of ,himself4 ,hence1 in the seven rules of ,tichonius which ,augustine quotes in ,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 iii1 #ca1 the first regards ,our ,lord and ,his ,body1 since ,christ and ,his ,church are taken as one person4 ,and thus ,christ1 speaking in the person of ,his members1 says 7,ps4 #ba3b73 ,the words of ,my sins--not that there were any sins in the ,head4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x1 #bj71 ,christ was in ,adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were4 ,for we were in ,adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance1 since1 as he goes on to say3 ,as in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue1 both have come from ,adam4 ,now ,christ took the visible substance of ,his flesh from the ,virgin's flesh2 but the virtue of ,his conception did not spring from the seed of man1 but far otherwise--from on high4 ,hence ,he was not in ,adam according to seminal virtue1 but only according to bodily substance4 ,and therefore ,christ did not receive human nature from ,adam actively1 but only materially--and from the ,holy ,ghost actively2 even as ,adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth--actively from ,god4 ,and thus ,christ did not sin in ,adam1 in whom ,he was only as regards ,his matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in ,his temptation and passion ,christ has succored us by satisfying for us4 ,now sin does not further satisfaction1 but hinders it1 as has been said4 ,hence1 it behooved ,him not to have sin1 but to be wholly free from sin2 otherwise the punishment ,he bore would have been due to ,him for ,his own sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,god made ,christ sin--not1 indeed1 in such sort that ,he had sin1 but that ,he made ,him a sacrifice for sin3 even as it is written 7,osee #d3h73 ,they shall eat the sins of ,my people--they1 i4e4 the priests1 who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin4 ,and in that way it is written 7,isa4 #ec3f7 that the ,lord hath laid on ,him the iniquity of us all 7i4e4 ,he gave ,him up to be a victim for the sins of all men72 or ,he made ,him sin 7i4e4 made ,him to have the likeness of sinful flesh71 as is written 7,rom4 #h3c71 and this on account of the passible and mortal body ,he assumed4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,a penitent can give a praiseworthy example1 not by having sinned1 but by freely bearing the punishment of sin4 ,and hence ,christ set the highest example to penitents1 since ,he willingly bore the punishment1 not of ,his own sin1 but of the sins of others4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,there ,was the ,fomes of ,sin in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was the fomes of sin4 ,for the fomes of sin1 and the passibility and mortality of the body spring from the same principle1 to wit1 from the withdrawal of original justice1 whereby the inferior powers of the soul were subject to the reason1 and the body to the soul4 ,now passibility and mortality of body were in ,christ4 ,therefore there was also the fomes of sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ai71 it was by consent of the ,divine will that the flesh of ,christ was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it4 ,but it is proper to the flesh to lust after its pleasures4 ,now since the fomes of sin is nothing more than concupiscence1 as the gloss says on ,rom4 #g3h1 it seems that in ,christ there was the fomes of sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is by reason of the fomes of sin that the flesh lusteth against the spirit1 as is written 7,gal4 #e3ag74 ,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 wit1 the concupiscence of the flesh1 according to #b ,tim4 #b3e1 he is not crowned except he strive lawfully4 ,now ,christ had a most valiant and conquering spirit1 and one most worthy of a crown1 according to ,apoc4 #f3b3 ,there was a crown given ,him1 and ,he went forth conquering that ,he might conquer4 ,therefore it would especially seem that the fomes of sin ought to have been in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #a3bj73 ,that which is conceived in her is of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,now the ,holy ,ghost drives out sin and the inclination to sin1 which is implied in the word fomes4 ,therefore in ,christ there ought not to have been the fomes of sin4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #g1 ,,aa4 #b1 #i71 ,christ had grace and all the virtues most perfectly4 ,now moral virtues1 which are in the irrational part of the soul1 make it subject to reason1 and so much the more as the virtue is more perfect2 thus1 temperance controls the concupiscible appetite1 fortitude and meekness the irascible appetite1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ef1 ,a4 #d74 ,but there belongs to the very nature of the fomes of sin an inclination of the sensual appetite to what is contrary to reason4 ,and hence it is plain that the more perfect the virtues are in any man1 the weaker the fomes of sin becomes in him4 ,hence1 since in ,christ the virtues were in their highest degree1 the fomes of sin was nowise in ,him2 inasmuch1 also1 as this defect cannot be ordained to satisfaction1 but rather inclined to what is contrary to satisfaction4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive appetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason2 but not the bodily powers1 nor those of the bodily humors1 nor those of the vegetative soul1 as is made plain ,ethic4 i1 #ac4 ,and hence perfection of virtue1 which is in accordance with right reason1 does not exclude passibility of body2 yet it excludes the fomes of sin1 the nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appetite to reason4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite2 but the flesh of man1 who is a rational animal1 seeks this after the manner and order of reason4 ,and thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite ,christ's flesh naturally sought food1 drink1 and sleep1 and all else that is sought in right reason1 as is plain from ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ad74 ,yet it does not therefore follow that in ,christ there was the fomes of sin1 for this implies the lust after pleasurable things against the order of reason4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the spirit gives evidence of fortitude to some extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to it2 yet a greater fortitude of spirit is shown1 if by its strength the flesh is thoroughly overcome1 so as to be incapable of lusting against the spirit4 ,and hence this belonged to ,christ1 whose spirit reached the highest degree of fortitude4 ,and although ,he suffered no internal assault on the part of the fomes of sin1 ,he sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil1 and won the crown of victory by overcoming them4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #c ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was ,ignorance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was ignorance in ,christ4 ,for that is truly in ,christ which belongs to ,him in ,his human nature1 although it does not belong to ,him in ,his ,divine ,nature1 as suffering and death4 ,but ignorance belongs to ,christ in ,his human nature2 for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ba7 that ,he assumed an ignorant and enslaved nature4 ,therefore ignorance was truly in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one is said to be ignorant through defect of knowledge4 ,now some kind of knowledge was wanting to ,christ1 for the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #e3ba7 ,him that knew no sin1 for us ,he hath made sin4 ,therefore there was ignorance in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,isa4 #h3d73 ,for before the child know to call his ,father and his mother1 the strength of ,damascus 4 4 4 shall be taken away4 ,therefore in ,christ there was ignorance of certain things4 ,on the contrary1 ,ignorance is not taken away by ignorance4 ,but ,christ came to take away our ignorance2 for ,he came to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death 7,luke #a3gi74 ,therefore there was no ignorance in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as there was the fulness of grace and virtue in ,christ1 so too there was the fulness of all knowledge1 as is plain from what has been said above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #i2 ,q4 #i74 ,now as the fulness of grace and virtue in ,christ excluded the fomes of sin1 so the fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance1 which is opposed to knowledge4 ,hence1 even as the fomes of sin was not in ,christ1 neither was there ignorance in ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the nature assumed by ,christ may be viewed in two ways4 ,first1 in its specific nature1 and thus ,damascene calls it ignorant and enslaved2 hence he adds3 ,for man's nature is a slave of ,him 7i4e4 ,god7 ,who made it2 and it has no knowledge of future things4 ,secondly1 it may be considered with regard to what it has from its union with the ,divine hypostasis1 from which it has the fulness of knowledge and grace1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' as it were the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth2 and in this way the human nature in ,christ was not affected with ignorance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is said not to have known sin1 because ,he did not know it by experience2 but ,he knew it by simple cognition4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the prophet is speaking in this passage of the human knowledge of ,christ2 thus he says3 ,before the ,child 7i4e4 in ,his human nature7 know to call ,his father 7i4e4 ,joseph1 who was ,his reputed father71 and ,his mother 7i4e4 ,mary71 the strength of ,damascus 4 4 4 shall be taken away4 ,nor are we to understand this as if ,he had been some time a man without knowing it2 but before ,he know 7i4e4 before ,he is a man having human knowledge7--literally1 the strength of ,damascus and the spoils of ,samaria shall be taken away by the ,king of the ,assyrians--or spiritually1 before ,his birth ,he will save ,his people solely by invocation1 as a gloss expounds it4 ,augustine however 7,serm4 xxxii de ,temp47 says that this was fulfilled in the adoration of the ,magi4 ,for he says3 ,before ,he uttered human words in human flesh1 ,he received the strength of ,damascus1 i4e4 the riches which ,damascus vaunted 7for in riches the first place is given to gold74 ,they themselves were the spoils of ,samaria4 ,because ,samaria is taken to signify idolatry2 since this people1 having turned away from the ,lord1 turned to the worship of idols4 ,hence these were the first spoils which the child took from the domination of idolatry4 ,and in this way before the child know may be taken to mean before he show himself to know4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,soul ,was ,passible8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the soul of ,christ was not passible4 ,for nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger2 since the agent is greater than the patient1 as is clear from ,augustine 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii1 #af71 and from the ,philosopher 7,de ,anima iii1 #e74 ,now no creature was stronger than ,christ's soul4 ,therefore ,christ's soul could not suffer at the hands of any creature2 and hence it was not passible2 for its capability of suffering would have been to no purpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,tully 7,de ,tusc4 ,quaes4 iii7 says that the soul's passions are ailments 99,cf4 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #b4 ,but ,christ's soul had no ailment2 for the soul's ailment results from sin1 as is plain from ,ps4 #dj3e3 ,heal my soul1 for ,i have sinned against ,thee4 ,therefore in ,christ's soul there were no passions4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the soul's passions would seem to be the same as the fomes of sin1 hence the ,apostle 7,rom4 #g3e7 calls them the passions of sins4 ,now the fomes of sin was not in ,christ1 as was said 7,a4 #b74 ,therefore it seems that there were no passions in ,his soul2 and hence ,his soul was not passible4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #hg3d7 in the person of ,christ3 ,my soul is filled with evils--not sins1 indeed1 but human evils1 i4e4 pains1 as a gloss expounds it4 ,hence the soul of ,christ was passible4 ,i answer that1 ,a soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways3 first with a bodily passion2 secondly1 with an animal passion4 ,it suffers with a bodily passion through bodily hurt2 for since the soul is the form of the body1 soul and body have but one being2 and hence1 when the body is disturbed by any bodily passion1 the soul1 too1 must be disturbed1 i4e4 in the being which it has in the body4 ,therefore1 since ,christ's body was passible and mortal1 as was said above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #b71 ,his soul also was of necessity passible in like manner4 ,but the soul suffers with an animal passion1 in its operations--either in such as are proper to the soul1 or in such as are of the soul more than of the body4 ,and although the soul is said to suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,a4 #c2 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #da1 ,a4 #a72 nevertheless the affections of the sensitive appetite are most properly called passions of the soul4 ,now these were in ,christ1 even as all else pertaining to man's nature4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #i73 ,our ,lord having deigned to live in the form of a servant1 took these upon ,himself whenever ,he judged they ought to be assumed2 for there was no false human affection in ,him ,who had a true body and a true human soul4 ,nevertheless we must know that the passions were in ,christ otherwise than in us1 in three ways4 ,first1 as regards the object1 since in us these passions very often tend towards what is unlawful1 but not so in ,christ4 ,secondly1 as regards the principle1 since these passions in us frequently forestall the judgment of reason2 but in ,christ all movements of the sensitive appetite sprang from the disposition of the reason4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #i71 that ,christ assumed these movements1 in ,his human soul1 by an unfailing dispensation1 when ,he willed2 even as ,he became man when ,he willed4 ,thirdly1 as regards the effect1 because in us these movements1 at times1 do not remain in the sensitive appetite1 but deflect the reason2 but not so in ,christ1 since by ,his disposition the movements that are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained in the sensitive appetite that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what was right4 ,hence ,jerome says 7on ,matt4 #bf3cg7 that ,our ,lord1 in order to prove the reality of the assumed manhood1 'was sorrowful' in very deed2 yet lest a passion should hold sway over ,his soul1 it is by a propassion that ,he is said to have 'begun to grow sorrowful and to be sad'2 so that it is a perfect passion when it dominates the soul1 i4e4 the reason2 and a propassion when it has its beginning in the sensitive appetite1 but goes no further4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the soul of ,christ could have prevented these passions from coming upon it1 and especially by the ,divine power2 yet of ,his own will ,he subjected ,himself to these corporeal and animal passions4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,tully is speaking there according to the opinions of the ,stoics1 who did not give the name of passions to all1 but only to the disorderly movements of the sensitive appetite4 ,now1 it is manifest that passions like these were not in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the passions of sins are movements of the sensitive appetite that tend to unlawful things2 and these were not in ,christ1 as neither was the fomes of sin4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,there ,was ,sensible ,pain in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was no true sensible pain in ,christ4 ,for ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 x73 ,since with ,christ to die was life1 what pain may ,he be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of ,his death1 ,who bestows life on such as die for ,him8 ,and further on he says3 ,the ,only-begotten assumed human nature1 not ceasing to be ,god2 and although blows struck ,him and wounds were inflicted on ,him1 and scourges fell upon ,him1 and the cross lifted ,him up1 yet these wrought in deed the vehemence of the passion1 but brought no pain2 as a dart piercing the water4 ,hence there was no true pain in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in original sin1 to be subject to the necessity of pain4 ,but the flesh of ,christ was not conceived in sin1 but of the ,holy ,ghost in the ,virgin's womb4 ,therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering pain4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the delight of the contemplation of ,divine things dulls the sense of pain2 hence the martyrs in their passions bore up more bravely by thinking of the ,divine love4 ,but ,christ's soul was in the perfect enjoyment of contemplating ,god1 ,whom ,he saw in essence1 as was said above 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore ,he could feel no pain4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #ec3d73 ,surely ,he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows4 ,i answer that1 ,as is plain from what has been said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,a4 #g71 for true bodily pain are required bodily hurt and the sense of hurt4 ,now ,christ's body was able to be hurt1 since it was passible and mortal1 as above stated 7,q4 #ad1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b72 neither was the sense of hurt wanting to it1 since ,christ's soul possessed perfectly all natural powers4 ,therefore no one should doubt but that in ,christ there was true pain4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in all these and similar words1 ,hilary does not intend to exclude the reality of the pain1 but the necessity of it4 ,hence after the foregoing he adds3 ,nor1 when ,he thirsted1 or hungered1 or wept1 was the ,lord seen to drink1 or eat1 or grieve4 ,but in order to prove the reality of the body1 the body's customs were assumed1 so that the custom of our body was atoned for by the custom of our nature4 ,or when ,he took drink or food1 ,he acceded1 not to the body's necessity1 but to its custom4 ,and he uses the word necessity in reference to the first cause of these defects1 which is sin1 as above stated 7,q4 #ad1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c71 so that ,christ's flesh is said not to have lain under the necessity of these defects1 in the sense that there was no sin in it4 ,hence he adds3 ,for ,he 7i4e4 ,christ7 had a body--one proper to ,his origin1 which did not exist through the unholiness of our conception1 but subsisted in the form of our body by the strength of ,his power4 ,but as regards the proximate cause of these defects1 which is composition of contraries1 the flesh of ,christ lay under the necessity of these defects1 as was said above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain1 not merely on account of the necessity of its natural principles1 but from the necessity of the guilt of sin4 ,now this necessity was not in ,christ2 but only the necessity of natural principles4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was said above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 by the power of the ,godhead of ,christ the beatitude was economically kept in the soul1 so as not to overflow into the body1 lest ,his passibility and mortality should be taken away2 and for the same reason the delight of contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the sensitive powers1 lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,there ,was ,sorrow in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no sorrow4 ,for it is written of ,christ 7,isa4 #db3d73 ,he shall not be sad nor troublesome4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,prov4 #ab3ba73 ,whatever shall befall the just man1 it shall not make him sad4 ,and the reason of this the ,stoics asserted to be that no one is saddened save by the loss of his goods4 ,now the just man esteems only justice and virtue as his goods1 and these he cannot lose2 otherwise the just man would be subject to fortune if he was saddened by the loss of the goods fortune has given him4 ,but ,christ was most just1 according to ,jer4 #bc3f3 ,this is the name that they shall call ,him3 ,the ,lord1 our just one4 ,therefore there was no sorrow in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 vii1 #ac1 #ad7 that all sorrow is evil1 and to be shunned4 ,but in ,christ there was no evil to be shunned4 ,therefore there was no sorrow in ,christ4 ,obj4 #d3 ,furthermore1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #f73 ,sorrow regards the things we suffer unwillingly4 ,but ,christ suffered nothing against ,his will1 for it is written 7,isa4 #ec3g73 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will4 ,hence there was no sorrow in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord said 7,matt4 #bf3ch73 ,my soul is sorrowful even unto death4 ,and ,ambrose says 7,de ,trin4 ii47 that as a man ,he had sorrow2 for ,he bore my sorrow4 ,i call it sorrow1 fearlessly1 since ,i preach the cross4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #e1 ad #c71 by ,divine dispensation the joy of contemplation remained in ,christ's mind so as not to overflow into the sensitive powers1 and thereby shut out sensible pain4 ,now even as sensible pain is in the sensitive appetite1 so also is sorrow4 ,but there is a difference of motive or object2 for the object and motive of pain is hurt perceived by the sense of touch1 as when anyone is wounded2 but the object and motive of sorrow is anything hurtful or evil interiorly1 apprehended by the reason or the imagination1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,,aa4 #b1 #g71 as when anyone grieves over the loss of grace or money4 ,now ,christ's soul could apprehend things as hurtful either to ,himself1 as ,his passion and death--or to others1 as the sin of ,his disciples1 or of the ,jews that killed ,him4 ,and hence1 as there could be true pain in ,christ1 so too could there be true sorrow2 otherwise1 indeed1 than in us1 in the three ways above stated 7,a4 #d71 when we were speaking of the passions of ,christ's soul in general4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sorrow was not in ,christ1 as a perfect passion2 yet it was inchoatively in ,him as a propassion4 ,hence it is written 7,matt4 #bf3cg73 ,he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad4 ,for it is one thing to be sorrowful and another to grow sorrowful1 as ,jerome says1 on this text4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #h71 for the three passions--desire1 joy1 and fear--the ,stoics held three eupatheias i4e4 good passions1 in the soul of the wise man1 viz4 for desire1 will--for joy1 delight--for fear1 caution4 ,but as regards sorrow1 they denied it could be in the soul of the wise man1 for sorrow regards evil already present1 and they thought that no evil could befall a wise man2 and for this reason1 because they believed that only the virtuous is good1 since it makes men good1 and that nothing is evil1 except what is sinful1 whereby men become wicked4 ,now although what is virtuous is man's chief good1 and what is sinful is man's chief evil1 since these pertain to reason which is supreme in man1 yet there are certain secondary goods of man1 which pertain to the body1 or to the exterior things that minister to the body4 ,and hence in the soul of the wise man there may be sorrow in the sensitive appetite by his apprehending these evils2 without this sorrow disturbing the reason4 ,and in this way are we to understand that whatsoever shall befall the just man1 it shall not make him sad1 because his reason is troubled by no misfortune4 ,and thus ,christ's sorrow was a propassion1 and not a passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,all sorrow is an evil of punishment2 but it is not always an evil of fault1 except only when it proceeds from an inordinate affection4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #i73 ,whenever these affections follow reason1 and are caused when and where needed1 who will dare to call them diseases or vicious passions8 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,there is no reason why a thing may not of itself be contrary to the will1 and yet be willed by reason of the end1 to which it is ordained1 as bitter medicine is not of itself desired1 but only as it is ordained to health4 ,and thus ,christ's death and passion were of themselves involuntary1 and caused sorrow1 although they were voluntary as ordained to the end1 which is the redemption of the human race4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,there ,was ,fear in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was no fear in ,christ4 ,for it is written 7,prov4 #bh3a73 ,the just1 bold as a lion1 shall be without dread4 ,but ,christ was most just4 ,therefore there was no fear in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 x73 ,i ask those who think thus1 does it stand to reason that ,he should dread to die1 ,who by expelling all dread of death from the ,apostles1 encouraged them to the glory of martyrdom8 ,therefore it is unreasonable that there should be fear in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 fear seems only to regard what a man cannot avoid4 ,now ,christ could have avoided both the evil of punishment which ,he endured1 and the evil of fault which befell others4 ,therefore there was no fear in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #d3cc73 ,jesus began to fear and to be heavy4 ,i answer that1 ,as sorrow is caused by the apprehension of a present evil1 so also is fear caused by the apprehension of a future evil4 ,now the apprehension of a future evil1 if the evil be quite certain1 does not arouse fear4 ,hence the ,philosopher says 7,rhet4 ii1 #e7 that we do not fear a thing unless there is some hope of avoiding it4 ,for when there is no hope of avoiding it the evil is considered present1 and thus it causes sorrow rather than fear4 ,hence fear may be considered in two ways4 ,first1 inasmuch as the sensitive appetite naturally shrinks from bodily hurt1 by sorrow if it is present1 and by fear if it is future2 and thus fear was in ,christ1 even as sorrow4 ,secondly1 fear may be considered in the uncertainty of the future event1 as when at night we are frightened at a sound1 not knowing what it is2 and in this way there was no fear in ,christ1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bc74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the just man is said to be without dread1 in so far as dread implies a perfect passion drawing man from what reason dictates4 ,and thus fear was not in ,christ1 but only as a propassion4 ,hence it is said 7,mk4 #ad3cc7 that ,jesus began to fear and to be heavy1 with a propassion1 as ,jerome expounds 7,matt4 #bf3cg74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,hilary excludes fear from ,christ in the same way that he excludes sorrow1 i4e4 as regards the necessity of fearing4 ,and yet to show the reality of ,his human nature1 ,he voluntarily assumed fear1 even as sorrow4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although ,christ could have avoided future evils by the power of ,his ,godhead1 yet they were unavoidable1 or not easily avoidable by the weakness of the flesh4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,there ,was ,wonder in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no wonder4 ,for the ,philosopher says 7,metaph4 i1 #b7 that wonder results when we see an effect without knowing its cause2 and thus wonder belongs only to the ignorant4 ,now there was no ignorance in ,christ1 as was said 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore there was no wonder in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii1 #ae7 that wonder is fear springing from the imagination of something great2 and hence the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iv1 #c7 that the magnanimous man does not wonder4 ,but ,christ was most magnanimous4 ,therefore there was no wonder in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 no man wonders at what he himself can do4 ,now ,christ could do whatsoever was great4 ,therefore it seems that ,he wondered at nothing4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #h3aj73 ,jesus hearing this1 i4e4 the words of the centurion1 marveled4 ,i answer that1 ,wonder properly regards what is new and unwonted4 ,now there could be nothing new and unwonted as regards ,christ's ,divine knowledge1 whereby ,he saw things in the ,word2 nor as regards the human knowledge1 whereby ,he saw things by infused species4 ,yet things could be new and unwonted with regard to ,his empiric knowledge1 in regard to which new things could occur to ,him day by day4 ,hence1 if we speak of ,christ with respect to ,his ,divine knowledge1 and ,his beatific and even ,his infused knowledge1 there was no wonder in ,christ4 ,but if we speak of ,him with respect to empiric knowledge1 wonder could be in ,him2 and ,he assumed this affection for our instruction1 i4e4 in order to teach us to wonder at what ,he ,himself wondered at4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,super ,gen4 ,cont4 ,manich4 i1 #h73 ,our ,lord wondered in order to show us that we1 who still need to be so affected1 must wonder4 ,hence all these emotions are not signs of a disturbed mind1 but of a master teaching4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although ,christ was ignorant of nothing1 yet new things might occur to ,his empiric knowledge1 and thus wonder would be caused4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ did not marvel at the ,centurion's faith as if it was great with respect to ,himself1 but because it was great with respect to others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,he could do all things by the ,divine power1 for with respect to this there was no wonder in ,him1 but only with respect to ,his human empiric knowledge1 as was said above4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,there ,was ,anger in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was no anger in ,christ4 ,for it is written 7,james #a3bj73 ,the anger of man worketh not the justice of ,god4 ,now whatever was in ,christ pertained to the justice of ,god1 since of ,him it is written 7#a ,cor4 #a3cj73 ,for ,he ,vulg43 ',who' of ,god is made unto us 4 4 4 justice4 ,therefore it seems that there was no anger in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 anger is opposed to meekness1 as is plain from ,ethic4 iv1 #e4 ,but ,christ was most meek4 ,therefore there was no anger in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,gregory says 7,moral4 v1 #de7 that anger that comes of evil blinds the eye of the mind1 but anger that comes of zeal disturbs it4 ,now the mind's eye in ,christ was neither blinded nor disturbed4 ,therefore in ,christ there was neither sinful anger nor zealous anger4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #b3ag7 that the words of ,ps4 #eh3aj1 the zeal of ,thy house hath eaten me up1 were fulfilled in ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #df1 ,a4 #c1 ad #c1 and ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #aeh1 ,a4 #b1 ad #c71 anger is an effect of sorrow4 ,for when sorrow is inflicted upon someone1 there arises within him a desire of the sensitive appetite to repel this injury brought upon himself or others4 ,hence anger is a passion composed of sorrow and the desire of revenge4 ,now it was said 7,a4 #f7 that sorrow could be in ,christ4 ,as to the desire of revenge it is sometimes with sin1 i4e4 when anyone seeks revenge beyond the order of reason3 and in this way anger could not be in ,christ1 for this kind of anger is sinful4 ,sometimes1 however1 this desire is without sin--nay1 is praiseworthy1 e4g4 when anyone seeks revenge according to justice1 and this is zealous anger4 ,for ,augustine says 7on ,john #b3ag7 that he is eaten up by zeal for the house of ,god1 who seeks to better whatever ,he sees to be evil in it1 and if he cannot right it1 bears with it and sighs4 ,such was the anger that was in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,gregory says 7,moral4 v71 anger is in man in two ways--sometimes it forestalls reason1 and causes it to operate1 and in this way it is properly said to work1 for operations are attributed to the principal agent4 ,it is in this way that we must understand that the anger of man worketh not the justice of ,god4 ,sometimes anger follows reason1 and is1 as it were1 its instrument1 and then the operation1 which pertains to justice1 is not attributed to anger but to reason4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is the anger which outsteps the bounds of reason that is opposed to meekness1 and not the anger which is controlled and brought within its proper bounds by reason1 for meekness holds the mean in anger4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in us the natural order is that the soul's powers mutually impede each other1 i4e4 if the operation of one power is intense1 the operation of the other is weakened4 ,this is the reason why any movement whatsoever of anger1 even if it be tempered by reason1 dims the mind's eye of him who contemplates4 ,but in ,christ1 by control of the ,divine power1 every faculty was allowed to do what was proper to it1 and one power was not impeded by another4 ,hence1 as the joy of ,his mind in contemplation did not impede the sorrow or pain of the inferior part1 so1 conversely1 the passions of the inferior part no-wise impeded the act of reason4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ae1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,christ ,was at ,once a ,wayfarer and a ,comprehensor8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor4 ,for it belongs to a wayfarer to be moving toward the end of beatitude1 and to a comprehensor it belongs to be resting in the end4 ,now to be moving towards the end and to be resting in the end cannot belong to the same4 ,therefore ,christ could not be at once wayfarer and comprehensor4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to tend to beatitude1 or to obtain it1 does not pertain to man's body1 but to his soul2 hence ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dios4 cxviii7 that upon the inferior nature1 which is the body1 there overflows1 not indeed the beatitude which belongs to such as enjoy and understand1 the fulness of health1 i4e4 the vigor of incorruption4 ,now although ,christ had a passible body1 ,he fully enjoyed ,god in ,his mind4 ,therefore ,christ was not a wayfarer but a comprehensor4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,saints1 whose souls are in heaven and whose bodies are in the tomb1 enjoy beatitude in their souls1 although their bodies are subject to death1 yet they are called not wayfarers1 but only comprehensors4 ,hence1 with equal reason1 would it seem that ,christ was a pure comprehensor and nowise a wayfarer1 since ,his mind enjoyed ,god although ,his body was mortal4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,jer4 #ad3h73 ,why wilt ,thou be as a stranger in the land1 and as a wayfaring man turning in to lodge8 ,i answer that1 ,a man is called a wayfarer from tending to beatitude1 and a comprehensor from having already obtained beatitude1 according to #a ,cor4 #i3bd3 ,so run that you may comprehend ,douay3 'obtain'2 and ,phil4 #c3ab3 ,i follow after1 if by any means ,i may comprehend ,douay3 'obtain'4 ,now man's perfect beatitude consists in both soul and body1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #f74 ,in the soul1 as regards what is proper to it1 inasmuch as the mind sees and enjoys ,god2 in the body1 inasmuch as the body will rise spiritual in power and glory and incorruption1 as is written #a ,cor4 #ae3db4 ,now before ,his passion ,christ's mind saw ,god fully1 and thus ,he had beatitude as far as it regards what is proper to the soul2 but beatitude was wanting with regard to all else1 since ,his soul was passible1 and ,his body both passible and mortal1 as is clear from the above 7,a4 #d2 ,q4 #ad1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,hence ,he was at once comprehensor1 inasmuch as ,he had the beatitude proper to the soul1 and at the same time wayfarer1 inasmuch as ,he was tending to beatitude1 as regards what was wanting to ,his beatitude4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is impossible to be moving towards the end and resting in the end1 in the same respect2 but there is nothing against this under a different respect--as when a man is at once acquainted with what he already knows1 and yet is a learner with regard to what he does not know4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,beatitude principally and properly belongs to the soul with regard to the mind1 yet secondarily and1 so to say1 instrumentally1 bodily goods are required for beatitude2 thus the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 i1 #h71 that exterior goods minister organically to beatitude4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there is no parity between the soul of a saint and of ,christ1 for two reasons3 first1 because the souls of saints are not passible1 as ,christ's soul was2 secondly1 because their bodies do nothing by which they tend to beatitude1 as ,christ by ,his bodily sufferings tended to beatitude as regards the glory of ,his body4 ,,question #af ,,of ,,those ,,things ,,which ,,are ,,applicable ,,to ,,christ ,,in ,,his ,,being ,,and ,,becoming 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,we must now consider the consequences of the union2 and first as to what belongs to ,christ in ,himself2 secondly1 as to what belongs to ,christ in relation with ,his ,father2 thirdly1 as to what belongs to ,christ in relation to us4 ,concerning the first1 there occurs a double consideration4 ,the first is about such things as belong to ,christ in being and becoming2 the second regards such things as belong to ,christ by reason of unity4 ,under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether this is true3 ,god is man8 7#b7 ,whether this is true3 ,man is ,god8 7#c7 ,whether ,christ may be called a lordly man8 7#d7 ,whether what belongs to the ,son of ,man may be predicated of the ,son of ,god1 and conversely8 7#e7 ,whether what belongs to the ,son of ,man may be predicated of the ,divine ,nature1 and what belongs to the ,son of ,god of the human nature8 7#f7 ,whether this is true3 ,the ,son of ,god was made man8 7#g7 ,whether this is true3 ,man became ,god8 7#h7 ,whether this is true3 ,christ is a creature8 7#i7 ,whether this is true3 ,this man1 pointing out ,christ1 began to be8 or always was8 7#aj7 ,whether this is true3 ,christ as man is a creature8 7#aa7 ,whether this is true3 ,christ as man is ,god8 7#ab7 ,whether this is true3 ,christ as man is a hypostasis or person8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,god ,is ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is false3 ,god is man4 ,for every affirmative proposition of remote matter is false4 ,now this proposition1 ,god is man1 is on remote matter1 since the forms signified by the subject and predicate are most widely apart4 ,therefore1 since the aforesaid proposition is affirmative1 it would seem to be false4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the three ,divine ,persons are in greater mutual agreement than the human nature and the ,divine4 ,but in the mystery of the ,incarnation one ,person is not predicated of another2 for we do not say that the ,father is the ,son1 or conversely4 ,therefore it seems that the human nature ought not to be predicated of ,god by saying that ,god is man4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,athanasius says 7,symb4 ,fid47 that1 as the soul and the flesh are one man1 so are ,god and man one ,christ4 ,but this is false3 ,the soul is the body4 ,therefore this also is false3 ,god is man4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #d7 that what is predicated of ,god not relatively but absolutely1 belongs to the whole ,trinity and to each of the ,persons4 ,but this word man is not relative1 but absolute4 ,hence1 if it is predicated of ,god1 it would follow that the whole ,trinity and each of the ,persons is man2 and this is clearly false4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #b3f1 #g73 ,who being in the form of ,god 4 4 4 emptied ,himself1 taking the form of a servant1 being made in the likeness of man1 and in habit found as a man2 and thus ,he ,who is in the form of ,god is man4 ,now ,he ,who is in the form of ,god is ,god4 ,therefore ,god is man4 ,i answer that1 ,this proposition ,god is man1 is admitted by all ,christians1 yet not in the same way by all4 ,for some admit the proposition1 but not in the proper acceptation of the terms4 ,thus the ,manicheans say the ,word of ,god is man1 not indeed true1 but fictitious man1 inasmuch as they say that the ,son of ,god assumed an imaginary body1 and thus ,god is called man as a bronze figure is called man if it has the figure of a man4 ,so1 too1 those who held that ,christ's body and soul were not united1 could not say that ,god is true man1 but that ,he is figuratively called man by reason of the parts4 ,now both these opinions were disproved above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #e1 ,a4 #a74 ,some1 on the contrary1 hold the reality on the part of man1 but deny the reality on the part of ,god4 ,for they say that ,christ1 ,who is ,god and man1 is ,god not naturally1 but by participation1 i4e4 by grace2 even as all other holy men are called gods--,christ being more excellently so than the rest1 on account of ,his more abundant grace4 ,and thus1 when it is said that ,god is man1 ,god does not stand for the true and natural ,god4 ,and this is the heresy of ,photinus1 which was disproved above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #aj1 #aa74 ,but some admit this proposition1 together with the reality of both terms1 holding that ,christ is true ,god and true man2 yet they do not preserve the truth of the predication4 ,for they say that man is predicated of ,god by reason of a certain conjunction either of dignity1 or of authority1 or of affection or indwelling4 ,it was thus that ,nestorius held ,god to be man--nothing further being meant than that ,god is joined to man by such a conjunction that man is dwelt in by ,god1 and united to ,him in affection1 and in a share of the ,divine authority and honor4 ,and into the same error fall those who suppose two supposita or hypostases in ,christ1 since it is impossible to understand how1 of two things distinct in suppositum or hypostasis1 one can be properly predicated of the other3 unless merely by a figurative expression1 inasmuch as they are united in something1 as if we were to say that ,peter is ,john because they are somehow mutually joined together4 ,and these opinions also were disproved above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f74 ,hence1 supposing the truth of the ,catholic belief1 that the true ,divine ,nature is united with true human nature not only in person1 but also in suppositum or hypostasis2 we say that this proposition is true and proper1 ,god is man--not only by the truth of its terms1 i4e4 because ,christ is true ,god and true man1 but by the truth of the predication4 ,for a word signifying the common nature in the concrete may stand for all contained in the common nature1 as this word man may stand for any individual man4 ,and thus this word ,god1 from its very mode of signification1 may stand for the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #d74 ,now of every suppositum of any nature we may truly and properly predicate a word signifying that nature in the concrete1 as man may properly and truly be predicated of ,socrates and ,plato4 ,hence1 since the ,person of the ,son of ,god for ,whom this word ,god stands1 is a suppositum of human nature this word man may be truly and properly predicated of this word ,god1 as it stands for the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when different forms cannot come together in one suppositum1 the proposition is necessarily in remote matter1 the subject signifying one form and the predicate another4 ,but when two forms can come together in one suppositum1 the matter is not remote1 but natural or contingent1 as when ,i say3 ,something white is musical4 ,now the ,divine and human natures1 although most widely apart1 nevertheless come together by the mystery of the ,incarnation in one suppositum1 in which neither exists accidentally1 but both essentially4 ,hence this proposition is neither in remote nor in contingent1 but in natural matter2 and man is not predicated of ,god accidentally1 but essentially1 as being predicated of its hypostasis--not1 indeed1 by reason of the form signified by this word ,god1 but by reason of the suppositum1 which is a hypostasis of human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the three ,divine ,persons agree in one ,nature1 and are distinguished in suppositum2 and hence they are not predicated one of another4 ,but in the mystery of the ,incarnation the natures1 being distinct1 are not predicated one of the other1 in the abstract4 ,for the ,divine ,nature is not the human nature4 ,but because they agree in suppositum1 they are predicated of each other in the concrete4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,soul and flesh are taken in the abstract1 even as ,godhead and manhood2 but in the concrete we say animate and carnal or corporeal1 as1 on the other hand1 ,god and man4 ,hence in both cases the abstract is not predicated of the abstract1 but only the concrete of the concrete4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this word man is predicated of ,god1 because of the union in person1 and this union implies a relation4 ,hence it does not follow the rule of those words which are absolutely predicated of ,god from eternity4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,man ,is ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is false3 ,man is ,god4 ,for ,god is an incommunicable name2 hence 7,wis4 #ac3aj2 #ad3ba7 idolaters are rebuked for giving the name of ,god1 which is incommunicable1 to wood and stones4 ,hence with equal reason does it seem unbecoming that this word ,god should be predicated of man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whatever is predicated of the predicate may be predicated of the subject4 ,but this is true3 ,god is the ,father1 or ,god is the ,trinity4 ,therefore1 if it is true that ,man is ,god1 it seems that this also is true3 ,man is the ,father1 or ,man is the ,trinity4 ,but these are false4 ,therefore the first is false4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,ps4 #hj3aj73 ,there shall be no new ,god in thee4 ,but man is something new2 for ,christ was not always man4 ,therefore this is false3 ,man is ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #i3e73 ,of whom is ,christ according to the flesh1 ,who is over all things1 ,god blessed for ever4 ,now ,christ1 according to the flesh1 is man4 ,therefore this is true3 ,man is ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,granted the reality of both natures1 i4e4 ,divine and human1 and of the union in person and hypostasis1 this is true and proper3 ,man is ,god1 even as this3 ,god is man4 ,for this word man may stand for any hypostasis of human nature2 and thus it may stand for the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 ,whom we say is a hypostasis of human nature4 ,now it is manifest that the word ,god is truly and properly predicated of the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #d74 ,hence it remains that this is true and proper3 ,man is ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,idolaters attributed the name of the ,deity to stones and wood1 considered in their own nature1 because they thought there was something divine in them4 ,but we do not attribute the name of the ,deity to the man in ,his human nature1 but in the eternal suppositum1 which by union is a suppositum of human nature1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this word ,father is predicated of this word ,god1 inasmuch as this word ,god stands for the ,person of the ,father4 ,and in this way it is not predicated of the ,person of the ,son1 because the ,person of the ,son is not the ,person of the ,father4 ,and1 consequently1 it is not necessary that this word ,father be predicated of this word ,man1 of which the ,word ,god is predicated1 inasmuch as ,man stands for the ,person of the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the human nature in ,christ is something new1 yet the suppositum of the human nature is not new1 but eternal4 ,and because this word ,god is predicated of man not on account of the human nature1 but by reason of the suppositum1 it does not follow that we assert a new ,god4 ,but this would follow1 if we held that ,man stands for a created suppositum3 even as must be said by those who assert that there are two supposita in ,christ 99,cf4 ,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,can ,be ,called a ,lordly ,man899 99,the question is hardly apposite in ,english4 ,st4 ,thomas explains why we can say in ,latin1 e4g4 oratio dominica 7the ,lord's ,prayer7 or passio dominica 7,our ,lord's ,passion71 but not speak of our ,lord as homo dominicus 7a lordly man74 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ can be called a lordly man4 ,for ,augustine says 7,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #cf7 that we are to be counseled to hope for the goods that were in the ,lordly ,man2 and he is speaking of ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ was a lordly man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as lordship belongs to ,christ by reason of ,his ,divine ,nature1 so does manhood belong to the human nature4 ,now ,god is said to be humanized1 as is plain from ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa71 where he says that being humanized manifests the conjunction with man4 ,hence with like reason may it be said denominatively that this man is lordly4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as lordly is derived from lord1 so is ,divine derived from ,deus ,god4 ,but ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iv7 calls ,christ the most ,divine ,jesus4 ,therefore with like reason may ,christ be called a lordly man4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,retract4 i1 #ai73 ,i do not see that we may rightly call ,jesus ,christ a lordly man1 since ,he is the ,lord ,himself4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #b1 ad #c71 when we say the ,man ,christ ,jesus1 we signify the eternal suppositum1 which is the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 because there is only one suppositum of both natures4 ,now ,god and ,lord are predicated essentially of the ,son of ,god2 and hence they ought not to be predicated denominatively1 since this is derogatory to the truth of the union4 ,hence1 since we say lordly denominatively from lord1 it cannot truly and properly be said that this ,man is lordly1 but rather that ,he is ,lord4 ,but if1 when we say the ,man ,christ ,jesus1 we mean a created suppositum1 as those who assert two supposita in ,christ1 this man might be called lordly1 inasmuch as he is assumed to a participation of ,divine honor1 as the ,nestorians said4 ,and1 even in this way1 the human nature is not called divine by essence1 but deified--not1 indeed1 by its being converted into the ,divine ,nature1 but by its conjunction with the ,divine ,nature in one hypostasis1 as is plain from ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #aa1 #ag74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine retracts these and the like words 7,retract4 i1 #ai72 hence1 after the foregoing words 7,retract4 i1 #ai71 he adds3 ,wherever ,i have said this1 viz4 that ,christ ,jesus is a lordly man1 ,i wish it unsaid1 having afterwards seen that it ought not to be said although it may be defended with some reason1 i4e4 because one might say that ,he was called a lordly man by reason of the human nature1 which this word man signifies1 and not by reason of the suppositum4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this one suppositum1 which is of the human and ,divine natures1 was first of the ,divine ,nature1 i4e4 from eternity4 ,afterwards in time it was made a suppositum of human nature by the ,incarnation4 ,and for this reason it is said to be humanized--not that it assumed a man1 but that it assumed human nature4 ,but the converse of this is not true1 viz4 that a suppositum of human nature assumed the ,divine ,nature2 hence we may not say a deified or lordly man4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this word ,divine is wont to be predicated even of things of which the word ,god is predicated essentially2 thus we say that the ,divine ,essence is ,god1 by reason of identity2 and that the ,essence belongs to ,god1 or is ,divine1 on account of the different way of signifying2 and we speak of the ,divine ,word1 though the ,word is ,god4 ,so1 too1 we say a ,divine ,person1 just as we say the person of ,plato1 on account of its different mode of signification4 ,but lordly is not predicated of those of which lord is predicated2 for we are not wont to call a man who is a lord1 lordly2 but whatsoever belongs to a lord is called lordly1 as the lordly will1 or the lordly hand1 or the lordly possession4 ,and hence the man ,christ1 ,who is our ,lord1 cannot be called lordly2 yet ,his flesh can be called lordly flesh and ,his passion the lordly passion4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,what ,belongs to the ,human ,nature ,can ,be ,predicated of ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of ,god4 ,for contrary things cannot be said of the same4 ,now1 what belongs to human nature is contrary to what is proper to ,god1 since ,god is uncreated1 immutable1 and eternal1 and it belongs to the human nature to be created temporal and mutable4 ,therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to attribute to ,god what is defective seems to be derogatory to the ,divine honor1 and to be a blasphemy4 ,now what pertains to the human nature contains a kind of defect1 as to suffer1 to die1 and the like4 ,hence it seems that what pertains to the human nature can nowise be said of ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to be assumed pertains to the human nature2 yet it does not pertain to ,god4 ,therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #d7 that ,god assumed the idioms1 i4e4 the properties1 of flesh1 since ,god is said to be passible1 and the ,god of glory was crucified4 ,i answer that1 ,on this question there was a difference of opinion between ,nestorians and ,catholics4 ,the ,nestorians wished to divide words predicated of ,christ1 in this way1 viz4 that such as pertained to human nature should not be predicated of ,god1 and that such as pertained to the ,divine ,nature should not be predicated of the ,man4 ,hence ,nestorius said3 ,if anyone attempt to attribute sufferings to the ,word1 let him be anathema 99,council of ,ephesus1 ,part ,i1 ch4 #bi4 ,but if there are any words applicable to both natures1 of them they predicated what pertained to both natures1 as ,christ or ,lord4 ,hence they granted that ,christ was born of a ,virgin1 and that ,he was from eternity2 but they did not say that ,god was born of a virgin1 or that the ,man was from eternity4 ,catholics on the other hand maintained that words which are said of ,christ either in ,his ,divine or in ,his human nature may be said either of ,god or of man4 ,hence ,cyril says 99,council of ,ephesus1 ,part ,i1 ch4 #bf3 ,if anyone ascribes to two persons or substances1 i4e4 hypostases1 such words as are in the evangelical and apostolic ,scriptures1 or have been said of ,christ by the ,saints1 or by ,himself of ,himself1 and believes that some are to be applied to the ,man1 and apportions some to the ,word alone--let him be anathema4 ,and the reason of this is that1 since there is one hypostasis of both natures1 the same hypostasis is signified by the name of either nature4 ,thus whether we say man or ,god1 the hypostasis of ,divine and human nature is signified4 ,and hence1 of the ,man may be said what belongs to the ,divine ,nature1 as of a hypostasis of the ,divine ,nature2 and of ,god may be said what belongs to the human nature1 as of a hypostasis of human nature4 ,nevertheless1 it must be borne in mind that in a proposition in which something is predicated of another1 we must not merely consider what the predicate is predicated of1 but also the reason of its being predicated4 ,thus1 although we do not distinguish things predicated of ,christ1 yet we distinguish that by reason of which they are predicated1 since those things that belong to the ,divine ,nature are predicated of ,christ in ,his ,divine ,nature1 and those that belong to the human nature are predicated of ,christ in ,his human nature4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #aa73 ,we must distinguish what is said by ,scripture in reference to the form of ,god1 wherein ,he is equal to the ,father1 and what in reference to the form of a servant1 wherein ,he is less than the ,father3 and further on he says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #ac73 ,the prudent1 careful1 and devout reader will discern the reason and point of view of what is said4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is impossible for contraries to be predicated of the same in the same respects1 but nothing prevents their being predicated of the same in different aspects4 ,and thus contraries are predicated of ,christ1 not in the same1 but in different natures4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if the things pertaining to defect were attributed to ,god in ,his ,divine ,nature1 it would be a blasphemy1 since it would be derogatory to ,his honor4 ,but there is no kind of wrong done to ,god if they are attributed to ,him in ,his assumed nature4 ,hence in a discourse of the ,council of ,ephesus 99,part ,,iii1 ch4 #aj it is said3 ,god accounts nothing a wrong which is the occasion of man's salvation4 ,for no lowliness that ,he assumed for us injures that ,nature which can be subject to no injury1 yet makes lower things ,its own1 to save our nature4 ,therefore1 since these lowly and worthless things do no harm to the ,divine ,nature1 but bring about our salvation1 how dost thou maintain that what was the cause of our salvation was the occasion of harm to ,god8 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to be assumed pertains to human nature1 not in its suppositum1 but in itself2 and thus it does not belong to ,god4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,what ,belongs to the ,human ,nature ,can ,be ,predicated of the ,divine ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that what belongs to the human nature can be said of the ,divine ,nature4 ,for what belongs to the human nature is predicated of the ,son of ,god1 and of ,god4 ,but ,god is ,his own ,nature4 ,therefore1 what belongs to the human nature may be predicated of the ,divine ,nature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the flesh pertains to human nature4 ,but as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #f71 we say1 after the blessed ,athanasius and ,cyril1 that the ,nature of the ,word was incarnate4 ,therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human nature may be said of the ,divine ,nature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what belongs to the ,divine ,nature belongs to ,christ's human nature2 such as to know future things and to possess saving power4 ,therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human may be said of the ,divine ,nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #d73 ,when we mention the ,godhead we do not predicate of it the idioms1 i4e4 the properties1 of the humanity2 for we do not say that the ,godhead is passible or creatable4 ,now the ,godhead is the ,divine ,nature4 ,therefore what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the ,divine ,nature4 ,i answer that1 ,what belongs to one cannot be said of another1 unless they are both the same2 thus risible can be predicated only of man4 ,now in the mystery of the ,incarnation the ,divine and human natures are not the same2 but the hypostasis of the two natures is the same4 ,and hence what belongs to one nature cannot be predicated of the other if they are taken in the abstract4 ,now concrete words stand for the hypostasis of the nature2 and hence of concrete words we may predicate indifferently what belongs to either nature--whether the word of which they are predicated refers to one nature1 as the word ,christ1 by which is signified both the ,godhead anointing and the manhood anointed2 or to the ,divine ,nature alone1 as this word ,god or the ,son of ,god2 or to the manhood alone1 as this word ,man or ,jesus4 ,hence ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 ad ,palaest4 cxxiv73 ,it is of no consequence from what substance we name ,christ2 because since the unity of person remains inseparably1 one and the same is altogether ,son of ,man by ,his flesh1 and altogether ,son of ,god by the ,godhead which ,he has with the ,father4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in ,god1 ,person and ,nature are really the same2 and by reason of this identity the ,divine ,nature is predicated of the ,son of ,god4 ,nevertheless1 its mode of predication is different2 and hence certain things are said of the ,son of ,god which are not said of the ,divine ,nature2 thus we say that the ,son of ,god is born1 yet we do not say that the ,divine ,nature is born2 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #e74 ,so1 too1 in the mystery of the ,incarnation we say that the ,son of ,god suffered1 yet we do not say that the ,divine ,nature suffered4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,incarnation implies union with flesh1 rather than any property of flesh4 ,now in ,christ each nature is united to the other in person2 and by reason of this union the ,divine ,nature is said to be incarnate and the human nature deified1 as stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,what belongs to the ,divine ,nature is predicated of the human nature--not1 indeed1 as it belongs essentially to the ,divine ,nature1 but as it is participated by the human nature4 ,hence1 whatever cannot be participated by the human nature 7as to be uncreated and omnipotent71 is nowise predicated of the human nature4 ,but the ,divine ,nature received nothing by participation from the human nature2 and hence what belongs to the human nature can nowise be predicated of the ,divine ,nature4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,god ,was ,made ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is false3 ,god was made man4 ,for since man signifies a substance1 to be made man is to be made simply4 ,but this is false3 ,god was made simply4 ,therefore this is false3 ,god was made man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to be made man is to be changed4 ,but ,god cannot be the subject of change1 according to ,malachi #c3f3 ,i am the ,lord1 and ,i change not4 ,hence this is false3 ,god was made man4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 man as predicated of ,christ stands for the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,but this is false3 ,god was made the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore this is false3 ,god was made man4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3ad73 ,the ,word was made flesh3 and as ,athanasius says 7,ep4 ad ,epictetum71 when he said1 ',the ,word was made flesh1' it is as if it were said that ,god was made man4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be made that which begins to be predicated of it for the first time4 ,now to be man is truly predicated of ,god1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 yet in such sort that it pertains to ,god to be man1 not from eternity1 but from the time of ,his assuming human nature4 ,hence1 this is true1 ,god was made man2 though it is understood differently by some3 even as this1 ,god is man1 as we said above 7,a4 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to be made man is to be made simply1 in all those in whom human nature begins to be in a newly created suppositum4 ,but ,god is said to have been made man1 inasmuch as the human nature began to be in an eternally pre-existing suppositum of the ,divine ,nature4 ,and hence for ,god to be made man does not mean that ,god was made simply4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above1 to be made implies that something is newly predicated of another4 ,hence1 whenever anything is predicated of another1 and there is a change in that of which it is predicated1 then to be made is to be changed2 and this takes place in whatever is predicated absolutely1 for whiteness or greatness cannot newly affect anything1 unless it be newly changed to whiteness or greatness4 ,but whatever is predicated relatively can be newly predicated of anything without its change1 as a man may be made to be on the right side without being changed and merely by the change of him on whose left side he was4 ,hence in such cases1 not all that is said to be made is changed1 since it may happen by the change of something else4 ,and it is thus we say of ,god3 ,lord1 ,thou art made ,douay3 'hast been' our refuge 7,ps4 #hi3a74 ,now to be man belongs to ,god by reason of the union1 which is a relation4 ,and hence to be man is newly predicated of ,god without any change in ,him1 by a change in the human nature1 which is assumed to a ,divine ,person4 ,and hence1 when it is said1 ,god was made man1 we understand no change on the part of ,god1 but only on the part of the human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,man stands not for the bare ,person of the ,son of ,god1 but inasmuch as it subsists in human nature4 ,hence1 although this is false1 ,god was made the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 yet this is true3 ,god was made man by being united to human nature4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,man ,was ,made ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is true3 ,man was made ,god4 ,for it is written 7,rom4 #a3b1 #c73 ,which ,he had promised before by ,his prophets in the holy ,scriptures1 concerning ,his ,son ,who was made to ,him of the seed of ,david according to the flesh4 ,now ,christ1 as man1 is of the seed of ,david according to the flesh4 ,therefore man was made the ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #ac7 that such was this assumption1 which made ,god man1 and man ,god4 ,but by reason of this assumption this is true3 ,god was made man4 ,therefore1 in like manner1 this is true3 ,man was made ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,ep4 ad ,chelid4 ci73 ,god was humanized and man was deified1 or whatever else one may like to call it4 ,now ,god is said to be humanized by being made man4 ,therefore with equal reason man is said to be deified by being made ,god2 and thus it is true that ,man was made ,god4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 when it is said that ,god was made man1 the subject of the making or uniting is not ,god1 but human nature1 which the word man signifies4 ,now that seems to be the subject of the making1 to which the making is attributed4 ,hence ,man was made ,god is truer than ,god was made man4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #b73 ,we do not say that man was deified1 but that ,god was humanized4 ,now to be made ,god is the same as to be deified4 ,hence this is false3 ,man was made ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,this proposition1 ,man was made ,god1 may be understood in three ways4 ,first1 so that the participle made absolutely determines either the subject or the predicate2 and in this sense it is false1 since neither the ,man of ,whom it is predicated was made1 nor is ,god made1 as will be said 7,,aa4 #h1 #i74 ,and in the same sense this is false3 ,god was made man4 ,but it is not of this sense that we are now speaking4 ,secondly1 it may be so understood that the word made determines the composition1 with this meaning3 ,man was made ,god1 i4e4 it was brought about that ,man is ,god4 ,and in this sense both are true1 viz4 that ,man was made ,god and that ,god was made ,man4 ,but this is not the proper sense of these phrases2 unless1 indeed1 we are to understand that man has not a personal but a simple supposition4 ,for although this man was not made ,god1 because this suppositum1 viz4 the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 was eternally ,god1 yet man1 speaking commonly1 was not always ,god4 ,thirdly1 properly understood1 this participle made attaches making to man with relation to ,god1 as the term of the making4 ,and in this sense1 granted that the ,person or hypostasis in ,christ are the same as the suppositum of ,god and ,man1 as was shown 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c71 this proposition is false1 because1 when it is said1 ,man was made ,god1 man has a personal suppositum3 because1 to be ,god is not verified of the ,man in ,his human nature1 but in ,his suppositum4 ,now the suppositum of human nature1 of ,whom to be ,god is verified1 is the same as the hypostasis or ,person of the ,son of ,god1 ,who was always ,god4 ,hence it cannot be said that this ,man began to be ,god1 or is made ,god1 or that ,he was made ,god4 ,but if there were a different hypostasis of ,god and man1 so that to be ,god was predicated of the man1 and1 conversely1 by reason of a certain conjunction of supposita1 or of personal dignity1 or of affection or indwelling1 as the ,nestorians said1 then with equal reason might it be said that ,man was made ,god1 i4e4 joined to ,god1 and that ,god was made ,man1 i4e4 joined to man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in these words of the ,apostle the relative ,who which refers to the ,person of the ,son of ,god ought not to be considered as affecting the predicate1 as if someone already existing of the seed of ,david according to the flesh was made the ,son of ,god--and it is in this sense that the objection takes it4 ,but it ought to be taken as affecting the subject1 with this meaning--that the ,son of ,god was made to ,him 7'namely to the honor of the ,father1' as a gloss expounds it71 being of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 as if to say the ,son of ,god having flesh of the seed of ,david to the honor of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this saying of ,augustine is to be taken in the sense that by the assumption that took place in the ,incarnation it was brought about that ,man is ,god and ,god is ,man2 and in this sense both sayings are true as stated above4 ,the same is to be said in reply to the third1 since to be deified is the same as to be made ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,a term placed in the subject is taken materially1 i4e4 for the suppositum2 placed in the predicate it is taken formally1 i4e4 for the nature signified4 ,hence when it is said that ,man was made ,god1 the being made is not attributed to the human nature but to the suppositum of the human nature1 ,which is ,god from eternity1 and hence it does not befit ,him to be made ,god4 ,but when it is said that ,god was made ,man1 the making is taken to be terminated in the human nature4 ,hence1 properly speaking1 this is true3 ,god was made ,man1 and this is false3 ,man was made ,god2 even as if ,socrates1 who was already a man1 were made white1 and were pointed out1 this would be true3 ,this man was made white today1 and this would be false2 ,this white thing was made man today4 ,nevertheless1 if on the part of the subject there is added some word signifying human nature in the abstract1 it might be taken in this way for the subject of the making1 e4g4 if it were said that human nature was made the ,son of ,god's4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,christ ,is a ,creature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is true3 ,christ is a creature4 ,for ,pope ,leo says 99,cf4 ,append4 ,opp4 ,august41 ,serm4 xii de ,nativ43 ,a new and unheard of covenant3 ,god ,who is and was1 is made a creature4 ,now we may predicate of ,christ whatever the ,son of ,god became by the ,incarnation4 ,therefore this is true2 ,christ is a creature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the properties of both natures may be predicated of the common hypostasis of both natures1 no matter by what word they are signified1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,but it is the property of human nature to be created1 as it is the property of the ,divine ,nature to be ,creator4 ,hence both may be said of ,christ1 viz4 that ,he is a creature and that he is uncreated and ,creator4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the principal part of a man is the soul rather than the body4 ,but ,christ1 by reason of the body which ,he took from the ,virgin1 is said simply to be born of the ,virgin4 ,therefore by reason of the soul which is created by ,god1 it ought simply to be said that ,he is a creature4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,trin4 i73 ,was ,christ made by a word8 ,was ,christ created by a command8 as if to say3 ,no6 ,hence he adds3 ,how can there be a creature in ,god8 ,for ,god has a simple not a composite ,nature4 ,therefore it must not be granted that ,christ is a creature4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,jerome 99,gloss1 ,ord4 in ,osee #b3af says1 words spoken amiss lead to heresy2 hence with us and heretics the very words ought not to be in common1 lest we seem to countenance their error4 ,now the ,arian heretics said that ,christ was a creature and less than the ,father1 not only in ,his human nature1 but even in ,his ,divine ,person4 ,and hence we must not say absolutely that ,christ is a creature or less than the ,father2 but with a qualification1 viz4 in ,his human nature4 ,but such things as could not be considered to belong to the ,divine ,person in ,itself may be predicated simply of ,christ by reason of ,his human nature2 thus we say simply that ,christ suffered1 died and was buried3 even as in corporeal and human beings1 things of which we may doubt whether they belong to the whole or the part1 if they are observed to exist in a part1 are not predicated of the whole simply1 i4e4 without qualification1 for we do not say that the ,ethiopian is white but that he is white as regards his teeth2 but we say without qualification that he is curly1 since this can only belong to him as regards his hair4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sometimes1 for the sake of brevity1 the holy doctors use the word creature of ,christ1 without any qualifying term2 we should however take as understood the qualification1 as man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,all the properties of the human1 just as of the ,divine ,nature1 may be predicated equally of ,christ4 ,hence ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #d7 that ,christ ,who ,god and ,man1 is called created and uncreated1 passible and impassible4 ,nevertheless things of which we may doubt to what nature they belong1 are not to be predicated without a qualification4 ,hence he afterwards adds 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #e7 that the one hypostasis1 i4e4 of ,christ1 is uncreated in its ,godhead and created in its manhood3 even so conversely1 we may not say without qualification1 ,christ is incorporeal or impassible2 in order to avoid the error of ,manes1 who held that ,christ had not a true body1 nor truly suffered1 but we must say1 with a qualification1 that ,christ was incorporeal and impassible in ,his ,godhead4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there can be no doubt how the birth from the ,virgin applies to the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 as there can be in the case of creation2 and hence there is no parity4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,this ,man1 i4e4 ,christ1 ,began to ,be8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this ,man1 i4e4 ,christ1 began to be4 ,for ,augustine says 7,tract4 cv in ,joan47 that before the world was1 neither were we1 nor the ,mediator of ,god and men--the ,man ,jesus ,christ4 ,but what was not always1 has begun to be4 ,therefore this ,man1 i4e4 ,christ1 began to be4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ began to be ,man4 ,but to be man is to be simply4 ,therefore this man began to be1 simply4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 man implies a suppositum of human nature4 ,but ,christ was not always a suppositum of human nature4 ,therefore this ,man began to be4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #ac3h73 ,jesus ,christ yesterday and today3 and the same for ever4 ,i answer that1 ,we must not say that this ,man--pointing to ,christ--began to be1 unless we add something4 ,and this for a twofold reason4 ,first1 for this proposition is simply false1 in the judgment of the ,catholic ,faith1 which affirms that in ,christ there is one suppositum and one hypostasis1 as also one ,person4 ,for according to this1 when we say this ,man1 pointing to ,christ1 the eternal suppositum is necessarily meant1 with ,whose eternity a beginning in time is incompatible4 ,hence this is false3 ,this ,man began to be4 ,nor does it matter that to begin to be refers to the human nature1 which is signified by this word man2 because the term placed in the subject is not taken formally so as to signify the nature1 but is taken materially so as to signify the suppositum1 as was said 7,a4 #a1 ad #d74 ,secondly1 because even if this proposition were true1 it ought not to be made use of without qualification2 in order to avoid the heresy of ,arius1 who1 since he pretended that the ,person of the ,son of ,god is a creature1 and less than the ,father1 so he maintained that ,he began to be1 saying there was a time when ,he was not4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the words quoted must be qualified1 i4e4 we must say that the ,man ,jesus ,christ was not1 before the world was1 in ,his humanity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,with this word begin we cannot argue from the lower species to the higher4 ,for it does not follow if this began to be white1 that therefore it began to be colored4 ,and this because to begin implies being now and not heretofore3 for it does not follow if this was not white hitherto that therefore it was not colored hitherto4 ,now1 to be simply is higher than to be man4 ,hence this does not follow3 ,christ began to be ,man--therefore ,he began to be4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this word ,man1 as it is taken for ,christ1 although it signifies the human nature1 which began to be1 nevertheless signifies the eternal suppositum which did not begin to be4 ,hence1 since it signifies the suppositum when placed in the subject1 and refers to the nature when placed in the predicate1 therefore this is false3 ,the ,man ,christ began to be3 but this is true3 ,christ began to be ,man4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,christ ,as ,man ,is a ,creature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this is false3 ,christ as ,man is a creature1 or began to be4 ,for nothing in ,christ is created except the human nature4 ,but this is false3 ,christ as ,man is the human nature4 ,therefore this is also false2 ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the predicate is predicated of the term placed in reduplication1 rather than of the subject of the proposition2 as when ,i say3 ,a body as colored is visible1 it follows that the colored is visible4 ,but as stated 7,,aa4 #h1 #i7 we must not absolutely grant that the ,man ,christ is a creature2 nor consequently that ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whatever is predicated of a man as man is predicated of him per se and simply1 for per se is the same as inasmuch as itself1 as is said ,metaph4 v1 text4 #bc4 ,but this is false3 ,christ as ,man is per se and simply a creature4 ,hence this1 too1 is false2 ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever is1 is either ,creator or creature4 ,but this is false3 ,christ as ,man is ,creator4 ,therefore this is true3 ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,i answer that1 ,when we say ,christ as ,man this word man may be added in the reduplication1 either by reason of the suppositum or by reason of the nature4 ,if it be added by reason of the suppositum1 since the suppositum of the human nature in ,christ is eternal and uncreated1 this will be false3 ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,but if it be added by reason of the human nature1 it is true1 since by reason of the human nature or in the human nature1 it belongs to ,him to be a creature1 as was said 7,a4 #h74 ,it must however be borne in mind that the term covered by the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum1 since it is added as a predicate1 which is taken formally1 for it is the same to say ,christ as ,man and to say ,christ as ,he is a ,man4 ,hence this is to be granted rather than denied3 ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,but if something further be added whereby the term covered by the reduplication is attracted to the suppositum1 this proposition is to be denied rather than granted1 for instance were one to say3 ,christ as 'this' ,man is a creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although ,christ is not the human nature1 ,he has human nature4 ,now the word creature is naturally predicated not only of abstract1 but also of concrete things2 since we say that manhood is a creature and that man is a creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man as placed in the subject refers to the suppositum--and as placed in the reduplication refers to the nature1 as was stated above4 ,and because the nature is created and the suppositum uncreated1 therefore1 although it is not granted that this man is a creature1 yet it is granted that ,christ as ,man is a creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it belongs to every man who is a suppositum of human nature alone to have his being only in human nature4 ,hence of every such suppositum it follows that if it is a creature as man1 it is a creature simply4 ,but ,christ is a suppositum not merely of human nature1 but also of the ,divine ,nature1 in which ,he has an uncreated being4 ,hence it does not follow that1 if ,he is a creature as ,man1 ,he is a creature simply4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,christ ,as ,man ,is ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ1 as ,man1 is ,god4 ,for ,christ is ,god by the grace of union4 ,but ,christ1 as ,man1 has the grace of union4 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to forgive sins is proper to ,god1 according to ,isa4 #dc3be3 ,i am ,he that blot out thy iniquities for ,my own sake4 ,but ,christ as ,man forgives sin1 according to ,matt4 #i3f3 ,but that you may know that the ,son of ,man hath power on earth to forgive sins1 etc4 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is not ,man in common1 but is this particular ,man4 ,now ,christ1 as this ,man1 is ,god1 since by this ,man we signify the eternal suppositum which is ,god naturally4 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,whatever belongs to ,christ as ,man belongs to every man4 ,now1 if ,christ as ,man is ,god1 it follows that every man is ,god--which is clearly false4 ,i answer that1 ,this term man when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways4 ,first as referring to the nature2 and in this way it is not true that ,christ as ,man is ,god1 because the human nature is distinct from the ,divine by a difference of nature4 ,secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum2 and in this way1 since the suppositum of the human nature in ,christ is the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 to ,whom it essentially belongs to be ,god1 it is true that ,christ1 as ,man1 is ,god4 ,nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum1 as stated above 7,a4 #aj71 hence this is to be denied rather than granted3 ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is not with regard to the same1 that a thing moves towards1 and that it is1 something2 for to move belongs to a thing because of its matter or subject--and to be in act belongs to it because of its form4 ,so too it is not with regard to the same1 that it belongs to ,christ to be ordained to be ,god by the grace of union1 and to be ,god4 ,for the first belongs to ,him in ,his human nature1 and the second1 in ,his ,divine ,nature4 ,hence this is true3 ,christ as ,man has the grace of union2 yet not this3 ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,son of ,man has on earth the power of forgiving sins1 not by virtue of the human nature1 but by virtue of the ,divine ,nature1 in which ,divine ,nature resides the power of forgiving sins authoritatively2 whereas in the human nature it resides instrumentally and ministerially4 ,hence ,chrysostom expounding this passage says 99,implicitly4 ,hom4 xxx in ,matth2 cf4 ,st4 ,thomas1 ,catena ,aurea on ,mk4 #b3aj3 ,he said pointedly 'on earth to forgive sins1' in order to show that by an indivisible union ,he united human nature to the power of the ,godhead1 since although ,he was made ,man1 yet ,he remained the ,word of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,when we say this man1 the demonstrative pronoun this attracts man to the suppositum2 and hence ,christ as this ,man1 is ,god1 is a truer proposition than ,christ as ,man is ,god4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #af1 ,art4 #ab ,whether ,this ,is ,true3 ,christ ,as ,man ,is a ,hypostasis or ,person8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ as ,man is a hypostasis or person4 ,for what belongs to every man belongs to ,christ as ,man1 since ,he is like other men according to ,phil4 #b3g3 ,being made in the likeness of men4 ,but every man is a person4 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is a person4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ as ,man is a substance of rational nature4 ,but ,he is not a universal substance3 therefore ,he is an individual substance4 ,now a person is nothing else than an individual substance of rational nature2 as ,boethius says 7,de ,duab4 ,nat474 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is a person4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ as ,man is a being of human nature1 and a suppositum and a hypostasis of the same nature4 ,but every hypostasis and suppositum and being of human nature is a person4 ,therefore ,christ as ,man is a person4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ as ,man is not an eternal person4 ,therefore if ,christ as ,man is a person it would follow that in ,christ there are two persons--one temporal and the other eternal1 which is erroneous1 as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #f2 ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #b74 ,i answer that1 ,as was said 7,,aa4 #aj1 #aa71 the term ,man placed in the reduplication may refer either to the suppositum or to the nature4 ,hence when it is said3 ,christ as ,man is a person1 if it is taken as referring to the suppositum1 it is clear that ,christ as ,man is a person1 since the suppositum of human nature is nothing else than the ,person of the ,son of ,god4 ,but if it be taken as referring to the nature1 it may be understood in two ways4 ,first1 we may so understand it as if it belonged to human nature to be in a person1 and in this way it is true1 for whatever subsists in human nature is a person4 ,secondly it may be taken that in ,christ a proper personality1 caused by the principles of the human nature1 is due to the human nature2 and in this way ,christ as ,man is not a person1 since the human nature does not exist of itself apart from the ,divine ,nature1 and yet the notion of person requires this4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it belongs to every man to be a person1 inasmuch as everything subsisting in human nature is a person4 ,now this is proper to the ,man ,christ that the ,person subsisting in ,his human nature is not caused by the principles of the human nature1 but is eternal4 ,hence in one way ,he is a person1 as ,man2 and in another way ,he is not1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the individual substance1 which is included in the definition of a person1 implies a complete substance subsisting of itself and separate from all else2 otherwise1 a man's hand might be called a person1 since it is an individual substance2 nevertheless1 because it is an individual substance existing in something else1 it cannot be called a person2 nor1 for the same reason1 can the human nature in ,christ1 although it may be called something individual and singular4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as a person signifies something complete and self-subsisting in rational nature1 so a hypostasis1 suppositum1 and being of nature in the genus of substance1 signify something that subsists of itself4 ,hence1 as human nature is not of itself a person apart from the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 so likewise it is not of itself a hypostasis or suppositum or a being of nature4 ,hence in the sense in which we deny that ,christ as ,man is a person we must deny all the other propositions4 ,,question #ag ,,of ,,christ',s ,,unity ,,of ,,being 7,in ,two ,articles7 ,we must now consider what pertains to ,christ's unity in common4 ,for1 in their proper place1 we must consider what pertains to unity and plurality in detail3 thus we concluded 7,q4 #i7 that there is not only one knowledge in ,christ1 and it will be concluded hereafter 7,q4 #ce1 ,a4 #b7 that there is not only one nativity in ,christ4 ,hence we must consider ,christ's unity 7#a7 of being2 7#b7 of will2 7#c7 of operation4 ,under the first head there are two points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ is one or two8 7#b7 ,whether there is only one being in ,christ8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ag1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,is ,one or ,two8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ is not one1 but two4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #g73 ,because the form of ,god took the form of a servant1 both are ,god by reason of ,god ,who assumed1 yet both are ,man by reason of the man assumed4 ,now both may only be said when there are two4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 where there is one thing and another there are two4 ,now ,christ is one thing and another2 for ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xxxv73 ,being in the form of ,god 4 4 4 ,he took the form of a servant 4 4 4 being both in one2 but ,he was one of these as ,word1 and the other as man4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is not only man2 for1 if ,he were a mere man1 ,he would not be ,god4 ,therefore ,he is something else than man1 and thus in ,christ there is one thing and another4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,christ is something that the ,father is1 and something that the ,father is not4 ,therefore ,christ is one thing and another4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 as in the mystery of the ,trinity there are three ,persons in one ,nature1 so in the mystery of the ,incarnation there are two natures in one ,person4 ,but on account of the unity of the ,nature1 notwithstanding the distinction of ,person1 the ,father and ,son are one1 according to ,john #aj3cj3 ,i and the ,father are one4 ,therefore1 notwithstanding the unity of ,person1 ,christ is two on account of the duality of nature4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,phys4 iii1 text4 #ah7 that one and two are predicated denominatively4 ,now ,christ has a duality of nature4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 as accidental form makes a thing otherwise 7alterum7 so does substantial form make another thing 7aliud7 as ,porphyry says 7,praedic474 ,now in ,christ there are two substantial natures1 the human and the ,divine4 ,therefore ,christ is one thing and another4 ,therefore ,christ is two4 ,on the contrary1 ,boethius says 7,de ,duab4 ,nat473 ,whatever is1 inasmuch as it is1 is one4 ,but we confess that ,christ is4 ,therefore ,christ is one4 ,i answer that1 ,nature1 considered in itself1 as it is used in the abstract1 cannot truly be predicated of the suppositum or person1 except in ,god1 in ,whom what it is and whereby it is do not differ1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #bi1 ,a4 #d1 ad #a74 ,but in ,christ1 since there are two natures1 viz4 the ,divine and the human1 one of them1 viz4 the ,divine1 may be predicated of ,him both in the abstract and in the concrete1 for we say that the ,son of ,god1 ,who is signified by the word ,christ1 is the ,divine ,nature and is ,god4 ,but the human nature cannot be predicated of ,christ in the abstract1 but only in the concrete1 i4e4 as it is signified by the suppositum4 ,for we cannot truly say that ,christ is human nature1 because human nature is not naturally predicated of its suppositum4 ,but we say that ,christ is a man1 even as ,christ is ,god4 ,now ,god signifies one having the ,godhead1 and man signifies one having manhood4 ,yet one having manhood is differently signified by the word man and by the word ,jesus or ,peter4 ,for this word man implies one having manhood indistinctly1 even as the word ,god implies indistinctly one having the ,godhead2 but the word ,peter or ,jesus implies one having manhood distinctly1 i4e4 with its determinate individual properties1 as ,son of ,god implies one having the ,godhead under a determinate personal property4 ,now the dual number is placed in ,christ with regard to the natures4 ,hence1 if both the natures were predicated in the abstract of ,christ1 it would follow that ,christ is two4 ,but because the two natures are not predicated of ,christ1 except as they are signified in the suppositum1 it must be by reason of the suppositum that one or two be predicated of ,christ4 ,now some placed two supposita in ,christ1 and one ,person1 which1 in their opinion1 would seem to be the suppositum completed with its final completion4 ,hence1 since they placed two supposita in ,christ1 they said that ,god is two1 in the neuter4 ,but because they asserted one ,person1 they said that ,christ is one1 in the masculine1 for the neuter gender signifies something unformed and imperfect1 whereas the masculine signifies something formed and perfect4 ,on the other hand1 the ,nestorians1 who asserted two ,persons in ,christ1 said that ,christ is two not only in the neuter1 but also in the masculine4 ,but since we maintain one person and one suppositum in ,christ1 as is clear from ,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c1 it follows that we say that ,christ is one not merely in the masculine1 but also in the neuter4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this saying of ,augustine is not to be taken as if both referred to the predicate1 so as to mean that ,christ is both2 but it refers to the subject4 ,and thus both does not stand for two supposita1 but for two words signifying two natures in the concrete4 ,for ,i can say that both1 viz4 ,god and ,man1 are ,god on account of ,god ,who assumes2 and both1 viz4 ,god and ,man1 are ,man on account of the man assumed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when it is said that ,christ is one thing and another1 this saying is to be explained in this sense--having this nature and another4 ,and it is in this way that ,augustine explains it 7,contra ,felic4 xi71 where1 after saying1 ,in the mediator of ,god and man1 the ,son of ,god is one thing1 and the ,son of ,man another1 he adds3 ,i say another thing by reason of the difference of substance1 and not another thing by reason of the unity of person4 ,hence ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,ep4 ad ,chelid4 ci73 ,if we must speak briefly1 that of which the ,saviour is1 is one thing and another2 thus the invisible is not the same as the visible2 and what is without time is not the same as what is in time4 ,yet they are not one and another3 far from it2 for both these are one4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this is false1 ,christ is only man2 because it does not exclude another suppositum1 but another nature1 since terms placed in the predicate are taken formally4 ,but if anything is added whereby it is drawn to the suppositum1 it would be a true proposition--for instance1 ,christ is only that which is man4 ,nevertheless1 it would not follow that ,he is any other thing than man1 because another thing1 inasmuch as it refers to a diversity of substance1 properly refers to the suppositum1 even as all relative things bearing a personal relation4 ,but it does follow3 ,therefore ,he has another nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,when it is said1 ,christ is something that the ,father is2 something signifies the ,divine ,nature1 which is predicated even in the abstract of the ,father and ,son4 ,but when it is said3 ,christ is something that is not the ,father2 something signifies1 not the human nature as it is in the abstract1 but as it is in the concrete2 not1 indeed1 in a distinct1 but in an indistinct suppositum1 i4e4 inasmuch as it underlies the nature and not the individuating properties4 ,hence it does not follow that ,christ is one thing and another1 or that ,he is two1 since the suppositum of the human nature in ,christ1 which is the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 does not reckon numerically with the ,divine ,nature1 which is predicated of the ,father and ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,in the mystery of the ,divine ,trinity the ,divine ,nature is predicated1 even in the abstract of the three ,persons2 hence it may be said simply that the three ,persons are one4 ,but in the mystery of the ,incarnation both natures are not predicated in the abstract of ,christ2 hence it cannot be said simply that ,christ is two4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,two signifies what has duality1 not in another1 but in the same thing of which two is predicated4 ,now what is predicated is said of the suppositum1 which is implied by the word ,christ4 ,hence1 although ,christ has duality of nature1 yet1 because ,he has not duality of suppositum1 it cannot be said that ,christ is two4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,otherwise implies diversity of accident4 ,hence diversity of accident suffices for anything to be called otherwise simply4 ,but another thing implies diversity of substance4 ,now not merely the nature1 but also the suppositum is said to be a substance1 as is said ,metaph4 v1 text4 #ae4 ,hence diversity of nature does not suffice for anything to be called another thing simply1 unless there is diversity of suppositum4 ,but diversity of nature makes another thing relatively1 i4e4 in nature1 if there is no diversity of suppositum4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ag1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,there ,is ,only ,one ,being in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there is not merely one being1 but two4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ac7 that whatever follows the nature is doubled in ,christ4 ,but being follows the nature1 for being is from the form4 ,hence in ,christ there are two beings4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the being of the ,son of ,god is the ,divine ,nature itself1 and is eternal3 whereas the being of the ,man ,christ is not the ,divine ,nature1 but is a temporal being4 ,therefore there is not only one being in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the ,trinity1 although there are three ,persons1 yet on account of the unity of nature there is only one being4 ,but in ,christ there are two natures1 though there is one ,person4 ,therefore in ,christ there is not only one being4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 in ,christ the soul gives some being to the body1 since it is its form4 ,but it does not give the ,divine being1 since this is uncreated4 ,therefore in ,christ there is another being besides the ,divine being2 and thus in ,christ there is not only one being4 ,on the contrary1 ,everything is said to be a being1 inasmuch as it is one1 for one and being are convertible4 ,therefore1 if there were two beings in ,christ1 and not one only1 ,christ would be two1 and not one4 ,i answer that1 ,because in ,christ there are two natures and one hypostasis1 it follows that things belonging to the nature in ,christ must be two2 and that those belonging to the hypostasis in ,christ must be only one4 ,now being pertains both to the nature and to the hypostasis2 to the hypostasis as to that which has being--and to the nature as to that whereby it has being4 ,for nature is taken after the manner of a form1 which is said to be a being because something is by it2 as by whiteness a thing is white1 and by manhood a thing is man4 ,now it must be borne in mind that if there is a form or nature which does not pertain to the personal being of the subsisting hypostasis1 this being is not said to belong to the person simply1 but relatively2 as to be white is the being of ,socrates1 not as he is ,socrates1 but inasmuch as he is white4 ,and there is no reason why this being should not be multiplied in one hypostasis or person2 for the being whereby ,socrates is white is distinct from the being whereby he is a musician4 ,but the being which belongs to the very hypostasis or person in itself cannot possibly be multiplied in one hypostasis or person1 since it is impossible that there should not be one being for one thing4 ,if1 therefore1 the human nature accrued to the ,son of ,god1 not hypostatically or personally1 but accidentally1 as some maintained1 it would be necessary to assert two beings in ,christ--one1 inasmuch as ,he is ,god--the other1 inasmuch as ,he is ,man2 even as in ,socrates we place one being inasmuch as he is white1 and another inasmuch as he is a man1 since being white does not pertain to the personal being of ,socrates4 ,but being possessed of a head1 being corporeal1 being animated--all these pertain to the one person of ,socrates1 and hence there arises from these only the one being of ,socrates4 ,and if it so happened that after the person of ,socrates was constituted there accrued to him hands or feet or eyes1 as happened to him who was born blind1 no new being would be thereby added to ,socrates1 but only a relation to these1 i4e4 inasmuch as he would be said to be1 not only with reference to what he had previously1 but also with reference to what accrued to him afterwards4 ,and thus1 since the human nature is united to the ,son of ,god1 hypostatically or personally as was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #e1 #f71 and not accidentally1 it follows that by the human nature there accrued to ,him no new personal being1 but only a new relation of the pre-existing personal being to the human nature1 in such a way that the ,person is said to subsist not merely in the ,divine1 but also in the human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,being is consequent upon nature1 not as upon that which has being1 but as upon that whereby a thing is3 whereas it is consequent upon person or hypostasis1 as upon that which has being4 ,hence it has unity from the unity of hypostasis1 rather than duality from the duality of the nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the eternal being of the ,son of ,god1 which is the ,divine ,nature1 becomes the being of man1 inasmuch as the human nature is assumed by the ,son of ,god to unity of ,person4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #b1 ad #c2 ,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #e1 ad #d71 since the ,divine ,person is the same as the ,nature1 there is no distinction in the ,divine ,persons between the being of the ,person and the being of the ,nature1 and1 consequently1 the three ,persons have only one being4 ,but they would have a triple being if the being of the ,person were distinct in them from the being of the ,nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,in ,christ the soul gives being to the body1 inasmuch as it makes it actually animated1 which is to give it the complement of its nature and species4 ,but if we consider the body perfected by the soul1 without the hypostasis having both--this whole1 composed of soul and body1 as signified by the word humanity1 does not signify what is1 but whereby it is4 ,hence being belongs to the subsisting person1 inasmuch as it has a relation to such a nature1 and of this relation the soul is the cause1 inasmuch as it perfects human nature by informing the body4 ,,question #ah ,,of ,,christ',s ,,unity ,,of ,,will 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider unity as regards the will2 and under this head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,divine will and the human are distinct in ,christ8 7#b7 ,whether in ,christ's human nature the will of sensuality is distinct from the will of reason8 7#c7 ,whether as regards the reason there were several wills in ,christ8 7#d7 ,whether there was free-will in ,christ8 7#e7 ,whether ,christ's human will was always conformed to the ,divine will in the thing willed8 7#f7 ,whether there was any contrariety of wills in ,christ8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,there ,are ,two ,wills in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there are not two wills1 one ,divine1 the other human4 ,for the will is the first mover and first commander in whoever wills4 ,but in ,christ the first mover and commander was the ,divine will1 since in ,christ everything human was moved by the ,divine will4 ,hence it seems that in ,christ there was only one will1 viz4 the ,divine4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 an instrument is not moved by its own will but by the will of its mover4 ,now the human nature of ,christ was the instrument of ,his ,godhead4 ,hence the human nature of ,christ was not moved by its own will1 but by the ,divine will4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that alone is multiplied in ,christ which belongs to the nature4 ,but the will does not seem to pertain to nature3 for natural things are of necessity2 whereas what is voluntary is not of necessity4 ,therefore there is but one will in ,christ4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ad7 that to will in this or that way belongs not to our nature but to our intellect1 i4e4 our personal intellect4 ,but every will is this or that will1 since there is nothing in a genus which is not at the same time in some one of its species4 ,therefore all will belongs to the person4 ,but in ,christ there was and is but one person4 ,therefore in ,christ there is only one will4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord says 7,luke #bb3db73 ,father1 if ,thou wilt1 remove this chalice from ,me4 ,but yet not ,my will but ,thine be done4 ,and ,ambrose1 quoting this to the ,emperor ,gratian 7,de ,fide ii1 #g7 says3 ,as ,he assumed my will1 ,he assumed my sorrow2 and on ,luke #bb3db he says3 ,his will1 ,he refers to the ,man--the ,father's1 to the ,godhead4 ,for the will of man is temporal1 and the will of the ,godhead eternal4 ,i answer that1 ,some placed only one will in ,christ2 but they seem to have had different motives for holding this4 ,for ,apollinaris did not hold an intellectual soul in ,christ1 but maintained that the ,word was in place of the soul1 or even in place of the intellect4 ,hence since the will is in the reason1 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima iii1 #i71 it followed that in ,christ there was no human will2 and thus there was only one will in ,him4 ,so1 too1 ,eutyches and all who held one composite nature in ,christ were forced to place one will in ,him4 ,nestorius1 too1 who maintained that the union of ,god and man was one of affection and will1 held only one will in ,christ4 ,but later on1 ,macarius1 ,patriarch of ,antioch1 ,cyrus of ,alexandria1 and ,sergius of ,constantinople and some of their followers1 held that there is one will in ,christ1 although they held that in ,christ there are two natures united in a hypostasis2 because they believed that ,christ's human nature never moved with its own motion1 but only inasmuch as it was moved by the ,godhead1 as is plain from the synodical letter of ,pope ,agatho 99,third ,council of ,constantinople1 ,act4 #d4 ,and hence in the sixth ,council held at ,constantinople 99,act4 #ah it was decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in ,christ1 in the following passage3 ,in accordance with what the ,prophets of old taught us concerning ,christ1 and as ,he taught us ,himself1 and the ,symbol of the ,holy ,fathers has handed down to us1 we confess two natural wills in ,him and two natural operations4 ,and this much it was necessary to say4 ,for it is manifest that the ,son of ,god assumed a perfect human nature1 as was shown above 7,q4 #e2 ,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a74 ,now the will pertains to the perfection of human nature1 being one of its natural powers1 even as the intellect1 as was stated in the ,first ,part 7,,qq4 #gi1 #hj74 ,hence we must say that the ,son of ,god assumed a human will1 together with human nature4 ,now by the assumption of human nature the ,son of ,god suffered no diminution of what pertains to ,his ,divine ,nature1 to which it belongs to have a will1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence it must be said that there are two wills in ,christ1 i4e4 one human1 the other ,divine4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,whatever was in the human nature of ,christ was moved at the bidding of the ,divine will2 yet it does not follow that in ,christ there was no movement of the will proper to human nature1 for the good wills of other saints are moved by ,god's will1 ,who worketh in them both to will and to accomplish1 as is written ,phil4 #b3ac4 ,for although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature1 yet it can be moved inwardly by ,god1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aje1 ,a4 #d74 ,and thus1 too1 ,christ by ,his human will followed the ,divine will according to ,ps4 #ci3i2 ,that ,i should do ,thy will1 ,o my ,god1 ,i have desired it4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,contra ,maxim4 ii1 #bj73 ,where the ,son says to the ,father1 ',not what ,i will1 but what ,thou willest1' what do you gain by adding your own words and saying ',he shows that ,his will was truly subject to ,his ,father1' as if we denied that man's will ought to be subject to ,god's will8 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is proper to an instrument to be moved by the principal agent1 yet diversely1 according to the property of its nature4 ,for an inanimate instrument1 as an axe or a saw1 is moved by the craftsman with only a corporeal movement2 but an instrument animated by a sensitive soul is moved by the sensitive appetite1 as a horse by its rider2 and an instrument animated with a rational soul is moved by its will1 as by the command of his lord the servant is moved to act1 the servant being like an animate instrument1 as the ,philosopher says 7,polit4 i1 #b1 #d2 ,ethic4 viii1 #aa74 ,and hence it was in this manner that the human nature of ,christ was the instrument of the ,godhead1 and was moved by its own will4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the power of the will is natural1 and necessarily follows upon the nature2 but the movement or act of this power--which is also called will--is sometimes natural and necessary1 e4g4 with respect to beatitude2 and sometimes springs from free-will and is neither necessary nor natural1 as is plain from what has been stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b7 99,cf4 ,i1 ,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #b4 ,and yet even reason itself1 which is the principle of this movement1 is natural4 ,hence besides the ,divine will it is necessary to place in ,christ a human will1 not merely as a natural power1 or a natural movement1 but even as a rational movement4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,when we say to will in a certain way1 we signify a determinate mode of willing4 ,now a determinate mode regards the thing of which it is the mode4 ,hence since the will pertains to the nature1 to will in a certain way belongs to the nature1 not indeed considered absolutely1 but as it is in the hypostasis4 ,hence the human will of ,christ had a determinate mode from the fact of being in a ,divine hypostasis1 i4e4 it was always moved in accordance with the bidding of the ,divine will4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #b ,whether in ,christ ,there ,was a ,will of ,sensuality ,besides the ,will of ,reason8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no will of sensuality besides the will of reason4 ,for the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima iii1 text4 #db7 that the will is in the reason1 and in the sensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts4 ,now sensuality signifies the sensitive appetite4 ,hence in ,christ there was no will of sensuality4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to ,augustine 7,de ,trin4 xii1 #ab1 #ac7 the sensuality is signified by the serpent4 ,but there was nothing serpent-like in ,christ2 for ,he had the likeness of a venomous animal without the venom1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i1 #cb74 ,hence in ,christ there was no will of sensuality4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 will is consequent upon nature1 as was said 7,a4 #a74 ,but in ,christ there was only one nature besides the ,divine4 ,hence in ,christ there was only one human will4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,fide ii1 #g73 ,mine is the will which ,he calls ,his own2 because as ,man ,he assumed my sorrow4 ,from this we are given to understand that sorrow pertains to the human will of ,christ4 ,now sorrow pertains to the sensuality1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #bc1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #be1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore1 seemingly1 in ,christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will of reason4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a71 the ,son of ,god assumed human nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of human nature4 ,now in human nature is included animal nature1 as the genus in its species4 ,hence the ,son of ,god must have assumed together with the human nature whatever belongs to animal nature2 one of which things is the sensitive appetite1 which is called the sensuality4 ,consequently it must be allowed that in ,christ there was a sensual appetite1 or sensuality4 ,but it must be borne in mind that sensuality or the sensual appetite1 inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason1 is said to be rational by participation1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 i1 #ac74 ,and because the will is in the reason1 as stated above1 it may equally be said that the sensuality is a will by participation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument is based on the will1 essentially so called1 which is only in the intellectual part2 but the will by participation can be in the sensitive part1 inasmuch as it obeys reason4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sensuality is signified by the serpent--not as regards the nature of the sensuality1 which ,christ assumed1 but as regards the corruption of the fomes1 which was not in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,where there is one thing on account of another1 there seems to be only one 7,aristotle1 ,topic4 iii72 thus a surface which is visible by color is one visible thing with the color4 ,so1 too1 because the sensuality is called the will1 only because it partakes of the rational will1 there is said to be but one human will in ,christ1 even as there is but one human nature4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #c ,whether in ,christ ,there ,were ,two ,wills ,as ,regards the ,reason8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there were two wills as regards the reason4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii1 #bb7 that there is a double will in man1 viz4 the natural will which is called thelesis1 and the rational will which is called boulesis4 ,now ,christ in ,his human nature had whatever belongs to the perfection of human nature4 ,hence both the foregoing wills were in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the appetitive power is diversified in man by the difference of the apprehensive power1 and hence according to the difference of sense and intellect is the difference of sensitive and intellective appetite in man4 ,but in the same way as regards man's apprehension1 we hold the difference of reason and intellect2 both of which were in ,christ4 ,therefore there was a double will in ,him1 one intellectual and the other rational4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 some 99,hugh of ,st4 ,victor1 ,de ,quat4 ,volunt4 ,christ4 ascribe to ,christ a will of piety1 which can only be on the part of reason4 ,therefore in ,christ on the part of reason there are several wills4 ,on the contrary1 ,in every order there is one first mover4 ,but the will is the first mover in the genus of human acts4 ,therefore in one man there is only one will1 properly speaking1 which is the will of reason4 ,but ,christ is one man4 ,therefore in ,christ there is only one human will4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c71 the will is sometimes taken for the power1 and sometimes for the act4 ,hence if the will is taken for the act1 it is necessary to place two wills1 i4e4 two species of acts of the will in ,christ on the part of the reason4 ,for the will1 as was said in the ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #h1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c1 regards both the end and the means2 and is affected differently towards both4 ,for towards the end it is borne simply and absolutely1 as towards what is good in itself2 but towards the means it is borne under a certain relation1 as the goodness of the means depends on something else4 ,hence the act of the will1 inasmuch as it is drawn to anything desired of itself1 as health1 which act is called by ,damascene thelesis--i4e4 simple will1 and by the masters will as nature1 is different from the act of the will as it is drawn to anything that is desired only in order to something else1 as to take medicine2 and this act of the will ,damascene calls boulesis--i4e4 counseling will1 and the masters1 will as reason4 ,but this diversity of acts does not diversify the power1 since both acts regard the one common ratio of the object1 which is goodness4 ,hence we must say that if we are speaking of the power of the will1 in ,christ there is but one human will1 essentially so called and not by participation2 but if we are speaking of the will as an act1 we thus distinguish in ,christ a will as nature1 which is called thelesis1 and a will as reason1 which is called boulesis4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these two wills do not diversify the power but only the act1 as we have said4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the intellect and the reason are not distinct powers1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #h74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the will of piety would not seem to be distinct from the will considered as nature1 inasmuch as it shrinks from another's evil1 absolutely considered4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,there ,was ,free-will in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there was no free-will4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ad7 that gnome1 i4e4 opinion1 thinking or cogitation1 and proairesis1 i4e4 choice1 cannot possibly be attributed to our ,lord1 if we wish to speak with propriety4 ,but in the things of faith especially we must speak with propriety4 ,therefore there was no choice in ,christ and consequently no free-will1 of which choice is the act4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iii1 #b7 that choice is a desire of something after taking counsel4 ,now counsel does not appear to be in ,christ1 because we do not take counsel concerning such things as we are certain of4 ,but ,christ was certain of everything4 ,hence there was no counsel and consequently no free-will in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 free-will is indifferent4 ,but ,christ's will was determined to good1 since ,he could not sin2 as stated above 7,q4 #ae1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,hence there was no free-will in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #g3ae73 ,he shall eat butter and honey1 that ,he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good1 which is an act of the free-will4 ,therefore there was free-will in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #c71 there was a twofold act of the will in ,christ2 one whereby ,he was drawn to anything willed in itself1 which implies the nature of an end2 the other whereby ,his will was drawn to anything willed on account of its being ordained to another--which pertains to the nature of means4 ,now1 as the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iii1 #b7 choice differs from will in this1 that will of itself regards the end1 while choice regards the means4 ,and thus simple will is the same as the will as nature2 but choice is the same as the will as reason1 and is the proper act of free-will1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #hc1 ,a4 #c74 ,hence1 since will as reason is placed in ,christ1 we must also place choice1 and consequently free-will1 whose act is choice1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #hc1 ,a4 #c2 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,damascene excludes choice from ,christ1 in so far as he considers that doubt is implied in the word choice4 ,nevertheless doubt is not necessary to choice1 since it belongs even to ,god ,himself to choose1 according to ,eph4 #a3d3 ,he chose us in ,him before the foundation of the world1 although in ,god there is no doubt4 ,yet doubt is accidental to choice when it is in an ignorant nature4 ,we may also say the same of whatever else is mentioned in the passage quoted4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,choice presupposes counsel2 yet it follows counsel only as determined by judgment4 ,for what we judge to be done1 we choose1 after the inquiry of counsel1 as is stated 7,ethic4 iii1 #b1 #c74 ,hence if anything is judged necessary to be done1 without any preceding doubt or inquiry1 this suffices for choice4 ,therefore it is plain that doubt or inquiry belong to choice not essentially1 but only when it is in an ignorant nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the will of ,christ1 though determined to good1 is not determined to this or that good4 ,hence it pertains to ,christ1 even as to the blessed1 to choose with a free-will confirmed in good4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,human ,will of ,christ ,was ,altogether ,conformed to the ,divine ,will in the ,thing ,willed8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the human will in ,christ did not will anything except what ,god willed4 ,for it is written 7,ps4 #ci3i7 in the person of ,christ3 ,that ,i should do ,thy will3 ,o my ,god1 ,i have desired it4 ,now he who desires to do another's will1 wills what the other wills4 ,hence it seems that ,christ's human will willed nothing but what was willed by ,his ,divine will4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's soul had most perfect charity1 which1 indeed1 surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge1 according to ,eph4 #c3ai1 the charity of ,christ1 which surpasseth all knowledge4 ,now charity makes men will what ,god wills2 hence the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 ix1 #d7 that one mark of friendship is to will and choose the same4 ,therefore the human will in ,christ willed nothing else than was willed by ,his ,divine will4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ was a true comprehensor4 ,but the ,saints who are comprehensors in heaven will only what ,god wills1 otherwise they would not be happy1 because they would not obtain whatever they will1 for blessed is he who has what he wills1 and wills nothing amiss1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #e74 ,hence in ,his human will ,christ wills nothing else than does the ,divine will4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,maxim4 ii1 #bj73 ,when ,christ says ',not what ,i will1 but what ,thou wilt' ,he shows ,himself to have willed something else than did ,his ,father2 and this could only have been by ,his human heart1 since ,he did not transfigure our weakness into ,his ,divine but into ,his human will4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said 7,,aa4 #b1 #c71 in ,christ according to ,his human nature there is a twofold will1 viz4 the will of sensuality1 which is called will by participation1 and the rational will1 whether considered after the manner of nature1 or after the manner of reason4 ,now it was said above 7,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a2 ,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b7 that by a certain dispensation the ,son of ,god before ,his ,passion allowed ,his flesh to do and suffer what belonged to it4 ,and in like manner ,he allowed all the powers of ,his soul to do what belonged to them4 ,now it is clear that the will of sensuality naturally shrinks from sensible pains and bodily hurt4 ,in like manner1 the will as nature turns from what is against nature and what is evil in itself1 as death and the like2 yet the will as reason may at time choose these things in relation to an end1 as in a mere man the sensuality and the will absolutely considered shrink from burning1 which1 nevertheless1 the will as reason may choose for the sake of health4 ,now it was the will of ,god that ,christ should undergo pain1 suffering1 and death1 not that these of themselves were willed by ,god1 but for the sake of man's salvation4 ,hence it is plain that in ,his will of sensuality and in ,his rational will considered as nature1 ,christ could will what ,god did not2 but in ,his will as reason ,he always willed the same as ,god1 which appears from what ,he says 7,matt4 #bf3ci73 ,not as ,i will1 but as ,thou wilt4 ,for ,he willed in ,his reason that the ,divine will should be fulfilled although ,he said that ,he willed something else by another will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by ,his rational will ,christ willed the ,divine will to be fulfilled2 but not by ,his will of sensuality1 the movement of which does not extend to the will of ,god--nor by ,his will considered as nature which regards things absolutely considered and not in relation to the ,divine will4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the conformity of the human will to the ,divine regards the will of reason3 according to which the wills even of friends agree1 inasmuch as reason considers something willed in its relation to the will of a friend4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ was at once comprehensor and wayfarer1 inasmuch as ,he was enjoying ,god in ,his mind and had a passible body4 ,hence things repugnant to ,his natural will and to ,his sensitive appetite could happen to ,him in ,his passible flesh4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ah1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,there ,was ,contrariety of ,wills in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was contrariety of wills in ,christ4 ,for contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects1 as contrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini1 as is plain from the ,philosopher 7,phys4 v1 text4 #di1 seq474 ,now ,christ in ,his different wills wished contrary things4 ,for in ,his ,divine will ,he wished for death1 from which ,he shrank in ,his human will1 hence ,athanasius says 99,de ,incarnat4 et ,cont4 ,arianos1 written against ,apollinarius3 ,when ,christ says ',father1 if it be possible1 let this chalice pass from ,me2 yet not ,my will1 but ,thine be done1' and again1 ',the spirit indeed is willing1 but the flesh weak1' ,he denotes two wills--the human1 which through the weakness of the flesh shrank from the passion--and ,his ,divine will eager for the passion4 ,hence there was contrariety of wills in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,gal4 #e3ag7 that the flesh lusteth against the spirit1 and the spirit against the flesh4 ,now when the spirit desires one thing1 and the flesh another1 there is contrariety of wills4 ,but this was in ,christ2 for by the will of charity which the ,holy ,spirit was causing in ,his mind1 ,he willed the passion1 according to ,isa4 #ec3g3 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will1 yet in ,his flesh ,he shrank from the passion4 ,therefore there was contrariety of wills in ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,luke #bb3dc7 that being in an agony1 ,he prayed the longer4 ,now agony seems to imply a certain struggle 99,greek1 agonia in a soul drawn to contrary things4 ,hence it seems that there was contrariety of will in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,in the decisions of the ,sixth ,council 99,third ,council of ,constantinople1 ,act4 #ah it is said3 ,we confess two natural wills1 not in opposition1 as evil-minded heretics assert1 but following ,his human will1 and neither withstanding nor striving against1 but rather being subject to1 ,his ,divine and omnipotent will4 ,i answer that1 ,contrariety can exist only where there is opposition in the same and as regards the same4 ,for if the diversity exists as regards diverse things1 and in diverse subjects1 this would not suffice for the nature of contrariety1 nor even for the nature of contradiction1 e4g4 if a man were well formed or healthy as regards his hand1 but not as regards his foot4 ,hence for there to be contrariety of wills in anyone it is necessary1 first1 that the diversity of wills should regard the same4 ,for if the will of one regards the doing of something with reference to some universal reason1 and the will of another regards the not doing the same with reference to some particular reason1 there is not complete contrariety of will1 e4g4 when a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged for the good of the commonwealth1 and one of the latter's kindred wishes him not to be hanged on account of a private love1 there is no contrariety of wills2 unless1 indeed1 the desire of the private good went so far as to wish to hinder the public good for the private good--in that case the opposition of wills would regard the same4 ,secondly1 for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be in the same will4 ,for if a man wishes one thing with his rational appetite1 and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite1 there is no contrariety1 unless the sensitive appetite so far prevailed as to change or at least keep back the rational appetite2 for in this case something of the contrary movement of the sensitive appetite would reach the rational will4 ,and hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive will in ,christ wished what the ,divine will did not wish1 yet there was no contrariety of wills in ,him4 ,first1 because neither the natural will nor the will of sensuality rejected the reason for which the ,divine will and the will of the human reason in ,christ wished the passion4 ,for the absolute will of ,christ wished the salvation of the human race1 although it did not pertain to it to will this for the sake of something further2 but the movement of sensuality could nowise extend so far4 ,secondly1 because neither the ,divine will nor the will of reason in ,christ was impeded or retarded by the natural will or the appetite of sensuality4 ,so1 too1 on the other hand1 neither the ,divine will nor the will of reason in ,christ shrank from or retarded the movement of the natural human will and the movement of the sensuality in ,christ4 ,for it pleased ,christ1 in ,his ,divine will1 and in ,his will of reason1 that ,his natural will and will of sensuality should be moved according to the order of their nature4 ,hence it is clear that in ,christ there was no opposition or contrariety of wills4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the fact of any will in ,christ willing something else than did the ,divine will1 proceeded from the ,divine will1 by whose permission the human nature in ,christ was moved by its proper movements1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii1 #ae1 #ah1 #ai74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in us the desires of the spirit are impeded or retarded by the desires of the flesh3 this did not occur in ,christ4 ,hence in ,christ there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit1 as in us4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the agony in ,christ was not in the rational soul1 in as far as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity of motives1 as when anyone1 on his reason considering one1 wishes one thing1 and on its considering another1 wishes the contrary4 ,for this springs from the weakness of the reason1 which is unable to judge which is the best simply4 ,now this did not occur in ,christ1 since by ,his reason ,he judged it best that the ,divine will regarding the salvation of the human race should be fulfilled by ,his passion4 ,nevertheless1 there was an agony in ,christ as regards the sensitive part1 inasmuch as it implied a dread of coming trial1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii1 #ae2 iii1 #ah1 #bc74 ,,question #ai ,,of ,,the ,,unity ,,of ,,christ',s ,,operation 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the unity of ,christ's operation2 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether in ,christ there was one or several operations of the ,godhead and ,manhood8 7#b7 ,whether in ,christ there were several operations of the human nature8 7#c7 ,whether ,christ by ,his human operation merited anything for ,himself8 7#d7 ,whether ,he merited anything for us by it8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ai1 ,art4 #a ,whether in ,christ ,there ,is ,only ,one ,operation of the ,godhead and ,manhood8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there is but one operation of the ,godhead and the ,manhood4 ,for ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 ii73 ,the most loving operation of ,god is made manifest to us by the supersubstantial ,word having taken flesh integrally and truly1 and having operated and suffered whatsoever befits ,his human and ,divine operation4 ,but he here mentions only one human and ,divine operation1 which is written in ,greek theandrike1 i4e4 ,god-manlike4 ,hence it seems that there is but one composite operation in ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there is but one operation of the principal and instrumental agent4 ,now the human nature in ,christ was the instrument of the ,divine1 as was said above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c2 ,q4 #h1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a2 ,q4 #ah1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b74 ,hence the operations of the ,divine and human natures in ,christ are the same4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 since in ,christ there are two natures in one hypostasis or person1 whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person is one and the same4 ,but operation pertains to the hypostasis or person1 for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates2 hence1 according to the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 i1 #a71 acts belong to singulars4 ,hence in ,christ there is only one operation of the ,godhead and the ,manhood4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis1 so also does operation4 ,but on account of the unity of hypostasis there is only one operation of the ,godhead and the 7,q4 #ag1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence1 on account of the same unity1 there is one operation in ,christ4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 where there is one thing operated there is one operation4 ,but the same thing was operated by the ,godhead and the ,manhood1 as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead4 ,hence it seems that in ,christ there is but one operation of the ,godhead and the ,manhood4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,fide ii1 #h73 ,how can the same operation spring from different powers8 ,cannot the lesser operate as the greater8 ,and can there be one operation where there are different substances8 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #ah1 ,a4 #a71 the aforesaid heretics who placed one will in ,christ placed one operation in ,christ4 ,now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion1 we must bear in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents1 the inferior is moved by the superior1 as in man the body is moved by the soul and the lower powers by the reason4 ,and thus the actions and movements of the inferior principle are things operated rather than operations4 ,now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the operation2 thus we say of man that to walk1 which belongs to the feet1 and to touch1 which belongs to the hand1 are things operated by the man--one of which is operated by the soul through the feet1 the other through the hands4 ,and because it is the same soul that operates in both cases1 there is only one indifferent operation1 on the part of the thing operating1 which is the first moving principle2 but difference is found on the part of what is operated4 ,now1 as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul1 and the sensitive by the rational appetite1 so in the ,lord ,jesus ,christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the ,divine4 ,hence they said that there is one indifferent operation on the part of the ,godhead operating1 but divers things operated1 inasmuch as the ,godhead of ,christ did one thing by ,itself1 as to uphold all things by the word of ,his power--and another thing by ,his human nature1 as to walk in body4 ,hence the ,sixth ,council 99,third ,council of ,constantinople1 ,act4 #aj quotes the words of ,severus the heretic1 who said3 ,what things were done and wrought by the one ,christ1 differ greatly2 for some are becoming to ,god1 and some are human1 as to walk bodily on the earth is indeed human1 but to give hale steps to sickly limbs1 wholly unable to walk on the ground1 is becoming to ,god4 ,yet one1 i4e4 the ,incarnate ,word1 wrought one and the other--neither was this from one nature1 and that from another2 nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms4 ,but herein they were deceived1 for what is moved by another has a twofold action--one which it has from its own form--the other1 which it has inasmuch as it is moved by another2 thus the operation of an axe of itself is to cleave2 but inasmuch as it is moved by the craftsman1 its operation is to make benches4 ,hence the operation which belongs to a thing by its form is proper to it1 nor does it belong to the mover1 except in so far as he makes use of this kind of thing for his work3 thus to heat is the proper operation of fire1 but not of a smith1 except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating iron4 ,but the operation which belongs to the thing1 as moved by another1 is not distinct from the operation of the mover2 thus to make a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman4 ,hence1 wheresoever the mover and the moved have different forms or operative faculties1 there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the moved be distinct2 although the moved shares in the operation of the mover1 and the mover makes use of the operation of the moved1 and1 consequently1 each acts in communion with the other4 ,therefore in ,christ the human nature has its proper form and power whereby it acts2 and so has the ,divine4 ,hence the human nature has its proper operation distinct from the ,divine1 and conversely4 ,nevertheless1 the ,divine ,nature makes use of the operation of the human nature1 as of the operation of its instrument2 and in the same way the human nature shares in the operation of the ,divine ,nature1 as an instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent4 ,and this is what ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 ad ,flavian4 xxviii73 ,both forms 7i4e4 both the ,divine and the human nature in ,christ7 do what is proper to each in union with the other1 i4e4 the ,word operates what belongs to the ,word1 and the flesh carries out what belongs to flesh4 ,but if there were only one operation of the ,godhead and manhood in ,christ1 it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had not its proper form and power 7for this could not possibly be said of the ,divine71 whence it would follow that in ,christ there was only the ,divine operation2 or it would be necessary to say that from the ,divine and human power there was made up one power4 ,now both of these are impossible4 ,for by the first the human nature in ,christ is supposed to be imperfect2 and by the second a confusion of the natures is supposed4 ,hence it is with reason that the ,sixth ,council 7,act4 #ah7 condemned this opinion1 and decreed as follows3 ,we confess two natural1 indivisible1 unconvertible1 unconfused1 and inseparable operations in the same ,lord ,jesus ,christ our true ,god2 i4e4 the ,divine operation and the human operation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,dionysius places in ,christ a theandric1 i4e4 a ,god-manlike or ,divino-human1 operation not by any confusion of the operations or powers of both natures1 but inasmuch as ,his ,divine operation employs the human1 and ,his human operation shares in the power of the ,divine4 ,hence1 as he says in a certain epistle 7,ad ,caium iv71 what is of man ,he works beyond man2 and this is shown by the ,virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing up the weight of bodily feet4 ,now it is clear that to be begotten belongs to human nature1 and likewise to walk2 yet both were in ,christ supernaturally4 ,so1 too1 ,he wrought ,divine things humanly1 as when ,he healed the leper with a touch4 ,hence in the same epistle he adds3 ,he performed ,divine works not as ,god does1 and human works not as man does1 but1 ,god having been made man1 by a new operation of ,god and man4 ,now1 that he understood two operations in ,christ1 one of the ,divine and the other of the human nature1 is clear from what he says1 ,div4 ,nom4 ii3 ,whatever pertains to ,his human operation the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost no-wise share in1 except1 as one might say1 by their most gracious and merciful will1 i4e4 inasmuch as the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost in their mercy wished ,christ to do and to suffer human things4 ,and he adds3 ,he is truly the unchangeable ,god1 and ,god's ,word by the sublime and unspeakable operation of ,god1 which1 being made man for us1 ,he wrought4 ,hence it is clear that the human operation1 in which the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost do not share1 except by ,their merciful consent1 is distinct from ,his operation1 as the ,word of ,god1 wherein the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost share4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the instrument is said to act through being moved by the principal agent2 and yet1 besides this1 it can have its proper operation through its own form1 as stated above of fire4 ,and hence the action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the action of the principal agent2 yet it may have another operation1 inasmuch as it is a thing4 ,hence the operation of ,christ's human nature1 as the instrument of the ,godhead1 is not distinct from the operation of the ,godhead2 for the salvation wherewith the manhood of ,christ saves us and that wherewith ,his ,godhead saves us are not distinct2 nevertheless1 the human nature in ,christ1 inasmuch as it is a certain nature1 has a proper operation distinct from the ,divine1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to operate belongs to a subsisting hypostasis2 in accordance1 however1 with the form and nature from which the operation receives its species4 ,hence from the diversity of forms or natures spring the divers species of operations1 but from the unity of hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of the species3 thus fire has two operations specifically different1 namely1 to illuminate and to heat1 from the difference of light and heat1 and yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one and the same time is numerically one4 ,so1 likewise1 in ,christ there are necessarily two specifically different operations by reason of ,his two natures2 nevertheless1 each of the operations at one and the same time is numerically one1 as one walking and one healing4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,being and operation belong to the person by reason of the nature2 yet in a different manner4 ,for being belongs to the very constitution of the person1 and in this respect it has the nature of a term2 consequently1 unity of person requires unity of the complete and personal being4 ,but operation is an effect of the person by reason of a form or nature4 ,hence plurality of operations is not incompatible with personal unity4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the proper work of the ,divine operation is different from the proper work of the human operation4 ,thus to heal a leper is a proper work of the ,divine operation1 but to touch him is the proper work of the human operation4 ,now both these operations concur in one work1 inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the other4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ai1 ,art4 #b ,whether in ,christ ,there ,are ,several ,human ,operations8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that in ,christ there are several human operations4 ,for ,christ as man communicates with plants by ,his nutritive soul1 with the brutes by ,his sensitive soul1 and with the angels by ,his intellective soul1 even as other men do4 ,now the operations of a plant as plant and of an animal as animal are different4 ,therefore ,christ as man has several operations4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 powers and habits are distinguished by their acts4 ,now in ,christ's soul there were divers powers and habits2 therefore also divers operations4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 instruments ought to be proportioned to their operations4 ,now the human body has divers members of different form1 and consequently fitted to divers operations4 ,therefore in ,christ there are divers operations in the human nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ae71 operation is consequent upon the nature4 ,but in ,christ there is only one human nature4 ,therefore in ,christ there is only one human operation4 ,i answer that1 ,since it is by his reason that man is what he is2 that operation is called human simply1 which proceeds from the reason through the will1 which is the rational appetite4 ,now if there is any operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will1 it is not simply a human operation1 but belongs to man by reason of some part of human nature--sometimes by reason of the nature of elementary bodies1 as to be borne downwards--sometimes by reason of the force of the vegetative soul1 as to be nourished1 and to grow--sometimes by reason of the sensitive part1 as to see and hear1 to imagine and remember1 to desire and to be angry4 ,now between these operations there is a difference4 ,for the operations of the sensitive soul are to some extent obedient to reason1 and consequently they are somewhat rational and human inasmuch as they obey reason1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 i1 #ac74 ,but the operations that spring from the vegetative soul1 or from the nature of elemental bodies1 are not subject to reason2 consequently they are nowise rational2 nor simply human1 but only as regards a part of human nature4 ,now it was said 7,a4 #a7 that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form1 the operations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct2 but when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent1 then the operation of the superior and the inferior agent is one4 ,and hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation1 which is properly human2 so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul inasmuch as it is not moved by reason2 but inasmuch as it is moved by reason1 the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the same4 ,now there is but one operation of the rational part if we consider the principle of the operation1 which is the reason and the will2 but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to various objects4 ,and there were some who called this a diversity of things operated rather than of operations1 judging the unity of the operation solely from the operative principle4 ,and it is in this respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of operations in ,christ4 ,hence in every mere man there is but one operation1 which is properly called human2 but besides this there are in a mere man certain other operations1 which are not strictly human1 as was said above4 ,but in the ,man ,jesus ,christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which was not ordered by reason4 ,even the natural and bodily operations pertained in some respects to ,his will1 inasmuch as it was ,his will that ,his flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it1 as stated above 7,q4 #ah1 ,a4 #e74 ,much more1 therefore1 is there one operation in ,christ1 than in any other man whatsoever4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the operations of the sensitive and nutritive parts are not strictly human1 as stated above2 yet in ,christ these operations were more human than in others4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,powers and habits are diversified by comparison with their objects4 ,hence in this way the diversity of operations corresponds to the divers powers and habits1 as likewise to the divers objects4 ,now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations from ,christ's humanity1 nor that which springs from a diversity of time1 but only that which regards the first active principle1 as was said above4 7,st4 ,thomas gives no reply to ,obj4 #c2 some codices add3 ,hence may be gathered the reply to the third objection47 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ai1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,human ,action of ,christ ,could ,be ,meritorious to ,him8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the human action of ,christ could not be meritorious to ,him4 ,for before ,his death ,christ was a comprehensor even as ,he is now4 ,but comprehensors do not merit3 because the charity of the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beatitude1 since fruition depends upon it4 ,hence it does not seem to be the principle of merit1 since merit and reward are not the same4 ,therefore ,christ before ,his passion did not merit1 even as ,he does not merit now4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one merits what is due to him4 ,but because ,christ is the ,son of ,god by nature1 the eternal inheritance is due to ,him1 which other men merit by their works4 ,and hence ,christ ,who1 from the beginning1 was the ,word of ,god1 could not merit anything for ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whoever has the principle does not properly merit what flows from its possession4 ,but ,christ has the glory of the soul1 whence1 in the natural course1 flowed the glory of the body1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dios cxviii72 though by a dispensation it was brought about that in ,christ the glory of the soul should not overflow to the body4 ,hence ,christ did not merit the glory of the body4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the manifestation of ,christ's excellence is a good1 not of ,christ ,himself1 but of those who know ,him4 ,hence it is promised as a reward to such as love ,christ that ,he will be manifested to them1 according to ,john #ad3ba3 ,he that loveth ,me1 shall be loved of ,my ,father1 and ,i will love him and will manifest ,myself to him4 ,therefore ,christ did not merit the manifestation of ,his greatness4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,phil4 #b3h1 #i73 ,becoming obedient unto death 4 4 4 ,for which cause ,god also hath exalted ,him4 ,therefore by obeying ,he merited ,his exaltation and thus ,he merited something for ,himself4 ,i answer that1 ,to have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it from another1 for what is of itself a cause is always more excellent than what is a cause through another1 as is said ,phys4 viii1 #e4 ,now a thing is said to have1 of itself1 that of which it is to some extent the cause4 ,but of whatever good we possess the first cause by authority is ,god2 and in this way no creature has any good of itself1 according to #a ,cor4 #d3g3 ,what hast thou that thou hast not received8 ,nevertheless1 in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause1 to himself1 of having certain good things1 inasmuch as he cooperates with ,god in the matter1 and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it1 in a manner1 of himself4 ,hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without merit4 ,now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to ,christ1 consequently ,he must have by merit what others have by merit2 unless it be of such a nature that its want would detract from ,christ's dignity and perfection more than would accrue to ,him by merit4 ,hence ,he merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of ,his soul1 nor the ,godhead1 because1 since merit regards only what is not yet possessed1 it would be necessary that ,christ should have been without these at some time2 and to be without them would have diminished ,christ's dignity more than ,his merit would have increased it4 ,but the glory of the body1 and the like1 are less than the dignity of meriting1 which pertains to the virtue of charity4 ,hence we must say that ,christ had1 by merit1 the glory of ,his body and whatever pertained to ,his outward excellence1 as ,his ,ascension1 veneration1 and the rest4 ,and thus it is clear that ,he could merit for ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,fruition1 which is an act of charity1 pertains to the glory of the soul1 which ,christ did not merit4 ,hence if ,he merited by charity1 it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the same4 ,nor did ,he merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a comprehensor1 but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer4 ,for ,he was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor1 as was said above 7,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #aj74 ,and therefore1 since ,he is no longer a wayfarer1 ,he is not in the state of meriting4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,because by nature ,christ is ,god and the ,son of ,god1 the ,divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to ,him1 as to the first and supreme ,lord4 ,nevertheless a glory is due to ,him as a beatified man2 and this ,he has partly without merit1 and partly with merit1 as is clear from what has been said4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is by ,divine appointment that there is an overflow of glory from the soul to the body1 in keeping with human merit2 so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the body1 so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing to the body4 ,and hence not only the glory of the soul1 but also the glory of the body falls under merit1 according to ,rom4 #h3aa3 ,he 4 4 4 shall quicken also our ,vulg43 'your' mortal bodies1 because of ,his ,spirit that dwelleth in us ,vulg43 'you'4 ,and thus it could fall under ,christ's merit4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the manifestation of ,christ's excellence is ,his good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others2 although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly belongs to the good of those who know ,him4 ,yet even this is referred to ,christ inasmuch as they are ,his members4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ai1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,could ,merit for ,others8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ could not merit for others4 ,for it is written 7,ezech4 #ah3d73 ,the soul that sinneth1 the same shall die4 ,hence1 for a like reason1 the soul that meriteth1 the same shall be recompensed4 ,therefore it is not possible that ,christ merited for others4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 of the fulness of ,christ's grace we all receive1 as is written ,john #a3af4 ,now other men having ,christ's grace cannot merit for others4 ,for it is written 7,ezech4 #ad3bj7 that if ,noe and ,daniel and ,job be in the city ,vulg43 'the midst thereof' 4 4 4 they shall deliver neither son nor daughter2 but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice4 ,hence ,christ could not merit anything for us4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the reward that we merit is due according to justice ,vulg43 'debt' and not according to grace1 as is clear from ,rom4 #d3d4 ,therefore if ,christ merited our salvation it follows that our salvation is not by ,god's grace but by justice1 and that ,he acts unjustly with those whom ,he does not save1 since ,christ's merit extends to all4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #e3ah73 ,as by the offense of one1 unto all men to condemnation2 so also by the justice of one1 unto all men to justification of life4 ,but ,adam's demerits reached to the condemnation of others4 ,much more1 therefore1 does the merit of ,christ reach others4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #h1 ,,aa4 #a1 #e71 grace was in ,christ not merely as in an individual1 but also as in the ,head of the whole ,church1 to ,whom all are united1 as members to a head1 who constitute one mystical person4 ,and hence it is that ,christ's merit extends to others inasmuch as they are ,his members2 even as in a man the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members1 since it perceives not merely for itself alone1 but for all the members4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sin of an individual harms himself alone2 but the sin of ,adam1 who was appointed by ,god to be the principle of the whole nature1 is transmitted to others by carnal propagation4 ,so1 too1 the merit of ,christ1 ,who has been appointed by ,god to be the head of all men in regard to grace1 extends to all ,his members4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,others receive of ,christ's fulness not indeed the fount of grace1 but some particular grace4 ,and hence it need not be that men merit for others1 as ,christ did4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the sin of ,adam reaches others only by carnal generation1 so1 too1 the merit of ,christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration1 which takes place in baptism2 wherein we are incorporated with ,christ1 according to ,gal4 #c3bg1 ,as many of you as have been baptized in ,christ1 have put on ,christ2 and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be incorporated with ,christ4 ,and thus man's salvation is from grace4 ,,question #bj ,,of ,,christ',s ,,subjection ,,to ,,the ,,father 7,in ,two ,articles7 ,we must now consider such things as belong to ,christ in relation to the ,father4 ,some of these things are predicated of ,him because of ,his relation to the ,father1 e4g4 that ,he was subject to ,him1 that ,he prayed to ,him1 that ,he ministered1 to ,him by priesthood4 ,and some are predicated1 or may be predicated1 of ,him because of the ,father's relation to ,him1 e4g4 that the ,father adopted ,him and that ,he predestined ,him4 ,hence we must consider 7#a7 ,christ's subjection to the ,father2 7#b7 ,his prayer2 7#c7 ,his priesthood2 7#d7 ,adoption--whether it is becoming to ,him2 7#e7 ,his predestination4 ,under the first head there are two points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ is subject to the ,father8 7#b7 ,whether ,he is subject to ,himself8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bj1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,we ,may ,say ,that ,christ ,is ,subject to the ,father8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that we may not say that ,christ was subject to the ,father4 ,for everything subject to the ,father is a creature1 since1 as is said in ,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 iv1 in the ,trinity there is no dependence or subjection4 ,but we cannot say simply that ,christ is a creature1 as was stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,a4 #h74 ,therefore we cannot say simply that ,christ is subject to ,god the ,father4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a thing is said to be subject to ,god when it is subservient to ,his dominion4 ,but we cannot attribute subservience to the human nature of ,christ2 for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ba73 ,we must bear in mind that we may not call it 7i4e4 ,christ's human nature7 a servant2 for the words 'subservience' and 'domination' are not names of the nature1 but of relations1 as the words 'paternity' and 'filiation4' ,hence ,christ in ,his human nature is not subject to ,god the ,father4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3bh73 ,and when all things shall be subdued unto ,him1 then the ,son also ,himself shall be subject unto ,him that put all things under ,him4 ,but1 as is written 7,heb4 #b3h73 ,we see not as yet all things subject to ,him4 ,hence ,he is not yet subject to the ,father1 ,who has subjected all things to ,him4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord says 7,john #ad3bh71 ,the ,father is greater than ,i2 and ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #g73 ,it is not without reason that the ,scripture mentions both1 that the ,son is equal to the ,father and the ,father greater than the ,son1 for the first is said on account of the form of ,god1 and the second on account of the form of a servant1 without any confusion4 ,now the less is subject to the greater4 ,therefore in the form of a servant ,christ is subject to the ,father4 ,i answer that1 ,whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature4 ,now human nature from its beginning has a threefold subjection to ,god4 ,the first regards the degree of goodness1 inasmuch as the ,divine ,nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 i7 while a created nature has a participation of the ,divine goodness1 being subject1 so to say1 to the rays of this goodness4 ,secondly1 human nature is subject to ,god1 as regards ,god's power1 inasmuch as human nature1 even as every creature1 is subject to the operation of the ,divine ordinance4 ,thirdly1 human nature is especially subject to ,god through its proper act1 inasmuch as by its own will it obeys ,his command4 ,this triple subjection to ,god ,christ professes of ,himself4 ,the first 7,matt4 #ai3ag73 ,why askest thou ,me concerning good8 ,one is good1 ,god4 ,and on this ,jerome remarks3 ,he who had called ,him a good master1 and had not confessed ,him to be ,god or the ,son of ,god1 learns that no man1 however holy1 is good in comparison with ,god4 ,and hereby ,he gave us to understand that ,he ,himself1 in ,his human nature1 did not attain to the height of ,divine goodness4 ,and because in such things as are great1 but not in bulk1 to be great is the same as to be good1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 vi1 #h71 for this reason the ,father is said to be greater than ,christ in ,his human nature4 ,the second subjection is attributed to ,christ1 inasmuch as all that befell ,christ is believed to have happened by ,divine appointment2 hence ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv7 that ,christ is subject to the ordinance of ,god the ,father4 ,and this is the subjection of subservience1 whereby every creature serves ,god 7,judith #af3ag71 being subject to ,his ordinance1 according to ,wis4 #af3bd3 ,the creature serving ,thee the ,creator4 ,and in this way the ,son of ,god 7,phil4 #b3g7 is said to have taken the form of a servant4 ,the third subjection ,he attributes to ,himself1 saying 7,john #h3bi73 ,i do always the things that please ,him4 ,and this is the subjection to the ,father1 of obedience unto death4 ,hence it is written 7,phil4 #b3h7 that he became obedient to the ,father unto death4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as we are not to understand that ,christ is a creature simply1 but only in ,his human nature1 whether this qualification be added or not1 as stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,a4 #h71 so also we are to understand that ,christ is subject to the ,father not simply but in ,his human nature1 even if this qualification be not added2 and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of ,arius1 who held the ,son to be less than the ,father4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and passion1 inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to be moved by the will of his master4 ,now to act is not attributed to the nature as agent1 but to the person1 since acts belong to supposita and to singulars1 according to the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 i1 #a74 ,nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the person or hypostasis acts4 ,hence1 although the nature is not properly said to rule or serve1 yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature4 ,and in this way nothing prevents ,christ being subject or servant to the ,father in human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #h73 ,christ will give the kingdom to ,god and the ,father1 when ,he has brought the faithful1 over whom ,he now reigns by faith1 to the vision1 i4e4 to see the essence common to the ,father and the ,son3 and then ,he will be totally subject to the ,father not only in ,himself1 but also in ,his members by the full participation of the ,godhead4 ,and then all things will be fully subject to ,him by the final accomplishment of ,his will concerning them2 although even now all things are subject to ,him as regards ,his power1 according to ,matt4 #bh3ah3 ,all power is given to ,me in heaven and in earth4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bj1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,is ,subject to ,himself8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ is not subject to ,himself4 ,for ,cyril says in a synodal letter which the ,council of ,ephesus 7,part ,i1 ch4 xxvi7 received3 ,christ is neither servant nor master of ,himself4 ,it is foolish1 or rather impious1 to think or say this4 ,and ,damascene says the same 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #ba73 ,the one ,being1 ,christ1 cannot be the servant or master of ,himself4 ,now ,christ is said to be the servant of the ,father inasmuch as ,he is subject to ,him4 ,hence ,christ is not subject to ,himself4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 servant has reference to master4 ,now nothing has a relation to itself1 hence ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 vii7 that nothing is like or equal to itself4 ,hence ,christ cannot be said to be the servant of ,himself1 and consequently to be subject to ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as the rational soul and flesh are one man2 so ,god and man are one ,christ1 as ,athanasius says 7,symb4 ,fid474 ,now man is not said to be subject to himself or servant to himself or greater than himself because his body is subject to his soul4 ,therefore1 ,christ is not said to be subject to ,himself because ,his ,manhood is subject to ,his ,godhead4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i1 #g73 ,truth shows in this way 7i4e4 whereby the ,father is greater than ,christ in human nature7 that the ,son is less than ,himself4 ,further1 as he argues 7,de ,trin4 i1 #g71 the form of a servant was so taken by the ,son of ,god that the form of ,god was not lost4 ,but because of the form of ,god1 which is common to the ,father and the ,son1 the ,father is greater than the ,son in human nature4 ,therefore the ,son is greater than ,himself in human nature4 ,further1 ,christ in ,his human nature is the servant of ,god the ,father1 according to ,john #bj3ag3 ,i ascend to ,my ,father and to your ,father to ,my ,god and your ,god4 ,now whoever is the servant of the ,father is the servant of the ,son2 otherwise not everything that belongs to the ,father would belong to the ,son4 ,therefore ,christ is ,his own servant and is subject to ,himself4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 to be master or servant is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a nature4 ,hence when it is said that ,christ is the master or servant of ,himself1 or that the ,word of ,god is the ,master of the ,man ,christ1 this may be understood in two ways4 ,first1 so that this is understood to be said by reason of another hypostasis or person1 as if there was the person of the ,word of ,god ruling and the person of the man serving2 and this is the heresy of ,nestorius4 ,hence in the condemnation of ,nestorius it is said in the ,council of ,ephesus 7,part ,,iii1 ch4 i1 anath4 #f73 ,if anyone say that the ,word begotten of ,god the ,father is the ,god or ,lord of ,christ1 and does not rather confess the same to be at once ,god and man as the ,word made flesh1 according to the ,scriptures1 let him be anathema4 ,and in this sense it is denied by ,cyril and ,damascene 7,obj4 #a72 and in the same sense must it be denied that ,christ is less than ,himself or subject to ,himself4 ,secondly1 it may be understood of the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis4 ,and thus we may say that in one of them1 in which ,he agrees with the ,father1 ,he presides and rules together with the ,father2 and in the other nature1 in which ,he agrees with us1 ,he is subject and serves1 and in this sense ,augustine says that the ,son is less than ,himself4 ,yet it must be borne in mind that since this name ,christ is the name of a ,person1 even as the name ,son1 those things can be predicated essentially and absolutely of ,christ which belong to ,him by reason of the ,person1 ,which is eternal2 and especially those relations which seem more properly to pertain to the ,person or the hypostasis4 ,but whatever pertains to ,him in ,his human nature is rather to be attributed to ,him with a qualification2 so that we say that ,christ is simply greatest1 ,lord1 ,ruler1 whereas to be subject or servant or less is to be attributed to ,him with the qualification1 in ,his human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,cyril and ,damascene deny that ,christ is the head of ,himself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita1 which is required in order that anyone may be the master of another4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,simply speaking it is necessary that the master and the servant should be distinct2 yet a certain notion of mastership and subservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of ,himself in different respects4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,on account of the divers parts of man1 one of which is superior and the other inferior1 the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 v1 #aa7 that there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the irascible and concupiscible powers obey reason4 ,hence this way a man may be said to be subject and subservient to ,himself as regards ,his different parts4 ,to the other arguments1 the reply is clear from what has been said4 ,for ,augustine asserts that the ,son is less than1 or subject to1 ,himself in ,his human nature1 and not by a diversity of supposita4 ,,question #ba ,,of ,,christ',s ,,prayer 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider ,christ's prayer2 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it is becoming that ,christ should pray8 7#b7 ,whether it pertains to ,him in respect of ,his sensuality8 7#c7 ,whether it is becoming to ,him to pray for ,himself or only for others8 7#d7 ,whether every prayer of ,his was heard8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ba1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,becoming of ,christ to ,pray8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unbecoming that ,christ should pray4 ,for1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bd71 prayer is the asking for becoming things from ,god4 ,but since ,christ could do all things1 it does not seem becoming to ,him to ask anything from anyone4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting that ,christ should pray4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen2 thus1 we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow4 ,nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what he knows will not happen4 ,but ,christ in all things knew what would happen4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,he should ask anything in prayer4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bd7 that prayer is the raising up of the mind to ,god4 ,now ,christ's mind needed no uplifting to ,god1 since ,his mind was always united to ,god1 not only by the union of the hypostasis1 but by the fruition of beatitude4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,christ should pray4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #f3ab73 ,and it came to pass in those days1 that ,he went out into a mountain1 and ,he passed the whole night in the prayer of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said in the ,second ,part 7,q4 #hc1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 prayer is the unfolding of our will to ,god1 that ,he may fulfill it4 ,if1 therefore1 there had been but one will in ,christ1 viz4 the ,divine1 it would nowise belong to ,him to pray1 since the ,divine will of itself is effective of whatever ,he wishes by it1 according to ,ps4 #acd3f3 ,whatsoever the ,lord pleased1 ,he hath done4 ,but because the ,divine and the human wills are distinct in ,christ1 and the human will of itself is not efficacious enough to do what it wishes1 except by ,divine power1 hence to pray belongs to ,christ as man and as having a human will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ as ,god and not as man was able to carry out all ,he wished1 since as man ,he was not omnipotent1 as stated above 7,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #a74 ,nevertheless being both ,god and man1 ,he wished to offer prayers to the ,father1 not as though ,he were incompetent1 but for our instruction4 ,first1 that ,he might show ,himself to be from the ,father2 hence ,he says 7,john #aa3db73 ,because of the people who stand about ,i have said it 7i4e4 the words of the prayer7 that they may believe that ,thou hast sent ,me4 ,hence ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 x73 ,he did not need prayer4 ,it was for us ,he prayed1 lest the ,son should be unknown4 ,secondly1 to give us an example of prayer2 hence ,ambrose says 7on ,luke #f3ab73 ,be not deceived1 nor think that the ,son of ,god prays as a weakling1 in order to beseech what ,he cannot effect4 ,for the ,author of power1 the ,master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of virtue by ,his example4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,tract4 civ in ,joan473 ,our ,lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence1 if need be1 but ,he wished to show ,himself a suppliant of the ,father1 in such sort as to bear in mind that ,he was our ,teacher4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,amongst the other things which ,he knew would happen1 ,he knew that some would be brought about by ,his prayer2 and for these ,he not unbecomingly besought ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to rise is nothing more than to move towards what is above4 ,now movement is taken in two ways1 as is said ,de ,anima iii1 #g2 first1 strictly1 according as it implies the passing from potentiality to act1 inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect1 and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually above4 ,now in this sense1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bd71 the human mind of ,christ did not need to rise to ,god1 since it was ever united to ,god both by personal being and by the blessed vision4 ,secondly1 movement signifies the act of something perfect1 i4e4 something existing in act1 as to understand and to feel are called movements2 and in this sense the mind of ,christ was always raised up to ,god1 since ,he was always contemplating ,him as existing above ,himself4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ba1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,pertains to ,christ to ,pray ,according to ,his ,sensuality8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it pertains to ,christ to pray according to ,his sensuality4 ,for it is written 7,ps4 #hc3c7 in the person of ,christ3 ,my heart and ,my flesh have rejoiced in the ,living ,god4 ,now sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh4 ,hence ,christ's sensuality could ascend to the ,living ,god by rejoicing2 and with equal reason by praying4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires what is besought4 ,now ,christ besought something that ,his sensuality desired when ,he said 7,matt4 #bf3ci73 ,let this chalice pass from ,me4 ,therefore ,christ's sensuality prayed4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is a greater thing to be united to ,god in person than to mount to ,him in prayer4 ,but the sensuality was assumed by ,god to the unity of ,person1 even as every other part of human nature4 ,much more1 therefore1 could it mount to ,god by prayer4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #b3g7 that the ,son of ,god in the nature that ,he assumed was made in the likeness of men4 ,but the rest of men do not pray with their sensuality4 ,therefore1 neither did ,christ pray according to ,his sensuality4 ,i answer that1 ,to pray according to sensuality may be understood in two ways4 ,first as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality2 and in this sense ,christ did not pray with ,his sensuality1 since ,his sensuality was of the same nature and species in ,christ as in us4 ,now in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons2 first because the movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things1 and1 consequently1 it cannot mount to ,god1 which is required for prayer2 secondly1 because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we desire something to be fulfilled by ,god2 and this is the work of reason alone4 ,hence prayer is an act of the reason1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,a4 #a74 ,secondly1 we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our prayer lays before ,god what is in our appetite of sensuality2 and in this sense ,christ prayed with ,his sensuality inasmuch as ,his prayer expressed the desire of ,his sensuality1 as if it were the advocate of the sensuality--and this1 that ,he might teach us three things4 ,first1 to show that ,he had taken a true human nature1 with all its natural affections3 secondly1 to show that a man may wish with his natural desire what ,god does not wish3 thirdly1 to show that man should subject his own will to the ,divine will4 ,hence ,augustine says in the ,enchiridion 7,serm4 #a in ,ps4 #cb73 ,christ acting as a man1 shows the proper will of a man when ,he says ',let this chalice pass from ,me'2 for this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and1 so to say1 private4 ,but because ,he wishes man to be righteous and to be directed to ,god1 ,he adds3 ',nevertheless not as ,i will but as ,thou wilt1' as if to say1 ',see thyself in ,me1 for thou canst desire something proper to thee1 even though ,god wishes something else4' ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the flesh rejoices in the ,living ,god1 not by the act of the flesh mounting to ,god1 but by the outpouring of the heart into the flesh1 inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement of the rational appetite4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the sensuality wished what the reason besought1 it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying1 but to the reason1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the union in person is according to the personal being1 which pertains to every part of the human nature2 but the uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason1 as stated above4 ,hence there is no parity4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ba1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,pray for ,himself8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting that ,christ should pray for ,himself4 ,for ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 x73 ,although ,his word of beseeching did not benefit ,himself1 yet ,he spoke for the profit of our faith4 ,hence it seems that ,christ prayed not for ,himself but for us4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one prays save for what ,he wishes1 because1 as was said 7,a4 #a71 prayer is an unfolding of our will to ,god that ,he may fulfil it4 ,now ,christ wished to suffer what ,he suffered4 ,for ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xxvi73 ,a man1 though unwilling1 is often angry2 though unwilling1 is sad2 though unwilling1 sleeps2 though unwilling1 hungers and thirsts4 ,but ,he 7i4e4 ,christ7 did all these things1 because ,he wished4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,he should pray for ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,cyprian says 7,de ,orat4 ,dom473 ,the ,doctor of ,peace and ,master of ,unity did not wish prayers to be offered individually and privately1 lest when we prayed we should pray for ourselves alone4 ,now ,christ did what ,he taught1 according to ,acts #a3a3 ,jesus began to do and to teach4 ,therefore ,christ never prayed for ,himself alone4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord ,himself said while praying 7,john #ag3a73 ,glorify ,thy ,son4 ,i answer that1 ,christ prayed for ,himself in two ways4 ,first1 by expressing the desire of ,his sensuality1 as stated above 7,a4 #b72 or also of ,his simple will1 considered as a nature2 as when ,he prayed that the chalice of ,his ,passion might pass from ,him 7,matt4 #bf3ci74 ,secondly1 by expressing the desire of ,his deliberate will1 which is considered as reason2 as when ,he prayed for the glory of ,his ,resurrection 7,john #ag3a74 ,and this is reasonable4 ,for as we have said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a7 ,christ wished to pray to ,his ,father in order to give us an example of praying2 and also to show that ,his ,father is the author both of ,his eternal procession in the ,divine ,nature1 and of all the good that ,he possesses in the human nature4 ,now just as in ,his human nature ,he had already received certain gifts from ,his ,father4 so there were other gifts which ,he had not yet received1 but which ,he expected to receive4 ,and therefore1 as ,he gave thanks to the ,father for gifts already received in ,his human nature1 by acknowledging ,him as the author thereof1 as we read 7,matt4 #bf3bg2 ,john #aa3da73 so also1 in recognition of ,his ,father1 ,he besought ,him in prayer for those gifts still due to ,him in ,his human nature1 such as the glory of ,his body1 and the like4 ,and in this ,he gave us an example1 that we should give thanks for benefits received1 and ask in prayer for those we have not as yet4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,hilary is speaking of vocal prayer1 which was not necessary to ,him for ,his own sake1 but only for ours4 ,whence he says pointedly that ,his word of beseeching did not benefit ,himself4 ,for if the ,lord hears the desire of the poor1 as is said in the ,ps4 #i3ch1 much more the mere will of ,christ has the force of a prayer with the ,father3 wherefore ,he said 7,john #aa3db73 ,i know that ,thou hearest ,me always1 but because of the people who stand about have ,i said it1 that they may believe that ,thou hast sent ,me4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ wished indeed to suffer what ,he suffered1 at that particular time3 nevertheless ,he wished to obtain1 after ,his passion1 the glory of ,his body1 which as yet ,he had not4 ,this glory ,he expected to receive from ,his ,father as the author thereof1 and therefore it was fitting that ,he should pray to ,him for it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this very glory which ,christ1 while praying1 besought for ,himself1 pertained to the salvation of others according to ,rom4 #d3be3 ,he rose again for our justification4 ,consequently the prayer which ,he offered for ,himself was also in a manner offered for others4 ,so also anyone that asks a boon of ,god that he may use it for the good of others1 prays not only for himself1 but also for others4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ba1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,prayer ,was ,always ,heard8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's prayer was not always heard4 ,for ,he besought that the chalice of ,his passion might be taken from ,him1 as we read 7,matt4 #bf3ci73 and yet it was not taken from ,him4 ,therefore it seems that not every prayer of ,his was heard4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,he prayed that the sin of those who crucified ,him might be forgiven1 as is related 7,luke #bc3cd74 ,yet not all were pardoned this sin1 since the ,jews were punished on account thereof4 ,therefore it seems that not every prayer of ,his was heard4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 our ,lord prayed for them who would believe in ,him through the word of the apostles1 that they might all be one in ,him1 and that they might attain to being with ,him 7,john #ag3bj1 #ba1 #bd74 ,but not all attain to this4 ,therefore not every prayer of ,his was heard4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is said 7,ps4 #ba3c7 in the person of ,christ3 ,i shall cry by day1 and ,thou wilt not hear4 ,not every prayer of ,his1 therefore1 was heard4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #e3g73 ,with a strong cry and tears offering up prayers 4 4 4 ,he was heard for ,his reverence4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 prayer is a certain manifestation of the human will4 ,wherefore1 then is the request of one who prays granted1 when his will is fulfilled4 ,now absolutely speaking the will of man is the will of reason2 for we will absolutely that which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation4 ,whereas what we will in accordance with the movement of sensuality1 or even of the simple will1 which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but conditionally 7secundum quid7--that is1 provided no obstacle be discovered by reason's deliberation4 ,wherefore such a will should rather be called a velleity than an absolute will2 because one would will 7vellet7 if there were no obstacle4 ,but according to the will of reason1 ,christ willed nothing but what ,he knew ,god to will4 ,wherefore every absolute will of ,christ1 even human1 was fulfilled1 because it was in conformity with ,god2 and consequently ,his every prayer was fulfilled4 ,for in this respect also is it that other men's prayers are fulfilled1 in that their will is in conformity with ,god1 according to ,rom4 #h3bg3 ,and ,he that searcheth the hearts knoweth1 that is1 approves of1 what the ,spirit desireth1 that is1 what the ,spirit makes the saints to desire3 because ,he asketh for the saints according to ,god1 that is1 in conformity with the ,divine will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously explained by the ,saints4 ,for ,hilary 7,super ,matth4 #ca7 says3 ,when ,he asks that this may pass from ,him1 ,he does not pray that it may pass by ,him1 but that others may share in that which passes on from ,him to them2 ,so that the sense is3 ,as ,i am partaking of the chalice of the passion1 so may others drink of it1 with unfailing hope1 with unflinching anguish1 without fear of death4 ,or according to ,jerome 7on ,matt4 #bf3ci73 ,he says pointedly1 ',this chalice1' that is of the ,jewish people1 who cannot allege ignorance as an excuse for putting ,me to death1 since they have the ,law and the ,prophets1 who foretold concerning ,me4 ,or1 according to ,dionysius of ,alexandria 7,de ,martyr4 ad ,origen #g73 ,when ,he says ',remove this chalice from ,me1' ,he does not mean1 ',let it not come to ,me'2 for if it come not1 it cannot be removed4 ,but1 as that which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent1 so the ,saviour beseeches1 that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed4 ,lastly1 ,ambrose1 ,origen and ,chrysostom say that ,he prayed thus as man1 being reluctant to die according to ,his natural will4 ,thus1 therefore1 whether we understand1 according to ,hilary1 that ,he thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of ,his ,passion1 or that ,he prayed that the fear of drinking ,his chalice might not trouble ,him1 or that death might not withhold ,him1 ,his prayer was entirely fulfilled4 ,but if we understand that ,he prayed that ,he might not drink the chalice of ,his passion and death2 or that ,he might not drink it at the hands of the ,jews2 what ,he besought was not indeed fulfilled1 because ,his reason which formed the petition did not desire its fulfilment1 but for our instruction1 it was ,his will to make known to us ,his natural will1 and the movement of ,his sensuality1 which was ,his as man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,our ,lord did not pray for all those who crucified ,him1 as neither did ,he for all those who would believe in ,him2 but for those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through ,him4 ,wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,when ,he says3 ,i shall cry and ,thou wilt not hear1 we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality1 which shunned death4 ,but ,he is heard as to the desire of ,his reason1 as stated above4 ,,question #bb ,,of ,,the ,,priesthood ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the ,priesthood of ,christ2 and under this head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it is fitting that ,christ should be a priest8 7#b7 ,of the victim offered by this priest2 7#c7 ,of the effect of this priesthood2 7#d7 ,whether the effect of ,his priesthood pertains to ,himself1 or only to others8 7#e7 ,of the eternal duration of ,his priesthood2 7#f7 ,whether ,he should be called a priest according to the order of ,melchisedech8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,be a ,priest8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that ,christ should be a priest4 ,for a priest is less than an angel2 whence it is written 7,zech4 #c3a73 ,the ,lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the ,lord4 ,but ,christ is greater than the angels1 according to ,heb4 #a3d3 ,being made so much better than the angels1 as ,he hath inherited a more excellent name than they4 ,therefore it is unfitting that ,christ should be a priest4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 things which were in the ,old ,testament were figures of ,christ1 according to ,col4 #b3ag3 ,which are a shadow of things to come1 but the body is ,christ's4 ,but ,christ was not descended from the priests of the ,old ,law1 for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3ad73 ,it is evident that our ,lord sprang out of ,judah1 in which tribe ,moses spoke nothing concerning priests4 ,therefore it is not fitting that ,christ should be a priest4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the ,old ,law1 which is a figure of ,christ1 the lawgivers and the priests were distinct3 wherefore the ,lord said to ,moses the lawgiver 7,ex4 #bh3a73 ,take unto thee ,aaron1 thy brother 4 4 4 that he ,vulg43 'they' may minister to ,me in the priest's office4 ,but ,christ is the giver of the ,new ,law1 according to ,jer4 #ca3cc3 ,i will give ,my law in their bowels4 ,therefore it is unfitting that ,christ should be a priest4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #d3ad73 ,we have ,vulg43 ',having' therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens1 ,jesus1 the ,son of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,the office proper to a priest is to be a mediator between ,god and the people3 to wit1 inasmuch as ,he bestows ,divine things on the people1 wherefore sacerdos 7priest7 means a giver of sacred things 7sacra dans71 according to ,malachi #b3g3 ,they shall seek the law at his1 i4e4 the priest's1 mouth2 and again1 forasmuch as he offers up the people's prayers to ,god1 and1 in a manner1 makes satisfaction to ,god for their sins2 wherefore the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #e3a73 ,every high-priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to ,god1 that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins4 ,now this is most befitting to ,christ4 ,for through ,him are gifts bestowed on men1 according to #b ,pet4 #a3d3 ,by ,whom 7i4e4 ,christ7 ,he hath given us most great and precious promises1 that by these you may be made partakers of the ,divine ,nature4 ,moreover1 ,he reconciled the human race to ,god1 according to ,col4 #a3ai1 #bj3 ,in ,him 7i4e4 ,christ7 it hath well pleased 7the ,father7 that all fulness should dwell1 and through ,him to reconcile all things unto ,himself4 ,therefore it is most fitting that ,christ should be a priest4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,hierarchical power appertains to the angels1 inasmuch as they also are between ,god and man1 as ,dionysius explains 7,coel4 ,hier4 ix71 so that the priest himself1 as being between ,god and man1 is called an angel1 according to ,malachi #b3g3 ,he is the angel of the ,lord of hosts4 ,now ,christ was greater than the angels1 not only in ,his ,godhead1 but also in ,his humanity1 as having the fulness of grace and glory4 ,wherefore also ,he had the hierarchical or priestly power in a higher degree than the angels1 so that even the angels were ministers of ,his priesthood1 according to ,matt4 #d3aa3 ,angels came and ministered unto ,him4 ,but1 in regard to ,his passibility1 ,he was made a little lower than the angels1 as the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3i73 and thus ,he was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii1 #bf73 ,what is like in every particular must be1 of course1 identical1 and not a copy4 ,since1 therefore1 the priesthood of the ,old ,law was a figure of the priesthood of ,christ1 ,he did not wish to be born of the stock of the figurative priests1 that it might be made clear that ,his priesthood is not quite the same as theirs1 but differs therefrom as truth from figure4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #g1 ad #a71 other men have certain graces distributed among them3 but ,christ1 as being the ,head of all1 has the perfection of all graces4 ,wherefore1 as to others1 one is a lawgiver1 another is a priest1 another is a king2 but all these concur in ,christ1 as the fount of all grace4 ,hence it is written 7,isa4 #cc3bb73 ,the ,lord is our ,judge1 the ,lord is our law-giver1 the ,lord is our ,king3 ,he will come and save us4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,was ,himself ,both ,priest and ,victim8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ ,himself was not both priest and victim4 ,for it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim4 ,but ,christ did not kill ,himself4 ,therefore ,he was not both priest and victim4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the priesthood of ,christ has a greater similarity to the ,jewish priesthood1 instituted by ,god1 than to the priesthood of the ,gentiles1 by which the demons were worshiped4 ,now in the old ,law man was never offered up in sacrifice3 whereas this was very much to be reprehended in the sacrifices of the ,gentiles1 according to ,ps4 #aje3ch3 ,they shed innocent blood2 the blood of their sons and of their daughters1 which they sacrificed to the idols of ,chanaan4 ,therefore in ,christ's priesthood the ,man ,christ should not have been the victim4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every victim1 through being offered to ,god1 is consecrated to ,god4 ,but the humanity of ,christ was from the beginning consecrated and united to ,god4 ,therefore it cannot be said fittingly that ,christ as man was a victim4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #e3b73 ,christ hath loved us1 and hath delivered ,himself for us1 an oblation and a victim ,douay3 'sacrifice' to ,god for an odor of sweetness4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei x1 #e73 ,every visible sacrifice is a sacrament1 that is a sacred sign1 of the invisible sacrifice4 ,now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers his spirit to ,god1 according to ,ps4 #ej3ai3 ,a sacrifice to ,god is an afflicted spirit4 ,wherefore1 whatever is offered to ,god in order to raise man's spirit to ,him1 may be called a sacrifice4 ,now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons4 ,first1 for the remission of sin1 by which he is turned away from ,god4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #e3a7 that it appertains to the priest to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins4 ,secondly1 that man may be preserved in a state of grace1 by ever adhering to ,god1 wherein his peace and salvation consist4 ,wherefore under the old ,law the sacrifice of peace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers1 as is prescribed in the third chapter of ,leviticus4 ,thirdly1 in order that the spirit of man be perfectly united to ,god3 which will be most perfectly realized in glory4 ,hence1 under the ,old ,law1 the holocaust was offered1 so called because the victim was wholly burnt1 as we read in the first chapter of ,leviticus4 ,now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of ,christ4 ,for1 in the first place1 our sins were blotted out1 according to ,rom4 #d3be3 ,who was delivered up for our sins4 ,secondly1 through ,him we received the grace of salvation1 according to ,heb4 #e3i3 ,he became to all that obey ,him the cause of eternal salvation4 ,thirdly1 through ,him we have acquired the perfection of glory1 according to ,heb4 #aj3ai3 ,we have ,vulg43 ',having' a confidence in the entering into the ,holies 7i4e4 the heavenly glory7 through ,his ,blood4 ,therefore ,christ ,himself1 as man1 was not only priest1 but also a perfect victim1 being at the same time victim for sin1 victim for a peace-offering1 and a holocaust4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ did not slay ,himself1 but of ,his own free-will ,he exposed ,himself to death1 according to ,isa4 #ec3g3 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will4 ,thus ,he is said to have offered ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the slaying of the ,man ,christ may be referred to a twofold will4 ,first1 to the will of those who slew ,him3 and in this respect ,he was not a victim3 for the slayers of ,christ are not accounted as offering a sacrifice to ,god1 but as guilty of a great crime3 a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the ,gentiles1 in which they offered up men to idols4 ,secondly1 the slaying of ,christ may be considered in reference to the will of the ,sufferer1 ,who freely offered ,himself to suffering4 ,in this respect ,he is a victim1 and in this ,he differs from the sacrifices of the ,gentiles4 7,the reply to the third objection is wanting in the original manuscripts1 but it may be gathered from the above4--,ed47 99,some editions1 however1 give the following reply3 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the fact that ,christ's manhood was holy from its beginning does not prevent that same manhood1 when it was offered to ,god in the ,passion1 being sanctified in a new way--namely1 as a victim actually offered then4 ,for it acquired then the actual holiness of a victim1 from the charity which it had from the beginning1 and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,effect of ,christ's ,priesthood ,is the ,expiation of ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the effect of ,christ's priesthood is not the expiation of sins4 ,for it belongs to ,god alone to blot out sins1 according to ,isa4 #dc3be3 ,i am ,he that blot out thy iniquities for ,my own sake4 ,but ,christ is priest1 not as ,god1 but as man4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ does not expiate sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #aj3a-c7 that the victims of the ,old ,testament could not make 7the comers thereunto7 perfect3 for then they would have ceased to be offered2 because the worshipers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer2 but in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year4 ,but in like manner under the priesthood of ,christ a commemoration of sins is made in the words3 ,forgive us our trespasses 7,matt4 #f3ab74 ,moreover1 the ,sacrifice is offered continuously in the ,church2 wherefore again we say3 ,give us this day our daily bread4 ,therefore sins are not expiated by the priesthood of ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the sin-offerings of the ,old ,law1 a he-goat was mostly offered for the sin of a prince1 a she-goat for the sin of some private individual1 a calf for the sin of a priest1 as we gather from ,lev4 #d3c1 #bc1 #bh4 ,but ,christ is compared to none of these1 but to the lamb1 according to ,jer4 #aa3ai3 ,i was as a meek lamb1 that is carried to be a victim4 ,therefore it seems that ,his priesthood does not expiate sins4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #i3ad73 ,the blood of ,christ1 ,who by the ,holy ,ghost offered ,himself unspotted unto ,god1 shall cleanse our conscience from dead works1 to serve the living ,god4 ,but dead works denote sins4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ has the power to cleanse from sins4 ,i answer that1 ,two things are required for the perfect cleansing from sins1 corresponding to the two things comprised in sin--namely1 the stain of sin and the debt of punishment4 ,the stain of sin is1 indeed1 blotted out by grace1 by which the sinner's heart is turned to ,god3 whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the satisfaction that man offers to ,god4 ,now the priesthood of ,christ produces both these effects4 ,for by its virtue grace is given to us1 by which our hearts are turned to ,god1 according to ,rom4 #c3bd1 #be3 ,being justified freely by ,his grace1 through the redemption that is in ,christ ,jesus1 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,moreover1 ,he satisfied for us fully1 inasmuch as ,he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows 7,isa4 #ec3d74 ,wherefore it is clear that the priesthood of ,christ has full power to expiate sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although ,christ was a priest1 not as ,god1 but as man1 yet one and the same was both priest and ,god4 ,wherefore in the ,council of ,ephesus 99,part ,,iii1 ch4 i1 anath4 #aj we read3 ,if anyone say that the very ,word of ,god did not become our ,high-,priest and ,apostle1 when ,he became flesh and a man like us1 but altogether another one1 the man born of a woman1 let him be anathema4 ,hence in so far as ,his human nature operated by virtue of the ,divine1 that sacrifice was most efficacious for the blotting out of sins4 ,for this reason ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv1 #ad73 ,so that1 since four things are to be observed in every sacrifice--to whom it is offered1 by whom it is offered1 what is offered1 for whom it is offered2 the same one true ,mediator reconciling us to ,god by the sacrifice of peace1 was one with ,him to ,whom it was offered1 united in ,himself those for whom ,he offered it1 at the same time offered it ,himself1 and was ,himself that which ,he offered4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,sins are commemorated in the ,new ,law1 not on account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of ,christ1 as though sins were not sufficiently expiated by ,him3 but in regard to those who either are not willing to be participators in ,his sacrifice1 such as unbelievers1 for whose sins we pray that they be converted2 or who1 after taking part in this sacrifice1 fall away from it by whatsoever kind of sin4 ,the ,sacrifice which is offered every day in the ,church is not distinct from that which ,christ ,himself offered1 but is a commemoration thereof4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,de4 x1 #bj73 ,christ ,himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim3 the sacred token of which ,he wished to be the daily ,sacrifice of the ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,origen says 7,sup4 ,joan4 i1 #bi71 though various animals were offered up under the ,old ,law1 yet the daily sacrifice1 which was offered up morning and evening1 was a lamb1 as appears from ,num4 #ch3c1 #d4 ,by which it was signified that the offering up of the true lamb1 i4e4 ,christ1 was the culminating sacrifice of all4 ,hence 7,john #a3bi7 it is said3 ,behold the ,lamb of ,god1 behold ,him ,who taketh away the sins ,vulg43 'sin' of the world4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,effect of the ,priesthood of ,christ ,pertained ,not ,only to ,others1 but ,also to ,himself8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the effect of the priesthood of ,christ pertained not only to others1 but also to ,himself4 ,for it belongs to the priest's office to pray for the people1 according to #b ,macc4 #a3bc3 ,the priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming4 ,now ,christ prayed not only for others1 but also for ,himself1 as we have said above 7,q4 #ba1 ,a4 #c71 and as expressly stated 7,heb4 #e3g73 ,in the days of ,his flesh1 with a strong cry and tears ,he offered ,vulg43 'offering' up prayers and supplications to ,him that was able to save ,him from death4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ had an effect not only in others1 but also in ,himself4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in ,his passion ,christ offered ,himself as a sacrifice4 ,but by ,his passion ,he merited1 not only for others1 but also for ,himself1 as stated above 7,q4 #ai1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ had an effect not only in others1 but also in ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the priesthood of the ,old ,law was a figure of the priesthood of ,christ4 ,but the priest of the ,old ,law offered sacrifice not only for others1 but also for himself3 for it is written 7,lev4 #af3ag7 that the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for himself and his house1 and for the whole congregation of ,israel4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ also had an effect not merely in others1 but also in ,himself4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read in the acts of the ,council of ,ephesus 99,part ,,iii1 ch4 i1 anath4 #aj3 ,if anyone say that ,christ offered sacrifice for ,himself1 and not rather for us alone 7for ,he ,who knew not sin needed no sacrifice71 let him be anathema4 ,but the priest's office consists principally in offering sacrifice4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ had no effect in ,himself4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 a priest is set between ,god and man4 ,now he needs someone between himself and ,god1 who of himself cannot approach to ,god2 and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof4 ,but this cannot be said of ,christ2 for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3be73 ,coming of ,himself to ,god1 always living to make intercession for us ,vulg43 ',he is able to save for ever them that come to ,god by ,him2 always living1' etc44 ,and therefore it is not fitting for ,christ to be the recipient of the effect of ,his priesthood1 but rather to communicate it to others4 ,for the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing in that genus3 thus the sun gives but does not receive light2 fire gives but does not receive heat4 ,now ,christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood3 for the priest of the ,old ,law was a figure of ,him2 while the priest of the ,new ,law works in ,his person1 according to #b ,cor4 #b3aj3 ,for what ,i have pardoned1 if ,i have pardoned anything1 for your sakes have ,i done it in the person of ,christ4 ,therefore it is not fitting that ,christ should receive the effect of ,his priesthood4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although prayer is befitting to priests1 it is not their proper office1 for it is befitting to everyone to pray both for himself and for others1 according to ,james #e3af3 ,pray for one another that you may be saved4 ,and so we may say that the prayer by which ,christ prayed for ,himself was not an action of ,his priesthood4 ,but this answer seems to be precluded by the ,apostle1 who1 after saying 7,heb4 #e3f71 ,thou art a priest for ever according to the order of ,melchisedech1 adds1 ,who in the days of ,his flesh offering up payers1 etc41 as quoted above 7,obj4 #a73 so that it seems that the prayer which ,christ offered pertained to ,his priesthood4 ,we must therefore say that other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood1 not as priests1 but as sinners1 as we shall state farther on 7ad #c74 ,but ,christ had1 simply speaking1 no sin2 though ,he had the likeness of sin in the flesh ,vulg43 'sinful flesh'1 as is written ,rom4 #h3c4 ,and1 consequently1 we must not say simply that ,he partook of the effect of ,his priesthood but with this qualification-- in regard to the passibility of the flesh4 ,wherefore he adds pointedly1 that was able to save ,him from death4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,two things may be considered in the offering of a sacrifice by any priest--namely1 the sacrifice itself which is offered1 and the devotion of the offerer4 ,now the proper effect of priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself4 ,but ,christ obtained a result from ,his passion1 not as by virtue of the sacrifice1 which is offered by way of satisfaction1 but by the very devotion with which out of charity ,he humbly endured the passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a figure cannot equal the reality1 wherefore the figural priest of the ,old ,law could not attain to such perfection as not to need a sacrifice of satisfaction4 ,but ,christ did not stand in need of this4 ,consequently1 there is no comparison between the two2 and this is what the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3bh73 ,the ,law maketh men priests1 who have infirmity2 but the word of the oath1 which was since the ,law1 the ,son ,who is perfected for evermore4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,priesthood of ,christ ,endures for ,ever8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the priesthood of ,christ does not endure for ever4 ,for as stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #a1 #c7 those alone need the effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin1 which can be expiated by the priest's sacrifice4 ,but this will not be for ever4 ,for in the ,saints there will be no weakness1 according to ,isa4 #fj3ba3 ,thy people shall be all just3 while no expiation will be possible for the weakness of sin1 since there is no redemption in hell 7,office of the ,dead1 ,resp4 vii74 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ endures not for ever4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the priesthood of ,christ was made manifest most of all in ,his passion and death1 when by ,his own blood ,he entered into the ,holies 7,heb4 #i3ab74 ,but the passion and death of ,christ will not endure for ever1 as stated ,rom4 #f3i3 ,christ rising again from the dead1 dieth now no more4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ will not endure for ever4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is a priest1 not as ,god1 but as man4 ,but at one time ,christ was not man1 namely during the three days ,he lay dead4 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ endures not for ever4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #aji3d73 ,thou art a priest for ever4 ,i answer that1 ,in the priestly office1 we may consider two things3 first1 the offering of the sacrifice2 secondly1 the consummation of the sacrifice1 consisting in this1 that those for whom the sacrifice is offered1 obtain the end of the sacrifice4 ,now the end of the sacrifice which ,christ offered consisted not in temporal but in eternal good1 which we obtain through ,his death1 according to ,heb4 #i3aa3 ,christ is ,vulg43 'being come' a high-priest of the good things to come2 for which reason the priesthood of ,christ is said to be eternal4 ,now this consummation of ,christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed in this1 that the high-priest of the ,old ,law1 once a year1 entered into the ,holy of ,holies with the blood of a he-goat and a calf1 as laid down1 ,lev4 #af3aa1 and yet he offered up the he-goat and calf not within the ,holy of ,holies1 but without4 ,in like manner ,christ entered into the ,holy of ,holies--that is1 into heaven--and prepared the way for us1 that we might enter by the virtue of ,his blood1 which ,he shed for us on earth4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,saints who will be in heaven will not need any further expiation by the priesthood of ,christ1 but having expiated1 they will need consummation through ,christ ,himself1 on ,whom their glory depends1 as is written 7,apoc4 #ba3bc73 ,the glory of ,god hath enlightened it--that is1 the city of the ,saints--and the ,lamb is the lamp thereof4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although ,christ's passion and death are not to be repeated1 yet the virtue of that ,victim endures for ever1 for1 as it is written 7,heb4 #aj3ad71 by one oblation ,he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified4 ,wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear4 ,as to the unity of this sacrifice1 it was foreshadowed in the ,law in that1 once a year1 the high-priest of the ,law entered into the ,holies1 with a solemn oblation of blood1 as set down1 ,lev4 #af3aa4 ,but the figure fell short of the reality in this1 that the victim had not an everlasting virtue1 for which reason those sacrifices were renewed every year4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bb1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,priesthood of ,christ ,was ,according to the ,order of ,melchisedech8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's priesthood was not according to the order of ,melchisedech4 ,for ,christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood1 as being the principal priest4 ,now that which is principal is not secondary in regard to others1 but others are secondary in its regard4 ,therefore ,christ should not be called a priest according to the order of ,melchisedech4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the priesthood of the ,old ,law was more akin to ,christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the ,law4 ,but the nearer the sacraments were to ,christ1 the more clearly they signified ,him2 as is clear from what we have said in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #b1 ,a4 #g74 ,therefore the priesthood of ,christ should be denominated after the priesthood of the ,law1 rather than after the order of ,melchisedech1 which was before the ,law4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,heb4 #g3b1 #c73 ,that is 'king of peace1' without father1 without mother1 without genealogy2 having neither beginning of days nor ending of life3 which can be referred only to the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore ,christ should not be called a priest according to the order of ,melchisedech1 as of some one else1 but according to ,his own order4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #aji3d73 ,thou art a priest for ever according to the order of ,melchisedech4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #c7 the priesthood of the ,law was a figure of the priesthood of ,christ1 not as adequately representing the reality1 but as falling far short thereof3 both because the priesthood of the ,law did not wash away sins1 and because it was not eternal1 as the priesthood of ,christ4 ,now the excellence of ,christ's over the ,levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the priesthood of ,melchisedech1 who received tithes from ,abraham1 in whose loins the priesthood of the ,law was tithed4 ,consequently the priesthood of ,christ is said to be according to the order of ,melchisedech1 on account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural priesthood of the ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is said to be according to the order of ,melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest1 but because he foreshadowed the excellence of ,christ's over the ,levitical priesthood4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,two things may be considered in ,christ's priesthood3 namely1 the offering made by ,christ1 and 7our7 partaking thereof4 ,as to the actual offering1 the priesthood of ,christ was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the ,law1 by reason of the shedding of blood1 than by the priesthood of ,melchisedech in which there was no blood-shedding4 ,but if we consider the participation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof1 wherein the excellence of ,christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the ,law principally consists1 then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of ,melchisedech1 who offered bread and wine1 signifying1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan47 ecclesiastical unity1 which is established by our taking part in the sacrifice of ,christ 99,cf4 ,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #a4 ,wherefore also in the ,new ,law the true sacrifice of ,christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,melchisedech is described as without father1 without mother1 without genealogy1 and as having neither beginning of days nor ending of life1 not as though he had not these things1 but because these details in his regard are not supplied by ,holy ,scripture4 ,and this it is that1 as the ,apostle says in the same passage1 he is likened unto the ,son of ,god1 ,who had no earthly father1 no heavenly mother1 and no genealogy1 according to ,isa4 #ec3h3 ,who shall declare ,his generation8 and ,who in ,his ,godhead has neither beginning nor end of days4 ,,question #bc ,,of ,,adoption ,,as ,,befitting ,,to ,,christ 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now come to consider whether adoption befits ,christ3 and under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it is fitting that ,god should adopt sons8 7#b7 ,whether this is fitting to ,god the ,father alone8 7#c7 ,whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of ,god8 7#d7 ,whether ,christ can be called the adopted ,son8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bc1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,fitting ,that ,god ,should ,adopt ,sons8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not fitting that ,god should adopt sons4 ,for1 as jurists say1 no one adopts anyone but a stranger as his son4 ,but no one is a stranger in relation to ,god1 ,who is the ,creator of all4 ,therefore it seems unfitting that ,god should adopt4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 adoption seems to have been introduced in default of natural sonship4 ,but in ,god there is natural sonship1 as set down in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #bg1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore it is unfitting that ,god should adopt4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the purpose of adopting anyone is that he may succeed1 as heir1 the person who adopts him4 ,but it does not seem possible for anyone to succeed ,god as heir1 for ,he can never die4 ,therefore it is unfitting that ,god should adopt4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #a3e7 that ,he hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children of ,god4 ,but the predestination of ,god is not ineffectual4 ,therefore ,god does adopt some as ,his sons4 ,i answer that1 ,a man adopts someone as his son forasmuch as out of goodness he admits him as heir to his estate4 ,now ,god is infinitely good3 for which reason ,he admits ,his creatures to a participation of good things2 especially rational creatures1 who forasmuch as they are made to the image of ,god1 are capable of ,divine beatitude4 ,and this consists in the enjoyment of ,god1 by which also ,god ,himself is happy and rich in ,himself--that is1 in the enjoyment of ,himself4 ,now a man's inheritance is that which makes him rich4 ,wherefore1 inasmuch as ,god1 of ,his goodness1 admits men to the inheritance of beatitude1 ,he is said to adopt them4 ,moreover ,divine exceeds human adoption1 forasmuch as ,god1 by bestowing ,his grace1 makes man whom ,he adopts worthy to receive the heavenly inheritance2 whereas man does not make him worthy whom he adopts2 but rather in adopting him he chooses one who is already worthy4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,considered in his nature man is not a stranger in respect to ,god1 as to the natural gifts bestowed on him3 but he is as to the gifts of grace and glory2 in regard to which he is adopted4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man works in order to supply his wants3 not so ,god1 ,who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of ,his perfection4 ,wherefore1 as by the work of creation the ,divine goodness is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness1 so by the work of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men1 according to ,rom4 #h3bi3 ,whom ,he foreknew 4 4 4 to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the same time2 not so material goods4 ,wherefore none can receive a material inheritance except the successor of a deceased person3 whereas all receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety without detriment to the ever-living ,father4 ,yet it might be said that ,god ceases to be1 according as ,he is in us by faith1 so as to begin to be in us by vision1 as a gloss says on ,rom4 #h3ag3 ,if sons1 heirs also4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bc1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,is ,fitting ,that the ,whole ,trinity ,should ,adopt8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that the whole ,trinity should adopt4 ,for adoption is said of ,god in likeness to human custom4 ,but among men those only adopt who can beget3 and in ,god this can be applied only to the ,father4 ,therefore in ,god the ,father alone can adopt4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by adoption men become the brethren of ,christ1 according to ,rom4 #h3bi3 ,that ,he might be the first-born among many brethren4 ,now brethren are the sons of the same father2 wherefore our ,lord says 7,john #bj3ag73 ,i ascend to ,my ,father and to your ,father4 ,therefore ,christ's ,father alone has adopted sons4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,gal4 #d3d1 #e1 #f73 ,god sent ,his ,son 4 4 4 that we might receive the adoption of sons4 ,and because you are sons of ,god1 ,god hath sent the ,spirit of ,his ,son into your hearts1 crying3 ',abba' 7,father74 ,therefore it belongs to ,him to adopt1 ,who has the ,son and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but this belongs to the ,father alone4 ,therefore it befits the ,father alone to adopt4 ,on the contrary1 ,it belongs to ,him to adopt us as sons1 ,whom we can call ,father2 whence it is written 7,rom4 #h3ae73 ,you have received the spirit of adoption of sons1 whereby we cry3 ',abba' 7,father74 ,but when we say to ,god1 ,our ,father1 we address the whole ,trinity3 as is the case with the other names which are said of ,god in respect of creatures1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #cc1 ,a4 #c1 ,obj4 #a2 cf4 ,q4 #de1 ,a4 #f74 ,therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole ,trinity4 ,i answer that1 ,there is this difference between an adopted son of ,god and the natural ,son of ,god1 that the latter is begotten not made2 whereas the former is made1 according to ,john #a3ab3 ,he gave them power to be made the sons of ,god4 ,yet sometimes the adopted son is said to be begotten1 by reason of the spiritual regeneration which is by grace1 not by nature2 wherefore it is written 7,james #a3ah73 ,of ,his own will hath ,he begotten us by the word of truth4 ,now although1 in ,god1 to beget belongs to the ,person of the ,father1 yet to produce any effect in creatures is common to the whole ,trinity1 by reason of the oneness of their ,nature3 since1 where there is one nature1 there must needs be one power and one operation3 whence our ,lord says 7,john #e3ai73 ,what things soever the ,father doth1 these the ,son also doth in like manner4 ,therefore it belongs to the whole ,trinity to adopt men as sons of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all human individuals are not of one individual nature1 so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all1 as is the case in ,god4 ,consequently in this respect no comparison is possible4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by adoption we are made the brethren of ,christ1 as having with ,him the same ,father3 ,who1 nevertheless1 is ,his ,father in one way1 and ours in another4 ,whence pointedly our ,lord says1 separately1 ,my ,father1 and ,your ,father 7,john #bj3ag74 ,for ,he is ,christ's ,father by natural generation2 and this is proper to ,him3 whereas ,he is our ,father by a voluntary operation1 which is common to ,him and to the ,son and ,holy ,ghost3 so that ,christ is not the ,son of the whole ,trinity1 as we are4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal ,sonship3 just as all that takes place in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity4 ,now man is likened to the splendor of the ,eternal ,son by reason of the light of grace which is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore adoption1 though common to the whole ,trinity1 is appropriated to the ,father as its author2 to the ,son1 as its exemplar2 to the ,holy ,ghost1 as imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bc1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,it ,is ,proper to the ,rational ,nature to ,be ,adopted8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not proper to the rational nature to be adopted4 ,for ,god is not said to be the ,father of the rational creature1 save by adoption4 ,but ,god is called the ,father even of the irrational creature1 according to ,job #ch3bh3 ,who is father of the rain8 ,or who begot the drops of dew8 ,therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by reason of adoption some are called sons of ,god4 ,but to be sons of ,god seems to be properly attributed by the ,scriptures to the angels2 according to ,job #a3f3 ,on a certain day when the sons of ,god came to stand before the ,lord4 ,therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whatever is proper to a nature1 belongs to all that have that nature3 just as risibility belongs to all men4 ,but to be adopted does not belong to every rational nature4 ,therefore it is not proper to human nature4 ,on the contrary1 ,adopted sons are the heirs of ,god1 as is stated ,rom4 #h3ag4 ,but such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational nature4 ,therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #c71 the sonship of adoption is a certain likeness of natural sonship4 ,now the ,son of ,god proceeds naturally from the ,father as the ,intellectual ,word1 in oneness of nature with the ,father4 ,to this ,word1 therefore1 something may be likened in three ways4 ,first1 on the part of the form but not on the part of its intelligibility3 thus the form of a house already built is like the mental word of the builder in its specific form1 but not in intelligibility1 because the material form of a house is not intelligible1 as it was in the mind of the builder4 ,in this way every creature is like the ,eternal ,word2 since it was made through the ,word4 ,secondly1 the creature is likened to the ,word1 not only as to its form1 but also as to its intelligibility3 thus the knowledge which is begotten in the disciple's mind is likened to the word in the mind of the master4 ,in this way the rational creature1 even in its nature1 is likened to the ,word of ,god4 ,thirdly1 a creature is likened to the ,eternal ,word1 as to the oneness of the ,word with the ,father1 which is by reason of grace and charity3 wherefore our ,lord prays 7,john #ag3ba1 #bb73 ,that they may be one in ,us 4 4 4 as ,we also are one4 ,and this likeness perfects the adoption3 for to those who are thus like ,him the eternal inheritance is due4 ,it is therefore clear that to be adopted belongs to the rational creature alone3 not indeed to all1 but only to those who have charity2 which is poured forth in our hearts by the ,holy ,ghost 7,rom4 #e3e72 for which reason 7,rom4 #h3ae7 the ,holy ,ghost is called the ,spirit of adoption of sons4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god is called the ,father of the irrational creature1 not properly speaking1 by reason of adoption1 but by reason of creation2 according to the first-mentioned participation of likeness4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,angels are called sons of ,god by adoptive sonship1 not that it belongs to them first2 but because they were the first to receive the adoption of sons4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,adoption is a property resulting not from nature1 but from grace1 of which the rational nature is capable4 ,therefore it need not belong to every rational nature3 but every rational creature must needs be capable of adoption4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bc1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,as ,man ,is the ,adopted ,son of ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ as man is the adopted ,son of ,god4 ,for ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 ii7 speaking of ,christ3 ,the dignity of power is not forfeited when carnal humanity 99,some editions read 'humilitas'--'the humility or lowliness of the flesh' is adopted4 ,therefore ,christ as man is the adopted ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv7 that by the same grace that ,man is ,christ1 as from the birth of faith every man is a ,christian4 ,but other men are ,christians by the grace of adoption4 ,therefore this ,man is ,christ by adoption3 and consequently ,he would seem to be an adopted son4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ1 as man1 is a servant4 ,but it is of greater dignity to be an adopted son than to be a servant4 ,therefore much more is ,christ1 as man1 an adopted ,son4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,incarn4 viii73 ,we do not call an adopted son a natural son3 the natural son is a true son4 ,but ,christ is the true and natural ,son of ,god1 according to #a ,john #e3bj3 ,that we may 4 4 4 be in ,his true ,son1 ,jesus ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ1 as ,man1 is not an adopted ,son4 ,i answer that1 ,sonship belongs properly to the hypostasis or person1 not to the nature2 whence in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #c7 we have stated that ,filiation is a personal property4 ,now in ,christ there is no other than the uncreated person or hypostasis1 to ,whom it belongs by nature to be the ,son4 ,but it has been said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 that the sonship of adoption is a participated likeness of natural sonship3 nor can a thing be said to participate in what it has essentially4 ,therefore ,christ1 ,who is the natural ,son of ,god1 can nowise be called an adopted ,son4 ,but according to those who suppose two persons or two hypostases or two supposita in ,christ1 no reason prevents ,christ being called the adopted ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as sonship does not properly belong to the nature1 so neither does adoption4 ,consequently1 when it is said that carnal humanity is adopted1 the expression is metaphorical3 and adoption is used to signify the union of human nature to the ,person of the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this comparison of ,augustine is to be referred to the principle because1 to wit1 just as it is granted to any man without meriting it to be a ,christian1 so did it happen that this man without meriting it was ,christ4 ,but there is a difference on the part of the term3 because by the grace of union ,christ is the natural ,son2 whereas another man by habitual grace is an adopted son4 ,yet habitual grace in ,christ does not make one who was not a son to be an adopted son1 but is a certain effect of ,filiation in the soul of ,christ1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,his glory 4 4 4 as it were of the ,only-begotten of the ,father2 full of grace and truth4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to be a creature1 as also to be subservient or subject to ,god1 regards not only the person1 but also the nature3 but this cannot be said of sonship4 ,wherefore the comparison does not hold4 ,,question #bd ,,of ,,the ,,predestination ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we shall now consider the predestination of ,christ4 ,under this head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ was predestinated8 7#b7 ,whether ,he was predestinated as man8 7#c7 ,whether ,his predestination is the exemplar of ours8 7#d7 ,whether it is the cause of our predestination8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,befitting ,that ,christ ,should ,be ,predestinated8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that ,christ should be predestinated4 ,for the term of anyone's predestination seems to be the adoption of sons1 according to ,eph4 #a3e3 ,who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children4 ,but it is not befitting to ,christ to be an adopted ,son1 as stated above 7,q4 #bc1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore it is not fitting that ,christ be predestinated4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we may consider two things in ,christ3 ,his human nature and ,his person4 ,but it cannot be said that ,christ is predestinated by reason of ,his human nature2 for this proposition is false--,the human nature is ,son of ,god4 ,in like manner neither by reason of the person2 for this person is the ,son of ,god1 not by grace1 but by nature3 whereas predestination regards what is of grace1 as stated in the ,first ,part1 ,q4 #bc1 ,,aa4 #b1 #e4 ,therefore ,christ was not predestinated to be the ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as that which has been made was not always1 so also that which was predestinated2 since predestination implies a certain antecedence4 ,but1 because ,christ was always ,god and the ,son of ,god1 it cannot be said that that ,man was made the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore1 for a like reason1 we ought not to say that ,christ was predestinated the ,son of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says1 speaking of ,christ 7,rom4 #a3d73 ,who was predestinated the ,son of ,god in power4 ,i answer that1 ,as is clear from what has been said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #bc1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b71 predestination1 in its proper sense1 is a certain ,divine preordination from eternity of those things which are to be done in time by the grace of ,god4 ,now1 that man is ,god1 and that ,god is man1 is something done in time by ,god through the grace of union4 ,nor can it be said that ,god has not from eternity pre-ordained to do this in time3 since it would follow that something would come anew into the ,divine ,mind4 ,and we must needs admit that the union itself of natures in the ,person of ,christ falls under the eternal predestination of ,god4 ,for this reason do we say that ,christ was predestinated4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,apostle there speaks of that predestination by which we are predestinated to be adopted sons4 ,and just as ,christ in a singular manner above all others is the natural ,son of ,god1 so in a singular manner is ,he predestinated4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as a gloss 99,from ,st4 ,augustine1 ,de ,praed4 ,sanct4 xv says on ,rom4 #a3d1 some understood that predestination to refer to the nature and not to the ,person--that is to say1 that on human nature was bestowed the grace of being united to the ,son of ,god in unity of ,person4 ,but in that case the phrase of the ,apostle would be improper1 for two reasons4 ,first1 for a general reason3 for we do not speak of a person's nature1 but of his person1 as being predestinated3 because to be predestinated is to be directed towards salvation1 which belongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beatitude4 ,secondly1 for a special reason4 ,because to be ,son of ,god is not befitting to human nature2 for this proposition is false3 ,the human nature is the ,son of ,god3 unless one were to force from it such an exposition as3 ,who was predestinated the ,son of ,god in power--that is1 ,it was predestinated that the ,human nature should be united to the ,son of ,god in the ,person4 ,hence we must attribute predestination to the ,person of ,christ3 not1 indeed1 in ,himself or as subsisting in the ,divine ,nature1 but as subsisting in the human nature4 ,wherefore the ,apostle1 after saying1 ,who was made to ,him of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 added1 ,who was predestinated the ,son of ,god in power3 so as to give us to understand that in respect of ,his being of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 ,he was predestinated the ,son of ,god in power4 ,for although it is natural to that ,person1 considered in ,himself1 to be the ,son of ,god in power1 yet this is not natural to ,him1 considered in the human nature1 in respect of which this befits ,him according to the grace of union4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,origen commenting on ,rom4 #a3d says that the true reading of this passage of the ,apostle is3 ,who was destined to be the ,son of ,god in power2 so that no antecedence is implied4 ,and so there would be no difficulty4 ,others refer the antecedence implied in the participle predestinated1 not to the fact of being the ,son of ,god1 but to the manifestation thereof1 according to the customary way of speaking in ,holy ,scripture1 by which things are said to take place when they are made known2 so that the sense would be--,christ was predestinated to be made known as the ,son of ,god4 ,but this is an improper signification of predestination4 ,for a person is properly said to be predestinated by reason of his being directed to the end of beatitude3 but the beatitude of ,christ does not depend on our knowledge thereof4 ,it is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the participle predestinated is to be referred to the ,person not in ,himself1 but by reason of the human nature3 since1 although that ,person was the ,son of ,god from eternity1 it was not always true that one subsisting in human nature was the ,son of ,god4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,jesus was predestinated1 so that ,he ,who according to the flesh was to be the son of ,david1 should be nevertheless ,son of ,god in power4 ,moreover1 it must be observed that1 although the participle predestinated1 just as this participle made1 implies antecedence1 yet there is a difference4 ,for to be made belongs to the thing in itself3 whereas to be predestinated belongs to someone as being in the apprehension of one who pre-ordains4 ,now that which is the subject of a form or nature in reality1 can be apprehended either as under that form or absolutely4 ,and since it cannot be said absolutely of the ,person of ,christ that ,he began to be the ,son of ,god1 yet this is becoming to ,him as understood or apprehended to exist in human nature1 because at one time it began to be true that one existing in human nature was the ,son of ,god2 therefore this proposition--,christ was predestinated the ,son of ,god--is truer than this--,christ was made the ,son of ,god4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,this ,proposition ,is ,false3 ,christ ,as ,man ,was ,predestinated to ,be the ,son of ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this proposition is false3 ,christ as man was predestinated to be the ,son of ,god4 ,for at some time a man is that which he was predestinated to be3 since ,god's predestination does not fail4 ,if1 therefore1 ,christ as man was predestinated the ,son of ,god1 it seems to follow that as man ,he is the ,son of ,god4 ,but the latter is false4 ,therefore the former is false4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is befitting to ,christ as man is befitting to any man2 since ,he belongs to the same species as other men4 ,if1 therefore1 ,christ1 as man1 was predestinated the ,son of ,god1 it will follow that this is befitting to any other man4 ,but the latter is false4 ,therefore the former is false4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that is predestinated from eternity which is to take place at some time4 ,but this proposition1 ,the ,son of ,god was made man1 is truer than this1 ,man was made the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore this proposition1 ,christ1 as the ,son of ,god1 was predestinated to be man1 is truer than this1 ,christ as ,man was predestinated to be the ,son of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv7 says3 ,forasmuch as ,god the ,son was made ,man1 we say that the ,lord of ,glory was predestinated4 ,i answer that1 ,two things may be considered in predestination4 ,one on the part of eternal predestination itself3 and in this respect it implies a certain antecedence in regard to that which comes under predestination4 ,secondly1 predestination may be considered as regards its temporal effect1 which is some gratuitous gift of ,god4 ,therefore from both points of view we must say that predestination is ascribed to ,christ by reason of ,his human nature alone3 for human nature was not always united to the ,word2 and by grace bestowed on it was it united in ,person to the ,son of ,god4 ,consequently1 by reason of human nature alone can predestination be attributed to ,christ4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,this human nature of ours was predestinated to be raised to so great1 so lofty1 so exalted a position1 that it would be impossible to raise it higher4 ,now that is said to belong to anyone as man which belongs to him by reason of human nature4 ,consequently1 we must say that ,christ1 as ,man1 was predestinated the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when we say1 ,christ1 as ,man1 was predestinated the ,son of ,god1 this qualification1 as ,man1 can be referred in two ways to the action signified by the participle4 ,first1 as regards what comes under predestination materially1 and thus it is false4 ,for the sense would be that it was predestinated that ,christ1 as ,man1 should be the ,son of ,god4 ,and in this sense the objection takes it4 ,secondly1 it may be referred to the very nature of the action itself3 that is1 forasmuch as predestination implies antecedence and gratuitous effect4 ,and thus predestination belongs to ,christ by reason of ,his human nature1 as stated above4 ,and in this sense ,he is said to be predestinated as ,man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,something may be befitting to a man by reason of human nature1 in two ways4 ,first1 so that human nature be the cause thereof3 thus risibility is befitting to ,socrates by reason of human nature1 being caused by its principles4 ,in this manner predestination is not befitting either to ,christ or to any other man1 by reason of human nature4 ,this is the sense of the objection4 ,secondly1 a thing may be befitting to someone by reason of human nature1 because human nature is susceptible of it4 ,and in this sense we say that ,christ was predestinated by reason of human nature2 because predestination refers to the exaltation of human nature in ,him1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,the ,word of ,god assumed ,man to ,himself in such a singular and ineffable manner that at the same time ,he may be truly and correctly called the ,son of ,man1 because ,he assumed ,man to ,himself2 and the ,son of ,god1 because it was the ,only-begotten of ,god ,who assumed human nature4 ,consequently1 since this assumption comes under predestination by reason of its being gratuitous1 we can say both that the ,son of ,god was predestinated to be man1 and that the ,son of ,man was predestinated to be the ,son of ,god4 ,but because grace was not bestowed on the ,son of ,god that ,he might be man1 but rather on human nature1 that it might be united to the ,son of ,god2 it is more proper to say that ,christ1 as ,man1 was predestinated to be the ,son of ,god1 than that1 ,christ1 as ,son of ,god1 was predestinated to be ,man4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,predestination ,is the ,exemplar of ,ours8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours4 ,for the exemplar exists before the exemplate4 ,but nothing exists before the eternal4 ,since1 therefore1 our predestination is eternal1 it seems that ,christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the exemplar leads us to knowledge of the exemplate4 ,but there was no need for ,god to be led from something else to knowledge of our predestination2 since it is written 7,rom4 #h3bi73 ,whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated4 ,therefore ,christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the exemplar is conformed to the exemplate4 ,but ,christ's predestination seems to be of a different nature from ours3 because we are predestinated to the sonship of adoption1 whereas ,christ was predestinated ,son of ,god in power1 as is written 7,rom4 #a3d74 ,therefore ,his predestination is not the exemplar of ours4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,praedest4 ,sanct4 xv73 ,the ,saviour ,himself1 the ,mediator of ,god and men1 the ,man ,christ ,jesus is the most splendid light of predestination and grace4 ,now ,he is called the light of predestination and grace1 inasmuch as our predestination is made manifest by ,his predestination and grace2 and this seems to pertain to the nature of an exemplar4 ,therefore ,christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours4 ,i answer that1 ,predestination may be considered in two ways4 ,first1 on the part of the act of predestination3 and thus ,christ's predestination cannot be said to be the exemplar of ours3 for in the same way and by the same eternal act ,god predestinated us and ,christ4 ,secondly1 predestination may be considered on the part of that to which anyone is predestinated1 and this is the term and effect of predestination4 ,in this sense ,christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours1 and this in two ways4 ,first1 in respect of the good to which we are predestinated3 for ,he was predestinated to be the natural ,son of ,god1 whereas we are predestinated to the adoption of sons1 which is a participated likeness of natural sonship4 ,whence it is written 7,rom4 #h3bi73 ,whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son4 ,secondly1 in respect of the manner of obtaining this good--that is1 by grace4 ,this is most manifest in ,christ2 because human nature in ,him1 without any antecedent merits1 was united to the ,son of ,god3 and of the fulness of ,his grace we all have received1 as it is written 7,john #a3af74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument considers the aforesaid act of the predestinator4 ,the same is to be said of the second objection4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the exemplate need not be conformed to the exemplar in all respects3 it is sufficient that it imitate it in some4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,predestination ,is the ,cause of ,ours8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's predestination is not the cause of ours4 ,for that which is eternal has no cause4 ,but our predestination is eternal4 ,therefore ,christ's predestination is not the cause of ours4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which depends on the simple will of ,god has no other cause but ,god's will4 ,now1 our predestination depends on the simple will of ,god1 for it is written 7,eph4 #a3aa73 ,being predestinated according to the purpose of ,him1 ,who worketh all things according to the counsel of ,his will4 ,therefore ,christ's predestination is not the cause of ours4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if the cause be taken away1 the effect is also taken away4 ,but if we take away ,christ's predestination1 ours is not taken away2 since even if the ,son of ,god were not incarnate1 our salvation might yet have been achieved in a different manner1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 #aj74 ,therefore ,christ's predestination is not the cause of ours4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #a3e73 7,who7 hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through ,jesus ,christ4 ,i answer that1 if we consider predestination on the part of the very act of predestinating1 then ,christ's predestination is not the cause of ours2 because by one and the same act ,god predestinated both ,christ and us4 ,but if we consider predestination on the part of its term1 thus ,christ's predestination is the cause of ours3 for ,god1 by predestinating from eternity1 so decreed our salvation1 that it should be achieved through ,jesus ,christ4 ,for eternal predestination covers not only that which is to be accomplished in time1 but also the mode and order in which it is to be accomplished in time4 ,replies ,obj4 #a and #b3 ,these arguments consider predestination on the part of the act of predestinating4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if ,christ were not to have been incarnate1 ,god would have decreed men's salvation by other means4 ,but since ,he decreed the ,incarnation of ,christ1 ,he decreed at the same time that ,he should be the cause of our salvation4 ,,question #be ,,of ,,the ,,adoration ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider things pertaining to ,christ in reference to us2 and first1 the adoration of ,christ1 by which we adore ,him2 secondly1 we must consider how ,he is our ,mediator with ,god4 ,under the first head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's ,godhead and humanity are to be adored with one and the same adoration8 7#b7 ,whether ,his flesh is to be adored with the adoration of latria8 7#c7 ,whether the adoration of latria is to be given to the image of ,christ8 7#d7 ,whether latria is to be given to the ,cross of ,christ8 7#e7 ,whether to ,his ,mother8 7#f7 ,concerning the adoration of the relics of ,saints4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,humanity and ,godhead ,are to ,be ,adored with the ,same ,adoration8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's humanity and ,godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration4 ,for ,christ's ,godhead is to be adored1 as being common to ,father and ,son2 wherefore it is written 7,john #e3bc73 ,that all may honor the ,son1 as they honor the ,father4 ,but ,christ's humanity is not common to ,him and the ,father4 ,therefore ,christ's humanity and ,godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 honor is properly the reward of virtue1 as the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iv1 #c74 ,but virtue merits its reward by action4 ,since1 therefore1 in ,christ the action of the ,divine ,nature is distinct from that of the human nature1 as stated above 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #a71 it seems that ,christ's humanity is to be adored with a different adoration from that which is given to ,his ,godhead4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if the soul of ,christ were not united to the ,word1 it would have been worthy of veneration on account of the excellence of its wisdom and grace4 ,but by being united to the ,word it lost nothing of its worthiness4 ,therefore ,his human nature should receive a certain veneration proper thereto1 besides the veneration which is given to ,his ,godhead4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read in the chapters of the ,fifth ,council 99,second ,council of ,constantinople1 coll4 viii1 can4 #i3 ,if anyone say that ,christ is adored in two natures1 so as to introduce two distinct adorations1 and does not adore ,god the ,word made flesh with the one and the same adoration as ,his flesh1 as the ,church has handed down from the beginning2 let such a one be anathema4 ,i answer that1 ,we may consider two things in a person to whom honor is given3 the person himself1 and the cause of his being honored4 ,now properly speaking honor is given to a subsistent thing in its entirety3 for we do not speak of honoring a man's hand1 but the man himself4 ,and if at any time it happen that we speak of honoring a man's hand or foot1 it is not by reason of these members being honored of themselves3 but by reason of the whole being honored in them4 ,in this way a man may be honored even in something external2 for instance in his vesture1 his image1 or his messenger4 ,the cause of honor is that by reason of which the person honored has a certain excellence1 for honor is reverence given to something on account of its excellence1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #ajc1 ,a4 #a74 ,if therefore in one man there are several causes of honor1 for instance1 rank1 knowledge1 and virtue1 the honor given to him will be one in respect of the person honored1 but several in respect of the causes of honor3 for it is the man that is honored1 both on account of knowledge and by reason of his virtue4 ,since1 therefore1 in ,christ there is but one ,person of the ,divine and human natures1 and one hypostasis1 and one suppositum1 ,he is given one adoration and one honor on the part of the ,person adored3 but on the part of the cause for which ,he is honored1 we can say that there are several adorations1 for instance that ,he receives one honor on account of ,his uncreated knowledge1 and another on account of ,his created knowledge4 ,but if it be said that there are several persons or hypostases in ,christ1 it would follow that there would be1 absolutely speaking1 several adorations4 ,and this is what is condemned in the ,councils4 ,for it is written in the chapters of ,cyril 99,council of ,ephesus1 ,part ,i1 ch4 #bf3 ,if anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored besides the ,divine ,word1 as though these were distinct persons2 and does not rather honor the ,emmanuel with one single adoration1 inasmuch as the ,word was made flesh2 let him be anathema4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in the ,trinity there are three ,who are honored1 but only one cause of honor4 ,in the mystery of the ,incarnation it is the reverse3 and therefore only one honor is given to the ,trinity and only one to ,christ1 but in a different way4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,operation is not the object but the motive of honor4 ,and therefore there being two operations in ,christ proves1 not two adorations1 but two causes of adoration4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if the soul of ,christ were not united to the ,word of ,god1 it would be the principal thing in that ,man4 ,wherefore honor would be due to it principally1 since man is that which is principal in him 99,cf4 ,ethic4 ix1 #h4 ,but since ,christ's soul is united to a ,person of greater dignity1 to that ,person is honor principally due to ,whom ,christ's soul is united4 ,nor is the dignity of ,christ's soul hereby diminished1 but rather increased1 as stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #b1 ad #b74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,humanity ,should ,be ,adored with the ,adoration of ,latria8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's soul should not be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,for on the words of ,ps4 #ih3e1 ,adore ,his foot-stool for it is holy1 a gloss says3 ,the flesh assumed by the ,word of ,god is rightly adored by us3 for no one partakes spiritually of ,his flesh unless he first adore it2 but not indeed with the adoration called latria1 which is due to the ,creator alone4 ,now the flesh is part of the humanity4 ,therefore ,christ's humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the worship of latria is not to be given to any creature3 since for this reason were the ,gentiles reproved1 that they worshiped and served the creature1 as it is written 7,rom4 #a3be74 ,but ,christ's humanity is a creature4 ,therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the adoration of latria is due to ,god in recognition of ,his supreme dominion1 according to ,deut4 #f3ac3 ,thou shalt adore ,vulg43 'fear'2 cf4 ,matt4 #d3aj the ,lord thy ,god1 and shalt serve ,him only4 ,but ,christ as man is less than the ,father4 ,therefore ,his humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #c73 ,on account of the incarnation of the ,divine ,word1 we adore the flesh of ,christ not for its own sake1 but because the ,word of ,god is united thereto in person4 ,and on ,ps4 #ih3e1 ,adore ,his foot-stool1 a gloss says3 ,he who adores the body of ,christ1 regards not the earth1 but rather ,him whose foot-stool it is1 in ,whose honor he adores the foot-stool4 ,but the incarnate ,word is adored with the adoration of latria4 ,therefore also ,his body or ,his humanity4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a7 adoration is due to the subsisting hypostasis3 yet the reason for honoring may be something non-subsistent1 on account of which the person1 in whom it is1 is honored4 ,and so the adoration of ,christ's humanity may be understood in two ways4 ,first1 so that the humanity is the thing adored3 and thus to adore the flesh of ,christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate ,word of ,god3 just as to adore a ,king's robe is nothing else than to adore a robed ,king4 ,and in this sense the adoration of ,christ's humanity is the adoration of latria4 ,secondly1 the adoration of ,christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being perfected with every gift of grace4 ,and so in this sense the adoration of ,christ's humanity is the adoration not of latria but of dulia4 ,so that one and the same ,person of ,christ is adored with latria on account of ,his ,divinity1 and with dulia on account of ,his perfect humanity4 ,nor is this unfitting4 ,for the honor of latria is due to ,god the ,father ,himself on account of ,his ,godhead2 and the honor of dulia on account of the dominion by which ,he rules over creatures4 ,wherefore on ,ps4 #g3a1 ,o ,lord my ,god1 in ,thee have ,i hoped1 a gloss says3 ,lord of all by power1 to ,whom dulia is due3 ,god of all by creation1 to ,whom latria is due4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of ,christ were adored separately from its ,godhead3 for this could happen only1 if there were one hypostasis of ,god1 and another of man4 ,but since1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #c73 ,if by a subtle distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood1 it cannot be adored because it is a creature--that is1 with adoration of latria4 ,and then thus understood as distinct from the ,word of ,god1 it should be adored with the adoration of dulia2 not any kind of dulia1 such as is given to other creatures1 but with a certain higher adoration1 which is called hyperdulia4 ,hence appear the answers to the second and third objections4 ,because the adoration of latria is not given to ,christ's humanity in respect of itself2 but in respect of the ,godhead to which it is united1 by reason of which ,christ is not less than the ,father4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,image of ,christ ,should ,be ,adored with the ,adoration of ,latria8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,for it is written 7,ex4 #bj3d73 ,thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing1 nor the likeness of anything4 ,but no adoration should be given against the commandment of ,god4 ,therefore ,christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we should have nothing in common with the works of the ,gentiles1 as the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #e3aa74 ,but the ,gentiles are reproached principally for that they changed the glory of the incorruptible ,god into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man1 as is written 7,rom4 #a3bc74 ,therefore ,christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to ,christ the adoration of latria is due by reason of ,his ,godhead1 not of ,his humanity4 ,but the adoration of latria is not due to the image of ,his ,godhead1 which is imprinted on the rational soul4 ,much less1 therefore1 is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of ,christ ,himself4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it seems that nothing should be done in the ,divine worship that is not instituted by ,god2 wherefore the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bc7 when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the ,church1 says3 ,i have received of the ,lord that which also ,i delivered unto you4 ,but ,scripture does not lay down anything concerning the adoration of images4 ,therefore ,christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #af7 quotes ,basil as saying3 ,the honor given to an image reaches to the prototype1 i4e4 the exemplar4 ,but the exemplar itself--namely1 ,christ--is to be adored with the adoration of latria2 therefore also ,his image4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,memor4 et ,remin4 i71 there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image3 one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing2 another1 towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else4 ,and between these movements there is this difference2 that the former1 by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing1 is different from the movement towards the thing3 whereas the latter movement1 which is towards the image as an image1 is one and the same as that which is towards the thing4 ,thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to ,christ's image1 as a thing--for instance1 carved or painted wood3 because reverence is not due save to a rational creature4 ,it follow therefore that reverence should be shown to it1 in so far only as it is an image4 ,consequently the same reverence should be shown to ,christ's image as to ,christ ,himself4 ,since1 therefore1 ,christ is adored with the adoration of latria1 it follows that ,his image should be adored with the adoration of latria4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness1 but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration1 wherefore it is added3 ,thou shalt not adore them nor serve them4 ,and because1 as stated above1 the movement towards the image is the same as the movement towards the thing1 adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is4 ,wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the prohibition to adore those images which the ,gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods1 i4e4 the demons1 and so it is premised3 ,thou shalt not have strange gods before ,me4 ,but no corporeal image could be raised to the true ,god ,himself1 since ,he is incorporeal2 because1 as ,damascene observes 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #af73 ,it is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is ,divine4 ,but because in the ,new ,testament ,god was made man1 ,he can be adored in ,his corporeal image4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the unfruitful works of the ,gentiles1 but not with their useful works4 ,now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects4 ,first1 because some of the ,gentiles used to adore the images themselves1 as things1 believing that there was something ,divine therein1 on account of the answers which the demons used to give in them1 and on account of other such like wonderful effects4 ,secondly on account of the things of which they were images2 for they set up images to certain creatures1 to whom in these images they gave the veneration of latria4 ,whereas we give the adoration of latria to the image of ,christ1 ,who is true ,god1 not for the sake of the image1 but for the sake of the thing whose image it is1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake4 ,consequently1 if the adoration of latria were shown to the rational creature in which this image is1 there might be an occasion of error--namely1 lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the man1 as a thing1 and not be carried on to ,god1 ,whose image he is4 ,this cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the ,apostles1 led by the inward instinct of the ,holy ,ghost1 handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing1 but which have been ordained1 in accordance with the observance of the ,church as practiced by the faithful as time went on4 ,wherefore the ,apostle says 7#b ,thess4 #b3ad73 ,stand fast2 and hold the traditions which you have learned1 whether by word--that is by word of mouth--or by our epistle--that is by word put into writing4 ,among these traditions is the worship of ,christ's image4 ,wherefore it is said that ,blessed ,luke painted the image of ,christ1 which is in ,rome4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,cross ,should ,be ,worshipped with the ,adoration of ,latria8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,for no dutiful son honors that which dishonors his father1 as the scourge with which he was scourged1 or the gibbet on which he was hanged2 rather does he abhor it4 ,now ,christ underwent the most shameful death on the cross2 according to ,wis4 #b3bj3 ,let us condemn ,him to a most shameful death4 ,therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we should abhor it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration of latria1 inasmuch as it is united to the ,son of ,god in ,person4 ,but this cannot be said of the cross4 ,therefore ,christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,christ's cross was the instrument of ,his passion and death1 so were also many other things1 for instance1 the nails1 the crown1 the lance2 yet to these we do not show the worship of latria4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,on the contrary1 ,we show the worship of latria to that in which we place our hope of salvation4 ,but we place our hope in ,christ's cross1 for the ,church sings3 ,dear ,cross1 best hope o'er all beside1 ,that cheers the solemn passion-tide3 ,give to the just increase of grace1 ,give to each contrite sinner peace4 99,hymn ,vexilla ,regis3 translation of ,father ,aylward1 ,o4,p4 ,therefore ,christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 honor or reverence is due to a rational creature only2 while to an insensible creature1 no honor or reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature4 ,and this in two ways4 ,first1 inasmuch as it represents a rational nature3 secondly1 inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever4 ,in the first way men are wont to venerate the king's image2 in the second way1 his robe4 ,and both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king4 ,if1 therefore1 we speak of the cross itself on which ,christ was crucified1 it is to be venerated by us in both ways--namely1 in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of ,christ extended thereon2 in the other way1 from its contact with the limbs of ,christ1 and from its being saturated with ,his blood4 ,wherefore in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as ,christ1 viz4 the adoration of latria4 ,and for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it1 as to the ,crucified ,himself4 ,but if we speak of the effigy of ,christ's cross in any other material whatever--for instance1 in stone or wood1 silver or gold--thus we venerate the cross merely as ,christ's image1 which we worship with the adoration of latria1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,if in ,christ's cross we consider the point of view and intention of those who did not believe in ,him1 it will appear as ,his shame3 but if we consider its effect1 which is our salvation1 it will appear as endowed with ,divine power1 by which it triumphed over the enemy1 according to ,col4 #b3ad1 #ae3 ,he hath taken the same out of the way1 fastening it to the cross1 and despoiling the principalities and powers1 ,he hath exposed them confidently1 in open show1 triumphing over them in ,himself4 ,wherefore the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #a3ah73 ,the ,word of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness2 but to them that are saved--that is1 to us--it is the power of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although ,christ's cross was not united to the ,word of ,god in ,person1 yet it was united to ,him in some other way1 viz4 by representation and contact4 ,and for this sole reason reverence is shown to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by reason of the contact of ,christ's limbs we worship not only the cross1 but all that belongs to ,christ4 ,wherefore ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #aa73 ,the precious wood1 as having been sanctified by the contact of ,his holy body and blood1 should be meetly worshiped2 as also ,his nails1 ,his lance1 and ,his sacred dwelling-places1 such as the manger1 the cave and so forth4 ,yet these very things do not represent ,christ's image as the cross does1 which is called the ,sign of the ,son of ,man that will appear in heaven1 as it is written 7,matt4 #bd3cj74 ,wherefore the angel said to the women 7,mk4 #af3f73 ,you seek ,jesus of ,nazareth1 ,who was crucified3 he said not pierced1 but crucified4 ,for this reason we worship the image of ,christ's cross in any material1 but not the image of the nails or of any such thing4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,mother of ,god ,should ,be ,worshipped with the ,adoration of ,latria8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,mother of ,god is to be worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,for it seems that the same honor is due to the king's mother as to the king3 whence it is written 7#c ,kings #b3ai7 that a throne was set for the king's mother1 and she sat on ,his right hand4 ,moreover1 ,augustine 99,sermon on the ,assumption1 work of an anonymous author says3 ,it is right that the throne of ,god1 the resting-place of the ,lord of ,heaven1 the abode of ,christ1 should be there where ,he is ,himself4 ,but ,christ is worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,therefore ,his ,mother also should be4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv1 #af73 ,the honor of the ,mother reflects on the ,son4 ,but the ,son is worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,therefore the ,mother also4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's ,mother is more akin to ,him than the cross4 ,but the cross is worshiped with the adoration of latria4 ,therefore also ,his ,mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,mother of ,god is a mere creature4 ,therefore the worship of latria is not due to her4 ,i answer that1 ,since latria is due to ,god alone1 it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake4 ,for though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake1 yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake4 ,consequently the worship of latria is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake4 ,since1 therefore1 the ,blessed ,virgin is a mere rational creature1 the worship of latria is not due to her1 but only that of dulia3 but in a higher degree than to other creatures1 inasmuch as she is the ,mother of ,god4 ,for this reason we say that not any kind of dulia is due to her1 but hyperdulia4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the honor due to the king's mother is not equal to the honor which is due to the king3 but is somewhat like it1 by reason of a certain excellence on her part4 ,this is what is meant by the authorities quoted4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the honor given to the ,mother reflects on her ,son1 because the ,mother is to be honored for her ,son's sake4 ,but not in the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar3 because the image itself1 considered as a thing1 is not to be venerated in any way at all4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the cross1 considered in itself1 is not an object of veneration1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #d1 #e74 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin is in herself an object of veneration4 ,hence there is no comparison4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #be1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,any ,kind of ,worship ,is ,due to the ,relics of the ,saints8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all4 ,for we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error4 ,but to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the ,gentiles1 who gave honor to dead men4 ,therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible4 ,but the relics of the saints are insensible4 ,therefore it is absurd to venerate them4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a dead body is not of the same species as a living body3 consequently it does not seem to be identical with it4 ,therefore1 after a saint's death1 it seems that his body should not be worshiped4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 xl73 ,we believe that the bodies of the saints1 above all the relics of the blessed martyrs1 as being the members of ,christ1 should be worshiped in all sincerity3 and further on3 ,if anyone holds a contrary opinion1 he is not accounted a ,christian1 but a follower of ,eunomius and ,vigilantius4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei i1 #ac73 ,if a father's coat or ring1 or anything else of that kind1 is so much more cherished by his children1 as love for one's parents is greater1 in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised1 which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment2 for they belong to man's very nature4 ,it is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone1 venerates whatever of his is left after his death1 not only his body and the parts thereof1 but even external things1 such as his clothes1 and such like4 ,now it is manifest that we should show honor to the saints of ,god1 as being members of ,christ1 the children and friends of ,god1 and our intercessors4 ,wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner3 principally their bodies1 which were temples1 and organs of the ,holy ,ghost dwelling and operating in them1 and are destined to be likened to the body of ,christ by the glory of the ,resurrection4 ,hence ,god ,himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this was the argument of ,vigilantius1 whose words are quoted by ,jerome in the book he wrote against him 7ch4 ii7 as follows3 ,we see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion2 they worship with kisses ,i know not what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen4 ,to him ,jerome replies 7,ep4 ad ,ripar4 cix73 ,we do not adore1 ,i will not say the relics of the martyrs1 but either the sun or the moon or even the angels--that is to say1 with the worship of latria4 ,but we honor the martyrs' relics1 so that thereby we give honor to ,him ,whose martyrs 99,the original meaning of the word 'martyr1' i4e4 the ,greek martys is 'a witness' they are3 we honor the servants1 that the honor shown to them may reflect on their ,master4 ,consequently1 by honoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the ,gentiles1 who gave the worship of latria to dead men4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,we worship that insensible body1 not for its own sake1 but for the sake of the soul1 which was once united thereto1 and now enjoys ,god2 and for ,god's sake1 whose ministers the saints were4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life1 on account of the difference of form1 viz4 the soul3 but it is the same by identity of matter1 which is destined to be reunited to its form4 ,,question #bf ,,of ,,christ ,,as ,,called ,,the ,,mediator ,,of ,,god ,,and ,,man 7,in ,two ,articles7 ,we have now to consider how ,christ is called the ,mediator of ,god and man1 and under this head there are two points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it is proper to ,christ to be the ,mediator of ,god and man8 7#b7 ,whether this belongs to ,him by reason of ,his human nature8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bf1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,proper to ,christ to ,be the ,mediator of ,god and ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not proper to ,christ to be the ,mediator of ,god and man4 ,for a priest and a prophet seem to be mediators between ,god and man1 according to ,deut4 #e3e3 ,i was the mediator and stood between ,god ,vulg43 'the ,lord' and you at that time4 ,but it is not proper to ,christ to be a priest and a prophet4 ,neither1 therefore1 is it proper to ,him to be ,mediator4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which is fitting to angels1 both good and bad1 cannot be said to be proper to ,christ4 ,but to be between ,god and man is fitting to the good angels1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,it is also fitting to the bad angels--that is1 the demons3 for they have something in common with ,god--namely1 immortality2 and something they have in common with men--namely1 passibility of soul and consequently unhappiness2 as appears from what ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei ix1 #ac1 #ae74 ,therefore it is not proper to ,christ to be a ,mediator of ,god and man4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it belongs to the office of ,mediator to beseech one of those1 between whom he mediates1 for the other4 ,but the ,holy ,ghost1 as it is written 7,rom4 #h3bf71 asketh ,god for us with unspeakable groanings4 ,therefore the ,holy ,ghost is a ,mediator between ,god and man4 ,therefore this is not proper to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,tim4 #b3e73 ,there is 4 4 4 one ,mediator of ,god and man1 the man ,christ ,jesus4 ,i answer that1 ,properly speaking1 the office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates3 for extremes are united in the mean 7medio74 ,now to unite men to ,god perfectively belongs to ,christ1 through ,whom men are reconciled to ,god1 according to #b ,cor4 #e3ai3 ,god was in ,christ reconciling the world to ,himself4 ,and1 consequently1 ,christ alone is the perfect ,mediator of ,god and men1 inasmuch as1 by ,his death1 ,he reconciled the human race to ,god4 ,hence the ,apostle1 after saying1 ,mediator of ,god and man1 the man ,christ ,jesus1 added3 ,who gave ,himself a redemption for all4 ,however1 nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators1 in some respect1 between ,god and man1 forasmuch as they cooperate in uniting men to ,god1 dispositively or ministerially4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the prophets and priests of the ,old ,law were called mediators between ,god and man1 dispositively and ministerially3 inasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect ,mediator of ,god and men4 ,as to the priests of the ,new ,law1 they may be called mediators of ,god and men1 inasmuch as they are the ministers of the true ,mediator by administering1 in ,his stead1 the saving sacraments to men4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the good angels1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei ix1 #ac71 cannot rightly be called mediators between ,god and men4 ,for since1 in common with ,god1 they have both beatitude and immortality1 and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man1 how much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to ,god1 than established between them8 ,dionysius1 however1 says that they do occupy a middle place1 because1 in the order of nature1 they are established below ,god and above man4 ,moreover1 they fulfill the office of mediator1 not indeed principally and perfectively1 but ministerially and dispositively3 whence 7,matt4 #d3aa7 it is said that angels came and ministered unto ,him--namely1 ,christ4 ,as to the demons1 it is true that they have immortality in common with ,god1 and unhappiness in common with men4 ,hence for this purpose does the immortal and unhappy demon intervene1 in order that he may hinder men from passing to a happy immortality1 and may allure them to an unhappy immortality4 ,whence he is like an evil mediator1 who separates friends 99,augustine1 ,de ,civ4 ,dei xv4 ,but ,christ had beatitude in common with ,god1 mortality in common with men4 ,hence for this purpose did ,he intervene1 that having fulfilled the span of ,his mortality1 ,he might from dead men make immortal--which ,he showed in ,himself by rising again2 and that ,he might confer beatitude on those who were deprived of it--for which reason ,he never forsook us4 ,wherefore ,he is the good ,mediator1 ,who reconciles enemies 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xv74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,since the ,holy ,ghost is in everything equal to ,god1 ,he cannot be said to be between1 or a ,mediator of1 ,god and men3 but ,christ alone1 ,who1 though equal to the ,father in ,his ,godhead1 yet is less than the ,father in ,his human nature1 as stated above 7,q4 #bj1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence on ,gal4 #c3bj1 ,christ is a ,mediator ,vulg43 ',now a mediator is not of one1 but ,god is one'1 the gloss says3 ,not the ,father nor the ,holy ,ghost4 ,the ,holy ,ghost1 however1 is said to ask for us1 because ,he makes us ask4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bf1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ1 as ,man1 ,is the ,mediator of ,god and ,men8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ is not1 as man1 the ,mediator of ,god and men4 ,for ,augustine says 7,contra ,felic4 x73 ,one is the ,person of ,christ3 lest there be not one ,christ1 not one substance2 lest1 the office of ,mediator being denied1 ,he be called the ,son either of ,god alone1 or merely the ,son of a man4 ,but ,he is the ,son of ,god and man1 not as man1 but as at the same time ,god and man4 ,therefore neither should we say that1 as man alone1 ,he is ,mediator of ,god and man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as ,christ1 as ,god1 has a common nature with the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost2 so1 as man1 ,he has a common nature with men4 ,but for the reason that1 as ,god1 ,he has the same nature as the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost1 ,he cannot be called ,mediator1 as ,god3 for on #a ,tim4 #b3e1 ,mediator of ,god and man1 a gloss says3 ,as the ,word1 ,he is not a ,mediator1 because ,he is equal to ,god1 and ,god 'with ,god1' and at the same time one ,god4 ,therefore neither1 as man1 can ,he be called ,mediator1 on account of ,his having the same nature as men4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is called ,mediator1 inasmuch as ,he reconciled us to ,god3 and this ,he did by taking away sin1 which separated us from ,god4 ,but to take away sin belongs to ,christ1 not as man1 but as ,god4 ,therefore ,christ is our ,mediator1 not as man1 but as ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei ix1 #ae73 ,not because ,he is the ,word1 is ,christ ,mediator1 since ,he ,who is supremely immortal and supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals2 but ,he is ,mediator1 as man4 ,i answer that1 ,we may consider two things in a mediator3 first1 that he is a mean2 secondly1 that he unites others4 ,now it is of the nature of a mean to be distant from each extreme3 while it unites by communicating to one that which belongs to the other4 ,now neither of these can be applied to ,christ as ,god1 but only as man4 ,for1 as ,god1 ,he does not differ from the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost in nature and power of dominion3 nor have the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost anything that the ,son has not1 so that ,he be able to communicate to others something belonging to the ,father or the ,holy ,ghost1 as though it were belonging to others than ,himself4 ,but both can be applied to ,him as man4 ,because1 as man1 ,he is distant both from ,god1 by nature1 and from man by dignity of both grace and glory4 ,again1 it belongs to ,him1 as man1 to unite men to ,god1 by communicating to men both precepts and gifts1 and by offering satisfaction and prayers to ,god for men4 ,and therefore ,he is most truly called ,mediator1 as man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,if we take the ,divine ,nature from ,christ1 we consequently take from ,him the singular fulness of grace1 which belongs to ,him as the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 as it is written 7,john #a3ad74 ,from which fulness it resulted that ,he was established over all men1 and approached nearer to ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ1 as ,god1 is in all things equal to the ,father4 ,but even in the human nature ,he is above all men4 ,therefore1 as man1 ,he can be ,mediator1 but not as ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although it belongs to ,christ as ,god to take away sin authoritatively1 yet it belongs to ,him1 as man1 to satisfy for the sin of the human race4 ,and in this sense ,he is called the ,mediator of ,god and men4 ,,st4 ,,thomas ,,and ,,the ,,immaculate ,,conception 7,,editorial ,,note7 ,the privilege of the ,virgin-,mother of ,god and the supreme prerogative of her ,son may be seen from the following diagram3 ,,the ,,law ,,and ,,course ,,of ,,original ,,sin4 ,the following content was presented in the form of a three-column table in the original4 ,,column #a ,,under ,,the ,,law4 ,all descendants from ,adam4 ,spring from ,adam materially and seminally4 ,the body lies 7not under the guilt1 but7 under the effects of original sin4 ,the stricken body dispositively causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin4 ,the soul at the moment of union with the body contracts the stain4 ,all contract both debt and stain4 ,all need a ,redeemer to destroy the stain contracted4 ,,column #b ,,partially ,,exempt ,,from ,,the ,,law2 ,,privilege ,,of ,,immaculate ,,conception4 ,spring from ,adam materially and seminally4 ,the body lies 7not under the guilt1 but7 under the effects of original sin4 ,the stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to contract the guilt of original sin4 ,the soul at the moment of union with the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from contracting the stain4 ,mary contracted the debt1 but not the stain4 ,mary needed a ,redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain4 ,,column #c ,,wholly ,,exempt ,,from ,,the ,,law2 ,,miraculous ,,conception4 ,springs from ,adam materially1 not seminally4 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #a7 ,his body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin4 ,the body being entirely free1 could not transmit the stain to ,his soul4 ,no preventive grace needed4 ,jesus ,christ contracted neither debt nor stain4 ,jesus ,christ is not redeemed1 but the ,redeemer4 ,it will thus be seen how accurately ,st4 ,thomas speaks of the flesh or body of our ,blessed ,lady4 ,for it should be remembered that1 according to ,st4 ,thomas1 the human body is animated in succession by 7#a7 a vegetative1 7#b7 a sensitive1 and 7#c7 a rational soul4 ,hence his assertion that the flesh of the ,blessed ,virgin was conceived in original sin 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a7 means that the body of the ,blessed ,virgin1 being descended from ,adam both materially and seminally1 contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal generation1 and are the results of the privation of original justice 7,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #d1 ad #c74 ,before animation1 therefore the body of the ,blessed ,virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin1 because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of grace1 viz4 the rational soul4 ,nevertheless1 before animation the body of the ,blessed ,virgin1 being seminally descended from ,adam1 was such that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original sin to the rational soul at the very first instant of animation1 unless the grace of the ,redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul in that self-same instant1 thus redeeming her and preventing her from contracting the guilt of original sin4 ,why1 then1 does ,st4 ,thomas say that because the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified before animation1 therefore she could be sanctified only after animation8 ,such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of ,nature3 a thing must be before it is such 7prius est esse quam esse tale72 and therefore the soul must be1 before it is sanctified4 ,but if ,st4 ,thomas held for a posteriority of time1 no matter how short1 we ask how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument1 since it might be neither before nor after1 but in the very instant of1 animation4 ,the question is answered thus3 ,st4 ,thomas as a ,doctor of the ,church and in matters which were not then de fide1 is a witness to the expression of the faith of his time4 ,hence his line of argument coincides with1 because it follows1 that of ,st4 ,bernard1 ,peter ,lombard1 ,alexander of ,hales1 ,albert the ,great1 ,st4 ,bonaventure4 ,it was not likely that ,st4 ,thomas would differ from the great masters of his time1 who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at the same time be one of preservation and prevention4 ,nor is it likely that ,st4 ,thomas had any reliable information about the movement99 in progress at that time towards a belief in the ,immaculate ,conception4 99,principally in ,england1 where1 owing to the influence of ,st4 ,anselm 7#aaji71 the doctrine was maintained by ,eadmer 7#aacg74 ,nicolas of ,st4 ,albans 7#aage71 ,osbert of ,clare 7#aagj71 ,robert ,grosseteste1 ,bishop of ,lincoln 7#abec71 ,william of ,ware 7#acjj71 who was the master of ,duns ,scotus 7#acjh74 ,no doubt he knew something of it1 but the names of its promoters would have weighed little with him as against those of ,bernard1 ,albert1 ,peter1 ,alexander1 and ,bonaventure4 ,and it must not be forgotten that among those who upheld the doctrine of the ,immaculate ,conception1 not a few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not one of preservation and ,redemption4 ,hence it is that ,st4 ,thomas insists on two things3 7#a7 that the ,mother of ,god was redeemed1 and 7#b7 that the grace of her sanctification was a grace of preservation4 ,and1 be it remarked in conclusion1 these two points1 so much insisted on by ,st4 ,thomas1 are at the very basis of the ,catholic doctrine of the ,immaculate ,conception4 ,,question #bg ,,of ,,the ,,sanctification ,,of ,,the ,,blessed ,,virgin 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,after the foregoing treatise of the union of ,god and man and the consequences thereof1 it remains for us to consider what things the ,incarnate ,son of ,god did or suffered in the human nature united to ,him4 ,this consideration will be fourfold4 ,for we shall consider3 7#a7 ,those things that relate to ,his coming into the world2 7#b7 ,those things that relate to the course of ,his life in this world2 7#c7 ,his departure from this world2 7#d7 ,those things that concern ,his exaltation after this life4 ,the first of these offers four points of consideration3 7#a7 ,the ,conception of ,christ2 7#b7 ,his ,birth2 7#c7 ,his ,circumcision2 7#d7 ,his ,baptism4 ,concerning ,his ,conception there are some points to be considered3 7#a7 ,as to the ,mother who conceived ,him2 7#b7 as to the mode of ,his ,conception2 7#c7 as to the perfection of the offspring conceived4 ,on the part of the ,mother four points offer themselves to our consideration3 7#a7 ,her sanctification4 7#b7 her virginity2 7#c7 her espousals2 7#d7 her annunciation1 or preparation for conception4 ,concerning the first there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin1 ,mother of ,god1 was sanctified before her birth from the womb8 7#b7 ,whether she was sanctified before animation8 7#c7 ,whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was entirely taken away from her8 7#d7 ,whether the result of this sanctification was that she never sinned8 7#e7 ,whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fulness of grace8 7#f7 ,whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin ,was ,sanctified ,before ,her ,birth from the ,womb8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb4 ,for the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3df73 ,that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural2 afterwards that which is spiritual4 ,but by sanctifying grace man is born spiritually into a son of ,god according to ,john #a3ac3 7who7 are born of ,god4 ,but birth from the womb is a natural birth4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dardan473 ,the sanctification1 by which we become temples of ,god1 is only of those who are born again4 ,but no one is born again1 who was not born previously4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin1 both original and actual4 ,if1 therefore1 the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb1 it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin4 ,now nothing but original sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom4 ,if therefore she had died then1 it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven4 ,but this was not possible before the ,passion of ,christ1 according to the ,apostle 7,heb4 #aj3ai73 ,we have ,vulg43 'having' therefore a confidence in the entering into the ,holies by ,his blood4 ,it seems therefore that the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 original sin is contracted through the origin1 just as actual sin is contracted through an act4 ,but as long as one is in the act of sinning1 one cannot be cleansed from actual sin4 ,therefore neither could the ,blessed ,virgin be cleansed from original sin as long as she was in the act of origin1 by existence in her mother's womb4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,church celebrates the feast of our ,lady's ,nativity4 ,now the ,church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy4 ,therefore even in her birth the ,blessed ,virgin was holy4 ,therefore she was sanctified in the womb4 ,i answer that1 ,nothing is handed down in the canonical ,scriptures concerning the sanctification of the ,blessed ,mary as to her being sanctified in the womb2 indeed1 they do not even mention her birth4 ,but as ,augustine1 in his tractate on the ,assumption of the ,virgin1 argues with reason1 since her body was assumed into heaven1 and yet ,scripture does not relate this2 so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb4 ,for it is reasonable to believe that she1 who brought forth the ,only-,begotten of the ,father full of grace and truth1 received greater privileges of grace than all others3 hence we read 7,luke #a3bh7 that the angel addressed her in the words3 ,hail full of grace6 ,moreover1 it is to be observed that it was granted1 by way of privilege1 to others1 to be sanctified in the womb2 for instance1 to ,jeremias1 to whom it was said 7,jer4 #a3e73 ,before thou camest forth out of the womb1 ,i sanctified thee2 and again1 to ,john the ,baptist1 of whom it is written 7,luke #a3ae73 ,he shall be filled with the ,holy ,ghost even from his mother's womb4 ,it is therefore with reason that we believe the ,blessed ,virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,even in the ,blessed ,virgin1 first was that which is natural1 and afterwards that which is spiritual3 for she was first conceived in the flesh1 and afterwards sanctified in the spirit4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,augustine speaks according to the common law1 by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments1 save those who are previously born4 ,but ,god did not so limit ,his power to the law of the sacraments1 but that ,he can bestow ,his grace1 by special privilege1 on some before they are born from the womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin1 as to the personal stain2 but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject1 so as to enter into ,paradise otherwise than through the ,sacrifice of ,christ2 the same also is to be said of the ,holy ,fathers who lived before ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,original sin is transmitted through the origin1 inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted1 and original sin1 properly speaking1 affects the nature4 ,and this takes place when the offspring conceived is animated4 ,wherefore nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation3 for after this it remains in the mother's womb not for the purpose of receiving human nature1 but for a certain perfecting of that which it has already received4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin ,was ,sanctified ,before ,animation8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified before animation4 ,because1 as we have stated 7,a4 #a71 more grace was bestowed on the ,virgin ,mother of ,god than on any saint4 ,now it seems to have been granted to some1 to be sanctified before animation4 ,for it is written 7,jer4 #a3e73 ,before ,i formed thee in the bowels of thy mother1 ,i knew thee3 and the soul is not infused before the formation of the body4 ,likewise ,ambrose says of ,john the ,baptist 7,comment4 in ,luc4 i1 #ae73 ,as yet the spirit of life was not in him and already he possessed the ,spirit of grace4 ,much more therefore could the ,blessed ,virgin be sanctified before animation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,anselm says 7,de ,concep4 ,virg4 xviii71 it was fitting that this ,virgin should shine with such a purity that under ,god none greater can be imagined3 wherefore it is written 7,canticles #d3g73 ,thou art all fair1 ,o my love1 and there is not a spot in thee4 ,but the purity of the ,blessed ,virgin would have been greater1 if she had never been stained by the contagion of original sin4 ,therefore it was granted to her to be sanctified before her flesh was animated4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as it has been stated above1 no feast is celebrated except of some saint4 ,but some keep the feast of the ,conception of the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,therefore it seems that in her very ,conception she was holy2 and hence that she was sanctified before animation4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #aa3af73 ,if the root be holy1 so are the branches4 ,now the root of the children is their parents4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin could be sanctified even in her parents1 before animation4 ,on the contrary1 ,the things of the ,old ,testament were figures of the ,new1 according to #a ,cor4 #aj3aa3 ,all things happened to them in figure4 ,now the sanctification of the tabernacle1 of which it is written 7,ps4 #de3e73 ,the most ,high hath sanctified ,his own tabernacle1 seems to signify the sanctification of the ,mother of ,god1 who is called ,god's ,tabernacle1 according to ,ps4 #ah3f3 ,he hath set ,his tabernacle in the sun4 ,but of the tabernacle it is written 7,ex4 #dj3ca1 #cb73 ,after all things were perfected1 the cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony1 and the glory of the ,lord filled it4 ,therefore also the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected1 viz4 her body and soul4 ,i answer that1 ,the sanctification of the ,blessed ,virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation1 for two reasons4 ,first1 because the sanctification of which we are speaking1 is nothing but the cleansing from original sin3 for sanctification is a perfect cleansing1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 xii74 ,now sin cannot be taken away except by grace1 the subject of which is the rational creature alone4 ,therefore before the infusion of the rational soul1 the ,blessed ,virgin was not sanctified4 ,secondly1 because1 since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin2 before the infusion of the rational soul1 the offspring conceived is not liable to sin4 ,and thus1 in whatever manner the ,blessed ,virgin would have been sanctified before animation1 she could never have incurred the stain of original sin3 and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by ,christ1 of whom it is written 7,matt4 #a3ba73 ,he shall save ,his people from their sins4 ,but this is unfitting1 through implying that ,christ is not the ,saviour of all men1 as ,he is called 7#a ,tim4 #d3aj74 ,it remains1 therefore1 that the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified after animation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,lord says that ,he knew ,jeremias before he was formed in the womb1 by knowledge1 that is to say1 of predestination3 but ,he says that ,he sanctified him1 not before formation1 but before he came forth out of the womb1 etc4 ,as to what ,ambrose says1 viz4 that in ,john the ,baptist there was not the spirit of life when there was already the ,spirit of grace1 by spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul1 but the air which we breathe out 7respiratus74 ,or it may be said that in him as yet there was not the spirit of life1 that is the soul1 as to its manifest and complete operations4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if the soul of the ,blessed ,virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin1 this would be derogatory to the dignity of ,christ1 by reason of ,his being the universal ,saviour of all4 ,consequently after ,christ1 who1 as the universal ,saviour of all1 needed not to be saved1 the purity of the ,blessed ,virgin holds the highest place4 ,for ,christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever1 but was holy in ,his very ,conception1 according to ,luke #a3ce3 ,the ,holy which shall be born of thee1 shall be called the ,son of ,god4 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin did indeed contract original sin1 but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb4 ,this is what is signified 7,job #c3i7 where it is written of the night of original sin3 ,let it expect light1 i4e4 ,christ1 and not see it--7because no defiled thing cometh into her1 as is written ,wis4 #g3be71 nor the rising of the dawning of the day1 that is of the ,blessed ,virgin1 who in her birth was immune from original sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the ,church of ,rome does not celebrate the ,conception of the ,blessed ,virgin1 yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast1 wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated4 ,nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception4 ,but since it is not known when she was sanctified1 the feast of her ,sanctification1 rather than the feast of her ,conception1 is kept on the day of her conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,sanctification is twofold4 ,one is that of the whole nature3 inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment4 ,this will take place at the resurrection4 ,the other is personal sanctification4 ,this is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh3 because it does not regard the flesh but the mind4 ,consequently1 though the parents of the ,blessed ,virgin were cleansed from original sin1 nevertheless she contracted original sin1 since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman3 for ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i73 ,all flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin ,was ,cleansed from the ,infection of the ,fomes8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin was not cleansed from the infection of the fomes4 ,for just as the fomes1 consisting in the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason1 is a punishment of original sin2 so also are death and other corporeal penalties4 ,therefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7#b ,cor4 #ab3i73 ,power is made perfect in infirmity1 which refers to the weakness of the fomes1 by reason of which he 7the ,apostle7 felt the sting of the flesh4 ,but it was not fitting that anything should be taken away from the ,blessed ,virgin1 pertaining to the perfection of virtue4 ,therefore it was unfitting that the fomes should be entirely taken away from her4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that the ,holy ,ghost came upon the ,blessed ,virgin1 purifying her1 before she conceived the ,son of ,god4 ,but this can only be understood of purification from the fomes3 for she committed no sin1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,nat4 et ,grat4 xxvi74 ,therefore by the sanctification in the womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the fomes4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,canticles #d3g73 ,thou art all fair1 ,o my love1 and there is not a spot in thee6 ,but the fomes implies a blemish1 at any rate in the flesh4 ,therefore the fomes was not in the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,i answer that1 on this point there are various opinions4 ,for some have held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that sanctification whereby the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified in the womb4 ,others say that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing good1 but was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil4 ,others again1 that it was taken away as to the personal corruption1 by which it makes us quick to do evil and slow to do good3 but that it remained as to the corruption of nature1 inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting original sin to the offspring4 ,lastly1 others say that1 in her first sanctification1 the fomes remained essentially1 but was fettered2 and that1 when she conceived the ,son of ,god1 it was entirely taken away4 ,in order to understand the question at issue1 it must be observed that the fomes is nothing but a certain inordinate1 but habitual1 concupiscence of the sensitive appetite1 for actual concupiscence is a sinful motion4 ,now sensual concupiscence is said to be inordinate1 in so far as it rebels against reason2 and this it does by inclining to evil1 or hindering from good4 ,consequently it is essential to the fomes to incline to evil1 or hinder from good4 ,wherefore to say that the fomes was in the ,blessed ,virgin without an inclination to evil1 is to combine two contradictory statements4 ,in like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the fomes remained as to the corruption of nature1 but not as to the personal corruption4 ,for1 according to ,augustine 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i471 it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring4 ,now lust implies inordinate concupiscence1 not entirely subject to reason3 and therefore1 if the fomes were entirely taken away as to personal corruption1 it could not remain as to the corruption of nature4 ,it remains1 therefore1 for us to say1 either that the fomes was entirely taken away from her by her first sanctification or that it was fettered4 ,now that the fomes was entirely taken away1 might be understood in this way1 that1 by the abundance of grace bestowed on the ,blessed ,virgin1 such a disposition of the soul's powers was granted to her1 that the lower powers were never moved without the command of her reason3 just as we have stated to have been the case with ,christ 7,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #b71 who certainly did not have the fomes of sin2 as also was the case with ,adam1 before he sinned1 by reason of original justice3 so that1 in this respect1 the grace of sanctification in the ,virgin had the force of original justice4 ,and although this appears to be part of the dignity of the ,virgin ,mother1 yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of ,christ1 without whose power no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation4 ,and though1 through faith in ,christ1 some were freed from that condemnation1 according to the spirit1 before ,christ's ,incarnation1 yet it does not seem fitting that any one should be freed from that condemnation1 according to the flesh1 except after ,his ,incarnation1 for it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear4 ,consequently1 just as before the immortality of the flesh of ,christ rising again1 none obtained immortality of the flesh1 so it seems unfitting to say that before ,christ appeared in sinless flesh1 ,his ,virgin ,mother's or anyone else's flesh should be without the fomes1 which is called the law of the flesh or of the members 7,rom4 #g3bc1 #be74 ,therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb1 the ,virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence1 but that it remained fettered3 not indeed by an act of her reason1 as in holy men1 since she had not the use of reason from the very first moment of her existence in her mother's womb1 for this was the singular privilege of ,christ3 but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification1 and still more perfectly by ,divine ,providence preserving her sensitive soul1 in a singular manner1 from any inordinate movement4 ,afterwards1 however1 at the conception of ,christ's flesh1 in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous1 it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the ,child to the ,mother4 ,this indeed is signified 7,ezech4 #dc3b73 ,behold the glory of the ,god of ,israel came in by the way of the east1 i4e4 by the ,blessed ,virgin1 and the earth1 i4e4 her flesh1 shone with ,his1 i4e4 ,christ's1 majesty4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,death and such like penalties do not of themselves incline us to sin4 ,wherefore though ,christ assumed them1 ,he did not assume the fomes4 ,consequently in order that the ,blessed ,virgin might be conformed to her ,son1 from whose fulness her grace was derived1 the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away3 while she was not freed from death and other such penalties4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the infirmity of the flesh1 that pertains to the fomes1 is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of perfect virtue3 but not the sine qua non of perfection3 and it is quite enough to ascribe to the ,blessed ,virgin perfect virtue and abundant grace3 nor is there any need to attribute to her every occasional cause of perfection4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,holy ,ghost effected a twofold purification in the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,the first was1 as it were1 preparatory to ,christ's conception3 which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomes1 but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things 7,cf4 ,dionysius1 ,div4 ,nom4 iv71 since even the angels are said to be purified1 in whom there is no stain1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 vi74 ,the second purification effected in her by the ,holy ,ghost was by means of the conception of ,christ which was the operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and in respect of this1 it may be said that ,he purified her entirely from the fomes4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #d ,whether by ,being ,sanctified in the ,womb the ,blessed ,virgin ,was ,preserved from ,all ,actual ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that by being sanctified in the womb the ,blessed ,virgin was not preserved from all actual sin4 ,for1 as we have already stated 7,a4 #c71 after her first sanctification the fomes remained in the ,virgin4 ,now the motion of the fomes1 even if it precede the act of the reason1 is a venial sin1 albeit extremely slight1 as ,augustine says in his work ,de ,trinitate 99,cf4 ,sent4 ii1 ,d1 #bd4 ,therefore there was some venial sin in the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine 7,qq4 ,nov4 et ,vet4 ,test4 lxxiii on ,luke #b3ce3 ,thy own soul a sword shall pierce7 says that the ,blessed ,virgin was troubled with wondering doubt at the death of our ,lord4 ,but doubt in matters of faith is a sin4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin was not preserved from all actual sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xlv in ,matth47 expounding the text3 ,behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without1 seeking thee1 says3 ,it is clear that they did this from mere vain glory4 ,again1 on ,john #b3c3 ,they have no wine1 the same ,chrysostom says that she wished to do them a favor1 and raise herself in their esteem1 by means of her ,son3 and perchance she succumbed to human frailty1 just as did ,his brethren when they said3 ',manifest ,thyself to the world4' ,and a little further on he says3 ,for as yet she did not believe in ,him as she ought4 ,now it is quite clear that all this was sinful4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin was not preserved from all sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,nat4 et ,grat4 xxxvi73 ,in the matter of sin1 it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy ,virgin ,mary1 on account of the honor due to ,christ4 ,for since she conceived and brought forth ,him who most certainly was guilty of no sin1 we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin4 ,i answer that1 ,god so prepares and endows those1 whom ,he chooses for some particular office1 that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it1 according to #b ,cor4 #c3f3 7,who7 hath made us fit ministers of the ,new ,testament4 ,now the ,blessed ,virgin was chosen by ,god to be ,his ,mother4 ,therefore there can be no doubt that ,god1 by ,his grace1 made her worthy of that office1 according to the words spoken to her by the angel 7,luke #a3cj1 #ca73 ,thou hast found grace with ,god3 behold thou shalt conceive1 etc4 ,but she would not have been worthy to be the ,mother of ,god1 if she had ever sinned4 ,first1 because the honor of the parents reflects on the child1 according to ,prov4 #ag3f3 ,the glory of children are their fathers3 and consequently1 on the other hand1 the ,mother's shame would have reflected on her ,son4 ,secondly1 because of the singular affinity between her and ,christ1 who took flesh from her3 and it is written 7 #b ,cor4 #f3ae73 ,what concord hath ,christ with ,belial8 ,thirdly1 because of the singular manner in which the ,son of ,god1 who is the ,divine ,wisdom 7#a ,cor4 #a3bd7 dwelt in her1 not only in her soul but in her womb4 ,and it is written 7,wis4 #a3d73 ,wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul1 nor dwell in a body subject to sins4 ,we must therefore confess simply that the ,blessed ,virgin committed no actual sin1 neither mortal nor venial2 so that what is written 7,cant #d3g7 is fulfilled3 ,thou art all fair1 ,o my love1 and there is not a spot in thee1 etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,after her sanctification the fomes remained in the ,blessed ,virgin1 but fettered2 lest she should be surprised by some sudden inordinate act1 antecedent to the act of reason4 ,and although the grace of her sanctification contributed to this effect1 yet it did not suffice2 for otherwise the result of her sanctification would have been to render impossible in her any sensual movement not preceded by an act of reason1 and thus she would not have had the fomes1 which is contrary to what we have said above 7,a4 #c74 ,we must therefore say that the above mentioned fettering 7of the fomes7 was perfected by divine providence not permitting any inordinate motion to result from the fomes4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,origen 7,hom4 xvii in ,luc47 and certain other doctors expound these words of ,simeon as referring to the sorrow which she suffered at the time of our ,lord's ,passion4 ,ambrose 7in ,luc4 #b3ce7 says that the sword signifies ,mary's prudence which took note of the heavenly mystery4 ,for the word of ,god is living and effectual1 and more piercing than any two-edged sword 7,heb4 #d3ab74 ,others again take the sword to signify doubt4 ,but this is to be understood of the doubt1 not of unbelief1 but of wonder and discussion4 ,thus ,basil says 7,ep4 ad ,optim47 that the ,blessed ,virgin while standing by the cross1 and observing every detail1 after the message of ,gabriel1 and the ineffable knowledge of the ,divine ,conception1 after that wondrous manifestation of miracles1 was troubled in mind3 that is to say1 on the one side seeing ,him suffer such humiliation1 and on the other considering ,his marvelous works4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in those words ,chrysostom goes too far4 ,they may1 however1 be explained as meaning that our ,lord corrected in her1 not the inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself1 but that which might be in the thoughts of others4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #e ,whether1 by ,her ,sanctification in the ,womb1 the ,blessed ,virgin ,received the ,fulness of ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that1 by her sanctification in the womb1 the ,blessed ,virgin did not receive the fulness or perfection of grace4 ,for this seems to be ,christ's privilege1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,him ,vulg43 ',his glory' as the ,only-,begotten ,vulg43 'as it were of the ,only-,begotten' full of grace and truth4 ,but what is proper to ,christ ought not to be ascribed to some one else4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin did not receive the fulness of grace at the time of her sanctification4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing remains to be added to that which is full and perfect3 for the perfect is that which lacks nothing1 as is said ,phys4 iii4 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin received additional grace afterwards when she conceived ,christ2 for to her was it said 7,luke #a3ce73 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee3 and again1 when she was assumed into glory4 ,therefore it seems that she did not receive the fulness of grace at the time of her first sanctification4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god does nothing useless1 as is said ,de ,coelo et ,mundo i4 ,but it would have been useless for her to have certain graces1 for she would never have put them to use3 since we do not read that she taught which is the act of wisdom2 or that she worked miracles1 which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces4 ,therefore she had not the fulness of grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,the angel said to her3 ,hail1 full of grace 7,luke #a3bh72 which words ,jerome expounds as follows1 in a sermon on the ,assumption 7cf4 ,ep4 ad ,paul4 et ,eustoch473 ,full indeed of grace3 for to others it is given in portions2 whereas on ,mary the fulness of grace was showered all at once4 ,i answer that1 ,in every genus1 the nearer a thing is to the principle1 the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle1 whence ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv7 that angels1 being nearer to ,god1 have a greater share than men1 in the effects of the ,divine goodness4 ,now ,christ is the principle of grace1 authoritatively as to ,his ,godhead1 instrumentally as to ,his humanity3 whence 7,john #a3ag7 it is written3 ,grace and truth came by ,jesus ,christ4 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary was nearest to ,christ in ,his humanity3 because ,he received ,his human nature from her4 ,therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god gives to each one according to the purpose for which ,he has chosen him4 ,and since ,christ as man was predestinated and chosen to be predestinated the ,son of ,god in power 4 4 4 of sanctification 7,rom4 #a3d71 it was proper to ,him to have such a fulness of grace that it overflowed from ,him into all1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we have all received4 ,whereas the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary received such a fulness of grace that she was nearest of all to the ,author of grace2 so that she received within her ,him ,who is full of all grace2 and by bringing ,him forth1 she1 in a manner1 dispensed grace to all4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in natural things at first there is perfection of disposition1 for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the form4 ,secondly1 there is the perfection of the form2 and this is the more excellent1 for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is more perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire4 ,thirdly1 there is the perfection of the end3 for instance when fire has its qualities in the most perfect degree1 having mounted to its own place4 ,in like manner there was a threefold perfection of grace in the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,the first was a kind of disposition1 by which she was made worthy to be the mother of ,christ3 and this was the perfection of her sanctification4 ,the second perfection of grace in the ,blessed ,virgin was through the presence of the ,son of ,god ,incarnate in her womb4 ,the third perfection of the end is that which she has in glory4 ,that the second perfection excels the first1 and the third the second1 appears 7#a7 from the point of view of deliverance from evil4 ,for at first in her sanctification she was delivered from original sin3 afterwards1 in the conception of the ,son of ,god1 she was entirely cleansed from the fomes3 lastly1 in her glorification she was also delivered from all affliction whatever4 ,it appears 7#b7 from the point of view of ordering to good4 ,for at first in her sanctification she received grace inclining her to good3 in the conception of the ,son of ,god she received consummate grace confirming her in good2 and in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there is no doubt that the ,blessed ,virgin received in a high degree both the gift of wisdom and the grace of miracles and even of prophecy1 just as ,christ had them4 ,but she did not so receive them1 as to put them and such like graces to every use1 as did ,christ3 but accordingly as it befitted her condition of life4 ,for she had the use of wisdom in contemplation1 according to ,luke #b3ai3 ,but ,mary kept all these words1 pondering them in her heart4 ,but she had not the use of wisdom as to teaching3 since this befitted not the female sex1 according to #a ,tim4 #b3ab3 ,but ,i suffer not a woman to teach4 ,the use of miracles did not become her while she lived3 because at that time the ,teaching of ,christ was to be confirmed by miracles1 and therefore it was befitting that ,christ alone1 and ,his disciples who were the bearers of ,his doctrine1 should work miracles4 ,hence of ,john the ,baptist it is written 7,john #aj3da7 that he did no sign2 that is1 in order that all might fix their attention on ,christ4 ,as to the use of prophecy1 it is clear that she had it1 from the canticle spoken by her3 ,my soul doth magnify the ,lord 7,luke #a3df1 etc474 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bg1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,after ,christ1 ,it ,was ,proper to the ,blessed ,virgin to ,be ,sanctified in the ,womb8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was proper for the ,blessed ,virgin1 after ,christ1 to be sanctified in the womb4 ,for it has been said 7,a4 #d7 that the ,blessed ,virgin was sanctified in the womb1 in order that she might be worthy to be the mother of ,god4 ,but this is proper to her4 ,therefore she alone was sanctified in the womb4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 some men seem to have been more closely connected with ,christ than ,jeremias and ,john the ,baptist1 who are said to have been sanctified in the womb4 ,for ,christ is specially called the ,son of ,david and of ,abraham1 by reason of the promise specially made to them concerning ,christ4 ,isaias also prophesied of ,christ in the most express terms4 ,and the apostles were in converse with ,christ ,himself4 ,and yet these are not mentioned as having been sanctified in the womb4 ,therefore it was not befitting that either ,jeremias or ,john the ,baptist should be sanctified in the womb4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,job says of himself 7,job #ca3ah73 ,from my infancy mercy grew up with me2 and it came out with me from my mother's womb4 ,nevertheless we do not for this reason say that he was sanctified in the womb4 ,neither therefore are we bound to say that ,jeremias and ,john the ,baptist were sanctified in the womb4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written of ,jeremias 7,jer4 #a3e73 ,before thou camest forth out of the womb ,i sanctified thee4 ,and of ,john the ,baptist it is written 7,luke #a3ae73 ,he shall be filled with the ,holy ,ghost1 even from his mother's womb4 ,i answer that1 ,augustine 7,ep4 ad ,dardan47 seems to speak dubiously of their 7,jeremias' and ,john the ,baptist's7 sanctification in the womb4 ,for the leaping of ,john in the womb might1 as he says1 signify the great truth1 viz4 that the woman was the mother of ,god1 which was to be made known to his elders1 though as yet unknown to the infant4 ,hence in the ,gospel it is written1 not that the infant in her womb believed1 but that it 'leaped'3 and our eyes are witness that not only infants leap but also cattle4 ,but this was unwonted because it was in the womb4 ,and therefore1 just as other miracles are wont to be done1 this was done divinely1 in the infant2 not humanly by the infant4 ,perhaps also in this child the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother's womb he was able to acknowledge1 believe1 and consent1 whereas in other children we have to wait for these things till they grow older3 this again ,i count as a miraculous result of the divine power4 ,but since it is expressly said 7of ,john7 in the ,gospel that he shall be filled with the ,holy ,ghost1 even from his mother's womb2 and of ,jeremias1 ,before thou camest forth out of the womb1 ,i sanctified thee2 it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified in the womb1 although1 while in the womb1 they had not the use of reason 7which is the point discussed by ,augustine72 just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by baptism4 ,nor are we to believe that any others1 not mentioned by ,scripture1 were sanctified in the womb4 ,for such privileges of grace1 which are bestowed on some1 outside the common law1 are ordered for the salvation of others1 according to #a ,cor4 #ab3g3 ,the manifestation of the ,spirit is given to every man unto profit1 which would not result from the sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the ,church4 ,and although it is not possible to assign a reason for ,god's judgments1 for instance1 why ,he bestows such a grace on one and not on another1 yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb1 by their foreshadowing the sanctification which was to be effected through ,christ4 ,first1 as to ,his ,passion1 according to ,heb4 #ac3ab3 ,jesus1 that ,he might sanctify the people by ,his own blood1 suffered without the gate3 which ,passion ,jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols1 and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings4 ,secondly1 as to ,his ,baptism 7#a ,cor4 #f3aa73 ,but you are washed1 but you are sanctified2 to which ,baptism ,john prepared men by his baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the blessed ,virgin1 who was chosen by ,god to be ,his ,mother1 received a fuller grace of sanctification than ,john the ,baptist and ,jeremias1 who were chosen to foreshadow in a special way the sanctification effected by ,christ4 ,a sign of this is that it was granted to the ,blessed ,virgin thenceforward never to sin either mortally or venially3 whereas to the others who were thus sanctified it was granted thenceforward not to sin mortally1 through the protection of ,god's grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in other respects these saints might be more closely united to ,christ than ,jeremias and ,john the ,baptist4 ,but the latter were most closely united to ,him by clearly foreshadowing ,his sanctification1 as explained above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the mercy of which ,job speaks is not the infused virtue2 but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue4 ,,question #bh ,,of ,,the ,,virginity ,,of ,,the ,,mother ,,of ,,god 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we now have to consider the virginity of the ,mother of ,god2 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether she was a virgin in conceiving8 7#b7 ,whether she was a virgin in ,his ,birth8 7#c7 ,whether she remained a virgin after ,his ,birth8 7#d7 ,whether she took a vow of virginity8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bh1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,mother of ,god ,was a ,virgin in ,conceiving ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,mother of ,god was not a virgin in conceiving ,christ4 ,for no child having father and mother is conceived by a virgin mother4 ,but ,christ is said to have had not only a mother1 but also a father1 according to ,luke #b3cc3 ,his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning ,him3 and further on 7,luke #b3dh7 in the same chapter she says3 ,behold ,i and ,thy father ,vulg43 ',thy father and ,i' have sought ,thee sorrowing4 ,therefore ,christ was not conceived of a virgin mother4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further 7,matt4 #a7 it is proved that ,christ was the ,son of ,abraham and ,david1 through ,joseph being descended from ,david4 ,but this proof would have availed nothing if ,joseph were not the father of ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,mother conceived ,him of the seed of ,joseph2 and consequently that she was not a virgin in conceiving ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,gal4 #d3d73 ,god sent ,his ,son1 made of a woman4 ,but according to the customary mode of speaking1 the term woman applies to one who is known of a man4 ,therefore ,christ was not conceived by a virgin mother4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 things of the same species have the same mode of generation3 since generation is specified by its terminus just as are other motions4 ,but ,christ belonged to the same species as other men1 according to ,phil4 #b3g3 ,being made in the likeness of men1 and in habit found as a man4 ,since therefore other men are begotten of the mingling of male and female1 it seems that ,christ was begotten in the same manner2 and that consequently ,he was not conceived of a virgin mother4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 every natural form has its determinate matter1 outside which it cannot be4 ,but the matter of human form appears to be the semen of male and female4 ,if therefore ,christ's body was not conceived of the semen of male and female1 it would not have been truly a human body2 which cannot be asserted4 ,it seems therefore that ,he was not conceived of a virgin mother4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #g3ad73 ,behold a virgin shall conceive4 ,i answer that1 ,we must confess simply that the ,mother of ,christ was a virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the ,ebionites and ,cerinthus1 who held ,christ to be a mere man1 and maintained that ,he was born of both sexes4 ,it is fitting for four reasons that ,christ should be born of a virgin4 ,first1 in order to maintain the dignity or the ,father ,who sent ,him4 ,for since ,christ is the true and natural ,son of ,god1 it was not fitting that ,he should have another father than ,god3 lest the dignity belonging to ,god be transferred to another4 ,secondly1 this was befitting to a property of the ,son ,himself1 ,who is sent4 ,for ,he is the ,word of ,god3 and the word is conceived without any interior corruption3 indeed1 interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word4 ,since therefore flesh was so assumed by the ,word of ,god1 as to be the flesh of the ,word of ,god1 it was fitting that it also should be conceived without corruption of the mother4 ,thirdly1 this was befitting to the dignity of ,christ's humanity in which there could be no sin1 since by it the sin of the world was taken away1 according to ,john #a3bi3 ,behold the ,lamb of ,god 7i4e4 the ,lamb without stain7 who taketh away the sin of the world4 ,now it was not possible in a nature already corrupt1 for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin4 ,whence ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i73 ,in that union1 viz4 the marriage of ,mary and ,joseph1 the nuptial intercourse alone was lacking3 because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin1 and without which ,he wished to be conceived1 ,who was to be without sin4 ,fourthly1 on account of the very end of the ,incarnation of ,christ1 which was that men might be born again as sons of ,god1 not of the will of the flesh1 nor of the will of man1 but of ,god 7,john #a3ac71 i4e4 of the power of ,god1 of which fact the very conception of ,christ was to appear as an exemplar4 ,whence ,augustine says 7,de ,sanct4 ,virg473 ,it behooved that our ,head1 by a notable miracle1 should be born1 after the flesh1 of a virgin1 that ,he might thereby signify that ,his members would be born1 after the ,spirit1 of a virgin ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,bede says on ,luke #a3cc3 ,joseph is called the father of the ,saviour1 not that he really was ,his father1 as the ,photinians pretended3 but that he was considered by men to be so1 for the safeguarding of ,mary's good name4 ,wherefore ,luke adds 7,luke #c3bc73 ,being1 as it was supposed1 the son of ,joseph4 ,or1 according to ,augustine 7,de ,cons4 ,evang4 ii71 ,joseph is called the father of ,christ just as he is called the husband of ,mary1 without fleshly mingling1 by the mere bond of marriage3 being thereby united to ,him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family4 ,consequently that ,christ was not begotten of ,joseph by fleshly union is no reason why ,joseph should not be called ,his father2 since he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a3ah3 ,though ,joseph was not the father of our ,lord and ,saviour1 the order of ,his genealogy is traced down to ,joseph--first1 because the ,scriptures are not wont to trace the female line in genealogies3 secondly1 ,mary and ,joseph were of the same tribe2 wherefore by law he was bound to take her as being of his kin4 ,likewise1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i71 it was befitting to trace the genealogy down to ,joseph1 lest in that marriage any slight should be offered to the male sex1 which is indeed the stronger3 for truth suffered nothing thereby1 since both ,joseph and ,mary were of the family of ,david4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the gloss says on this passage1 the word mulier is here used instead of femina1 according to the custom of the ,hebrew tongue3 which applies the term signifying woman to those of the female sex who are virgins4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this argument is true of those things which come into existence by the way of nature3 since nature1 just as it is fixed to one particular effect1 so it is determinate to one mode of producing that effect4 ,but as the supernatural power of ,god extends to the infinite3 just as it is not determinate to one effect1 so neither is it determinate to one mode of producing any effect whatever4 ,consequently1 just as it was possible for the first man to be produced1 by the ,divine power1 from the slime of the earth1 so too was it possible for ,christ's body to be made1 by ,divine power1 from a virgin without the seed of the male4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i1 ii1 iv71 in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter1 but by way of agent3 and the female alone supplies the matter4 ,wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in ,christ's conception1 it does not follow that due matter was lacking4 ,but if the seed of the male were the matter of the fetus in animal conception1 it is nevertheless manifest that it is not a matter remaining under one form1 but subject to transformation4 ,and though the natural power cannot transmute other than determinate matter to a determinate form2 nevertheless the ,divine power1 which is infinite1 can transmute all matter to any form whatsoever4 ,consequently1 just as it transmuted the slime of the earth into ,adam's body1 so could it transmute the matter supplied by ,his ,mother into ,christ's body1 even though it were not the sufficient matter for a natural conception4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bh1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,mother ,was a ,virgin in ,his ,birth8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,mother was not a virgin in ,his ,birth4 ,for ,ambrose says on ,luke #b3bc3 ,he who sanctified a strange womb1 for the birth of a prophet1 ,he it is who opened ,his ,mother's womb1 that ,he might go forth unspotted4 ,but opening of the womb excludes virginity4 ,therefore ,christ's ,mother was not a virgin in ,his ,birth4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing should have taken place in the mystery of ,christ1 which would make ,his body to seem unreal4 ,now it seems to pertain not to a true but to an unreal body1 to be able to go through a closed passage2 since two bodies cannot be in one place at the same time4 ,it was therefore unfitting that ,christ's body should come forth from ,his ,mother's closed womb3 and consequently that she should remain a virgin in giving birth to ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,gregory says in the ,homily for the octave of ,easter 99xxvi in ,evang41 that by entering after ,his ,resurrection where the disciples were gathered1 the doors being shut1 our ,lord showed that ,his body was the same in nature but differed in glory3 so that it seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a glorified body4 ,but ,christ's body was not glorified in its conception1 but was passible1 having the likeness of sinful flesh1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #h3c74 ,therefore ,he did not come forth through the closed womb of the ,virgin4 ,on the contrary1 ,in a sermon of the ,council of ,ephesus 7,p4 ,,iii1 ,cap4 ix7 it is said3 ,after giving birth1 nature knows not a virgin3 but grace enhances her fruitfulness1 and effects her motherhood1 while in no way does it injure her virginity4 ,therefore ,christ's ,mother was a virgin also in giving birth to ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,without any doubt whatever we must assert that the ,mother of ,christ was a virgin even in ,his ,birth3 for the prophet says not only3 ,behold a virgin shall conceive1 but adds3 and shall bear a son4 ,this indeed was befitting for three reasons4 ,first1 because this was in keeping with a property of ,him whose ,birth is in question1 for ,he is the ,word of ,god4 ,for the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption1 but also proceeds from the mind without corruption4 ,wherefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very ,word of ,god1 it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin incorrupt4 ,whence in the sermon of the ,council of ,ephesus 7quoted above7 we read3 ,whosoever brings forth mere flesh1 ceases to be a virgin4 ,but since she gave birth to the ,word made flesh1 ,god safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest ,his ,word1 by which ,word ,he thus manifested ,himself3 for neither does our word1 when brought forth1 corrupt the mind2 nor does ,god1 the substantial ,word1 deigning to be born1 destroy virginity4 ,secondly1 this is fitting as regards the effect of ,christ's ,incarnation3 since ,he came for this purpose1 that ,he might take away our corruption4 ,wherefore it is unfitting that in ,his ,birth ,he should corrupt ,his ,mother's virginity4 ,thus ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,nativity of ,our ,lord3 ,it was not right that ,he who came to heal corruption1 should by ,his advent violate integrity4 ,thirdly1 it was fitting that ,he ,who commanded us to honor our father and mother should not in ,his ,birth lessen the honor due to ,his ,mother4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's quotation from the ,law3 ,every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the ,lord4 ,this1 says ,bede1 is said in regard to the wonted manner of birth2 not that we are to believe that our ,lord in coming forth violated the abode of her sacred womb1 which ,his entrance therein had hallowed4 ,wherefore the opening here spoken of does not imply the unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity2 but the mere coming forth of the infant from the maternal womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ wished so to show the reality of ,his body1 as to manifest ,his ,godhead at the same time4 ,for this reason ,he mingled wondrous with lowly things4 ,wherefore1 to show that ,his body was real1 ,he was born of a woman4 ,but in order to manifest ,his ,godhead1 ,he was born of a virgin1 for such a ,birth befits a ,god1 as ,ambrose says in the ,christmas hymn4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,some have held that ,christ1 in ,his ,birth1 assumed the gift of subtlety1 when ,he came forth from the closed womb of a virgin2 and that ,he assumed the gift of agility when with dry feet ,he walked on the sea4 ,but this is not consistent with what has been decided above 7,q4 #ad74 ,for these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body1 as we shall explain further on1 in treating of glorified bodies 7,suppl41 ,q4 #hb73 and it has been said above 7,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a2 ,q4 #af1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b7 that before ,his ,passion ,christ allowed ,his flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it 7,damascene1 ,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 nor was there such an overflow of glory from ,his soul on to ,his body4 ,we must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by ,divine power4 ,whence ,augustine says 7,sup4 ,joan4 ,tract4 #aba73 ,to the substance of a body in which was the ,godhead closed doors were no obstacle4 ,for truly ,he had power to enter in by doors not open1 in ,whose ,birth ,his ,mother's virginity remained inviolate4 ,and ,dionysius says in an epistle 7,ad ,caium iv7 that ,christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man3 this is shown in ,his supernatural conception1 of a virgin1 and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of earthly feet4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,mother ,remained a ,virgin ,after ,his ,birth8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,mother did not remain a virgin after ,his ,birth4 ,for it is written 7,matt4 #a3ah73 ,before ,joseph and ,mary came together1 she was found with child of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,now the ,evangelist would not have said this--before they came together--unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together2 for no one says of one who does not eventually dine before he dines 7cf4 ,jerome1 ,contra ,helvid474 ,it seems1 therefore1 that the ,blessed ,virgin subsequently had intercourse with ,joseph2 and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after 7,christ's7 ,birth4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the same passage 7,matt4 #a3bj7 are related the words of the angel to ,joseph3 ,fear not to take unto thee ,mary thy wife4 ,but marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse4 ,therefore it seems that this must have at some time taken place between ,mary and ,joseph3 and that1 consequently she did not remain a virgin after 7,christ's7 ,birth4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 again in the same passage a little further on 7,matt4 #a3bd1 #be7 we read3 ,and 7,joseph7 took unto him his wife2 and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born ,son4 ,now this conjunction till is wont to designate a fixed time1 on the completion of which that takes place which previously had not taken place4 ,and the verb knew refers here to knowledge by intercourse 7cf4 ,jerome1 ,contra ,helvid472 just as 7,gen4 #d3a7 it is said that ,adam knew his wife4 ,therefore it seems that after 7,christ's7 ,birth1 the ,blessed ,virgin was known by ,joseph2 and1 consequently1 that she did not remain a virgin after the ,birth 7of ,christ74 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 first-born can only be said of one who has brothers afterwards3 wherefore 7,rom4 #h3bi73 ,whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son2 that ,he might be the first-born among many brethren4 ,but the evangelist calls ,christ the first-born by ,his ,mother4 ,therefore she had other children after ,christ4 ,and therefore it seems that ,christ's ,mother did not remain a virgin after ,his ,birth4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 it is written 7,john #b3ab73 ,after this ,he went down to ,capharnaum1 ,he--that is1 ,christ--and ,his ,mother and ,his brethren4 ,but brethren are those who are begotten of the same parent4 ,therefore it seems that the ,blessed ,virgin had other sons after ,christ4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 it is written 7,matt4 #bg3ee1 #ef73 ,there were there--that is1 by the cross of ,christ--many women afar off1 who had followed ,jesus from ,galilee1 ministering unto ,him2 among whom was ,mary ,magdalen1 and ,mary the mother of ,james and ,joseph1 and the mother of the sons of ,zebedee4 ,now this ,mary who is called the mother of ,james and ,joseph seems to have been also the ,mother of ,christ2 for it is written 7,john #ai3be7 that there stood by the cross of ,jesus1 ,mary ,his ,mother4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,mother did not remain a virgin after ,his ,birth4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ezech4 #dd3b73 ,this gate shall be shut1 it shall not be opened1 and no man shall pass through it2 because the ,lord the ,god of ,israel hath entered in by it4 ,expounding these words1 ,augustine says in a sermon 7,de ,annunt4 ,dom4 iii73 ,what means this closed gate in the ,house of the ,lord1 except that ,mary is to be ever inviolate8 ,what does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it1' save that ,joseph shall not know her8 ,and what is this--',the ,lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the ,holy ,ghost shall impregnate her1 and that the ,lord of angels shall be born of her8 ,and what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that ,mary is a virgin before ,his ,birth1 a virgin in ,his ,birth1 and a virgin after ,his ,birth8 ,i answer that1 ,without any hesitation we must abhor the error of ,helvidius1 who dared to assert that ,christ's ,mother1 after ,his ,birth1 was carnally known by ,joseph1 and bore other children4 ,for1 in the first place1 this is derogatory to ,christ's perfection3 for as ,he is in ,his ,godhead the ,only-,begotten of the ,father1 being thus ,his ,son in every respect perfect1 so it was becoming that ,he should be the ,only-begotten son of ,his ,mother1 as being her perfect offspring4 ,secondly1 this error is an insult to the ,holy ,ghost1 whose shrine was the virginal womb 99,sacrarium ,spiritus ,sancti 7,office of ,b4 ,m4 ,v41 ,ant4 ad ,benedictus1 ,t4 ,p471 wherein ,he had formed the flesh of ,christ3 wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man4 ,thirdly1 this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of ,god's ,mother3 for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful1 were she not content with such a ,son2 and were she1 of her own accord1 by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her4 ,fourthly1 it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in ,joseph1 to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,we must therefore simply assert that the ,mother of ,god1 as she was a virgin in conceiving ,him and a virgin in giving ,him birth1 did she remain a virgin ever afterwards4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,jerome says 7,contra ,helvid4 i73 ,although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event1 yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind3 nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually1 since something may occur to prevent its happening4 ,thus if a man say3 ',before ,i dined in the port1 ,i set sail1' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail3 but that his mind was set on dining in port4 ,in like manner the evangelist says3 ,before they came together ,mary was found with child1 of the ,holy ,ghost1 not that they came together afterwards3 but that1 when it seemed that they would come together1 this was forestalled through her conceiving by the ,holy ,ghost1 the result being that afterwards they did not come together4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i73 ,the ,mother of ,god is called 7,joseph's7 wife from the first promise of her espousals1 whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse4 ,for1 as ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bg3 ,the fact of her marriage is declared1 not to insinuate the loss of virginity1 but to witness to the reality of the union4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge1 but of acquaintance4 ,thus ,chrysostom says 99,opus ,imperf4 in ,matth41 ,hom4 #a3 among the spurious works ascribed to ,chrysostom that ,joseph did not know her1 until she gave birth1 being unaware of her dignity3 but after she had given birth1 then did he know her4 ,because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity3 since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received ,him ,whom the world cannot contain4 ,others again refer this to knowledge by sight4 ,for as1 while ,moses was speaking with ,god1 his face was so bright that the children of ,israel could not steadfastly behold it2 so ,mary1 while being overshadowed by the brightness of the power of the ,most ,high1 could not be gazed on by ,joseph1 until she gave birth4 ,but afterwards she is acknowledged by ,joseph1 by looking on her face1 not by lustful contact4 ,jerome1 however1 grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse2 but he observes that before or until has a twofold sense in ,scripture4 ,for sometimes it indicates a fixed time1 as ,gal4 #c3ai3 ,the law was set because of transgressions1 until the seed should come1 to whom ,he made the promise4 ,on the other hand1 it sometimes indicates an indefinite time1 as in ,ps4 #abb3b3 ,our eyes are unto the ,lord our ,god1 until ,he have mercy on us2 from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from ,god as soon as ,his mercy has been obtained4 ,in this sense those things are indicated of which we might doubt if they had not been written down3 while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding4 ,thus the evangelist says that the ,mother of ,god was not known by her husband until she gave birth1 that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards 7,adversus ,helvid4 v74 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the ,scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born1 not only a child who is followed by others1 but also the one that is born first4 ,otherwise1 if a child were not first-born unless followed by others1 the first-fruits would not be due as long as there was no further produce 99,jerome1 ,adversus ,helvid4 x3 which is clearly false1 since according to the law the first-fruits had to be redeemed within a month 7,num4 #ah3af74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,some1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #ab3di1 #ej1 suppose that the brethren of the ,lord were ,joseph's sons by another wife4 ,but we understand the brethren of the ,lord to be not sons of ,joseph1 but cousins of the ,saviour1 the sons of ,mary1 ,his ,mother's sister4 ,for ,scripture speaks of brethren in four senses2 namely1 those who are united by being of the same parents1 of the same nation1 of the same family1 by common affection4 ,wherefore the brethren of the ,lord are so called1 not by birth1 as being born of the same mother2 but by relationship1 as being blood-relations of ,his4 ,but ,joseph1 as ,jerome says 7,contra ,helvid4 ix71 is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin1 since he is not said to have had another wife1 and a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,mary who is called the mother of ,james and ,joseph is not to be taken for the ,mother of our ,lord1 who is not wont to be named in the ,gospels save under this designation of her dignity--the ,mother of ,jesus4 ,this ,mary is to be taken for the wife of ,alphaeus1 whose son was ,james the less1 known as the brother of the ,lord 7,gal4 #a3ai74 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bh1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,mother of ,god ,took a ,vow of ,virginity8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,mother of ,god did not take a vow of virginity4 ,for it is written 7,deut4 #g3ad73 ,no one shall be barren among you of either sex4 ,but sterility is a consequence of virginity4 ,therefore the keeping of virginity was contrary to the commandment of the ,old ,law4 ,but before ,christ was born the old law was still in force4 ,therefore at that time the ,blessed ,virgin could not lawfully take a vow of virginity4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #g3be73 ,concerning virgins ,i have no commandment of the ,lord2 but ,i give counsel4 ,but the perfection of the counsels was to take its beginning from ,christ1 who is the end of the ,law1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #aj3d74 ,it was not therefore becoming that the ,virgin should take a vow of virginity4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the gloss of ,jerome says on #a ,tim4 #e3ab1 that for those who are vowed to virginity1 it is reprehensible not only to marry1 but also to desire to be married4 ,but the ,mother of ,christ committed no sin for which she could be reprehended1 as stated above 7,q4 #bg1 ,a4 #d74 ,since therefore she was espoused1 as related by ,luke #a3bg it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,sanct4 ,virg4 iv73 ,mary answered the announcing angel3 ',how shall this be done1 because ,i know not man8' ,she would not have said this unless she had already vowed her virginity to ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,a4 #f71 works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow4 ,now it is clear that for reasons already given 7,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #c7 virginity had a special place in the ,mother of ,god4 ,it was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to ,god by vow4 ,nevertheless because1 while the ,law was in force both men and women were bound to attend to the duty of begetting1 since the worship of ,god was spread according to carnal origin1 until ,christ was born of that people2 the ,mother of ,god is not believed to have taken an absolute vow of virginity1 before being espoused to ,joseph1 although she desired to do so1 yet yielding her own will to ,god's judgment4 ,afterwards1 however1 having taken a husband1 according as the custom of the time required1 together with him she took a vow of virginity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not to take the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth1 therefore the ,mother of ,god did not vow virginity absolutely1 but under the condition that it were pleasing to ,god4 ,when1 however1 she knew that it was acceptable to ,god1 she made the vow absolute1 before the angel's ,annunciation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as the fulness of grace was in ,christ perfectly1 yet some beginning of the fulness preceded in ,his ,mother2 so also the observance of the counsels1 which is an effect of ,god's grace1 began its perfection in ,christ1 but was begun after a fashion in ,his ,virgin ,mother4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these words of the ,apostle are to be understood of those who vow chastity absolutely4 ,christ's ,mother did not do this until she was espoused to ,joseph4 ,after her espousals1 however1 by their common consent she took a vow of virginity together with her spouse4 ,,question #bi ,,of ,,the ,,espousals ,,of ,,the ,,mother ,,of ,,god 7,in ,two ,articles7 ,we now consider the espousals of ,god's ,mother3 concerning which two points arise for inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ should have been born of an espoused virgin8 7#b7 ,whether there was true marriage between our ,lord's ,mother and ,joseph8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bi1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,been ,born of an ,espoused ,virgin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have been born of an espoused virgin4 ,for espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse4 ,but our ,lord's ,mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with her husband2 because this would be derogatory to the virginity of her mind4 ,therefore she should not have been espoused4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that ,christ was born of a virgin was miraculous1 whence ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volus4 cxxxvii73 ,this same power of ,god brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of ,his inviolate ,mother1 by which in the vigor of manhood ,he passed through the closed doors4 ,if we are told why this happened1 it will cease to be wonderful2 if another instance be alleged1 it will no longer be unique4 ,but miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the ,faith should be manifest4 ,since1 therefore1 by her ,espousals this miracle would be less evident1 it seems that it was unfitting that ,christ should be born of an espoused virgin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the martyr ,ignatius1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a3ah1 gives as a reason of the espousals of the ,mother of ,god1 that the manner of ,his ,birth might be hidden from the devil1 who would think ,him to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife4 ,but this seems to be no reason at all4 ,first1 because by his natural cunning he knows whatever takes place in bodies4 ,secondly1 because later on the demons1 through many evident signs1 knew ,christ after a fashion3 whence it is written 7,mk4 #a3bc1 #bd73 ,a man with an unclean spirit 4 4 4 cried out1 saying3 ,what have we to do with ,thee1 ,jesus of ,nazareth8 ,art ,thou come to destroy us8 ,i know 4 4 4 ,thou art the ,holy one of ,god4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting that the ,mother of ,god should have been espoused4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,jerome gives as another reason1 lest the ,mother of ,god should be stoned by the ,jews as an adulteress4 ,but this reason seems to have no weight1 for if she were not espoused1 she could not be condemned for adultery4 ,therefore it does not seem reasonable that ,christ should be born of an espoused virgin4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #a3ah73 ,when as ,his ,mother ,mary was espoused to ,joseph3 and 7,luke #a3bf1 #bg73 ,the angel ,gabriel was sent 4 4 4 to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was ,joseph4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting that ,christ should be born of an espoused virgin2 first1 for ,his own sake2 secondly1 for ,his ,mother's sake2 thirdly1 for our sake4 ,for the sake of ,christ ,himself1 for four reasons4 ,first1 lest ,he should be rejected by unbelievers as illegitimate3 wherefore ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bf1 #bg3 ,how could we blame ,herod or the ,jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of adultery8 ,secondly1 in order that in the customary way ,his genealogy might be traced through the male line4 ,thus ,ambrose says on ,luke #c3bc3 ,he ,who came into the world1 according to the custom of the world had to be enrolled4 ,now for this purpose1 it is the men that are required1 because they represent the family in the senate and other courts4 ,the custom of the ,scriptures1 too1 shows that the ancestry of the men is always traced out4 ,thirdly1 for the safety of the new-born ,child3 lest the devil should plot serious hurt against ,him4 ,hence ,ignatius says that she was espoused that the manner of ,his ,birth might be hidden from the devil4 ,fourthly1 that ,he might be fostered by ,joseph3 who is therefore called ,his father1 as bread-winner4 ,it was also fitting for the sake of the ,virgin4 ,first1 because thus she was rendered exempt from punishment2 that is1 lest she should be stoned by the ,jews as an adulteress1 as ,jerome says4 ,secondly1 that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame4 ,whence ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bf1 #bg3 ,she was espoused lest she be wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity1 in whom the pregnant womb would betoken corruption4 ,thirdly1 that1 as ,jerome says1 ,joseph might administer to her wants4 ,this was fitting1 again1 for our sake4 ,first1 because ,joseph is thus a witness to ,christ's being born of a virgin4 ,wherefore ,ambrose says3 ,her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity1 in that he would deplore the dishonor1 and avenge the disgrace1 were it not that he acknowledged the mystery4 ,secondly1 because thereby the very words of the ,virgin are rendered more credible by which she asserted her virginity4 ,thus ,ambrose says3 ,belief in ,mary's words is strengthened1 the motive for a lie is removed4 ,if she had not been espoused when pregnant1 she would seem to have wished to hide her sin by a lie3 being espoused1 she had no motive for lying1 since a woman's pregnancy is the reward of marriage and gives grace to the nuptial bond4 ,these two reasons add strength to our faith4 ,thirdly1 that all excuse be removed from those virgins who1 through want of caution1 fall into dishonor4 ,hence ,ambrose says3 ,it was not becoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report1 and cover themselves with the excuse that the ,mother of the ,lord had also been oppressed by ill-fame4 ,fourthly1 because by this the universal ,church is typified1 which is a virgin and yet is espoused to one ,man1 ,christ1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,sanct4 ,virg4 xii74 ,a fifth reason may be added3 since the ,mother of the ,lord being both espoused and a virgin1 both virginity and wedlock are honored in her person1 in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the other4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we must believe that the ,blessed ,virgin1 ,mother of ,god1 desired1 from an intimate inspiration of the ,holy ,ghost1 to be espoused1 being confident that by the help of ,god she would never come to have carnal intercourse3 yet she left this to ,god's discretion4 ,wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her virginity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bf3 ,our ,lord preferred that men should doubt of ,his origin rather than of ,his ,mother's purity4 ,for he knew the delicacy of virgin modesty1 and how easily the fair name of chastity is disparaged3 nor did ,he choose that our faith in ,his ,birth should be strengthened in detriment to ,his ,mother4 ,we must observe1 however1 that some miracles wrought by ,god are the direct object of faith2 such are the miracles of the virginal ,birth1 the ,resurrection of our ,lord1 and the ,sacrament of the ,altar4 ,wherefore our ,lord wished these to be more hidden1 that belief in them might have greater merit4 ,whereas other miracles are for the strengthening of faith3 and these it behooves to be manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iii71 the devil can do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by the ,divine power from doing4 ,thus it may be that by his natural power the devil could know that the ,mother of ,god knew not man1 but was a virgin2 yet was prevented by ,god from knowing the manner of the ,divine ,birth4 ,that afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that ,he was the ,son of ,god1 makes no difficulty3 because then the time had already come for ,christ to make known ,his power against the devil1 and to suffer persecution aroused by him4 ,but during ,his infancy it behooved the malice of the devil to be withheld1 lest he should persecute ,him too severely3 for ,christ did not wish to suffer such things then1 nor to make ,his power known1 but to show ,himself to be in all things like other infants4 ,hence ,pope ,leo 7,serm4 in ,epiph4 iv7 says that the ,magi found the ,child ,jesus small in body1 dependent on others1 unable to speak1 and in no way differing from the generality of human infants4 ,ambrose1 however1 expounding ,luke #a3bf1 seems to understand this of the devil's members4 ,for1 after giving the above reason--namely1 that the prince of the world might be deceived--he continues thus3 ,yet still more did ,he deceive the princes of the world1 since the evil disposition of the demons easily discovers even hidden things3 but those who spend their lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance of ,divine things4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the sentence of adulteresses according to the ,law was that they should be stoned1 not only if they were already espoused or married1 but also if their maidenhood were still under the protection of the paternal roof1 until the day when they enter the married state4 ,thus it is written 7,deut4 #bb3bj1 #ba73 ,if 4 4 4 virginity be not found in the damsel 4 4 4 the men of the city shall stone her to death1 and she shall die2 because she hath done a wicked thing in ,israel1 to play the whore in her father's house4 ,it may also be said1 according to some writers1 that the ,blessed ,virgin was of the family or kindred of ,aaron1 so that she was related to ,elizabeth1 as we are told 7,luke #a3cf74 ,now a virgin of the priestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom2 for we read 7,lev4 #ba3i73 ,if the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom1 and dishonor the name of her father1 she shall be burnt with fire4 ,lastly1 some understand the passage of ,jerome to refer to the throwing of stones by ill-fame4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #bi1 ,art4 #b ,whether there was a true marriage between ,mary and ,joseph8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was no true marriage between ,mary and ,joseph4 ,for ,jerome says against ,helvidius that ,joseph was ,mary's guardian rather than her husband4 ,but if this was a true marriage1 ,joseph was truly her husband4 ,therefore there was no true marriage between ,mary and ,joseph4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,matt4 #a3af3 ,jacob begot ,joseph the husband of ,mary1 ,jerome says3 ,when thou readest 'husband' suspect not a marriage2 but remember that ,scripture is wont to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife4 ,but a true marriage is not effected by the betrothal1 but by the wedding4 ,therefore1 there was no true marriage between the ,blessed ,virgin and ,joseph4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,matt4 #a3ai73 ,joseph1 her husband1 being a just man1 and not willing to take her away 99,douay3 'publicly to expose her'1 i4e4 to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her1 was minded to put her away privately1 i4e4 to postpone the wedding1 as ,remigius 99,cf4 ,catena ,aurea in ,matth4 expounds4 ,therefore1 it seems that1 as the wedding was not yet solemnized1 there was no true marriage3 especially since1 after the marriage contract1 no one can lawfully put his wife away4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii73 ,it cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that ,joseph ought to sever his union with ,mary 7since he said that ,joseph was ,mary's husband7 on the ground that in giving birth to ,christ1 she had not conceived of him1 but remained a virgin4 ,for by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent1 their union is still and is rightly called marriage1 even without intercourse of the sexes4 ,i answer that1 ,marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection4 ,now perfection of anything is twofold2 first1 and second4 ,the first perfection of a thing consists in its very form1 from which it receives its species2 while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation1 by which in some way a thing attains its end4 ,now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls1 by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered4 ,and the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children3 the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse2 the second by the other duties of husband and wife1 by which they help one another in rearing their offspring4 ,thus we may say1 as to the first perfection1 that the marriage of the ,virgin ,mother of ,god and ,joseph was absolutely true3 because both consented to the nuptial bond1 but not expressly to the bond of the flesh1 save on the condition that it was pleasing to ,god4 ,for this reason the angel calls ,mary the wife of ,joseph1 saying to him 7,matt4 #a3bj73 ,fear not to take unto thee ,mary thy wife3 on which words ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i73 ,she is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals1 whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse4 ,but as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act1 if this be referred to carnal intercourse1 by which children are begotten2 thus this marriage was not consummated4 ,wherefore ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bf1 #bg3 ,be not surprised that ,scripture calls ,mary a wife4 ,the fact of her marriage is declared1 not to insinuate the loss of virginity1 but to witness to the reality of the union4 ,nevertheless1 this marriage had the second perfection1 as to upbringing of the child4 ,thus ,augustine says 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 i73 ,all the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of ,christ's parents1 offspring1 faith and sacrament4 ,the offspring we know to have been the ,lord ,jesus2 faith1 for there was no adultery3 sacrament1 since there was no divorce4 ,carnal intercourse alone there was none4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,jerome uses the term husband in reference to marriage consummated4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by marriage ,jerome means the nuptial intercourse4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 i super ,matth4 99,opus ,imperfectum1 among the supposititious works ascribed to ,st4 ,chrysostom7 the ,blessed ,virgin was so espoused to ,joseph that she dwelt in his home3 for just as she who conceives in her husband's house is understood to have conceived of him1 so she who conceives elsewhere is suspect4 ,consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the ,blessed ,virgin1 if she had not the entry of her husband's house4 ,wherefore the words1 not willing to take her away are better rendered as meaning1 not willing publicly to expose her1 than understood of taking her to his house4 ,hence the evangelist adds that he was minded to put her away privately4 ,but although she had the entry of ,joseph's house by reason of her first promise of espousals1 yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding2 for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage4 ,therefore1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth473 ,the evangelist does not say1 'before she was taken to the house of her husband1' because she was already in the house4 ,for it was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses of them to whom they were betrothed4 ,therefore the angel also said to ,joseph3 ,fear not to take unto thee ,mary thy wife2 that is3 ,fear not to solemnize your marriage with her4 ,others1 however1 say that she was not yet admitted to his house1 but only betrothed to him4 ,but the first is more in keeping with the ,gospel narrative4 ,,question #cj ,,of ,,the ,,annunciation ,,of ,,the ,,blessed ,,virgin 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we now have to consider the ,blessed ,virgin's ,annunciation1 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of that which was to be begotten of her8 7#b7 ,by whom should this announcement be made8 7#c7 ,in what manner should this announcement be made8 7#d7 ,of the order observed in the ,annunciation4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cj1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,necessary to ,announce to the ,blessed ,virgin ,that ,which ,was to ,be ,done in ,her8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the ,blessed ,virgin that which was to be done in her4 ,for there seems to have been no need of the ,annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the ,virgin's consent4 ,but her consent seems to have been unnecessary3 because the ,virginal ,conception was foretold by a prophecy of predestination1 which is fulfilled without our consent1 as a gloss says on ,matt4 #a3bb4 ,there was no need1 therefore1 for this ,annunciation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,blessed ,virgin believed in the ,incarnation1 for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation2 because1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #c3bb73 ,the justice of ,god 7is7 by faith of ,jesus ,christ4 ,but one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without doubt4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin had no need for the ,incarnation of her ,son to be announced to her4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the ,blessed ,virgin conceived ,christ in her body1 so every pious soul conceives ,him spiritually4 ,thus the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #d3ai73 ,my little children1 of whom ,i am in labor again1 until ,christ be formed in you4 ,but to those who conceive ,him spiritually no announcement is made of this conception4 ,therefore neither should it have been announced to the ,blessed ,virgin that she was to conceive the ,son of ,god in her womb4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is related 7,luke #a3ca7 that the angel said to her3 ,behold1 thou shalt conceive in thy womb1 and shalt bring forth a son4 ,i answer that1 ,it was reasonable that it should be announced to the ,blessed ,virgin that she was to conceive ,christ4 ,first1 in order to maintain a becoming order in the union of the ,son of ,god with the ,virgin--namely1 that she should be informed in mind concerning ,him1 before conceiving ,him in the flesh4 ,thus ,augustine says 7,de ,sancta ,virgin4 iii73 ,mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of ,christ1 than in conceiving the flesh of ,christ2 and further on he adds3 ,her nearness as a ,mother would have been of no profit to ,mary1 had she not borne ,christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh4 ,secondly1 that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery1 being instructed therein by ,god4 ,thirdly1 that she might offer to ,god the free gift of her obedience3 which she proved herself right ready to do1 saying3 ,behold the handmaid of the ,lord4 ,fourthly1 in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the ,son of ,god and human nature4 ,wherefore in the ,annunciation the ,virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will2 not without its consent4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,blessed ,virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future ,incarnation2 but1 being humble1 she did not think such high things of herself4 ,consequently she required instruction in this matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the spiritual conception of ,christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith1 for as much as faith is by hearing 7,rom4 #aj3ag74 ,yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace2 but he does know that the faith1 which he has received1 is true4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cj1 ,art4 #b ,whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the ,blessed ,virgin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,annunciation should not have been made by an angel to our ,blessed ,lady4 ,for revelations to the highest angels are made immediately by ,god1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vii74 ,but the ,mother of ,god is exalted above all the angels4 ,therefore it seems that the mystery of the ,incarnation should have been announced to her by ,god immediately1 and not by an angel4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if in this matter it behooved the common order to be observed1 by which ,divine things are announced to men by angels2 in like manner ,divine things are announced to a woman by a man3 wherefore the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ad3cd1 #ce73 ,let women keep silence in the churches 4 4 4 but if they would learn anything1 let them ask their husbands at home4 ,therefore it seems that the mystery of the ,incarnation should have been announced to the ,blessed ,virgin by some man3 especially seeing that ,joseph1 her husband1 was instructed thereupon by an angel1 as is related 7,matt4 #a3bj1 #ba7 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 none can becomingly announce what he knows not4 ,but the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the ,incarnation3 wherefore ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vii7 that the question1 ,who is this that cometh from ,edom8 7,isa4 #fc3a7 is to be understood as made by them4 ,therefore it seems that the announcement of the ,incarnation could not be made becomingly by any angel4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 greater things should be announced by messengers of greater dignity4 ,but the mystery of the ,incarnation is the greatest of all things announced by angels to men4 ,it seems1 therefore1 if it behooved to be announced by an angel at all1 that this should have been done by an angel of the highest order4 ,but ,gabriel is not of the highest order1 but of the order of archangels1 which is the last but one3 wherefore the ,church sings3 ,we know that the archangel ,gabriel brought thee a message from ,god 99,feast of ,purification ,b4,v4,m4 ix ,resp4 ,brev4 ,o4,p44 ,therefore this announcement was not becomingly made by the archangel ,gabriel4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #a3bf73 ,the angel ,gabriel was sent by ,god1 etc4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for the mystery of the ,incarnation to be announced to the ,mother of ,god by an angel1 for three reasons4 ,first1 that in this also might be maintained the order established by ,god1 by which ,divine things are brought to men by means of the angels4 ,wherefore ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv7 that the angels were the first to be taught the ,divine mystery of the loving kindness of ,jesus3 afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through them4 ,thus1 then1 the most god-like ,gabriel made known to ,zachary that a prophet son would be born to him2 and1 to ,mary1 how the ,divine mystery of the ineffable conception of ,god would be realized in her4 ,secondly1 this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which was to be effected by ,christ4 ,wherefore ,bede says in a homily 7in ,annunt473 ,it was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel should be sent by ,god to the ,virgin who was to be hallowed by the ,divine ,birth3 since the first cause of man's ruin was through the serpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of pride4 ,thirdly1 because this was becoming to the virginity of the ,mother of ,god4 ,wherefore ,jerome says in a sermon on the ,assumption 99,ascribed to ,st4 ,jerome but not his work3 ,it is well that an angel be sent to the ,virgin2 because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature4 ,surely to live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly but a heavenly life4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,mother of ,god was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by ,god4 ,but as regards the present state of life1 she was beneath the angels4 ,for even ,christ ,himself1 by reason of ,his passible life1 was made a little lower than the angels1 according to ,heb4 #b3i4 ,but because ,christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor1 ,he did not need to be instructed by angels1 as regards knowledge of ,divine things4 ,the ,mother of ,god1 however1 was not yet in the state of comprehension3 and therefore she had to be instructed by angels concerning the ,divine ,conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,assumption 7,de ,assump4 ,b4,v4,m4 99,work of another author3 among the works of ,st4 ,augustine7 a true estimation of the ,blessed ,virgin excludes her from certain general rules4 ,for neither did she 'multiply her conceptions' nor was she 'under man's1 i4e4 her husband's1' power 7,gen4 #c3af71 who in her spotless womb conceived ,christ of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it was fitting that she should be informed of the mystery of the ,incarnation by means not of a man1 but of an angel4 ,for this reason it was made known to her before ,joseph3 since the message was brought to her before she conceived1 but to ,joseph after she had conceived4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as may be gathered from the passage quoted from ,dionysius1 the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the ,incarnation3 and yet they put this question1 being desirous that ,christ should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this mystery1 which are incomprehensible to any created intellect4 ,thus ,maximus 99,maximus of ,constantinople says that there can be no question that the angels knew that the ,incarnation was to take place4 ,but it was not given to them to trace the manner of our ,lord's conception1 nor how it was that ,he remained whole in the ,father1 whole throughout the universe1 and was whole in the narrow abode of the ,virgin4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,some say that ,gabriel was of the highest order2 because ,gregory says 7,hom4 de ,centum ,ovibus 99#cd in ,evang473 ,it was right that one of the highest angels should come1 since his message was most sublime4 ,but this does nat imply that he was of the highest order of all1 but in regard to the angels3 since he was an archangel4 ,thus the ,church calls him an archangel1 and ,gregory himself in a homily 7,de ,centum ,ovibus #cd7 says that those are called archangels who announce sublime things4 ,it is therefore sufficiently credible that he was the highest of the archangels4 ,and1 as ,gregory says 7,de ,centum ,ovibus #cd71 this name agrees with his office3 for ,gabriel means ',power of ,god4' ,this message therefore was fittingly brought by the ',power of ,god1' because the ,lord of hosts and mighty in battle was coming to overcome the powers of the air4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cj1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,angel of ,annunciation ,should ,have ,appeared to the ,virgin in a ,bodily ,vision8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the angel of the ,annunciation should not have appeared to the ,virgin in a bodily vision4 ,for intellectual vision is more excellent than bodily vision1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii71 and especially more becoming to an angel3 since by intellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance2 whereas in a bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes4 ,now since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the ,divine ,conception1 so1 seemingly1 he should have appeared in the most excellent kind of vision4 ,therefore it seems that the angel of the ,annunciation appeared to the ,virgin in an intellectual vision4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily vision3 just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses4 ,but the angel 4 4 4 appeared to ,joseph in his sleep 7,matt4 #a3bj71 which was clearly an imaginary vision4 ,therefore it seems that he should have appeared to the ,blessed ,virgin also in an imaginary vision4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies the beholder2 thus we sing of the ,virgin herself3 ,and the ,virgin seeing the light was filled with fear 99,feast of ,annunciation1 ,b4,v4,m4 ii ,resp4 ,brev4 ,o4,p44 ,but it was better that her mind should be preserved from being thus troubled4 ,therefore it was not fitting that this announcement should be made in a bodily vision4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine in a sermon 7,de ,annunt4 iii7 pictures the ,blessed ,virgin as speaking thus3 ,to me came the archangel ,gabriel with glowing countenance1 gleaming robe1 and wondrous step4 ,but these cannot pertain to other than bodily vision4 ,therefore the angel of the ,annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,i answer that1 ,the angel of the ,annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,and this indeed was fitting1 first in regard to that which was announced4 ,for the angel came to announce the ,incarnation of the invisible ,god4 ,wherefore it was becoming that1 in order to make this known1 an invisible creature should assume a form in which to appear visibly3 forasmuch as all the apparitions of the ,old ,testament are ordered to that apparition in which the ,son of ,god appeared in the flesh4 ,secondly1 it was fitting as regards the dignity of the ,mother of ,god1 who was to receive the ,son of ,god not only in her mind1 but in her bodily womb4 ,therefore it behooved not only her mind1 but also her bodily senses to be refreshed by the angelic vision4 ,thirdly1 it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was announced4 ,for we apprehend with greater certainty that which is before our eyes1 than what is in our imagination4 ,thus ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth47 that the angel came to the ,virgin not in her sleep1 but visibly4 ,for since she was receiving from the angel a message exceeding great1 before such an event she needed a vision of great solemnity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,intellectual vision excels merely imaginary and merely bodily vision4 ,but ,augustine himself says 7,de ,annunt4 iii7 that prophecy is more excellent if accompanied by intellectual and imaginary vision1 than if accompanied by only one of them4 ,now the ,blessed ,virgin perceived not only the bodily vision1 but also the intellectual illumination4 ,wherefore this was a more excellent vision4 ,yet it would have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel himself in his substance by her intellectual vision4 ,but it was incompatible with her state of wayfarer that she should see an angel in his essence4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the imagination is indeed a higher power than the exterior sense3 but because the senses are the principle of human knowledge1 the greatest certainty is in them1 for the principles of knowledge must needs always be most certain4 ,consequently ,joseph1 to whom the angel appeared in his sleep1 did not have so excellent a vision as the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3aa3 ,we are disturbed1 and lose our presence of mind1 when we are confronted by the presence of a superior power4 ,and this happens not only in bodily1 but also in imaginary vision4 ,wherefore it is written 7,gen4 #ae3ab7 that when the sun was setting1 a deep sleep fell upon ,abram1 and a great and darksome horror seized upon him4 ,but by being thus disturbed man is not harmed to such an extent that therefore he ought to forego the vision of an angel4 ,first because from the very fact that man is raised above himself1 in which matter his dignity is concerned1 his inferior powers are weakened2 and from this results the aforesaid disturbance3 thus1 also1 when the natural heat is drawn within a body1 the exterior parts tremble4 ,secondly1 because1 as ,origen says 7,hom4 iv in ,luc473 ,the angel who appeared1 knowing hers was a human nature1 first sought to remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man is subject4 ,wherefore both to ,zachary and to ,mary1 as soon as they were disturbed1 he said3 ,fear not4 ,for this reason1 as we read in the life of ,anthony1 it is difficult to discern good from evil spirits4 ,for if joy succeed fear1 we should know that the help is from the ,lord3 because security of soul is a sign of present majesty4 ,but if the fear with which we are stricken persevere1 it is an enemy that we see4 ,moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the ,virgin should be troubled4 ,because1 as ,ambrose says on ,luke #a3bj3 ,it is the part of a virgin to be timid1 to fear the advances of men1 and to shrink from men's addresses4 ,but others say that as the ,blessed ,virgin was accustomed to angelic visions1 she was not troubled at seeing this angel1 but with wonder at hearing what the angel said to her1 for she did not think so highly of herself4 ,wherefore the evangelist does not say that she was troubled at seeing the angel1 but at his saying4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cj1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,annunciation ,took ,place in ,becoming ,order8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,annunciation did not take place in becoming order4 ,for the dignity of the ,mother of ,god results from the child she conceived4 ,but the cause should be made known before the effect4 ,therefore the angel should have announced to the ,virgin the conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity in greeting her4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 proof should be omitted in things which admit of no doubt2 and premised where doubt is possible4 ,but the angel seems first to have announced what the virgin might doubt1 and which1 because of her doubt1 would make her ask3 ,how shall this be done8 and afterwards to have given the proof1 alleging both the instance of ,elizabeth and the omnipotence of ,god4 ,therefore the ,annunciation was made by the angel in unbecoming order4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the greater cannot be adequately proved by the less4 ,but it was a greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman to be with child4 ,therefore the angel's proof was insufficient to demonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old woman4 ,on the contrary1 it is written 7,rom4 #ac3a73 ,those that are of ,god1 are well ordered ,vulg43 ',those that are1 are ordained of ,god'4 ,now the angel was sent by ,god to announce unto the ,virgin1 as is related ,luke #a3bf4 ,therefore the ,annunciation was made by the angel in the most perfect order4 ,i answer that1 ,the ,annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming manner4 ,for the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the ,virgin4 ,first1 to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such moment4 ,this he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted salutation4 ,wherefore ,origen says1 commenting on ,luke 7,hom4 vi71 that if she had known that similar words had been addressed to anyone else1 she1 who had knowledge of the ,law1 would never have been astonished at the seeming strangeness of the salutation4 ,in which salutation he began by asserting her worthiness of the conception1 by saying1 ,full of grace2 then he announced the conception in the words1 ,the ,lord is with thee2 and then foretold the honor which would result to her therefrom1 by saying1 ,blessed art thou among women4 ,secondly1 he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the ,incarnation1 which was to be fulfilled in her4 ,this he did by foretelling the conception and birth1 saying3 ,behold1 thou shalt conceive in thy womb1 etc42 and by declaring the dignity of the child conceived1 saying3 ,he shall be great2 and further1 by making known the mode of conception1 when he said3 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee4 ,thirdly1 he purposed to lead her mind to consent4 ,this he did by the instance of ,elizabeth1 and by the argument from ,divine omnipotence4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than to hear its own excellence4 ,now1 wonder is most effective in drawing the mind's attention4 ,therefore the angel1 desirous of drawing the ,virgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery1 began by praising her4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,ambrose says explicitly on ,luke #a3cd1 that the ,blessed ,virgin did not doubt the angel's words4 ,for he says3 ,mary's answer is more temperate than the words of the priest4 ,she says3 ,how shall this be8 ,he replies3 ,whereby shall ,i know this8 ,he denies that he believes1 since he denies that he knows this4 ,she does not doubt fulfilment when she asks how it shall be done4 ,augustine1 however1 seems to assert that she doubted4 ,for he says 7,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test4 qu4 li73 ,to ,mary1 in doubt about the conception1 the angel declares the possibility thereof4 ,but such a doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief4 ,and so the angel adduces a proof1 not as a cure for unbelief1 but in order to remove her astonishment4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,ambrose says 7,hexaemeron v73 ,for this reason had many barren women borne children1 that the virginal birth might be credible4 ,the conception of the sterile ,elizabeth is therefore adduced1 not as a sufficient argument1 but as a kind of figurative example3 consequently in support of this instance1 the convincing argument is added taken from the ,divine omnipotence4 ,,question #ca ,,of ,,the ,,matter ,,from ,,which ,,the ,,saviour',s ,,body ,,was ,,conceived 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the ,saviour's conception4 ,first1 as to the matter from which ,his body was conceived2 secondly1 as to the author of ,his conception2 thirdly1 as to the manner and order of ,his conception4 ,concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the flesh of ,christ was derived from ,adam8 7#b7 ,whether it was derived from ,david8 7#c7 ,of the genealogy of ,christ which is given in the ,gospels2 7#d7 ,whether it was fitting for ,christ to be born of a woman8 7#e7 ,whether ,his body was formed from the purest blood of the ,virgin8 7#f7 ,whether the flesh of ,christ was in the patriarchs as to something signate8 7#g7 ,whether the flesh of ,christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin8 7#h7 ,whether ,christ paid tithes in the loins of ,abraham8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,flesh of ,christ ,was ,derived from ,adam8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's flesh was not derived from ,adam4 ,for the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3dg73 ,the first man was of the earth1 earthly3 the second man1 from heaven1 heavenly4 ,now1 the first man is ,adam3 and the second man is ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ is not derived from ,adam1 but has an origin distinct from him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the conception of ,christ should have been most miraculous4 ,but it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the slime of the earth1 than from human matter derived from ,adam4 ,it seems therefore unfitting that ,christ should take flesh from ,adam4 ,therefore the body of ,christ should not have been formed from the mass of the human race derived from ,adam1 but of some other matter4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 by one man sin entered into this world1 i4e4 by ,adam1 because in him all nations sinned originally1 as is clear from ,rom4 #e3ab4 ,but if ,christ's body was derived from ,adam1 ,he would have been in ,adam originally when he sinned3 therefore he would have contracted original sin2 which is unbecoming in ,his purity4 ,therefore the body of ,christ was not formed of matter derived from ,adam4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3af73 ,nowhere doth ,he--that is1 the ,son of ,god--take hold of the angels3 but of the seed of ,abraham ,he taketh hold4 ,but the seed of ,abraham was derived from ,adam4 ,therefore ,christ's body was formed of matter derived from ,adam4 ,i answer that1 ,christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption4 ,but human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from ,adam4 ,therefore it was becoming that ,he should assume flesh of matter derived from ,adam1 that the nature itself might be healed by the assumption4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the second man1 i4e4 ,christ1 is said to be of heaven1 not indeed as to the matter from which ,his body was formed1 but either as to the virtue whereby it was formed2 or even as to ,his very ,godhead4 ,but as to matter1 ,christ's body was earthly1 as ,adam's body was4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #bi1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b7 the mystery of ,christ's ,incarnation is miraculous1 not as ordained to strengthen faith1 but as an article of faith4 ,and therefore in the mystery of the ,incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous1 as in those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith1 but what is most becoming to ,divine wisdom1 and most expedient to the salvation of man1 since this is what we seek in all matters of faith4 ,it may also be said that in the mystery of the ,incarnation the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception1 but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth2 inasmuch as a virgin conceived and gave birth to ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 ,christ's body was in ,adam in respect of a bodily substance--that is to say1 that the corporeal matter of ,christ's body was derived from ,adam3 but it was not there by reason of seminal virtue1 because it was not conceived from the seed of man4 ,thus it did not contract original sin1 as others who are descended from ,adam by man's seed4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,took ,flesh of the ,seed of ,david8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not take flesh of the seed of ,david4 ,for ,matthew1 in tracing the genealogy of ,christ1 brings it down to ,joseph4 ,but ,joseph was not ,christ's father1 as shown above 7,q4 #bh1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a1 #b74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ was not descended from ,david4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,aaron was of the tribe of ,levi1 as related ,ex4 #f4 ,now ,mary the ,mother of ,christ is called the cousin of ,elizabeth1 who was a daughter of ,aaron1 as is clear from ,luke #a3e1 #cf4 ,therefore1 since ,david was of the tribe of ,juda1 as is shown ,matt4 #a1 it seems that ,christ was not descended from ,david4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written of ,jechonias 7,jer4 #bb3cj73 ,write this man barren 4 4 4 for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of ,david4 ,whereas of ,christ it is written 7,isa4 #i3g73 ,he shall sit upon the throne of ,david4 ,therefore ,christ was not of the seed of ,jechonias3 nor1 consequently1 of the family of ,david1 since ,matthew traces the genealogy from ,david through ,jechonias4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #a3c73 ,who was made to him of the seed of ,david according to the flesh4 ,i answer that1 ,christ is said to have been the son especially of two of the patriarchs1 ,abraham and ,david1 as is clear from ,matt4 #a3a4 ,there are many reasons for this4 ,first to these especially was the promise made concerning ,christ4 ,for it was said to ,abraham 7,gen4 #bb3ah73 ,in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed3 which words the ,apostle expounds of ,christ 7,gal4 #c3af73 ,to ,abraham were the promises made and to his seed4 ,he saith not1 ',and to his seeds' as of many2 but as of one1 ',and to thy seed1' which is ,christ4 ,and to ,david it was said 7,ps4 #aca3aa73 ,of the fruit of thy womb ,i will set upon thy throne4 ,wherefore the ,jewish people1 receiving ,him with kingly honor1 said 7,matt4 #ba3i73 ,hosanna to the ,son of ,david4 ,a second reason is because ,christ was to be king1 prophet1 and priest4 ,now ,abraham was a priest2 which is clear from the ,lord saying unto him 7,gen4 #ae3i73 ,take thee ,vulg43 ',me' a cow of three years old1 etc4 ,he was also a prophet1 according to ,gen4 #bj3g3 ,he is a prophet2 and he shall pray for thee4 ,lastly ,david was both king and prophet4 ,a third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in ,abraham3 while in ,david ,god's election was most clearly made manifest1 according to #a ,kings #ac3ad3 ,the ,lord hath sought ,him a man according to ,his own heart4 ,and consequently ,christ is called in a most special way the ,son of both1 in order to show that ,he came for the salvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the ,gentiles4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,faustus the ,manichean argued thus1 in the desire to prove that ,christ is not the ,son of ,david1 because ,he was not conceived of ,joseph1 in whom ,matthew's genealogy terminates4 ,augustine answered this argument thus 7,contra ,faust4 xxii73 ,since the same evangelist affirms that ,joseph was ,mary's husband and that ,christ's mother was a virgin1 and that ,christ was of the seed of ,abraham1 what must we believe1 but that ,mary was not a stranger to the family of ,david3 and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of ,joseph1 by reason of the close alliance of their hearts1 although not mingled in the flesh2 and that the genealogy is traced down to ,joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband8 ,so therefore we believe that ,mary was also of the family of ,david3 because we believe the ,scriptures1 which assert both that ,christ was of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 and that ,mary was ,his ,mother1 not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity4 ,for as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a3ah3 ,joseph and ,mary were of the same tribe3 wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman4 ,hence it was that they were enrolled together at ,bethlehem1 as being descended from the same stock4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,gregory of ,nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by ,god's will1 that the royal family was united to the priestly race1 so that ,christ1 who is both king and priest1 should be born of both according to the flesh4 ,wherefore ,aaron1 who was the first priest according to the ,law1 married a wife of the tribe of ,juda1 ,elizabeth1 daughter of ,aminadab4 ,it is therefore possible that ,elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of ,david1 through whom the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary1 who was of the family of ,david1 would be a cousin of ,elizabeth4 ,or conversely1 and with greater likelihood1 that the ,blessed ,mary's father1 who was of the family of ,david1 married a wife of the family of ,aaron4 ,again1 it may be said with ,augustine 7,contra ,faust4 xxii7 that if ,joachim1 ,mary's father1 was of the family of ,aaron 7as the heretic ,faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings71 then we must believe that ,joachim's mother1 or else his wife1 was of the family of ,david1 so long as we say that ,mary was in some way descended from ,david4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,ambrose says on ,luke #c3be1 this prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of ,jechonias4 ,and so ,christ is of his seed4 ,neither is the fact that ,christ reigned contrary to prophecy1 for ,he did not reign with worldly honor2 since ,he declared3 ,my kingdom is not of this world4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,genealogy ,is ,suitably ,traced by the ,evangelists8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's genealogy is not suitably traced by the ,evangelists4 ,for it is written 7,isa4 #ec3h73 ,who shall declare ,his generation8 ,therefore ,christ's genealogy should not have been set down4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one man cannot possibly have two fathers4 ,but ,matthew says that ,jacob begot ,joseph1 the husband of ,mary3 whereas ,luke says that ,joseph was the son of ,heli4 ,therefore they contradict one another4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there seem to be divergencies between them on several points4 ,for ,matthew1 at the commencement of his book1 beginning from ,abraham and coming down to ,joseph1 enumerates forty-two generations4 ,whereas ,luke sets down ,christ's genealogy after ,his ,baptism1 and beginning from ,christ traces the series of generations back to ,god1 counting in all seventy-seven generations1 the first and last included4 ,it seems therefore that their accounts of ,christ's genealogy do not agree4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 we read 7#d ,kings #h3bd7 that ,joram begot ,ochozias1 who was succeeded by his son ,joas3 who was succeeded by his son ,amasius3 after whom reigned his son ,azarias1 called ,ozias2 who was succeeded by his son ,joathan4 ,but ,matthew says that ,joram begot ,ozias4 ,therefore it seems that his account of ,christ's genealogy is unsuitable1 since he omits three kings in the middle thereof4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 all those who are mentioned in ,christ's genealogy had both a father and a mother1 and many of them had brothers also4 ,now in ,christ's genealogy ,matthew mentions only three mothers--namely1 ,thamar1 ,ruth1 and the wife of ,urias4 ,he also mentions the brothers of ,judas and ,jechonias1 and also ,phares and ,zara4 ,but ,luke mentions none of these4 ,therefore the evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of ,christ in an unsuitable manner4 ,on the contrary1 ,the authority of ,scripture suffices4 ,i answer that1 ,as is written 7#b ,tim4 #c3af71 ,all ,holy ,scripture is inspired of ,god ,vulg43 ',all scripture inspired of ,god is profitable'1 etc4 ,now what is done by ,god is done in perfect order1 according to ,rom4 #ac3a3 ,those that are of ,god are ordained ,vulg43 ',those that are1 are ordained of ,god'4 ,therefore ,christ's genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a1 ,isaias speaks of the generation of ,christ's ,godhead4 ,whereas ,matthew relates the generation of ,christ in ,his humanity2 not indeed by explaining the manner of the ,incarnation1 which is also unspeakable2 but by enumerating ,christ's forefathers from whom ,he was descended according to the flesh4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by ,julian the ,apostate2 for some1 as ,gregory of ,nazianzum1 say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same1 but under different names1 as though they each had two4 ,but this will not stand3 because ,matthew mentions one of ,david's sons--namely1 ,solomon2 whereas ,luke mentions another--namely1 ,nathan1 who according to the history of the kings 7#b ,kings #e3ad7 were clearly brothers4 ,wherefore others said that ,matthew gave the true genealogy of ,christ3 while ,luke gave the supposititious genealogy2 hence he began3 ,being 7as it was supposed7 the son of ,joseph4 ,for among the ,jews there were some who believed that1 on account of the crimes of the kings of ,juda1 ,christ would be born of the family of ,david1 not through the kings1 but through some other line of private individuals4 ,others again have supposed that ,matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh3 whereas ,luke gave these according to the spirit1 that is1 righteous men1 who are called 7,christ's7 forefathers by likeness of virtue4 ,but an answer is given in the ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test4 99,part i1 qu4 lvi2 part #b1 qu4 vi to the effect that we are not to understand that ,joseph is said by ,luke to be the son of ,heli3 but that at the time of ,christ1 ,heli and ,joseph were differently descended from ,david4 ,hence ,christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of ,joseph1 and also to have been the son of ,heli as though 7the ,evangelist7 were to say that ,christ1 from the fact that ,he was the son of ,joseph1 could be called the son of ,heli and of all those who were descended from ,david2 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #i3e73 ,of whom 7viz4 the ,jews7 is ,christ according to the flesh4 ,augustine again gives three solutions 7,de ,qq4 ,evang4 ii71 saying3 ,there are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was guided4 ,for either one evangelist mentions ,joseph's father of whom he was begotten2 whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers2 or one was ,joseph's natural father3 the other is father by adoption4 ,or1 according to the ,jewish custom1 one of those having died without children1 a near relation of his married his wife1 the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former3 which is a kind of legal adoption1 as ,augustine himself says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii1 ,cf4 ,retract4 ii74 ,this last motive is the truest3 ,jerome also gives it commenting on ,matt4 #a3af2 and ,eusebius of ,caesarea in his ,church history 7,i1 vii71 says that it is given by ,africanus the historian4 ,for these writers say that ,mathan and ,melchi1 at different times1 each begot a son of one and the same wife1 named ,estha4 ,for ,mathan1 who traced his descent through ,solomon1 had married her first1 and died1 leaving one son1 whose name was ,jacob3 and after his death1 as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry1 ,melchi1 who traced his descent through ,mathan1 being of the same tribe though not of the same family as ,mathan1 married his widow1 who bore him a son1 called ,heli2 so that ,jacob and ,heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers4 ,now one of these1 ,jacob1 on his brother ,heli dying without issue1 married the latter's widow1 according to the prescription of the law1 of whom he had a son1 ,joseph1 who by nature was his own son1 but by law was accounted the son of ,heli4 ,wherefore ,matthew says ,jacob begot ,joseph3 whereas ,luke1 who was giving the legal genealogy1 speaks of no one as begetting4 ,and although ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 says that the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary was connected with ,joseph in as far as ,heli was accounted as his father1 for he says that she was descended from ,melchi3 yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended from ,solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by ,matthew1 who is said to have set down ,christ's genealogy according to the flesh2 and all the more since ,ambrose states that ,christ was of the seed of ,jechonias4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to ,augustine 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii7 ,matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of ,christ2 ,luke the priestly personality3 so that in ,matthew's genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our ,lord ,jesus ,christ3 inasmuch as by his carnal origin ,he assumed 'the likeness of sinful flesh4' ,but in ,luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified1 which is effected by ,christ's sacrifice4 ,for which reason ,matthew traces the generations downwards1 ,luke upwards4 ,for the same reason too ,matthew descends from ,david through ,solomon1 in whose mother ,david sinned2 whereas ,luke ascends to ,david through ,nathan1 through whose namesake1 the prophet1 ,god expiated his sin4 ,and hence it is also that1 because ,matthew wished to signify that ,christ had condescended to our mortal nature1 he set down the genealogy of ,christ at the very outset of his ,gospel1 beginning with ,abraham and descending to ,joseph and the birth of ,christ ,himself4 ,luke1 on the contrary1 sets forth ,christ's genealogy not at the outset1 but after ,christ's ,baptism1 and not in the descending but in the ascending order3 as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins1 to which ,john bore witness1 saying3 ',behold ,him who taketh away the sin of the world4' ,and in the ascending order1 he passes ,abraham and continues up to ,god1 to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating4 ,with reason too he follows the origin of adoption2 because by adoption we become children of ,god3 whereas by carnal generation the ,son of ,god became the ,son of ,man4 ,moreover he shows sufficiently that he does not say that ,joseph was the son of ,heli as though begotten by him1 but because he was adopted by him1 since he says that ,adam was the son of ,god1 inasmuch as he was created by ,god4 ,again1 the number forty pertains to the time of our present life3 because of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal life under the rule of ,christ4 ,and forty is the product of four multiplied by ten3 while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four4 ,the number ten may also refer to the decalogue2 and the number four to the present life2 or again to the four ,gospels1 according to which ,christ reigns in us4 ,and thus ,matthew1 putting forward the royal personality of ,christ1 enumerates forty persons not counting ,him 7cf4 ,augustine1 ,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii74 ,but this is to be taken on the supposition that it be the same ,jechonias at the end of the second1 and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen1 as ,augustine understands it4 ,according to him this was done in order to signify that under ,jechonias there was a certain defection to strange nations during the ,babylonian captivity2 which also foreshadowed the fact that ,christ would pass from the ,jews to the ,gentiles4 ,on the other hand1 ,jerome 7on ,matt4 #a3ab-ae7 says that there were two ,joachims--that is1 ,jechonias1 father and son3 both of whom are mentioned in ,christ's genealogy1 so as to make clear the distinction of the generations1 which the evangelist divides into three series of fourteen2 which amounts in all to forty-two persons4 ,which number may also be applied to the ,holy ,church3 for it is the product of six1 which signifies the labor of the present life1 and seven1 which signifies the rest of the life to come3 for six times seven are forty-two4 ,the number fourteen1 which is the sum of ten and four1 can also be given the same signification as that given to the number forty1 which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication4 ,but the number used by ,luke in ,christ's genealogy signifies the generality of sins4 ,for the number ten is shown in the ten precepts of the ,law to be the number of righteousness4 ,now1 to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the ,law4 ,and eleven is the number beyond ten4 ,and seven signifies universality3 because universal time is involved in seven days4 ,now seven times eleven are seventy-seven3 so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken away by ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a3h1 #aa3 ,because ,joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked ,jezabel1 therefore his memory is omitted down to the third generation1 lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the ,nativity4 ,hence as ,chrysostom 99,cf4 ,opus ,imperf4 in ,matth4 ,hom4 i1 falsely ascribed to ,chrysostom says3 ,just as great was the blessing conferred on ,jehu1 who wrought vengeance on the house of ,achab and ,jezabel1 so also great was the curse on the house of ,joram1 through the wicked daughter of ,achab and ,jezabel1 so that until the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of kings1 according to ,ex4 #bj3e3 ,i shall visit ,vulg43 ',visiting' the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations4 ,it must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in ,christ's genealogy3 but their impiety was not continuous4 ,for1 as it is stated in the book ,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test4 qu4 lxxxv3 ,solomon through his father's merits is included in the series of kings2 and ,roboam 4 4 4 through the merits of ,asa1 who was son of his 7,roboam's7 son1 ,abiam4 ,but the impiety of those three 99i4e4 ,ochozias1 ,joas1 and ,amasias1 of whom ,st4 ,augustine asks in this question lxxxv1 why they were omitted by ,st4 ,matthew was continuous4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #a3c3 ,none of the holy women are mentioned in the ,saviour's genealogy1 but only those whom ,scripture censures1 so that ,he who came for the sake of sinners1 by being born of sinners1 might blot out all sin4 ,thus ,thamar is mentioned1 who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law2 ,rahab who was a whore2 ,ruth who was a foreigner2 and ,bethsabee1 the wife of ,urias1 who was an adulteress4 ,the last1 however1 is not mentioned by name1 but is designated through her husband2 both on account of his sin1 for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder2 and further in order that1 by mentioning the husband by name1 ,david's sin might be recalled4 ,and because ,luke purposes to delineate ,christ as the expiator of our sins1 he makes no mention of these women4 ,but he does mention ,juda's brethren1 in order to show that they belong to ,god's people3 whereas ,ismael1 the brother of ,isaac1 and ,esau1 ,jacob's brother1 were cut off from ,god's people1 and for this reason are not mentioned in ,christ's genealogy4 ,another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of birth3 for many of ,juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens1 and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes4 ,phares and ,zara are mentioned together1 because1 as ,ambrose says on ,luke #c3bc1 they are the type of the twofold life of man3 one1 according to the ,law1 signified by ,zara2 the other by ,faith1 of which ,phares is the type4 ,the brethren of ,jechonias are included1 because they all reigned at various times3 which was not the case with other kings3 or1 again1 because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,matter of ,christ's ,body ,should ,have ,been ,taken from a ,woman8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the matter of ,christ's body should not have been taken from a woman4 ,for the male sex is more noble than the female4 ,but it was most suitable that ,christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man3 just as ,eve was formed from the rib of a man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her womb4 ,but it ill becomes ,god1 ,who fills heaven and earth1 as is written ,jer4 #bc3bd1 to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should not have been conceived of a woman4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness3 as it is written 7,job #be3d73 ,can man be justified compared with ,god8 ,or he that is born of a woman appear clean8 ,but it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in ,christ3 for ,he is the ,wisdom of ,god1 of whom it is written 7,wis4 #g3be7 that no defiled thing cometh into her4 ,therefore it does not seem right that ,he should have taken flesh from a woman4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,gal4 #d3d73 ,god sent ,his ,son1 made of a woman4 ,i answer that1 ,although the ,son of ,god could have taken flesh from whatever matter ,he willed1 it was nevertheless most becoming that ,he should take flesh from a woman4 ,first because in this way the entire human nature was ennobled4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #aa73 ,it was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both sexes4 ,consequently1 since it behooved a man1 being of the nobler sex1 to assume1 it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman4 ,secondly1 because thus the truth of the ,incarnation is made evident4 ,wherefore ,ambrose says 7,de ,incarn4 vi73 ,thou shalt find in ,christ many things both natural1 and supernatural4 ,in accordance with nature ,he was within the womb1 viz4 of a woman's body3 but it was above nature that a virgin should conceive and give birth3 that thou mightest believe that ,he was ,god1 who was renewing nature2 and that ,he was man who1 according to nature1 was being born of a man4 ,and ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volus4 cxxxvii73 ,if ,almighty ,god had created a man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb1 and had suddenly produced him to sight 4 4 4 would ,he not have strengthened an erroneous opinion1 and made it impossible for us to believe that ,he had become a true man8 ,and whilst ,he is doing all things wondrously1 would ,he have taken away that which ,he accomplished in mercy8 ,but now1 ,he1 the mediator between ,god and man1 has so shown ,himself1 that1 uniting both natures in the unity of one ,person1 ,he has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things1 and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary4 ,thirdly1 because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished in every variety of manner4 ,for the first man was made from the slime of the earth1 without the concurrence of man or woman3 ,eve was made of man but not of woman3 and other men are made from both man and woman4 ,so that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to ,christ1 that ,he should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the male sex is more noble than the female1 and for this reason ,he took human nature in the male sex4 ,but lest the female sex should be despised1 it was fitting that ,he should take flesh of a woman4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xi73 ,men1 despise not yourselves3 the ,son of ,god became a man3 despise not yourselves1 women2 the ,son of ,god was born of a woman4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,augustine thus 7,contra ,faust4 xxiii7 replies to ,faustus1 who urged this objection2 ,by no means1 says he1 does the ,catholic ,faith1 which believes that ,christ the ,son of ,god was born of a virgin1 according to the flesh1 suppose that the same ,son of ,god was so shut up in ,his ,mother's womb1 as to cease to be elsewhere1 as though ,he no longer continued to govern heaven and earth1 and as though ,he had withdrawn ,himself from the ,father4 ,but you1 ,manicheans1 being of a mind that admits of nought but material images1 are utterly unable to grasp these things4 ,for1 as he again says 7,ep4 ad ,volus4 cxxxvii71 it belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible bodies1 none of which can be entire everywhere1 because they must of necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places 4 4 4 ,far otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body3 how much more the nature of ,god1 the ,creator of soul and body6 4 4 4 ,he is able to be entire everywhere1 and to be contained in no place4 ,he is able to come without moving from the place where ,he was2 and to go without leaving the spot whence ,he came4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman1 as far as this is the work of ,god3 wherefore it is written 7,acts #aj3ae73 ,that which ,god hath cleansed do not thou call common1 i4e4 unclean4 ,there is1 however1 a certain uncleanness therein1 resulting from sin1 as far as lustful desire accompanies conception by sexual union4 ,but this was not the case with ,christ1 as shown above 7,q4 #bh1 ,a4 #a74 ,but if there were any uncleanness therein1 the ,word of ,god would not have been sullied thereby1 for ,he is utterly unchangeable4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,contra ,quinque ,haereses v73 ,god saith1 the ,creator of man3 ,what is it that troubles thee in ,my ,birth8 ,i was not conceived by lustful desire4 ,i made ,myself a mother of whom to be born4 ,if the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain1 and yet not be defiled3 much more can the ,splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever ,it shines upon1 but ,itself cannot be sullied4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,flesh of ,christ ,was ,conceived of the ,virgin's ,purest ,blood8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the flesh of ,christ was not conceived of the ,virgin's purest blood3 ,for it is said in the collect 7,feast of the ,annunciation7 that ,god willed that ,his ,word should take flesh from a ,virgin4 ,but flesh differs from blood4 ,therefore ,christ's body was not taken from the ,virgin's blood4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as the woman was miraculously formed from the man1 so ,christ's body was formed miraculously from the ,virgin4 ,but the woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood1 but rather from his flesh and bones1 according to ,gen4 #b3bc3 ,this now is bone of my bones1 and flesh of my flesh4 ,it seems therefore that neither should ,christ's body have been formed from the ,virgin's blood1 but from her flesh and bones4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's body was of the same species as other men's bodies4 ,but other men's bodies are not formed from the purest blood but from the semen and the menstrual blood4 ,therefore it seems that neither was ,christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the ,virgin4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that the ,son of ,god1 from the ,virgin's purest blood1 formed ,himself flesh1 animated with a rational soul4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #d71 in ,christ's conception ,his being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature1 but that ,he was born of a virgin was above the laws of nature4 ,now1 such is the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female supplies the matter1 while the male is the active principle of generation2 as the ,philosopher proves 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i74 ,but a woman who conceives of a man is not a virgin4 ,and consequently it belongs to the supernatural mode of ,christ's generation1 that the active principle of generation was the supernatural power of ,god3 but it belongs to the natural mode of ,his generation1 that the matter from which ,his body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring4 ,now1 this matter1 according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,gener4 ,animal471 is the woman's blood1 not any of her blood1 but brought to a more perfect stage of secretion by the mother's generative power1 so as to be apt for conception4 ,and therefore of such matter was ,christ's body conceived4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since the ,blessed ,virgin was of the same nature as other women1 it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same nature as theirs4 ,now1 flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the body1 the integrity of which results therefrom3 and consequently they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or diminished4 ,but as ,christ came to heal what was corrupt1 it was not fitting that ,he should bring corruption or diminution to the integrity of ,his ,mother4 ,therefore it was becoming that ,christ's body should be formed not from the flesh or bones of the ,virgin1 but from her blood1 which as yet is not actually a part1 but is potentially the whole1 as stated in ,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i4 ,hence ,he is said to have taken flesh from the ,virgin1 not that the matter from which ,his body was formed was actual flesh1 but blood1 which is flesh potentially4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ib1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b71 ,adam1 through being established as a kind of principle of human nature1 had in his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone1 which belonged to him1 not as an integral part of his personality1 but in regard to his state as a principle of human nature4 ,and from this was the woman formed1 without detriment to the man4 ,but in the ,virgin's body there was nothing of this sort1 from which ,christ's body could be formed without detriment to ,his ,mother's body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,woman's semen is not apt for generation1 but is something imperfect in the seminal order1 which1 on account of the imperfection of the female power1 it has not been possible to bring to complete seminal perfection4 ,consequently this semen is not the necessary matter of conception2 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i73 wherefore there was none such in ,christ's conception3 all the more since1 though it is imperfect in the seminal order1 a certain concupiscence accompanies its emission1 as also that of the male semen3 whereas in that virginal conception there could be no concupiscence4 ,wherefore ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that ,christ's body was not conceived seminally4 ,but the menstrual blood1 the flow of which is subject to monthly periods1 has a certain natural impurity of corruption3 like other superfluities1 which nature does not heed1 and therefore expels4 ,of such menstrual blood infected with corruption and repudiated by nature1 the conception is not formed2 but from a certain secretion of the pure blood which by a process of elimination is prepared for conception1 being1 as it were1 more pure and more perfect than the rest of the blood4 ,nevertheless1 it is tainted with the impurity of lust in the conception of other men3 inasmuch as by sexual intercourse this blood is drawn to a place apt for conception4 ,this1 however1 did not take place in ,christ's conception3 because this blood was brought together in the ,virgin's womb and fashioned into a child by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore is ,christ's body said to be formed of the most chaste and purest blood of the ,virgin4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,body ,was in ,adam and the ,other ,patriarchs1 ,as to ,something ,signate8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body was in ,adam and the patriarchs as to something signate4 ,for ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x7 that the flesh of ,christ was in ,adam and ,abraham by way of a bodily substance4 ,but bodily substance is something signate4 ,therefore ,christ's flesh was in ,adam1 ,abraham1 and the other patriarchs1 according to something signate4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is said 7,rom4 #a3c7 that ,christ was made 4 4 4 of the seed of ,david according to the flesh4 ,but the seed of ,david was something signate in him4 ,therefore ,christ was in ,david1 according to something signate1 and for the same reason in the other patriarchs4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the human race is ,christ's kindred1 inasmuch as ,he took flesh therefrom4 ,but if that flesh were not something signate in ,adam1 the human race1 which is descended from ,adam1 would seem to have no kindred with ,christ3 but rather with those other things from which the matter of ,his flesh was taken4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's flesh was in ,adam and the other patriarchs according to something signate4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x7 that in whatever way ,christ was in ,adam and ,abraham1 other men were there also2 but not conversely4 ,but other men were not in ,adam and ,abraham by way of some signate matter1 but only according to origin1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aai1 ,a4 #a1 ,a4 #b1 ad #d74 ,therefore neither was ,christ in ,adam and ,abraham according to something signate2 and1 for the same reason1 neither was ,he in the other patriarchs4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #e1 ad #a71 the matter of ,christ's body was not the flesh and bones of the ,blessed ,virgin1 nor anything that was actually a part of her body1 but her blood which was her flesh potentially4 ,now1 whatever was in the ,blessed ,virgin1 as received from her parents1 was actually a part of her body4 ,consequently that which the ,blessed ,virgin received from her parents was not the matter of ,christ's body4 ,therefore we must say that ,christ's body was not in ,adam and the other patriarchs according to something signate1 in the sense that some part of ,adam's or of anyone else's body could be singled out and designated as the very matter from which ,christ's body was to be formed3 but it was there according to origin1 just as was the flesh of other men4 ,for ,christ's body is related to ,adam and the other patriarchs through the medium of ,his ,mother's body4 ,consequently ,christ's body was in the patriarchs1 in no other way than was ,his ,mother's body1 which was not in the patriarchs according to signate matter3 as neither were the bodies of other men1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aai1 ,a4 #a1 ,a4 #b1 ad #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the expression ,christ was in ,adam according to bodily substance1 does not mean that ,christ's body was a bodily substance in ,adam3 but that the bodily substance of ,christ's body1 i4e4 the matter which ,he took from the ,virgin1 was in ,adam as in its active principle1 but not as in its material principle3 in other words1 by the generative power of ,adam and his descendants down to the ,blessed ,virgin1 this matter was prepared for ,christ's conception4 ,but this matter was not fashioned into ,christ's body by the seminal power derived from ,adam4 ,therefore ,christ is said to have been in ,adam by way of origin1 according to bodily substance3 but not according to seminal virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although ,christ's body was not in ,adam and the other patriarchs1 according to seminal virtue1 yet the ,blessed ,virgin's body was thus in them1 through her being conceived from the seed of a man4 ,for this reason1 through the medium of the ,blessed ,virgin1 ,christ is said to be of the seed of ,david1 according to the flesh1 by way of origin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ and the human race are kindred1 through the likeness of species4 ,now1 specific likeness results not from remote but from proximate matter1 and from the active principle which begets its like in species4 ,thus1 then1 the kinship of ,christ and the human race is sufficiently preserved by ,his body being formed from the ,virgin's blood1 derived in its origin from ,adam and the other patriarchs4 ,nor is this kinship affected by the matter whence this blood is taken1 as neither is it in the generation of other men1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aai1 ,a4 #b1 ad #c74 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,christ's ,flesh in the ,patriarchs ,was ,infected by ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's flesh was not infected by sin in the patriarchs4 ,for it is written 7,wis4 #g3be7 that no defiled thing cometh into ,divine ,wisdom4 ,but ,christ is the ,wisdom of ,god according to #a ,cor4 #a3bd4 ,therefore ,christ's flesh was never defiled by sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that ,christ assumed the first-fruits of our nature4 ,but in the primitive state human flesh was not infected by sin4 ,therefore ,christ's flesh was not infected either in ,adam or in the other patriarchs4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x7 that human nature ever had1 together with the wound1 the balm with which to heal it4 ,but that which is infected cannot heal a wound2 rather does it need to be healed itself4 ,therefore in human nature there was ever something preserved from infection1 from which afterwards ,christ's body was formed4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ's body is not related to ,adam and the other patriarchs1 save through the medium of the ,blessed ,virgin's body1 of whom ,he took flesh4 ,but the body of the ,blessed ,virgin was wholly conceived in original sin1 as stated above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a71 and thus1 as far as it was in the patriarchs1 it was subject to sin4 ,therefore the flesh of ,christ1 as far as it was in the patriarchs1 was subject to sin4 ,i answer that1 ,when we say that ,christ or ,his flesh was in ,adam and the other patriarchs1 we compare ,him1 or ,his flesh1 to ,adam and the other patriarchs4 ,now1 it is manifest that the condition of the patriarchs differed from that of ,christ3 for the patriarchs were subject to sin1 whereas ,christ was absolutely free from sin4 ,consequently a twofold error may occur on this point4 ,first1 by attributing to ,christ1 or to ,his flesh1 that condition which was in the patriarchs2 by saying1 for instance1 that ,christ sinned in ,adam1 since after some fashion ,he was in him4 ,but this is false2 because ,christ was not in ,adam in such a way that ,adam's sin belonged to ,christ3 forasmuch as ,he is not descended from him according to the law of concupiscence1 or according to seminal virtue2 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c1 ,a4 #f1 ad #a2 ,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b74 ,secondly1 error may occur by attributing the condition of ,christ or of ,his flesh to that which was actually in the patriarchs3 by saying1 for instance1 that1 because ,christ's flesh1 as existing in ,christ1 was not subject to sin1 therefore in ,adam also and in the patriarchs there was some part of his body that was not subject to sin1 and from which afterwards ,christ's body was formed2 as some indeed held4 ,for this is quite impossible4 ,first1 because ,christ's flesh was not in ,adam and in the other patriarchs1 according to something signate1 distinguishable from the rest of his flesh1 as pure from impure2 as already stated 7,a4 #f74 ,secondly1 because since human flesh is infected by sin1 through being conceived in lust1 just as the entire flesh of a man is conceived through lust1 so also is it entirely defiled by sin4 ,consequently we must say that the entire flesh of the patriarchs was subjected to sin1 nor was there anything in them that was free from sin1 and from which afterwards ,christ's body could be formed4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ did not assume the flesh of the human race subject to sin1 but cleansed from all infection of sin4 ,thus it is that no defiled thing cometh into the ,wisdom of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our nature1 as to the likeness of condition2 forasmuch as ,he assumed flesh not infected by sin1 like unto the flesh of man before sin4 ,but this is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that primitive purity1 as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved in its freedom from sin until the formation of ,christ's body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,before ,christ1 there was actually in human nature a wound1 i4e4 the infection of original sin4 ,but the balm to heal the wound was not there actually1 but only by a certain virtue of origin1 forasmuch as from those patriarchs the flesh of ,christ was to be propagated4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ca1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,christ ,paid ,tithes in ,abraham's ,loins8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ paid tithes in ,abraham's loins4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3f-i7 that ,levi1 the great-grandson of ,abraham1 paid tithes in ,abraham1 because1 when the latter paid tithes to ,melchisedech1 he was yet in his loins4 ,in like manner ,christ was in ,abraham's loins when the latter paid tithes4 ,therefore ,christ ,himself also paid tithes in ,abraham4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is of the seed of ,abraham according to the flesh which ,he received from ,his ,mother4 ,but ,his ,mother paid tithes in ,abraham4 ,therefore for a like reason did ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in ,abraham tithe was levied on that which needed healing1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x74 ,but all flesh subject to sin needed healing4 ,since therefore ,christ's flesh was the subject of sin1 as stated above 7,a4 #g71 it seems that ,christ's flesh paid tithes in ,abraham4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 this does not seem to be at all derogatory to ,christ's dignity4 ,for the fact that the father of a bishop pays tithes to a priest does not hinder his son1 the bishop1 from being of higher rank than an ordinary priest4 ,consequently1 although we may say that ,christ paid tithes when ,abraham paid them to ,melchisedech1 it does not follow that ,christ was not greater than ,melchisedech4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x7 that ,christ did not pay tithes there1 i4e4 in ,abraham1 for ,his flesh derived from him1 not the heat of the wound1 but the matter of the antidote4 ,i answer that1 ,it behooves us to say that the sense of the passage quoted from the ,apostle is that ,christ did not pay tithes in ,abraham4 ,for the ,apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of ,melchisedech is greater than the ,levitical priesthood1 from the fact that ,abraham paid tithes to ,melchisedech1 while ,levi1 from whom the legal priesthood was derived1 was yet in his loins4 ,now1 if ,christ had also paid tithes in ,abraham1 ,his priesthood would not have been according to the order of ,melchisedech1 but of a lower order4 ,consequently we must say that ,christ did not pay tithes in ,abraham's loins1 as ,levi did4 ,for since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself1 and surrenders the tenth to another1 inasmuch as the number ten is the sign of perfection1 as being1 in a sort1 the terminus of all numbers which mount from one to ten1 it follows that he who pays a tithe bears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another4 ,now1 to sin is due the imperfection of the human race1 which needs to be perfected by ,him who cleanses from sin4 ,but to heal from sin belongs to ,christ alone1 for ,he is the ,lamb that taketh away the sin of the world 7,john #a3bi71 whose figure was ,melchisedech1 as the ,apostle proves 7,heb4 #g74 ,therefore by giving tithes to ,melchisedech1 ,abraham foreshadowed that he1 as being conceived in sin1 and all who were to be his descendants in contracting original sin1 needed that healing which is through ,christ4 ,and ,isaac1 ,jacob1 and ,levi1 and all the others were in ,abraham in such a way so as to be descended from him1 not only as to bodily substance1 but also as to seminal virtue1 by which original sin is transmitted4 ,consequently1 they all paid tithes in ,abraham1 i4e4 foreshadowed as needing to be healed by ,christ4 ,and ,christ alone was in ,abraham in such a manner as to descend from him1 not by seminal virtue1 but according to bodily substance4 ,therefore ,he was not in ,abraham so as to need to be healed1 but rather as the balm with which the wound was to be healed4 ,therefore ,he did not pay tithes in ,abraham's loins4 ,thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,because the ,blessed ,virgin was conceived in original sin1 she was in ,abraham as needing to be healed4 ,therefore she paid tithes in him1 as descending from him according to seminal virtue4 ,but this is not true of ,christ's body1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin1 according as it was in the patriarchs1 by reason of the condition in which it was in ,his forefathers1 who paid the tithes3 but not by reason of its condition as actually in ,christ1 who did not pay the tithes4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin3 wherefore it was not less in ,abraham than in ,levi4 ,consequently1 since ,abraham paid tithes to ,melchisedech as to one greater than he1 it follows that the priesthood of ,melchisedech1 inasmuch as he was a figure of ,christ1 was greater than that of ,levi4 ,but the priesthood of ,christ does not result from carnal origin1 but from spiritual grace4 ,therefore it is possible that a father pay tithes to a priest1 as the less to the greater1 and yet his son1 if he be a bishop1 is greater than that priest1 not through carnal origin1 but through the spiritual grace which he has received from ,christ4 ,,question #cb ,,of ,,the ,,active ,,principle ,,in ,,christ',s ,,conception 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we shall now consider the active principle in ,christ's conception3 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,holy ,ghost was the active principle of ,christ's conception8 7#b7 ,whether it can be said that ,christ was conceived of the ,holy ,ghost8 7#c7 ,whether it can be said that the ,holy ,ghost is ,christ's father according to the flesh8 7#d7 ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin cooperated actively in ,christ's conception8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cb1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,accomplishment of ,christ's ,conception ,should ,be ,attributed to the ,holy ,ghost8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the accomplishment of ,christ's conception should not be attributed to the ,holy ,ghost1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i71 ,the works of the ,trinity are indivisible1 just as the ,essence of the ,trinity is indivisible4 ,but the accomplishment of ,christ's conception was the work of ,god4 ,therefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the ,holy ,ghost any more than to the ,father or the ,son4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #d3d73 ,when the fulness of time was come1 ,god sent ,his ,son1 made of a woman2 which words ,augustine expounds by saying 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,sent1 in so far as made of a woman4 ,but the sending of the ,son is especially attributed to the ,father1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #h74 ,therefore ,his conception also1 by reason of which ,he was made of a woman1 should be attributed principally to the ,father4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,prov4 #i3a73 ,wisdom hath built herself a house4 ,now1 ,christ is ,himself the ,wisdom of ,god2 according to #a ,cor4 #a3bd3 ,christ the ,power of ,god and the ,wisdom of ,god4 ,and the house of this ,wisdom is ,christ's body1 which is also called ,his temple1 according to ,john #b3ba3 ,but ,he spoke of the temple of ,his body4 ,therefore it seems that the accomplishment of ,christ's conception should be attributed principally to the ,son1 and not1 therefore1 to the ,holy ,ghost4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #a3ce73 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon ,thee4 ,i answer that1 ,the whole ,trinity effected the conception of ,christ's body3 nevertheless1 this is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost1 for three reasons4 ,first1 because this is befitting to the cause of the ,incarnation1 considered on the part of ,god4 ,for the ,holy ,ghost is the love of ,father and ,son1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #cg1 ,a4 #a74 ,now1 that the ,son of ,god took to ,himself flesh from the ,virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of ,god3 wherefore it is said 7,john #c3af73 ,god so loved the world as to give ,his only-begotten ,son4 ,secondly1 this is befitting to the cause of the ,incarnation1 on the part of the nature assumed4 ,because we are thus given to understand that human nature was assumed by the ,son of ,god into the unity of ,person1 not by reason of its merits1 but through grace alone2 which is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost1 according to #a ,cor4 #ab3d3 ,there are diversities of graces1 but the same ,spirit4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xl73 ,the manner in which ,christ was born of the ,holy ,ghost 4 4 4 suggests to us the grace of ,god1 whereby man1 without any merits going before1 in the very beginning of his nature when he began to exist was joined to ,god the ,word1 into so great unity of ,person1 that ,he ,himself should be the ,son of ,god4 ,thirdly1 because this is befitting the term of the ,incarnation4 ,for the term of the ,incarnation was that that man1 who was being conceived1 should be the ,holy one and the ,son of ,god4 ,now1 both of these are attributed to the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for by ,him men are made to be sons of ,god1 according to ,gal4 #d3f3 ,because you are sons1 ,god hath sent the ,spirit of ,his ,son into your ,vulg43 'our' hearts1 crying3 ,abba1 ,father4 ,again1 ,he is the ,spirit of sanctification1 according to ,rom4 #a3d4 ,therefore1 just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the ,holy ,ghost2 so as to be the adopted sons of ,god1 so was ,christ conceived in sanctity by the ,holy ,ghost1 so as to be the natural ,son of ,god4 ,hence1 according to a gloss on ,rom4 #a3d1 the words1 ,who was predestinated the ,son of ,god1 in power1 are explained by what immediately follows3 ,according to the ,spirit of sanctification1 i4e4 through being conceived of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and the ,angel of the ,annunciation himself1 after saying1 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee1 draws the conclusion3 ,therefore also the ,holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the work of the conception is indeed common to the whole ,trinity2 yet in some way it is attributed to each of the ,persons4 ,for to the ,father is attributed authority in regard to the ,person of the ,son1 who by this conception took to ,himself 7human nature74 ,the taking itself 7of human nature7 is attributed to the ,son3 but the formation of the body taken by the ,son is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for the ,holy ,ghost is the ,spirit of the ,son1 according to ,gal4 #d3f3 ,god sent the ,spirit of ,his ,son4 ,for just as the power of the soul which is in the semen1 through the spirit enclosed therein1 fashions the body in the generation of other men1 so the ,power of ,god1 which is the ,son ,himself1 according to #a ,cor4 #a3bd3 ,christ1 the ,power of ,god1 through the ,holy ,ghost formed the body which ,he assumed4 ,this is also shown by the words of the angel3 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee1 as it were1 in order to prepare and fashion the matter of ,christ's body2 and the ,power of the ,most ,high1 i4e4 ,christ1 shall overshadow thee--that is to say1 the incorporeal ,light of the ,godhead shall in thee take the corporeal substance of human nature3 for a shadow is formed by light and body1 as ,gregory says 7,moral4 xviii74 ,the ,most ,high is the ,father1 whose ,power is the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the mission refers to the ,person assuming1 who is sent by the ,father2 but the conception refers to the body assumed1 which is formed by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and therefore1 though mission and conception are in the same subject2 since they differ in our consideration of them1 mission is attributed to the ,father1 but the accomplishment of the conception to the ,holy ,ghost2 whereas the assumption of flesh is attributed to the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 #eb73 ,this may be understood in two ways4 ,for1 first1 ,christ's house is the ,church1 which ,he built with ,his blood4 ,secondly1 ,his body may be called ,his house1 just as it is called ,his temple 4 4 4 and what is done by the ,holy ,ghost is done by the ,son of ,god1 because ,theirs is one ,nature and one ,will4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,should ,be ,said ,that ,christ ,was ,conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that we should not say that ,christ was conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost4 ,because on ,rom4 #aa3cf3 ,for of ,him 7ex ipso7 and by ,him1 and in ,him1 are all things1 the gloss of ,augustine says3 ,notice that he does not say1 'of ,him' 7de ipso71 but 'of ,him' 7ex ipso74 ,for of ,him 7ex ipso71 are heaven and earth1 since ,he made them3 but not of ,him de ipso1 since they are not made of ,his substance4 ,but the ,holy ,ghost did not form ,christ's body of 7de7 ,his own substance4 ,therefore we should not say that ,christ was conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the active principle of 7de7 which something is conceived is as the seed in generation4 ,but the ,holy ,ghost did not take the place of seed in ,christ's conception4 ,for ,jerome says 7,expos4 ,cathol4 ,fidei7 99,written by ,pelagius3 ,we do not say1 as some wicked wretches hold1 that the ,holy ,ghost took the place of seed3 but we say that ,christ's body was wrought1 i4e4 formed1 by the power and might of the ,creator4 ,therefore we should not say that ,christ's body was conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 no one thing is made of two1 except they be in some way mingled4 ,but ,christ's body was formed of 7de7 the ,virgin ,mary4 ,if therefore we say that ,christ was conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost1 it seems that a mingling took place of the ,holy ,ghost with the matter supplied by the ,virgin3 and this is clearly false4 ,therefore we should not say that ,christ was conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #a3ah73 ,before they came together1 she was found with child1 of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,conception is not attributed to ,christ's body alone1 but also to ,christ ,himself by reason of ,his body4 ,now1 in the ,holy ,ghost we may observe a twofold habitude to ,christ4 ,for to the ,son of ,god ,himself1 who is said to have been conceived1 ,he has a habitude of consubstantiality3 while to ,his body ,he has the habitude of efficient cause4 ,and this preposition of 7de7 signifies both habitudes3 thus we say that a certain man is of 7de7 his father4 ,and therefore we can fittingly say that ,christ was conceived of the ,holy ,ghost in such a way that the efficiency of the ,holy ,ghost be referred to the body assumed1 and the consubstantiality to the ,person assuming4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's body1 through not being consubstantial with the ,holy ,ghost1 cannot properly be said to be conceived of 7de7 the ,holy ,ghost1 but rather from 7ex7 the ,holy ,ghost1 as ,ambrose says 7,de ,spir4 ,sanct4 ii473 ,what is from someone is either from his substance or from his power3 from his substance1 as the ,son who is from the ,father2 from his power1 as all things are from ,god1 just as ,mary conceived from the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between ,jerome and certain other ,doctors1 who assert that the ,holy ,ghost took the place of seed in this conception4 ,for ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 i in ,matth4 99,opus ,imperf41 among the supposititious writings73 ,when ,god's ,only-,begotten was about to enter into the ,virgin1 the ,holy ,ghost preceded ,him2 that by the previous entrance of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,christ might be born unto sanctification according to ,his body1 the ,godhead entering instead of the seed4 ,and ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,god's wisdom and power overshadowed her1 like unto a ,divine seed4 ,but these expressions are easily explained4 ,because ,chrysostom and ,damascene compare the ,holy ,ghost1 or also the ,son1 who is the ,power of the ,most ,high1 to seed1 by reason of the active power therein2 while ,jerome denies that the ,holy ,ghost took the place of seed1 considered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xl71 ,christ is said to be conceived or born of the ,holy ,ghost in one sense2 of the ,virgin ,mary in another--of the ,virgin ,mary materially2 of the ,holy ,ghost efficiently4 ,therefore there was no mingling here4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cb1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,holy ,ghost ,should ,be ,called ,christ's ,father in ,respect of ,his ,humanity8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,holy ,ghost should be called ,christ's father in respect of ,his humanity4 ,because1 according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i73 ,the ,father is the active principle in generation1 the ,mother supplies the matter4 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin is called ,christ's ,mother1 by reason of the matter which she supplied in ,his conception4 ,therefore it seems that the ,holy ,ghost can be called ,his father1 through being the active principle in ,his conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the ,holy ,ghost1 so also was ,christ's body fashioned by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but other holy men1 on account of the aforesaid fashioning1 are called the children of the whole ,trinity1 and consequently of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should be called the ,son of the ,holy ,ghost1 forasmuch as ,his body was fashioned by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god is called our ,father by reason of ,his having made us1 according to ,deut4 #cb3f3 ,is not ,he thy ,father1 that hath possessed thee1 and made thee and created thee8 ,but the ,holy ,ghost made ,christ's body1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,therefore the ,holy ,ghost should be called ,christ's ,father in respect of the body fashioned by ,him4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xl73 ,christ was born of the ,holy ,ghost not as a ,son1 and of the ,virgin ,mary as a ,son4 ,i answer that1 ,the words fatherhood1 motherhood1 and sonship1 result from generation2 yet not from any generation1 but from that of living things1 especially animals4 ,for we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it1 except1 perhaps1 metaphorically2 we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect4 ,nevertheless1 the word son is not applied to everything generated in animals1 but only to that which is generated into likeness of the generator4 ,wherefore1 as ,augustine says 7,enchiridion xxxix71 we do not say that a hair which is generated in a man is his son2 nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed2 for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man born like the seed1 but like the man who begot him4 ,and if the likeness be perfect1 the sonship is perfect1 whether in ,god or in man4 ,but if the likeness be imperfect1 the sonship is imperfect4 ,thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to ,god1 both as regards his being created to ,god's image and as regards ,his being created unto the likeness of grace4 ,therefore in both ways man can be called ,his son1 both because he is created to ,his image and because he is likened to ,him by grace4 ,now1 it must be observed that what is said in its perfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect sense3 thus1 because ,socrates is said to be naturally a man1 in the proper sense of man1 never is he called man in the sense in which the portrait of a man is called a man1 although1 perhaps1 he may resemble another man4 ,now1 ,christ is the ,son of ,god in the perfect sense of sonship4 ,wherefore1 although in ,his human nature ,he was created and justified1 ,he ought not to be called the ,son of ,god1 either in respect of ,his being created or of ,his being justified1 but only in respect of ,his eternal generation1 by reason of which ,he is the ,son of the ,father alone4 ,therefore nowise should ,christ be called the ,son of the ,holy ,ghost1 nor even of the whole ,trinity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ was conceived of the ,virgin ,mary1 who supplied the matter of ,his conception unto likeness of species4 ,for this reason ,he is called her ,son4 ,but as man ,he was conceived of the ,holy ,ghost as the active principle of ,his conception1 but not unto likeness of species1 as a man is born of his father4 ,therefore ,christ is not called the ,son of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,men who are fashioned spiritually by the ,holy ,ghost cannot be called sons of ,god in the perfect sense of sonship4 ,and therefore they are called sons of ,god in respect of imperfect sonship1 which is by reason of the likeness of grace1 which flows from the whole ,trinity4 ,but with ,christ it is different1 as stated above4 ,the same reply avails for the ,third ,objection4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cb1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin ,cooperated ,actively in the ,conception of ,christ's ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin cooperated actively in the conception of ,christ's body4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that the ,holy ,ghost came upon the ,virgin1 purifying her1 and bestowing on her the power to receive and to bring forth the ,word of ,god4 ,but she had from nature the passive power of generation1 like any other woman4 ,therefore ,he bestowed on her an active power of generation4 ,and thus she cooperated actively in ,christ's conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 all the powers of the vegetative soul are active1 as the ,commentator says 7,de ,anima ii74 ,but the generative power1 in both man and woman1 belongs to the vegetative soul4 ,therefore1 both in man and woman1 it cooperates actively in the conception of the child4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the conception of a child the woman supplies the matter from which the child's body is naturally formed4 ,but nature is an intrinsic principle of movement4 ,therefore it seems that in the very matter supplied by the ,blessed ,virgin there was an active principle4 ,on the contrary1 ,the active principle in generation is called the seminal virtue4 ,but1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 x71 ,christ's body was taken from the ,virgin1 only as to corporeal matter1 by the ,divine power of conception and formation1 but not by any human seminal virtue4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin did not cooperate actively in1 the conception of ,christ's body4 ,i answer that1 ,some say that the ,blessed ,virgin cooperated actively in ,christ's conception1 both by natural and by a supernatural power4 ,by natural power1 because they hold that in all natural matter there is an active principle2 otherwise they believe that there would be no such thing as natural transformation4 ,but in this they are deceived4 ,because a transformation is said to be natural by reason not only of an active but also of a passive intrinsic principle3 for the ,philosopher says expressly 7,phys4 viii7 that in heavy and light things there is a passive1 and not an active1 principle of natural movement4 ,nor is it possible for matter to be active in its own formation1 since it is not in act4 ,nor1 again1 is it possible for anything to put itself in motion except it be divided into two parts1 one being the mover1 the other being moved3 which happens in animate things only1 as is proved ,phys4 viii4 ,by a supernatural power1 because they say that the mother requires not only to supply the matter1 which is the menstrual blood1 but also the semen1 which1 being mingled with that of the male1 has an active power in generation4 ,and since in the ,blessed ,virgin there was no resolution of semen1 by reason of her inviolate virginity1 they say that the ,holy ,ghost supernaturally bestowed on her an active power in the conception of ,christ's body1 which power other mothers have by reason of the semen resolved4 ,but this cannot stand1 because1 since each thing is on account of its operation 7,de ,coel4 ii71 nature would not1 for the purpose of the act of generation1 distinguish the male and female sexes1 unless the action of the male were distinct from that of the female4 ,now1 in generation there are two distinct operations--that of the agent and that of the patient4 ,wherefore it follows that the entire active operation is on the part of the male1 and the passive on the part of the female4 ,for this reason in plants1 where both forces are mingled1 there is no distinction of male and female4 ,since1 therefore1 the ,blessed ,virgin was not ,christ's ,father1 but ,his ,mother1 it follows that it was not given to her to exercise an active power in ,his conception3 whether to cooperate actively so as to be ,his ,father1 or not to cooperate at all1 as some say4 ,whence it would follow that this active power was bestowed on her to no purpose4 ,we must therefore say that in ,christ's conception itself she did not cooperate actively1 but merely supplied the matter thereof4 ,nevertheless1 before the conception she cooperated actively in the preparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this conception had three privileges--namely1 that it was without original sin2 that it was not that of a man only1 but of ,god and man2 and that it was a virginal conception4 ,and all three were effected by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore ,damascene says1 as to the first1 that the ,holy ,ghost came upon the ,virgin1 purifying her--that is1 preserving her from conceiving with original sin4 ,as to the second1 he says3 ,and bestowing on her the power to receive1 i4e4 to conceive1 the ,word of ,god4 ,as to the third1 he says3 ,and to give birth to ,him1 i4e4 that she might1 while remaining a virgin1 bring ,him forth1 not actively1 but passively1 just as other mothers achieve this through the action of the male seed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the generative power of the female is imperfect compared to that of the male4 ,and1 therefore1 just as in the arts the inferior art gives a disposition to the matter to which the higher art gives the form1 as is stated ,phys4 ii1 so also the generative power of the female prepares the matter1 which is then fashioned by the active power of the male4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in order for a transformation to be natural1 there is no need for an active principle in matter1 but only for a passive principle1 as stated above4 ,,question #cc ,,of ,,the ,,mode ,,and ,,order ,,of ,,christ',s ,,conception 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the mode and order of ,christ's conception1 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception8 7#b7 ,whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception8 7#c7 ,whether it was assumed by the ,word in the first instant of its conception8 7#d7 ,whether this conception was natural or miraculous8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cc1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,body ,was ,formed in the ,first ,instant of ,its ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body was not formed in the first instant of its conception4 ,for it is written 7,john #b3bj73 ,six-and-forty years was this ,temple in building2 on which words ,augustine comments as follows 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,this number applies manifestly to the perfection of our ,lord's body4 ,he says1 further 7,,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #ef73 ,it is not without reason that the ,temple1 which was a type of ,his body1 is said to have been forty-six years in building3 so that as many years as it took to build the ,temple1 in so many days was our ,lord's body perfected4 ,therefore ,christ's body was not perfectly formed in the first instant of its conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there was need of local movement for the formation of ,christ's body in order that the purest blood of the ,virgin's body might be brought where generation might aptly take place4 ,now1 no body can be moved locally in an instant3 since the time taken in movement is divided according to the division of the thing moved1 as is proved ,phys4 vi4 ,therefore ,christ's body was not formed in an instant4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the ,virgin1 as stated above 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #e74 ,but that matter could not be in the same instant both blood and flesh1 because thus matter would have been at the same time the subject of two forms4 ,therefore the last instant in which it was blood was distinct from the first instant in which it was flesh4 ,but between any two instants there is an interval of time4 ,therefore ,christ's body was not formed in an instant1 but during a space of time4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as the augmentative power requires a fixed time for its act1 so also does the generative power3 for both are natural powers belonging to the vegetative soul4 ,but ,christ's body took a fixed time to grow1 like the bodies of other men3 for it is written 7,luke #b3eb7 that ,he advanced in wisdom and age4 ,therefore it seems for the same reason that the formation of ,his body1 since that1 too1 belongs to the generative power1 was not instantaneous1 but took a fixed time1 like the bodies of other men4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory says 7,moral4 xviii73 ,as soon as the angel announced it1 as soon as the ,spirit came down1 the ,word was in the womb1 within the womb the ,word was made flesh4 ,i answer that1 ,in the conception of ,christ's body three points may be considered3 first1 the local movement of the blood to the place of generation2 secondly1 the formation of the body from that matter2 thirdly1 the development whereby it was brought to perfection of quantity4 ,of these1 the second is the conception itself2 the first is a preamble2 the third1 a result of the conception4 ,now1 the first could not be instantaneous3 since this would be contrary to the very nature of the local movement of any body whatever1 the parts of which come into a place successively4 ,the third also requires a succession of time3 both because there is no increase without local movement1 and because increase is effected by the power of the soul already informing the body1 the operation of which power is subject to time4 ,but the body's very formation1 in which conception principally consists1 was instantaneous1 for two reasons4 ,first1 because of the infinite power of the agent1 viz4 the ,holy ,ghost1 by whom ,christ's body was formed1 as stated above 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #a74 ,for the greater the power of an agent1 the more quickly can it dispose matter2 and1 consequently1 an agent of infinite power can dispose matter instantaneously to its due form4 ,secondly1 on the part of the ,person of the ,son1 whose body was being formed4 ,for it was unbecoming that ,he should take to ,himself a body as yet unformed4 ,while1 if the conception had been going on for any time before the perfect formation of the body1 the whole conception could not be attributed to the ,son of ,god1 since it is not attributed to ,him except by reason of the assumption of that body4 ,therefore in the first instant in which the various parts of the matter were united together in the place of generation1 ,christ's body was both perfectly formed and assumed4 ,and thus is the ,son of ,god said to have been conceived2 nor could it be said otherwise4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,neither quotation from ,augustine refers to formation alone of ,christ's body1 but to its formation1 together with a fixed development up to the time of ,his birth4 ,wherefore in the aforesaid number are foreshadowed the number of months during which ,christ was in the ,virgin's womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this local movement is not comprised within the conception itself1 but is a preamble thereto4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is not possible to fix the last instant in which that matter was blood3 but it is possible to fix the last period of time which continued without any interval up to the first instant in which ,christ's body was formed4 ,and this instant was the terminus of the time occupied by the local movement of the matter towards the place of generation4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,increase is caused by the augmentative power of that which is the subject of increase3 but the formation of the body is caused by the generative power1 not of that which is generated1 but of the father generating from seed1 in which the formative power derived from the father's soul has its operation4 ,but ,christ's body was not formed by the seed of man1 as stated above 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #e1 ad #c71 but by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore the formation thereof should be such as to be worthy of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but the development of ,christ's body was the effect of the augmentative power in ,christ's soul3 and since this was of the same species as ours1 it behooved ,his body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other men1 so as to prove the reality of ,his human nature4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cc1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,body ,was ,animated in the ,first ,instant of ,its ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception4 ,for ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 ad ,julian473 ,christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours3 nor was the beginning of ,his animation different from that of other men4 ,but the soul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their conception4 ,therefore neither should ,christ's soul have been infused into ,his body in the first instant of its conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul1 like any natural form1 requires determinate quantity in its matter4 ,but in the first instant of its conception ,christ's body was not of the same quantity as the bodies of other men when they are animated3 otherwise1 if afterwards its development had been continuous1 either its birth would have occurred sooner1 or at the time of birth ,he would have been a bigger child than others4 ,the former alternative is contrary to what ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv71 where he proves that ,christ was in the ,virgin's womb for the space of nine months3 while the latter is contrary to what ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 iv in ,epiph473 ,they found the child ,jesus nowise differing from the generality of infants4 ,therefore ,christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whenever there is before and after there must be several instants4 ,but according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 ii7 in the generation of a man there must needs be before and after3 for he is first of all a living thing1 and afterwards1 an animal1 and after that1 a man4 ,therefore the animation of ,christ could not be effected in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,at the very instant that there was flesh1 it was the flesh of the ,word of ,god1 it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul4 ,i answer that1 ,for the conception to be attributed to the very ,son of ,god1 as we confess in the ,creed1 when we say1 who was conceived by the ,holy ,ghost1 we must needs say that the body itself1 in being conceived1 was assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,now it has been shown above 7,q4 #f1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b7 that the ,word of ,god assumed the body by means of the soul1 and the soul by means of the spirit1 i4e4 the intellect4 ,wherefore in the first instant of its conception ,christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways4 ,first1 in regard to the disposition of the body4 ,and thus1 the beginning of the infusion of the soul into ,christ's body was the same as in other men's bodies3 for just as the soul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed1 so was it with ,christ4 ,secondly1 this beginning may be considered merely in regard to time4 ,and thus1 because ,christ's body was perfectly formed in a shorter space of time1 so after a shorter space of time was it animated4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the soul requires due quantity in the matter into which it is infused3 but this quantity allows of a certain latitude because it is not fixed to a certain amount4 ,now the quantity that a body has when the soul is first infused into it is in proportion to the perfect quantity to which it will attain by development3 that is to say1 men of greater stature have greater bodies at the time of first animation4 ,but ,christ at the perfect age was of becoming and middle stature3 in proportion to which was the quantity of ,his body at the time when other men's bodies are animated2 though it was less than theirs at the first instant of ,his conception4 ,nevertheless that quantity was not too small to safeguard the nature of an animated body2 since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,what the ,philosopher says is true in the generation of other men1 because the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul3 whence1 first1 as being imperfectly disposed1 it receives an imperfect soul2 and afterwards1 when it is perfectly disposed1 it receives a perfect soul4 ,but ,christ's body1 on account of the infinite power of the agent1 was perfectly disposed instantaneously4 ,wherefore1 at once and in the first instant it received a perfect form1 that is1 the rational soul4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cc1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,flesh ,was ,first of ,all ,conceived and ,afterwards ,assumed8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's flesh was first of all conceived1 and afterwards assumed4 ,because what is not cannot be assumed4 ,but ,christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived4 ,therefore it seems that it was assumed by the ,word of ,god after it was conceived4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's flesh was assumed by the ,word of ,god1 by means of the rational soul4 ,but it received the rational soul at the term of the conception4 ,therefore it was assumed at the term of the conception4 ,but at the term of the conception it was already conceived4 ,therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in everything generated1 that which is imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect3 which is made clear by the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 ix74 ,but ,christ's body is something generated4 ,therefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection1 which consisted in the union with the ,word of ,god1 at the first instant of its conception2 but1 first of all1 the flesh was conceived and afterwards assumed4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum xviii 99,written by ,fulgentius73 ,hold steadfastly1 and doubt not for a moment that ,christ's flesh was not conceived in the ,virgin's womb1 before being assumed by the ,word4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above1 we may say properly that ,god was made man1 but not that man was made ,god3 because ,god took to ,himself that which belongs to man--and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist1 as subsisting in itself1 before being assumed by the ,word4 ,but if ,christ's flesh had been conceived before being assumed by the ,word1 it would have had at some time an hypostasis other than that of the ,word of ,god4 ,and this is against the very nature of the ,incarnation1 which we hold to consist in this1 that the ,word of ,god was united to human nature and to all its parts in the unity of hypostasis3 nor was it becoming that the ,word of ,god should1 by assuming human nature1 destroy a pre-existing hypostasis of human nature or of any part thereof4 ,it is consequently contrary to faith to assert that ,christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,if ,christ's flesh had been formed or conceived1 not instantaneously1 but successively1 one of two things would follow3 either that what was assumed was not yet flesh1 or that the flesh was conceived before it was assumed4 ,but since we hold that the conception was effected instantaneously1 it follows that in that flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the same instant4 ,so that1 as ,augustine 99,fulgentius1 ,de ,fide ad ,petrum xviii says3 ,we say that the very ,word of ,god was conceived in taking flesh1 and that ,his very flesh was conceived by the ,word taking flesh4 ,from the above the reply to the ,second ,objection is clear4 ,for in the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived1 its conception and animation were completed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the mystery of the ,incarnation is not to be looked upon as an ascent1 as it were1 of a man already existing and mounting up to the dignity of the ,union3 as the heretic ,photinus maintained4 ,rather is it to be considered as a descent1 by reason of the perfect ,word of ,god taking unto ,himself the imperfection of our nature2 according to ,john #f3ch3 ,i came down from heaven4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cc1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,conception ,was ,natural8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's conception was natural4 ,for ,christ is called the ,son of ,man by reason of ,his conception in the flesh4 ,but ,he is a true and natural ,son of ,man3 as also is ,he the true and natural ,son of ,god4 ,therefore ,his conception was natural4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect4 ,but ,christ's conception is attributed to the ,blessed ,virgin1 who is a mere creature3 for we say that the ,virgin conceived ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that ,his conception was not miraculous1 but natural4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 for a transformation to be natural1 it is enough that the passive principle be natural1 as stated above 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #d74 ,but in ,christ's conception the passive principle on the part of ,his ,mother was natural1 as we have shown 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore ,christ's conception was natural4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,ep4 ad ,caium ,monach473 ,christ does in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man3 this is shown in the miraculous virginal conception4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,ambrose says 7,de ,incarn4 vi73 ,in this mystery thou shalt find many things that are natural1 and many that are supernatural4 ,for if we consider in this conception anything connected with the matter thereof1 which was supplied by the mother1 it was in all such things natural4 ,but if we consider it on the part of the active power1 thus it was entirely miraculous4 ,and since judgment of a thing should be pronounced in respect of its form rather than of its matter3 and likewise in respect of its activity rather than of its passiveness3 therefore is it that ,christ's conception should be described simply as miraculous and supernatural1 although in a certain respect it was natural4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is said to be a natural ,son of ,man1 by reason of ,his having a true human nature1 through which ,he is a ,son of ,man1 although ,he had it miraculously2 thus1 too1 the blind man to whom sight has been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously received4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the conception is attributed to the ,blessed ,virgin1 not as the active principle thereof1 but because she supplied the matter1 and because the conception took place in her womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a natural passive principle suffices for a transformation to be natural1 when it is moved by its proper active principle in a natural and wonted way4 ,but this is not so in the case in point4 ,therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural4 ,,question #cd ,,of ,,the ,,perfection ,,of ,,the ,,child ,,conceived 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the perfection of the child conceived3 and concerning this there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of ,his conception8 7#b7 ,whether in that same instant ,he had the use of free-will8 7#c7 ,whether in that same instant ,he could merit8 7#d7 ,whether in that same instant ,he was a perfect comprehensor8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cd1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,was ,sanctified in the ,first ,instant of ,his ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not sanctified in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3df73 ,that was not first which is spiritual1 but that which is natural3 afterwards that which is spiritual4 ,but sanctification by grace is something spiritual4 ,therefore ,christ received the grace of sanctification1 not at the very beginning of ,his conception1 but after a space of time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin3 according to #a ,cor4 #f3a3 ,and such some of you were1 namely1 sinners1 but you are washed1 but you are sanctified4 ,but sin was never in ,christ4 ,therefore it was not becoming that ,he should be sanctified by grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as by the ,word of ,god all things were made1 so from the ,word incarnate all men who are made holy receive holiness1 according to ,heb4 #b3aa3 ,both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one4 ,but the ,word of ,god1 by whom all things were made1 was not ,himself made2 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 i74 ,therefore ,christ1 by whom all are made holy1 was not ,himself made holy4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #a3ce73 ,the ,holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the ,son of ,god2 and 7,john #aj3cf73 ,whom the ,father hath sanctified and sent into the world4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,,aa4 #i1 #aj1 #ab71 the abundance of grace sanctifying ,christ's soul flows from the very union of the ,word1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,his glory 4 4 4 as it were of the ,only-,begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth4 ,for it has been shown above 7,q4 #cc1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c7 that in the first instant of conception1 ,christ's body was both animated and assumed by the ,word of ,god4 ,consequently1 in the first instant of ,his conception1 ,christ had the fulness of grace sanctifying ,his body and ,his soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the order set down by the ,apostle in this passage refers to those who by advancing attain to the spiritual state4 ,but the mystery of the ,incarnation is considered as a condescension of the fulness of the ,godhead into human nature rather than as the promotion of human nature1 already existing1 as it were1 to the ,godhead4 ,therefore in the man ,christ there was perfection of spiritual life from the very beginning4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to be sanctified is to be made holy4 ,now something is made not only from its contrary1 but also from that which is opposite to it1 either by negation or by privation3 thus white is made either from black or from not-white4 ,we indeed from being sinners are made holy3 so that our sanctification is a cleansing from sin4 ,whereas ,christ1 as man1 was made holy1 because ,he was not always thus sanctified by grace3 yet ,he was not made holy from being a sinner1 because ,he never sinned2 but ,he was made holy from not-holy as man1 not indeed by privation1 as though ,he were at some time a man and not holy2 but by negation--that is1 when ,he was not man ,he had not human sanctity4 ,therefore at the same time ,he was made man and a holy man4 ,for this reason the angel said 7,luke #a3ce73 ,the ,holy which shall be born of thee4 ,which words ,gregory expounds as follows 7,moral4 xviii73 ,in order to show the distinction between ,his holiness and ours1 it is declared that ,he shall be born holy4 ,for we1 though we are made holy1 yet are not born holy1 because by the mere condition of a corruptible nature we are tied 4 4 4 ,but ,he alone is truly born holy who 4 4 4 was not conceived by the combining of carnal union4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,father creates things through the ,son1 and the whole ,trinity sanctifies men through the ,man ,christ1 but not in the same way4 ,for the ,word of ,god has the same power and operation as ,god the ,father3 hence the ,father does not work through the ,son as an instrument1 which is both mover and moved4 ,whereas the humanity of ,christ is as the instrument of the ,godhead1 as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c2 ,q4 #h1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,therefore ,christ's humanity is both sanctified and sanctifier4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cd1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,as ,man ,had the ,use of ,free-will in the ,first ,instant of ,his ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ as man had not the use of free-will in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,for a thing is1 before it acts or operates4 ,now the use of free-will is an operation4 ,since1 therefore1 ,christ's soul began to exist in the first instant of ,his conception1 as was made clear above 7,q4 #cc1 ,a4 #b71 it seems impossible that ,he should have the use of free-will in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the use of free-will consists in choice4 ,but choice presupposes the deliberation of counsel3 for the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iii7 that choice is the desire of what has been previously the object of deliberation4 ,therefore it seems impossible that ,christ should have had the use of free-will in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the free-will is a faculty of the will and reason1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #hc1 ,a4 #b1 ,obj4 #b73 consequently the use of free-will is an act of the will and the reason or intellect4 ,but the act of the intellect presupposes an act of the senses2 and this cannot exist without proper disposition of the organs--a condition which would seem impossible in the first instant of ,christ's conception4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ could not have the use of free-will at the first instant of ,his conception4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in his book on the ,trinity 7,gregory3 ,regist4 ix1 ,ep4 #fa73 ,as soon as the ,word entered the womb1 while retaining the reality of ,his ,nature1 ,he was made flesh1 and a perfect man4 ,but a perfect man has the use of free-will4 ,therefore ,christ had the use of free-will in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 spiritual perfection was becoming to the human nature which ,christ took1 which perfection ,he attained not by making progress1 but by receiving it from the very first4 ,now ultimate perfection does not consist in power or habit1 but in operation2 wherefore it is said 7,de ,anima ii1 text4 #e7 that operation is a second act4 ,we must1 therefore1 say that in the first instant of ,his conception ,christ had that operation of the soul which can be had in an instant4 ,and such is the operation of the will and intellect1 in which the use of free-will consists4 ,for the operation of the intellect and will is sudden and instantaneous1 much more1 indeed1 than corporeal vision2 inasmuch as to understand1 to will1 and to feel1 are not movements that may be described as acts of an imperfect being1 which attains perfection successively1 but are the acts of an already perfect being1 as is said1 ,de ,anima iii1 text4 #bh4 ,we must therefore say that ,christ had the use of free-will in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,existence precedes action by nature1 but not in time2 but at the same time the agent has perfect existence1 and begins to act unless it is hindered4 ,thus fire1 as soon as it is generated1 begins to give heat and light4 ,the action of heating1 however1 is not terminated in an instant1 but continues for a time2 whereas the action of giving light is perfected in an instant4 ,and such an operation is the use of free-will1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as soon as counsel or deliberation is ended1 there may be choice4 ,but those who need the deliberation of counsel1 as soon as this comes to an end are certain of what ought to be chosen3 and consequently they choose at once4 ,from this it is clear that the deliberation of counsel does not of necessity precede choice save for the purpose of inquiring into what is uncertain4 ,but ,christ1 in the first instant of ,his conception1 had the fulness of sanctifying grace1 and in like manner the fulness of known truth2 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,full of grace and truth4 ,wherefore1 as being possessed of certainty about all things1 ,he could choose at once in an instant4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's intellect1 in regard to ,his infused knowledge1 could understand without turning to phantasms1 as stated above 7,q4 #aa1 ,a4 #b74 ,consequently ,his intellect and will could act without any action of the senses4 ,nevertheless it was possible for ,him1 in the first instant of ,his conception1 to have an operation of the senses3 especially as to the sense of touch1 which the infant can exercise in the womb even before it has received the rational soul1 as is said1 ,de ,gener4 ,animal4 ii1 #c1 #d4 ,wherefore1 since ,christ had the rational soul in the first instant of ,his conception1 through ,his body being already fashioned and endowed with sensible organs1 much more was it possible for ,him to exercise the sense of touch in that same instant4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cd1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,could ,merit in the ,first ,instant of ,his ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ could not merit in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,for the free-will bears the same relation to merit as to demerit4 ,but the devil could not sin in the first instant of his creation1 as was shown in the ,first ,part1 ,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #e4 ,therefore neither could ,christ's soul merit in the first instant of its creation--that is1 in the first instant of ,christ's conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which man has in the first instant of his conception seems to be natural to him3 for it is in this that his natural generation is terminated4 ,but we do not merit by what is natural to us1 as is clear from what has been said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aji1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #aad1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore it seems that the use of free-will1 which ,christ as man had in the first instant of ,his conception1 was not meritorious4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that which a man has once merited he makes1 in a way1 his own3 consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same thing again3 for no one merits what is already his4 ,if1 therefore1 ,christ merited in the first instant of ,his conception1 it follows that afterwards ,he merited nothing4 ,but this is evidently untrue4 ,therefore ,christ did not merit in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 99,paterius1 ,expos4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test4 super ,ex4 #dj says3 ,increase of merit was absolutely impossible to the soul of ,christ4 ,but increase of merit would have been possible had ,he not merited in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,therefore ,christ merited in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 ,christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,now1 sanctification is twofold3 that of adults who are sanctified in consideration of their own act2 and that of infants who are sanctified in consideration of1 not their own act of faith1 but that of their parents or of the ,church4 ,the former sanctification is more perfect than the latter3 just as act is more perfect than habit2 and that which is by itself1 than that which is by another 99,aristotle1 ,phys4 viii4 ,since1 therefore1 the sanctification of ,christ was most perfect1 because ,he was so sanctified that ,he might sanctify others2 consequently ,he was sanctified by reason of ,his own movement of the free-will towards ,god4 ,which movement1 indeed1 of the free-will is meritorious4 ,consequently1 ,christ did merit in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,free-will does not bear the same relation to good as to evil3 for to good it is related of itself1 and naturally2 whereas to evil it is related as to a defect1 and beside nature4 ,now1 as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,coelo ii1 text4 #ah73 ,that which is beside nature is subsequent to that which is according to nature2 because that which is beside nature is an exception to nature4 ,therefore the free-will of a creature can be moved to good meritoriously in the first instant of its creation1 but not to evil sinfully2 provided1 however1 its nature be unimpaired4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that which man has at the first moment of his creation1 in the ordinary course of nature1 is natural to him2 but nothing hinders a creature from receiving from ,god a gift of grace at the very beginning of its creation4 ,in this way did ,christ's soul in the first instant of its creation receive grace by which it could merit4 ,and for this reason is that grace1 by way of a certain likeness1 said to be natural to this ,man1 as explained by ,augustine 7,enchiridion xl74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nothing prevents the same thing belonging to someone from several causes4 ,and thus it is that ,christ was able by subsequent actions and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality1 which ,he also merited in the first instant of ,his conception3 not1 indeed1 so that it became thereby more due to ,him than before1 but so that it was due to ,him from more causes than before4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cd1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,was a ,perfect ,comprehensor in the ,first ,instant of ,his ,conception8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,for merit precedes reward1 as fault precedes punishment4 ,but ,christ merited in the first instant of ,his conception1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,since1 therefore1 the state of comprehension is the principal reward1 it seems that ,christ was not a comprehensor in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,luke #bd3bf73 ,ought not ,christ to have suffered these things1 and so to enter into ,his glory8 ,but glory belongs to the state of comprehension4 ,therefore ,christ was not in the state of comprehension in the first instant of ,his conception1 when as yet ,he had not suffered4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what befits neither man nor angel seems proper to ,god2 and therefore is not becoming to ,christ as man4 ,but to be always in the state of beatitude befits neither man nor angel3 for if they had been created in beatitude1 they would not have sinned afterwards4 ,therefore ,christ1 as man1 was not in the state of beatitude in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #fd3e73 ,blessed is he whom ,thou hast chosen1 and taken to ,thee2 which words1 according to the gloss1 refer to ,christ's human nature1 which was taken by the ,word of ,god unto the unity of ,person4 ,but human nature was taken by the ,word of ,god in the first instant of ,his conception4 ,therefore1 in the first instant of ,his conception1 ,christ1 as man1 was in the state of beatitude2 which is to be a comprehensor4 ,i answer that1 ,as appears from what was said above 7,a4 #c71 it was unbecoming that in ,his conception ,christ should receive merely habitual grace without the act4 ,now1 ,he received grace not by measure 7,john #c3cd71 as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #aa74 ,but the grace of the wayfarer1 being short of that of the comprehensor1 is in less measure than that of the comprehensor4 ,wherefore it is manifest that in the first instant of ,his conception ,christ received not only as much grace as comprehensors have1 but also greater than that which they all have4 ,and because that grace was not without its act1 it follows that ,he was a comprehensor in act1 seeing ,god in ,his ,essence more clearly than other creatures4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #c71 ,christ did not merit the glory of the soul1 in respect of which ,he is said to have been a comprehensor1 but the glory of the body1 to which ,he came through ,his ,passion4 ,wherefore the reply to the ,second ,objection is clear4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,since ,christ was both ,god and man1 ,he had1 even in ,his humanity1 something more than other creatures--namely1 that ,he was in the state of beatitude from the very beginning4 ,,question #ce ,,of ,,christ',s ,,nativity 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,after considering ,christ's conception1 we must treat of ,his nativity4 ,first1 as to the nativity itself2 secondly1 as to ,his manifestation after birth4 ,concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether nativity regards the nature or the person8 7#b7 ,whether another1 besides ,his eternal1 birth should be attributed to ,christ8 7#c7 ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin is ,his ,mother in respect of ,his temporal birth8 7#d7 ,whether she ought to be called the ,mother of ,god8 7#e7 ,whether ,christ is the ,son of ,god the ,father and of the ,virgin ,mother in respect of two filiations8 7#f7 ,of the mode of the ,nativity2 7#g7 ,of its place2 7#h7 ,of the time of the ,nativity4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,nativity ,regards the ,nature ,rather ,than the ,person8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that nativity regards the nature rather than the person4 ,for ,augustine 99,fulgentius says 7,de ,fide ad ,petrum73 ,the eternal ,divine ,nature could not be conceived and born of human nature1 except in a true human nature4 ,consequently it becomes the ,divine ,nature to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature4 ,much more1 therefore1 does it regard human nature itself4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 v71 nature is so denominated from nativity4 ,but things are denominated from one another by reason of some likeness4 ,therefore it seems that nativity regards the nature rather than the person4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 properly speaking1 that is born which begins to exist by nativity4 ,but ,christ's ,person did not begin to exist by ,his nativity1 whereas ,his human nature did4 ,therefore it seems that the nativity properly regards the nature1 and not the person4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,nativity regards the hypostasis1 not the nature4 ,i answer that1 ,nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways3 first1 as to its subject2 secondly1 as to its terminus4 ,to him that is born it is attributed as to its subject3 and this1 properly speaking1 is the hypostasis1 not the nature4 ,for since to be born is to be generated2 as a thing is generated in order for it to be1 so is a thing born in order for it to be4 ,now1 to be1 properly speaking1 belongs to that which subsists2 since a form that does not subsist is said to be only inasmuch as by it something is3 and whereas person or hypostasis designates something as subsisting1 nature designates form1 whereby something subsists4 ,consequently1 nativity is attributed to the person or hypostasis as to the proper subject of being born1 but not to the nature4 ,but to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus4 ,for the terminus of generation and of every nativity is the form4 ,now1 nature designates something as a form3 wherefore nativity is said to be the road to nature1 as the ,philosopher states 7,phys4 ii73 for the purpose of nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,on account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in ,god1 nature is sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis4 ,and in this sense ,augustine says that the ,divine ,nature was conceived and born1 inasmuch as the ,person of the ,son was conceived and born in the human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,no movement or change is denominated from the subject moved1 but from the terminus of the movement1 whence the subject has its species4 ,for this reason nativity is not denominated from the person born1 but from nature1 which is the terminus of nativity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nature1 properly speaking1 does not begin to exist3 rather is it the person that begins to exist in some nature4 ,because1 as stated above1 nature designates that by which something is2 whereas person designates something as having subsistent being4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #b ,whether a ,temporal ,nativity ,should ,be ,attributed to ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that temporal nativity is not to be attributed to ,christ4 ,for to be born is a certain movement of a thing that did not exist before it was born1 which movement procures for it the benefit of existence 99,cf4 ,augustine1 ,de ,unit4 ,trin4 xii4 ,but ,christ was from all eternity4 ,therefore ,he could not be born in time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is perfect in itself needs not to be born4 ,but the ,person of the ,son of ,god was perfect from eternity4 ,therefore ,he needs not to be born in time4 ,therefore it seems that ,he had no temporal birth4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 properly speaking1 nativity regards the person4 ,but in ,christ there is only one person4 ,therefore in ,christ there is but one nativity4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 what is born by two nativities is born twice4 ,but this proposition is false2 ,christ was born twice3 because the nativity whereby ,he was born of the ,father suffers no interruption2 since it is eternal4 ,whereas interruption is required to warrant the use of the adverb twice3 for a man is said to run twice whose running is interrupted4 ,therefore it seems that we should not admit a double nativity in ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,we confess two nativities in ,christ3 one of the ,father--eternal2 and one which occurred in these latter times for our sake4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 nature is compared to nativity1 as the terminus to movement or change4 ,now1 movement is diversified according to the diversity of its termini1 as the ,philosopher shows 7,phys4 v74 ,but1 in ,christ there is a twofold nature3 one which ,he received of the ,father from eternity1 the other which ,he received from ,his ,mother in time4 ,therefore we must needs attribute to ,christ a twofold nativity3 one by which ,he was born of the ,father from all eternity2 one by which ,he was born of ,his ,mother in time4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this was the argument of a certain heretic1 ,felician1 and is solved thus by ,augustine 7,contra ,felic4 xii74 ,let us suppose1 says he1 as many maintain1 that in the world there is a universal soul1 which1 by its ineffable movement1 so gives life to all seed1 that it is not compounded with things begotten1 but bestows life that they may be begotten4 ,without doubt1 when this soul reaches the womb1 being intent on fashioning the passible matter to its own purpose1 it unites itself to the personality thereof1 though manifestly it is not of the same substance2 and thus of the active soul and passive matter1 one man is made out of two substances4 ,and so we confess that the soul is born from out the womb2 but not as though1 before birth1 it was nothing at all in itself4 ,thus1 then1 but in a way much more sublime1 the ,son of ,god was born as man1 just as the soul is held to be born together with the body3 not as though they both made one substance1 but that from both1 one person results4 ,yet we do not say that the ,son of ,god began thus to exist3 lest it be thought that ,his ,divinity is temporal4 ,nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the ,son of ,god to have been from eternity3 lest it be thought that ,he took1 not a true human body1 but some resemblance thereof4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this was an argument of ,nestorius1 and it is thus solved by ,cyril in an epistle 99,cf4 ,acta ,concil4 ,ephes41 p4 #a1 cap4 viii3 ,we do not say that the ,son of ,god had need1 for ,his own sake1 of a second nativity1 after that which is from the ,father3 for it is foolish and a mark of ignorance to say that ,he who is from all eternity1 and co-eternal with the ,father1 needs to begin again to exist4 ,but because for us and for our salvation1 uniting the human nature to ,his ,person1 ,he became the child of a woman1 for this reason do we say that ,he was born in the flesh4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nativity regards the person as its subject1 the nature as its terminus4 ,now1 it is possible for several transformations to be in the same subject3 yet must they be diversified in respect of their termini4 ,but we do not say this as though the eternal nativity were a transformation or a movement1 but because it is designated by way of a transformation or movement4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of ,his two nativities4 ,for just as he is said to run twice who runs at two different times1 so can ,he be said to be born twice who is born once from eternity and once in time3 because eternity and time differ much more than two different times1 although each signifies a measure of duration4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin ,can ,be ,called ,christ's ,mother in ,respect of ,his ,temporal ,nativity8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin cannot be called ,christ's ,mother in respect of ,his temporal nativity4 ,for1 as stated above 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #d71 the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary did not cooperate actively in begetting ,christ1 but merely supplied the matter4 ,but this does not seem sufficient to make her ,his ,mother3 otherwise wood might be called the mother of the bed or bench4 ,therefore it seems that the ,blessed ,virgin cannot be called the ,mother of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ was born miraculously of the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,but a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or sonship3 for we do not speak of ,eve as being the daughter of ,adam4 ,therefore neither should ,christ be called the ,son of the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the semen4 ,but1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii71 ,christ's body was formed1 not by a seminal process1 but by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that the ,blessed ,virgin should not be called the ,mother of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #a3ah73 ,the generation of ,christ was in this wise4 ,when ,his ,mother ,mary was espoused to ,joseph1 etc4 ,i answer that1 ,the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary is in truth and by nature the ,mother of ,christ4 ,for1 as we have said above 7,q4 #e1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #e71 ,christ's body was not brought down from heaven1 as the heretic ,valentine maintained1 but was taken from the ,virgin ,mother1 and formed from her purest blood4 ,and this is all that is required for motherhood1 as has been made clear above 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin is truly ,christ's ,mother4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #c71 not every generation implies fatherhood or motherhood and sonship1 but only the generation of living things4 ,consequently when inanimate things are made from some matter1 the relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this1 but only in the generation of living things1 which is properly called nativity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,the temporal nativity by which ,christ was born for our salvation is1 in a way1 natural1 since a ,man was born of a woman1 and after the due lapse of time from ,his conception3 but it is also supernatural1 because ,he was begotten1 not of seed1 but of the ,holy ,ghost and the ,blessed ,virgin1 above the law of conception4 ,thus1 then1 on the part of the mother1 this nativity was natural1 but on the part of the operation of the ,holy ,ghost it was supernatural4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin is the true and natural ,mother of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #e1 ad #c2 ,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #d71 the resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception2 neither1 therefore1 is it required for motherhood4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,blessed ,virgin should be called the ,mother of ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,blessed ,virgin should not be called the ,mother of ,god4 ,for in the ,divine mysteries we should not make any assertion that is not taken from ,holy ,scripture4 ,but we read nowhere in ,holy ,scripture that she is the mother or parent of ,god1 but that she is the mother of ,christ or of the ,child1 as may be seen from ,matt4 #a3ah4 ,therefore we should not say that the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is called ,god in respect of ,his ,divine ,nature4 ,but the ,divine ,nature did not first originate from the ,virgin4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin should not be called the ,mother of ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the word ,god is predicated in common of ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost4 ,if1 therefore1 the ,blessed ,virgin is ,mother of ,god it seems to follow that she was the ,mother of ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 which cannot be allowed4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin should not be called ,mother of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,in the chapters of ,cyril1 approved in the ,council of ,ephesus 7,p4 #a1 ,cap4 xxvi71 we read3 ,if anyone confess not that the ,emmanuel is truly ,god1 and that for this reason the ,holy ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god1 since she begot of her flesh the ,word of ,god made flesh1 let him be anathema4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,a4 #a71 every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature4 ,now1 since the union of the ,incarnation took place in the hypostasis1 as above stated 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #c71 it is manifest that this word ,god can stand for the hypostasis1 having a human and a ,divine nature4 ,therefore whatever belongs to the ,divine and to the human nature can be attributed to that ,person3 both when a word is employed to stand for it1 signifying the ,divine ,nature1 and when a word is used signifying the human nature4 ,now1 conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born4 ,since1 therefore1 the human nature was taken by the ,divine ,person in the very beginning of the conception1 as stated above 7,q4 #cc1 ,a4 #c71 it follows that it can be truly said that ,god was conceived and born of the ,virgin4 ,now from this is a woman called a man's mother1 that she conceived him and gave birth to him4 ,therefore the ,blessed ,virgin is truly called the ,mother of ,god4 ,for the only way in which it could be denied that the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth1 before this man were the ,son of ,god1 as ,photinus said2 or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of the ,person or hypostasis of the ,word of ,god1 as ,nestorius maintained4 ,but both of these are erroneous4 ,therefore it is heretical to deny that the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this was an argument of ,nestorius1 and it is solved by saying that1 although we do not find it said expressly in ,scripture that the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god1 yet we do find it expressly said in ,scripture that ,jesus ,christ is true ,god1 as may be seen #a ,john #e3bj1 and that the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,jesus ,christ1 which is clearly expressed ,matt4 #a3ah4 ,therefore1 from the words of ,scripture it follows of necessity that she is the ,mother of ,god4 ,again1 it is written 7,rom4 #i3e7 that ,christ is of the ,jews according to the flesh1 who is over all things1 ,god blessed for ever4 ,but ,he is not of the ,jews except through the ,blessed ,virgin4 ,therefore ,he who is above all things1 ,god blessed for ever1 is truly born of the ,blessed ,virgin as of ,his ,mother4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this was an argument of ,nestorius4 ,but ,cyril1 in a letter against ,nestorius 99,cf4 ,acta ,conc4 ,ephes41 p4 #a1 cap4 ii1 answers it thus3 ,just as when a man's soul is born with its body1 they are considered as one being3 and if anyone wish to say that the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul1 he says too much4 ,something like this may be perceived in the generation of ,christ4 ,for the ,word of ,god was born of the substance of ,god the ,father3 but because ,he took flesh1 we must of necessity confess that in the flesh ,he was born of a woman4 ,consequently we must say that the ,blessed ,virgin is called the ,mother of ,god1 not as though she were the ,mother of the ,godhead1 but because she is the mother1 according to ,his human nature1 of the ,person who has both the divine and the human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the name ,god is common to the three ,persons1 yet sometimes it stands for the ,person of the ,father alone1 sometimes only for the ,person of the ,son or of the ,holy ,ghost1 as stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,a4 #a2 ,first ,part1 ,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #d74 ,so that when we say1 ,the ,blessed ,virgin is the ,mother of ,god1 this word ,god stands only for the incarnate ,person of the ,son4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,there ,are ,two ,filiations in ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there are two filiations in ,christ4 ,for nativity is the cause of filiation4 ,but in ,christ there are two nativities4 ,therefore in ,christ there are also two filiations4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 filiation1 which is said of a man as being the son of someone1 his father or his mother1 depends1 in a way1 on him3 because the very being of a relation consists in being referred to another2 wherefore if one of two relatives be destroyed1 the other is destroyed also4 ,but the eternal filiation by which ,christ is the ,son of ,god the ,father depends not on ,his ,mother1 because nothing eternal depends on what is temporal4 ,therefore ,christ is not ,his ,mother's ,son by temporal filiation4 ,either1 therefore1 ,he is not her ,son at all1 which is in contradiction to what has been said above 7,,aa4 #c1 #d71 or ,he must needs be her ,son by some other temporal filiation4 ,therefore in ,christ there are two filiations4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 one of two relatives enters the definition of the other2 hence it is clear that of two relatives1 one is specified from the other4 ,but one and the same cannot be in diverse species4 ,therefore it seems impossible that one and the same relation be referred to extremes which are altogether diverse4 ,but ,christ is said to be the ,son of the ,eternal ,father and a temporal mother1 who are terms altogether diverse4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ cannot1 by the same relation1 be called the ,son of the ,father and of ,his ,mother ,therefore in ,christ there are two filiations4 ,on the contrary1 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii71 things pertaining to the nature are multiple in ,christ2 but not those things that pertain to the ,person4 ,but filiation belongs especially to the ,person1 since it is a personal property1 as appears from what was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #c2 ,q4 #dj1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore there is but one filiation in ,christ4 ,i answer that1 opinions differ on this question4 ,for some1 considering only the cause of filiation1 which is nativity1 put two filiations in ,christ1 just as there are two nativities4 ,on the contrary1 others1 considering only the subject of filiation1 which is the person or hypostasis1 put only one filiation in ,christ1 just as there is but one hypostasis or person4 ,because the unity or plurality of a relation is considered in respect1 not of its terms1 but of its cause or of its subject4 ,for if it were considered in respect of its terms1 every man would of necessity have in himself two filiations--one in reference to his father1 and another in reference to his mother4 ,but if we consider the question aright1 we shall see that every man bears but one relation to both his father and his mother1 on account of the unity of the cause thereof4 ,for man is born by one birth of both father and mother3 whence he bears but one relation to both4 ,the same is said of one master who teaches many disciples the same doctrine1 and of one lord who governs many subjects by the same power4 ,but if there be various causes specifically diverse1 it seems that in consequence the relations differ in species3 wherefore nothing hinders several such relations being in the same subject4 ,thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others1 his teaching is of a different kind in one case and in the other2 and therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the master of different disciples1 or of the same disciples in regard to diverse doctrines4 ,sometimes1 however1 it happens that a man bears a relation to several in respect of various causes1 but of the same species3 thus a father may have several sons by several acts of generation4 ,wherefore the paternity cannot differ specifically1 since the acts of generation are specifically the same4 ,and because several forms of the same species cannot at the same time be in the same subject1 it is impossible for several paternities to be in a man who is the father of several sons by natural generation4 ,but it would not be so were he the father of one son by natural generation and of another by adoption4 ,now1 it is manifest that ,christ was not born by one and the same nativity1 of the ,father from eternity1 and of ,his ,mother in time3 indeed1 these two nativities differ specifically4 ,wherefore1 as to this1 we must say that there are various filiations1 one temporal and the other eternal4 ,since1 however1 the subject of filiation is neither the nature nor part of the nature1 but the person or hypostasis alone2 and since in ,christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the eternal1 there can be no other filiation in ,christ but that which is in the eternal hypostasis4 ,now1 every relation which is predicated of ,god from time does not put something real in the eternal ,god1 but only something according to our way of thinking1 as we have said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #g74 ,therefore the filiation by which ,christ is referred to ,his ,mother cannot be a real relation1 but only a relation of reason4 ,consequently each opinion is true to a certain extent4 ,for if we consider the adequate causes of filiation1 we must needs say that there are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity4 ,but if we consider the subject of filiation1 which can only be the eternal suppositum1 then no other than the eternal filiation in ,christ is a real relation4 ,nevertheless1 ,he has the relation of ,son in regard to ,his ,mother1 because it is implied in the relation of motherhood to ,christ4 ,thus ,god is called ,lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the creature is subject to ,god4 ,and although lordship is not a real relation in ,god1 yet is ,he really ,lord through the real subjection of the creature to ,him4 ,in the same way ,christ is really the ,son of the ,virgin ,mother through the real relation of her motherhood to ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation in ,christ if there were in ,him a subject capable of such filiation4 ,but this cannot be2 since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a temporal relation1 as stated above4 ,nor can it be said that it is receptive of temporal filiation by reason of the human nature1 just as it is receptive of the temporal nativity2 because human nature would need in some way to be the subject of filiation1 just as in a way it is the subject of nativity2 for since an ,ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his teeth1 it must be that his teeth are the subject of whiteness4 ,but human nature can nowise be the subject of filiation1 because this relation regards directly the person4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother1 but together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain temporal relation dependent on the mother1 in respect of which relation ,christ is called the ,son of ,his ,mother4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,one and being are mutually consequent1 as is said ,metaph4 iv4 ,therefore1 just as it happens that in one of the extremes of a relation there is something real1 whereas in the other there is not something real1 but merely a certain aspect1 as the ,philosopher observes of knowledge and the thing known2 so also it happens that on the part of one extreme there is one relation1 whereas on the part of the other there are many4 ,thus in man on the part of his parents there is a twofold relation1 the one of paternity1 the other of motherhood1 which are specifically diverse1 inasmuch as the father is the principle of generation in one way1 and the mother in another 7whereas if many be the principle of one action and in the same way--for instance1 if many together draw a ship along--there would be one and the same relation in all of them72 but on the part of the child there is but one filiation in reality1 though there be two in aspect1 corresponding to the two relations in the parents1 as considered by the intellect4 ,and thus in one way there is only one real filiation in ,christ1 which is in respect of the ,eternal ,father3 yet there is another temporal relation in regard to ,his temporal mother4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ ,was ,born ,without ,his ,mother ,suffering8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not born without ,his ,mother suffering4 ,for just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents1 according to ,gen4 #b3ag3 ,in what day soever ye shall eat1 ye shall ,vulg43 'thou shalt eat of it1 thou shalt die2 so were the pains of childbirth1 according to ,gen4 #c3af3 ,in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children4 ,but ,christ was willing to undergo death4 ,therefore for the same reason it seems that ,his birth should have been with pain4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the end is proportionate to the beginning4 ,but ,christ ended ,his life in pain1 according to ,isa4 #ec3d3 ,surely 4 4 4 ,he hath carried our sorrows4 ,therefore it seems that ,his nativity was not without the pains of childbirth4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the book on the birth of our ,saviour 99,protevangelium ,jacobi xix1 xx it is related that midwives were present at ,christ's birth2 and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain4 ,therefore it seems that the ,blessed ,virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her ,child4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,serm4 de ,nativ4 99,supposititious71 addressing himself to the ,virgin-,mother3 ,in conceiving thou wast all pure1 in giving birth thou wast without pain4 ,i answer that1 ,the pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb4 ,now it has been said above 7,q4 #bh1 ,a4 #b1 ,replies to objections71 that ,christ came forth from the closed womb of ,his ,mother1 and1 consequently1 without opening the passage4 ,consequently there was no pain in that birth1 as neither was there any corruption2 on the contrary1 there was much joy therein for that ,god-,man was born into the world1 according to ,isa4 #ce3a1 #b3 ,like the lily1 it shall bud forth and blossom1 and shall rejoice with joy and praise4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes4 ,wherefore 7,gen4 #c3af7 after the words1 in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children1 the following are added3 and thou shalt be under thy husband's power4 ,but1 as ,augustine says 7,serm4 de ,assumpt4 ,b4 ,virg41 99,supposititious71 from this sentence we must exclude the ,virgin-,mother of ,god2 who1 because she conceived ,christ without the defilement of sin1 and without the stain of sexual mingling1 therefore did she bring ,him forth without pain1 without violation of her virginal integrity1 without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood4 ,christ1 indeed1 suffered death1 but through ,his own spontaneous desire1 in order to atone for us1 not as a necessary result of that sentence1 for ,he was not a debtor unto death4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as by ,his death ,christ destroyed our death 99,preface of the ,mass in ,paschal-time1 so by ,his pains ,he freed us from our pains2 and so ,he wished to die a painful death4 ,but the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern ,christ1 who came to atone for our sins4 ,and therefore there was no need for ,his ,mother to suffer in giving birth4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,we are told 7,luke #b3g7 that the ,blessed ,virgin herself wrapped up in swaddling clothes the ,child whom she had brought forth1 and laid ,him in a manger4 ,consequently the narrative of this book1 which is apocryphal1 is untrue4 ,wherefore ,jerome says 7,adv4 ,helvid4 iv73 ,no midwife was there1 no officious women interfered4 ,she was both mother and midwife4 ',with swaddling clothes1' says he1 'she wrapped up the child1 and laid ,him in a manger4' ,these words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,been ,born in ,bethlehem8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have been born in ,bethlehem4 ,for it is written 7,isa4 #b3c73 ,the law shall come forth from ,sion1 and the ,word of the ,lord from ,jerusalem4 ,but ,christ is truly the ,word of ,god4 ,therefore ,he should have come into the world at ,jerusalem4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is said 7,matt4 #b3bc7 that it is written of ,christ that ,he shall be called a ,nazarene2 which is taken from ,isa4 #aa3a3 ,a flower shall rise up out of his root2 for ,nazareth is interpreted a flower4 ,but a man is named especially from the place of his birth4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should have been born in ,nazareth1 where also ,he was conceived and brought up4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 for this was our ,lord born into the world1 that ,he might make known the true faith1 according to ,john #ah3cg3 ,for this was ,i born1 and for this came ,i into the world2 that ,i should give testimony to the truth4 ,but this would have been easier if ,he had been born in the city of ,rome1 which at that time ruled the world2 whence ,paul1 writing to the ,romans 7#a3h7 says3 ,your faith is spoken of in the whole world4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should not have been born in ,bethlehem4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mic4 #e3b73 ,and thou1 ,bethlehem1 ,ephrata 4 4 4 out of thee shall ,he come forth unto ,me1 that is to be the ruler in ,israel4 ,i answer that1 ,christ willed to be born in ,bethlehem for two reasons4 ,first1 because ,he was made 4 4 4 of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 as it is written 7,rom4 #a3c72 to whom also was a special promise made concerning ,christ2 according to #b ,kings #bc3a3 ,the man to whom it was appointed concerning the ,christ of the ,god of ,jacob 4 4 4 said4 ,therefore ,he willed to be born at ,bethlehem1 where ,david was born1 in order that by the very birthplace the promise made to ,david might be shown to be fulfilled4 ,the ,evangelist points this out by saying3 ,because ,he was of the house and of the family of ,david4 ,secondly1 because1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 viii in ,evang473 ,bethlehem is interpreted 'the house of bread4' ,it is ,christ ,himself who said1 ',i am the living ,bread which came down from heaven4' ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,david was born in ,bethlehem1 so also did he choose ,jerusalem to set up his throne there1 and to build there the ,temple of ,god1 so that ,jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city4 ,now1 ,christ's priesthood and kingdom were consummated principally in ,his ,passion4 ,therefore it was becoming that ,he should choose ,bethlehem for ,his ,birthplace and ,jerusalem for the scene of ,his ,passion4 ,at the same time1 too1 ,he put to silence the vain boasting of men who take pride in being born in great cities1 where also they desire especially to receive honor4 ,christ1 on the contrary1 willed to be born in a mean city1 and to suffer reproach in a great city4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ wished to flower by ,his holy life1 not in ,his carnal birth4 ,therefore ,he wished to be fostered and brought up at ,nazareth4 ,but ,he wished to be born at ,bethlehem away from home2 because1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 viii in ,evang471 through the human nature which ,he had taken1 ,he was born1 as it were1 in a foreign place--foreign not to ,his power1 but to ,his ,nature4 ,and1 again1 as ,bede says on ,luke #b3g3 ,in order that ,he who found no room at the inn might prepare many mansions for us in ,his ,father's house4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to a sermon in the ,council of ,ephesus 99,p4 iii1 cap4 ix3 ,if ,he had chosen the great city of ,rome1 the change in the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens4 ,if ,he had been the son of the ,emperor1 ,his benefits would have been attributed to the latter's power4 ,but that we might acknowledge the work of ,god in the transformation of the whole earth1 ,he chose a poor mother and a birthplace poorer still4 ,but the weak things of the world hath ,god chosen1 that ,he may confound the strong 7#a ,cor4 #a3bg74 ,and therefore1 in order the more to show ,his power1 ,he set up the head of ,his ,church in ,rome itself1 which was the head of the world1 in sign of ,his complete victory1 in order that from that city the faith might spread throughout the world2 according to ,isa4 #bf3e1 #f3 ,the high city ,he shall lay low 4 4 4 the feet of the poor1 i4e4 of ,christ1 shall tread it down2 the steps of the needy1 i4e4 of the apostles ,peter and ,paul4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ce1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,christ ,was ,born at a ,fitting ,time8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not born at a fitting time4 ,because ,christ came in order to restore liberty to ,his own4 ,but ,he was born at a time of subjection--namely1 when the whole world1 as it were1 tributary to ,augustus1 was being enrolled1 at his command as ,luke relates 7#b3a74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ was not born at a fitting time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the promises concerning the coming of ,christ were not made to the ,gentiles2 according to ,rom4 #i3d3 ,to whom belong 4 4 4 the promises4 ,but ,christ was born during the reign of a foreigner1 as appears from ,matt4 #b3a3 ,when ,jesus was born in the days of ,king ,herod4 ,therefore it seems that ,he was not born at a fitting time4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the time of ,christ's presence on earth is compared to the day1 because ,he is the ,light of the world2 wherefore ,he says ,himself 7,john #i3d73 ,i must work the works of ,him that sent ,me1 whilst it is day4 ,but in summer the days are longer than in winter4 ,therefore1 since ,he was born in the depth of winter1 eight days before the ,kalends of ,january1 it seems that ,he was not born at a fitting time4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,gal4 #d3d73 ,when the fulness of the time was come1 ,god sent ,his ,son1 made of a woman1 made under the law4 ,i answer that1 ,there is this difference between ,christ and other men1 that1 whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time1 ,christ1 as ,lord and ,maker of all time1 chose a time in which to be born1 just as ,he chose a mother and a birthplace4 ,and since what is of ,god is well ordered and becomingly arranged1 it follows that ,christ was born at a most fitting time4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ came in order to bring us back from a state of bondage to a state of liberty4 ,and therefore1 as ,he took our mortal nature in order to restore us to life1 so1 as ,bede says 7,super ,luc4 ii1 #d1 #e71 ,he deigned to take flesh at such a time that1 shortly after ,his birth1 ,he would be enrolled in ,caesar's census1 and thus submit ,himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty4 ,moreover1 at that time1 when the whole world lived under one ruler1 peace abounded on the earth4 ,therefore it was a fitting time for the birth of ,christ1 for ,he is our peace1 who hath made both one1 as it is written 7,eph4 #b3ad74 ,wherefore ,jerome says on ,isa4 #b3d3 ,if we search the page of ancient history1 we shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of ,augustus ,caesar3 but when our ,lord was born1 all war ceased2 according to ,isa4 #b3d3 ,nation shall not lift up sword against nation4 ,again1 it was fitting that ,christ should be born while the world was governed by one ruler1 because ,he came to gather ,his own ,vulg43 'the children of ,god' together in one 7,john #aa3eb71 that there might be one fold and one shepherd 7,john #aj3af74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner1 that the prophecy of ,jacob might be fulfilled 7,gen4 #di3aj73 ,the sceptre shall not be taken away from ,juda1 nor a ruler from his thigh1 till ,he come that is to be sent4 ,because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 ii in ,matth4 99,opus ,imperf41 falsely ascribed to ,chrysostom71 as long as the ,jewish people was governed by ,jewish kings1 however wicked1 prophets were sent for their healing4 ,but now that the ,law of ,god is under the power of a wicked king1 ,christ is born2 because a grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful physician4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as says the author of the book ,de ,qq4 ,nov4 et ,vet4 ,test41 ,christ wished to be born1 when the light of day begins to increase in length1 so as to show that ,he came in order that man might come nearer to the ,divine ,light1 according to ,luke #a3gi3 ,to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death4 ,in like manner ,he chose to be born in the rough winter season1 that ,he might begin from then to suffer in body for us4 ,,question #cf ,,of ,,the ,,manifestation ,,of ,,the ,,newly ,,born ,,christ 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we must now consider the manifestation of the newly born ,christ3 concerning which there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's birth should have been made known to all8 7#b7 ,whether it should have been made known to some8 7#c7 ,to whom should it have been made known8 7#d7 ,whether ,he should have made ,himself known1 or should ,he rather have been manifested by others8 7#e7 ,by what other means should it have been made known8 7#f7 ,of the order of these manifestations2 7#g7 ,of the star by means of which ,his birth was made known2 7#h7 of the adoration of the ,magi1 who were informed of ,christ's nativity by means of the star4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,birth ,should ,have ,been ,made ,known to ,all8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's birth should have been made known to all4 ,because fulfilment should correspond to promise4 ,now1 the promise of ,christ's coming is thus expressed 7,ps4 #di3c73 ,god shall come manifestly4 ,but ,he came by ,his birth in the flesh4 ,therefore it seems that ,his birth should have been made known to the whole world4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,tim4 #a3ae73 ,christ came into this world to save sinners4 ,but this is not effected save in as far as the grace of ,christ is made known to them2 according to ,titus #b3aa1 #ab3 ,the grace of ,god our ,saviour hath appeared to all men1 instructing us1 that denying ungodliness and worldly desires1 we should live soberly1 and justly1 and godly in this world4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's birth should have been made known to all4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god is most especially inclined to mercy2 according to ,ps4 #add3i3 ,his tender mercies are over all ,his works4 ,but in ,his second coming1 when ,he will judge justices 7,ps4 #gj3c71 ,he will come before the eyes of all2 according to ,matt4 #bd3bg3 ,as lightning cometh out of the east1 and appeareth even into the west1 so shall also the coming of the ,son of ,man be4 ,much more1 therefore1 should ,his first coming1 when ,he was born into the world according to the flesh1 have been made known to all4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #de3ae73 ,thou art a hidden ,god1 the ,holy ,vulg43 'the ,god of ,israel1 the ,saviour4 ,and1 again 7,isa4 #dc3c73 ,his look was1 as it were1 hidden and despised4 ,i answer that1 ,it was unfitting that ,christ's birth should be made known to all men without distinction4 ,first1 because this would have been a hindrance to the redemption of man1 which was accomplished by means of the ,cross2 for1 as it is written 7#a ,cor4 #b3h73 ,if they had known it1 they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,secondly1 because this would have lessened the merit of faith1 which ,he came to offer men as the way to righteousness1 according to ,rom4 #c3bb3 ,the justice of ,god by faith of ,jesus ,christ4 ,for if1 when ,christ was born1 ,his birth had been made known to all by evident signs1 the very nature of faith would have been destroyed1 since it is the evidence of things that appear not1 as stated1 ,heb4 #aa3a4 ,thirdly1 because thus the reality of ,his human nature would have come into doubt4 ,whence ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusianum cxxxvii73 ,if ,he had not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to youth1 had neither eaten nor slept1 would ,he not have strengthened an erroneous opinion1 and made it impossible for us to believe that ,he had become true man8 ,and while ,he is doing all things wondrously1 would ,he have taken away that which ,he accomplished in mercy8 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,according to the gloss1 the words quoted must be understood of ,christ's coming as judge4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,all men were to be instructed unto salvation1 concerning the grace of ,god our ,saviour1 not at the very time of ,his birth1 but afterwards1 in due time1 after ,he had wrought salvation in the midst of the earth 7,ps4 #gc3ab74 ,wherefore after ,his ,passion and ,resurrection1 ,he said to ,his disciples 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,going 4 4 4 teach ye all nations4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,for judgment to be passed1 the authority of the judge needs to be known3 and for this reason it behooves that the coming of ,christ unto judgment should be manifest4 ,but ,his first coming was unto the salvation of all1 which is by faith that is of things not seen4 ,and therefore it was fitting that ,his first coming should be hidden4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,birth ,should ,have ,been ,made ,known to ,some8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's birth should not have been made known to anyone4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c71 it befitted the salvation of mankind that ,christ's first coming should be hidden4 ,but ,christ came to save all2 according to #a ,tim4 #d3aj3 ,who is the ,saviour of all men1 especially of the faithful4 ,therefore ,christ's birth should not have been made known to anyone4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 before ,christ was born1 ,his future birth was made known to the ,blessed ,virgin and ,joseph4 ,therefore it was not necessary that it should be made known to others after ,his birth4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 no wise man makes known that from which arise disturbance and harm to others4 ,but1 when ,christ's birth was made known1 disturbance arose3 for it is written 7,matt4 #b3c7 that ,king ,herod1 hearing of ,christ's birth1 was troubled1 and all ,jerusalem with him4 ,moreover1 this brought harm to others2 because it was the occasion of ,herod's killing all the male children that were in ,bethlehem 4 4 4 from two years old and under4 ,therefore it seems unfitting for ,christ's birth to have been made known to anyone4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ's birth would have been profitable to none if it had been hidden from all4 ,but it behooved ,christ's birth to be profitable3 else ,he were born in vain4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's birth should have been made known to some4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ac3a7 what is of ,god is well ordered4 ,now it belongs to the order of ,divine wisdom that ,god's gifts and the secrets of ,his wisdom are not bestowed on all equally1 but to some immediately1 through whom they are made known to others4 ,wherefore1 with regard to the mystery of the ,resurrection it is written 7,acts #aj3dj1 #da73 ,god 4 4 4 gave ,christ rising again to be made manifest1 not to all the people1 but to witnesses pre-ordained by ,god4 ,consequently1 that ,his birth might be consistent with this1 it should have been made known1 not to all1 but to some1 through whom it could be made known to others4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of mankind if ,god's birth had been made known to all men1 so also would it have been if none had been informed of it4 ,because in either case faith is destroyed1 whether a thing be perfectly manifest1 or whether it be entirely unknown1 so that no one can hear it from another2 for faith cometh by hearing 7,rom4 #aj3ag74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,mary and ,joseph needed to be instructed concerning ,christ's birth before ,he was born1 because it devolved on them to show reverence to the child conceived in the womb1 and to serve ,him even before ,he was born4 ,but their testimony1 being of a domestic character1 would have aroused suspicion in regard to ,christ's greatness3 and so it behooved it to be made known to others1 whose testimony could not be suspect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the very disturbance that arose when it was known that ,christ was born was becoming to ,his birth4 ,first1 because thus the heavenly dignity of ,christ is made manifest4 ,wherefore ,gregory says 7,hom4 x in ,evang473 ,after the birth of the ,king of heaven1 the earthly king is troubled3 doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed4 ,secondly1 thereby the judicial power of ,christ was foreshadowed4 ,thus ,augustine says in a sermon 7#cj de ,temp47 on the ,epiphany3 ,what will ,he be like in the judgment-seat2 since from ,his cradle ,he struck terror into the heart of a proud king8 ,thirdly1 because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was foreshadowed4 ,for1 as ,pope ,leo says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7,serm4 v 99,opus ,imperfectum in ,matth41 ,hom4 ii1 falsely ascribed to ,st4 ,john ,chrysostom73 ,herod was not so much troubled in himself as the devil in ,herod4 ,for ,herod thought ,him to be a man1 but the devil thought ,him to be ,god4 ,each feared a successor to his kingdom3 the devil1 a heavenly successor2 ,herod1 an earthly successor4 ,but their fear was needless3 since ,christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom1 as ,pope ,leo says1 addressing himself to ,herod3 ,thy palace cannot hold ,christ3 nor is the ,lord of the world content with the paltry power of thy scepter4 ,that the ,jews were troubled1 who1 on the contrary1 should have rejoiced1 was either because1 as ,chrysostom says1 wicked men could not rejoice at the coming of the ,holy one1 or because they wished to court favor with ,herod1 whom they feared2 for the populace is inclined to favor too much those whose cruelty it endures4 ,and that the children were slain by ,herod was not harmful to them1 but profitable4 ,for ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7#ff de ,diversis73 ,it cannot be questioned that ,christ1 who came to set man free1 rewarded those who were slain for ,him2 since1 while hanging on the cross1 ,he prayed for those who were putting ,him to death4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,those to ,whom ,christ's ,birth ,was ,made ,known ,were ,suitably ,chosen8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that those to whom ,christ's birth was made known were not suitably chosen4 ,for our ,lord 7,matt4 #aj3e7 commanded ,his disciples1 ,go ye not into the way of the ,gentiles1 so that ,he might be made known to the ,jews before the ,gentiles4 ,therefore it seems that much less should ,christ's birth have been at once revealed to the ,gentiles who came from the east1 as stated ,matt4 #b3a4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the revelation of ,divine truth should be made especially to the friends of ,god1 according to ,job #cg ,vulg43 ,job #cf3cc3 ,he sheweth ,his friend concerning it4 ,but the ,magi seem to be ,god's foes2 for it is written 7,lev4 #ai3ca73 ,go not aside after wizards 7magi71 neither ask anything of soothsayers4 ,therefore ,christ's birth should not have been made known to the ,magi4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ came in order to set free the whole world from the power of the devil2 whence it is written 7,malachi #a3aa73 ,from the rising of the sun even to the going down1 ,my name is great among the ,gentiles4 ,therefore ,he should have been made known1 not only to those who dwelt in the east1 but also to some from all parts of the world4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 all the sacraments of the ,old ,law were figures of ,christ4 ,but the sacraments of the ,old ,law were dispensed through the ministry of the legal priesthood4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's birth should have been made known rather to the priests in the ,temple than to the shepherds in the fields4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 ,christ was born of a ,virgin-,mother1 and was as yet a little child4 ,it was therefore more suitable that ,he should be made known to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to widows1 such as ,simeon and ,anna4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #ac3ah73 ,i know whom ,i have chosen4 ,but what is done by ,god's wisdom is done becomingly4 ,therefore those to whom ,christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen4 ,i answer that1 ,salvation1 which was to be accomplished by ,christ1 concerns all sorts and conditions of men3 because1 as it is written 7,col4 #c3aa71 in ,christ there is neither male nor female1 99,these words are in reality from ,gal4 #c3bh neither ,gentile nor ,jew 4 4 4 bond nor free1 and so forth4 ,and in order that this might be foreshadowed in ,christ's birth1 ,he was made known to men of all conditions4 ,because1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7#cb de ,temp471 the shepherds were ,israelites1 the ,magi were ,gentiles4 ,the former were nigh to ,him1 the latter far from ,him4 ,both hastened to ,him together as to the cornerstone4 ,there was also another point of contrast3 for the ,magi were wise and powerful2 the shepherds simple and lowly4 ,he was also made known to the righteous as ,simeon and ,anna2 and to sinners1 as the ,magi4 ,he was made known both to men1 and to women--namely1 to ,anna--so as to show no condition of men to be excluded from ,christ's redemption4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that manifestation of ,christ's birth was a kind of foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come4 ,and as in the later manifestation the first announcement of the grace of ,christ was made by ,him and ,his ,apostles to the ,jews and afterwards to the ,gentiles1 so the first to come to ,christ were the shepherds1 who were the first-fruits of the ,jews1 as being near to ,him2 and afterwards came the ,magi from afar1 who were the first-fruits of the ,gentiles1 as ,augustine says 7,serm4 #cj de ,temp4 cc474 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7,serm4 #cj de ,temp473 ,as unskilfulness predominates in the rustic manners of the shepherd1 so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the ,magi4 ,yet did this ,corner-,stone draw both to ,itself2 inasmuch as ,he came 'to choose the foolish things that ,he might confound the wise1' and 'not to call the just1 but sinners1' so that the proud might not boast1 nor the weak despair4 ,nevertheless1 there are those who say that these ,magi were not wizards1 but wise astronomers1 who are called ,magi among the ,persians or ,chaldees4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 99,hom4 ii in ,matth4 in the ,opus ,imperf41 among the supposititious works of ,chrysostom3 ,the ,magi came from the east1 because the first beginning of faith came from the land where the day is born2 since faith is the light of the soul4 ,or1 because all who come to ,christ come from ,him and through ,him3 whence it is written 7,zech4 #f3ab73 ,behold a ,man1 the ,orient is ,his name4 ,now1 they are said to come from the east literally1 either because1 as some say1 they came from the farthest parts of the east1 or because they came from the neighboring parts of ,judea that lie to the east of the region inhabited by the ,jews4 ,yet it is to be believed that certain signs of ,christ's birth appeared also in other parts of the world3 thus1 at ,rome the river flowed with oil 99,eusebius1 ,chronic4 ,,ii1 ,olymp4 #ahe2 and in ,spain three suns were seen1 which gradually merged into one 99,cf4 ,eusebius1 ,chronic4 ,,ii1 ,olymp4 #ahd4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,chrysostom observes 7,theophylact41 ,enarr4 in ,luc4 ii1 #h71 the angel who announced ,christ's birth did not go to ,jerusalem1 nor did he seek the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 for they were corrupted1 and full of ill-will4 ,but the shepherds were single-minded1 and were like the patriarchs and ,moses in their mode of life4 ,moreover1 these shepherds were types of the ,doctors of the ,church1 to whom are revealed the mysteries of ,christ that were hidden from the ,jews4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,ambrose says 7on ,luke #b3be73 ,it was right that our ,lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds1 but also by people advanced in age and virtue3 whose testimony is rendered the more credible by reason of their righteousness4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,himself ,should ,have ,made ,his ,birth ,known8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should have ,himself made ,his birth known4 ,for a direct cause is always of greater power than an indirect cause1 as is stated ,phys4 viii4 ,but ,christ made ,his birth known through others--for instance1 to the shepherds through the angels1 and to the ,magi through the star4 ,much more1 therefore1 should ,he ,himself have made ,his birth known4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,ecclus4 #bj3cb73 ,wisdom that is hid and treasure that is not seen2 what profit is there in them both8 ,but ,christ had1 to perfection1 the treasure of wisdom and grace from the beginning of ,his conception4 ,therefore1 unless ,he had made the fulness of these gifts known by words and deeds1 wisdom and grace would have been given ,him to no purpose4 ,but this is unreasonable3 because ,god and nature do nothing without a purpose 7,de ,coelo i74 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 we read in the book ,de ,infantia ,salvatoris that in ,his infancy ,christ worked many miracles4 ,it seems therefore that ,he did ,himself make ,his birth known4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 xxxiv7 that the ,magi found the infant ,jesus in no way different from the generality of human infants4 ,but other infants do not make themselves known4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,christ should ,himself make ,his birth known4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation1 which is by faith4 ,but saving faith confesses ,christ's ,godhead and humanity4 ,it behooved1 therefore1 ,christ's birth to be made known in such a way that the proof of ,his ,godhead should not be prejudicial to faith in ,his human nature4 ,but this took place while ,christ presented a likeness of human weakness1 and yet1 by means of ,god's creatures1 ,he showed the power of the ,godhead in ,himself4 ,therefore ,christ made ,his birth known1 not by ,himself1 but by means of certain other creatures4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by the way of generation and movement we must of necessity come to the imperfect before the perfect4 ,and therefore ,christ was made known first through other creatures1 and afterwards ,he ,himself manifested ,himself perfectly4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although hidden wisdom is useless1 yet there is no need for a wise man to make himself known at all times1 but at a suitable time2 for it is written 7,ecclus4 #bj3f73 ,there is one that holdeth his peace because he knoweth not what to say3 and there is another that holdeth his peace1 knowing the proper time4 ,hence the wisdom given to ,christ was not useless1 because at a suitable time ,he manifested ,himself4 ,and the very fact that ,he was hidden at a suitable time is a sign of wisdom4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the book ,de ,infantia ,salvatoris is apocryphal4 ,moreover1 ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xxi super ,joan47 says that ,christ worked no miracles before changing the water into wine1 according to ,john #b3aa3 ',this beginning of miracles did ,jesus4' ,for if ,he had worked miracles at an early age1 there would have been no need for anyone else to manifest ,him to the ,israelites2 whereas ,john the ,baptist says 7,john #a3ca73 ',that ,he may be made manifest in ,israel2 therefore am ,i come baptizing with water4' ,moreover1 it was fitting that ,he should not begin to work miracles at an early age4 ,for people would have thought the ,incarnation to be unreal1 and1 out of sheer spite1 would have crucified ,him before the proper time4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ's ,birth ,should ,have ,been ,manifested by ,means of the ,angels and the ,star8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's birth should not have been manifested by means of the angels4 ,for angels are spiritual substances1 according to ,ps4 #ajc3d3 ,who maketh ,his ,vulg43 'makest ,thy' angels1 spirits4 ,but ,christ's birth was in the flesh1 and not in ,his spiritual substance4 ,therefore it should not have been manifested by means of angels4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the righteous are more akin to the angels than to any other1 according to ,ps4 #cc3h3 ,the angel of the ,lord shall encamp round about them that fear ,him1 and shall deliver them4 ,but ,christ's birth was not announced to the righteous1 viz4 ,simeon and ,anna1 through the angels4 ,therefore neither should it have been announced to the shepherds by means of the angels4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems that neither ought it to have been announced to the ,magi by means of the star4 ,for this seems to favor the error of those who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars4 ,but occasions of sin should be taken away from man4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,christ's birth should be announced by a star4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 a sign should be certain1 in order that something be made known thereby4 ,but a star does not seem to be a certain sign of ,christ's birth4 ,therefore ,christ's birth was not suitably announced by a star4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,deut4 #cb3d73 ,the works of ,god are perfect4 ,but this manifestation is the work of ,god4 ,therefore it was accomplished by means of suitable signs4 ,i answer that1 ,as knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from something which we know better1 so knowledge given by signs must be conveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the knowledge is imparted4 ,now1 it is clear that the righteous have1 through the spirit of prophecy1 a certain familiarity with the interior instinct of the ,holy ,ghost1 and are wont to be taught thereby1 without the guidance of sensible signs4 ,whereas others1 occupied with material things1 are led through the domain of the senses to that of the intellect4 ,the ,jews1 however1 were accustomed to receive ,divine answers through the angels2 through whom they also received the ,law1 according to ,acts #g3ec3 ,you ,vulg43 'who' 4 4 4 have received the ,law by the disposition of angels4 ,and the ,gentiles1 especially astrologers1 were wont to observe the course of the stars4 ,and therefore ,christ's birth was made known to the righteous1 viz4 ,simeon and ,anna1 by the interior instinct of the ,holy ,ghost1 according to ,luke #b3bf3 ,he had received an answer from the ,holy ,ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the ,christ of the ,lord4 ,but to the shepherds and ,magi1 as being occupied with material things1 ,christ's birth was made known by means of visible apparitions4 ,and since this birth was not only earthly1 but also1 in a way1 heavenly1 to both 7shepherds and ,magi7 it is revealed through heavenly signs3 for1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cciv73 ,the angels inhabit1 and the stars adorn1 the heavens3 by both1 therefore1 do the 'heavens show forth the glory of ,god4' ,moreover1 it was not without reason that ,christ's birth was made known1 by means of angels1 to the shepherds1 who1 being ,jews1 were accustomed to frequent apparitions of the angels3 whereas it was revealed by means of a star to the ,magi1 who were wont to consider the heavenly bodies4 ,because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 vi in ,matth473 ,our ,lord deigned to call them through things to which they were accustomed4 ,there is also another reason4 ,for1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 x in ,evang473 ,to the ,jews1 as rational beings1 it was fitting that a rational animal 99,cf4 ,i1 ,q4 #ea1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b1 viz4 an angel1 should preach4 ,whereas the ,gentiles1 who were unable to come to the knowledge of ,god through the reason1 were led to ,god1 not by words1 but by signs4 ,and as our ,lord1 when ,he was able to speak1 was announced by heralds who spoke1 so before ,he could speak ,he was manifested by speechless elements4 ,again1 there is yet another reason4 ,for1 as ,augustine 99,pope ,leo says in a sermon on the ,epiphany3 ,to ,abraham was promised an innumerable progeny1 begotten1 not of carnal propagation1 but of the fruitfulness of faith4 ,for this reason it is compared to the multitude of stars2 that a heavenly progeny might be hoped for4 ,wherefore the ,gentiles1 who are thus designated by the stars1 are by the rising of a new star stimulated to seek ,christ1 through whom they are made the seed of ,abraham4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that which of itself is hidden needs to be manifested1 but not that which in itself is manifest4 ,now1 the flesh of ,him who was born was manifest1 whereas the ,godhead was hidden4 ,and therefore it was fitting that this birth should be made known by angels1 who are the ministers of ,god4 ,wherefore also a certain brightness 7,luke #b3i7 accompanied the angelic apparition1 to indicate that ,he who was just born was the ,brightness of the ,father's glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the righteous did not need the visible apparition of the angel2 on account of their perfection the interior instinct of the ,holy ,ghost was enough for them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the star which manifested ,christ's birth removed all occasion of error4 ,for1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 ii73 ,no astrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars1 at the birth of any man1 left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born3 as happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of ,christ4 ,consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who think there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars1 for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be changed at a man's birth4 ,in the same sense ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 vi in ,matth473 ,it is not an astronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born1 but to tell the future from the hour of a man's birth3 whereas the ,magi did not know the time of the birth1 so as to conclude therefrom some knowledge of the future2 rather was it the other way about4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,chrysostom relates 7,hom4 ii in ,matth47 that1 according to some apocryphal books1 a certain tribe in the far east near the ocean was in the possession of a document written by ,seth1 referring to this star and to the presents to be offered3 which tribe watched attentively for the rising of this star1 twelve men being appointed to take observations1 who at stated times repaired to the summit of a mountain with faithful assiduity3 whence they subsequently perceived the star containing the figure of a small child1 and above it the form of a cross4 ,or we may say1 as may be read in the book ,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 lxiii1 that these ,magi followed the tradition of ,balaam1 who said1 ',a star shall rise out of ,jacob4' ,wherefore observing this star to be a stranger to the system of this world1 they gathered that it was the one foretold by ,balaam to indicate the ,king of the ,jews4 ,or again1 it may be said with ,augustine1 in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7ccclxxiv71 that the ,magi had received a revelation through the angels that the star was a sign of the birth of ,christ3 and he thinks it probable that these were good angels2 since in adoring ,christ they were seeking for salvation4 ,or with ,pope ,leo1 in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7xxxiv71 that besides the outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes1 a more brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,birth ,was ,made ,known in a ,becoming ,order8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's birth was made known in an unbecoming order4 ,for ,christ's birth should have been made known to them first who were nearest to ,christ1 and who longed for ,him most2 according to ,wis4 #f3ad3 ,she preventeth them that covet her1 so that she first showeth herself unto them4 ,but the righteous were nearest to ,christ by faith1 and longed most for ,his coming2 whence it is written 7,luke #b3be7 of ,simeon that he was just and devout1 waiting for the consolation of ,israel4 ,therefore ,christ's birth should have been made known to ,simeon before the shepherds and ,magi4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,magi were the first-fruits of the ,gentiles1 who were to believe in ,christ4 ,but first the fulness of the ,gentiles 4 4 4 come in unto faith1 and afterwards all ,israel shall be saved1 as is written 7,rom4 #aa3be74 ,therefore ,christ's birth should have been made known to the ,magi before the shepherds4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,matt4 #b3af7 that ,herod killed all the male children that were in ,bethlehem1 and in all the borders thereof1 from two years old and under1 according to the time which he had diligently inquired from the wise men3 so that it seems that the ,magi were two years in coming to ,christ after ,his birth4 ,it was therefore unbecoming that ,christ should be made known to the ,gentiles so long after ,his birth4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,dan4 #b3ba73 ,he changes time and ages4 ,consequently the time of the manifestation of ,christ's birth seems to have been arranged in a suitable order4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on the very day that ,he was born4 ,for1 as it is written 7,luke #b3h1 #ae1 #af73 ,there were in the same country shepherds watching1 and keeping the night-watches over their flock 4 4 4 ,and it came to pass1 after the angels departed from them into heaven they ,vulg43 'the shepherds' said one to another3 ,let us go over to ,bethlehem 4 4 4 and they came with haste4 ,second in order were the ,magi1 who came to ,christ on the thirteenth day after ,his birth1 on which day is kept the feast of the ,epiphany4 ,for if they had come after a year1 or even two years1 they would not have found ,him in ,bethlehem1 since it is written 7,luke #b3ci7 that after they had performed all things according to the law of the ,lord--that is to say1 after they had offered up the ,child ,jesus in the ,temple--they returned into ,galilee1 to their city--namely1 ,nazareth4 ,in the third place1 it was made known in the ,temple to the righteous on the fortieth day after ,his birth1 as related by ,luke 7#b3bb74 ,the reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles and other believers of the ,jews1 to whom the faith of ,christ was made known first2 among whom there were not many mighty1 not many noble1 as we read #a ,cor4 #a3bf4 ,secondly1 the faith of ,christ came to the fulness of the ,gentiles2 and this is foreshadowed in the ,magi4 ,thirdly it came to the fulness of the ,jews1 which is foreshadowed in the righteous4 ,wherefore also ,christ was manifested to them in the ,jewish ,temple4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #i3cj1 #ca73 ,israel1 by following after the law of justice1 is not come unto the law of justice3 but the ,gentiles1 who followed not after justice1 forestalled the generality of the ,jews in the justice which is of faith4 ,as a figure of this1 ,simeon1 who was waiting for the consolation of ,israel1 was the last to know ,christ born3 and he was preceded by the ,magi and the shepherds1 who did not await the coming of ,christ with such longing4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the fulness of the ,gentiles came in unto faith before the fulness of the ,jews1 yet the first-fruits of the ,jews preceded the first-fruits of the ,gentiles in faith4 ,for this reason the birth of ,christ was made known to the shepherds before the ,magi4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there are two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the ,magi4 ,for ,chrysostom 7,hom4 ii in ,matth4 99,opus ,imperf4 in ,matth41 falsely ascribed to ,chrysostom71 and ,augustine in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cxxxi1 cxxxii71 say that the star was seen by the ,magi during the two years that preceded the birth of ,christ3 and then1 having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for the journey1 they came from the farthest east to ,christ1 arriving on the thirteenth day after ,his birth4 ,wherefore ,herod1 immediately after the departure of the ,magi1 perceiving that ,he was deluded by them1 commanded the male children to be killed from two years old and under1 being doubtful lest ,christ were already born when the star appeared1 according as he had heard from the ,magi4 ,but others say that the star first appeared when ,christ was born1 and that the ,magi set off as soon as they saw the star1 and accomplished a journey of very great length in thirteen days1 owing partly to the ,divine assistance1 and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries4 ,and ,i say this on the supposition that they came from the far east4 ,but others1 again1 say that they came from a neighboring country1 whence also was ,balaam1 to whose teaching they were heirs2 and they are said to have come from the east1 because their country was to the east of the country of the ,jews4 ,in this case ,herod killed the babes1 not as soon as the ,magi departed1 but two years after3 and that either because he is said to have gone to ,rome in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against him1 or because he was troubled at some imminent peril1 and for the time being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child1 or because he may have thought that the ,magi1 being deceived by the illusory appearance of the star1 and not finding the child1 as they had expected to1 were ashamed to return to him3 as ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii74 ,and the reason why he killed not only those who were two years old1 but also the younger children1 would be1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,innocents1 because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey1 might make himself appear older or younger4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,star ,which ,appeared to the ,magi ,belonged to the ,heavenly ,system8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the star which appeared to the ,magi belonged to the heavenly system4 ,for ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cxxii73 ,while ,god yet clings to the breast1 and suffers ,himself to be wrapped in humble swaddling clothes1 suddenly a new star shines forth in the heavens4 ,therefore the star which appeared to the ,magi belonged to the heavenly system4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cci73 ,christ was made known to the shepherds by angels1 to the ,magi by a star4 ,a heavenly tongue speaks to both1 because the tongue of the prophets spoke no longer4 ,but the angels who appeared to the shepherds were really angels from heaven4 ,therefore also the star which appeared to the ,magi was really a star from the heavens4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 stars which are not in the heavens but in the air are called comets1 which do not appear at the birth of kings1 but rather are signs of their approaching death4 ,but this star was a sign of the ,king's birth3 wherefore the ,magi said 7,matt4 #b3b73 ,where is ,he that is born ,king of the ,jews8 ,for we have seen ,his star in the east4 ,therefore it seems that it was a star from the heavens4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 ii73 ,it was not one of those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course appointed to them by the ,creator2 but this star was a stranger to the heavens1 and made its appearance at the strange sight of a virgin in childbirth4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 vi in ,matth471 it is clear1 for many reasons1 that the star which appeared to the ,magi did not belong to the heavenly system4 ,first1 because no other star approaches from the same quarter as this star1 whose course was from north to south1 these being the relative positions of ,persia1 whence the ,magi came1 and ,judea4 ,secondly1 from the time at which it was seen4 ,for it appeared not only at night1 but also at midday3 and no star can do this1 not even the moon4 ,thirdly1 because it was visible at one time and hidden at another4 ,for when they entered ,jerusalem it hid itself3 then1 when they had left ,herod1 it showed itself again4 ,fourthly1 because its movement was not continuous1 but when the ,magi had to continue their journey the star moved on2 when they had to stop the star stood still2 as happened to the pillar of a cloud in the desert4 ,fifthly1 because it indicated the virginal ,birth1 not by remaining aloft1 but by coming down below4 ,for it is written 7,matt4 #b3i7 that the star which they had seen in the east went before them1 until it came and stood over where the child was4 ,whence it is evident that the words of the ,magi1 ,we have seen ,his star in the east1 are to be taken as meaning1 not that when they were in the east the star appeared over the country of ,judea1 but that when they saw the star it was in the east1 and that it preceded them into ,judea 7although this is considered doubtful by some74 ,but it could not have indicated the house distinctly1 unless it were near the earth4 ,and1 as he ,chrysostom observes1 this does not seem fitting to a star1 but of some power endowed with reason4 ,consequently it seems that this was some invisible force made visible under the form of a star4 ,wherefore some say that1 as the ,holy ,ghost1 after our ,lord's ,baptism1 came down on ,him under the form of a dove1 so did ,he appear to the ,magi under the form of a star4 ,while others say that the angel who1 under a human form1 appeared to the shepherds1 under the form of a star1 appeared to the ,magi4 ,but it seems more probable that it was a newly created star1 not in the heavens1 but in the air near the earth1 and that its movement varied according to ,god's will4 ,wherefore ,pope ,leo says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7xxxi73 ,a star of unusual brightness appeared to the three ,magi in the east1 which1 through being more brilliant and more beautiful than the other stars1 drew men's gaze and attention3 so that they understood at once that such an unwonted event could not be devoid of purpose4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in ,holy ,scripture the air is sometimes called the heavens--for instance1 ,the birds of the heavens ,douay3 'air' and the fishes of the sea4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the angels of heaven1 by reason of their very office1 come down to us1 being sent to minister4 ,but the stars of heaven do not change their position4 ,wherefore there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the star did not follow the course of the heavenly stars1 so neither did it follow the course of the comets1 which neither appear during the daytime nor vary their customary course4 ,nevertheless in its signification it has something in common with the comets4 ,because the heavenly kingdom of ,christ shall break in pieces1 and shall consume all the kingdoms of the earth1 and itself shall stand for ever 7,dan4 #b3dd74 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cf1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,it ,was ,becoming ,that the ,magi ,should ,come to ,adore ,christ and ,pay ,homage to ,him8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unbecoming that the ,magi should come to adore ,christ and pay homage to ,him4 ,for reverence is due to a king from his subjects4 ,but the ,magi did not belong to the kingdom of the ,jews4 ,therefore1 since they knew by seeing the star that ,he that was born was the ,king of the ,jews1 it seems unbecoming that they should come to adore ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it seems absurd during the reign of one king to proclaim a stranger4 ,but in ,judea ,herod was reigning4 ,therefore it was foolish of the ,magi to proclaim the birth of a king4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign4 ,but the ,magi had come to ,judea from the east1 under the guidance of a heavenly sign4 ,therefore it was foolish of them to seek human guidance besides that of the star1 saying3 ,where is ,he that is born ,king of the ,jews8 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration are not due save to kings already reigning4 ,but the ,magi did not find ,christ resplendent with kingly grandeur4 ,therefore it was unbecoming for them to offer ,him gifts and homage4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #fj3c73 ,the ,gentiles shall walk in the light1 and kings in the brightness of thy rising4 ,but those who walk in the ,divine light do not err4 ,therefore the ,magi were right in offering homage to ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c1 ad #a71 the ,magi are the first-fruits of the ,gentiles that believed in ,christ2 because their faith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were to come to ,christ from afar4 ,and therefore1 as the devotion and faith of the nations is without any error through the inspiration of the ,holy ,ghost1 so also we must believe that the ,magi1 inspired by the ,holy ,ghost1 did wisely in paying homage to ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cc473 ,though many kings of the ,jews had been born and died1 none of them did the ,magi seek to adore4 ,and so they who came from a distant foreign land to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them1 had no idea of showing such great homage to such a king as the ,jews were wont to have4 ,but they had learnt that such a ,king was born that by adoring ,him they might be sure of obtaining from ,him the salvation which is of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by proclaiming ,christ ,king the ,magi foreshadowed the constancy of the ,gentiles in confessing ,christ even until death4 ,whence ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 ii in ,matth47 that1 while they thought of the ,king who was to come1 the ,magi feared not the king who was actually present4 ,they had not yet seen ,christ1 and they were already prepared to die for ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cc473 ,the star which led the ,magi to the place where the ,divine ,infant was with ,his ,virgin-,mother could bring them to the town of ,bethlehem1 in which ,christ was born4 ,yet it hid itself until the ,jews also bore testimony of the city in which ,christ was to be born3 so that1 being encouraged by a twofold witness1 as ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 xxxiv71 they might seek with more ardent faith ,him1 whom both the brightness of the star and the authority of prophecy revealed4 ,thus they proclaim that ,christ is born1 and inquire where2 they believe and ask1 as it were1 betokening those who walk by faith and desire to see1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cxcix74 ,but the ,jews1 by indicating to them the place of ,christ's birth1 are like the carpenters who built the ,ark of ,noe1 who provided others with the means of escape1 and themselves perished in the flood4 ,those who asked1 heard and went their way3 the teachers spoke and stayed where they were2 like the milestones that point out the way but walk not 7,augustine1 ,serm4 cclxxiii74 ,it was also by ,god's will that1 when they no longer saw the star1 the ,magi1 by human instinct1 went to ,jerusalem1 to seek in the royal city the new-born ,king1 in order that ,christ's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in ,jerusalem1 according to ,isa4 #b3c3 ,the ,law shall come forth from ,sion1 and the ,word of the ,lord from ,jerusalem2 and also in order that by the zeal of the ,magi who came from afar1 the indolence of the ,jews who lived near at hand1 might be proved worthy of condemnation 7,remig41 ,hom4 in ,matth4 ii1 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 ii in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum73 ,if the ,magi had come in search of an earthly ,king1 they would have been disconcerted at finding that they had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing4 ,consequently they would have neither adored nor offered gifts4 ,but since they sought a heavenly ,king1 though they found in ,him no signs of royal pre-eminence1 yet1 content with the testimony of the star alone1 they adored3 for they saw a man1 and they acknowledged a ,god4 ,moreover1 they offer gifts in keeping with ,christ's greatness3 gold1 as to the great ,king2 they offer up incense as to ,god1 because it is used in the ,divine ,sacrifice2 and myrrh1 which is used in embalming the bodies of the dead1 is offered as to ,him who is to die for the salvation of all 7,gregory1 ,hom4 x in ,evang474 ,and hereby1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 x in ,evang471 we are taught to offer gold1 which signifies wisdom1 to the new-born ,king1 by the luster of our wisdom in ,his sight4 ,we offer ,god incense1 which signifies fervor in prayer1 if our constant prayers mount up to ,god with an odor of sweetness2 and we offer myrrh1 which signifies mortification of the flesh1 if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from them4 ,,question #cg ,,of ,,christ',s ,,circumcision1 ,,and ,,of ,,the ,,other ,,legal ,,observances ,,accomplished ,,in ,,regard ,,to ,,the ,,child ,,christ 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider ,christ's circumcision4 ,and since the circumcision is a kind of profession of observing the ,law1 according to ,gal4 #e3c3 ,i testify 4 4 4 to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole ,law1 we shall have at the same time to inquire about the other legal observances accomplished in regard to the ,child ,christ4 ,therefore there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,his circumcision2 7#b7 ,the imposition of ,his name2 7#c7 ,his presentation2 7#d7 ,his ,mother's purification4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cg1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,been ,circumcised8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have been circumcised4 ,for on the advent of the reality1 the figure ceases4 ,but circumcision was prescribed to ,abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity1 as may be seen from ,gen4 #ag4 ,now this covenant was fulfilled in ,christ's birth4 ,therefore circumcision should have ceased at once4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 every action of ,christ is a lesson to us 99,innoc4 ,,iii1 ,serm4 xxii de ,temp42 wherefore it is written 7,john #c3ae73 ,i have given you an example1 that as ,i have done to you1 so you do also4 ,but we ought not to be circumcised2 according to ,gal4 #e3b3 ,if you be circumcised1 ,christ shall profit you nothing4 ,therefore it seems that neither should ,christ have been circumcised4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin4 ,but ,christ did not contract original sin1 as stated above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #c2 ,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore ,christ should not have been circumcised4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #b3ba73 ,after eight days were accomplished1 that the child should be circumcised4 ,i answer that1 ,for several reasons ,christ ought to have been circumcised4 ,first1 in order to prove the reality of ,his human nature1 in contradiction to the ,manicheans1 who said that ,he had an imaginary body3 and in contradiction to ,apollinarius1 who said that ,christ's body was consubstantial with ,his ,godhead2 and in contradiction to ,valentine1 who said that ,christ brought ,his body from heaven4 ,secondly1 in order to show ,his approval of circumcision1 which ,god had instituted of old4 ,thirdly1 in order to prove that ,he was descended from ,abraham1 who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in ,him4 ,fourthly1 in order to take away from the ,jews an excuse for not receiving ,him1 if ,he were uncircumcised4 ,fifthly1 in order by ,his example to exhort us to be obedient 99,bede1 ,hom4 x in ,evang44 ,wherefore ,he was circumcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the ,law 7,lev4 #ab3c74 ,sixthly1 that ,he who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed4 ,seventhly1 that by taking on ,himself the burden of the ,law1 ,he might set others free therefrom1 according to ,gal4 #d3d1 #e3 ,god sent ,his ,son 4 4 4 made under the ,law1 that ,he might redeem them who were under the ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the member of generation1 signified the passing away of the old generation 99,athanasius1 ,de ,sabb4 et ,circumcis43 from the decrepitude of which we are freed by ,christ's ,passion4 ,consequently this figure was not completely fulfilled in ,christ's birth1 but in ,his ,passion1 until which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status4 ,therefore it behooved ,christ to be circumcised as a son of ,abraham before ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of obligation4 ,and thus ,his action in this should be imitated by us1 in fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time4 ,because there is a time and opportunity for every business 7,eccl #h3f74 ,moreover1 according to ,origen 7,hom4 xiv in ,luc471 as we died when ,he died1 and rose again when ,christ rose from the dead1 so were we circumcised spiritually through ,christ3 wherefore we need no carnal circumcision4 ,and this is what the ,apostle says 7,col4 #b3aa73 ,in whom1 i4e4 ,christ you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh1 but in the circumcision of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,christ voluntarily took upon ,himself our death1 which is the effect of sin1 whereas ,he had no sin ,himself1 in order to deliver us from death1 and to make us to die spiritually unto sin1 so also ,he took upon ,himself circumcision1 which was a remedy against original sin1 whereas ,he contracted no original sin1 in order to deliver us from the yoke of the ,law1 and to accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us--in order1 that is to say1 that1 by taking upon ,himself the shadow1 ,he might accomplish the reality4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cg1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,his ,name ,was ,suitably ,given to ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that an unsuitable name was given to ,christ4 ,for the ,gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling4 ,but the prophets foretold another name for ,christ3 for it is written 7,isa4 #g3ad73 ,behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son1 and ,his name shall be called ,emmanuel2 and 7,isa4 #h3c73 ,call ,his name1 ,hasten to take away the spoils2 ,make haste to take away the prey2 and 7,isa4 #i3f73 ,his name shall be called ,wonderful1 ,counselor ,god the ,mighty1 the ,father of the world to come1 the ,prince of ,peace2 and 7,zech4 #f3ab73 ,behold a ,man1 the ,orient is ,his name4 ,thus it was unsuitable that ,his name should be called ,jesus4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,isa4 #fb3b73 ,thou shalt be called by a new name1 which the mouth of the ,lord hath named ,vulg43 'shall name'4 ,but the name ,jesus is not a new name1 but was given to several in the ,old ,testament3 as may be seen in the genealogy of ,christ 7,luke #c3bi71 ,therefore it seems that it was unfitting for ,his name to be called ,jesus4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the name ,jesus signifies salvation2 as is clear from ,matt4 #a3ba3 ,she shall bring forth a son1 and thou shalt call ,his name ,jesus4 ,for ,he shall save ,his people from their sins4 ,but salvation through ,christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision1 but also in uncircumcision1 as is declared by the ,apostle 7,rom4 #d3aa1 #ab74 ,therefore this name was not suitably given to ,christ at ,his circumcision4 ,on the contrary is the authority of ,scripture1 in which it is written 7,luke #b3ba73 ,after eight days were accomplished1 that the child should be circumcised1 ,his name was called ,jesus4 ,i answer that1 ,a name should answer to the nature of a thing4 ,this is clear in the names of genera and species1 as stated ,metaph4 iv3 ,since a name is but an expression of the definition which designates a thing's proper nature4 ,now1 the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given4 ,either in regard to time2 thus men are named after the ,saints on whose feasts they are born3 or in respect of some blood relation2 thus a son is named after his father or some other relation2 and thus the kinsfolk of ,john the ,baptist wished to call him by his father's name ,zachary1 not by the name ,john1 because there was none of his kindred that was called by this name1 as related ,luke #a3ei-fa4 ,or1 again1 from some occurrence2 thus ,joseph called the name of the first-born ,manasses1 saying3 ,god hath made me to forget all my labors 7,gen4 #da3ea74 ,or1 again1 from some quality of the person who receives the name2 thus it is written 7,gen4 #be3be7 that he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin2 and his name was called ,esau1 which is interpreted red4 ,but names given to men by ,god always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by ,him2 thus it was said to ,abraham 7,gen4 #ag3e73 ,thou shalt be called ,abraham2 because ,i have made thee a father of many nations3 and it was said to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ah73 ,thou art ,peter1 and upon this rock ,i will build ,my ,church4 ,since1 therefore1 this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the ,man ,christ that through ,him all men might be saved1 therefore ,he was becomingly named ,jesus1 i4e4 ,saviour3 the angel having foretold this name not only to ,his ,mother1 but also to ,joseph1 who was to be his foster-father4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all these names in some way mean the same as ,jesus1 which means salvation4 ,for the name ,emmanuel1 which being interpreted is ',god with us1' designates the cause of salvation1 which is the union of the ,divine and human natures in the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 the result of which union was that ,god is with us4 ,when it was said1 ,call his name1 ,hasten to take away1 etc41 these words indicate from what ,he saved us1 viz4 from the devil1 whose spoils ,he took away1 according to ,col4 #b3ae3 ,despoiling the principalities and powers1 ,he hath exposed them confidently4 ,when it was said1 ,his name shall be called ,wonderful1 etc41 the way and term of our salvation are pointed out3 inasmuch as by the wonderful counsel and might of the ,godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come1 in which the children of ,god will enjoy perfect peace under ,god their ,prince4 ,when it was said1 ,behold a ,man1 the ,orient is ,his name1 reference is made to the same1 as in the first1 viz4 to the mystery of the ,incarnation1 by reason of which to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness 7,ps4 #aaa3d74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the name ,jesus could be suitable for some other reason to those who lived before ,christ--for instance1 because they were saviours in a particular and temporal sense4 ,but in the sense of spiritual and universal salvation1 this name is proper to ,christ1 and thus it is called a new name4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as is related ,gen4 #ag1 ,abraham received from ,god and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision4 ,for this reason it was customary among the ,jews to name children on the very day of circumcision1 as though before being circumcised they had not as yet perfect existence3 just as now also children receive their names in ,baptism4 ,wherefore on ,prov4 #d3c1 ,i was my father's son1 tender1 and as an only son in the sight of my mother1 the gloss says3 ,why does ,solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother1 when ,scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother1 unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth8 ,therefore it was that ,christ received ,his name at the time of ,his circumcision4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cg1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,was ,becomingly ,presented in the ,temple8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was unbecomingly presented in the ,temple4 ,for it is written 7,ex4 #ac3b73 ,sanctify unto ,me every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of ,israel4 ,but ,christ came forth from the closed womb of the ,virgin2 and thus ,he did not open ,his ,mother's womb4 ,therefore ,christ was not bound by this law to be presented in the ,temple4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which is always in one's presence cannot be presented to one4 ,but ,christ's humanity was always in ,god's presence in the highest degree1 as being always united to ,him in unity of person4 ,therefore there was no need for ,him to be presented to the ,lord4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ is the principal victim1 to whom all the victims of the old ,law are referred1 as the figure to the reality4 ,but a victim should not be offered up for a victim4 ,therefore it was not fitting that another victim should be offered up for ,christ4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 among the legal victims the principal was the lamb1 which was a continual sacrifice ,vulg43 'holocaust'1 as is stated ,num4 #bh3f3 for which reason ,christ is also called the ,lamb--,behold the ,lamb of ,god 7,john #a3 #bi74 ,it was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be offered for ,christ than a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons4 ,on the contrary is the authority of ,scripture which relates this as having taken place 7,luke #b3bb74 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 ,christ wished to be made under the ,law1 that ,he might redeem them who were under the ,law 7,gal4 #d3d1 #e71 and that the justification of the ,law might be spiritually fulfilled in ,his members4 ,now1 the ,law contained a twofold precept touching the children born4 ,one was a general precept which affected all--namely1 that when the days of the mother's purification were expired1 a sacrifice was to be offered either for a son or for a daughter1 as laid down ,lev4 #ab3f4 ,and this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born2 and also for a certain consecration of the child1 because it was then presented in the ,temple for the first time4 ,wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust and another for sin4 ,the other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of both man and beast3 for the ,lord claimed for ,himself all the first-born in ,israel1 because1 in order to deliver the ,israelites1 ,he slew every first-born in the land of ,egypt1 both men and cattle 7,ex4 #ab3ab1 #ac1 #bi71 the first-born of ,israel being saved2 which law is set down ,ex4 #ac4 ,here also was ,christ foreshadowed1 who is the ,first-born amongst many brethren 7,rom4 #h3bi74 ,therefore1 since ,christ was born of a woman and was her first-born1 and since ,he wished to be made under the ,law1 the ,evangelist ,luke shows that both these precepts were fulfilled in ,his regard4 ,first1 as to that which concerns the first-born1 when he says 7,luke #b3bb1 #bc73 ,they carried ,him to ,jerusalem to present ,him to the ,lord3 as it is written in the law of the ,lord1 ',every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the ,lord4' ,secondly1 as to the general precept which concerned all1 when he says 7,luke #b3bd73 ,and to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in the law of the ,lord1 a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,gregory of ,nyssa says 7,de ,occursu ,dom473 ,it seems that this precept of the ,law was fulfilled in ,god incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to ,him4 ,for ,he alone1 whose conception was ineffable1 and whose birth was incomprehensible1 opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union1 in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate4 ,consequently the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom4 ,again1 for a special reason is it written 'a male1' because ,he contracted nothing of the woman's sin3 and in a singular way is ,he called 'holy1' because ,he felt no contagion of earthly corruption1 whose birth was wondrously immaculate 7,ambrose1 on ,luke #b3bc74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as the ,son of ,god became man1 and was circumcised in the flesh1 not for ,his own sake1 but that ,he might make us to be ,god's through grace1 and that we might be circumcised in the spirit2 so1 again1 for our sake ,he was presented to the ,lord1 that we may learn to offer ourselves to ,god 99,athanasius1 on ,luke #b3bc4 ,and this was done after ,his circumcision1 in order to show that no one who is not circumcised from vice is worthy of ,divine regard 99,bede1 on ,luke #b3bc4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,for this very reason ,he wished the legal victims to be offered for ,him who was the true ,victim1 in order that the figure might be united to and confirmed by the reality1 against those who denied that in the ,gospel ,christ preached the ,god of the ,law4 ,for we must not think1 says ,origen 7,hom4 xiv in ,luc47 that the good ,god subjected ,his ,son to the enemy's law1 which ,he ,himself had not given4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the law of ,lev4 #ab3f1 #h commanded those who could1 to offer1 for a son or a daughter1 a lamb and also a turtle dove or a pigeon3 but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded to offer two turtle doves or two young pigeons 99,bede1 ,hom4 xv in ,purif44 ,and so the ,lord1 who1 'being rich1 became poor for our ,vulg43 'your' sakes1 that through ,his poverty we you might be rich1 as is written #b ,cor4 #h3i1 wished the poor man's victim to be offered for ,him just as in ,his birth ,he was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger 99,bede on ,luke #a4 ,nevertheless1 these birds have a figurative sense4 ,for the turtle dove1 being a loquacious bird1 represents the preaching and confession of faith2 and because it is a chaste animal1 it signifies chastity2 and being a solitary animal1 it signifies contemplation4 ,the pigeon is a gentle and simple animal1 and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity4 ,it is also a gregarious animal2 wherefore it signifies the active life4 ,consequently this sacrifice signified the perfection of ,christ and ,his members4 ,again1 both these animals1 by the plaintiveness of their song1 represented the mourning of the saints in this life3 but the turtle dove1 being solitary1 signifies the tears of prayer2 whereas the pigeon1 being gregarious1 signifies the public prayers of the ,church 99,bede1 ,hom4 xv in ,purif44 ,lastly1 two of each of these animals are offered1 to show that holiness should be not only in the soul1 but also in the body4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #cg1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that the ,mother of ,god ,should ,go to the ,temple to ,be ,purified8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unfitting for the ,mother of ,god to go to the ,temple to be purified4 ,for purification presupposes uncleanness4 ,but there was no uncleanness in the ,blessed ,virgin1 as stated above 7,,qq4 #bg1 #bh74 ,therefore she should not have gone to the ,temple to be purified4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,lev4 #ab3b-d73 ,if a woman1 having received seed1 shall bear a man-child1 she shall be unclean seven days2 and consequently she is forbidden to enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled4 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin brought forth a male child without receiving the seed of man4 ,therefore she had no need to come to the ,temple to be purified4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 purification from uncleanness is accomplished by grace alone4 ,but the sacraments of the ,old ,law did not confer grace2 rather1 indeed1 did she have the very ,author of grace with her4 ,therefore it was not fitting that the ,blessed ,virgin should come to the ,temple to be purified4 ,on the contrary is the authority of ,scripture1 where it is stated 7,luke #b3bb7 that the days of ,mary's purification were accomplished according to the law of ,moses4 ,i answer that1 ,as the fulness of grace flowed from ,christ on to ,his ,mother1 so it was becoming that the mother should be like her ,son in humility3 for ,god giveth grace to the humble1 as is written ,james #d3f4 ,and therefore1 just as ,christ1 though not subject to the ,law1 wished1 nevertheless1 to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the ,law1 in order to give an example of humility and obedience2 and in order to show ,his approval of the ,law2 and1 again1 in order to take away from the ,jews an excuse for calumniating ,him3 for the same reasons ,he wished ,his ,mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the ,law1 to which1 nevertheless1 she was not subject4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the ,blessed ,virgin had no uncleanness1 yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification1 not because she needed it1 but on account of the precept of the ,law4 ,thus the ,evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification according to the ,law were accomplished2 for she needed no purification in herself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude uncleanness from the ,mother of ,god1 who was with child without receiving seed4 ,it is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil that precept1 but fulfilled the observance of purification of her own accord1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacraments of the ,law did not cleanse from the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace1 but they foreshadowed this purification3 for they cleansed by a kind of carnal purification1 from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ajb1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #ajc1 ,a4 #b74 ,but the ,blessed ,virgin contracted neither uncleanness1 and consequently did not need to be purified4 ,,question #ch ,,of ,,the ,,baptism ,,of ,,john 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith ,christ was baptized4 ,and since ,christ was baptized with the baptism of ,john1 we shall consider 7#a7 the baptism of ,john in general2 7#b7 the baptizing of ,christ4 ,in regard to the former there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting that ,john should baptize8 7#b7 ,whether that baptism was from ,god8 7#c7 ,whether it conferred grace8 7#d7 ,whether others besides ,christ should have received that baptism8 7#e7 ,whether that baptism should have ceased when ,christ was baptized8 7#f7 ,whether those who received ,john's baptism had afterwards to receive ,christ's baptism8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,john ,should ,baptize8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting that ,john should baptize4 ,for every sacramental rite belongs to some law4 ,but ,john did not introduce a new law4 ,therefore it was not fitting that he should introduce the new rite of baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,john was sent by ,god 4 4 4 for a witness 7,john #a3f1 #g7 as a prophet2 according to ,luke #a3gf3 ,thou1 child1 shalt be called the prophet of the ,highest4 ,but the prophets who lived before ,christ did not introduce any new rite1 but persuaded men to observe the rites of the ,law4 as is clearly stated ,malachi #d3d3 ,remember the law of ,moses ,my servant4 ,therefore neither should ,john have introduced a new rite of baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when there is too much of anything1 nothing should be added to it4 ,but the ,jews observed a superfluity of baptisms2 for it is written 7,mk4 #g3c1 #d7 that the ,pharisees and all the ,jews eat not without often washing their hands 4 4 4 and when they come from the market1 unless they be washed1 they eat not2 and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe1 the washings of cups and of pots1 and of brazen vessels1 and of beds4 ,therefore it was unfitting that ,john should baptize4 ,on the contrary is the authority of ,scripture 7,matt4 #c3e1 #f71 which1 after stating the holiness of ,john1 adds many went out to him1 and were baptized in the ,jordan4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,john to baptize1 for four reasons3 first1 it was necessary for ,christ to be baptized by ,john1 in order that ,he might sanctify baptism2 as ,augustine observes1 super ,joan4 7,tract4 xiii in ,joan474 ,secondly1 that ,christ might be manifested4 ,whence ,john himself says 7,john #a3ca73 ,that ,he1 i4e4 ,christ1 may be made manifest in ,israel1 therefore am ,i come baptizing with water4 ,for he announced ,christ to the crowds that gathered around him2 which was thus done much more easily than if he had gone in search of each individual1 as ,chrysostom observes1 commenting on ,st4 ,john 7,hom4 x in ,matth474 ,thirdly1 that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of ,christ2 wherefore ,gregory says in a homily 7,hom4 vii in ,evang47 that therefore did ,john baptize1 that1 being consistent with his office of precursor1 as he had preceded our ,lord in birth1 so he might also by baptizing precede ,him who was about to baptize4 ,fourthly1 that by persuading men to do penance1 he might prepare men to receive worthily the baptism of ,christ4 ,wherefore ,bede 99,cf4 ,scot4 ,erig4 in ,joan4 iii1 #bd says that the baptism of ,john was as profitable before the baptism of ,christ1 as instruction in the faith profits the catechumens not yet baptized4 ,for just as he preached penance1 and foretold the baptism of ,christ1 and drew men to the knowledge of the ,truth that hath appeared to the world1 so do the ministers of the ,church1 after instructing men1 chide them for their sins1 and lastly promise them forgiveness in the baptism of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the baptism of ,john was not a sacrament properly so called 7per se71 but a kind of sacramental1 preparatory to the baptism of ,christ4 ,consequently1 in a way1 it belonged to the law of ,christ1 but not to the law of ,moses4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,john was not only a prophet1 but more than a prophet1 as stated ,matt4 #aa3i3 for he was the term of the ,law and the beginning of the ,gospel4 ,therefore it was in his province to lead men1 both by word and deed1 to the law of ,christ rather than to the observance of the ,old ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those baptisms of the ,pharisees were vain1 being ordered merely unto carnal cleanliness4 ,but the baptism of ,john was ordered unto spiritual cleanliness1 since it led men to do penance1 as stated above4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,baptism of ,john ,was from ,god8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the baptism of ,john was not from ,god4 ,for nothing sacramental that is from ,god is named after a mere man3 thus the baptism of the ,new ,law is not named after ,peter or ,paul1 but after ,christ4 ,but that baptism is named after ,john1 according to ,matt4 #ba3be3 ,the baptism of ,john 4 4 4 was it from heaven or from men8 ,therefore the baptism of ,john was not from ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 every doctrine that proceeds from ,god anew is confirmed by some signs3 thus the ,lord 7,ex4 #d7 gave ,moses the power of working signs2 and it is written 7,heb4 #b3c1 #d7 that our faith having begun to be declared by the ,lord1 was confirmed unto us by them that heard ,him1 ,god also bearing them witness by signs and wonders4 ,but it is written of ,john the ,baptist 7,john #aj3da7 that ,john did no sign4 ,therefore it seems that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 those sacraments which are instituted by ,god are contained in certain precepts of ,holy ,scripture4 ,but there is no precept of ,holy ,writ commanding the baptism of ,john4 ,therefore it seems that it was not from ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #a3cc73 ,he who sent me to baptize with water said to me3 ',he upon whom thou shalt see the ,spirit1' etc4 ,i answer that1 ,two things may be considered in the baptism of ,john--namely1 the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism4 ,the rite of baptism was not from men1 but from ,god1 who by an interior revelation of the ,holy ,ghost sent ,john to baptize4 ,but the effect of that baptism was from man1 because it effected nothing that man could not accomplish4 ,wherefore it was not from ,god alone1 except in as far as ,god works in man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by the baptism of the ,new ,law men are baptized inwardly by the ,holy ,ghost1 and this is accomplished by ,god alone4 ,but by the baptism of ,john the body alone was cleansed by the water4 ,wherefore it is written 7,matt4 #c3aa73 ,i baptize you in water2 but 4 4 4 ,he shall baptize you in the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for this reason the baptism of ,john was named after him1 because it effected nothing that he did not accomplish4 ,but the baptism of the ,new ,law is not named after the minister thereof1 because he does not accomplish its principal effect1 which is the inward cleansing4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the whole teaching and work of ,john was ordered unto ,christ1 who1 by many miracles confirmed both ,his own teaching and that of ,john4 ,but if ,john had worked signs1 men would have paid equal attention to ,john and to ,christ4 ,wherefore1 in order that men might pay greater attention to ,christ1 it was not given to ,john to work a sign4 ,yet when the ,jews asked him why he baptized1 he confirmed his office by the authority of ,scripture1 saying3 ,i am the voice of one crying in the wilderness1 etc4 as related1 ,john #a3bc 7cf4 ,isa4 #dj3c74 ,moreover1 the very austerity of his life was a commendation of his office1 because1 as ,chrysostom says1 commenting on ,matthew 7,hom4 x in ,matth471 it was wonderful to witness such endurance in a human body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the baptism of ,john was intended by ,god to last only for a short time1 for the reasons given above 7,a4 #a74 ,therefore it was not the subject of a general commandment set down in ,sacred ,writ1 but of a certain interior revelation of the ,holy ,ghost1 as stated above4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,grace ,was ,given in the ,baptism of ,john8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that grace was given in the baptism of ,john4 ,for it is written 7,mk4 #a3d73 ,john was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins4 ,but penance and remission of sins are the effect of grace4 ,therefore the baptism of ,john conferred grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 those who were about to be baptized by ,john confessed their sins1 as related ,matt4 #c3f and ,mk4 #a3e4 ,but the confession of sins is ordered to their remission1 which is effected by grace4 ,therefore grace was conferred in the baptism of ,john4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the baptism of ,john was more akin than circumcision to the baptism of ,christ4 ,but original sin was remitted through circumcision3 because1 as ,bede says 7,hom4 x in ,circumcis471 under the ,law1 circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound of original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is revealed4 ,much more1 therefore1 did the baptism of ,john effect the remission of sins1 which cannot be accomplished without grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #c3aa73 ,i indeed baptize you in water unto penance4 ,which words ,gregory thus expounds in a certain homily 7,hom4 vii in ,evang473 ,john baptized1 not in the ,spirit1 but in water3 because he could not forgive sins4 ,but grace is given by the ,holy ,ghost1 and by means thereof sins are taken away4 ,therefore the baptism of ,john did not confer grace4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #b71 the whole teaching and work of ,john was in preparation for ,christ3 just as it is the duty of the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman4 ,now grace was to be conferred on men through ,christ1 according to ,john #a3ag3 ,grace and truth came through ,jesus ,christ4 ,therefore the baptism of ,john did not confer grace1 but only prepared the way for grace2 and this in three ways3 first1 by ,john's teaching1 which led men to faith in ,christ2 secondly1 by accustoming men to the rite of ,christ's baptism2 thirdly1 by penance1 preparing men to receive the effect of ,christ's baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in these words1 as ,bede says 7on ,mk4 #a3d71 a twofold baptism of penance may be understood4 ,one is that which ,john conferred by baptizing1 which is called a baptism of penance1 etc41 by reason of its inducing men to do penance1 and of its being a kind of protestation by which men avowed their purpose of doing penance4 ,the other is the baptism of ,christ1 by which sins are remitted1 and which ,john could not give1 but only preach1 saying3 ,he will baptize you in the ,holy ,ghost4 ,or it may be said that he preached the baptism of penance1 i4e4 which induced men to do penance1 which penance leads men on to the remission of sins4 ,or again1 it may be said with ,jerome 99,another author on ,mk4 #a 7inter op4 ,hier47 that by the baptism of ,christ grace is given1 by which sins are remitted gratis2 and that what is accomplished by the bridegroom is begun by the bridesman1 i4e4 by ,john4 ,consequently it is said that he baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto remission of sins1 not as though he accomplished this himself1 but because he began it by preparing the way for it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that confession of sins was not made unto the remission of sins1 to be realized immediately through the baptism of ,john1 but to be obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of ,christ1 for which that penance was a preparation4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin4 ,whereas the baptism of ,john was not instituted for this purpose1 but was merely in preparation for the baptism of ,christ1 as stated above2 whereas the sacraments attain their effect through the force of their institution4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,alone ,should ,have ,been ,baptized with the ,baptism of ,john8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of ,john4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 the reason why ,john baptized was that ,christ might receive baptism1 as ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 xiii74 ,but what is proper to ,christ should not be applicable to others4 ,therefore no others should have received that baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something on the baptism4 ,but no one could receive anything from the baptism of ,john1 because thereby grace was not conferred1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,on the other hand1 no one could confer anything on baptism save ,christ1 who sanctified the waters by the touch of ,his most pure flesh 99,mag4 ,sent4 iv1 #c4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of ,john4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if others were baptized with that baptism1 this was only in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of ,christ3 and thus it would seem fitting that the baptism of ,john should be conferred on all1 old and young1 ,gentile and ,jew1 just as the baptism of ,christ4 ,but we do not read that either children or ,gentiles were baptized by the latter2 for it is written 7,mk4 #a3e7 that there went out to him 4 4 4 all they of ,jerusalem1 and were baptized by him4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ alone should have been baptized by ,john4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #c3ba73 ,it came to pass1 when all the people were baptized1 that ,jesus also being baptized and praying1 heaven was opened4 ,i answer that1 ,for two reasons it behooved others besides ,christ to be baptized with the baptism of ,john4 ,first1 as ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 iv1 v71 if ,christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of ,john1 some would have said that ,john's baptism1 with which ,christ was baptized1 was more excellent than that of ,christ1 with which others are baptized4 ,secondly1 because1 as above stated1 it behooved others to be prepared by ,john's baptism for the baptism of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the baptism of ,john was instituted not only that ,christ might be baptized1 but also for other reasons1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,and yet1 even if it were instituted merely in order that ,christ might be baptized therewith1 it was still necessary for others to receive this baptism1 in order to avoid the objection mentioned above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,others who approached to be baptized by ,john could not1 indeed1 confer anything on his baptism3 yet neither did they receive anything therefrom1 save only the sign of penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this was the baptism of penance1 for which children were not suited2 wherefore they were not baptized therewith4 ,but to bring the nations into the way of salvation was reserved to ,christ alone1 who is the expectation of the nations1 as we read ,gen4 #di3aj4 ,indeed1 ,christ forbade the apostles to preach the ,gospel to the ,gentiles before ,his ,passion and ,resurrection4 ,much less fitting1 therefore1 was it for the ,gentiles to be baptized by ,john4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,john's ,baptism ,should ,have ,ceased ,after ,christ ,was ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,john's baptism should have ceased after ,christ was baptized4 ,for it is written 7,john #a3ca73 ,that ,he may be made manifest in ,israel1 therefore am ,i come baptizing in water4 ,but when ,christ had been baptized1 ,he was made sufficiently manifest1 both by the testimony of ,john and by the dove coming down upon ,him1 and again by the voice of the ,father bearing witness to ,him4 ,therefore it seems that ,john's baptism should not have endured thereafter4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 iv73 ,christ was baptized1 and ,john's baptism ceased to avail4 ,therefore it seems that1 after ,christ's baptism1 ,john should not have continued to baptize4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,john's baptism prepared the way for ,christ's4 ,but ,christ's baptism began as soon as ,he had been baptized2 because by the touch of ,his most pure flesh ,he endowed the waters with a regenerating virtue1 as ,bede asserts 7,mag4 ,sent4 iv1 #c74 ,therefore it seems that ,john's baptism ceased when ,christ had been baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #c3bb1 #bc73 ,jesus 4 4 4 came into the land of ,judea 4 4 4 and baptized3 and ,john also was baptizing4 ,but ,christ did not baptize before being baptized4 ,therefore it seems that ,john continued to baptize after ,christ had been baptized4 ,i answer that1 ,it was not fitting for the baptism of ,john to cease when ,christ had been baptized4 ,first1 because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxix in ,joan471 if ,john had ceased to baptize when ,christ had been baptized1 men would think that he was moved by jealousy or anger4 ,secondly1 if he had ceased to baptize when ,christ baptized1 he would have given ,his disciples a motive for yet greater envy4 ,thirdly1 because1 by continuing to baptize1 he sent his hearers to ,christ 7,hom4 xxix in ,joan474 ,fourthly1 because1 as ,bede 99,scot4 ,erig4 ,comment4 in ,joan4 says1 there still remained a shadow of the ,old ,law3 nor should the forerunner withdraw until the truth be made manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when ,christ was baptized1 ,he was not as yet fully manifested3 consequently there was still need for ,john to continue baptizing4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the baptism of ,john ceased after ,christ had been baptized1 not immediately1 but when the former was cast into prison4 ,thus ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxix in ,joan473 ,i consider that ,john's death was allowed to take place1 and that ,christ's preaching began in a great measure after ,john had died1 so that the undivided allegiance of the multitude was transferred to ,christ1 and there was no further motive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,john's baptism prepared the way not only for ,christ to be baptized1 but also for others to approach to ,christ's baptism3 and this did not take place as soon as ,christ was baptized4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ch1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,those ,who ,had ,been ,baptized with ,john's ,baptism ,had to ,be ,baptized with the ,baptism of ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that those who had been baptized with ,john's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of ,christ4 ,for ,john was not less than the apostles1 since of him is it written 7,matt4 #aa3aa73 ,there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than ,john the ,baptist4 ,but those who were baptized by the apostles were not baptized again1 but only received the imposition of hands2 for it is written 7,acts #h3af1 #ag7 that some were only baptized by ,philip in the name of the ,lord ,jesus3 then the apostles--namely1 ,peter and ,john--laid their hands upon them1 and they received the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by ,john had not to be baptized with the baptism of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the apostles were baptized with ,john's baptism1 since some of them were his disciples1 as is clear from ,john #a3cg4 ,but the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of ,christ3 for it is written 7,john #d3b7 that ,jesus did not baptize1 but ,his disciples4 ,therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with ,john's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes4 ,but we are not told that ,john himself was baptized with the baptism of ,christ4 ,therefore much less did those who had been baptized by ,john need to receive the baptism of ,christ4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is written 7,acts #ai3a-e7 that ,paul 4 4 4 found certain disciples2 and he said to them3 ,have you received the ,holy ,ghost since ye believed8 ,but they said to him3 ,we have not so much as heard whether there be a ,holy ,ghost4 ,and he said3 ,in what then were you baptized8 ,who said3 ,in ,john's baptism4 ,wherefore they were again baptized in the name of our ,vulg43 'the' ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,hence it seems that they needed to be baptized again1 because they did not know of the ,holy ,ghost3 as ,jerome says on ,joel #b3bh and in an epistle 7lxix ,de ,viro unius uxoris71 and likewise ,ambrose 7,de ,spiritu ,sancto74 ,but some were baptized with ,john's baptism who had full knowledge of the ,trinity4 ,therefore these had no need to be baptized again with ,christ's baptism4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 on ,rom4 #aj3h1 ,this is the word of faith1 which we preach1 the gloss of ,augustine says3 ,whence this virtue in the water1 that it touches the body and cleanses the heart1 save by the efficacy of the word1 not because it is uttered1 but because it is believed8 ,whence it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith4 ,but the form of ,john's baptism signified the faith in which we are baptized2 for ,paul says 7,acts #ai3d73 ,john baptized the people with the baptism of penance1 saying3 ,that they should believe in ,him who was to come after him--that is to say1 in ,jesus4 ,therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with ,john's baptism had no need to be baptized again with the baptism of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 v73 ,those who were baptized with ,john's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism of our ,lord4 ,i answer that1 ,according to the opinion of the ,master 7,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #b71 those who had been baptized by ,john without knowing of the existence of the ,holy ,ghost1 and who based their hopes on his baptism1 were afterwards baptized with the baptism of ,christ3 but those who did not base their hope on ,john's baptism1 and who believed in the ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 were not baptized afterwards1 but received the ,holy ,ghost by the imposition of hands made over them by the apostles4 ,and this1 indeed1 is true as to the first part1 and is confirmed by many authorities4 ,but as to the second part1 the assertion is altogether unreasonable4 ,first1 because ,john's baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character1 but was merely in water1 as he says himself 7,matt4 #c3aa74 ,wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in ,christ could not supply this defect4 ,secondly1 because1 when in a sacrament1 that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament1 not only must the omission be supplied1 but the whole must be entirely renewed4 ,now1 it belongs of necessity to ,christ's baptism that it be given not only in water1 but also in the ,holy ,ghost1 according to ,john #c3e3 ,unless a man be born of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with ,john's baptism in water only1 not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the ,holy ,ghost by the imposition of hands1 but they had to be baptized wholly anew in water and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 v73 ,after ,john1 baptism was administered1 and the reason why was because he gave not ,christ's baptism1 but his own 4 4 4 ,that which ,peter gave 4 4 4 and if any were given by ,judas1 that was ,christ's4 ,and therefore if ,judas baptized anyone1 yet were they not rebaptized 4 4 4 ,for the baptism corresponds with him by whose authority it is given1 not with him by whose ministry it is given4 ,for the same reason those who were baptized by the deacon ,philip1 who gave the baptism of ,christ1 were not baptized again1 but received the imposition of hands by the apostles1 just as those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says to ,seleucianus 7,ep4 cclxv71 we deem that ,christ's disciples were baptized either with ,john's baptism1 as some maintain1 or with ,christ's baptism1 which is more probable4 ,for ,he would not fail to administer baptism so as to have baptized servants through whom ,he baptized others1 since ,he did not fail in ,his humble service to wash their feet4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum73 ,since1 when ,john said1 ',i ought to be baptized by ,thee1' ,christ answered1 ',suffer it to be so now'3 it follows that afterwards ,christ did baptize ,john4 ,moreover1 he asserts that this is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books4 ,at any rate1 it is certain1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #c3ac1 that1 as ,christ was baptized in water by ,john1 so had ,john to be baptized in the ,spirit by ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by ,john was not only because they knew not of the ,holy ,ghost1 but also because they had not received the baptism of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix71 our sacraments are signs of present grace1 whereas the sacraments of the ,old ,law were signs of future grace4 ,wherefore the very fact that ,john baptized in the name of one who was to come1 shows that he did not give the baptism of ,christ1 which is a sacrament of the ,new ,law4 ,,question #ci ,,of ,,the ,,baptizing ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the baptizing of ,christ1 concerning which there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ should have been baptized8 7#b7 ,whether ,he should have been baptized with the baptism of ,john8 7#c7 ,of the time when ,he was baptized2 7#d7 ,of the place2 7#e7 ,of the heavens being opened unto ,him2 7#f7 ,of the apparition of the ,holy ,ghost under the form of a dove2 7#g7 ,whether that dove was a real animal8 7#h7 ,of the voice of the ,father witnessing unto ,him4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,be ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting for ,christ to be baptized4 ,for to be baptized is to be washed4 ,but it was not fitting for ,christ to be washed1 since there was no uncleanness in ,him4 ,therefore it seems unfitting for ,christ to be baptized4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law4 ,but baptism was not prescribed by the law4 ,therefore ,he should not have been baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to that movement2 thus the heaven1 which is the first cause of alteration1 is unalterable4 ,but ,christ is the first principle of baptism1 according to ,john #a3cc3 ,he upon whom thou shalt see the ,spirit descending and remaining upon ,him1 ,he it is that baptizeth4 ,therefore it was unfitting for ,christ to be baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #c3ac7 that ,jesus cometh from ,galilee to the ,jordan1 unto ,john1 to be baptized by him4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ to be baptized4 ,first1 because1 as ,ambrose says on ,luke #c3ba3 ,our ,lord was baptized because ,he wished1 not to be cleansed1 but to cleanse the waters1 that1 being purified by the flesh of ,christ that knew no sin1 they might have the virtue of baptism2 and1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth471 that ,he might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards4 ,secondly1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth471 although ,christ was not a sinner1 yet did ,he take a sinful nature and 'the likeness of sinful flesh4' ,wherefore1 though ,he needed not baptism for ,his own sake1 yet carnal nature in others had need thereof4 ,and1 as ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,orat4 xxxix7 ,christ was baptized that ,he might plunge the old ,adam entirely in the water4 ,thirdly1 ,he wished to be baptized1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cxxxvi71 because ,he wished to do what ,he had commanded all to do4 ,and this is what ,he means by saying3 ,so it becometh us to fulfil all justice 7,matt4 #c3ae74 ,for1 as ,ambrose says 7on ,luke #c3ba71 this is justice1 to do first thyself that which thou wishest another to do1 and so encourage others by thy example4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ was baptized1 not that ,he might be cleansed1 but that ,he might cleanse1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was fitting that ,christ should not only fulfil what was prescribed by the ,old ,law1 but also begin what appertained to the ,new ,law4 ,therefore ,he wished not only to be circumcised1 but also to be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual effect4 ,unto this ,he was not baptized1 but only in water4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,be ,baptized with ,john's ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unfitting for ,christ to be baptized with ,john's baptism4 ,for ,john's baptism was the baptism of penance4 ,but penance is unbecoming to ,christ1 since ,he had no sin4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should not have been baptized with ,john's baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,john's baptism1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 de ,bapt4 ,christi71 was a mean between the baptism of the ,jews and that of ,christ4 ,but the mean savors of the nature of the extremes 7,aristotle1 ,de ,partib4 ,animal474 ,since1 therefore1 ,christ was not baptized with the ,jewish baptism1 nor yet with ,his own1 on the same grounds ,he should not have been baptized with the baptism of ,john4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to ,christ4 ,but ,john's baptism does not hold the first place among baptisms4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ to be baptized with ,john's baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #c3ac7 that ,jesus cometh to the ,jordan1 unto ,john1 to be baptized by him4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 xiii73 ,after being baptized1 the ,lord baptized1 not with that baptism wherewith ,he was baptized4 ,wherefore1 since ,he ,himself baptized with ,his own baptism1 it follows that ,he was not baptized with ,his own1 but with ,john's baptism4 ,and this was befitting3 first1 because ,john's baptism was peculiar in this1 that he baptized1 not in the ,spirit1 but only in water2 while ,christ did not need spiritual baptism1 since ,he was filled with the grace of the ,holy ,ghost from the beginning of ,his conception1 as we have made clear above 7,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #a74 ,and this is the reason given by ,chrysostom 7,hom4 de ,bapt4 ,christi74 ,secondly1 as ,bede says on ,mk4 #a3i1 ,he was baptized with the baptism of ,john1 that1 by being thus baptized1 ,he might show ,his approval of ,john's baptism4 ,thirdly1 as ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,orat4 xxxix71 by going to ,john to be baptized by him1 ,he sanctified baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 ,christ wished to be baptized in order by ,his example to lead us to baptism4 ,and so1 in order that ,he might lead us thereto more efficaciously1 ,he wished to be baptized with a baptism which ,he clearly needed not1 that men who needed it might approach unto it4 ,wherefore ,ambrose says on ,luke #c3ba3 ,let none decline the laver of grace1 since ,christ did not refuse the laver of penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative1 whereas ,john's baptism1 in a measure1 was real1 inasmuch as it induced men to refrain from sin2 but ,christ's baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace4 ,now ,christ needed neither the remission of sin1 which was not in ,him1 nor the bestowal of grace1 with which ,he was filled4 ,moreover1 since ,he is the ,truth1 it was not fitting that ,he should receive that which was no more than a figure4 ,consequently it was more fitting that ,he should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the extremes4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is a spiritual remedy4 ,now1 the more perfect a thing is1 the less remedy does it need4 ,consequently1 from the very fact that ,christ is most perfect1 it follows that it was fitting that ,he should not receive the most perfect baptism3 just as one who is healthy does not need a strong medicine4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,was ,baptized at a ,fitting ,time8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was baptized at an unfitting time4 ,for ,christ was baptized in order that ,he might lead others to baptism by ,his example4 ,but it is commendable that the faithful of ,christ should be baptized1 not merely before their thirtieth year1 but even in infancy4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should not have been baptized at the age of thirty4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we do not read that ,christ taught or worked miracles before being baptized4 ,but it would have been more profitable to the world if ,he had taught for a longer time1 beginning at the age of twenty1 or even before4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ1 who came for man's profit1 should have been baptized before ,his thirtieth year4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sign of wisdom infused by ,god should have been especially manifest in ,christ4 ,but in the case of ,daniel this was manifested at the time of his boyhood2 according to ,dan4 #ac3de3 ,the ,lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy1 whose name was ,daniel4 ,much more1 therefore1 should ,christ have been baptized or have taught in ,his boyhood4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,john's baptism was ordered to that of ,christ as to its end4 ,but the end is first in intention and last in execution4 ,therefore ,he should have been baptized by ,john either before all the others1 or after them4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #c3ba73 ,it came to pass1 when all the people were baptized1 that ,jesus also being baptized1 and praying2 and further on 7,luke #c3bc73 ,and ,jesus ,himself was beginning about the age of thirty years4 ,i answer that1 ,christ was fittingly baptized in ,his thirtieth year4 ,first1 because ,christ was baptized as though for the reason that ,he was about forthwith to begin to teach and preach3 for which purpose perfect age is required1 such as is the age of thirty4 ,thus we read 7,gen4 #da3df7 that ,joseph was thirty years old when he undertook the government of ,egypt4 ,in like manner we read 7#b ,kings #e3d7 that ,david was thirty years old when he began to reign4 ,again1 ,ezechiel began to prophesy in his thirtieth year1 as we read ,ezech4 #a3a4 ,secondly1 because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 x in ,matth471 the law was about to pass away after ,christ's baptism3 wherefore ,christ came to be baptized at this age which admits of all sins2 in order that by ,his observing the law1 no one might say that because ,he ,himself could not fulfil it1 ,he did away with it4 ,thirdly1 because by ,christ's being baptized at the perfect age1 we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men1 according to ,eph4 #d3ac3 ,until we all meet into the unity of faith1 and of the knowledge of the ,son of ,god1 unto a perfect man1 unto the measure of the age of the fulness of ,christ4 ,hence the very property of the number seems to point to this4 ,for thirty is product of three and ten3 and by the number three is implied faith in the ,trinity1 while ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the ,law3 in which two things the perfection of ,christian life consists4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,orat4 xl71 ,christ was baptized1 not as though ,he needed to be cleansed1 or as though some peril threatened ,him if ,he delayed to be baptized4 ,but no small danger besets any other man who departs from this life without being clothed with the garment of incorruptibility--namely1 grace4 ,and though it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism1 yet is it still better1 as he says1 to be slightly sullied now and then than to be altogether deprived of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the profit which accrues to men from ,christ is chiefly through faith and humility3 to both of which ,he conduced by beginning to teach not in ,his boyhood or youth1 but at the perfect age4 ,to faith1 because in this manner ,his human nature is shown to be real1 by its making bodily progress with the advance of time2 and lest this progress should be deemed imaginary1 ,he did not wish to show ,his wisdom and power before ,his body had reached the perfect age3 to humility1 lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ was set before men as an example to all4 ,wherefore it behooved that to be shown forth in ,him1 which is becoming to all according to the common law--namely1 that ,he should teach after reaching the perfect age4 ,but1 as ,gregory ,nazianzen says 7,orat4 xxxix71 that which seldom occurs is not the law of the ,church2 as neither does one swallow make the spring4 ,for by special dispensation1 in accordance with the ruling of ,divine wisdom1 it has been granted to some1 contrary to the common law1 to exercise the functions of governing or teaching1 such as ,solomon1 ,daniel1 and ,jeremias4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,it was not fitting that ,christ should be baptized by ,john either before or after all others4 ,because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum71 for this was ,christ baptized1 that ,he might confirm the preaching and the baptism of ,john1 and that ,john might bear witness to ,him4 ,now1 men would not have had faith in ,john's testimony except after many had been baptized by him4 ,consequently it was not fitting that ,john should baptize ,him before baptizing anyone else4 ,in like manner1 neither was it fitting that he should baptize ,him last4 ,for as he 7,chrysostom7 says in the same passage3 ,as the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the morning star1 but comes forth while the latter is still above the horizon1 and by its brilliance dims its shining3 so ,christ did not wait till ,john had run his course1 but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,been ,baptized in the ,jordan8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have been baptized in the ,jordan4 ,for the reality should correspond to the figure4 ,but baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the ,red ,sea1 where the ,egyptians were drowned1 just as our sins are blotted out in baptism4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river ,jordan4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,jordan is interpreted a going down4 ,but by baptism a man goes up rather than down3 wherefore it is written 7,matt4 #c3af7 that ,jesus being baptized1 forthwith came up ,douay3 'out' from the water4 ,therefore it seems unfitting that ,christ should be baptized in the ,jordan4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 while the children of ,israel were crossing1 the waters of the ,jordan were turned back1 as it is related ,jos4 #d1 and as it is written ,ps4 #aac3c1 #e4 ,but those who are baptized go forward1 not back4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,christ should be baptized in the ,jordan4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #a3i7 that ,jesus was baptized by ,john in the ,jordan4 ,i answer that1 ,it was through the river ,jordan that the children of ,israel entered into the land of promise4 ,now1 this is the prerogative of ,christ's baptism over all other baptisms3 that it is the entrance to the kingdom of ,god1 which is signified by the land of promise2 wherefore it is said 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,to this also is to be referred the dividing of the water of the ,jordan by ,elias1 who was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot1 as it is related #d ,kings #b3 because1 to wit1 the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the ,holy ,ghost1 to those who pass through the waters of baptism4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,christ should be baptized in the ,jordan4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the crossing of the ,red ,sea foreshadowed baptism in this--that baptism washes away sin3 whereas the crossing of the ,jordan foreshadows it in this--that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom3 and this is the principal effect of baptism1 and accomplished through ,christ alone4 ,and therefore it was fitting that ,christ should be baptized in the ,jordan rather than in the sea4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in baptism we go up by advancing in grace3 for which we need to go down by humility1 according to ,james #d3f3 ,he giveth grace to the humble4 ,and to this going down must the name of the ,jordan be referred4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says in a sermon for the ,epiphany 7x73 ,as of yore the waters of the ,jordan were held back1 so now1 when ,christ was baptized1 the torrent of sin was held back4 ,or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters the river of blessings flowed upwards4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,heavens ,should ,have ,been ,opened ,unto ,christ at ,his ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto ,christ at ,his baptism4 ,for the heavens should be opened unto one who needs to enter heaven1 by reason of his being out of heaven4 ,but ,christ was always in heaven1 according to ,john #c3ac3 ,the ,son of ,man who is in heaven4 ,therefore it seems that the heavens should not have been opened unto ,him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the opening of the heavens is understood either in a corporal or in a spiritual sense4 ,but it cannot be understood in a corporal sense3 because the heavenly bodies are impassible and indissoluble1 according to ,job #cg3ah3 ,thou perhaps hast made the heavens with ,him1 which are most strong1 as if they were of molten brass4 ,in like manner neither can it be understood in a spiritual sense1 because the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of the ,son of ,god4 ,therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when ,christ was baptized the heavens were opened4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 heaven was opened to the faithful through ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,heb4 #aj3ai3 ,we have ,vulg43 ',having' a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of ,christ4 ,wherefore not even those who were baptized with ,christ's baptism1 and died before ,his ,passion1 could enter heaven4 ,therefore the heavens should have been opened when ,christ was suffering rather than when ,he was baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #c3ba73 ,jesus being baptized and praying1 heaven was opened4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #ch1 ,a4 #a71 ,christ wished to be baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were to be baptized4 ,and therefore it behooved those things to be shown forth which belong to the efficacy of our baptism3 concerning which efficacy three points are to be considered4 ,first1 the principal power from which it is derived2 and this1 indeed1 is a heavenly power4 ,for which reason1 when ,christ was baptized1 heaven was opened1 to show that in future the heavenly power would sanctify baptism4 ,secondly1 the faith of the ,church and of the person baptized conduces to the efficacy of baptism3 wherefore those who are baptized make a profession of faith1 and baptism is called the sacrament of faith4 ,now by faith we gaze on heavenly things1 which surpass the senses and human reason4 ,and in order to signify this1 the heavens were opened when ,christ was baptized4 ,thirdly1 because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us by the baptism of ,christ in a special manner1 which entrance had been closed to the first man through sin4 ,hence1 when ,christ was baptized1 the heavens were opened1 to show that the way to heaven is open to the baptized4 ,now after baptism man needs to pray continually1 in order to enter heaven3 for though sins are remitted through baptism1 there still remain the fomes of sin assailing us from within1 and the world and the devils assailing us from without4 ,and therefore it is said pointedly 7,luke #c3ba7 that ,jesus being baptized and praying1 heaven was opened3 because1 to wit1 the faithful after baptism stand in need of prayer4 ,or else1 that we may be led to understand that the very fact that through baptism heaven is opened to believers is in virtue of the prayer of ,christ4 ,hence it is said pointedly 7,matt4 #c3af7 that heaven was opened to ,him--that is1 to all for ,his sake4 ,thus1 for example1 the ,emperor might say to one asking a favor for another3 ,behold1 ,i grant this favor1 not to him1 but to thee--that is1 to him for thy sake1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,according to ,chrysostom 7,hom4 iv in ,matth42 from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum71 as ,christ was baptized for man's sake1 though ,he needed no baptism for ,his own sake1 so the heavens were opened unto ,him as man1 whereas in respect of ,his ,divine ,nature ,he was ever in heaven4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #c3af1 #ag1 the heavens were opened to ,christ when ,he was baptized1 not by an unfolding of the elements1 but by a spiritual vision3 thus does ,ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens at the beginning of his book4 ,and ,chrysostom proves this 7,hom4 iv in ,matth42 from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum7 by saying that if the creature--namely1 heaven--had been sundered he would not have said1 'were opened to ,him1' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all4 ,hence it is said expressly 7,mk4 #a3aj7 that ,jesus forthwith coming up out of the water1 saw the heavens opened2 as though the opening of the heavens were to be considered as seen by ,christ4 ,some1 indeed1 refer this to the corporeal vision1 and say that such a brilliant light shone round about ,christ when ,he was baptized1 that the heavens seemed to be opened4 ,it can also be referred to the imaginary vision1 in which manner ,ezechiel saw the heavens opened3 since such a vision was formed in ,christ's imagination by the ,divine power and by ,his rational will1 so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men through baptism4 ,lastly1 it can be referred to intellectual vision3 forasmuch as ,christ1 when ,he had sanctified baptism1 saw that heaven was opened to men3 nevertheless ,he had seen before that this would be accomplished4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion is the common cause of the opening of heaven to men4 ,but it behooves this cause to be applied to each one1 in order that he enter heaven4 ,and this is effected by baptism1 according to ,rom4 #f3c3 ,all we who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus are baptized in ,his death4 ,wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens at ,his baptism rather than at ,his ,passion4 ,or1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth42 from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum73 ,when ,christ was baptized1 the heavens were merely opened3 but after ,he had vanquished the tyrant by the cross2 since gates were no longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would be never closed1 the angels said1 not 'open the gates1' but ',take them away4' ,thus ,chrysostom gives us to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the souls of the departed from entering into heaven were entirely removed by the ,passion3 but at ,christ's baptism they were opened1 as though the way had been shown by which men were to enter into heaven4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,it ,is ,fitting to ,say ,that ,when ,christ ,was ,baptized the ,holy ,ghost ,came ,down on ,him in the ,form of a ,dove8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not fitting to say that when ,christ was baptized the ,holy ,ghost came down on ,him in the form of a dove4 ,for the ,holy ,ghost dwells in man by grace4 ,but the fulness of grace was in the ,man-,christ from the beginning of ,his conception1 because ,he was the ,only-begotten of the ,father1 as is clear from what has been said above 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #ab2 ,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore the ,holy ,ghost should not have been sent to ,him at ,his baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is said to have descended into the world in the mystery of the ,incarnation1 when ,he emptied ,himself1 taking the form of a servant 7,phil4 #b3g74 ,but the ,holy ,ghost did not become incarnate4 ,therefore it is unbecoming to say that the ,holy ,ghost descended upon ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that which is accomplished in our baptism should have been shown in ,christ's baptism1 as in an exemplar4 ,but in our baptism no visible mission of the ,holy ,ghost takes place4 ,therefore neither should a visible mission of the ,holy ,ghost have taken place in ,christ's baptism4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the ,holy ,ghost is poured forth on others through ,christ1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,but the ,holy ,ghost came down on the apostles in the form1 not of a dove1 but of fire4 ,therefore neither should ,he have come down on ,christ in the form of a dove1 but in the form of fire4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #c3bb73 ,the ,holy ,ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,what took place with respect to ,christ in ,his baptism1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iv in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum71 is connected with the mystery accomplished in all who were to be baptized afterwards4 ,now1 all those who are baptized with the baptism of ,christ receive the ,holy ,ghost1 unless they approach unworthily2 according to ,matt4 #c3aa3 ,he shall baptize you in the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it was fitting that when our ,lord was baptized the ,holy ,ghost should descend upon ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xv73 ,it is most absurd to say that ,christ received the ,holy ,ghost1 when ,he was already thirty years old3 for when ,he came to be baptized1 since ,he was without sin1 therefore was ,he not without the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for if it is written of ,john that 'he shall be filled with the ,holy ,ghost from his mother's womb1' what must we say of the ,man-,christ1 whose conception in the flesh was not carnal1 but spiritual8 ,therefore now1 i4e4 at ,his baptism1 ,he deigned to foreshadow ,his body1 i4e4 the ,church1 in which those who are baptized receive the ,holy ,ghost in a special manner4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 ii71 the ,holy ,ghost is said to have descended on ,christ in a bodily shape1 as a dove1 not because the very substance of the ,holy ,ghost was seen1 for ,he is invisible3 nor as though that visible creature were assumed into the unity of the ,divine ,person2 since it is not said that the ,holy ,ghost was the dove1 as it is said that the ,son of ,god is man by reason of the union4 ,nor1 again1 was the ,holy ,ghost seen under the form of a dove1 after the manner in which ,john saw the slain ,lamb in the ,apocalypse 7#e3f73 ,for the latter vision took place in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies2 whereas no one ever doubted that this dove was seen by the eyes of the body4 ,nor1 again1 did the ,holy ,ghost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in which it is said 7#a ,cor4 #aj3d73 ',now1 the rock was ,christ'3 for the latter had already a created existence1 and through the manner of its action was called by the name of ,christ1 whom it signified3 whereas this dove came suddenly into existence1 to fulfil the purpose of its signification1 and afterwards ceased to exist1 like the flame which appeared in the bush to ,moses4 ,hence the ,holy ,ghost is said to have descended upon ,christ1 not by reason of ,his being united to the dove3 but either because the dove itself signified the ,holy ,ghost1 inasmuch as it descended when it came upon ,him2 or1 again1 by reason of the spiritual grace1 which is poured out by ,god1 so as to descend1 as it were1 on the creature1 according to ,james #a3ag3 ,every best gift and every perfect gift is from above1 coming down from the ,father of lights4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xii in ,matth473 ,at the beginning of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear1 for the sake of them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal nature 4 4 4 so that1 though afterwards no such thing occur1 they may shape their faith according to that which has occurred once for all4 ,and therefore the ,holy ,ghost descended visibly1 under a bodily shape1 on ,christ at ,his baptism1 in order that we may believe ,him to descend invisibly on all those who are baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the ,holy ,ghost appeared over ,christ at ,his baptism1 under the form of a dove1 for four reasons4 ,first1 on account of the disposition required in the one baptized--namely1 that he approach in good faith3 since1 as it is written 7,wis4 #a3e73 ,the holy spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful4 ,for the dove is an animal of a simple character1 void of cunning and deceit3 whence it is said 7,matt4 #aj3af73 ,be ye simple as doves4 ,secondly1 in order to designate the seven gifts of the ,holy ,ghost1 which are signified by the properties of the dove4 ,for the dove dwells beside the running stream1 in order that1 on perceiving the hawk1 it may plunge in and escape4 ,this refers to the gift of wisdom1 whereby the saints dwell beside the running waters of ,holy ,scripture1 in order to escape the assaults of the devil4 ,again1 the dove prefers the more choice seeds4 ,this refers to the gift of knowledge1 whereby the saints make choice of sound doctrines1 with which they nourish themselves4 ,further1 the dove feeds the brood of other birds4 ,this refers to the gift of counsel1 with which the saints1 by teaching and example1 feed men who have been the brood1 i4e4 imitators1 of the devil4 ,again1 the dove tears not with its beak4 ,this refers to the gift of understanding1 wherewith the saints do not rend sound doctrines1 as heretics do4 ,again1 the dove has no gall4 ,this refers to the gift of piety1 by reason of which the saints are free from unreasonable anger4 ,again1 the dove builds its nest in the cleft of a rock4 ,this refers to the gift of fortitude1 wherewith the saints build their nest1 i4e4 take refuge and hope1 in the death wounds of ,christ1 who is the ,rock of strength4 ,lastly1 the dove has a plaintive song4 ,this refers to the gift of fear1 wherewith the saints delight in bewailing sins4 ,thirdly1 the ,holy ,ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account of the proper effect of baptism1 which is the remission of sins and reconciliation with ,god3 for the dove is a gentle creature4 ,wherefore1 as ,chrysostom says1 7,hom4 xii in ,matth471 at the ,deluge this creature appeared bearing an olive branch1 and publishing the tidings of the universal peace of the whole world3 and now again the dove appears at the baptism1 pointing to our ,deliverer4 ,fourthly1 the ,holy ,ghost appeared over our ,lord at ,his baptism in the form of a dove1 in order to designate the common effect of baptism--namely1 the building up of the unity of the ,church4 ,hence it is written 7,eph4 #e3be-bg73 ,christ delivered ,himself up 4 4 4 that ,he might present 4 4 4 to ,himself a glorious ,church1 not having spot or wrinkle1 or any such thing 4 4 4 cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,therefore it was fitting that the ,holy ,ghost should appear at the baptism under the form of a dove1 which is a creature both loving and gregarious4 ,wherefore also it is said of the ,church 7,cant #f3h73 ,one is my dove4 ,but on the apostles the ,holy ,ghost descended under the form of fire1 for two reasons4 ,first1 to show with what fervor their hearts were to be moved1 so as to preach ,christ everywhere1 though surrounded by opposition4 ,and therefore ,he appeared as a fiery tongue4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,super ,joan41 ,tract4 vi73 ,our ,lord manifests the ,holy ,ghost visibly in two ways--namely1 by the dove coming upon the ,lord when ,he was baptized2 by fire1 coming upon the disciples when they were met together 4 4 4 ,in the former case simplicity is shown1 in the latter fervor 4 4 4 ,we learn1 then1 from the dove1 that those who are sanctified by the ,spirit should be without guile3 and from the fire1 that their simplicity should not be left to wax cold4 ,nor let it disturb anyone that the tongues were cloven 4 4 4 in the dove recognize unity4 ,secondly1 because1 as ,chrysostom says 7,gregory1 ,hom4 xxx in ,ev473 ,since sins had to be forgiven1 which is effected in baptism1 meekness was required2 this is shown by the dove3 but when we have obtained grace we must look forward to be judged2 and this is signified by the fire4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,dove in ,which the ,holy ,ghost ,appeared ,was ,real8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the dove in which the ,holy ,ghost appeared was not real4 ,for that seems to be a mere apparition which appears in its semblance4 ,but it is stated 7,luke #c3bb7 that the ,holy ,ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon ,him4 ,therefore it was not a real dove1 but a semblance of a dove4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as ,nature does nothing useless1 so neither does ,god 7,de ,coelo i74 ,now since this dove came merely in order to signify something and pass away1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 ii71 a real dove would have been useless3 because the semblance of a dove was sufficient for that purpose4 ,therefore it was not a real dove4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that thing4 ,if1 therefore1 this were a real dove1 its properties would have signified the nature of the real animal1 and not the effect of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that it was not a real dove4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xxii73 ,nor do we say this as though we asserted that our ,lord ,jesus ,christ alone had a real body1 and that the ,holy ,ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious manner3 but we say that both those bodies were real4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #e1 ,a4 #a71 it was unbecoming that the ,son of ,god1 who is the ,truth of the ,father1 should make use of anything unreal2 wherefore ,he took1 not an imaginary1 but a real body4 ,and since the ,holy ,ghost is called the ,spirit of ,truth1 as appears from ,john #af3ac1 therefore ,he too made a real dove in which to appear1 though ,he did not assume it into unity of person4 ,wherefore1 after the words quoted above1 ,augustine adds3 ,just as it behooved the ,son of ,god not to deceive men1 so it behooved the ,holy ,ghost not to deceive4 ,but it was easy for ,almighty ,god1 who created all creatures out of nothing1 to frame the body of a real dove without the help of other doves1 just as it was easy for ,him to form a true body in ,mary's womb without the seed of a man3 since the corporeal creature obeys its ,lord's command and will1 both in the mother's womb in forming a man1 and in the world itself in forming a dove4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,holy ,ghost is said to have descended in the shape or semblance of a dove1 not in the sense that the dove was not real1 but in order to show that ,he did not appear in the form of ,his substance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was not superfluous to form a real dove1 in which the ,holy ,ghost might appear1 because by the very reality of the dove the reality of the ,holy ,ghost and of ,his effects is signified4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's nature and the effects of the ,holy ,ghost in the same way4 ,because from the very fact that the dove has such properties1 it results that it signifies the ,holy ,ghost4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ci1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,it ,was ,becoming1 ,when ,christ ,was ,baptized ,that the ,father's ,voice ,should ,be ,heard1 ,bearing ,witness to the ,son8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unbecoming when ,christ was baptized for the ,father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the ,son4 ,for the ,son and the ,holy ,ghost1 according as they have appeared visibly1 are said to have been visibly sent4 ,but it does not become the ,father to be sent1 as ,augustine makes it clear 7,de ,trin4 ii74 ,neither1 therefore1 7does it become ,him7 to appear4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the voice gives expression to the word conceived in the heart4 ,but the ,father is not the ,word4 ,therefore ,he is unfittingly manifested by a voice4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,man-,christ did not begin to be ,son of ,god at ,his baptism1 as some heretics have stated3 but ,he was the ,son of ,god from the beginning of ,his conception4 ,therefore the ,father's voice should have proclaimed ,christ's ,godhead at ,his nativity rather than at ,his baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #c3ag73 ,behold a voice from heaven1 saying3 ,this is ,my beloved ,son in whom ,i am well pleased4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #e71 that which is accomplished in our baptism should be manifested in ,christ's baptism1 which was the exemplar of ours4 ,now the baptism which the faithful receive is hallowed by the invocation and the power of the ,trinity2 according to ,matt4 #bh3ai3 ,go ye and teach all nations1 baptizing them in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,wherefore1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #c3af1 #ag3 ,the mystery of the ,trinity is shown forth in ,christ's baptism4 ,our ,lord ,himself is baptized in ,his human nature2 the ,holy ,ghost descended in the shape of a dove3 the ,father's voice is heard bearing witness to the ,son4 ,therefore it was becoming that in that baptism the ,father should be manifested by a voice4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the visible mission adds something to the apparition1 to wit1 the authority of the sender4 ,therefore the ,son and the ,holy ,ghost who are from another1 are said not only to appear1 but also to be sent visibly4 ,but the ,father1 who is not from another1 can appear indeed1 but cannot be sent visibly4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,father is manifested by the voice1 only as producing the voice or speaking by it4 ,and since it is proper to the ,father to produce the ,word--that is1 to utter or to speak--therefore was it most becoming that the ,father should be manifested by a voice1 because the voice designates the word4 ,wherefore the very voice to which the ,father gave utterance bore witness to the ,sonship of the ,word4 ,and just as the form of the dove1 in which the ,holy ,ghost was made manifest1 is not the ,nature of the ,holy ,ghost1 nor is the form of man in which the ,son ,himself was manifested1 the very ,nature of the ,son of ,god1 so neither does the voice belong to the ,nature of the ,word or of the ,father who spoke4 ,hence 7,john #e3cg7 our ,lord says3 ,neither have you heard ,his1 i4e4 the ,father's1 voice at any time1 nor seen ,his shape4 ,by which words1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xl in ,joan471 ,he gradually leads them to the knowledge of the philosophical truth1 and shows them that ,god has neither voice nor shape1 but is above all such forms and utterances4 ,and just as the whole ,trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by ,christ1 so also they formed the voice3 yet the ,father alone as speaking is manifested by the voice1 just as the ,son alone assumed human nature1 and the ,holy ,ghost alone is manifested in the dove1 as ,augustine 99,fulgentius1 ,de ,fide ad ,petrum makes evident4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it was becoming that ,christ's ,godhead should not be proclaimed to all in ,his nativity1 but rather that ,it should be hidden while ,he was subject to the defects of infancy4 ,but when ,he attained to the perfect age1 when the time came for ,him to teach1 to work miracles1 and to draw men to ,himself then did it behoove ,his ,godhead to be attested from on high by the ,father's testimony1 so that ,his teaching might become the more credible4 ,hence ,he says 7,john #e3cg73 ,the ,father ,himself who sent ,me1 hath given testimony of ,me4 ,and specially at the time of baptism1 by which men are born again into adopted sons of ,god2 since ,god's sons by adoption are made to be like unto ,his natural ,son1 according to ,rom4 #h3bi3 ,whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of ,his ,son4 ,hence ,hilary says 7,super ,matth4 ii7 that when ,jesus was baptized1 the ,holy ,ghost descended on ,him1 and the ,father's voice was heard saying3 ',this is ,my beloved ,son1' that we might know1 from what was accomplished in ,christ1 that after being washed in the waters of baptism the ,holy ,ghost comes down upon us from on high1 and that the ,father's voice declares us to have become the adopted sons of ,god4 ,,question #dj ,,of ,,christ',s ,,manner ,,of ,,life 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,having considered those things which relate to ,christ's entrance into the world1 or to ,his beginning1 it remains for us to consider those that relate to the process of ,his life4 ,and we must consider 7#a7 ,his manner of life2 7#b7 ,his temptation2 7#c7 ,his doctrine2 7#d7 ,his miracles4 ,concerning the first there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ should have led a solitary life1 or have associated with men8 7#b7 ,whether ,he should have led an austere life as regards food1 drink1 and clothing8 ,or should ,he have conformed ,himself to others in these respects8 7#c7 ,whether ,he should have adopted a lowly state of life1 or one of wealth and honor8 7#d7 ,whether ,he should have lived in conformity with the ,law8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dj1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,associated with ,men1 or ,led a ,solitary ,life8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have associated with men1 but should have led a solitary life4 ,for it behooved ,christ to show by ,his manner of life not only that ,he was man1 but also that ,he was ,god4 ,but it is not becoming that ,god should associate with men1 for it is written 7,dan4 #b3aa73 ,except the gods1 whose conversation is not with men2 and the ,philosopher says 7,polit4 i7 that he who lives alone is either a beast--that is1 if he do this from being wild--or a god1 if his motive be the contemplation of truth4 ,therefore it seems that it was not becoming for ,christ to associate with men4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 while ,he lived in mortal flesh1 it behooved ,christ to lead a most perfect life4 ,but the most perfect is the contemplative life1 as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #ahb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,now1 solitude is most suitable to the contemplative life2 according to ,osee #b3ad3 ,i will lead her into the wilderness1 and ,i will speak to her heart4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should have led a solitary life4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's manner of life should have been uniform3 because it should always have given evidence of that which is best4 ,but at times ,christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places3 hence ,remigius 99,cf4 ,catena ,aurea1 ,matth4 #e3a1 commenting on ,matthew1 says3 ,we read that our ,lord had three places of refuge3 the ship1 the mountain1 the desert2 to one or other of which ,he betook ,himself whenever he was harassed by the crowd4 ,therefore ,he ought always to have led a solitary life4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,baruch #c3ch73 ,afterwards ,he was seen upon earth and conversed with men4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with the end of ,his ,incarnation1 by reason of which ,he came into the world4 ,now ,he came into the world1 first1 that ,he might publish the truth4 ,thus ,he says ,himself 7,john #ah3cg73 ,for this was ,i born1 and for this came ,i into the world1 that ,i should give testimony to the truth4 ,hence it was fitting not that ,he should hide ,himself by leading a solitary life1 but that ,he should appear openly and preach in public4 ,wherefore 7,luke #d3db1 #dc7 ,he says to those who wished to stay ,him3 ,to other cities also ,i must preach the kingdom of ,god3 for therefore am ,i sent4 ,secondly1 ,he came in order to free men from sin2 according to #a ,tim4 #a3ae3 ,christ ,jesus came into this world to save sinners4 ,and hence1 as ,chrysostom says1 although ,christ might1 while staying in the same place1 have drawn all men to ,himself1 to hear ,his preaching1 yet ,he did not do so2 thus giving us the example to go about and seek those who perish1 like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep1 and the physician in his attendance on the sick4 ,thirdly1 ,he came that by ,him we might have access to ,god1 as it is written 7,rom4 #e3b74 ,and thus it was fitting that ,he should give men confidence in approaching ,him by associating familiarly with them4 ,wherefore it is written 7,matt4 #i3aj73 ,it came to pass as ,he was sitting 4 4 4 in the house1 behold1 many publicans and sinners came1 and sat down with ,jesus and ,his disciples4 ,on which ,jerome comments as follows3 ,they had seen the publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better life3 and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ wished to make ,his ,godhead known through ,his human nature4 ,and therefore1 since it is proper to man to do so1 ,he associated with men1 at the same time manifesting ,his ,godhead to all1 by preaching and working miracles1 and by leading among men a blameless and righteous life4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #ahb1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #ahh1 ,a4 #f71 the contemplative life is1 absolutely speaking1 more perfect than the active life1 because the latter is taken up with bodily actions3 yet that form of active life in which a man1 by preaching and teaching1 delivers to others the fruits of his contemplation1 is more perfect than the life that stops at contemplation1 because such a life is built on an abundance of contemplation1 and consequently such was the life chosen by ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's action is our instruction4 ,and therefore1 in order to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before the public1 our ,lord withdrew ,himself sometimes from the crowd4 ,we are told of three reasons for ,his doing this4 ,first1 for the rest of the body3 hence 7,mk4 #f3ca7 it is stated that our ,lord said to ,his disciples3 ,come apart into a desert place1 and rest a little4 ,for there were many coming and going3 and they had not so much as time to eat4 ,but sometimes it was for the sake of prayer2 thus it is written 7,luke #f3ab73 ,it came to pass in those days1 that ,he went out into a mountain to pray2 and ,he passed the whole night in the prayer of ,god4 ,on this ,ambrose remarks that by ,his example ,he instructs us in the precepts of virtue4 ,and sometimes ,he did so in order to teach us to avoid the favor of men4 ,wherefore ,chrysostom1 commenting on ,matt4 #e3a1 ,jesus1 seeing the multitude1 went up into a mountain1 says3 ,by sitting not in the city and in the market-place1 but on a mountain and in a place of solitude1 ,he taught us to do nothing for show1 and to withdraw from the crowd1 especially when we have to discourse of needful things4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dj1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,becoming ,that ,christ ,should ,lead an ,austere ,life in ,this ,world8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was becoming that ,christ should lead an austere life in this world4 ,for ,christ preached the perfection of life much more than ,john did4 ,but ,john led an austere life in order that he might persuade men by his example to embrace a perfect life2 for it is written 7,matt4 #c3d7 that the same ,john had his garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins3 and his meat was locusts and wild honey2 on which ,chrysostom comments as follows 7,hom4 x73 ,it was a marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame3 which thing also particularly attracted the ,jews4 ,therefore it seems that an austere life was much more becoming to ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 abstinence is ordained to continency2 for it is written 7,osee #d3aj73 ,they shall eat and shall not be filled2 they have committed fornication1 and have not ceased4 ,but ,christ both observed continency in ,himself and proposed it to be observed by others when ,he said 7,matt4 #ai3ab73 ,there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven3 he that can take it let him take it4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should have observed an austere life both in ,himself and in ,his disciples4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of life and to return to an easier life3 for one might quote to his discredit that which is written1 ,luke #ad3cj3 ,this man began to build1 and was not able to finish4 ,now ,christ began a very strict life after ,his baptism1 remaining in the desert and fasting for forty days and forty nights4 ,therefore it seems unbecoming that1 after leading such a strict life1 ,he should return to the common manner of living4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #aa3ai73 ,the ,son of ,man came eating and drinking4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 it was in keeping with the end of the ,incarnation that ,christ should not lead a solitary life1 but should associate with men4 ,now it is most fitting that he who associates with others should conform to their manner of living2 according to the words of the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #i3bb73 ,i became all things to all men4 ,and therefore it was most fitting that ,christ should conform to others in the matter of eating and drinking4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xvi7 that ,john is described as 'neither eating nor drinking1' because he did not take the same food as the ,jews4 ,therefore1 unless our ,lord had taken it1 it would not be said of ,him1 in contrast1 'eating and drinking4' ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in ,his manner of living our ,lord gave an example of perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to salvation4 ,now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself relate to salvation1 according to ,rom4 #ad3ag3 ,the kingdom of ,god is not meat and drink4 ,and ,augustine 7,de ,qq4 ,evang4 ii1 qu4 #aa7 explains ,matt4 #aa3ai1 ,wisdom is justified by her children1 saying that this is because the holy apostles understood that the kingdom of ,god does not consist in eating and drinking1 but in suffering indigence with equanimity1 for they are neither uplifted by affluence1 nor distressed by want4 ,again 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 iii71 he says that in all such things it is not making use of them1 but the wantonness of the user1 that is sinful4 ,now both these lives are lawful and praiseworthy--namely1 that a man withdraw from the society of other men and observe abstinence2 and that he associate with other men and live like them4 ,and therefore our ,lord wished to give men an example of either kind of life4 ,as to ,john1 according to ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xxxvii super ,matth471 he exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct 4 4 4 but ,christ had the testimony also of miracles4 ,leaving1 therefore1 ,john to be illustrious by his fasting1 ,he ,himself came the opposite way1 both coming unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of self-restraint1 so also ,christ1 in ,himself and in those that are ,his1 subdued the flesh by the power of ,his ,godhead4 ,wherefore1 as we read ,matt4 #i3ad1 the ,pharisees and the disciples of ,john fasted1 but not the disciples of ,christ4 ,on which ,bede comments1 saying that ,john drank neither wine nor strong drink3 because abstinence is meritorious where the nature is weak4 ,but why should our ,lord1 whose right by nature it is to forgive sins1 avoid those whom ,he could make holier than such as abstain8 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xiii super ,matth471 that thou mightest learn how great a good is fasting1 and how it is a shield against the devil1 and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up1 not to luxury1 but to fasting--for this cause did ,he fast1 not as needing it ,himself1 but as teaching us 4 4 4 ,and for this did ,he proceed no further than ,moses and ,elias1 lest ,his assumption of our flesh might seem incredible4 ,the mystical meaning1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 xvi in ,evang471 is that by ,christ's example the number forty is observed in ,his fast1 because the power of the decalogue is fulfilled throughout the four books of the ,holy ,gospel3 since ten multiplied by four amounts to forty4 ,or1 because we live in this mortal body composed of the four elements1 and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of the ,lord1 which are expressed in the decalogue4 ,or1 according to ,augustine 7,,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #ha73 ,to know the ,creator and the creature is the entire teaching of wisdom4 ,the ,creator is the ,trinity1 the ,father1 the ,son1 and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,now the creature is partly invisible1 as the soul1 to which the number three may be ascribed1 for we are commanded to love ,god in three ways1 'with our whole heart1 our whole soul1 and our whole mind'2 and partly visible1 as the body1 to which the number four is applicable on account of its being subject to heat1 moisture1 cold1 and dryness4 ,hence if we multiply ten1 which may be referred to the entire moral code1 by four1 which number may be applied to the body1 because it is the body that executes the law1 the product is the number forty3 in which1 consequently1 the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown forth4 ,and yet there was no inconsistency in ,christ's returning to the common manner of living1 after fasting and 7retiring into the7 desert4 ,for it is becoming to that kind of life1 which we hold ,christ to have embraced1 wherein a man delivers to others the fruits of his contemplation1 that he devote himself first of all to contemplation1 and that he afterwards come down to the publicity of active life by associating with other men4 ,hence ,bede says on ,mk4 #b3ah3 ,christ fasted1 that thou mightest not disobey the commandment2 ,he ate with sinners1 that thou mightest discern ,his sanctity and acknowledge ,his power4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dj1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,led a ,life of ,poverty in ,this ,world8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have led a life of poverty in this world4 ,because ,christ should have embraced the most eligible form of life4 ,but the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean between riches and poverty2 for it is written 7,prov4 #cj3h73 ,give me neither beggary nor riches2 give me only the necessaries of life4 ,therefore ,christ should have led a life1 not of poverty1 but of moderation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and raiment4 ,but ,christ conformed ,his manner of life to those among whom ,he lived1 in the matter of food and raiment4 ,therefore it seems that ,he should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches and poverty1 and have avoided extreme poverty4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ specially invited men to imitate ,his example of humility1 according to ,matt4 #aa3bi3 ,learn of ,me1 because ,i am meek and humble of heart4 ,but humility is most commendable in the rich2 thus it is written 7#a ,tim4 #f3aa73 ,charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should not have chosen a life of poverty4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #h3bj73 ,the ,son of ,man hath not where to lay ,his head3 as though ,he were to say as ,jerome observes3 ,why desirest thou to follow ,me for the sake of riches and worldly gain1 since ,i am so poor that ,i have not even the smallest dwelling-place1 and ,i am sheltered by a roof that is not ,mine8 ,and on ,matt4 #ag3bf3 ,that we may not scandalize them1 go to the sea1 ,jerome says3 ,this incident1 taken literally1 affords edification to those who hear it when they are told that our ,lord was so poor that ,he had not the wherewithal to pay the tax for ,himself and ,his apostles4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ to lead a life of poverty in this world4 ,first1 because this was in keeping with the duty of preaching1 for which purpose ,he says that ,he came 7,mk4 #a3ch73 ,let us go into the neighboring towns and cities1 that ,i may preach there also3 for to this purpose am ,i come4 ,now in order that the preachers of ,god's word may be able to give all their time to preaching1 they must be wholly free from care of worldly matters3 which is impossible for those who are possessed of wealth4 ,wherefore the ,lord ,himself1 when sending the apostles to preach1 said to them 7,matt4 #aj3i73 ,do not possess gold nor silver4 ,and the apostles 7,acts #f3b7 say3 ,it is not reasonable that we should leave the word of ,god and serve tables4 ,secondly1 because just as ,he took upon ,himself the death of the body in order to bestow spiritual life on us1 so did ,he bear bodily poverty1 in order to enrich us spiritually1 according to #b ,cor4 #h3i3 ,you know the grace of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ3 that 4 4 4 ,he became poor for our ,vulg43 'your' sakes that through ,his poverty we ,vulg43 'you' might be rich4 ,thirdly1 lest if ,he were rich ,his preaching might be ascribed to cupidity4 ,wherefore ,jerome says on ,matt4 #aj3i1 that if the disciples had been possessed of wealth1 they had seemed to preach for gain1 not for the salvation of mankind4 ,and the same reason applies to ,christ4 ,fourthly1 that the more lowly ,he seemed by reason of ,his poverty1 the greater might the power of ,his ,godhead be shown to be4 ,hence in a sermon of the ,council of ,ephesus 7,p4 iii1 c4 ix7 we read3 ,he chose all that was poor and despicable1 all that was of small account and hidden from the majority1 that we might recognize ,his ,godhead to have transformed the terrestrial sphere4 ,for this reason did ,he choose a poor maid for ,his ,mother1 a poorer birthplace2 for this reason did ,he live in want4 ,learn this from the manger4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary1 in as far as these are occasions of sin3 since abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud2 and beggary is an occasion of thieving and lying1 or even of perjury4 ,but forasmuch as ,christ was incapable of sin1 ,he had not the same motive as ,solomon for avoiding these things4 ,yet neither is every kind of beggary an occasion of theft and perjury1 as ,solomon seems to add 7,prov4 #cj3h72 but only that which is involuntary1 in order to avoid which1 a man is guilty of theft and perjury4 ,but voluntary poverty is not open to this danger3 and such was the poverty chosen by ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with others1 not only by possessing riches1 but also by receiving the necessaries of life from those who are rich4 ,this is what happened in regard to ,christ3 for it is written 7,luke #h3b1 #c7 that certain women followed ,christ and ministered unto ,him of their substance4 ,for1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #bg3ee1 ,it was a ,jewish custom1 nor was it thought wrong for women1 following the ancient tradition of their nation1 out of their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing4 ,but as this might give scandal to the heathens1 ,paul says that he gave it up3 thus it was possible for them to be fed out of a common fund1 but not to possess wealth1 without their duty of preaching being hindered by anxiety4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of necessity4 ,but in one who1 like ,christ1 is poor willingly1 poverty itself is a sign of very great humility4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dj1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,conformed ,his ,conduct to the ,law8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not conform ,his conduct to the ,law4 ,for the ,law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the ,sabbath1 since ,god rested on the seventh day from all ,his work which ,he had done4 ,but ,he healed a man on the ,sabbath1 and commanded him to take up his bed4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not conform ,his conduct to the ,law4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what ,christ taught1 that ,he also did1 according to ,acts #a3a3 ,jesus began to do and to teach4 ,but ,he taught 7,matt4 #ae3aa7 that not all that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man3 and this is contrary to the precept of the ,law1 which declared that a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals1 as stated ,lev4 #aa4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not conform ,his conduct to the ,law4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it1 according to ,rom4 #a3cb3 ,not only they that do them1 but they also that consent to them that do them4 ,but ,christ1 by excusing ,his disciples1 consented to their breaking the ,law by plucking the ears of corn on the ,sabbath2 as is related ,matt4 #ab3a-h4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not conform ,his conduct to the ,law4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #e3ag73 ,do not think that ,i am come to destroy the ,law or the ,prophets4 ,commenting on these words1 ,chrysostom says3 ,he fulfilled the ,law 4 4 4 in one way1 by transgressing none of the precepts of the ,law2 secondly1 by justifying us through faith1 which the ,law1 in the letter1 was unable to do4 ,i answer that1 ,christ conformed ,his conduct in all things to the precepts of the ,law4 ,in token of this ,he wished even to be circumcised2 for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of keeping the ,law1 according to ,gal4 #e3c3 ,i testify to every man circumcising himself1 that he is a debtor to do the whole ,law4 ,and ,christ1 indeed1 wished to conform ,his conduct to the ,law1 first1 to show ,his approval of the ,old ,law4 ,secondly1 that by obeying the ,law ,he might perfect it and bring it to an end in ,his own self1 so as to show that it was ordained to ,him4 ,thirdly1 to deprive the ,jews of an excuse for slandering ,him4 ,fourthly1 in order to deliver men from subjection to the ,law1 according to ,gal4 #d3d1 #e3 ,god sent ,his ,son 4 4 4 made under the ,law that ,he might redeem them who were under the ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our ,lord excuses ,himself from any transgression of the ,law in this matter1 for three reasons4 ,first1 the precept of the hallowing of the ,sabbath forbids not ,divine work1 but human work3 for though ,god ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new creatures1 yet ,he ever works by keeping and governing ,his creatures4 ,now that ,christ wrought miracles was a ,divine work3 hence ,he says 7,john #e3ag73 ,my ,father worketh until now2 and ,i work4 ,secondly1 ,he excuses ,himself on the ground that this precept does not forbid works which are needful for bodily health4 ,wherefore ,he says 7,luke #ac3ae73 ,doth not every one of you on the ,sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger1 and lead them to water8 ,and farther on 7,luke #ad3e73 ,which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit1 and will not immediately draw him out on the ,sabbath-day8 ,now it is manifest that the miraculous works done by ,christ related to health of body and soul4 ,thirdly1 because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the worship of ,god4 ,wherefore ,he says 7,matt4 #ab3e73 ,have ye not read in the ,law that on the ,sabbath-days the priests in the ,temple break the ,sabbath1 and are without blame8 ,and 7,john #g3bc7 it is written that a man receives circumcision on the ,sabbath-day4 ,now when ,christ commanded the paralytic to carry his bed on the ,sabbath-day1 this pertained to the worship of ,god1 i4e4 to the praise of ,god's power4 ,and thus it is clear that ,he did not break the ,sabbath3 although the ,jews threw this false accusation in ,his face1 saying 7,john #i3af73 ,this man is not of ,god1 who keepeth not the ,sabbath4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by those words ,christ wished to show that man is made unclean as to his soul1 by the use of any sort of foods considered not in their nature1 but only in some signification4 ,and that certain foods are in the ,law called unclean is due to some signification2 whence ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 vi73 ,if a question be raised about swine and lambs1 both are clean by nature1 since 'all ,god's creatures are good'2 but by a certain signification lambs are clean and swine unclean4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the disciples also1 when1 being hungry1 they plucked the ears of corn on the ,sabbath1 are to be excused from transgressing the ,law1 since they were pressed by hunger3 just as ,david did not transgress the ,law when1 through being compelled by hunger1 he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat4 ,,question #da ,,of ,,christ',s ,,temptation 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's temptation1 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was becoming that ,christ should be tempted8 7#b7 ,of the place2 7#c7 ,of the time2 7#d7 ,of the mode and order of the temptation4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #da1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,becoming ,that ,christ ,should ,be ,tempted8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not becoming for ,christ to be tempted4 ,for to tempt is to make an experiment1 which is not done save in regard to something unknown4 ,but the power of ,christ was known even to the demons2 for it is written 7,luke #d3da7 that ,he suffered them not to speak1 for they knew that ,he was ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that it was unbecoming for ,christ to be tempted4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ was come in order to destroy the works of the devil1 according to #a ,john #c3h3 ,for this purpose the ,son of ,god appeared1 that ,he might destroy the works of the devil4 ,but it is not for the same to destroy the works of a certain one and to suffer them4 ,therefore it seems unbecoming that ,christ should suffer ,himself to be tempted by the devil4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 temptation is from a threefold source--the flesh1 the world1 and the devil4 ,but ,christ was not tempted either by the flesh or by the world4 ,therefore neither should ,he have been tempted by the devil4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #d3a73 ,jesus was led by the ,spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil4 ,i answer that1 ,christ wished to be tempted2 first that ,he might strengthen us against temptations4 ,hence ,gregory says in a homily 7xvi in ,evang473 ,it was not unworthy of our ,redeemer to wish to be tempted1 who came also to be slain2 in order that by ,his temptations ,he might conquer our temptations1 just as by ,his death ,he overcame our death4 ,secondly1 that we might be warned1 so that none1 however holy1 may think himself safe or free from temptation4 ,wherefore also ,he wished to be tempted after ,his baptism1 because1 as ,hilary says 7,super ,matth41 cap4 iii473 ,the temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified1 for he desires1 above all1 to overcome the holy4 ,hence also it is written 7,ecclus4 #b73 ,son1 when thou comest to the service of ,god1 stand in justice and in fear1 and prepare thy soul for temptation4 ,thirdly1 in order to give us an example3 to teach us1 to wit1 how to overcome the temptations of the devil4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv7 that ,christ allowed ,himself to be tempted by the devil1 that ,he might be our ,mediator in overcoming temptations1 not only by helping us1 but also by giving us an example4 ,fourthly1 in order to fill us with confidence in ,his mercy4 ,hence it is written 7,heb4 #d3ae73 ,we have not a high-priest1 who cannot have compassion on our infirmities1 but one tempted in all things like as we are1 without sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei ix73 ,christ was known to the demons only so far as ,he willed2 not as the ,author of eternal life1 but as the cause of certain temporal effects1 from which they formed a certain conjecture that ,christ was the ,son of ,god4 ,but since they also observed in ,him certain signs of human frailty1 they did not know for certain that ,he was the ,son of ,god3 wherefore 7the devil7 wished to tempt ,him4 ,this is implied by the words of ,matt4 #d3b1 #c1 saying that1 after ,he was hungry1 the tempter came to ,him1 because1 as ,hilary says 7,super ,matth41 cap4 iii71 ,had not ,christ's weakness in hungering betrayed ,his human nature1 the devil would not have dared to tempt ,him4 ,moreover1 this appears from the very manner of the temptation1 when he said3 ,if ,thou be the ,son of ,god4 ,which words ,ambrose explains as follows 7,in ,luc4 iv73 ,what means this way of addressing ,him1 save that1 though he knew that the ,son of ,god was to come1 yet he did not think that ,he had come in the weakness of the flesh8 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ came to destroy the works of the devil1 not by powerful deeds1 but rather by suffering from him and his members1 so as to conquer the devil by righteousness1 not by power2 thus ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii7 that the devil was to be overcome1 not by the power of ,god1 but by righteousness4 ,and therefore in regard to ,christ's temptation we must consider what ,he did of ,his own will and what ,he suffered from the devil4 ,for that ,he allowed ,himself to be tempted was due to ,his own will4 ,wherefore it is written 7,matt4 #d3a73 ,jesus was led by the ,spirit into the desert1 to be tempted by the devil2 and ,gregory 7,hom4 xvi in ,evang47 says this is to be understood of the ,holy ,ghost1 to wit1 that thither did ,his ,spirit lead ,him1 where the wicked spirit would find ,him and tempt ,him4 ,but ,he suffered from the devil in being taken up on to the pinnacle of the ,temple and again into a very high mountain4 ,nor is it strange1 as ,gregory observes1 that ,he allowed ,himself to be taken by him on to a mountain1 who allowed ,himself to be crucified by ,his members4 ,and we understand ,him to have been taken up by the devil1 not1 as it were1 by force1 but because1 as ,origen says 7,hom4 xxi super ,luc471 ,he followed ,him in the course of ,his temptation like a wrestler advancing of his own accord4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #d3ae71 ,christ wished to be tempted in all things1 without sin4 ,now temptation which comes from an enemy can be without sin3 because it comes about by merely outward suggestion4 ,but temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be without sin1 because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and concupiscence2 and1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xix71 it is not without sin that 'the flesh desireth against the spirit4' ,and hence ,christ wished to be tempted by an enemy1 but not by the flesh4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #da1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,been ,tempted in the ,desert8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have been tempted in the desert4 ,because ,christ wished to be tempted in order to give us an example1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,but an example should be set openly before those who are to follow it4 ,therefore ,he should not have been tempted in the desert4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xii in ,matth473 ,then most especially does the devil assail by tempting us1 when he sees us alone4 ,thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her apart from her husband4 ,hence it seems that1 by going into the desert to be tempted1 ,he exposed ,himself to temptation4 ,since1 therefore1 ,his temptation is an example to us1 it seems that others too should take such steps as will lead them into temptation4 ,and yet this seems a dangerous thing to do1 since rather should we avoid the occasion of being tempted4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,matt4 #d3e1 ,christ's second temptation is set down1 in which the devil took ,christ up into the ,holy ,city1 and set ,him upon the pinnacle of the ,temple3 which is certainly not in the desert4 ,therefore ,he was not tempted in the desert only4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #a3ac7 that ,jesus was in the desert forty days and forty nights1 and was tempted by ,satan4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 ,christ of ,his own free-will exposed ,himself to be tempted by the devil1 just as by ,his own free-will ,he submitted to be killed by his members2 else the devil would not have dared to approach ,him4 ,now the devil prefers to assail a man who is alone1 for1 as it is written 7,eccles4 #d3ab71 if a man prevail against one1 two shall withstand him4 ,and so it was that ,christ went out into the desert1 as to a field of battle1 to be tempted there by the devil4 ,hence ,ambrose says on ,luke #d3a1 that ,christ was led into the desert for the purpose of provoking the devil4 ,for had he1 i4e4 the devil1 not fought1 ,he1 i4e4 ,christ1 would not have conquered4 ,he adds other reasons1 saying that ,christ in doing this set forth the mystery of ,adam's delivery from exile1 who had been expelled from paradise into the desert1 and set an example to us1 by showing that the devil envies those who strive for better things4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is set as an example to all through faith1 according to ,heb4 #ab3b3 ,looking on ,jesus1 the author and finisher of faith4 ,now faith1 as it is written 7,rom4 #aj3ag71 cometh by hearing1 but not by seeing3 nay1 it is even said 7,john #bj3bi73 ,blessed are they that have not seen and have believed4 ,and therefore1 in order that ,christ's temptation might be an example to us1 it behooved that men should not see it1 and it was enough that they should hear it related4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the occasions of temptation are twofold4 ,one is on the part of man--for instance1 when a man causes himself to be near to sin by not avoiding the occasion of sinning4 ,and such occasions of temptation should be avoided1 as it is written of ,lot 7,gen4 #ai3ag73 ,neither stay thou in all the country about ,sodom4 ,another occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil1 who always envies those who strive for better things1 as ,ambrose says 7,in ,luc4 iv1 #a74 ,and such occasions of temptation are not to be avoided4 ,hence ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 v in ,matth4 99,from the supposititious ,opus ,imperfectum73 ,not only ,christ was led into the desert by the ,spirit1 but all ,god's children that have the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for it is not enough for them to sit idle2 the ,holy ,ghost urges them to endeavor to do something great3 which is for them to be in the desert from the devil's standpoint1 for no unrighteousness1 in which the devil delights1 is there4 ,again1 every good work1 compared to the flesh and the world1 is the desert2 because it is not according to the will of the flesh and of the world4 ,now1 there is no danger in giving the devil such an occasion of temptation2 since the help of the ,holy ,ghost1 who is the ,author of the perfect deed1 is more powerful99 than the assault of the envious devil4 99,all the codices read 'majus4' ,one of the earliest printed editions has 'magis1' which has much to commend it1 since ,st4 ,thomas is commenting the text quoted from ,st4 ,chrysostom4 ,the translation would run thus3 'since rather is it 7the temptation7 a help from the ,holy ,ghost1 who1' etc44 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,some say that all the temptations took place in the desert4 ,of these some say that ,christ was led into the ,holy ,city1 not really1 but in an imaginary vision2 while others say that the ,holy ,city itself1 i4e4 ,jerusalem1 is called a desert1 because it was deserted by ,god4 ,but there is no need for this explanation4 ,for ,mark says that ,he was tempted in the desert by the devil1 but not that ,he was tempted in the desert only4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #da1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,temptation ,should ,have ,taken ,place ,after ,his ,fast8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's temptation should not have taken place after ,his fast4 ,for it has been said above 7,q4 #dj1 ,a4 #b7 that an austere mode of life was not becoming to ,christ4 ,but it savors of extreme austerity that ,he should have eaten nothing for forty days and forty nights1 for ,gregory 7,hom4 xvi in ,evang47 explains the fact that ,he fasted forty days and forty nights1 saying that during that time ,he partook of no food whatever4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,he should not thus have fasted before ,his temptation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,mk4 #a3ac7 that ,he was in the desert forty days and forty nights2 and was tempted by ,satan4 ,now1 ,he fasted forty days and forty nights4 ,therefore it seems that ,he was tempted by the devil1 not after1 but during1 ,his fast4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 we read that ,christ fasted but once4 ,but ,he was tempted by the devil1 not only once1 for it is written 7,luke #d3ac7 that all the temptation being ended1 the devil departed from ,him for a time4 ,as1 therefore1 ,he did not fast before the second temptation1 so neither should ,he have fasted before the first4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #d3b1 #c73 ,when ,he had fasted forty days and forty nights1 afterwards ,he was hungry3 and then the tempter came to ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,it was becoming that ,christ should wish to fast before ,his temptation4 ,first1 in order to give us an example4 ,for since we are all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 by fasting before being tempted1 ,he teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation4 ,hence the ,apostle 7#b ,cor4 #f3e1 #g7 reckons fastings together with the armor of justice4 ,secondly1 in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even those who fast1 as likewise those who are given to other good works4 ,and so ,christ's temptation took place after ,his fast1 as also after ,his baptism4 ,hence since rather ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xiii super ,matth473 ,to instruct thee how great a good is fasting1 and how it is a most powerful shield against the devil2 and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up1 not to luxury1 but to fasting2 for this cause ,christ fasted1 not as needing it ,himself1 but as teaching us4 ,thirdly1 because after the fast1 hunger followed1 which made the devil dare to approach ,him1 as already stated 7,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,now1 when our ,lord was hungry1 says ,hilary 7,super ,matth4 iii71 it was not because ,he was overcome by want of food1 but because ,he abandoned ,his manhood to its nature4 ,for the devil was to be conquered1 not by ,god1 but by the flesh4 ,wherefore ,chrysostom too says3 ,he proceeded no farther than ,moses and ,elias1 lest ,his assumption of our flesh might seem incredible4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it was becoming for ,christ not to adopt an extreme form of austere life in order to show ,himself outwardly in conformity with those to whom ,he preached4 ,now1 no one should take up the office of preacher unless he be already cleansed and perfect in virtue1 according to what is said of ,christ1 that ,jesus began to do and to teach 7,acts #a3a74 ,consequently1 immediately after ,his baptism ,christ adopted an austere form of life1 in order to teach us the need of taming the flesh before passing on to the office of preaching1 according to the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #i3bg73 ,i chastise my body1 and bring it into subjection1 lest perhaps when ,i have preached to others1 ,i myself should become a castaway4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,these words of ,mark may be understood as meaning that ,he was in the desert forty days and forty nights1 and that ,he fasted during that time3 and the words1 and ,he was tempted by ,satan1 may be taken as referring1 not to the time during which ,he fasted1 but to the time that followed3 since ,matthew says that after ,he had fasted forty days and forty nights1 afterwards ,he was hungry1 thus affording the devil a pretext for approaching ,him4 ,and so the words that follow1 and the angels ministered to ,him1 are to be taken in sequence1 which is clear from the words of ,matthew 7#d3aa73 ,then the devil left ,him1 i4e4 after the temptation1 and behold angels came and ministered to ,him4 ,and as to the words inserted by ,mark1 and ,he was with the beasts1 according to ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xiii in ,matth471 they are set down in order to describe the desert as being impassable to man and full of beasts4 ,on the other hand1 according to ,bede's exposition of ,mk4 #a3ab1 #ac1 our ,lord was tempted forty days and forty nights4 ,but this is not to be understood of the visible temptations which are related by ,matthew and ,luke1 and occurred after the fast1 but of certain other assaults which perhaps ,christ suffered from the devil during that time of ,his fast4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,ambrose says on ,luke #d3ac1 the devil departed from ,christ for a time1 because1 later on1 he returned1 not to tempt ,him1 but to assail ,him openly--namely1 at the time of ,his ,passion4 ,nevertheless1 ,he seemed in this later assault to tempt ,christ to dejection and hatred of ,his neighbor2 just as in the desert he had tempted ,him to gluttonous pleasure and idolatrous contempt of ,god4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #da1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,mode and ,order of the ,temptation ,were ,becoming8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the mode and order of the temptation were unbecoming4 ,for the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin4 ,but if ,christ had assuaged ,his bodily hunger by changing the stones into bread1 ,he would not have sinned2 just as neither did ,he sin when ,he multiplied the loaves1 which was no less a miracle1 in order to succor the hungry crowd4 ,therefore it seems that this was nowise a temptation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the contrary to what he intends4 ,but when the devil set ,christ on a pinnacle of the ,temple1 he purposed to tempt ,him to pride or vainglory4 ,therefore it was inconsistent to urge ,him to cast ,himself thence3 for this would be contrary to pride or vainglory1 which always seeks to rise4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 one temptation should lead to one sin4 ,but in the temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins--namely1 covetousness and idolatry4 ,therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 temptations are ordained to sin4 ,but there are seven deadly sins1 as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #d74 ,but the tempter only deals with three1 viz4 gluttony1 vainglory1 and covetousness4 ,therefore the temptation seems to have been incomplete4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 after overcoming all the vices1 man is still tempted to pride or vainglory3 since pride worms itself in stealthily1 and destroys even good works1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ccxi74 ,therefore ,matthew unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to covetousness on the mountain1 and the second place to the temptation to vainglory in the ,temple1 especially since ,luke puts them in the reverse order4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 ,jerome says on ,matt4 #d3d that ,christ purposed to overcome the devil by humility1 not by might4 ,therefore ,he should not have repulsed him with a haughty rebuke1 saying3 ,begone1 ,satan4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 the gospel narrative seems to be false4 ,for it seems impossible that ,christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the ,temple without being seen by others4 ,nor is there to be found a mountain so high that all the world can be seen from it1 so that all the kingdoms of the earth could be shown to ,christ from its summit4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,christ's temptation is unfittingly described4 ,on the contrary is the authority of ,scripture4 ,i answer that1 ,the temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form of a suggestion1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 xvi in ,evang474 ,now a suggestion cannot be made to everybody in the same way2 it must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination4 ,consequently the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins1 but he begins with lighter sins1 so as gradually to lead him to those of greater magnitude4 ,wherefore ,gregory 7,moral4 xxxi71 expounding ,job #ci3be1 ,he smelleth the battle afar off1 the encouraging of the captains and the shouting of the army1 says3 ,the captains are fittingly described as encouraging1 and the army as shouting4 ,because vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind under some specious pretext3 then they come on the mind in such numbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly1 deafening it with their bestial clamor4 ,thus1 too1 did the devil set about the temptation of the first man4 ,for at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden fruit1 saying 7,gen4 #c3a73 ,why hath ,god commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise8 ,secondly he tempted him to vainglory by saying3 ,your eyes shall be opened4 ,thirdly1 he led the temptation to the extreme height of pride1 saying3 ,you shall be as gods1 knowing good and evil4 ,this same order did he observe in tempting ,christ4 ,for at first he tempted ,him to that which men desire1 however spiritual they may be--namely1 the support of the corporeal nature by food4 ,secondly1 he advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found wanting1 inasmuch as they do certain things for show1 which pertains to vainglory4 ,thirdly1 he led the temptation on to that in which no spiritual men1 but only carnal men1 have a part--namely1 to desire worldly riches and fame1 to the extent of holding ,god in contempt4 ,and so in the first two temptations he said3 ,if ,thou be the ,son of ,god2 but not in the third1 which is inapplicable to spiritual men1 who are sons of ,god by adoption1 whereas it does apply to the two preceding temptations4 ,and ,christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the ,law1 not by enforcing ,his power1 so as to give more honor to ,his human nature and a greater punishment to ,his adversary1 since the foe of the human race was vanquished1 not as by ,god1 but as by man2 as ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 #a1 ,de ,quadrag4 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to make use of what is needful for self-support is not the sin of gluttony2 but if a man do anything inordinate out of the desire for such support1 it can pertain to the sin of gluttony4 ,now it is inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to seek to obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support4 ,hence the ,lord miraculously provided the children of ,israel with manna in the desert1 where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise4 ,and in like fashion ,christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the desert1 when there was no other means of getting food4 ,but in order to assuage ,his hunger1 ,he could have done otherwise than work a miracle1 as did ,john the ,baptist1 according to ,matthew 7#c3d72 or ,he could have hastened to the neighboring country4 ,consequently the devil esteemed that if ,christ was a mere man1 ,he would fall into sin by attempting to assuage ,his hunger by a miracle4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from external humiliation1 whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual good4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,serm4 ,dom4 in ,monte ii1 #ab73 ,it must be noted that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and splendor of material things1 but even of filthy squalor4 ,and this is signified by the devil urging ,christ to seek spiritual glory by casting ,his body down4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an inordinate fashion4 ,and the principal sign of this is when a man does something wrong in order to acquire such things4 ,and so the devil was not satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors1 but he went so far as to tempt ,christ1 for the sake of gaining possession of these things1 to fall down and adore him1 which is a very great crime1 and against ,god4 ,nor does he say merely1 if ,thou wilt adore me1 but he adds1 if1 falling down2 because1 as ,ambrose says on ,luke #d3e3 ,ambition harbors yet another danger within itself3 for1 while seeking to rule1 it will serve2 it will bow in submission that it may be crowned with honor2 and the higher it aims1 the lower it abases itself4 ,in like manner the devil in the preceding temptations tried to lead ,christ from the desire of one sin to the commission of another2 thus from the desire of food he tried to lead ,him to the vanity of the needless working of a miracle2 and from the desire of glory to tempt ,god by casting ,himself headlong4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,ambrose says on ,luke #d3ac1 ,scripture would not have said that 'all the temptation being ended1 the devil departed from ,him1' unless the matter of all sins were included in the three temptations already related4 ,for the causes of temptations are the causes of desires--namely1 lust of the flesh1 hope of glory1 eagerness for power4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii73 ,it is not certain which happened first2 whether the kingdoms of the earth were first shown to ,him1 and afterwards ,he was set on the pinnacle of the ,temple2 or the latter first1 and the former afterwards4 ,however1 it matters not1 provided it be made clear that all these things did take place4 ,it may be that the ,evangelists set these things in different orders1 because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory1 sometimes the reverse happens4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,when ,christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by the devil saying1 ,if ,thou be the ,son of ,god cast ,thyself down1 ,he was not troubled1 nor did ,he upbraid the devil4 ,but when the devil usurped to himself the honor due to ,god1 saying1 ,all these things will ,i give ,thee1 if1 falling down1 ,thou wilt adore me1 ,he was exasperated1 and repulsed him1 saying1 ,begone1 ,satan3 that we might learn from ,his example to bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves1 but not to allow ourselves so much as to listen to those which are aimed at ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 v in ,matth473 ,the devil set ,him 7on a pinnacle of the ,temple7 that ,he might be seen by all1 whereas1 unawares to the devil1 ,he acted in such sort that ,he was seen by none4 ,in regard to the words1 ',he showed ,him all the kingdoms of the world1 and the glory of them1' we are not to understand that ,he saw the very kingdoms1 with the cities and inhabitants1 their gold and silver3 but that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each kingdom or city lay1 and set forth to ,him in words their glory and estate4 ,or1 again1 as ,origen says 7,hom4 xxx in ,luc471 he showed ,him how1 by means of the various vices1 he was the lord of the world4 ,,question #db ,,of ,,christ',s ,,doctrine 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's doctrine1 about which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ should have preached to the ,jews only1 or to the ,gentiles also8 7#b7 ,whether in preaching ,he should have avoided the opposition of the ,jews8 7#c7 ,whether ,he should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner8 7#d7 ,whether ,he should have preached by word only1 or also by writing8 ,concerning the time when ,he began to teach1 we have spoken above when treating of ,his baptism 7,q4 #bi1 ,a4 #c74 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #db1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,preached ,not ,only to the ,jews1 but ,also to the ,gentiles8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should have preached not only to the ,jews1 but also to the ,gentiles4 ,for it is written 7,isa4 #di3f73 ,it is a small thing that thou shouldst be ,my servant to raise up the tribes of ,israel ,vulg43 ',jacob' and to convert the dregs of ,jacob ,vulg43 ',israel'3 behold1 ,i have given thee to be the light of the ,gentiles1 that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth4 ,but ,christ gave light and salvation through ,his doctrine4 ,therefore it seems that it was a small thing that ,he preached to ,jews alone1 and not to the ,gentiles4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as it is written 7,matt4 #g3bi73 ,he was teaching them as one having power4 ,now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the instruction of those who1 like the ,gentiles1 have received no tidings whatever2 hence the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ae3bj73 ,i have so preached the ,vulg43 'this' gospel1 not where ,christ was named1 lest ,i should build upon another man's foundation4 ,therefore much rather should ,christ have preached to the ,gentiles than to the ,jews4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is more useful to instruct many than one4 ,but ,christ instructed some individual ,gentiles1 such as the ,samaritan woman 7,john #d7 and the ,chananaean woman 7,matt4 #ae74 ,much more reason1 therefore1 was there for ,christ to preach to the ,gentiles in general4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #ae3bd73 ,i was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of ,israel4 ,and 7,rom4 #aj3ae7 it is written3 ,how shall they preach unless they be sent8 ,therefore ,christ should not have preached to the ,gentiles4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting that ,christ's preaching1 whether through ,himself or through ,his apostles1 should be directed at first to the ,jews alone4 ,first1 in order to show that by ,his coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the ,jews of old1 and not to the ,gentiles4 ,thus the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ae3h73 ,i say that ,christ 4 4 4 was minister of the circumcision1 i4e4 the apostle and preacher of the ,jews1 for the truth of ,god1 to confirm the promises made unto the fathers4 ,secondly1 in order to show that ,his coming was of ,god2 because1 as is written ,rom4 #ac3a3 ,those things which are of ,god are well ordered ,vulg43 'those that are1 are ordained of ,god'4 ,now the right order demanded that the doctrine of ,christ should be made known first to the ,jews1 who1 by believing in and worshiping one ,god1 were nearer to ,god1 and that it should be transmitted through them to the ,gentiles3 just as in the heavenly hierarchy the ,divine enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher4 ,hence on ,matt4 #ae3bd1 ,i was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of ,israel1 ,jerome says3 ,he does not mean by this that ,he was not sent to the ,gentiles1 but that ,he was sent to the ,jews first4 ,and so we read 7,isa4 #ff3ai73 ,i will send of them that shall be saved1 i4e4 of the ,jews1 to the ,gentiles 4 4 4 and they shall declare ,my glory unto the ,gentiles4 ,thirdly1 in order to deprive the ,jews of ground for quibbling4 ,hence on ,matt4 #aj3e1 ,go ye not into the way of the ,gentiles4 ,jerome says3 ,it behooved ,christ's coming to be announced to the ,jews first1 lest they should have a valid excuse1 and say that they had rejected our ,lord because ,he had sent ,his apostles to the ,gentiles and ,samaritans4 ,fourthly1 because it was through the triumph of the cross that ,christ merited power and lordship over the ,gentiles4 ,hence it is written 7,apoc4 #b3bf1 #bh73 ,he that shall overcome 4 4 4 ,i will give him power over the nations 4 4 4 as ,i also have received of ,my ,father2 and that because ,he became obedient unto the death of the cross1 ,god hath exalted ,him 4 4 4 that in the name of ,jesus every knee should bow 4 4 4 and that every tongue should confess ,him 7,phil4 #b3h-aa74 ,consequently ,he did not wish ,his doctrine to be preached to the ,gentiles before ,his ,passion3 it was after ,his ,passion that ,he said to ,his disciples 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,going1 teach ye all nations4 ,for this reason it was that when1 shortly before ,his ,passion1 certain ,gentiles wished to see ,jesus1 ,he said3 ,unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth1 itself remaineth alone3 but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit 7,john #ab3bj-be72 and as ,augustine says1 commenting on this passage3 ,he called ,himself the grain of wheat that must be mortified by the unbelief of the ,jews1 multiplied by the faith of the nations4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ was given to be the light and salvation of the ,gentiles through ,his disciples1 whom ,he sent to preach to them4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is a sign1 not of lesser1 but of greater power to do something by means of others rather than by oneself4 ,and thus the ,divine power of ,christ was specially shown in this1 that ,he bestowed on the teaching of ,his disciples such a power that they converted the ,gentiles to ,christ1 although these had heard nothing of ,him4 ,now the power of ,christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles by which ,he confirmed ,his doctrine1 in the efficacy of ,his persuasion1 and in the authority of ,his words1 for ,he spoke as being ,himself above the ,law when ,he said3 ,but ,i say to you 7,matt4 #e3bb1 #bh1 #cb1 #cd1 #ci1 #dd72 and1 again1 in the force of ,his righteousness shown in ,his sinless manner of life4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as it was unfitting that ,christ should at the outset make ,his doctrine known to the ,gentiles equally with the ,jews1 in order that ,he might appear as being sent to the ,jews1 as to the first-born people2 so neither was it fitting for ,him to neglect the ,gentiles altogether1 lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation4 ,for this reason certain individual ,gentiles were admitted1 on account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #db1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,preached to the ,jews ,without ,offending ,them8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should have preached to the ,jews without offending them4 ,for1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,agone ,christ4 xi73 ,in the ,man ,jesus ,christ1 a model of life is given us by the ,son of ,god4 ,but we should avoid offending not only the faithful1 but even unbelievers1 according to #a ,cor4 #aj3cb3 ,be without offense to the ,jews1 and to the ,gentiles1 and to the ,church of ,god4 ,therefore it seems that1 in ,his teaching1 ,christ should also have avoided giving offense to the ,jews4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no wise man should do anything that will hinder the result of his labor4 ,now through the disturbance which ,his teaching occasioned among the ,jews1 it was deprived of its results2 for it is written 7,luke #aa3ec1 #ed7 that when our ,lord reproved the ,pharisees and ,scribes1 they began vehemently to urge ,him1 end to oppress ,his mouth about many things2 lying in wait for ,him1 and seeking to catch something from ,his mouth1 that they might accuse ,him4 ,it seems therefore unfitting that ,he should have given them offense by ,his teaching4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7#a ,tim4 #e3a73 ,an ancient man rebuke not2 but entreat him as a father4 ,but the priests and princes of the ,jews were the elders of that people4 ,therefore it seems that they should not have been rebuked with severity4 ,on the contrary1 ,it was foretold 7,isa4 #h3ad7 that ,christ would be for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of ,israel4 ,i answer that1 ,the salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever4 ,consequently1 when certain ones1 by their perverseness1 hinder the salvation of the multitude1 the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men1 in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude4 ,now the ,scribes and ,pharisees and the princes of the ,jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people1 both because they opposed themselves to ,christ's doctrine1 which was the only way to salvation1 and because their evil ways corrupted the morals of the people4 ,for which reason our ,lord1 undeterred by their taking offense1 publicly taught the truth which they hated1 and condemned their vices4 ,hence we read 7,matt4 #ae3ab1 #ad7 that when the disciples of our ,lord said3 ,dost ,thou know that the ,pharisees1 when they heard this word1 were scandalized8 ,he answered3 ,let them alone3 they are blind and leaders of the blind2 and if the blind lead the blind1 both fall into the pit4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a man ought so to avoid giving offense1 as neither by wrong deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall4 ,but if scandal arise from truth1 the scandal should be borne rather than the truth be set aside1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 vii in ,ezech474 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by publicly reproving the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 ,christ promoted rather than hindered the effect of ,his teaching4 ,because when the people came to know the vices of those men1 they were less inclined to be prejudiced against ,christ by hearing what was said of ,him by the ,scribes and ,pharisees1 who were ever withstanding ,his doctrine4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this saying of the ,apostle is to be understood of those elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority1 but also in probity2 according to ,num4 #aa3af3 ,gather unto ,me seventy men of the ancients of ,israel1 whom thou knowest to be ancients 4 4 4 of the people4 ,but if by sinning openly they turn the authority of their years into an instrument of wickedness1 they should be rebuked openly and severely1 as also ,daniel says 7,dan4 #ac3eb73 ,o thou that art grown old in evil days1 etc4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #db1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,taught ,all ,things ,openly8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have taught all things openly4 ,for we read that ,he taught many things to ,his disciples apart3 as is seen clearly in the sermon at the ,supper4 ,wherefore ,he said3 ,that which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops 99,st4 ,thomas1 probably quoting from memory1 combines ,matt4 #aj3bg with ,luke #ab3c4 ,therefore ,he did not teach all things openly4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the perfect1 according to #a ,cor4 #b3f3 ,we speak wisdom among the perfect4 ,now ,christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom4 ,therefore it should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it comes to the same1 to hide the truth1 whether by saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to understand4 ,now ,christ1 by speaking to the multitudes a language they would not understand1 hid from them the truth that ,he preached2 since without parables ,he did not speak to them 7,matt4 #ac3cd74 ,in the same way1 therefore1 ,he could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all4 ,on the contrary1 ,he says ,himself 7,john #ah3bj73 ,in secret ,i have spoken nothing4 ,i answer that1 ,anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways4 ,first1 on the part of the intention of the teacher1 who does not wish to make his doctrine known to many1 but rather to hide it4 ,and this may happen in two ways--sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher1 who desires to excel in his knowledge1 wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to others4 ,but this was not the case with ,christ1 in whose person the following words are spoken 7,wis4 #g3ac73 ,which ,i have learned without guile1 and communicate without envy1 and her riches ,i hide not4 ,but sometimes this happens through the vileness of the things taught2 thus ,augustine says on ,john #af3ab3 ,there are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear them4 ,wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written 7,prov4 #i3ag73 ,stolen waters are sweeter4 ,now1 ,christ's doctrine is not of error nor of uncleanness 7#a ,thess4 #b3c74 ,wherefore our ,lord says 7,mk4 #d3ba73 ,doth a candle1 i4e4 true and pure doctrine1 come in to be put under a bushel8 ,secondly1 doctrine is hidden because it is put before few4 ,and thus1 again1 did ,christ teach nothing in secret3 for ,he propounded ,his entire doctrine either to the whole crowd or to ,his disciples gathered together4 ,hence ,augustine says on ,john #ah3bj3 ,how can it be said that ,he speaks in secret when ,he speaks before so many men8 4 4 4 especially if what ,he says to few ,he wishes through them to be made known to many8 ,thirdly1 doctrine is hidden1 as to the manner in which it is propounded4 ,and thus ,christ spoke certain things in secret to the crowds1 by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were either unable or unworthy to grasp3 and yet it was better for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things1 albeit hidden under the garb of parables1 than to be deprived of it altogether4 ,nevertheless our ,lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these parables to ,his disciples1 so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it2 according to #b ,tim4 #b3b3 ,the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses1 the same command to faithful men1 who shall be fit to teach others4 ,this is foreshadowed1 ,num4 #d1 where the sons of ,aaron are commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the ,levites4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,hilary says1 commenting on the passage quoted1 we do not read that our ,lord was wont to preach at night1 and expound ,his doctrine in the dark3 but ,he says this because ,his speech is darkness to the carnal-minded1 and ,his words are night to the unbeliever4 ,his meaning1 therefore1 is that whatever ,he said we also should say in the midst of unbelievers1 by openly believing and professing it4 ,or1 according to ,jerome1 ,he speaks comparatively--that is to say1 because ,he was instructing them in ,judea1 which was a small place compared with the whole world1 where ,christ's doctrine was to be published by the preaching of the apostles4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by ,his doctrine our ,lord did not make known all the depths of ,his wisdom1 neither to the multitudes1 nor1 indeed1 to ,his disciples1 to whom ,he said 7,john #af3ab73 ,i have yet many things to say to you1 but you cannot bear them now4 ,yet whatever things out of ,his wisdom ,he judged it right to make known to others1 ,he expounded1 not in secret1 but openly2 although ,he was not understood by all4 ,hence ,augustine says on ,john #ah3bj3 ,we must understand this1 ',i have spoken openly to the world1' as though our ,lord had said1 ',many have heard ,me' 4 4 4 and1 again1 it was not 'openly1' because they did not understand4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above1 our ,lord spoke to the multitudes in parables1 because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked truth1 which ,he revealed to ,his disciples4 ,and when it is said that without parables ,he did not speak to them1 according to ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xlvii in ,matth471 we are to understand this of that particular sermon1 since on other occasions ,he said many things to the multitude without parables4 ,or1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,qq4 ,evang41 qu4 xvii71 this means1 not that ,he spoke nothing literally1 but that ,he scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable1 although ,he also spoke some things in the literal sense4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #db1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,committed ,his ,doctrine to ,writing8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should have committed ,his doctrine to writing4 ,for the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to posterity4 ,now ,christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever1 according to ,luke #ba3cc3 ,heaven and earth shall pass away1 but ,my words shall not pass away4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should have committed ,his doctrine to writing4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,old ,law was a foreshadowing of ,christ1 according to ,heb4 #aj3a3 ,the ,law has ,vulg43 'having' a shadow of the good things to come4 ,now the ,old ,law was put into writing by ,god1 according to ,ex4 #bd3ab3 ,i will give thee two tables of stone and the law1 and the commandments which ,i have written4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ also should have put ,his doctrine into writing4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to ,christ1 who came to enlighten them that sit in darkness 7,luke #a3gi71 it belonged to remove occasions of error1 and to open out the road to faith4 ,now ,he would have done this by putting ,his teaching into writing3 for ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 i7 that some there are who wonder why our ,lord wrote nothing1 so that we have to believe what others have written about ,him4 ,especially do those pagans ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme ,christ1 and who ascribe to ,him most excellent1 but merely human1 wisdom4 ,these say that the disciples made out the ,master to be more than ,he really was when they said that ,he was the ,son of ,god and the ,word of ,god1 by whom all things were made4 ,and farther on he adds3 ,it seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever ,he might have written of ,himself1 but not what others at their discretion published about ,him4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should have ,himself committed ,his doctrine to writing4 ,on the contrary1 ,no books written by ,him were to be found in the canon of ,scripture4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting that ,christ should not commit ,his doctrine to writing4 ,first1 on account of ,his dignity3 for the more excellent the teacher1 the more excellent should be his manner of teaching4 ,consequently it was fitting that ,christ1 as the most excellent of teachers1 should adopt that manner of teaching whereby ,his doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of ,his hearers2 wherefore it is written 7,matt4 #g3bi7 that ,he was teaching them as one having power4 ,and so it was that among the ,gentiles1 ,pythagoras and ,socrates1 who were teachers of great excellence1 were unwilling to write anything4 ,for writings are ordained1 as to an end1 unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers4 ,secondly1 on account of the excellence of ,christ's doctrine1 which cannot be expressed in writing2 according to ,john #ba3be3 ,there are also many other things which ,jesus did3 which1 if they were written everyone1 the world itself1 ,i think1 would not be able to contain the books that should be written4 ,which ,augustine explains by saying3 ,we are not to believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them 4 4 4 but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended4 ,and if ,christ had committed ,his doctrine to writing1 men would have had no deeper thought of ,his doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the writing4 ,thirdly1 that ,his doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner3 ,himself teaching ,his disciples immediately1 and they subsequently teaching others1 by preaching and writing3 whereas if ,he ,himself had written1 ,his doctrine would have reached all immediately4 ,hence it is said of ,wisdom 7,prov4 #i3c7 that she hath sent her maids to invite to the tower4 ,it is to be observed1 however1 that1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 i71 some of the ,gentiles thought that ,christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby ,he worked miracles3 which art is condemned by the ,christian learning4 ,and yet they who claim to have read those books of ,christ do none of those things which they marvel at ,his doing according to those same books4 ,moreover1 it is by a ,divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were1 as it were1 entitled as letters to ,peter and ,paul1 for that they found them in several places depicted in company with ,christ4 ,no wonder that the inventors were deceived by the painters3 for as long as ,christ lived in the mortal flesh with ,his disciples1 ,paul was no disciple of ,his4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says in the same book3 ,christ is the head of all ,his disciples who are members of ,his body4 ,consequently1 when they put into writing what ,he showed forth and said to them1 by no means must we say that ,he wrote nothing3 since ,his members put forth that which they knew under ,his dictation4 ,for at ,his command they1 being ,his hands1 as it were1 wrote whatever ,he wished us to read concerning ,his deeds and words4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since the old ,law was given under the form of sensible signs1 therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs4 ,but ,christ's doctrine1 which is the law of the spirit of life 7,rom4 #h3b71 had to be written not with ink1 but with the ,spirit of the living ,god2 not in tables of stone1 but in the fleshly tables of the heart1 as the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #c3c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote of ,christ would have refused to believe the writings of ,christ1 whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art4 ,,question #dc ,,of ,,the ,,miracles ,,worked ,,by ,,christ1 ,,in ,,general 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the miracles worked by ,christ3 7#a7 ,in general2 7#b7 ,specifically1 of each kind of miracle2 7#c7 ,in particular1 of ,his transfiguration4 ,concerning the first1 there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ should have worked miracles8 7#b7 ,whether ,he worked them by ,divine power8 7#c7 ,when did ,he begin to work miracles8 7#d7 ,whether ,his miracles are a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dc1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,worked ,miracles8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have worked miracles4 ,for ,christ's deeds should have been consistent with ,his words4 ,but ,he ,himself said 7,matt4 #af3d73 ,a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign2 and a sign shall not be given it1 but the sign of ,jonas the prophet4 ,therefore ,he should not have worked miracles4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as ,christ1 at ,his second coming1 is to come with great power and majesty1 as is written ,matt4 #bd3cj1 so at ,his first coming ,he came in infirmity1 according to ,isa4 #ec3c3 ,a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity4 ,but the working of miracles belongs to power rather than to infirmity4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,he should work miracles in ,his first coming4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ came that ,he might save men by faith2 according to ,heb4 #ab3b3 ,looking on ,jesus1 the author and finisher of faith4 ,but miracles lessen the merit of faith2 hence our ,lord says 7,john #d3dh73 ,unless you see signs and wonders you believe not4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should not have worked miracles4 ,on the contrary1 ,it was said in the person of ,his adversaries 7,john #aa3dg73 ,what do we2 for this man doth many miracles8 ,i answer that1 ,god enables man to work miracles for two reasons4 ,first and principally1 in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches4 ,for since those things which are of faith surpass human reason1 they cannot be proved by human arguments1 but need to be proved by the argument of ,divine power3 so that when a man does works that ,god alone can do1 we may believe that what he says is from ,god3 just as when a man is the bearer of letters sealed with the king's ring1 it is to be believed that what they contain expresses the king's will4 ,secondly1 in order to make known ,god's presence in a man by the grace of the ,holy ,ghost3 so that when a man does the works of ,god we may believe that ,god dwells in him by ,his grace4 ,wherefore it is written 7,gal4 #c3e73 ,he who giveth to you the ,spirit1 and worketh miracles among you4 ,now both these things were to be made known to men concerning ,christ--namely1 that ,god dwelt in ,him by grace1 not of adoption1 but of union3 and that ,his supernatural doctrine was from ,god4 ,and therefore it was most fitting that ,he should work miracles4 ,wherefore ,he ,himself says 7,john #aj3ch73 ,though you will not believe ,me1 believe the works2 and 7,john #e3cf73 ,the works which the ,father hath given ,me to perfect 4 4 4 themselves 4 4 4 give testimony to ,me4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these words1 a sign shall not be given it1 but the sign of ,jonas1 mean1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xliii in ,matth471 that they did not receive a sign such as they sought1 viz4 from heaven3 but not that ,he gave them no sign at all4 ,or that ,he worked signs not for the sake of those whom ,he knew to be hardened1 but to amend others4 ,therefore those signs were given1 not to them1 but to others4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although ,christ came in the infirmity of the flesh1 which is manifested in the passions1 yet ,he came in the power of ,god 99,cf4 #b ,cor4 #ac3d1 and this had to be made manifest by miracles4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,miracles lessen the merit of faith in so far as those are shown to be hard of heart who are unwilling to believe what is proved from the ,scriptures unless 7they are convinced7 by miracles4 ,yet it is better for them to be converted to the faith even by miracles than that they should remain altogether in their unbelief4 ,for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ad3bb7 that signs are given to unbelievers1 viz4 that they may be converted to the faith4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dc1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,worked ,miracles by ,divine ,power8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not work miracles by ,divine power4 ,for the ,divine power is omnipotent4 ,but it seems that ,christ was not omnipotent in working miracles2 for it is written 7,mk4 #f3e7 that ,he could not do any miracles there1 i4e4 in ,his own country4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not work miracles by ,divine power4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,god does not pray4 ,but ,christ sometimes prayed when working miracles2 as may be seen in the raising of ,lazarus 7,john #aa3da1 #db71 and in the multiplication of the loaves1 as related ,matt4 #ad3ai4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not work miracles by ,divine power4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what is done by ,divine power cannot be done by the power of any creature4 ,but the things which ,christ did could be done also by the power of a creature3 wherefore the ,pharisees said 7,luke #aa3ae7 that ,he cast out devils by ,beelzebub the prince of devils4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not work miracles by ,divine power4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #ad3aj73 ,the ,father who abideth in ,me1 ,he doth the works4 ,i answer that1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d71 true miracles cannot be wrought save by ,divine power3 because ,god alone can change the order of nature2 and this is what is meant by a miracle4 ,wherefore ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 ad ,flav4 xxviii7 that1 while there are two natures in ,christ1 there is one1 viz4 the ,divine1 which shines forth in miracles2 and another1 viz4 the human1 which submits to insults2 yet each communicates its actions to the other3 in as far as the human nature is the instrument of the ,divine action1 and the human action receives power from the ,divine ,nature1 as stated above 7,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when it is said that ,he could not do any miracles there1 it is not to be understood that ,he could not do them absolutely1 but that it was not fitting for ,him to do them3 for it was unfitting for ,him to work miracles among unbelievers4 ,wherefore it is said farther on3 ,and ,he wondered because of their unbelief4 ,in like manner it is said 7,gen4 #ah3ag73 ,can ,i hide from ,abraham what ,i am about to do8 and ,gen4 #ai3bb3 ,i cannot do anything till thou go in thither4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,chrysostom says on ,matt4 #ad3ai1 ,he took the five loaves and the two fishes1 and1 looking up to heaven1 ,he blessed and brake3 ,it was to be believed of ,him1 both that ,he is of the ,father and that ,he is equal to ,him 4 4 4 ,therefore that ,he might prove both1 ,he works miracles now with authority1 now with prayer 4 4 4 in the lesser things1 indeed1 ,he looks up to heaven--for instance1 in multiplying the loaves--but in the greater1 which belong to ,god alone1 ,he acts with authority2 for example1 when ,he forgave sins and raised the dead4 ,when it is said that in raising ,lazarus ,he lifted up ,his eyes 7,john #aa3da71 this was not because ,he needed to pray1 but because ,he wished to teach us how to pray4 ,wherefore ,he said3 ,because of the people who stand about have ,i said it3 that they may believe that ,thou hast sent ,me4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out by the power of demons4 ,for demons are cast out from bodies by the power of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power over the soul3 since the devil does not work against his own kingdom4 ,on the other hand1 ,christ cast out demons1 not only from the body1 but still more from the soul4 ,for this reason our ,lord rebuked the blasphemy of the ,jews1 who said that ,he cast out demons by the power of the demons3 first1 by saying that ,satan is not divided against himself2 secondly1 by quoting the instance of others who cast out demons by the ,spirit of ,god2 thirdly1 because ,he could not have cast out a demon unless ,he had overcome ,him by ,divine power2 fourthly1 because there was nothing in common between ,his works and their effects and those of ,satan2 since ,satan's purpose was to scatter those whom ,christ gathered together 99,cf4 ,matt4 #ab3bd-cj2 ,mk4 #c3bb2 ,luke #aa3ae-cb4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dc1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,began to ,work ,miracles ,when ,he ,changed ,water into ,wine at the ,marriage ,feast8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not begin to work miracles when ,he changed water into wine at the marriage feast4 ,for we read in the book ,de ,infantia ,salvatoris that ,christ worked many miracles in ,his childhood4 ,but the miracle of changing water into wine at the marriage feast took place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of ,his age4 ,therefore it seems that it was not then that ,he began to work miracles4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ worked miracles by ,divine power4 ,now ,he was possessed of ,divine power from the first moment of ,his conception2 for from that instant ,he was both ,god and man4 ,therefore it seems that ,he worked miracles from the very first4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ began to gather ,his disciples after ,his baptism and temptation1 as related ,matt4 #d3ah and ,john #a3ce4 ,but the disciples gathered around ,him1 principally on account of ,his miracles3 thus it is written 7,luke #e3d7 that ,he called ,peter when he was astonished at the miracle which ,he had worked in the draught of fishes4 ,therefore it seems that ,he worked other miracles before that of the marriage feast4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #b3aa73 ,this beginning of miracles did ,jesus in ,cana of ,galilee4 ,i answer that1 ,christ worked miracles in order to confirm ,his doctrine1 and in order to show forth ,his ,divine power4 ,therefore1 as to the first1 it was unbecoming for ,him to work miracles before ,he began to teach4 ,and it was unfitting that ,he should begin to teach until ,he reached the perfect age1 as we stated above1 in speaking of ,his baptism 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #c74 ,but as to the second1 it was right that ,he should so manifest ,his ,godhead by working miracles that men should believe in the reality of ,his manhood4 ,and1 consequently1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxi in ,joan471 it was fitting that ,he should not begin to work wonders from ,his early years3 for men would have deemed the ,incarnation to be imaginary and would have crucified ,him before the proper time4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xvii in ,joan471 in regard to the saying of ,john the ,baptist1 ',that ,he may be made manifest in ,israel1 therefore am ,i come baptizing with water1' it is clear that the wonders which some pretend to have been worked by ,christ in ,his childhood are untrue and fictitious4 ,for had ,christ worked miracles from ,his early years1 ,john would by no means have been unacquainted with ,him1 nor would the rest of the people have stood in need of a teacher to point ,him out to them4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,what the ,divine power achieved in ,christ was in proportion to the needs of the salvation of mankind1 the achievement of which was the purpose of ,his taking flesh4 ,consequently ,he so worked miracles by the ,divine power as not to prejudice our belief in the reality of ,his flesh4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the disciples were to be commended precisely because they followed ,christ without having seen ,him work any miracles1 as ,gregory says in a homily 7,hom4 v in ,evang474 ,and1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxiii in ,joan471 the need for working miracles arose then1 especially when the disciples were already gathered around and attached to ,him1 and attentive to what was going on around them4 ,hence it is added3 ',and ,his disciples believed in ,him1' not because they then believed in ,him for the first time1 but because then they believed with greater discernment and perfection4 ,or they are called disciples because they were to be disciples later on1 as ,augustine observes 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 ii74 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dc1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,miracles ,which ,christ ,worked ,were a ,sufficient ,proof of ,his ,godhead8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the miracles which ,christ worked were not a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead4 ,for it is proper to ,christ to be both ,god and man4 ,but the miracles which ,christ worked have been done by others also4 ,therefore they were not a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no power surpasses that of the ,godhead4 ,but some have worked greater miracles than ,christ1 for it is written 7,john #ad3ab73 ,he that believeth in ,me1 the works that ,i do1 he also shall do1 and greater than these shall he do4 ,therefore it seems that the miracles which ,christ worked are not sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the particular is not a sufficient proof of the universal4 ,but any one of ,christ's miracles was one particular work4 ,therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead1 by reason of which ,he had universal power over all things4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #e3cf73 ,the works which the ,father hath given ,me to perfect 4 4 4 themselves 4 4 4 give testimony of ,me4 ,i answer that1 ,the miracles which ,christ worked were a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead in three respects4 ,first1 as to the very nature of the works1 which surpassed the entire capability of created power1 and therefore could not be done save by ,divine power4 ,for this reason the blind man1 after his sight had been restored1 said 7,john #i3cb1 #cc73 ,from the beginning of the world it has not been heard1 that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind4 ,unless this man were of ,god1 he could not do anything4 ,secondly1 as to the way in which ,he worked miracles--namely1 because ,he worked miracles as though of ,his own power1 and not by praying1 as others do4 ,wherefore it is written 7,luke #f3ai7 that virtue went out from ,him and healed all4 ,whereby it is proved1 as ,cyril says 7,comment4 in ,lucam7 that ,he did not receive power from another1 but1 being ,god by nature1 ,he showed ,his own power over the sick4 ,and this is how ,he worked countless miracles4 ,hence on ,matt4 #h3af3 ,he cast out spirits with ,his word1 and all that were sick ,he healed1 ,chrysostom says3 ,mark how great a multitude of persons healed1 the ,evangelists pass quickly over1 not mentioning one by one 4 4 4 but in one word traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles4 ,and thus it was shown that ,his power was co-equal with that of ,god the ,father1 according to ,john #e3ai3 ,what things soever the ,father doth1 these the ,son doth also in like manner2 and1 again 7,john #e3ba73 ,as the ,father raiseth up the dead and giveth life1 so the ,son also giveth life to whom ,he will4 ,thirdly1 from the very fact that ,he taught that ,he was ,god2 for unless this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by ,divine power4 ,hence it was said 7,mk4 #a3bg73 ,what is this new doctrine8 ,for with power ,he commandeth the unclean spirits1 and they obey ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this was the argument of the ,gentiles4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,volusian4 cxxxvii73 ,no suitable wonders1 say they1 show forth the presence of so great majesty1 for the ghostly cleansing whereby ,he cast out demons1 the cure of the sick1 the raising of the dead to life1 if other miracles be taken into account1 are small things before ,god4 ,to this ,augustine answers thus3 ,we own that the prophets did as much 4 4 4 ,but even ,moses himself and the other prophets made ,christ the ,lord the object of their prophecy1 and gave ,him great glory 4 4 4 ,he1 therefore1 chose to do similar things to avoid the inconsistency of failing to do what ,he had done through others4 ,yet still ,he was bound to do something which no other had done3 to be born of a virgin1 to rise from the dead1 and to ascend into heaven4 ,if anyone deem this a slight thing for ,god to do1 ,i know not what more he can expect4 ,having become man1 ought ,he to have made another world1 that we might believe ,him to be ,him by whom the world was made8 ,but in this world neither a greater world could be made nor one equal to it3 and if ,he had made a lesser world in comparison with this1 that too would have been deemed a small thing4 ,as to the miracles worked by others1 ,christ did greater still4 ,hence on ,john #ae3bd3 ,if ,i had not done in ,douay3 'among' them the works that no other men hath done1 etc41 ,augustine says3 ,none of the works of ,christ seem to be greater than the raising of the dead3 which thing we know the ancient prophets also did 4 4 4 ,yet ,christ did some works 'which no other man hath done4' ,but we are told in answer that others did works which ,he did not1 and which none other did 4 4 4 ,but to heal with so great a power so many defects and ailments and grievances of mortal men1 this we read concerning none soever of the men of old4 ,to say nothing of those1 each of whom by ,his bidding1 as they came in ,his way1 ,he made whole 4 4 4 ,mark saith 7#f3ef73 ',whithersoever ,he entered1 into towns or into villages or into cities1 they laid the sick in the streets1 and besought ,him that they might touch but the hem of ,his garment3 and as many as touched ,him were made whole4' ,these things none other did in them2 for when ,he saith ',in them1' it is not to be understood to mean ',among them1' or ',in their presence1' but wholly ',in them1' because ,he healed them 4 4 4 ,therefore whatever works ,he did in them are works that none ever did2 since if ever any other man did any one of them1 by ,his doing he did it2 whereas these works ,he did1 not by their doing1 but by ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,augustine explains this passage of ,john as follows 7,tract4 lxxi73 ,what are these 'greater works' which believers in ,him would do8 ,that1 as they passed by1 their very shadow healed the sick8 ,for it is greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a garment 4 4 4 ,when1 however1 ,he said these words1 it was the deeds and works of ,his words that ,he spoke of3 for when ,he said 4 4 4 ',the ,father who abideth in ,me1 ,he doth the works1' what works did ,he mean1 then1 but the words ,he was speaking8 4 4 4 and the fruits of those same words was the faith of those 7who believed73 but when the disciples preached the ,gospel1 not some few like those1 but the very nations believed 4 4 4 7,tract4 lxxii74 ,did not that rich man go away from ,his presence sorrowful8 4 4 4 and yet afterwards1 what one individual1 having heard from ,him1 did not1 that many did when ,he spake by the mouth of ,his disciples 4 4 4 ,behold1 ,he did greater works when spoken of by men believing than when speaking to men hearing4 ,but there is yet this difficulty3 that ,he did these 'greater works' by the apostles3 whereas ,he saith as meaning not only them3 4 4 4 ',he that believeth in ,me' 4 4 4 ,listen6 4 4 4 ',he that believeth in ,me1 the works that ,i do1 he also shall do'3 first1 ',i do1' then 'he also shall do1' because ,i do that he may do4 ,what works--but that from ungodly he should be made righteous8 4 4 4 ,which thing ,christ worketh in him1 truly1 but not without him4 ,yes1 ,i may affirm this to be altogether greater than to create 99,the words 'to create' are not in the text of ,st4 ,augustine heaven and earth 4 4 4 for 'heaven and earth shall pass away'2 but the salvation and justification of the predestinate shall remain 4 4 4 ,but also in the heavens 4 4 4 the angels are the works of ,christ3 and does that man do greater works than these1 who co-operates with ,christ in the work of his justification8 4 4 4 let him1 who can1 judge whether it be greater to create a righteous being than to justify an ungodly one4 ,certainly if both are works of equal power1 the latter is a work of greater mercy4 ,but there is no need for us to understand all the works of ,christ1 where ,he saith ',greater than these shall he do4' ,for by 'these' ,he meant1 perhaps1 those which ,he was doing at that hour3 now at that time ,he was speaking words of faith3 4 4 4 and certainly it is less to preach words of righteousness1 which thing ,he did without us1 than to justify the ungodly1 which thing ,he so doth in us that we also do it ourselves4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,when some particular work is proper to some agent1 then that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole power of that agent3 thus1 since the act of reasoning is proper to man1 the mere fact that someone reasons about any particular proposition proves him to be a man4 ,in like manner1 since it is proper to ,god to work miracles by ,his own power1 any single miracle worked by ,christ by ,his own power is a sufficient proof that ,he is ,god4 ,,question #dd ,,of 7,,christ',s7 ,,miracles ,,considered ,,specifically 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider each kind of miracle3 7#a7 ,the miracles which ,he worked in spiritual substances2 7#b7 ,the miracles which ,he worked in heavenly bodies2 7#c7 ,the miracles which ,he worked in man2 7#d7 ,the miracles which ,he worked in irrational creatures4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dd1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,those ,miracles ,were ,fitting ,which ,christ ,worked in ,spiritual ,substances8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that those miracles were unfitting which ,christ worked in spiritual substances4 ,for among spiritual substances the holy angels are above the demons2 for1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iii73 ,the treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by the rational1 pious1 and just spirit of life4 ,but we read of no miracles worked by ,christ in the good angels4 ,therefore neither should ,he have worked miracles in the demons4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's miracles were ordained to make known ,his ,godhead4 ,but ,christ's ,godhead was not to be made known to the demons3 since this would have hindered the mystery of ,his ,passion1 according to #a ,cor4 #b3h3 ,if they had known it1 they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,therefore ,he should not have worked miracles in the demons4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of ,god3 hence it is written 7,matt4 #i3h7 that the multitudes seeing that the man sick of the palsy had been healed by ,christ1 feared1 and glorified ,god that gave such power to men4 ,but the demons have no part in glorifying ,god2 since praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner 7,ecclus4 #ae3i74 ,for which reason also ,he suffered them not to speak 7,mk4 #a3cd2 ,luke #d3da7 those things which reflected glory on ,him4 ,therefore it seems that it was unfitting for ,him to work miracles in the demons4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of mankind4 ,but sometimes the casting out of demons from men was detrimental to man1 in some cases to the body3 thus it is related 7,mk4 #i3bd1 #be7 that a demon at ,christ's command1 crying out and greatly tearing the man1 went out of him2 and he became as dead1 so that many said3 ,he is dead2 sometimes also to things3 as when ,he sent the demons1 at their own request1 into the swine1 which they cast headlong into the sea2 wherefore the inhabitants of those parts besought ,him that ,he would depart from their coasts 7,matt4 #h3ca-cd74 ,therefore it seems unfitting that ,he should have worked such like miracles4 ,on the contrary1 this was foretold 7,zech4 #ac3b71 where it is written3 ,i will take away 4 4 4 the unclean spirit out of the earth4 ,i answer that1 ,the miracles worked by ,christ were arguments for the faith which ,he taught4 ,now1 by the power of ,his ,godhead ,he was to rescue those who would believe in ,him1 from the power of the demons2 according to ,john #ab3ca3 ,now shall the prince of this world be cast out4 ,consequently it was fitting that1 among other miracles1 ,he should also deliver those who were obsessed by demons4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,just as men were to be delivered by ,christ from the power of the demons1 so by ,him were they to be brought to the companionship of the angels1 according to ,col4 #a3bj3 ,making peace through the blood of ,his cross1 both as to the things on earth and the things that are in heaven4 ,therefore it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles as regards the angels1 except by angels appearing to men3 as happened in ,his ,nativity1 ,his ,resurrection1 and ,his ,ascension4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei ix73 ,christ was known to the demons just as much as ,he willed2 and ,he willed just as far as there was need4 ,but ,he was known to them1 not as to the holy angels1 by that which is eternal life1 but by certain temporal effects of ,his power4 ,first1 when they saw that ,christ was hungry after fasting they deemed ,him not to be the ,son of ,god4 ,hence1 on ,luke #d3c1 ,if ,thou be the ,son of ,god1 etc41 ,ambrose says3 ,what means this way of addressing ,him8 save that1 though ,he knew that the ,son of ,god was to come1 yet he did not think that ,he had come in the weakness of the flesh8 ,but afterwards1 when he saw ,him work miracles1 he had a sort of conjectural suspicion that ,he was the ,son of ,god4 ,hence on ,mk4 #a3bd1 ,i know who ,thou art1 the ,holy one of ,god1 ,chrysostom 99,victor of ,antioch4 ,cf4 ,catena ,aurea says that he had no certain or firm knowledge of ,god's coming4 ,yet he knew that ,he was the ,christ promised in the ,law1 wherefore it is said 7,luke #d3da7 that they knew that ,he was ,christ4 ,but it was rather from suspicion than from certainty that they confessed ,him to be the ,son of ,god4 ,hence ,bede says on ,luke #d3da3 ,the demons confess the ,son of ,god1 and1 as stated farther on1 'they knew that ,he was ,christ4' ,for when the devil saw ,him weakened by ,his fast1 ,he knew ,him to be a real man3 but when ,he failed to overcome ,him by temptation1 ,he doubted lest ,he should be the ,son of ,god4 ,and now from the power of ,his miracles ,he either knew1 or rather suspected that ,he was the ,son of ,god4 ,his reason therefore for persuading the ,jews to crucify ,him was not that he deemed ,him not to be ,christ or the ,son of ,god1 but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser by ,his death4 ,for the ,apostle says of this mystery 7#a ,cor4 #b3g1 #h71 which is hidden from the beginning1 that 'none of the princes of this world knew it1' for if they had known it they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the miracles which ,christ worked in expelling demons were for the benefit1 not of the demons1 but of men1 that they might glorify ,him4 ,wherefore ,he forbade them to speak in ,his praise4 ,first1 to give us an example4 ,for1 as ,athanasius says1 ,he restrained his speech1 although he was confessing the truth2 to teach us not to care about such things1 although it may seem that what is said is true4 ,for it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the ,divine ,scripture3 ,besides1 it is dangerous1 since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth4 ,or1 as ,chrysostom 99,cyril of ,alexandria1 ,comment4 in ,luc4 says3 ,it was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office4 ,nor was it fitting that the mystery of ,christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue because praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner 99,cf4 ,theophylact1 ,enarr4 in ,luc44 ,thirdly1 because1 as ,bede says1 ,he did not wish the envy of the ,jews to be aroused thereby 99,bede1 ,expos4 in ,luc4 iv1 #da4 ,hence even the apostles are commanded to be silent about ,him1 lest1 if ,his ,divine majesty were proclaimed1 the gift of ,his ,passion should be deferred4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the good of man1 and principally as to the salvation of his soul4 ,consequently1 ,he allowed the demons1 that ,he cast out1 to do man some harm1 either in his body or in his goods1 for the salvation of man's soul--namely1 for man's instruction4 ,hence ,chrysostom says on ,matt4 #h3cb that ,christ let the demons depart into the swine1 not as yielding to the demons1 but first1 to show 4 4 4 how harmful are the demons who attack men2 secondly1 that all might learn that the demons would not dare to hurt even the swine1 except ,he allow them2 thirdly1 that they would have treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine1 unless they had been protected by ,god's providence4 ,and for the same motives ,he allowed the man1 who was being delivered from the demons1 to suffer grievously for the moment2 yet did ,he release him at once from that distress4 ,by this1 moreover1 we are taught1 as ,bede says on ,mk4 #i3be1 that often1 when after falling into sin we strive to return to ,god1 we experience further and more grievous attacks from the old enemy4 ,this he does1 either that he may inspire us with a distaste for virtue1 or that he may avenge the shame of having been cast out4 ,for the man who was healed became as dead1 says ,jerome1 because to those who are healed it is said1 ',you are dead2 and your life is hid with ,christ in ,god' 7,col4 #c3c7 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dd1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,work ,miracles in the ,heavenly ,bodies8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was unfitting that ,christ should work miracles in the heavenly bodies4 ,for1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 iv71 it beseems ,divine providence not to destroy1 but to preserve1 nature4 ,now1 the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and unchangeable1 as is proved ,de ,coelo i4 ,therefore it was unfitting that ,christ should cause any change in the order of the heavenly bodies4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the course of time is marked out by the movement of the heavenly bodies1 according to ,gen4 #a3ad3 ,let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven 4 4 4 and let them be for signs1 and for seasons1 and for days and years4 ,consequently if the movement of the heavenly bodies be changed1 the distinction and order of the seasons is changed4 ,but there is no report of this having been perceived by astronomers1 who gaze at the stars and observe the months1 as it is written 7,isa4 #dg3ac74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly bodies4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it was more fitting that ,christ should work miracles in life and when teaching1 than in death3 both because1 as it is written 7#b ,cor4 #ac3d71 ,he was crucified through weakness1 yet ,he liveth by the power of ,god1 by which ,he worked miracles2 and because ,his miracles were in confirmation of ,his doctrine4 ,but there is no record of ,christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies during ,his lifetime3 nay1 more2 when the ,pharisees asked ,him to give a sign from heaven1 ,he refused1 as ,matthew relates 7#ab1 #af74 ,therefore it seems that neither in ,his death should ,he have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #bc3dd1 #de73 ,there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour2 and the sun was darkened4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #d7 it behooved ,christ's miracles to be a sufficient proof of ,his ,godhead4 ,now this is not so sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies1 which changes can be brought about by other causes1 as it is by changes wrought in the course of the heavenly bodies1 which have been established by ,god alone in an unchangeable order4 ,this is what ,dionysius says in his epistle to ,polycarp3 ,we must recognize that no alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens that is not caused by ,him who made all and changes all by ,his word4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,christ should work miracles even in the heavenly bodies4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved by the heavenly bodies1 which are higher in the order of nature1 so is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by ,god1 according to ,his will4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xxvi2 quoted by the gloss on ,rom4 #aa3bd3 ,contrary to nature thou wert grafted1 etc473 ,god1 the ,creator and ,author of all natures1 does nothing contrary to nature3 for whatsoever ,he does in each thing1 that is its nature4 ,consequently the nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed when ,god changes its course3 but it would be if the change were due to any other cause4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the order of the seasons was not disturbed by the miracle worked by ,christ4 ,for1 according to some1 this gloom or darkening of the sun1 which occurred at the time of ,christ's passion1 was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays1 without any change in the movement of the heavenly bodies1 which measures the duration of the seasons4 ,hence ,jerome says on ,matt4 #bg3de3 ,it seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its rays1 lest it should look on its ,lord hanging on the ,cross1 or bestow its radiancy on the impious blasphemers4 ,and this withdrawal of the rays is not to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its rays3 for it sheds its light1 not from choice1 but by nature1 as ,dionysius says 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,but the sun is said to withdraw its rays in so far as the ,divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach the earth4 ,on the other hand1 ,origen says this was caused by clouds coming between 7the earth and the sun74 ,hence on ,matt4 #bg3de he says3 ,we must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed together over ,jerusalem and the land of ,judea2 so that it was exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour4 ,hence ,i am of opinion that1 just as the other signs which occurred at the time of the ,passion--namely1 the rending of the veil1 the quaking of the earth1 etc4--took place in ,jerusalem only1 so this also3 4 4 4 or if anyone prefer1 it may be extended to the whole of ,judea1 since it is said that 'there was darkness over the whole earth1' which expression refers to the land of ,judea1 as may be gathered from #c ,kings #ah3aj1 where ,abdias says to ,elias3 ',as the ,lord thy ,god liveth1 there is no nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee'3 which shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of ,judea4 ,on this point1 however1 credence is to be given rather to ,dionysius1 who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing the sun4 ,for he says 7,ep4 ad ,polycarp73 ,without any doubt we saw the moon encroach on the sun1 he being in ,egypt at the time1 as he says in the same letter4 ,and in this he points out four miracles4 ,the first is that the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never takes place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction4 ,but then the sun and moon were in opposition1 it being the fifteenth day1 since it was the ,jewish ,passover4 ,wherefore he says3 ,for it was not the time of conjunction4--,the second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour the moon was seen1 together with the sun1 in the middle of the heavens1 in the evening it was seen to be in its place1 i4e4 in the east1 opposite the sun4 ,wherefore he says3 ,again we saw it1 i4e4 the moon1 return supernaturally into opposition with the sun1 so as to be diametrically opposite1 having withdrawn from the sun at the ninth hour1 when the darkness ceased1 until evening4 ,from this it is clear that the wonted course of the seasons was not disturbed1 because the ,divine power caused the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season1 and to withdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according to the season4 ,the third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally always begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and spreads towards the east3 and this is because the moon's proper movement from west to east is more rapid than that of the sun1 and consequently the moon1 coming up from the west1 overtakes the sun and passes it on its eastward course4 ,but in this case the moon had already passed the sun1 and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly circle1 being opposite to it3 consequently it had to return eastwards towards the sun1 so as to come into apparent contact with it from the east1 and continue in a westerly direction4 ,this is what he refers to when he says3 ,moreover1 we saw the eclipse begin to the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun1 for it was a total eclipse1 and afterwards pass away4 ,the fourth miracle consisted in this1 that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first eclipsed is the first to reappear 7because the moon1 coming in front of the sun1 by its natural movement passes on to the east1 so as to come away first from the western portion of the sun1 which was the first part to be eclipsed71 whereas in this case the moon1 while returning miraculously from the east to the west1 did not pass the sun so as to be to the west of it3 but having reached the western edge of the sun returned towards the east3 so that the last portion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear4 ,consequently the eclipse began towards the east1 whereas the sun began to reappear towards the west4 ,and to this he refers by saying3 ,again we observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point1 i4e4 on the same side of the sun1 but on opposite sides4 ,chrysostom adds a fifth miracle 7,hom4 lxxxviii in ,matth471 saying that the darkness in this case lasted for three hours1 whereas an eclipse of the sun lasts but a short time1 for it is soon over1 as those know who have seen one4 ,hence we are given to understand that the moon was stationary below the sun1 except we prefer to say that the duration of the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse4 ,but1 as ,origen says 7on ,matt4 #bg3de71 against this the children of this world object3 ,how is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by any writer1 whether ,greek or barbarian8 ,and he says that someone of the name of ,phlegon relates in his chronicles that this took place during the reign of ,tiberius ,caesar1 but he does not say that it occurred at the full moon4 ,it may be1 therefore1 that because it was not the time for an eclipse1 the various astronomers living then throughout the world were not on the look-out for one1 and that they ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of the atmosphere4 ,but in ,egypt1 where clouds are few on account of the tranquillity of the air1 ,dionysius and his companions were considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about this darkness4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,then1 above all1 was there need for miraculous proof of ,christ's ,godhead1 when the weakness of human nature was most apparent in ,him4 ,hence it was that at ,his birth a new star appeared in the heavens4 ,wherefore ,maximus says 7,serm4 de ,nativ4 viii73 ,if thou disdain the manger1 raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star in the heavens1 proclaiming to the world the birth of our ,lord4 ,but in ,his ,passion yet greater weakness appeared in ,his manhood4 ,therefore there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the world4 ,and1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxxxviii in ,matth473 ,this is the sign which ,he promised to them who sought for one saying3 ',an evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign2 and a sign shall not be given it1 but the sign of ,jonas the prophet1' referring to ,his ,cross 4 4 4 and ,resurrection 4 4 4 ,for it was much more wonderful that this should happen when ,he was crucified than when ,he was walking on earth4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dd1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,worked ,miracles ,fittingly on ,men8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ worked miracles unfittingly on men4 ,for in man the soul is of more import than the body4 ,now ,christ worked many miracles on bodies1 but we do not read of ,his working any miracles on souls3 for neither did ,he convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily1 but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles1 nor is it related of ,him that ,he made wise men out of fools4 ,therefore it seems that ,he worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as stated above 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #b71 ,christ worked miracles by ,divine power3 to which it is proper to work suddenly1 perfectly1 and without any assistance4 ,now ,christ did not always heal men suddenly as to their bodies3 for it is written 7,mk4 #h3bb-be7 that1 taking the blind man by the hand1 ,he led him out of the town2 and1 spitting upon his eyes1 laying ,his hands on him1 ,he asked him if he saw anything4 ,and1 looking up1 he said3 ,i see men as it were trees walking4 ,after that again ,he laid ,his hands upon his eyes1 and he began to see1 and was restored1 so that he saw all things clearly4 ,it is clear from this that ,he did not heal him suddenly1 but at first imperfectly1 and by means of ,his spittle4 ,therefore it seems that ,he worked miracles on men unfittingly4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there is no need to remove at the same time things which do not follow from one another4 ,now bodily ailments are not always the result of sin1 as appears from our ,lord's words 7,john #i3c73 ,neither hath this man sinned1 nor his parents1 that he should be born blind4 ,it was unseemly1 therefore1 for ,him to forgive the sins of those who sought the healing of the body1 as ,he is related to have done in the case of the man sick of the palsy 7,matt4 #i3b73 the more that the healing of the body1 being of less account than the forgiveness of sins1 does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving sins4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm ,his doctrine1 and witness to ,his ,godhead1 as stated above 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #d74 ,now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work4 ,therefore it seems unfitting that ,christ commanded those who had been healed miraculously to tell no one1 as appears from ,matt4 #i3cj and ,mk4 #h3bf3 the more so1 since ,he commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them2 thus it is related 7,mk4 #e3ai7 that1 after delivering a man from the demons1 ,he said to him3 ,go into thy house to thy friends1 and tell them1 how great things the ,lord hath done for thee4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #g3cg73 ,he hath done all things well3 ,he hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak4 ,i answer that1 ,the means should be proportionate to the end4 ,now ,christ came into the world and taught in order to save man1 according to ,john #c3ag3 ,for ,god sent not ,his ,son into the world to judge the world1 but that the world may be saved by ,him4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,christ1 by miraculously healing men in particular1 should prove ,himself to be the universal and spiritual ,saviour of all4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the means are distinct from the end4 ,now the end for which ,christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part1 which is healed by the light of wisdom1 and the gift of righteousness3 the former of which presupposes the latter1 since1 as it is written 7,wis4 #a3d73 ,wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul1 nor dwell in a body subject to sins4 ,now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous unless he willed3 for this would be both against the nature of righteousness1 which implies rectitude of the will1 and contrary to the very nature of man1 which requires to be led to good by the free-will1 not by force4 ,christ1 therefore1 justified man inwardly by the ,divine power1 but not against man's will4 ,nor did this pertain to ,his miracles1 but to the end of ,his miracles4 ,in like manner by the ,divine power ,he infused wisdom into the simple minds of ,his disciples3 hence ,he said to them 7,luke #ba3ae73 ,i will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay4 ,and this1 in so far as the enlightenment was inward1 is not to be reckoned as a miracle1 but only as regards the outward action--namely1 in so far as men saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and constancy4 ,wherefore it is written 7,acts #d3ac7 that the ,jews1 seeing the constancy of ,peter and of ,john1 understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men 4 4 4 wondered4--,and though such like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles1 yet do they testify to ,christ's doctrine and power1 according to ,heb4 #b3d3 ,god also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles1 and distributions of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,nevertheless ,christ did work some miracles on the soul of man1 principally by changing its lower powers4 ,hence ,jerome1 commenting on ,matt4 #i3i1 ,he rose up and followed ,him1 says3 ,such was the splendor and majesty of ,his hidden ,godhead1 which shone forth even in ,his human countenance1 that those who gazed on it were drawn to ,him at first sight4 ,and on ,matt4 #ba3ab1 7,jesus7 cast out all them that sold and bought1 the same ,jerome says3 ,of all the signs worked by our ,lord1 this seems to me the most wondrous--that one man1 at that time despised1 could1 with the blows of one scourge1 cast out such a multitude4 ,for a fiery and heavenly light flashed from ,his eyes1 and the majesty of ,his ,godhead shone in ,his countenance4 ,and ,origen says on ,john #b3ae that this was a greater miracle than when ,he changed water into wine1 for there ,he shows ,his power over inanimate matter1 whereas here ,he tames the minds of thousands of men4 ,again1 on ,john #ah3f1 ,they went backward and fell to the ground1 ,augustine says3 ,though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms1 yet did that one word 4 4 4 without any weapon1 smite them through1 drive them back1 lay them prostrate3 for ,god lay hidden in that flesh4 ,moreover1 to this must be referred what ,luke says 7#d3cj7 --namely1 that ,jesus1 passing through the midst of them1 went ,his way1 on which ,chrysostom observes 7,hom4 xlviii in ,joan473 ,that ,he stood in the midst of those who were lying in wait for ,him1 and was not seized by them1 shows the power of ,his ,godhead2 and1 again1 that which is written ,john #h3ei1 ,jesus hid ,himself and went out of the ,temple1 on which ,theophylact says3 ,he did not hide ,himself in a corner of the ,temple1 as if afraid1 or take shelter behind a wall or pillar2 but by ,his heavenly power making ,himself invisible to those who were threatening ,him1 ,he passed through the midst of them4 ,from all these instances it is clear that ,christ1 when ,he willed1 changed the minds of men by ,his ,divine power1 not only by the bestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom1 which pertains to the end of miracles1 but also by outwardly drawing men to ,himself1 or by terrifying or stupefying them1 which pertains to the miraculous itself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ came to save the world1 not only by ,divine power1 but also through the mystery of ,his ,incarnation4 ,consequently in healing the sick ,he frequently not only made use of ,his ,divine power1 healing by way of command1 but also by applying something pertaining to ,his human nature4 ,hence on ,luke #d3dj1 ,he1 laying ,his hands on every one of them1 healed them1 ,cyril says3 ,although1 as ,god1 ,he might1 by one word1 have driven out all diseases1 yet ,he touched them1 showing that ,his own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue4 ,and on ,mk4 #h3bc1 ,spitting upon his eyes1 laying ,his hands on him1 etc41 ,chrysostom 99,victor of ,antioch says3 ,he spat and laid ,his hands upon the blind man1 wishing to show that ,his ,divine word1 accompanied by ,his operation1 works wonders3 for the hand signifies operation2 the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth4 ,again1 on ,john #i3f1 ,he made clay of the spittle1 and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man1 ,augustine says3 ,of ,his spittle ,he made clay--because 'the ,word was made flesh4' ,or1 again1 as ,chrysostom says1 to signify that it was ,he who made man of the slime of the earth4 ,it is furthermore to be observed concerning ,christ's miracles that generally what ,he did was most perfect4 ,hence on ,john #b3aj1 ,every man at first setteth forth good wine1 ,chrysostom says3 ,christ's miracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness4 ,likewise in an instant ,he conferred perfect health on the sick4 ,hence on ,matt4 #h3ae1 ,she arose and ministered to them1 ,jerome says3 ,health restored by our ,lord returns wholly and instantly4 ,there was1 however1 special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind1 and this was his want of faith1 as ,chrysostom 99,victor of ,antioch says4 ,or as ,bede observes on ,mk4 #h3bc3 ,whom ,he might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word1 ,he heals little by little1 to show the extent of human blindness1 which hardly1 and that only by degrees1 can come back to the light3 and to point out that each step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of ,his grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #b71 ,christ worked miracles by ,divine power4 ,now the works of ,god are perfect 7,deut4 #cb3d74 ,but nothing is perfect except it attain its end4 ,now the end of the outward healing worked by ,christ is the healing of the soul4 ,consequently it was not fitting that ,christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul4 ,wherefore on ,john #g3bc1 ,i have healed the whole man on a ,sabbath day1 ,augustine says3 ,because he was cured1 so as to be whole in body2 he believed1 so as to be whole in soul4 ,to the man sick of the palsy it is said specially1 ,thy sins are forgiven thee1 because1 as ,jerome observes on ,matt4 #i3e1 #f3 ,we are hereby given to understand that ailments of the body are frequently due to sin3 for which reason1 perhaps1 first are his sins forgiven1 that the cause of the ailment being removed1 health may return4 ,wherefore1 also 7,john #d3ad71 it is said3 ,sin no more1 lest some worse thing happen to thee4 ,whence1 says ,chrysostom1 we learn that his sickness was the result of sin4 ,nevertheless1 as ,chrysostom says on ,matt4 #i3e3 ,by how much a soul is of more account than a body1 by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater work than healing the body2 but because the one is unseen ,he does the lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more unseen4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,on ,matt4 #i3cj1 ,see that no man know this1 ,chrysostom says3 ,if in another place we find ,him saying1 ',go and declare the glory of ,god' 7cf4 ,mk4 #e3ai2 ,luke #h3ci71 that is not contrary to this4 ,for ,he instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account3 but if the glory be referred to ,god1 then we must not forbid1 but command1 that it be done4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dd1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,worked ,miracles ,fittingly on ,irrational ,creatures8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ worked miracles unfittingly on irrational creatures4 ,for brute animals are more noble than plants4 ,but ,christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered away at ,his command 7,matt4 #ba3ai74 ,therefore ,christ should have worked miracles also on brute animals4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 punishment is not justly inflicted save for fault4 ,but it was not the fault of the fig-tree that ,christ found no fruit on it1 when fruit was not in season 7,mk4 #aa3ac74 ,therefore it seems unfitting that ,he withered it up4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 air and water are between heaven and earth4 ,but ,christ worked some miracles in the heavens1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 and likewise in the earth1 when it quaked at the time of ,his ,passion 7,matt4 #bg3ea74 ,therefore it seems that ,he should also have worked miracles in the air and water1 such as to divide the sea1 as did ,moses 7,ex4 #ad3ba72 or a river1 as did ,josue 7,josh4 #c3af7 and ,elias 7#d ,kings #b3h72 and to cause thunder to be heard in the air1 as occurred on ,mount ,sinai when the ,law was given 7,ex4 #ai3af71 and like to what ,elias did 7#c ,kings #ah3de74 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 miraculous works pertain to the work of ,divine providence in governing the world4 ,but this work presupposes creation4 ,it seems1 therefore1 unfitting that in ,his miracles ,christ made use of creation3 when1 to wit1 ,he multiplied the loaves4 ,therefore ,his miracles in regard to irrational creatures seem to have been unfitting4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ is the wisdom of ,god 7#a ,cor4 #a3bd71 of whom it is said 7,wis4 #h3a7 that she ordereth all things sweetly4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above1 ,christ's miracles were ordained to the end that ,he should be recognized as having ,divine power1 unto the salvation of mankind4 ,now it belongs to the ,divine power that every creature be subject thereto4 ,consequently it behooved ,him to work miracles on every kind of creature1 not only on man1 but also on irrational creatures4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,brute animals are akin generically to man1 wherefore they were created on the same day as man4 ,and since ,he had worked many miracles on the bodies of men1 there was no need for ,him to work miracles on the bodies of brute animals4 ,and so much the less that1 as to their sensible and corporeal nature1 the same reason applies to both men and animals1 especially terrestrial4 ,but fish1 from living in water1 are more alien from human nature2 wherefore they were made on another day4 ,on them ,christ worked a miracle in the plentiful draught of fishes1 related ,luke #e and ,john #ba2 and1 again1 in the fish caught by ,peter1 who found a stater in it 7,matt4 #ag3bf74 ,as to the swine who were cast headlong into the sea1 this was not the effect of a ,divine miracle1 but of the action of the demons1 ,god permitting4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,chrysostom says on ,matt4 #ba3ai3 ,when our ,lord does any such like thing on plants or brute animals1 ask not how it was just to wither up the fig-tree1 since it was not the fruit season2 to ask such a question is foolish in the extreme1 because such things cannot commit a fault or be punished3 but look at the miracle1 and wonder at the worker4 ,nor does the ,creator inflict any hurt on the owner1 if ,he choose to make use of ,his own creature for the salvation of others2 rather1 as ,hilary says on ,matt4 #ba3ai1 we should see in this a proof of ,god's goodness1 for when ,he wished to afford an example of salvation as being procured by ,him1 ,he exercised ,his mighty power on the human body3 but when ,he wished to picture to them ,his severity towards those who wilfully disobey ,him1 ,he foreshadows their doom by ,his sentence on the tree4 ,this is the more noteworthy in a fig-tree which1 as ,chrysostom observes 7on ,matt4 #ba3ai71 being full of moisture1 makes the miracle all the more remarkable4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ also worked miracles befitting to ,himself in the air and water3 when1 to wit1 as related ,matt4 #h3bf1 ,he commanded the winds1 and the sea1 and there came a great calm4 ,but it was not befitting that ,he who came to restore all things to a state of peace and calm should cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a division of waters4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #ab3ah73 ,you are not come to a fire that may be touched and approached ,vulg43 'a mountain that might be touched1 and a burning fire'1 and a whirlwind1 and darkness1 and storm4 ,at the time of ,his ,passion1 however1 the veil was rent1 to signify the unfolding of the mysteries of the ,law2 the graves were opened1 to signify that ,his death gave life to the dead2 the earth quaked and the rocks were rent1 to signify that man's stony heart would be softened1 and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation1 but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into loaves2 hence ,augustine says on ,john #f3a-ad3 ,whence ,he multiplieth a few grains into harvests1 thence in ,his hands ,he multiplied the five loaves3 and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are multiplied into harvests4 ,,question #de ,,of ,,christ',s ,,transfiguration 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we now consider ,christ's transfiguration2 and here there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting that ,christ should be transfigured8 7#b7 ,whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory8 7#c7 ,of the witnesses of the transfiguration2 7#d7 ,of the testimony of the ,father's voice4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #de1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,be ,transfigured8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting that ,christ should be transfigured4 ,for it is not fitting for a true body to be changed into various shapes 7figuras71 but only for an imaginary body4 ,now ,christ's body was not imaginary1 but real1 as stated above 7,q4 #e1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 figure is in the fourth species of quality1 whereas clarity is in the third1 since it is a sensible quality4 ,therefore ,christ's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a glorified body has four gifts1 as we shall state farther on 7,suppl41 ,q4 #hb71 viz4 impassibility1 agility1 subtlety1 and clarity4 ,therefore ,his transfiguration should not have consisted in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #ag3b7 that ,jesus was transfigured in the presence of three of ,his disciples4 ,i answer that1 ,our ,lord1 after foretelling ,his ,passion to ,his disciples1 had exhorted them to follow the path of ,his sufferings 7,matt4 #af3ba1 #bd74 ,now in order that anyone go straight along a road1 he must have some knowledge of the end3 thus an archer will not shoot the arrow straight unless he first see the target4 ,hence ,thomas said 7,john #ad3e73 ,lord1 we know not whither ,thou goest2 and how can we know the way8 ,above all is this necessary when hard and rough is the road1 heavy the going1 but delightful the end4 ,now by ,his ,passion ,christ achieved glory1 not only of ,his soul1 not only of ,his soul1 which ,he had from the first moment of ,his conception1 but also of ,his body2 according to ,luke 7#bd3bf73 ,christ ought ,vulg43 'ought not ,christ' to have suffered these things1 and so to enter into ,his glory 7874 ,to which glory ,he brings those who follow the footsteps of ,his ,passion1 according to ,acts #ad3ba3 ,through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,he should show ,his disciples the glory of ,his clarity 7which is to be transfigured71 to which ,he will configure those who are ,his2 according to ,phil4 #c3ba3 7,who7 will reform the body of our lowness configured ,douay3 'made like' to the body of ,his glory4 ,hence ,bede says on ,mk4 #h3ci3 ,by ,his loving foresight ,he allowed them to taste for a short time the contemplation of eternal joy1 so that they might bear persecution bravely4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #ag3b3 ,let no one suppose that ,christ1 through being said to be transfigured1 laid aside ,his natural shape and countenance1 or substituted an imaginary or aerial body for ,his real body4 ,the ,evangelist describes the manner of ,his transfiguration when he says3 ',his face did shine as the sun1 and ,his garments became white as snow4' ,brightness of face and whiteness of garments argue not a change of substance1 but a putting on of glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,figure is seen in the outline of a body1 for it is that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries 99,euclid1 bk i1 def4 xiv4 ,therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body seems to pertain to the figure4 ,now the clarity1 just as the color1 of a non-transparent body is seen on its surface1 and consequently the assumption of clarity is called transfiguration4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,of those four gifts1 clarity alone is a quality of the very person in himself2 whereas the other three are not perceptible1 save in some action or movement1 or in some passion4 ,christ1 then1 did show in ,himself certain indications of those three gifts--of agility1 for instance1 when ,he walked on the waves of the sea2 of subtlety1 when ,he came forth from the closed womb of the ,virgin2 of impassibility1 when ,he escaped unhurt from the hands of the ,jews who wished to hurl ,him down or to stone ,him4 ,and yet ,he is not said1 on account of this1 to be transfigured1 but only on account of clarity1 which pertains to the aspect of ,his ,person4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #de1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,this ,clarity ,was the ,clarity of ,glory8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory4 ,for a gloss of ,bede on ,matt4 #ag3b1 ,he was transfigured before them1 says3 ,in ,his mortal body ,he shows forth1 not the state of immortality1 but clarity like to that of future immortality4 ,but the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality4 ,therefore the clarity which ,christ showed to ,his disciples was not the clarity of glory4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,luke #i3bg 7,that7 shall not taste death unless ,vulg43 'till' they see the kingdom of ,god1 ,bede's gloss says3 ,that is1 the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude4 ,but the image of a thing is not the thing itself4 ,therefore this was not the clarity of beatitude4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the clarity of glory is only in a human body4 ,but this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in ,christ's body1 but also in ,his garments1 and in the bright cloud which overshaded the disciples4 ,therefore it seems that this was not the clarity of glory4 ,on the contrary1 ,jerome says on the words ,he was transfigured before them 7,matt4 #ag3b73 ,he appeared to the ,apostles such as ,he will appear on the day of judgment4 ,and on ,matt4 #af3bh1 ,till they see the ,son of ,man coming in ,his kingdom1 ,chrysostom says3 ,wishing to show with what kind of glory ,he is afterwards to come1 so far as it was possible for them to learn it1 ,he showed it to them in their present life1 that they might not grieve even over the death of their ,lord4 ,i answer that1 ,the clarity which ,christ assumed in ,his transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence1 but not as to its mode of being4 ,for the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the soul1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,diosc4 cxviii74 ,and in like manner the clarity of ,christ's body in ,his transfiguration was derived from ,his ,godhead1 as ,damascene says 7,orat4 de ,transfig47 and from the glory of ,his soul4 ,that the glory of ,his soul did not overflow into ,his body from the first moment of ,christ's conception was due to a certain ,divine dispensation1 that1 as stated above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 ,he might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body4 ,this did not1 however1 deprive ,christ of ,his power of outpouring the glory of ,his soul into ,his body4 ,and this ,he did1 as to clarity1 in ,his transfiguration1 but otherwise than in a glorified body4 ,for the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified body1 by way of a permanent quality affecting the body4 ,hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body4 ,but in ,christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed from ,his ,godhead and from ,his soul into ,his body1 not as an immanent quality affecting ,his very body1 but rather after the manner of a transient passion1 as when the air is lit up by the sun4 ,consequently the refulgence1 which appeared in ,christ's body then1 was miraculous3 just as was the fact of ,his walking on the waves of the sea4 ,hence ,dionysius says 7,ep4 ad ,cai4 iv73 ,christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man3 this is shown in ,his supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet4 ,wherefore we must not say1 as ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor 99,innocent ,,iii1 ,de ,myst4 ,miss4 iv said1 that ,christ assumed the gift of clarity in the transfiguration1 of agility in walking on the sea1 and of subtlety in coming forth from the ,virgin's closed womb3 because the gifts are immanent qualities of a glorified body4 ,on the contrary1 whatever pertained to the gifts1 that ,he had miraculously4 ,the same is to be said1 as to the soul1 of the vision in which ,paul saw ,god in a rapture1 as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #age1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the words quoted prove1 not that the clarity of ,christ was not that of glory1 but that it was not the clarity of a glorified body1 since ,christ's body was not as yet immortal4 ,and just as it was by dispensation that in ,christ the glory of the soul should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of impassibility4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this clarity is said to have been imaginary1 not as though it were not really the clarity of glory1 but because it was a kind of image representing that perfection of glory1 in virtue of which the body will be glorious4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as the clarity which was in ,christ's body was a representation of ,his body's future clarity1 so the clarity which was in ,his garments signified the future clarity of the saints1 which will be surpassed by that of ,christ1 just as the brightness of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun4 ,hence ,gregory says 7,moral4 xxxii7 that ,christ's garments became resplendent1 because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to ,him in the refulgence of righteousness4 ,for ,his garments signify the righteous1 because ,he will unite them to ,himself1 according to ,isa4 #di3ah3 ,thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament4 ,the bright cloud signifies the glory of the ,holy ,ghost or the power of the ,father1 as ,origen says 7,tract4 iii in ,matth471 by which in the glory to come the saints will be covered4 ,or1 again1 it may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed1 which clarity will cover the saints as a tent4 ,hence when ,peter proposed to make tents1 a bright cloud overshaded the disciples4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #de1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,witnesses of the ,transfiguration ,were ,fittingly ,chosen8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were unfittingly chosen4 ,for everyone is a better witness of things that he knows4 ,but at the time of ,christ's transfiguration no one but the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to come4 ,therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than men4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 truth1 not fiction1 is becoming in a witness of the truth4 ,now1 ,moses and ,elias were there1 not really1 but only in appearance2 for a gloss on ,luke #i3cj1 ,they were ,moses and ,elias1 says3 ,it must be observed that ,moses and ,elias were there neither in body nor in soul2 but that those bodies were formed of some available matter4 ,it is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries1 through the angels impersonating them4 ,therefore it seems that they were unsuitable witnesses4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is said 7,acts #aj3dc7 that all the prophets give testimony to ,christ4 ,therefore not only ,moses and ,elias1 but also all the prophets1 should have been present as witnesses4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the faithful 7#b ,cor4 #c3ah2 ,phil4 #c3ba71 in whom ,he wished by ,his transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory4 ,therefore ,he should have taken not only ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john1 but all ,his disciples1 to be witnesses of ,his transfiguration4 ,on the contrary is the authority of the ,gospel4 ,i answer that1 ,christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men ,his glory1 and to arouse men to a desire of it1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by ,christ--not only those who lived after ,him1 but also those who preceded ,him2 therefore1 when ,he was approaching ,his ,passion1 both the multitude that followed and that which went before1 cried saying3 ',hosanna1' as related ,matt4 #ba3i1 beseeching ,him1 as it were1 to save them4 ,consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded ,him--namely1 ,moses and ,elias--and from those who followed after ,him--namely1 ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john--that in the mouth of two or three witnesses this word might stand4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by ,his transfiguration ,christ manifested to ,his disciples the glory of ,his body1 which belongs to men only4 ,it was therefore fitting that ,he should choose men and not angels as witnesses4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled ,on the ,marvels of ,holy ,scripture4 ,it is not an authentic work1 but is wrongly ascribed to ,st4 ,augustine2 consequently we need not stand by it4 ,for ,jerome says on ,matt4 #ag3c3 ,observe that when the ,scribes and ,pharisees asked for a sign from heaven1 ,he refused to give one2 whereas here in order to increase the apostles' faith1 ,he gives a sign from heaven1 ,elias coming down thence1 whither he had ascended1 and ,moses arising from the nether world4 ,this is not to be understood as though the soul of ,moses was reunited to his body1 but that his soul appeared through some assumed body1 just as the angels do4 ,but ,elias appeared in his own body1 not that he was brought down from the empyrean heaven1 but from some place on high whither he was taken up in the fiery chariot4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says on ,matt4 #ag3c3 ,moses and ,elias are brought forward for many reasons4 ,and1 first of all1 because the multitude said ,he was ,elias or ,jeremias or one of the prophets1 ,he brings the leaders of the prophets with ,him2 that hereby at least they might see the difference between the servants and their ,lord4 ,another reason was 4 4 4 that ,moses gave the ,law 4 4 4 while ,elias 4 4 4 was jealous for the glory of ,god4 ,therefore by appearing together with ,christ1 they show how falsely the ,jews accused ,him of transgressing the ,law1 and of blasphemously appropriating to ,himself the glory of ,god4 ,a third reason was to show that ,he has power of death and life1 and that ,he is the judge of the dead and the living2 by bringing with ,him ,moses who had died1 and ,elias who still lived4 ,a fourth reason was because1 as ,luke says 7#i3ca71 they spoke with ,him of ,his decease that ,he should accomplish in ,jerusalem1 i4e4 of ,his ,passion and death4 ,therefore1 in order to strengthen the hearts of ,his disciples with a view to this1 ,he sets before them those who had exposed themselves to death for ,god's sake3 since ,moses braved death in opposing ,pharaoh1 and ,elias in opposing ,achab4 ,a fifth reason was that ,he wished ,his disciples to imitate the meekness of ,moses and the zeal of ,elias4 ,hilary adds a sixth reason--namely1 in order to signify that ,he had been foretold by the ,law1 which ,moses gave them1 and by the prophets1 of whom ,elias was the principal4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to everyone1 but should be handed down through superiors to others in their proper turn4 ,consequently1 as ,chrysostom says 7on ,matt4 #ag3c71 ,he took these three as being superior to the rest4 ,for ,peter excelled in the love he bore to ,christ and in the power bestowed on him2 ,john in the privilege of ,christ's love for him on account of his virginity1 and1 again1 on account of his being privileged to be an ,evangelist2 ,james on account of the privilege of martyrdom4 ,nevertheless ,he did not wish them to tell others what they had seen before ,his ,resurrection2 lest1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #ag3ai1 such a wonderful thing should seem incredible to them2 and lest1 after hearing of so great glory1 they should be scandalized at the ,cross that followed2 or1 again1 lest the ,cross should be entirely hindered by the people 99,bede1 ,hom4 xviii2 cf4 ,catena ,aurea2 and in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be filled with the ,holy ,ghost 99,hilary1 in ,matth4 xvii4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #de1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,testimony of the ,father's ,voice1 ,saying1 ,this ,is ,my ,beloved ,son1 ,was ,fittingly ,added8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the testimony of the ,father's voice1 saying1 ,this is ,my beloved ,son1 was not fittingly added2 for1 as it is written 7,job #cc3ad71 ,god speaketh once1 and repeateth not the selfsame thing the second time4 ,but the ,father's voice had testified to this at the time of 7,christ's7 baptism4 ,therefore it was not fitting that ,he should bear witness to it a second time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 at the baptism the ,holy ,ghost appeared under the form of a dove at the same time as the ,father's voice was heard4 ,but this did not happen at the transfiguration4 ,therefore it seems that the testimony of the ,father was made in an unfitting manner4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ began to teach after ,his baptism4 ,nevertheless1 the ,father's voice did not then command men to hear him4 ,therefore neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 things should not be said to those who cannot bear them1 according to ,john #af3ab3 ,i have yet many things to say to you1 but you cannot bear them now4 ,but the disciples could not bear the ,father's voice2 for it is written 7,matt4 #ag3f7 that the disciples hearing1 fell upon their face1 and were very much afraid4 ,therefore the ,father's voice should not have been addressed to them4 ,on the contrary is the authority of the ,gospel4 ,i answer that1 ,the adoption of the sons of ,god is through a certain conformity of image to the natural ,son of ,god4 ,now this takes place in two ways3 first1 by the grace of the wayfarer1 which is imperfect conformity2 secondly1 by glory1 which is perfect conformity1 according to #a ,john #c3b3 ,we are now the sons of ,god1 and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be3 we know that1 when ,he shall appear1 we shall be like to ,him1 because we shall see ,him as ,he is4 ,since1 therefore1 it is in baptism that we acquire grace1 while the clarity of the glory to come was foreshadowed in the transfiguration1 therefore both in ,his baptism and in ,his transfiguration the natural sonship of ,christ was fittingly made known by the testimony of the ,father3 because ,he alone with the ,son and ,holy ,ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect generation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the words quoted are to be understood of ,god's eternal speaking1 by which ,god the ,father uttered the only-begotten and co-eternal ,word4 ,nevertheless1 it can be said that ,god uttered the same thing twice in a bodily voice1 yet not for the same purpose1 but in order to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of the likeness of the eternal ,sonship4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as in the ,baptism1 where the mystery of the first regeneration was proclaimed1 the operation of the whole ,trinity was made manifest1 because the ,son ,incarnate was there1 the ,holy ,ghost appeared under the form of a dove1 and the ,father made ,himself known in the voice2 so also in the transfiguration1 which is the mystery of the second regeneration1 the whole ,trinity appears--the ,father in the voice1 the ,son in the man1 the ,holy ,ghost in the bright cloud2 for just as in baptism ,he confers innocence1 signified by the simplicity of the dove1 so in the resurrection will ,he give ,his elect the clarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil1 which are signified by the bright cloud4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ came to give grace actually1 and to promise glory by ,his words4 ,therefore it was fitting at the time of ,his transfiguration1 and not at the time of ,his baptism1 that men should be commanded to hear ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,it was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and fall down on hearing the voice of the ,father1 to show that the glory which was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and faculty of all mortal beings2 according to ,ex4 #cc3bj3 ,man shall not see ,me and live4 ,this is what ,jerome says on ,matt4 #ag3f3 ,such is human frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great glory4 ,but men are healed of this frailty by ,christ when ,he brings them into glory4 ,and this is signified by what ,he says to them3 ,arise1 and fear not4 ,,question #df ,,the ,,passion ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,in proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to ,christ's leaving the world4 ,in the first place1 ,his ,passion2 secondly1 ,his death2 thirdly1 ,his burial2 and1 fourthly1 ,his descent into hell4 ,with regard to the ,passion1 there arises a threefold consideration3 7#a7 ,the ,passion itself2 7#b7 the efficient cause of the ,passion2 7#c7 the fruits of the ,passion4 ,under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was necessary for ,christ to suffer for men's deliverance8 7#b7 ,whether there was any other possible means of delivering men8 7#c7 ,whether this was the more suitable means8 7#d7 ,whether it was fitting for ,christ to suffer on the cross8 7#e7 ,the extent of ,his sufferings2 7#f7 ,whether the pain which ,he endured was the greatest8 7#g7 ,whether ,his entire soul suffered8 7#h7 ,whether ,his ,passion hindered the joy of fruition8 7#i7 ,the time of the ,passion2 7#aj7 ,the place2 7#aa7 ,whether it was fitting for ,him to be crucified with robbers8 7#ab7 ,whether ,christ's ,passion is to be attributed to the ,godhead8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,necessary for ,christ to ,suffer for the ,deliverance of the ,human ,race8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not necessary for ,christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race4 ,for the human race could not be delivered except by ,god1 according to ,isa4 #de3ba3 ,am not ,i the ,lord1 and there is no ,god else besides ,me8 ,a just ,god and a ,saviour1 there is none besides ,me4 ,but no necessity can compel ,god1 for this would be repugnant to ,his omnipotence4 ,therefore it was not necessary for ,christ to suffer4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary4 ,but ,christ suffered of ,his own will2 for it is written 7,isa4 #ec3g73 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will4 ,therefore it was not necessary for ,him to suffer4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as is written 7,ps4 #bd3aj73 ,all the ways of the ,lord are mercy and truth4 ,but it does not seem necessary that ,he should suffer on the part of the ,divine mercy1 which1 as it bestows gifts freely1 so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction3 nor1 again1 on the part of ,divine justice1 according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation4 ,therefore it does not seem necessary that ,christ should have suffered for man's deliverance4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the angelic nature is more excellent than the human1 as appears from ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,but ,christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned4 ,therefore1 apparently1 neither was it necessary for ,him to suffer for the salvation of the human race4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #c3ad73 ,as ,moses lifted up the serpent in the desert1 so must the ,son of man be lifted up1 that whosoever believeth in ,him may not perish1 but may have life everlasting4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,philosopher teaches 7,metaph4 v71 there are several acceptations of the word necessary4 ,in one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise2 and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of ,god or on the part of man for ,christ to suffer4 ,in another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself2 and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion2 as1 for instance1 when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him4 ,but if the external factor which induces necessity be an end1 then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end--namely1 when some particular end cannot exist at all1 or not conveniently1 except such end be presupposed4 ,it was not necessary1 then1 for ,christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion1 either on ,god's part1 who ruled that ,christ should suffer1 or on ,christ's own part1 who suffered voluntarily4 ,yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed2 and this can be accepted in three ways4 ,first of all1 on our part1 who have been delivered by ,his ,passion1 according to ,john 7#c3ad73 ,the ,son of man must be lifted up1 that whosoever believeth in ,him may not perish1 but may have life everlasting4 ,secondly1 on ,christ's part1 who merited the glory of being exalted1 through the lowliness of ,his ,passion3 and to this must be referred ,luke #bd3bf3 ,ought not ,christ to have suffered these things1 and so to enter into ,his glory8 ,thirdly1 on ,god's part1 whose determination regarding the ,passion of ,christ1 foretold in the ,scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the ,old ,testament1 had to be fulfilled4 ,and this is what ,st4 ,luke says 7#bb3bb73 ,the ,son of man indeed goeth1 according to that which is determined2 and 7,luke #bd3dd1 #df73 ,these are the words which ,i spoke to you while ,i was yet with you1 that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of ,moses1 and in the prophets1 and in the psalms concerning ,me3 for it is thus written1 and thus it behooved ,christ to suffer1 and to rise again from the dead4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on ,god's part4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,that man should be delivered by ,christ's ,passion was in keeping with both ,his mercy and ,his justice4 ,with ,his justice1 because by ,his ,passion ,christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race2 and so man was set free by ,christ's justice3 and with ,his mercy1 for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature1 as was said above 7,q4 #a1 ,a4 #b71 ,god gave him ,his ,son to satisfy for him1 according to ,rom4 #c3bd1 #be3 ,being justified freely by ,his grace1 through the redemption that is in ,christ ,jesus1 whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,and this came of more copious mercy than if ,he had forgiven sins without satisfaction4 ,hence it is said 7,eph4 #b3d73 ,god1 who is rich in mercy1 for ,his exceeding charity wherewith ,he loved us1 even when we were dead in sins1 hath quickened us together in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the sin of the angels was irreparable2 not so the sin of the first man 7,i1 ,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #b74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,there ,was ,any ,other ,possible ,way of ,human ,deliverance ,besides the ,passion of ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was no other possible way of human deliverance besides ,christ's ,passion4 ,for our ,lord says 7,john #ab3bd73 ,amen1 amen ,i say to you1 unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth1 itself remaineth alone2 but if it die1 it bringeth forth much fruit4 ,upon this ,st4 ,augustine 7,tract4 li7 observes that ,christ called ,himself the seed4 ,consequently1 unless ,he suffered death1 ,he would not otherwise have produced the fruit of our redemption4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord addresses the ,father 7,matt4 #bf3db73 ,my ,father1 if this chalice may not pass away but ,i must drink it1 ,thy will be done4 ,but ,he spoke there of the chalice of the ,passion4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion could not pass away2 hence ,hilary says 7,comm4 #ca in ,matth473 ,therefore the chalice cannot pass except ,he drink of it1 because we cannot be restored except through ,his ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god's justice required that ,christ should satisfy by the ,passion in order that man might be delivered from sin4 ,but ,christ cannot let ,his justice pass2 for it is written 7#b ,tim4 #b3ac73 ,if we believe not1 ,he continueth faithful1 ,he cannot deny ,himself4 ,but ,he would deny ,himself were ,he to deny ,his justice1 since ,he is justice itself4 ,it seems impossible1 then1 for man to be delivered otherwise than by ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 there can be no falsehood underlying faith4 ,but the ,fathers of old believed that ,christ would suffer4 ,consequently1 it seems that it had to be that ,christ should suffer4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii73 ,we assert that the way whereby ,god deigned to deliver us by the man ,jesus ,christ1 who is mediator between ,god and man1 is both good and befitting the ,divine dignity2 but let us also show that other possible means were not lacking on ,god's part1 to whose power all things are equally subordinate4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways3 first of all1 simply and absolutely2 or secondly1 from supposition4 ,therefore1 speaking simply and absolutely1 it was possible for ,god to deliver mankind otherwise than by the ,passion of ,christ1 because no word shall be impossible with ,god 7,luke #a3cg74 ,yet it was impossible if some supposition be made4 ,for since it is impossible for ,god's foreknowledge to be deceived and ,his will or ordinance to be frustrated1 then1 supposing ,god's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding ,christ's ,passion1 it was not possible at the same time for ,christ not to suffer1 and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by ,christ's ,passion4 ,and the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by ,god1 as was laid down in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #ac74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our ,lord is speaking there presupposing ,god's foreknowledge and predetermination1 according to which it was resolved that the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless ,christ suffered4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in the same way we must understand what is here objected to in the second instance3 ,if this chalice may not pass away but ,i must drink of it--that is to say1 because ,thou hast so ordained it--hence ,he adds3 ,thy will be done4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,even this justice depends on the ,divine will1 requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race4 ,but if ,he had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction1 ,he would not have acted against justice4 ,for a judge1 while preserving justice1 cannot pardon fault without penalty1 if he must visit fault committed against another--for instance1 against another man1 or against the ,state1 or any ,prince in higher authority4 ,but ,god has no one higher than ,himself1 for ,he is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe4 ,consequently1 if ,he forgive sin1 which has the formality of fault in that it is committed against ,himself1 ,he wrongs no one3 just as anyone else1 overlooking a personal trespass1 without satisfaction1 acts mercifully and not unjustly4 ,and so ,david exclaimed when he sought mercy3 ,to ,thee only have ,i sinned 7,ps4 #ej3f71 as if to say3 ,thou canst pardon me without injustice4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,human faith1 and even the ,divine ,scriptures upon which faith is based1 are both based on the ,divine foreknowledge and ordinance4 ,and the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes of supposition1 and of the necessity which arises of the ,divine foreknowledge and will4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,there ,was ,any ,more ,suitable ,way of ,delivering the ,human ,race ,than by ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was some other more suitable way of delivering the human race besides ,christ's ,passion4 ,for nature in its operation imitates the ,divine work1 since it is moved and regulated by ,god4 ,but nature never employs two agents where one will suffice4 ,therefore1 since ,god could have liberated mankind solely by ,his ,divine will1 it does not seem fitting that ,christ's ,passion should have been added for the deliverance of the human race4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 natural actions are more suitably performed than deeds of violence1 because violence is a severance or lapse from what is according to nature1 as is said in ,de ,coelo ii4 ,but ,christ's ,passion brought about ,his death by violence4 ,therefore it would have been more appropriate had ,christ died a natural death rather than suffer for man's deliverance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps something unjustly and by violence1 should be deprived of it by some superior power2 hence ,isaias says 7#eb3c73 ,you were sold gratis1 and you shall be redeemed without money4 ,but the devil possessed no right over man1 whom he had deceived by guile1 and whom he held subject in servitude by a sort of violence4 ,therefore it seems most suitable that ,christ should have despoiled the devil solely by ,his power and without the ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,st4 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii73 ,there was no other more suitable way of healing our misery than by the ,passion of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end4 ,but in this that man was delivered by ,christ's ,passion1 many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's salvation4 ,in the first place1 man knows thereby how much ,god loves him1 and is thereby stirred to love ,him in return1 and herein lies the perfection of human salvation2 hence the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3h73 ,god commendeth ,his charity towards us2 for when as yet we were sinners 4 4 4 ,christ died for us4 ,secondly1 because thereby ,he set us an example of obedience1 humility1 constancy1 justice1 and the other virtues displayed in the ,passion1 which are requisite for man's salvation4 ,hence it is written 7#a ,pet4 #b3ba73 ,christ also suffered for us1 leaving you an example that you should follow in ,his steps4 ,thirdly1 because ,christ by ,his ,passion not only delivered man from sin1 but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss1 as shall be shown later 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #di1 ,,aa4 #a1 #e74 ,fourthly1 because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin1 according to #a ,cor4 #f3bj3 ,you are bought with a great price3 glorify and bear ,god in your body4 ,fifthly1 because it redounded to man's greater dignity1 that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil1 so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil2 and as man deserved death1 so a man by dying should vanquish death4 ,hence it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3eg73 ,thanks be to ,god who hath given us the victory through our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,it was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by ,christ's ,passion than simply by ,god's good-will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,even nature uses several means to one intent1 in order to do something more fittingly3 as two eyes for seeing2 and the same can be observed in other matters4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,chrysostom 99,athanasius1 ,orat4 ,de ,incarn4 ,verb4 says3 ,christ had come in order to destroy death1 not ,his own1 7for since ,he is life itself1 death could not be ,his71 but men's death4 ,hence it was not by reason of ,his being bound to die that ,he laid ,his body aside1 but because the death ,he endured was inflicted on ,him by men4 ,but even if ,his body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of all men1 it was not befitting ,him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body afflicted with the same4 ,and even had ,he laid ,his body aside without any sickness1 and had then appeared1 men would not have believed ,him when ,he spoke of ,his resurrection4 ,for how could ,christ's victory over death appear1 unless ,he endured it in the sight of all men1 and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption of ,his body8 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the devil assailed man unjustly1 nevertheless1 on account of sin1 man was justly left by ,god under the devil's bondage4 ,and therefore it was fitting that through justice man should be delivered from the devil's bondage by ,christ making satisfaction on his behalf in the ,passion4 ,this was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of the devil1 who is a deserter from justice1 and covetous of sway2 in that ,christ should vanquish him and deliver man1 not merely by the power of ,his ,godhead1 but likewise by the justice and lowliness of the ,passion1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii74 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,ought to ,have ,suffered on the ,cross8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ ought not to have suffered on the cross4 ,for the truth ought to conform to the figure4 ,but in all the sacrifices of the ,old ,testament which prefigured ,christ the beasts were slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought not to have suffered on a cross1 but rather by the sword or by fire4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that ,christ ought not to assume dishonoring afflictions4 ,but death on a cross was most dishonoring and ignominious2 hence it is written 7,wis4 #b3bj73 ,let us condemn ,him to a most shameful death4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it was said of ,christ 7,matt4 #ba3i73 ,blessed is ,he that cometh in the name of the ,lord4 ,but death upon the cross was a death of malediction1 as we read ,deut4 #ba3bc3 ,he is accursed of ,god that hangeth on a tree4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting for ,christ to be crucified4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #b3h73 ,he became obedient unto death1 even the death of the cross4 ,i answer that1 ,it was most fitting that ,christ should suffer the death of the cross4 ,first of all1 as an example of virtue4 ,for ,augustine thus writes 7,,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #be73 ,god's ,wisdom became man to give us an example in righteousness of living4 ,but it is part of righteous living not to stand in fear of things which ought not to be feared4 ,now there are some men who1 although they do not fear death in itself1 are yet troubled over the manner of their death4 ,in order1 then1 that no kind of death should trouble an upright man1 the cross of this ,man had to be set before him1 because1 among all kinds of death1 none was more execrable1 more fear-inspiring1 than this4 ,secondly1 because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of our first parent1 which was the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree against ,god's command4 ,and so1 to atone for that sin1 it was fitting that ,christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree1 as if restoring what ,adam had purloined2 according to ,ps4 #fh3e3 ,then did ,i pay that which ,i took not away4 ,hence ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,passion 99,cf4 ,serm4 ci ,de ,tempore3 ,adam despised the command1 plucking the apple from the tree3 but all that ,adam lost1 ,christ found upon the cross4 ,the third reason is because1 as ,chrysostom says in a sermon on the ,passion 7,de ,cruce et ,latrone i1 ii73 ,he suffered upon a high rood and not under a roof1 in order that the nature of the air might be purified3 and the earth felt a like benefit1 for it was cleansed by the flowing of the blood from ,his side4 ,and on ,john #c3ad3 ,the ,son of man must be lifted up1 ,theophylact says3 ,when you hear that ,he was lifted up1 understand ,his hanging on high1 that ,he might sanctify the air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon it4 ,the fourth reason is1 because1 by dying on it1 ,he prepares for us an ascent into heaven1 as ,chrysostom 99,athanasius1 vide ,a1 ,,iii1 ad #b says4 ,hence it is that ,he says 7,john #ab3cb73 ,if ,i be lifted up from the earth1 ,i will draw all things to ,myself4 ,the fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of the entire world4 ,hence ,gregory of ,nyssa observes 7,in ,christ4 ,resurr41 ,orat4 i7 that the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes from their central point of contact denotes the power and the providence diffused everywhere of ,him who hung upon it4 ,chrysostom 99,athanasius1 vide ,a4 ,,iii1 ad #b also says that upon the cross ,he dies with outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of old1 and with the other those who spring from the ,gentiles4 ,the sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this class of death4 ,hence ,augustine in his book on the grace of the ,old and ,new ,testament 7,ep4 cxl7 says3 ,not without purpose did ,he choose this class of death1 that ,he might be a teacher of that breadth1 and height1 and length1 and depth1 of which the ,apostle speaks 7,eph4 #c3ah73 ,for breadth is in the beam1 which is fixed transversely above2 this appertains to good works1 since the hands are stretched out upon it4 ,length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground2 and there it is planted--that is1 it stands and abides--which is the note of longanimity4 ,height is in that portion of the tree which remains over from the transverse beam upwards to the top1 and this is at the head of the ,crucified1 because ,he is the supreme desire of souls of good hope4 ,but that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed1 and from which the entire rood springs1 denotes the depth of gratuitous grace4 ,and1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 cxix in ,joan473 ,the tree upon which were fixed the members of ,him dying was even the chair of the ,master teaching4 ,the seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many figures4 ,for1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,passion 7,serm4 ci ,de ,tempore71 an ark of wood preserved the human race from the waters of the ,deluge2 at the exodus of ,god's people from ,egypt1 ,moses with a rod divided the sea1 overthrew ,pharaoh and saved the people of ,god4 the same ,moses dipped his rod into the water1 changing it from bitter to sweet2 at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed forth from a spiritual rock2 likewise1 in order to overcome ,amalec1 ,moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand2 lastly1 ,god's law is entrusted to the wooden ,ark of the ,covenant2 all of which are like steps by which we mount to the wood of the cross4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the altar of holocausts1 upon which the sacrifices of animals were immolated1 was constructed of timbers1 as is set forth ,ex4 #bg2 and in this respect the truth answers to the figure2 but it is not necessary for it to be likened in every respect1 otherwise it would not be a likeness1 but the reality1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii74 ,but1 in particular1 as ,chrysostom 99,athanasius1 vide ,a1 ,,iii1 ad #b says3 ,his head is not cut off1 as was done to ,john2 nor was ,he sawn in twain1 like ,isaias1 in order that ,his entire and indivisible body might obey death1 and that there might be no excuse for them who want to divide the ,church4 ,while1 instead of material fire1 there was the spiritual fire of charity in ,christ's holocaust4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which are allied with defects of knowledge1 or of grace1 or even of virtue1 but not those injuries inflicted from without--nay1 more1 as is written ,heb4 #ab3b3 ,he endured the cross1 despising the shame4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xiv71 sin is accursed1 and1 consequently1 so is death1 and mortality1 which comes of sin4 ,but ,christ's flesh was mortal1 'having the resemblance of the flesh of sin'2 and hence ,moses calls it accursed1 just as the ,apostle calls it sin1 saying 7#b ,cor4 #e3ba73 ,him that knew no sin1 for us ,he hath made sin--namely1 because of the penalty of sin4 ,nor is there greater ignominy on that account1 because he said3 ',he is accursed of ,god4' ,for1 unless ,god had hated sin1 ,he would never have sent ,his ,son to take upon ,himself our death1 and to destroy it4 ,acknowledge1 then1 that it was for us ,he took the curse upon ,himself1 whom you confess to have died for us4 ,hence it is written 7,gal4 #c3ac73 ,christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law1 being made a curse for us4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ ,endured ,all ,suffering8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did endure all sufferings1 because ,hilary 7,de ,trin4 x7 says3 ,god's only-begotten ,son testifies that ,he endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish the sacrament of ,his death1 when with bowed head ,he gave up the ghost4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,he did endure all human sufferings4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,isa4 #eb3ac73 ,behold ,my servant shall understand1 ,he shall be exalted and extolled1 and shall be exceeding high2 as many as have been astonished at ,him ,vulg43 'thee'1 so shall ,his visage be inglorious among men1 and ,his form among the sons of men4 ,but ,christ was exalted in that ,he had all grace and all knowledge1 at which many were astonished in admiration thereof4 ,therefore it seems that ,he was inglorious1 by enduring every human suffering4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's ,passion was ordained for man's deliverance from sin1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,but ,christ came to deliver men from every kind of sin4 ,therefore ,he ought to have endured every kind of suffering4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #ai3cb73 ,the soldiers therefore came3 and they broke the legs of the first1 and of the other who was crucified with ,him2 but after they were come to ,jesus1 when they saw that ,he was already dead1 they did not break ,his legs4 ,consequently1 ,he did not endure every human suffering4 ,i answer that1 ,human sufferings may be considered under two aspects4 ,first of all1 specifically1 and in this way it was not necessary for ,christ to endure them all1 since many are mutually exclusive1 as burning and drowning2 for we are dealing now with sufferings inflicted from without1 since it was not beseeming for ,him to endure those arising from within1 such as bodily ailments1 as already stated 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #d74 ,but1 speaking generically1 ,he did endure every human suffering4 ,this admits of a threefold acceptance4 ,first of all1 on the part of men3 for ,he endured something from ,gentiles and from ,jews2 from men and from women1 as is clear from the women servants who accused ,peter4 ,he suffered from the rulers1 from their servants and from the mob1 according to ,ps4 #b3a1 #b3 ,why have the ,gentiles raged1 and the people devised vain things8 ,the kings of the earth stood up1 and the princes met together1 against the ,lord and against ,his ,christ4 ,he suffered from friends and acquaintances1 as is manifest from ,judas betraying and ,peter denying ,him4 ,secondly1 the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man can endure4 ,for ,christ suffered from friends abandoning ,him2 in ,his reputation1 from the blasphemies hurled at ,him2 in ,his honor and glory1 from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon ,him2 in things1 for ,he was despoiled of ,his garments2 in ,his soul1 from sadness1 weariness1 and fear2 in ,his body1 from wounds and scourgings4 ,thirdly1 it may be considered with regard to ,his bodily members4 ,in ,his head ,he suffered from the crown of piercing thorns2 in ,his hands and feet1 from the fastening of the nails2 on ,his face from the blows and spittle2 and from the lashes over ,his entire body4 ,moreover1 ,he suffered in all ,his bodily senses3 in touch1 by being scourged and nailed2 in taste1 by being given vinegar and gall to drink2 in smell1 by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of corpses1 which is called ,calvary2 in hearing1 by being tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners2 in sight1 by beholding the tears of ,his ,mother and of the disciple whom ,he loved4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes of sufferings1 but not as to their kinds4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the likeness is sustained1 not as to the number of the sufferings and graces1 but as to their greatness2 for1 as ,he was uplifted above others in gifts of graces1 so was ,he lowered beneath others by the ignominy of ,his sufferings4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the very least one of ,christ's sufferings was sufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins2 but as to fittingness1 it sufficed that ,he should endure all classes of sufferings1 as stated above4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,pain of ,christ's ,passion ,was ,greater ,than ,all ,other ,pains8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the pain of ,christ's ,passion was not greater than all other pains4 ,for the sufferer's pain is increased by the sharpness and the duration of the suffering4 ,but some of the martyrs endured sharper and more prolonged pains than ,christ1 as is seen in ,st4 ,lawrence1 who was roasted upon a gridiron2 and in ,st4 ,vincent1 whose flesh was torn with iron pincers4 ,therefore it seems that the pain of the suffering ,christ was not the greatest4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 strength of soul mitigates pain1 so much so that the ,stoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man2 and ,aristotle 7,ethic4 ii7 holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions4 ,but ,christ had most perfect strength of soul4 ,therefore it seems that the greatest pain did not exist in ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the more sensitive the sufferer is1 the more acute will the pain be4 ,but the soul is more sensitive than the body1 since the body feels in virtue of the soul2 also1 ,adam in the state of innocence seems to have had a body more sensitive than ,christ had1 who assumed a human body with its natural defects4 ,consequently1 it seems that the pain of a sufferer in purgatory1 or in hell1 or even ,adam's pain1 if he suffered at all1 was greater than ,christ's in the ,passion4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the greater the good lost1 the greater the pain4 ,but by sinning the sinner loses a greater good than ,christ did when suffering2 since the life of grace is greater than the life of nature3 also1 ,christ1 who lost ,his life1 but was to rise again after three days1 seems to have lost less than those who lose their lives and abide in death4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's pain was not the greatest of all4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his sufferings4 ,but ,christ died innocent1 according to ,jer4 #i3ai3 ,i was as a meek lamb1 that is carried to be a victim4 ,therefore it seems that the pain of ,christ's ,passion was not the greatest4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 there was nothing superfluous in ,christ's conduct4 ,but the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation1 because from ,his ,divine ,person it would have had infinite virtue4 ,therefore it would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,lam4 #a3ab7 on behalf of ,christ's ,person3 ,o all ye that pass by the way attend1 and see if there be any sorrow like unto ,my sorrow4 ,i answer that1 ,as we have stated1 when treating of the defects assumed by ,christ 7,q4 #ae1 ,,aa4 #e1 #f71 there was true and sensible pain in the suffering ,christ1 which is caused by something hurtful to the body3 also1 there was internal pain1 which is caused from the apprehension of something hurtful1 and this is termed sadness4 ,and in ,christ each of these was the greatest in this present life4 ,this arose from four causes4 ,first of all1 from the sources of ,his pain4 ,for the cause of the sensitive pain was the wounding of ,his body2 and this wounding had its bitterness1 both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned 7,a4 #e7 and from the kind of suffering1 since the death of the crucified is most bitter1 because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive parts--to wit1 the hands and feet2 moreover1 the weight of the suspended body intensifies the agony1 and besides this there is the duration of the suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword4 ,the cause of the interior pain was1 first of all1 all the sins of the human race1 for which ,he made satisfaction by suffering2 hence ,he ascribes them1 so to speak1 to ,himself1 saying 7,ps4 #ba3b73 ,the words of my sins4 ,secondly1 especially the fall of the ,jews and of the others who sinned in ,his death chiefly of the apostles1 who were scandalized at ,his ,passion4 ,thirdly1 the loss of ,his bodily life1 which is naturally horrible to human nature4 ,the magnitude of ,his suffering may be considered1 secondly1 from the susceptibility of the sufferer as to both soul and body4 ,for ,his body was endowed with a most perfect constitution1 since it was fashioned miraculously by the operation of the ,holy ,ghost2 just as some other things made by miracles are better than others1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxii in ,joan47 respecting the wine into which ,christ changed the water at the wedding-feast4 ,and1 consequently1 ,christ's sense of touch1 the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain1 was most acute4 ,his soul likewise1 from its interior powers1 apprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness4 ,thirdly1 the magnitude of ,christ's suffering can be estimated from the singleness of ,his pain and sadness4 ,in other sufferers the interior sadness is mitigated1 and even the exterior suffering1 from some consideration of reason1 by some derivation or redundance from the higher powers into the lower2 but it was not so with the suffering ,christ1 because ,he permitted each one of ,his powers to exercise its proper function1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii74 ,fourthly1 the magnitude of the pain of ,christ's suffering can be reckoned by this1 that the pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily1 to the end of men's deliverance from sin2 and consequently ,he embraced the amount of pain proportionate to the magnitude of the fruit which resulted therefrom4 ,from all these causes weighed together1 it follows that ,christ's pain was the very greatest4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument follows from only one of the considerations adduced--namely1 from the bodily injury1 which is the cause of sensitive pain2 but the torment of the suffering ,christ is much more intensified from other causes1 as above stated4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way1 and outward sensitive pain in quite another2 for it lessens interior sadness directly by fixing the mean1 as being its proper matter1 within limits4 ,but1 as was laid down in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #b71 moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions1 not according to mathematical quantity1 but according to quantity of proportion1 so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule of reason4 ,and since the ,stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable1 they accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason1 and consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man4 ,but in very truth some sadness is praiseworthy1 as ,augustine proves 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv7--namely1 when it flows from holy love1 as1 for instance1 when a man is saddened over his own or others' sins4 ,furthermore1 it is employed as a useful means of satisfying for sins1 according to the saying of the ,apostle 7#b ,cor4 #g3aj73 ,the sorrow that is according to ,god worketh penance1 steadfast unto salvation4 ,and so to atone for the sins of all men1 ,christ accepted sadness1 the greatest in absolute quantity1 yet not exceeding the rule of reason4 ,but moral virtue does not lessen outward sensitive pain1 because such pain is not subject to reason1 but follows the nature of the body2 yet it lessens it indirectly by redundance of the higher powers into the lower4 ,but this did not happen in ,christ's case1 as stated above 7cf4 ,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b2 ,q4 #de1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the pain of a suffering1 separated soul belongs to the state of future condemnation1 which exceeds every evil of this life1 just as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life4 ,accordingly1 when we say that ,christ's pain was the greatest1 we make no comparison between ,his and the pain of a separated soul4 ,but ,adam's body could not suffer1 except he sinned2 so that he would become mortal1 and passible4 ,and1 though actually suffering1 it would have felt less pain than ,christ's body1 for the reasons already stated4 ,from all this it is clear that even if ,adam had suffered in the state of innocence1 though this was impossible his pain would have been less than ,christ's4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ grieved not only over the loss of ,his own bodily life1 but also over the sins of all others4 ,and this grief in ,christ surpassed all grief of every contrite heart1 both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity1 by which the pang of contrition is intensified1 and because ,he grieved at the one time for all sins1 according to ,isa4 #ec3d3 ,surely ,he hath carried our sorrows4 ,but such was the dignity of ,christ's life in the body1 especially on account of the ,godhead united with it1 that its loss1 even for one hour1 would be a matter of greater grief than the loss of another man's life for howsoever long a time4 ,hence the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 iii7 that the man of virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be better2 and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake4 ,and in like fashion ,christ laid down ,his most beloved life for the good of charity1 according to ,jer4 #ab3g3 ,i have given ,my dear soul into the hands of her enemies4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain of the suffering1 since1 when a guilty man suffers1 he grieves not merely on account of the penalty1 but also because of the crime1 whereas the innocent man grieves only for the penalty3 yet this pain is more intensified by reason of his innocence1 in so far as he deems the hurt inflicted to be the more undeserved4 ,hence it is that even others are more deserving of blame if they do not compassionate him1 according to ,isa4 #eg3a3 ,the just perisheth1 and no man layeth it to heart4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not merely by ,his power1 but also according to justice4 ,and therefore ,he did not simply weigh what great virtue ,his suffering would have from union with the ,godhead1 but also how much1 according to ,his human nature1 ,his pain would avail for so great a satisfaction4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,christ ,suffered in ,his ,whole ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not suffer in ,his whole soul4 ,for the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers1 inasmuch as it is the act of the body4 ,but the soul is not1 as to its every part1 the act of the body2 because the intellect is the act of no body1 as is said ,de ,anima iii4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not suffer in ,his whole soul4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 every power of the soul is passive in regard to its proper object4 ,but the higher part of reason has for its object the eternal types1 to the consideration and consultation of which it directs itself1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xii74 ,but ,christ could suffer no hurt from the eternal types1 since they are nowise opposed to ,him4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not suffer in ,his whole soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes into contact with the reason4 ,but there was none such in ,christ1 but only pro-passions2 as ,jerome remarks on ,matt4 #bf3cg4 ,hence ,dionysius says in a letter to ,john the ,evangelist that ,he endured only mentally the sufferings inflicted upon ,him4 ,consequently it does not seem that ,christ suffered in ,his whole soul4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 suffering causes pain3 but there is no pain in the speculative intellect1 because1 as the ,philosopher says 7,topic4 i71 there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of consideration4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not suffer in ,his whole soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #hg3d7 on behalf of ,christ3 ,my soul is filled with evils3 upon which the gloss adds3 ,not with vices1 but with woes1 whereby the soul suffers with the flesh2 or with evils1 viz4 of a perishing people1 by compassionating them4 ,but ,his soul would not have been filled with these evils except ,he had suffered in ,his whole soul4 ,therefore ,christ suffered in ,his entire soul4 ,i answer that1 ,a whole is so termed with respect to its parts4 ,but the parts of a soul are its faculties4 ,so1 then1 the whole soul is said to suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence1 or as to all its faculties4 ,but it must be borne in mind that a faculty of the soul can suffer in two ways3 first of all1 by its own passion2 and this comes of its being afflicted by its proper object2 thus1 sight may suffer from superabundance of the visible object4 ,in another way a faculty suffers by a passion in the subject on which it is based2 as sight suffers when the sense of touch in the eye is affected1 upon which the sense of sight rests1 as1 for instance1 when the eye is pricked1 or is disaffected by heat4 ,so1 then1 we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its essence1 it is evident that ,christ's whole soul suffered4 ,for the soul's whole essence is allied with the body1 so that it is entire in the whole body and in its every part4 ,consequently1 when the body suffered and was disposed to separate from the soul1 the entire soul suffered4 ,but if we consider the whole soul according to its faculties1 speaking thus of the proper passions of the faculties1 ,he suffered indeed as to all ,his lower powers2 because in all the soul's lower powers1 whose operations are but temporal1 there was something to be found which was a source of woe to ,christ1 as is evident from what was said above 7,a4 #f74 ,but ,christ's higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object1 which is ,god1 who was the cause1 not of grief1 but rather of delight and joy1 to the soul of ,christ4 ,nevertheless1 all the powers of ,christ's soul did suffer according as any faculty is said to be affected as regards its subject1 because all the faculties of ,christ's soul were rooted in its essence1 to which suffering extended when the body1 whose act it is1 suffered4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of the body1 still the soul's essence is the act of the body1 and in it the intellective faculty is rooted1 as was shown in the ,first ,part1 ,q4 #gg1 ,,aa4 #f1 #h4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument proceeds from passion on the part of the proper object1 according to which ,christ's higher reason did not suffer4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,grief is then said to be a true passion1 by which the soul is troubled1 when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason to deflect from the rectitude of its act1 so that it then follows the passion1 and has no longer free-will with regard to it4 ,in this way passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in ,christ1 but merely subjectively1 as was stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on the part of its object1 which is truth considered absolutely1 and which is its perfection3 nevertheless1 both grief and its cause can reach it in the way mentioned above4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,christ's ,entire ,soul ,enjoyed ,blessed ,fruition ,during the ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed fruition during the ,passion4 ,for it is not possible to be sad and glad at the one time1 since sadness and gladness are contraries4 ,but ,christ's whole soul suffered grief during the ,passion1 as was stated above 7,a4 #g74 ,therefore ,his whole soul could not enjoy fruition4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 vii7 that1 if sadness be vehement1 it not only checks the contrary delight1 but every delight2 and conversely4 ,but the grief of ,christ's ,passion was the greatest1 as shown above 7,a4 #f72 and likewise the enjoyment of fruition is also the greatest1 as was laid down in the first volume of the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #c74 ,consequently1 it was not possible for ,christ's whole soul to be suffering and rejoicing at the one time4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 beatific fruition comes of the knowledge and love of ,divine things1 as ,augustine says 7,doctr4 ,christ4 i74 ,but all the soul's powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of ,god4 ,therefore ,christ's whole soul did not enjoy fruition4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,christ's ,godhead permitted ,his flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it4 ,in like fashion1 since it belonged to ,christ's soul1 inasmuch as it was blessed1 to enjoy fruition1 ,his ,passion did not impede fruition4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #g71 the whole soul can be understood both according to its essence and according to all its faculties4 ,if it be understood according to its essence1 then ,his whole soul did enjoy fruition1 inasmuch as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul1 to which it belongs1 to enjoy the ,godhead3 so that as passion1 by reason of the essence1 is attributed to the higher part of the soul1 so1 on the other hand1 by reason of the superior part of the soul1 fruition is attributed to the essence4 ,but if we take the whole soul as comprising all its faculties1 thus ,his entire soul did not enjoy fruition3 not directly1 indeed1 because fruition is not the act of any one part of the soul2 nor by any overflow of glory1 because1 since ,christ was still upon earth1 there was no overflowing of glory from the higher part into the lower1 nor from the soul into the body4 ,but since1 on the contrary1 the soul's higher part was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower1 it follows that the higher part of ,his soul enjoyed fruition perfectly while ,christ was suffering4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief of the ,passion1 because they have not the same object4 ,now nothing prevents contraries from being in the same subject1 but not according to the same4 ,and so the joy of fruition can appertain to the higher part of reason by its proper act2 but grief of the ,passion according to the subject4 ,grief of the ,passion belongs to the essence of the soul by reason of the body1 whose form the soul is2 whereas the joy of fruition 7belongs to the soul7 by reason of the faculty in which it is subjected4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,philosopher's contention is true because of the overflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into another2 but it was not so with ,christ1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,such argument holds good of the totality of the soul with regard to its faculties4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,christ ,suffered at a ,suitable ,time8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not suffer at a suitable time4 ,for ,christ's ,passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the ,paschal lamb3 hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #e3g73 ,christ our ,pasch is sacrificed4 ,but the paschal lamb was slain on the fourteenth day at eventide1 as is stated in ,ex4 #ab3f4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought to have suffered then2 which is manifestly false3 for ,he was then celebrating the ,pasch with ,his disciples1 according to ,mark's account 7#ad3ab73 ,on the first day of the unleavened bread1 when they sacrificed the ,pasch2 whereas it was on the following day that ,he suffered4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's ,passion is called ,his uplifting1 according to ,john #c3ad3 ,so must the ,son of man be lifted up4 ,and ,christ is ,himself called the ,sun of ,justice1 as we read ,mal4 #d3b4 ,therefore it seems that ,he ought to have suffered at the sixth hour1 when the sun is at its highest point1 and yet the contrary appears from ,mk4 #ae3be3 ,it was the third hour1 and they crucified ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as the sun is at its highest point in each day at the sixth hour1 so also it reaches its highest point in every year at the summer solstice4 ,therefore ,christ ought to have suffered about the time of the summer solstice rather than about the vernal equinox4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the world was enlightened by ,christ's presence in it1 according to ,john #i3e3 ,as long as ,i am in the world ,i am the light of the world4 ,consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that ,christ should have lived longer in the world1 so that ,he should have suffered1 not in young1 but in old1 age4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #ac3a73 ,jesus1 knowing that ,his hour was come for ,him to pass out of this world to the ,father2 and 7,john #b3d73 ,my hour is not yet come4 ,upon which texts ,augustine observes3 ,when ,he had done as much as ,he deemed sufficient1 then came ,his hour1 not of necessity1 but of will1 not of condition1 but of power4 ,therefore ,christ died at an opportune time4 ,i answer that1 ,as was observed above 7,a4 #a71 ,christ's ,passion was subject to ,his will4 ,but ,his will was ruled by the ,divine wisdom which ordereth all things conveniently and sweetly 7,wis4 #h3a74 ,consequently it must be said that ,christ's ,passion was enacted at an opportune time4 ,hence it is written in ,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 lv3 ,the ,saviour did everything in its proper place and season4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,some hold that ,christ did die on the fourteenth day of the moon1 when the ,jews sacrificed the ,pasch3 hence it is stated 7,john #ah3bh7 that the ,jews went not into ,pilate's hall on the day of the ,passion1 that they might not be defiled1 but that they might eat the ,pasch4 ,upon this ,chrysostom observes 7,hom4 lxxxii in ,joan473 ,the ,jews celebrated the ,pasch then2 but ,he celebrated the ,pasch on the previous day1 reserving ,his own slaying until the ,friday1 when the old ,pasch was kept4 ,and this appears to tally with the statement 7,john #ac3a-e7 that before the festival day of the ,pasch 4 4 4 when supper was done 4 4 4 ,christ washed the feet of the disciples4 ,but ,matthew's account 7#bf3ag7 seems opposed to this2 that on the first day of the ,azymes the disciples came to ,jesus1 saying3 ,where wilt ,thou that we prepare for ,thee to eat the ,pasch8 ,from which1 as ,jerome says1 since the fourteenth day of the first month is called the day of the ,azymes1 when the lamb was slain1 and when it was full moon1 it is quite clear that ,christ kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth4 ,and this comes out more clearly from ,mk4 #ad3ab3 ,on the first day of the unleavened bread1 when they sacrificed the ,pasch1 etc42 and from ,luke #bb3g3 ,the day of the unleavened bread came1 on which it was necessary that the ,pasch should be killed4 ,consequently1 then1 others say that ,christ ate the ,pasch with ,his disciples on the proper day--that is1 on the fourteenth day of the moon--showing thereby that up to the last day ,he was not opposed to the law1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxxxi in ,matth473 but that the ,jews1 being busied in compassing ,christ's death against the law1 put off celebrating the ,pasch until the following day4 ,and on this account it is said of them that on the day of ,christ's ,passion they were unwilling to enter ,pilate's hall1 that they might not be defiled1 but that they might eat the ,pasch4 ,but even this solution does not tally with ,mark1 who says3 ,on the first day of the unleavened bread1 when they sacrificed the ,pasch4 ,consequently ,christ and the ,jews celebrated the ancient ,pasch at the one time4 ,and as ,bede says on ,luke #bb3g1 #h3 ,although ,christ who is our ,pasch was slain on the following day--that is1 on the fifteenth day of the moon--nevertheless1 on the night when the ,lamb was sacrificed1 delivering to the disciples to be celebrated1 the mysteries of ,his body and blood1 and being held and bound by the ,jews1 ,he hallowed the opening of ,his own immolation--that is1 of ,his ,passion4 ,but the words 7,john #ac3a7 ,before the festival day of the ,pasch are to be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon1 which then fell upon the ,thursday3 for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn day of the ,pasch with the ,jews3 and so the same day which ,john calls before the festival day of the ,pasch1 on account of the natural distinction of days1 ,matthew calls the first day of the unleavened bread1 because1 according to the rite of the ,jewish festivity1 the solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day4 ,when it is said1 then1 that they were going to eat the ,pasch on the fifteenth day of the month1 it is to be understood that the ,pasch there is not called the ,paschal lamb1 which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day1 but the ,paschal food--that is1 the unleavened bread--which had to be eaten by the clean4 ,hence ,chrysostom in the same passage gives another explanation1 that the ,pasch can be taken as meaning the whole feast of the ,jews1 which lasted seven days4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 iii73 ',it was about the sixth hour' when the ,lord was delivered up by ,pilate to be crucified1 as ,john relates4 ,for it was not quite the sixth hour1 but about the sixth--that is1 it was after the fifth1 and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended--that the darkness began1 when ,christ hung upon the cross4 ,it is understood to have been the third hour when the ,jews clamored for the ,lord to be crucified3 and it is most clearly shown that they crucified ,him when they clamored out4 ,therefore1 lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the ,jews to the soldiers1 he says3 ',it was the third hour1 and they crucified ,him1' that they before all may be found to have crucified ,him1 who at the third hour clamored for ,his crucifixion4 ,although there are not wanting some persons who wish the ,parasceve to be understood as the third hour1 which ,john recalls1 saying3 ',it was the ,parasceve1 about the sixth hour4' ,for ',parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation4' ,but the true ,pasch1 which was celebrated in the ,lord's ,passion1 began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night--namely1 when the chief priests said3 ',he is deserving of death4' ,according to ,john1 then1 the sixth hour of the ,parasceve lasts from that hour of the night down to ,christ's crucifixion2 while1 according to ,mark1 it is the third hour of the day4 ,still1 there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a ,greek transcriber3 since the characters employed by them to represent #c and #f are somewhat alike4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to the author of ,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 lv1 our ,lord willed to redeem and reform the world by ,his ,passion1 at the time of year at which ,he had created it--that is1 at the equinox4 ,it is then that day grows upon night2 because by our ,saviour's ,passion we are brought from darkness to light4 ,and since the perfect enlightening will come about at ,christ's second coming1 therefore the season of ,his second coming is compared 7,matt4 #bd3cb1 #cc7 to the summer in these words3 ,when the branch thereof is now tender1 and the leaves come forth1 you know that summer is nigh3 so you also1 when you shall see all these things1 know ye that it is nigh even at the doors4 ,and then also shall be ,christ's greatest exaltation4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ willed to suffer while yet young1 for three reasons4 ,first of all1 to commend the more ,his love by giving up ,his life for us when ,he was in ,his most perfect state of life4 ,secondly1 because it was not becoming for ,him to show any decay of nature nor to be subject to disease1 as stated above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #d74 ,thirdly1 that by dying and rising at an early age ,christ might exhibit beforehand in ,his own person the future condition of those who rise again4 ,hence it is written 7,eph4 #d3ac73 ,until we all meet into the unity of faith1 and of the knowledge of the ,son of ,god1 unto a perfect man1 unto the measure of the age of the fulness of ,christ4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,christ ,suffered in a ,suitable ,place8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not suffer in a suitable place4 ,for ,christ suffered according to ,his human nature1 which was conceived in ,nazareth and born in ,bethlehem4 ,consequently it seems that ,he ought not to have suffered in ,jerusalem1 but in ,nazareth or ,bethlehem4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the reality ought to correspond with the figure4 ,but ,christ's ,passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the ,old ,law1 and these were offered up in the ,temple4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought to have suffered in the ,temple1 and not outside the city gate4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the medicine should correspond with the disease4 ,but ,christ's ,passion was the medicine against ,adam's sin3 and ,adam was not buried in ,jerusalem1 but in ,hebron2 for it is written 7,josh4 #ad3ae73 ,the name of ,hebron before was called ,cariath-,arbe3 ,adam the greatest in the land of ,vulg43 'among' the ,enacims was laid there4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #ac3cc73 ,it cannot be that a prophet perish out of ,jerusalem4 ,therefore it was fitting that ,he should die in ,jerusalem4 ,i answer that1 ,according to the author of ,de ,qq4 ,vet4 et ,nov4 ,test41 qu4 lv1 the ,saviour did everything in its proper place and season1 because1 as all things are in ,his hands1 so are all places3 and consequently1 since ,christ suffered at a suitable time1 so did ,he in a suitable place4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ died most appropriately in ,jerusalem4 ,first of all1 because ,jerusalem was ,god's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices to ,himself3 and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed ,christ's ,passion1 which is a true sacrifice1 according to ,eph4 #e3b3 ,he hath delivered ,himself for us1 an oblation and a sacrifice to ,god for an odor of sweetness4 ,hence ,bede says in a ,homily 7xxiii73 ,when the ,passion drew nigh1 our ,lord willed to draw nigh to the place of the ,passion--that is to say1 to ,jerusalem--whither ,he came five days before the ,pasch2 just as1 according to the legal precept1 the ,paschal lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the ,pasch1 which is the tenth day of the moon4 ,secondly1 because the virtue of ,his ,passion was to be spread over the whole world1 ,he wished to suffer in the center of the habitable world--that is1 in ,jerusalem4 ,accordingly it is written 7,ps4 #gc3ab73 ,but ,god is our ,king before ages3 ,he hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth--that is1 in ,jerusalem1 which is called the navel of the earth 99,cf4 ,jerome's comment on ,ezech4 #e3e4 ,thirdly1 because it was specially in keeping with ,his humility3 that1 as ,he chose the most shameful manner of death1 so likewise it was part of ,his humility that ,he did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place4 ,hence ,pope ,leo says 7,serm4 ,i in ,epiph473 ,he who had taken upon ,himself the form of a servant chose ,bethlehem for ,his nativity and ,jerusalem for ,his ,passion4 ,fourthly1 ,he willed to suffer in ,jerusalem1 where the chief priests dwelt1 to show that the wickedness of ,his slayers arose from the chiefs of the ,jewish people4 ,hence it is written 7,acts #d3bg73 ,there assembled together in this city against ,thy holy child ,jesus whom ,thou hast anointed1 ,herod1 and ,pontius ,pilate1 with the ,gentiles and the people of ,israel4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,for three reasons ,christ suffered outside the gate1 and not in the ,temple nor in the city4 ,first of all1 that the truth might correspond with the figure4 ,for the calf and the goat which were offered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the entire multitude were burnt outside the camp1 as commanded in ,lev4 #af3bg4 ,hence it is written 7,heb4 #ac3bg73 ,for the bodies of those beasts1 whose blood is brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin1 are burned without the camp4 ,wherefore ,jesus also1 that ,he might sanctify the people by ,his own blood1 suffered without the gate4 ,secondly1 to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation4 ,accordingly the passage continues3 ,let us go forth therefore to ,him without the camp1 bearing ,his reproach4 ,thirdly1 as ,chrysostom says in a sermon on the ,passion 7,hom4 i ,de ,cruce et ,latrone73 ,the ,lord was not willing to suffer under a roof1 nor in the ,jewish ,temple1 lest the ,jews might take away the saving sacrifice1 and lest you might think ,he was offered for that people only4 ,consequently1 it was beyond the city and outside the walls1 that you may learn it was a universal sacrifice1 an oblation for the whole world1 a cleansing for all4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to ,jerome1 in his commentary on ,matt4 #bg3cc1 someone explained 'the place of ,calvary' as being the place where ,adam was buried2 and that it was so called because the skull of the first man was buried there4 ,a pleasing interpretation indeed1 and one suited to catch the ear of the people1 but1 still1 not the true one4 ,for the spots where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates1 deriving thence the name of ,calvary--that is1 of the beheaded4 ,jesus1 accordingly1 was crucified there1 that the standards of martyrdom might be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned4 ,but ,adam was buried close by ,hebron and ,arbe1 as we read in the book of ,jesus ,ben ,nave4 ,but ,jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the condemned rather than beside ,adam's sepulchre1 to make it manifest that ,christ's cross was the remedy1 not only for ,adam's personal sin1 but also for the sin of the entire world4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,be ,crucified with ,thieves8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting for ,christ to have been crucified with thieves1 because it is written 7#b ,cor4 #f3ad73 ,what participation hath justice with injustice8 ,but for our sakes ,christ of ,god is made unto us justice 7#a ,cor4 #a3cj72 whereas iniquity applies to thieves4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ to be crucified with thieves4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,matt4 #bf3ce1 ,though ,i should die with ,thee1 ,i will not deny ,thee1 ,origen 7,tract4 xxxv in ,matth47 observes3 ,it was not men's lot to die with ,jesus1 since ,he died for all4 ,again1 on ,luke #bb3cc1 ,i am ready to go with ,thee1 both into prison and death1 ,ambrose says3 ,our ,lord's ,passion has followers1 but not equals4 ,it seems1 then1 much less fitting for ,christ to suffer with thieves4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,matt4 #bg3dd7 that the thieves who were crucified with ,him reproached ,him4 ,but in ,luke #bb3db it is stated that one of them who were crucified with ,christ cried out to ,him3 ,lord1 remember me when ,thou shalt come into ,thy kingdom4 ,it seems1 then1 that besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not blaspheme ,him3 and so the ,evangelist's account does not seem to be accurate when it says that ,christ was crucified with thieves4 ,on the contrary1 ,it was foretold by ,isaias 7#ec3ab73 ,and ,he was reputed with the wicked4 ,i answer that1 ,christ was crucified between thieves from one intention on the part of the ,jews1 and from quite another on the part of ,god's ordaining4 ,as to the intention of the ,jews1 ,chrysostom remarks 7,hom4 lxxxvii in ,matth47 that they crucified the two thieves1 one on either side1 that ,he might be made to share their guilt4 ,but it did not happen so2 because mention is never made of them2 whereas ,his cross is honored everywhere4 ,kings lay aside their crowns to take up the cross3 on their purple robes1 on their diadems1 on their weapons1 on the consecrated table1 everywhere the cross shines forth4 ,as to ,god's ordinance1 ,christ was crucified with thieves1 because1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #bg3cc3 ,as ,christ became accursed of the cross for us1 so for our salvation ,he was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty4 ,secondly1 as ,pope ,leo observes 7,serm4 iv de ,passione73 ,two thieves were crucified1 one on ,his right hand and one on ,his left1 to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in ,his hour of judgment4 ,and ,augustine on ,john #g3cf3 ,the very cross1 if thou mark it well1 was a judgment-seat3 for the judge being set in the midst1 the one who believed was delivered1 the other who mocked ,him was condemned4 ,already ,he has signified what ,he shall do to the quick and the dead2 some ,he will set on ,his right1 others on ,his left hand4 ,thirdly1 according to ,hilary 7,comm4 xxxiii in ,matth473 ,two thieves are set1 one upon ,his right and one upon ,his left1 to show that all mankind is called to the sacrament of ,his ,passion4 ,but because of the cleavage between believers and unbelievers1 the multitude is divided into right and left1 those on the right being saved by the justification of faith4 ,fourthly1 because1 as ,bede says on ,mk4 #ae3bg3 ,the thieves crucified with our ,lord denote those who1 believing in and confessing ,christ1 either endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter observance4 ,but those who do the like for the sake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right2 while others who do so for the sake of human applause copy the mind and behavior of the one on the left4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,just as ,christ was not obliged to die1 but willingly submitted to death so as to vanquish death by ,his power3 so neither deserved ,he to be classed with thieves2 but willed to be reputed with the ungodly that ,he might destroy ungodliness by ,his power4 ,accordingly1 ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxxxiv in ,joan47 that to convert the thief upon the cross1 and lead him into paradise1 was no less a wonder than to shake the rocks4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was not fitting that anyone else should die with ,christ from the same cause as ,christ3 hence ,origen continues thus in the same passage3 ,all had been under sin1 and all required that another should die for them1 not they for others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,consensu ,evang4 iii73 ,we can understand ,matthew as putting the plural for the singular when he said the thieves reproached ,him4 ,or it may be said1 with ,jerome1 that at first both blasphemed ,him1 but afterwards one believed in ,him on witnessing the wonders4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #df1 ,art4 #ab ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,is to ,be ,attributed to ,his ,godhead8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion is to be attributed to ,his ,godhead2 for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #b3h73 ,if they had known it1 they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,but ,christ is the ,lord of glory in respect of ,his ,godhead4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion is attributed to ,him in respect of ,his ,godhead4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the principle of men's salvation is the ,godhead ,itself1 according to ,ps4 #cf3ci3 ,but the salvation of the just is from the ,lord4 ,consequently1 if ,christ's ,passion did not appertain to ,his ,godhead1 it would seem that it could not produce fruit in us4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,jews were punished for slaying ,christ as for murdering ,god ,himself2 as is proved by the gravity of the punishment4 ,now this would not be so if the ,passion were not attributed to the ,godhead4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion should be so attributed4 ,on the contrary1 ,athanasius says 7,ep4 ad ,epict473 ,the ,word is impassible whose ,nature is ,divine4 ,but what is impassible cannot suffer4 ,consequently1 ,christ's ,passion did not concern ,his ,godhead4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #c1 #f71 the union of the human nature with the ,divine was effected in the ,person1 in the hypostasis1 in the suppositum1 yet observing the distinction of natures2 so that it is the same ,person and hypostasis of the ,divine and human natures1 while each nature retains that which is proper to it4 ,and therefore1 as stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,a4 #d71 the ,passion is to be attributed to the suppositum of the ,divine ,nature1 not because of the ,divine ,nature1 which is impassible1 but by reason of the human nature4 ,hence1 in a ,synodal ,epistle of ,cyril 99,act4 ,conc4 ,ephes41 ,p4 i1 cap4 #bf we read3 ,if any man does not confess that the ,word of ,god suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh1 let him be anathema4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion belongs to the suppositum of the ,divine ,nature by reason of the passible nature assumed1 but not on account of the impassible ,divine ,nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,lord of glory is said to be crucified1 not as the ,lord of glory1 but as a man capable of suffering4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as is said in a sermon of the ,council of ,ephesus 99,p4 iii1 cap4 #aj1 ,christ's death being1 as it were1 ,god's death--namely1 by union in ,person--destroyed death2 since ,he who suffered was both ,god and man4 ,for ,god's ,nature was not wounded1 nor did ,it undergo any change by those sufferings4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the passage quoted goes on to say3 ,the ,jews did not crucify one who was simply a man2 they inflicted their presumptions upon ,god4 ,for suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth1 and that his words are committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the cities1 and that some rebel tears up the document1 he will be led forth to endure the death sentence1 not for merely tearing up a document1 but as destroying the imperial message4 ,let not the ,jew1 then1 stand in security1 as crucifying a mere man2 since what he saw was as the parchment1 but what was hidden under it was the imperial ,word1 the ,son by nature1 not the mere utterance of a tongue4 ,,question #dg ,,of ,,the ,,efficient ,,cause ,,of ,,christ',s ,,passion 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the efficient cause of ,christ's ,passion1 concerning which there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ was slain by others1 or by ,himself8 7#b7 ,from what motive did ,he deliver ,himself up to the ,passion8 7#c7 ,whether the ,father delivered ,him up to suffer8 7#d7 ,whether it was fitting that ,he should suffer at the hands of the ,gentiles1 or rather of the ,jews8 7#e7 ,whether ,his slayers knew who ,he was8 7#f7 ,of the sin of them who slew ,christ4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,was ,slain by ,another or by ,himself8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not slain by another1 but by ,himself4 ,for ,he says ,himself 7,john #aj3ah73 ,no man taketh ,my life from ,me1 but ,i lay it down of ,myself4 ,but he is said to kill another who takes away his life4 ,consequently1 ,christ was not slain by others1 but by ,himself4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted nature1 and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified3 for1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,those who were crucified were tormented with a lingering death4 ,but this did not happen in ,christ's case1 since crying out1 with a loud voice1 ,he yielded up the ghost 7,matt4 #bg3ej74 ,therefore ,christ was not slain by others1 but by ,himself4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 those slain by others suffer a violent death1 and hence die unwillingly1 because violent is opposed to voluntary4 ,but ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,christ's spirit did not quit the flesh unwillingly1 but because ,he willed it1 when ,he willed it1 and as ,he willed it4 ,consequently ,christ was not slain by others1 but by ,himself4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #ah3cc73 ,after they have scourged ,him1 they will put him to death4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing may cause an effect in two ways3 in the first instance by acting directly so as to produce the effect2 and in this manner ,christ's persecutors slew ,him because they inflicted on ,him what was a sufficient cause of death1 and with the intention of slaying ,him1 and the effect followed1 since death resulted from that cause4 ,in another way someone causes an effect indirectly--that is1 by not preventing it when he can do so2 just as one person is said to drench another by not closing the window through which the shower is entering3 and in this way ,christ was the cause of ,his own ,passion and death4 ,for ,he could have prevented ,his ,passion and death4 ,firstly1 by holding ,his enemies in check1 so that they would not have been eager to slay ,him1 or would have been powerless to do so4 ,secondly1 because ,his spirit had the power of preserving ,his fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury2 and ,christ's soul had this power1 because it was united in unity of person with the ,divine ,word1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv74 ,therefore1 since ,christ's soul did not repel the injury inflicted on ,his body1 but willed ,his corporeal nature to succumb to such injury1 ,he is said to have laid down ,his life1 or to have died voluntarily4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when we hear the words1 ,no man taketh away ,my life from ,me1 we must understand against ,my will3 for that is properly said to be taken away which one takes from someone who is unwilling and unable to resist4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in order for ,christ to show that the ,passion inflicted by violence did not take away ,his life1 ,he preserved the strength of ,his bodily nature1 so that at the last moment ,he was able to cry out with a loud voice3 and hence ,his death should be computed among ,his other miracles4 ,accordingly it is written 7,mk4 #ae3ci73 ,and the centurion who stood over against ,him1 seeing that crying out in this manner1 ,he had given up the ghost1 said3 ,indeed1 this man was the ,son of ,god4 ,it was also a subject of wonder in ,christ's death that ,he died sooner than the others who were tormented with the same suffering4 ,hence ,john says 7#ai3cb7 that they broke the legs of the first1 and of the other that was crucified with ,him1 that they might die more speedily2 but after they were come to ,jesus1 when they saw that ,he was already dead1 they did not break ,his legs4 ,mark also states 7#ae3dd7 that ,pilate wondered that ,he should be already dead4 ,for as of ,his own will ,his bodily nature kept its vigor to the end1 so likewise1 when ,he willed1 ,he suddenly succumbed to the injury inflicted4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ at the same time suffered violence in order to die1 and died1 nevertheless1 voluntarily2 because violence was inflicted on ,his body1 which1 however1 prevailed over ,his body only so far as ,he willed it4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,died ,out of ,obedience8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not die out of obedience4 ,for obedience is referred to a command4 ,but we do not read that ,christ was commanded to suffer4 ,therefore ,he did not suffer out of obedience4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a man is said to do from obedience what he does from necessity of precept4 ,but ,christ did not suffer necessarily1 but voluntarily4 ,therefore ,he did not suffer out of obedience4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience4 ,but we read that ,christ suffered out of charity1 according to ,eph4 #e3b3 ,walk in love1 as ,christ also has loved us1 and delivered ,himself up for us4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion ought to be ascribed rather to charity than to obedience4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #b3h73 ,he became obedient to the ,father unto death4 ,i answer that1 ,it was befitting that ,christ should suffer out of obedience4 ,first of all1 because it was in keeping with human justification1 that as by the disobedience of one man1 many were made sinners3 so also by the obedience of one1 many shall be made just1 as is written ,rom4 #e3ai4 ,secondly1 it was suitable for reconciling man with ,god3 hence it is written 7,rom4 #e3aj73 ,we are reconciled to ,god by the death of ,his ,son1 in so far as ,christ's death was a most acceptable sacrifice to ,god1 according to ,eph4 #e3b3 ,he delivered ,himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to ,god for an odor of sweetness4 ,now obedience is preferred to all sacrifices4 according to #a ,kings #ae3bb3 ,obedience is better than sacrifices4 ,therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of ,christ's ,passion and death should proceed from obedience4 ,thirdly1 it was in keeping with ,his victory whereby ,he triumphed over death and its author2 because a soldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain4 ,and so the ,man-,christ secured the victory through being obedient to ,god1 according to ,prov4 #ba3bh3 ,an obedient man shall speak of victory4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ received a command from the ,father to suffer4 ,for it is written 7,john #aj3ah73 ,i have power to lay down ,my life1 and ,i have power to take it up again3 7and7 this commandment have ,i received of ,my ,father--namely1 of laying down ,his life and of resuming it again4 ,from which1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lix in ,joan471 it is not to be understood that at first ,he awaited the command1 and that ,he had need to be told1 but ,he showed the proceeding to be a voluntary one1 and destroyed suspicion of opposition to the ,father4 ,yet because the ,old ,law was ended by ,christ's death1 according to ,his dying words1 ,it is consummated 7,john #ai3cj71 it may be understood that by ,his suffering ,he fulfilled all the precepts of the ,old ,law4 ,he fulfilled those of the moral order which are founded on the precepts of charity1 inasmuch as ,he suffered both out of love of the ,father1 according to ,john #ad3ca3 ,that the world may know that ,i love the ,father1 and as the ,father hath given ,me commandment1 so do ,i3 arise1 let us go hence--namely1 to the place of ,his ,passion3 and out of love of ,his neighbor1 according to ,gal4 #b3bj3 ,he loved me1 and delivered ,himself up for me4 ,christ likewise by ,his ,passion fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the ,law1 which are chiefly ordained for sacrifices and oblations1 in so far as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of that true sacrifice which the dying ,christ offered for us4 ,hence it is written 7,col4 #b3af1 #ag73 ,let no man judge you in meat or drink1 or in respect of a festival day1 or of the new moon1 or of the sabbaths1 which are a shadow of things to come1 but the body is ,christ's1 for the reason that ,christ is compared to them as a body is to a shadow4 ,christ also by ,his ,passion fulfilled the judicial precepts of the ,law1 which are chiefly ordained for making compensation to them who have suffered wrong1 since1 as is written ,ps4 #fh3e3 ,he paid that which ,he took not away1 suffering ,himself to be fastened to a tree on account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against ,god's command4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although obedience implies necessity with regard to the thing commanded1 nevertheless it implies free-will with regard to the fulfilling of the precept4 ,and1 indeed1 such was ,christ's obedience1 for1 although ,his ,passion and death1 considered in themselves1 were repugnant to the natural will1 yet ,christ resolved to fulfill ,god's will with respect to the same1 according to ,ps4 #ci3i3 ,that ,i should do ,thy will3 ,o my ,god1 ,i have desired it4 ,hence ,he said 7,matt4 #bf3db73 ,if this chalice may not pass away1 but ,i must drink it1 ,thy will be done4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,for the same reason ,christ suffered out of charity and out of obedience2 because ,he fulfilled even the precepts of charity out of obedience only2 and was obedient1 out of love1 to the ,father's command4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,god the ,father ,delivered ,up ,christ to the ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,god the ,father did not deliver up ,christ to the ,passion4 ,for it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and death4 ,but1 as it is written 7,deut4 #cb3d73 ,god is faithful1 and without any iniquity4 ,therefore ,he did not hand over the innocent ,christ to ,his ,passion and death4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is not likely that a man be given over to death by himself and by another also4 ,but ,christ gave ,himself up for us1 as it is written 7,isa4 #ec3ab73 ,he hath delivered ,his soul unto death4 ,consequently it does not appear that ,god the ,father delivered ,him up4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed ,christ to the ,jews1 according to ,john #f3ga3 ,one of you is a devil1 alluding to ,judas1 who was to betray ,him4 ,the ,jews are likewise reviled for delivering ,him up to ,pilate2 as we read in ,john #ah3ce3 ,thy own nation1 and the chief priests have delivered ,thee up to me4 ,moreover1 as is related in ,john #ai3af3 ,pilate delivered ,him to them to be crucified2 and according to #b ,cor4 #f3ad3 there is no participation of justice with injustice4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,god the ,father did not deliver up ,christ to ,his ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #h3cb73 ,god hath not spared ,his own ,son1 but delivered ,him up for us all4 ,i answer that1 ,as observed above 7,a4 #b71 ,christ suffered voluntarily out of obedience to the ,father4 ,hence in three respects ,god the ,father did deliver up ,christ to the ,passion4 ,in the first way1 because by ,his eternal will ,he preordained ,christ's ,passion for the deliverance of the human race1 according to the words of ,isaias 7#ec3f73 ,the ,lord hath laid on ,him the iniquities of us all2 and again 7,isa4 #ec3aj73 ,the ,lord was pleased to bruise ,him in infirmity4 ,secondly1 inasmuch as1 by the infusion of charity1 ,he inspired ,him with the will to suffer for us2 hence we read in the same passage3 ,he was offered because it was ,his own will 7,isa4 #ec3g74 ,thirdly1 by not shielding ,him from the ,passion1 but abandoning ,him to ,his persecutors3 thus we read 7,matt4 #bg3df7 that ,christ1 while hanging upon the cross1 cried out3 ,my ,god1 ,my ,god1 why hast ,thou forsaken ,me8 because1 to wit1 ,he left ,him to the power of ,his persecutors1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 cxl74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and to death against his will4 ,yet ,god the ,father did not so deliver up ,christ1 but inspired ,him with the will to suffer for us4 ,god's severity 7cf4 ,rom4 #aa3bb7 is thereby shown1 for ,he would not remit sin without penalty3 and the ,apostle indicates this when 7,rom4 #h3cb7 he says3 ,god spared not even ,his own ,son4 ,likewise ,his goodness 7,rom4 #aa3bb7 shines forth1 since by no penalty endured could man pay ,him enough satisfaction3 and the ,apostle denotes this when he says3 ,he delivered ,him up for us all3 and1 again 7,rom4 #c3be73 ,whom--that is to say1 ,christ--,god hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in ,his blood4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ as ,god delivered ,himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the ,father delivered ,him up2 but as man ,he gave ,himself up by a will inspired of the ,father4 ,consequently there is no contrariety in the ,father delivering ,him up and in ,christ delivering ,himself up4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the same act1 for good or evil1 is judged differently1 accordingly as it proceeds from a different source4 ,the ,father delivered up ,christ1 and ,christ surrendered ,himself1 from charity1 and consequently we give praise to both3 but ,judas betrayed ,christ from greed1 the ,jews from envy1 and ,pilate from worldly fear1 for he stood in fear of ,caesar2 and these accordingly are held guilty4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,suffer at the ,hands of the ,gentiles8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that ,christ should suffer at the hands of the ,gentiles4 ,for since men were to be freed from sin by ,christ's death1 it would seem fitting that very few should sin in ,his death4 ,but the ,jews sinned in ,his death1 on whose behalf it is said 7,matt4 #ba3ch73 ,this is the heir2 come1 let us kill him4 ,it seems fitting1 therefore1 that the ,gentiles should not be implicated in the sin of ,christ's slaying4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the truth should respond to the figure4 ,now it was not the ,gentiles but the ,jews who offered the figurative sacrifices of the ,old ,law4 ,therefore neither ought ,christ's ,passion1 which was a true sacrifice1 to be fulfilled at the hands of the ,gentiles4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as related ,john #e3ah1 the ,jews sought to kill ,christ because ,he did not only break the sabbath1 but also said ,god was ,his ,father1 making ,himself equal to ,god4 ,but these things seemed to be only against the ,law of the ,jews3 hence they themselves said 7,john #ai3g73 ,according to the ,law ,he ought to die because ,he made ,himself the ,son of ,god4 ,it seems fitting1 therefore1 that ,christ should suffer1 at the hands not of the ,gentiles1 but of the ,jews1 and that what they said was untrue3 ,it is not lawful for us to put any man to death1 since many sins are punishable with death according to the ,law1 as is evident from ,lev4 #bj4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord ,himself says 7,matt4 #bj3ai73 ,they shall deliver ,him to the ,gentiles to be mocked1 and scourged1 and crucified4 ,i answer that1 ,the effect of ,christ's ,passion was foreshown by the very manner of ,his death4 ,for ,christ's ,passion wrought its effect of salvation first of all among the ,jews1 very many of whom were baptized in ,his death1 as is evident from ,acts #b3da and ,acts #d3d4 ,afterwards1 by the preaching of ,jews1 ,christ's ,passion passed on to the ,gentiles4 ,consequently it was fitting that ,christ should begin ,his sufferings at the hands of the ,jews1 and1 after they had delivered ,him up1 finish ,his ,passion at the hands of the ,gentiles4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in order to demonstrate the fulness of ,his love1 on account of which ,he suffered1 ,christ upon the cross prayed for ,his persecutors4 ,therefore1 that the fruits of ,his petition might accrue to ,jews and ,gentiles1 ,christ willed to suffer from both4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's ,passion was the offering of a sacrifice1 inasmuch as ,he endured death of ,his own free-will out of charity3 but in so far as ,he suffered from ,his persecutors it was not a sacrifice1 but a most grievous sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,tract4 cxiv in ,joan473 ,the ,jews said that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death1' because they understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death owing to the sacredness of the feast-day1 which they had already begun to celebrate4 or1 as ,chrysostom observes 7,hom4 lxxxiii in ,joan471 because they wanted ,him to be slain1 not as a transgressor of the ,law1 but as a public enemy1 since ,he had made ,himself out to be a king1 of which it was not their place to judge4 ,or1 again1 because it was not lawful for them to crucify ,him 7as they wanted to71 but to stone ,him1 as they did to ,stephen4 ,better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was taken from them by the ,romans1 whose subjects they were4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ's ,persecutors ,knew ,who ,he ,was8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's persecutors did know who ,he was4 ,for it is written 7,matt4 #ba3ch7 that the husbandmen seeing the son said within themselves3 ,this is the heir2 come1 let us kill him4 ,on this ,jerome remarks3 ,our ,lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the ,jews crucified the ,son of ,god1 not from ignorance1 but out of envy3 for they understood that it was ,he to whom the ,father says by the ,prophet3 ',ask of ,me1 and ,i will give ,thee the ,gentiles for ,thy inheritance4' ,it seems1 therefore1 that they knew ,him to be ,christ or the ,son of ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord says 7,john #ae3bd73 ,but now they have both seen and hated both ,me and ,my ,father4 ,now what is seen is known manifestly4 ,therefore the ,jews1 knowing ,christ1 inflicted the ,passion on ,him out of hatred4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is said in a sermon delivered in the ,council of ,ephesus 7,p4 iii1 cap4 x73 ,just as he who tears up the imperial message is doomed to die1 as despising the prince's word2 so the ,jew1 who crucified ,him whom he had seen1 will pay the penalty for daring to lay his hands on ,god the ,word ,himself4 ,now this would not be so had they not known ,him to be the ,son of ,god1 because their ignorance would have excused them4 ,therefore it seems that the ,jews in crucifying ,christ knew ,him to be the ,son of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,cor4 #b3h73 ,if they had known it1 they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,and 7,acts #c3ag71 ,peter1 addressing the ,jews1 says3 ,i know that you did it through ignorance1 as did also your rulers4 ,likewise the ,lord hanging upon the cross said3 ,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do 7,luke #bc3cd74 ,i answer that1 ,among the ,jews some were elders1 and others of lesser degree4 ,now according to the author of ,de ,qq4 ,nov4 et ,vet4 ,test41 qu4 lxvi1 the elders1 who were called rulers1 knew1 as did also the devils1 that ,he was the ,christ promised in the ,law3 for they saw all the signs in ,him which the prophets said would come to pass3 but they did not know the mystery of ,his ,godhead4 ,consequently the ,apostle says3 ,if they had known it1 they would never have crucified the ,lord of glory4 ,it must1 however1 be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime1 because it was1 as it were1 affected ignorance4 ,for they saw manifest signs of ,his ,godhead2 yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of ,christ2 neither would they believe ,his words1 whereby ,he avowed that ,he was the ,son of ,god4 ,hence ,he ,himself says of them 7,john #ae3bb73 ,if ,i had not come1 and spoken to them1 they would not have sin2 but now they have no excuse for their sin4 ,and afterwards ,he adds 7,john #ae3bd73 ,if ,i had not done among them the works that no other man hath done1 they would not have sin4 ,and so the expression employed by ,job 7#ba3ad7 can be accepted on their behalf3 7,who7 said to ,god3 depart from us1 we desire not the knowledge of ,thy ways4 ,but those of lesser degree--namely1 the common folk--who had not grasped the mysteries of the ,scriptures1 did not fully comprehend that ,he was the ,christ or the ,son of ,god4 ,for although some of them believed in ,him1 yet the multitude did not2 and if they doubted sometimes whether ,he was the ,christ1 on account of the manifold signs and force of ,his teaching1 as is stated ,john #g3ca1 #da1 nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers1 so that they did not believe ,him to be the ,son of ,god or the ,christ4 ,hence ,peter said to them3 ,i know that you did it through ignorance1 as did also your rulers--namely1 because they were seduced by the rulers4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard2 and these signify the rulers of the people1 who knew ,him to be the heir1 inasmuch as they knew ,him to be the ,christ promised in the ,law1 but the words of ,ps4 #b3h seem to militate against this answer3 ,ask of ,me1 and ,i will give ,thee the ,gentiles for ,thy inheritance2 which are addressed to ,him of whom it is said3 ,thou art ,my ,son1 this day have ,i begotten ,thee4 ,if1 then1 they knew ,him to be the one to whom the words were addressed3 ,ask of ,me1 and ,i will give ,thee the ,gentiles for ,thy inheritance1 it follows that they knew ,him to be the ,son of ,god4 ,chrysostom1 too1 says upon the same passage that they knew ,him to be the ,son of ,god4 ,bede likewise1 commenting on the words1 ,for they know not what they do 7,luke #bc3cd71 says3 ,it is to be observed that ,he does not pray for them who1 understanding ,him to be the ,son of ,god1 preferred to crucify ,him rather than acknowledge ,him4 ,but to this it may be replied that they knew ,him to be the ,son of ,god1 not from ,his ,nature1 but from the excellence of ,his singular grace4 ,yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that ,he was verily the ,son of ,god1 in that they had evident signs thereof3 yet out of hatred and envy1 they refused credence to these signs1 by which they might have known that ,he was the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the words quoted are preceded by the following3 ,if ,i had not done among them the works that no other man hath done1 they would not have sin2 and then follow the words3 ,but now they have both seen and hated both ,me and ,my ,father4 ,now all this shows that while they beheld ,christ's marvelous works1 it was owing to their hatred that they did not know ,him to be the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt1 but seems1 rather1 to aggravate it3 for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning4 ,the ,jews therefore sinned1 as crucifiers not only of the ,man-,christ1 but also as of ,god4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dg1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,sin of ,those ,who ,crucified ,christ ,was ,most ,grievous8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the sin of ,christ's crucifiers was not the most grievous4 ,because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most grievous4 ,but our ,lord ,himself excused the sin of ,his crucifiers when ,he said3 ,father1 forgive them3 for they know not what they do 7,luke #bc3cd74 ,therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord said to ,pilate 7,john #ai3aa73 ,he that hath delivered ,me to thee hath the greater sin4 ,but it was ,pilate who caused ,christ to be crucified by his minions4 ,therefore the sin of ,judas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 v73 ,no one suffers injustice willingly2 and in the same place he adds3 ,where no one suffers injustice1 nobody works injustice4 ,consequently nobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject4 ,but ,christ suffered willingly1 as was shown above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,therefore those who crucified ,christ did ,him no injustice2 and hence their sin was not the most grievous4 ,on the contrary1 ,chrysostom1 commenting on the words1 ,fill ye up1 then1 the measure of your fathers 7,matt4 #bc3cb71 says3 ,in very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers2 for these latter slew men1 but they crucified ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #e71 the rulers of the ,jews knew that ,he was the ,christ3 and if there was any ignorance in them1 it was affected ignorance1 which could not excuse them4 ,therefore their sin was the most grievous1 both on account of the kind of sin1 as well as from the malice of their will4 ,the ,jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin3 yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance4 ,hence ,bede1 commenting on ,luke #bc3cd1 ,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do1 says3 ,he prays for them who know not what they are doing1 as having the zeal of ,god1 but not according to knowledge4 ,but the sin of the ,gentiles1 by whose hands ,he was crucified1 was much more excusable1 since they had no knowledge of the ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above1 the excuse made by our ,lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the ,jews1 but to the common people4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,judas did not deliver up ,christ to ,pilate1 but to the chief priests who gave ,him up to ,pilate1 according to ,john #ah3ce3 ,thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered ,thee up to me4 ,but the sin of all these was greater than that of ,pilate1 who slew ,christ from fear of ,caesar2 and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified ,him at the governor's bidding1 not out of cupidity like ,judas1 nor from envy and hate like the chief priests4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ1 indeed willed ,his ,passion just as the ,father willed it2 yet ,he did not will the unjust action of the ,jews4 ,consequently ,christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice4 ,nevertheless1 whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain1 but likewise to ,god and to the ,state2 just as he who kills himself1 as the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 v74 ,hence it was that ,david condemned to death the man who did not fear to lay hands upon the ,lord's anointed1 even though he 7,saul7 had requested it1 as related #b ,kings #a3e-ad4 ,,question #dh ,,of ,,the ,,efficiency ,,of ,,christ',s ,,passion 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we now have to consider ,christ's ,passion as to its effect2 first of all1 as to the manner in which it was brought about2 and1 secondly1 as to the effect in itself4 ,under the first heading there are six points for inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's ,passion brought about our salvation by way of merit8 7#b7 ,whether it was by way of atonement8 7#c7 ,whether it was by way of sacrifice8 7#d7 ,whether it was by way of redemption8 7#e7 ,whether it is proper to ,christ to be the ,redeemer8 7#f7 ,whether 7the ,passion7 secured man's salvation efficiently8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,brought ,about ,our ,salvation by ,way of ,merit8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion did not bring about our salvation by way of merit4 ,for the sources of our sufferings are not within us4 ,but no one merits or is praised except for that whose principle lies within him4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion wrought nothing by way of merit4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 from the beginning of ,his conception ,christ merited for ,himself and for us1 as stated above 7,q4 #i1 ,a4 #d2 ,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #c74 ,but it is superfluous to merit over again what has been merited before4 ,therefore by ,his ,passion ,christ did not merit our salvation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the source of merit is charity4 ,but ,christ's charity was not made greater by the ,passion than it was before4 ,therefore ,he did not merit our salvation by suffering more than ,he had already4 ,on the contrary1 on the words of ,phil4 #b3i1 ,therefore ,god exalted ,him1 etc41 ,augustine says 7,tract4 civ in ,joan473 ,the lowliness of the ,passion merited glory2 glory was the reward of lowliness4 ,but ,he was glorified1 not merely in ,himself1 but likewise in ,his faithful ones1 as ,he says ,himself 7,john #ag3aj74 ,therefore it appears that ,he merited the salvation of the faithful4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #g1 ,,aa4 #a1 #i2 ,q4 #h1 ,,aa4 #a1 #e71 grace was bestowed upon ,christ1 not only as an individual1 but inasmuch as ,he is the ,head of the ,church1 so that it might overflow into ,his members2 and therefore ,christ's works are referred to ,himself and to ,his members in the same way as the works of any other man in a state of grace are referred to himself4 ,but it is evident that whosoever suffers for justice's sake1 provided that he be in a state of grace1 merits his salvation thereby1 according to ,matt4 #e3aj3 ,blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake4 ,consequently ,christ by ,his ,passion merited salvation1 not only for ,himself1 but likewise for all ,his members4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,suffering1 as such1 is caused by an outward principle3 but inasmuch as one bears it willingly1 it has an inward principle4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,from the beginning of ,his conception ,christ merited our eternal salvation2 but on our side there were some obstacles1 whereby we were hindered from securing the effect of ,his preceding merits3 consequently1 in order to remove such hindrances1 it was necessary for ,christ to suffer1 as stated above 7,q4 #df1 ,a4 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion has a special effect1 which ,his preceding merits did not possess1 not on account of greater charity1 but because of the nature of the work1 which was suitable for such an effect1 as is clear from the arguments brought forward above all the fittingness of ,christ's ,passion 7,q4 #df1 ,,aa1 #c1 #d74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,brought ,about ,our ,salvation by ,way of ,atonement8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion did not bring about our salvation by way of atonement4 ,for it seems that to make the atonement devolves on him who commits the sin2 as is clear in the other parts of penance1 because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and confess it4 ,but ,christ never sinned1 according to #a ,pet4 #b3bb3 ,who did no sin4 ,therefore ,he made no atonement by ,his personal suffering4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no atonement is made to another by committing a graver offense4 ,but in ,christ's ,passion the gravest of all offenses was perpetrated1 because those who slew ,him sinned most grievously1 as stated above 7,q4 #dg1 ,a4 #f74 ,consequently it seems that atonement could not be made to ,god by ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 atonement implies equality with the trespass1 since it is an act of justice4 ,but ,christ's ,passion does not appear equal to all the sins of the human race1 because ,christ did not suffer in ,his ,godhead1 but in ,his flesh1 according to #a ,pet4 #d3a3 ,christ therefore having suffered in the flesh4 ,now the soul1 which is the subject of sin1 is of greater account than the flesh4 ,therefore ,christ did not atone for our sins by ,his ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #fh3e7 in ,christ's person3 ,then did ,i pay that which ,i took not away4 ,but he has not paid who has not fully atoned4 ,therefore it appears that ,christ by ,his suffering has fully atoned for our sins4 ,i answer that1 ,he properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally1 or even more than he detested the offense4 ,but by suffering out of love and obedience1 ,christ gave more to ,god than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race4 ,first of all1 because of the exceeding charity from which ,he suffered2 secondly1 on account of the dignity of ,his life which ,he laid down in atonement1 for it was the life of one who was ,god and man2 thirdly1 on account of the extent of the ,passion1 and the greatness of the grief endured1 as stated above 7,q4 #df1 ,a4 #f74 ,and therefore ,christ's ,passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race2 according to #a ,john #b3b3 ,he is the propitiation for our sins3 and not for ours only1 but also for those of the whole world4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the head and members are as one mystic person2 and therefore ,christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being ,his members4 ,also1 in so far as any two men are one in charity1 the one can atone for the other as shall be shown later 7,suppl41 ,q4 #ac1 ,a4 #b74 ,but the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition1 because atonement consists in an outward action1 for which helps may be used1 among which friends are to be computed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's love was greater than ,his slayers' malice3 and therefore the value of ,his ,passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified ,him3 so much so that ,christ's suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for ,his murderer's crime4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the dignity of ,christ's flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh1 but also from the ,person assuming it--namely1 inasmuch as it was ,god's flesh1 the result of which was that it was of infinite worth4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,operated by ,way of ,sacrifice8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion did not operate by way of sacrifice4 ,for the truth should correspond with the figure4 ,but human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the ,old ,law1 which were figures of ,christ3 nay1 such sacrifices were reputed as impious1 according to ,ps4 #aje3ch3 ,and they shed innocent blood3 the blood of their sons and of their daughters1 which they sacrificed to the idols of ,chanaan4 ,it seems therefore that ,christ's ,passion cannot be called a sacrifice4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei x7 that a visible sacrifice is a sacrament--that is1 a sacred sign--of an invisible sacrifice4 ,now ,christ's ,passion is not a sign1 but rather the thing signified by other signs4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,passion is not a sacrifice4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite1 as the very word sacrifice shows4 ,but those men who slew ,christ did not perform any sacred act1 but rather wrought a great wrong4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #e3b73 ,he delivered ,himself up for us1 an oblation and a sacrifice to ,god for an odor of sweetness4 ,i answer that1 ,a sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to ,god1 in order to appease ,him3 and hence it is that ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei x73 ,a true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to ,god in holy fellowship1 yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed4 ,but1 as is added in the same place1 ,christ offered ,himself up for us in the ,passion3 and this voluntary enduring of the ,passion was most acceptable to ,god1 as coming from charity4 ,therefore it is manifest that ,christ's ,passion was a true sacrifice4 ,moreover1 as ,augustine says farther on in the same book1 the primitive sacrifices of the holy ,fathers were many and various signs of this true sacrifice1 one being prefigured by many1 in the same way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words1 in order to commend it without tediousness3 and1 as ,augustine observe1 7,de ,trin4 iv71 since there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice--to wit1 to whom it is offered1 by whom it is offered1 what is offered1 and for whom it is offered--that the same one true ,mediator reconciling us with ,god through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with ,him to whom ,he offered it1 might be one with them for whom ,he offered it1 and might ,himself be the offerer and what ,he offered4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the truth answers to the figure in some respects1 yet it does not in all1 since the truth must go beyond the figure4 ,therefore the figure of this sacrifice1 in which ,christ's flesh is offered1 was flesh right fittingly1 not the flesh of men1 but of animals1 as denoting ,christ's4 ,and this is a most perfect sacrifice4 ,first of all1 since being flesh of human nature1 it is fittingly offered for men1 and is partaken of by them under the ,sacrament4 ,secondly1 because being passible and mortal1 it was fit for immolation4 ,thirdly1 because1 being sinless1 it had virtue to cleanse from sins4 ,fourthly1 because1 being the offerer's own flesh1 it was acceptable to ,god on account of ,his charity in offering up ,his own flesh4 ,hence it is that ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,what else could be so fittingly partaken of by men1 or offered up for men1 as human flesh8 ,what else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh8 ,what else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence1 and coming from a virginal womb8 ,what could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice1 which was made the body of our ,priest8 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices3 and even ,christ's ,passion1 although denoted by other figurative sacrifices1 is yet a sign of something to be observed by us1 according to #a ,pet4 #d3a3 ,christ therefore1 having suffered in the flesh1 be you also armed with the same thought3 for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins3 that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh1 not after the desires of men1 but according to the will of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion was indeed a malefice on ,his slayers' part2 but on ,his own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of charity4 ,hence it is ,christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice1 and not the executioners4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,brought ,about ,our ,salvation by ,way of ,redemption8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion did not effect our salvation by way of redemption4 ,for no one purchases or redeems what never ceased to belong to him4 ,but men never ceased to belong to ,god according to ,ps4 #bc3a3 ,the earth is the ,lord's and the fulness thereof3 the world and all they that dwell therein4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not redeem us by ,his ,passion4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii73 ,the devil had to be overthrown by ,christ's justice4 ,but justice requires that the man who has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it1 because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone1 as even human laws declare4 ,consequently1 since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man1 who is ,god's creature1 it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of redemption4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder4 ,but it was not to the devil1 who held us in bondage1 that ,christ paid ,his blood as the price of our redemption4 ,therefore ,christ did not redeem us by ,his ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,pet4 #a3ah73 ,you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers3 but with the precious blood of ,christ1 as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled4 ,and 7,gal4 #c3ac73 ,christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law1 being made a curse for us4 ,now ,he is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as ,he suffered upon the tree1 as stated above 7,q4 #df1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore ,he did redeem us by ,his ,passion4 ,i answer that1 ,man was held captive on account of sin in two ways3 first of all1 by the bondage of sin1 because 7,john #h3cd73 ,whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin2 and 7#b ,pet4 #b3ai73 ,by whom a man is overcome1 of the same also he is the slave4 ,since1 then1 the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin1 man was subject to the devil's bondage4 ,secondly1 as to the debt of punishment1 to the payment of which man was held fast by ,god's justice3 and this1 too1 is a kind of bondage1 since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not wish1 just as it is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills4 ,since1 then1 ,christ's ,passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race1 it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations4 ,for the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price1 by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty1 according to ,dan4 #d3bd3 ,redeem thou thy sins with alms4 ,now ,christ made satisfaction1 not by giving money or anything of the sort1 but by bestowing what was of greatest price--,himself--for us4 ,and therefore ,christ's ,passion is called our redemption4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,man is said to belong to ,god in two ways4 ,first of all1 in so far as he comes under ,god's power3 in which way he never ceased to belong to ,god2 according to ,dan4 #d3bb3 ,the ,most ,high ruleth over the kingdom of men1 and giveth it to whomsoever he will4 ,secondly1 by being united to ,him in charity1 according to ,rom4 #h3i3 ,if any man have not the ,spirit of ,christ1 he is none of ,his4 ,in the first way1 then1 man never ceased to belong to ,god1 but in the second way he did cease because of sin4 ,and therefore in so far as he was delivered from sin by the satisfaction of ,christ's ,passion1 he is said to be redeemed by the ,passion of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man by sinning became the bondsman both of ,god and of the devil4 ,through guilt he had offended ,god1 and put himself under the devil by consenting to him2 consequently he did not become ,god's servant on account of his guilt1 but rather1 by withdrawing from ,god's service1 he1 by ,god's just permission1 fell under the devil's servitude on account of the offense perpetrated4 ,but as to the penalty1 man was chiefly bound to ,god as his sovereign judge1 and to the devil as his torturer1 according to ,matt4 #e3be3 ,lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge1 and the judge deliver thee to the officer--that is1 to the relentless avenging angel1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xi74 ,consequently1 although1 after deceiving man1 the devil1 so far as in him lay1 held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty1 still it was just that man should suffer it1 ,god so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty4 ,and therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to ,god1 but not with regard to the devil4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,because1 with regard to ,god1 redemption was necessary for man's deliverance1 but not with regard to the devil1 the price had to be paid not to the devil1 but to ,god4 ,and therefore ,christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption--,his own precious blood--not to the devil1 but to ,god4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,it ,is ,proper to ,christ to ,be the ,redeemer8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not proper to ,christ to be the ,redeemer1 because it is written 7,ps4 #cj3f73 ,thou hast redeemed me1 ,o ,lord1 the ,god of ,truth4 ,but to be the ,lord ,god of ,truth belongs to the entire ,trinity4 ,therefore it is not proper to ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 he is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption4 ,but ,god the ,father gave ,his ,son in redemption for our sins1 as is written 7,ps4 #aaj3i73 ,the ,lord hath sent redemption to ,his people1 upon which the gloss adds1 that is1 ,christ1 who gives redemption to captives4 ,therefore not only ,christ1 but the ,father also1 redeemed us4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 not only ,christ's ,passion1 but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation1 according to ,col4 #a3bd3 ,i now rejoice in my sufferings for you1 and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of ,christ1 in my flesh for ,his body1 which is the ,church4 ,therefore the title of ,redeemer belongs not only to ,christ1 but also to the other saints4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,gal4 #c3ac73 ,christ redeemed us from the curse of the ,law1 being made a curse for us4 ,but only ,christ was made a curse for us4 ,therefore only ,christ ought to be called our ,redeemer4 ,i answer that1 ,for someone to redeem1 two things are required--namely1 the act of paying and the price paid4 ,for if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own1 but another's1 he is not said to be the chief redeemer1 but rather the other is1 whose price it is4 ,now ,christ's blood or ,his bodily life1 which is in the blood1 is the price of our redemption 7,lev4 #ag3aa1 #ad71 and that life ,he paid4 ,hence both of these belong immediately to ,christ as man2 but to the ,trinity as to the first and remote cause1 to whom ,christ's life belonged as to its first author1 and from whom ,christ received the inspiration of suffering for us4 ,consequently it is proper to ,christ as man to be the ,redeemer immediately2 although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole ,trinity as its first cause4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a gloss explains the text thus3 ,thou1 ,o ,lord ,god of ,truth1 hast redeemed me in ,christ1 crying out1 ',lord1 into ,thy hands ,i commend my spirit4' ,and so redemption belongs immediately to the ,man-,christ1 but principally to ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,man-,christ paid the price of our redemption immediately1 but at the command of the ,father as the original author4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the ,church1 as by way1 not of redemption1 but of example and exhortation1 according to #b ,cor4 #a3f3 ,whether we be in tribulation1 it is for your exhortation and salvation4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #dh1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,passion ,brought ,about ,our ,salvation ,efficiently8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently4 ,for the efficient cause of our salvation is the greatness of the ,divine power1 according to ,isa4 #ei3a3 ,behold the hand of the ,lord is not shortened that it cannot save4 ,but ,christ was crucified through weakness1 as it is written 7#b ,cor4 #ac3d74 ,therefore1 ,christ's ,passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact3 hence even ,christ cleansed the leper by touching him in order to show that ,his flesh had saving power1 as ,chrysostom 99,theophylact1 ,enarr4 in ,luc4 says4 ,but ,christ's ,passion could not touch all mankind4 ,therefore it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency1 since he who merits awaits the result from someone else4 ,but it was by way of merit that ,christ's ,passion accomplished our salvation4 ,therefore it was not by way of efficiency4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,cor4 #a3ah7 that the word of the cross to them that are saved 4 4 4 is the power of ,god4 ,but ,god's power brings about our salvation efficiently4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently4 ,i answer that1 ,there is a twofold efficient agency--namely1 the principal and the instrumental4 ,now the principal efficient cause of man's salvation is ,god4 ,but since ,christ's humanity is the instrument of the ,godhead1 as stated above 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #b71 therefore all ,christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of ,his ,godhead for the salvation of men4 ,consequently1 then1 ,christ's ,passion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,passion in relation to ,his flesh is consistent with the infirmity which ,he took upon ,himself1 but in relation to the ,godhead it draws infinite might from ,it1 according to #a ,cor4 #a3be3 ,the weakness of ,god is stronger than men2 because ,christ's weakness1 inasmuch as ,he is ,god1 has a might exceeding all human power4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's ,passion1 although corporeal1 has yet a spiritual effect from the ,godhead united3 and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact--namely1 by faith and the sacraments of faith1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #c3be73 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion1 according as it is compared with ,his ,godhead1 operates in an efficient manner3 but in so far as it is compared with the will of ,christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner3 considered as being within ,christ's very flesh1 it acts by way of satisfaction1 inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment2 while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt1 it acts by way of redemption3 but in so far as we are reconciled with ,god it acts by way of sacrifice1 as shall be shown farther on 7,q4 #di74 ,,question #di ,,of ,,the ,,effects ,,of ,,christ',s ,,passion 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider what are the effects of ,christ's ,passion1 concerning which there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether we were freed from sin by ,christ's ,passion8 7#b7 ,whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil8 7#c7 ,whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment8 7#d7 ,whether we were thereby reconciled with ,god8 7#e7 ,whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby8 7#f7 ,whether ,christ derived exaltation from it8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,we ,were ,delivered from ,sin ,through ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that we were not delivered from sin through ,christ's ,passion4 ,for to deliver from sin belongs to ,god alone1 according to ,isa4 #dc3be3 ,i am ,he who blot out your iniquities for ,my own sake4 ,but ,christ did not suffer as ,god1 but as man4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion did not free us from sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is corporeal does not act upon what is spiritual4 ,but ,christ's ,passion is corporeal1 whereas sin exists in the soul1 which is a spiritual creature4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion could not cleanse us from sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 one cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed1 but which shall be committed hereafter4 ,since1 then1 many sins have been committed since ,christ's death1 and are being committed daily1 it seems that we were not delivered from sin by ,christ's death4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 given an efficient cause1 nothing else is required for producing the effect4 ,but other things besides are required for the forgiveness of sins1 such as baptism and penance4 ,consequently it seems that ,christ's ,passion is not the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of sins4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 it is written 7,prov4 #aj3ab73 ,charity covereth all sins2 and 7,prov4 #ae3bg73 ,by mercy and faith1 sins are purged away4 ,but there are many other things of which we have faith1 and which excite charity4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion is not the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,apoc4 #a3e73 ,he loved us1 and washed us from our sins in ,his own blood4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's ,passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins in three ways4 ,first of all1 by way of exciting our charity1 because1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3h73 ,god commendeth ,his charity towards us3 because when as yet we were sinners1 according to the time1 ,christ died for us4 ,but it is by charity that we procure pardon of our sins1 according to ,luke #g3dg3 ,many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much4 ,secondly1 ,christ's ,passion causes forgiveness of sins by way of redemption4 ,for since ,he is our head1 then1 by the ,passion which ,he endured from love and obedience1 ,he delivered us as ,his members from our sins1 as by the price of ,his ,passion3 in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet4 ,for1 just as the natural body is one though made up of diverse members1 so the whole ,church1 ,christ's mystic body1 is reckoned as one person with its head1 which is ,christ4 ,thirdly1 by way of efficiency1 inasmuch as ,christ's flesh1 wherein ,he endured the ,passion1 is the instrument of the ,godhead1 so that ,his sufferings and actions operate with ,divine power for expelling sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although ,christ did not suffer as ,god1 nevertheless ,his flesh is the instrument of the ,godhead2 and hence it is that ,his ,passion has a kind of ,divine ,power of casting out sin1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although ,christ's ,passion is corporeal1 still it derives a kind of spiritual energy from the ,godhead1 to which the flesh is united as an instrument3 and according to this power ,christ's ,passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ by ,his ,passion delivered us from our sins causally--that is1 by setting up the cause of our deliverance1 from which cause all sins whatsoever1 past1 present1 or to come1 could be forgiven3 just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in future4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as stated above1 since ,christ's ,passion preceded1 as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins1 it needs to be applied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins4 ,now this is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments1 which derive their power from ,christ's ,passion1 as shall be shown later 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,christ's ,passion is applied to us even through faith1 that we may share in its fruits1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,but the faith through which we are cleansed from sin is not lifeless faith1 which can exist even with sin1 but faith living through charity2 that thus ,christ's ,passion may be applied to us1 not only as to our minds1 but also as to our hearts4 ,and even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the ,passion of ,christ4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,we ,were ,delivered from the ,devil's ,power ,through ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the devil through ,christ's ,passion4 ,for he has no power over others1 who can do nothing to them without the sanction of another4 ,but without the ,divine permission the devil could never do hurt to any man1 as is evident in the instance of ,job 7#a1 #b71 where1 by power received from ,god1 the devil first injured him in his possessions1 and afterwards in his body4 ,in like manner it is stated 7,matt4 #h3ca1 #cb7 that the devils could not enter into the swine except with ,christ's leave4 ,therefore the devil never had power over men3 and hence we are not delivered from his power through ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them and molesting their bodies4 ,but even after the ,passion he continues to do the same to men4 ,therefore we are not delivered from his power through ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the might of ,christ's ,passion endures for ever1 as1 according to ,heb4 #aj3ad3 ,by one oblation ,he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified4 ,but deliverance from the devil's power is not found everywhere1 since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world2 nor will it endure for ever1 because in the time of ,antichrist he will be especially active in using his power to the hurt of men2 because it is said of him 7#b ,thess4 #b3i73 ,whose coming is according to the working of ,satan1 in all power1 and signs1 and lying wonders1 and in all seduction of iniquity4 ,consequently it seems that ,christ's ,passion is not the cause of the human race being delivered from the power of the devil4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #ab3ca71 when ,his ,passion was drawing nigh3 ,now shall the prince of this world be cast out2 and ,i1 if ,i be lifted up from the earth1 will draw all things to ,myself4 ,now ,he was lifted up from the earth by ,his ,passion on the cross4 ,therefore by ,his ,passion the devil was deprived of his power over man4 ,i answer that1 ,there are three things to be considered regarding the power which the devil exercised over men previous to ,christ's ,passion4 ,the first is on man's own part1 who by his sin deserved to be delivered over to the devil's power1 and was overcome by his tempting4 ,another point is on ,god's part1 whom man had offended by sinning1 and who with justice left man under the devil's power4 ,the third is on the devil's part1 who out of his most wicked will hindered man from securing his salvation4 ,as to the first point1 by ,christ's ,passion man was delivered from the devil's power1 in so far as the ,passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,as to the second1 it must be said that ,christ's ,passion freed us from the devil's power1 inasmuch as it reconciled us with ,god1 as shall be shown later 7,a4 #d74 ,but as to the third1 ,christ's ,passion delivered us from the devil1 inasmuch as in ,christ's ,passion he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by ,god1 by conspiring to bring about ,christ's death1 ,who1 being sinless1 did not deserve to die4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xiii1 cap4 xiv73 ,the devil was vanquished by ,christ's justice3 because1 while discovering in ,him nothing deserving of death1 nevertheless he slew ,him4 ,and it is certainly just that the debtors whom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in ,him whom the devil slew1 though ,he was no debtor4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the devil is said to have had such power over men not as though he were able to injure them without ,god's sanction1 but because he was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to give consent4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god so permitting it1 the devil can still tempt men's souls and harass their bodies3 yet there is a remedy provided for man through ,christ's ,passion1 whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's assaults1 so as not to be dragged down into the destruction of everlasting death4 ,and all who resisted the devil previous to the ,passion were enabled to do so through faith in the ,passion1 although it was not yet accomplished4 ,yet in one respect no one was able to escape the devil's hands1 i4e4 so as not to descend into hell4 ,but after ,christ's ,passion1 men can defend themselves from this by its power4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,god permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons1 and in times and places1 according to the hidden motive of ,his judgments2 still1 there is always a remedy provided through ,christ's ,passion1 for defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons1 even in ,antichrist's time4 ,but if any man neglect to make use of this remedy1 it detracts nothing from the efficacy of ,christ's ,passion4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,men ,were ,freed from the ,punishment of ,sin ,through ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that men were not freed from the punishment of sin by ,christ's ,passion4 ,for the chief punishment of sin is eternal damnation4 ,but those damned in hell for their sins were not set free by ,christ's ,passion1 because in hell there is no redemption 99,office of the ,dead1 ,resp4 vii4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,christ's ,passion did not deliver men from the punishment of sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no punishment should be imposed upon them who are delivered from the debt of punishment4 ,but a satisfactory punishment is imposed upon penitents4 ,consequently1 men were not freed from the debt of punishment by ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 death is a punishment of sin1 according to ,rom4 #f3bc3 ,the wages of sin is death4 ,but men still die after ,christ's ,passion4 ,therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of punishment4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #ec3d73 ,surely ,he hath borne our iniquities and carried our sorrows4 ,i answer that1 ,through ,christ's ,passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways4 ,first of all1 directly--namely1 inasmuch as ,christ's ,passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race3 but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid1 then the debt of punishment is abolished4 ,in another way--indirectly1 that is to say--in so far as ,christ's ,passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin1 upon which the debt of punishment rests4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,passion works its effect in them to whom it is applied1 through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith4 ,and1 consequently1 the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects1 since they are not united to ,christ in the aforesaid manner4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #d1 #e71 in order to secure the effects of ,christ's ,passion1 we must be likened unto ,him4 ,now we are likened unto ,him sacramentally in ,baptism1 according to ,rom4 #f3d3 ,for we are buried together with ,him by baptism into death4 ,hence no punishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism1 since they are fully delivered by ,christ's satisfaction4 ,but because1 as it is written 7#a ,pet4 #c3ah71 ,christ died but once for our sins1 therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto ,christ's death by the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,hence it is necessary that those who sin after ,baptism be likened unto ,christ suffering by some form of punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person2 yet1 by the co-operation of ,christ's satisfaction1 much lighter penalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with ,him1 as the members with their head1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,now the members must be conformed to their head4 ,consequently1 as ,christ first had grace in ,his soul with bodily passibility1 and through the ,passion attained to the glory of immortality1 so we likewise1 who are ,his members1 are freed by ,his ,passion from all debt of punishment1 yet so that we first receive in our souls the spirit of adoption of sons1 whereby our names are written down for the inheritance of immortal glory1 while we yet have a passible and mortal body3 but afterwards1 being made conformable to the sufferings and death of ,christ1 we are brought into immortal glory1 according to the saying of the ,apostle 7,rom4 #h3ag73 ,and if sons1 heirs also3 heirs indeed of ,god1 and joint heirs with ,christ2 yet so if we suffer with ,him1 that we may be also glorified with ,him4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,we ,were ,reconciled to ,god ,through ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that we were not reconciled to ,god through ,christ's ,passion4 ,for there is no need of reconciliation between friends4 ,but ,god always loved us1 according to ,wis4 #aa3be3 ,thou lovest all the things that are1 and hatest none of the things which ,thou hast made4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion did not reconcile us to ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the same thing cannot be cause and effect3 hence grace1 which is the cause of meriting1 does not come under merit4 ,but ,god's love is the cause of ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,john #c3af3 ,god so loved the world1 as to give ,his only-begotten ,son4 ,it does not appear1 then1 that we were reconciled to ,god through ,christ's ,passion1 so that ,he began to love us anew4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's ,passion was completed by men slaying ,him2 and thereby they offended ,god grievously4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion is rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3aj73 ,we are reconciled to ,god by the death of ,his ,son4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's ,passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to ,god4 ,in the first way1 inasmuch as it takes away sin by which men became ,god's enemies1 according to ,wis4 #ad3i3 ,to ,god the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike2 and ,ps4 #e3g3 ,thou hatest all the workers of iniquity4 ,in another way1 inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to ,god4 ,now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease ,god3 just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him4 ,hence it is written 7#a ,kings #bf3ai73 ,if the ,lord stir thee up against me1 let ,him accept of sacrifice4 ,and in like fashion ,christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that1 because of its being found in human nature1 ,god was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified ,christ in the aforesaid manner 7,a4 #a1 ad #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god loves all men as to their nature1 which ,he ,himself made2 yet ,he hates them with respect to the crimes they commit against ,him1 according to ,ecclus4 #ab3c3 ,the ,highest hateth sinners4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is not said to have reconciled us with ,god1 as if ,god had begun anew to love us1 since it is written 7,jer4 #ca3c73 ,i have loved thee with an everlasting love2 but because the source of hatred was taken away by ,christ's ,passion1 both through sin being washed away and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing offering4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,christ's slayers were men1 so also was the ,christ slain4 ,now the charity of the suffering ,christ surpassed the wickedness of ,his slayers4 ,accordingly ,christ's ,passion prevailed more in reconciling ,god to the whole human race than in provoking ,him to wrath4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ ,opened the ,gate of ,heaven to ,us by ,his ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not open the gate of heaven to us by ,his ,passion4 ,for it is written 7,prov4 #aa3ah73 ,to him that soweth justice1 there is a faithful reward4 ,but the reward of justice is the entering into the kingdom of heaven4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that the holy ,fathers who wrought works of justice1 obtained by faith the entering into the heavenly kingdom even without ,christ's ,passion4 ,consequently ,christ's ,passion is not the cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of heaven4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,elias was caught up to heaven previous to ,christ's ,passion 7#d ,kings #b74 ,but the effect never precedes the cause4 ,therefore it seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the result of ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as it is written 7,matt4 #c3af71 when ,christ was baptized the heavens were opened to ,him4 ,but ,his baptism preceded the ,passion4 ,consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is written 7,mic4 #b3ac73 ,for ,he shall go up that shall open the way before them4 ,but to open the way to heaven seems to be nothing else than to throw open its gate4 ,therefore it seems that the gate of heaven was opened to us1 not by ,christ's ,passion1 but by ,his ,ascension4 ,on the contrary1 is the saying of the ,apostle 7,heb4 #aj3ai73 ,we have ,vulg43 'having a' confidence in the entering into the ,holies--that is1 of the heavenly places--through the blood of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,the shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders men from entering in4 ,but it is on account of sin that men were prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom1 since1 according to ,isa4 #ce3h3 ,it shall be called the holy way1 and the unclean shall not pass over it4 ,now there is a twofold sin which prevents men from entering into the kingdom of heaven4 ,the first is common to the whole race1 for it is our first parents' sin1 and by that sin heaven's entrance is closed to man4 ,hence we read in ,gen4 #c3bd that after our first parents' sin ,god placed 4 4 4 cherubim and a flaming sword1 turning every way1 to keep the way of the tree of life4 ,the other is the personal sin of each one of us1 committed by our personal act4 ,now by ,christ's ,passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race1 both as to its guilt and as to the debt of punishment1 for which ,he paid the penalty on our behalf2 but1 furthermore1 from the personal sins of individuals1 who share in ,his ,passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith4 ,consequently1 then the gate of heaven's kingdom is thrown open to us through ,christ's ,passion4 ,this is precisely what the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #i3aa1 #ab73 ,christ being come a high-priest of the good things to come 4 4 4 by ,his own blood entered once into the ,holies1 having obtained eternal redemption4 ,and this is foreshadowed 7,num4 #ce3be1 #bh71 where it is said that the slayer99 shall abide there--that is to say1 in the city of refuge--until the death of the high-priest1 that is anointed with the holy oil3 but after he is dead1 then shall he return home4 99,the ,septuagint has 'slayer'1 the ,vulgate1 'innocent'--i4e4 the man who has slain 'without hatred and enmity'4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the holy ,fathers1 by doing works of justice1 merited to enter into the heavenly kingdom1 through faith in ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,heb4 #aa3cc3 ,the saints by faith conquered kingdoms1 wrought justice1 and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin1 so far as the cleansing of the individual is concerned4 ,nevertheless the faith and righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the barrier arising from the guilt of the whole human race3 but this was removed at the cost of ,christ's blood4 ,consequently1 before ,christ's ,passion no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude1 which consists in the full enjoyment of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven1 but not in to the empyrean heaven1 which is the abode of the saints3 and likewise ,enoch was translated into the earthly paradise1 where he is believed to live with ,elias until the coming of ,antichrist4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was stated above 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #e71 the heavens were opened at ,christ's baptism1 not for ,christ's sake1 to whom heaven was ever open1 but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the baptized1 through ,christ's baptism1 which has its efficacy from ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ by ,his ,passion merited for us the opening of the kingdom of heaven1 and removed the obstacle2 but by ,his ascension ,he1 as it were1 brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom4 ,and consequently it is said that by ascending ,he opened the way before them4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #di1 ,art4 #f ,whether by ,his ,passion ,christ ,merited to ,be ,exalted8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ did not merit to be exalted on account of ,his ,passion4 ,for eminence of rank belongs to ,god alone1 just as knowledge of truth1 according to ,ps4 #aab3d3 ,the ,lord is high above all nations1 and ,his glory above the heavens4 ,but ,christ as man had the knowledge of all truth1 not on account of any preceding merit1 but from the very union of ,god and man1 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,his glory 4 4 4 as it were of the only-,begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and of truth4 ,therefore neither had ,he exaltation from the merit of the ,passion but from the union alone4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ merited for ,himself from the first instant of ,his conception1 as stated above 7,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #c74 ,but ,his love was no greater during the ,passion than before4 ,therefore1 since charity is the principle of merit1 it seems that ,he did not merit exaltation from the ,passion more than before4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dioscor474 ,but by ,his ,passion ,christ did not merit exaltation as to the glory of ,his soul1 because ,his soul was beatified from the first instant of ,his conception4 ,therefore neither did ,he merit exaltation1 as to the glory of ,his body1 from the ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,phil4 #b3h73 ,he became obedient unto death1 even the death of the cross2 for which cause ,god also exalted ,him4 ,i answer that1 ,merit implies a certain equality of justice3 hence the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #d3d73 ,now to him that worketh1 the reward is reckoned according to debt4 ,but when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes to himself something beyond his due1 it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due2 thus1 when a man steals a sheep he shall pay back four 7,ex4 #bb3a74 ,and he is said to deserve it1 inasmuch as his unjust will is chastised thereby4 ,so likewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought to have1 he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will4 ,and hence it is written 7,luke #ad3aa73 ,he that humbleth himself shall be exalted4 ,now in ,his ,passion ,christ humbled ,himself beneath ,his dignity in four respects4 ,in the first place as to ,his ,passion and death1 to which ,he was not bound2 secondly1 as to the place1 since ,his body was laid in a sepulchre and ,his soul in hell2 thirdly1 as to the shame and mockeries ,he endured2 fourthly1 as to ,his being delivered up to man's power1 as ,he ,himself said to ,pilate 7,john #ai3aa73 ,thou shouldst not have any power against ,me1 unless it were given thee from above4 ,and1 consequently1 ,he merited a four-fold exaltation from ,his ,passion4 ,first of all1 as to ,his glorious ,resurrection3 hence it is written 7,ps4 #ach3a73 ,thou hast known my sitting down--that is1 the lowliness of ,my ,passion--and ,my rising up4 ,secondly1 as to ,his ascension into heaven3 hence it is written 7,eph4 #d3i73 ,now that ,he ascended1 what is it1 but because ,he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth8 ,he that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens4 ,thirdly1 as to the sitting on the right hand of the ,father and the showing forth of ,his ,godhead1 according to ,isa4 #eb3ac3 ,he shall be exalted and extolled1 and shall be exceeding high3 as many have been astonished at him1 so shall ,his visage be inglorious among men4 ,moreover 7,phil4 #b3h7 it is written3 ,he humbled ,himself1 becoming obedient unto death1 even to the death of the cross3 for which cause also ,god hath exalted ,him1 and hath given ,him a name which is above all names--that is to say1 so that ,he shall be hailed as ,god by all2 and all shall pay ,him homage as ,god4 ,and this is expressed in what follows3 ,that in the name of ,jesus every knee should bow1 of those that are in heaven1 on earth1 and under the earth4 ,fourthly1 as to ,his judiciary power3 for it is written 7,job #cf3ag73 ,thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment ,thou shalt recover4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the source of meriting comes of the soul1 while the body is the instrument of the meritorious work4 ,and consequently the perfection of ,christ's soul1 which was the source of meriting1 ought not to be acquired in ,him by merit1 like the perfection of the body1 which was the subject of suffering1 and was thereby the instrument of ,his merit4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ by ,his previous merits did merit exaltation on behalf of ,his soul1 whose will was animated with charity and the other virtues2 but in the ,passion ,he merited ,his exaltation by way of recompense even on behalf of ,his body3 since it is only just that the body1 which from charity was subjected to the ,passion1 should receive recompense in glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it was owing to a special dispensation in ,christ that before the ,passion the glory of ,his soul did not shine out in ,his body1 in order that ,he might procure ,his bodily glory with greater honor1 when ,he had merited it by ,his ,passion4 ,but it was not beseeming for the glory of ,his soul to be postponed1 since the soul was united immediately with the ,word2 hence it was beseeming that its glory should be filled by the ,word ,himself4 ,but the body was united with the ,word through the soul4 ,,question #ej ,,of ,,the ,,death ,,of ,,christ ,we have now to consider the death of ,christ2 concerning which there are six subjects of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting that ,christ should die8 7#b7 ,whether ,his death severed the union of ,godhead and flesh8 7#c7 ,whether ,his ,godhead was separated from ,his soul8 7#d7 ,whether ,christ was a man during the three days of ,his death8 7#e7 ,whether ,his was the same body1 living and dead8 7#f7 ,whether ,his death conduced in any way to our salvation8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,die8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting that ,christ should die4 ,for a first principle in any order is not affected by anything contrary to such order3 thus fire1 which is the principle of heat1 can never become cold4 ,but the ,son of ,god is the fountain-head and principle of all life1 according to ,ps4 #ce3aj3 ,with ,thee is the fountain of life4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting for ,christ to die4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 death is a greater defect than sickness1 because it is through sickness that one comes to die4 ,but it was not beseeming for ,christ to languish from sickness1 as ,chrysostom 99,athanasius1 ,orat4 de ,incarn4 ,verbi says4 ,consequently1 neither was it becoming for ,christ to die4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,john #aj3aj73 ,i am come that they may have life1 and may have it more abundantly4 ,but one opposite does not lead to another4 ,therefore it seems that neither was it fitting for ,christ to die4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written1 7,john #aa3ej73 ,it is expedient that one man should die for the people 4 4 4 that the whole nation perish not3 which words were spoken prophetically by ,caiphas1 as the ,evangelist testifies4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ to die4 ,first of all to satisfy for the whole human race1 which was sentenced to die on account of sin1 according to ,gen4 #b3ag3 ,in what day soever ye shall ,vulg43 'thou shalt' eat of it ye shall ,vulg43 'thou shalt' die the death4 ,now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other4 ,and so ,christ resolved to die1 that by dying ,he might atone for us1 according to #a ,pet4 #c3ah3 ,christ also died once for our sins4 ,secondly1 in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed4 ,for1 as ,eusebius says 7,orat4 de ,laud4 ,constant4 xv71 if1 after dwelling among men ,christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight1 as though shunning death1 then by all men ,he would be likened to a phantom4 ,thirdly1 that by dying ,he might deliver us from fearing death3 hence it is written 7,heb4 #b3ad1 #ae7 that ,he communicated to flesh and blood1 that through death ,he might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who1 through the fear of death1 were all their lifetime subject to servitude4 ,fourthly1 that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin--that is1 to its penalty--,he might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually4 ,hence it is written 7,rom4 #f3aj73 ,for in that ,he died to sin1 ,he died once1 but in that ,he liveth1 ,he liveth unto ,god3 so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin1 but alive unto ,god4 ,fifthly1 that by rising from the dead1 and manifesting ,his power whereby ,he overthrew death1 ,he might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ab73 ,if ,christ be preached that ,he rose again from the dead1 how do some among you say1 that there is no resurrection from the dead8 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is the fountain of life1 as ,god1 and not as man3 but ,he died as man1 and not as ,god4 ,hence ,augustine 99,vigilius ,tapsensis says against ,felician3 ,far be it from us to suppose that ,christ so felt death that ,he lost ,his life inasmuch as ,he is life in ,himself2 for1 were it so1 the fountain of life would have run dry4 ,accordingly1 ,he experienced death by sharing in our human feeling1 which of ,his own accord ,he had taken upon ,himself1 but ,he did not lose the power of ,his ,nature1 through which ,he gives life to all things4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness1 lest ,he should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature3 but ,he endured death inflicted from without1 to which ,he willingly surrendered ,himself1 that ,his death might be shown to be a voluntary one4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,one opposite does not of itself lead to the other1 yet it does so indirectly at times3 thus cold sometimes is the indirect cause of heat3 and in this way ,christ by ,his death brought us back to life1 when by ,his death ,he destroyed our death2 just as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,godhead ,was ,separated from the ,flesh ,when ,christ ,died8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ,godhead was separated from the flesh when ,christ died4 ,for as ,matthew relates 7#bg3df71 when our ,lord was hanging upon the cross ,he cried out3 ,my ,god1 ,my ,god1 why hast ,thou forsaken ,me8 which words ,ambrose1 commenting on ,luke #bc3df1 explains as follows3 ,the man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the ,godhead2 for since the ,godhead is immune from death1 assuredly death could not be there1 except life departed1 for the ,godhead is life4 ,and so it seems that when ,christ died1 the ,godhead was separated from ,his flesh4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 extremes are severed when the mean is removed4 ,but the soul was the mean through which the ,godhead was united with the flesh1 as stated above 7,q4 #f1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore since the soul was severed from the flesh by death1 it seems that1 in consequence1 ,his ,godhead was also separated from it4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god's life-giving power is greater than that of the soul4 ,but the body could not die unless the soul quitted it4 ,therefore1 much less could it die unless the ,godhead departed4 ,on the contrary1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #af1 ,,aa4 #d1 #e71 the attributes of human nature are predicated of the ,son of ,god only by reason of the union4 ,but what belongs to the body of ,christ after death is predicated of the ,son of ,god--namely1 being buried3 as is evident from the ,creed1 in which it is said that the ,son of ,god was conceived and born of a ,virgin1 suffered1 died1 and was buried4 ,therefore ,christ's ,godhead was not separated from the flesh when ,he died4 ,i answer that1 ,what is bestowed through ,god's grace is never withdrawn except through fault4 ,hence it is written 7,rom4 #aa3bi73 ,the gifts and the calling of ,god are without repentance4 ,but the grace of union whereby the ,godhead was united to the flesh in ,christ's ,person1 is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified3 also it is more enduring of itself1 because this grace is ordained for personal union1 whereas the grace of adoption is referred to a certain affective union4 ,and yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault4 ,since1 then there was no sin in ,christ1 it was impossible for the union of the ,godhead with the flesh to be dissolved4 ,consequently1 as before death ,christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the ,word of ,god1 it remained so after ,his death1 so that the hypostasis of the ,word of ,god was not different from that of ,christ's flesh after death1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of the personal union1 but to this1 that ,god the ,father gave ,him up to the ,passion3 hence there to forsake means simply not to protect from persecutors4 ,or else ,he says there that ,he is forsaken1 with reference to the prayer ,he had made3 ,father1 if it be possible1 let this chalice pass away from ,me1 as ,augustine explains it 7,de ,gratia ,novi ,test474 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,word of ,god is said to be united with the flesh through the medium of the soul1 inasmuch as it is through the soul that the flesh belongs to human nature1 which the ,son of ,god intended to assume2 but not as though the soul were the medium linking them together4 ,but it is due to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been separated from it--namely1 inasmuch as by ,god's ordinance there remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to the resurrection4 ,and therefore the union of the ,godhead with the flesh is not taken away4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the soul formally possesses the life-giving energy1 and therefore1 while it is present1 and united formally1 the body must necessarily be a living one1 whereas the ,godhead has not the life-giving energy formally1 but effectively2 because ,it cannot be the form of the body3 and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while the union of the ,godhead with the flesh remains1 since ,god does not act of necessity1 but of ,his own will4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #c ,whether in ,christ's ,death ,there ,was a ,severance ,between ,his ,godhead and ,his ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that there was a severance in death between ,christ's ,godhead and ,his soul1 because our ,lord said 7,john #aj3ah73 ,no man taketh away ,my soul from ,me3 but ,i lay it down of ,myself1 and ,i have power to lay it down1 and ,i have power to take it up again4 ,but it does not appear that the body can set the soul aside1 by separating the soul from itself1 because the soul is not subject to the power of the body1 but rather conversely3 and so it appears that it belongs to ,christ1 as the ,word of ,god1 to lay down ,his soul3 but this is to separate it from ,himself4 ,consequently1 by death ,his soul was severed from the ,godhead4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,athanasius 99,vigilius ,tapsensis1 ,de ,trin4 vi2 ,bardenhewer assigns it to ,st4 ,athanasius3 #de1 iii4 ,the full title is ,de ,trinitate et ,spiritu ,sancto says that he is accursed who does not confess that the entire man1 whom the ,son of ,god took to ,himself1 after being assumed once more or delivered by ,him1 rose again from the dead on the third day4 ,but the entire man could not be assumed again1 unless the entire man was at one time separated from the ,word of ,god3 and the entire man is made of soul and body4 ,therefore there was a separation made at one time of the ,godhead from both the body and the soul4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,son of ,god is truly styled a man because of the union with the entire man4 ,if then1 when the union of the soul with the body was dissolved by death1 the ,word of ,god continued united with the soul1 it would follow that the ,son of ,god could be truly called a soul4 ,but this is false1 because since the soul is the form of the body1 it would result in the ,word of ,god being the form of the body2 which is impossible4 ,therefore1 in death the soul of ,christ was separated from the ,word of ,god4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis1 but two4 ,therefore1 if the ,word of ,god remained united with ,christ's soul and body1 then1 when they were severed by ,christ's death1 it seems to follow that the ,word of ,god was two hypostases during such time as ,christ was dead2 which cannot be admitted4 ,therefore after ,christ's death ,his soul did not continue to be united with the ,word4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,although ,christ died as man1 and ,his holy soul was separated from ,his spotless body1 nevertheless ,his ,godhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul1 ,i mean1 and from the body4 ,i answer that1 ,the soul is united with the ,word of ,god more immediately and more primarily than the body is1 because it is through the soul that the body is united with the ,word of ,god1 as stated above 7,q4 #f1 ,a4 #a74 ,since1 then1 the ,word of ,god was not separated from the body at ,christ's death1 much less was ,he separated from the soul4 ,accordingly1 since what regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the ,son of ,god--namely1 that it was buried--so is it said of ,him in the ,creed that ,he descended into hell1 because ,his soul when separated from the body did go down into hell4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine 7,tract4 xlvii in ,joan471 in commenting on the text of ,john1 asks1 since ,christ is ,word and soul and body1 whether ,he putteth down ,his soul1 for that ,he is the ,word8 ,or1 for that ,he is a soul8 ,or1 again1 for that ,he is flesh8 ,and he says that1 should we say that the ,word of ,god laid down ,his soul 4 4 4 it would follow that there was a time when that soul was severed from the ,word--which is untrue4 ,for death severed the body and soul 4 4 4 but that the soul was severed from the ,word ,i do not affirm 4 4 4 ,but should we say that the soul laid itself down1 it follows that it is severed from itself3 which is most absurd4 ,it remains1 therefore1 that the flesh itself layeth down its soul and taketh it again1 not by its own power1 but by the power of the ,word dwelling in the flesh3 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 the ,godhead of the ,word was not severed from the flesh in death4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in those words ,athanasius never meant to say that the whole man was reassumed--that is1 as to all his parts--as if the ,word of ,god had laid aside the parts of human nature by ,his death2 but that the totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the resurrection by the resumed union of soul and body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,through being united to human nature1 the ,word of ,god is not on that account called human nature3 but ,he is called a man--that is1 one having human nature4 ,now the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature4 ,hence it does not follow that the ,word is a soul or a body through being united with both1 but that ,he is one possessing a soul or a body4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,in ,christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh3 not one hypostasis divided into two3 because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the ,word2 and in death1 though severed from one another1 each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the ,word4 ,wherefore the one hypostasis of the ,word was the hypostasis of the ,word1 of the soul1 and of the body4 ,for neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own1 besides the hypostasis of the ,word3 for there was always one hypostasis of the ,word1 and never two4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,was a ,man ,during the ,three ,days of ,his ,death8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was a man during the three days of ,his death1 because ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iii73 ,such was the assuming of nature as to make ,god to be man1 and man to be ,god4 ,but this assuming of nature did not cease at ,christ's death4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not cease to be a man in consequence of death4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 ix7 that each man is his intellect2 consequently1 when we address the soul of ,peter after his death we say3 ,saint ,peter1 pray for us4 ,but the ,son of ,god after death was not separated from ,his intellectual soul4 ,therefore1 during those three days the ,son of ,god was a man4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every priest is a man4 ,but during those three days of death ,christ was a priest3 otherwise what is said in ,ps4 #aji3d would not be true3 ,thou art a priest for ever4 ,therefore ,christ was a man during those three days4 ,on the contrary1 ,when the higher species is removed1 so is the lower4 ,but the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and man1 because an animal is a sensible animated substance4 ,now during those three days of death ,christ's body was not living or animated4 ,therefore ,he was not a man4 ,i answer that1 ,it is an article of faith that ,christ was truly dead3 hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of ,christ's death is destroyed4 ,accordingly it is said in the ,synodal epistle of ,cyril 99,act4 ,conc4 ,ephes4 ,p4 ,i1 cap4 xxvi3 ,if any man does not acknowledge that the ,word of ,god suffered in the flesh1 and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh1 let him be anathema4 ,now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal2 because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul1 which is the formal complement of the man or animal4 ,consequently1 to say that ,christ was a man during the three days of ,his death simply and without qualification1 is erroneous4 ,yet it can be said that ,he was a dead man during those three days4 ,however1 some writers have contended that ,christ was a man during those three days1 uttering words which are indeed erroneous1 yet without intent of error in faith3 as ,hugh of ,saint ,victor1 who 7,de ,sacram4 ii7 contended that ,christ1 during the three days that followed ,his death1 was a man1 because he held that the soul is a man3 but this is false1 as was shown in the ,first ,part 7,i1 ,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #d74 ,likewise the ,master of the ,sentences 7iii1 ,d1 #bb7 held ,christ to be a man during the three days of ,his death for quite another reason4 ,for he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man1 and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body1 whether united or separated3 and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the ,first ,part 7,i1 ,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #d71 and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #e74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,word of ,god assumed a united soul and body3 and the result of this assumption was that ,god is man1 and man is ,god4 ,but this assumption did not cease by the separation of the ,word from the soul or from the flesh2 yet the union of soul and flesh ceased4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man is said to be his own intellect1 not because the intellect is the entire man1 but because the intellect is the chief part of man1 in which man's whole disposition lies virtually2 just as the ruler of the city may be called the whole city1 since its entire disposal is vested in him4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,that a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the soul1 which is the subject of the character of order3 hence a man does not lose his priestly order by death1 and much less does ,christ1 who is the fount of the entire priesthood4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ's ,was ,identically the ,same ,body ,living and ,dead8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's was not identically the same body living and dead4 ,for ,christ truly died just as other men do4 ,but the body of everyone else is not simply identically the same1 dead and living1 because there is an essential difference between them4 ,therefore neither is the body of ,christ identically the same1 dead and living4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 v1 text4 #ab71 things specifically diverse are also numerically diverse4 ,but ,christ's body1 living and dead1 was specifically diverse3 because the eye or flesh of the dead is only called so equivocally1 as is evident from the ,philosopher 7,de ,anima ii1 text4 #i2 ,metaph4 vii74 ,therefore ,christ's body was not simply identically the same1 living and dead4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 death is a kind of corruption4 ,but what is corrupted by substantial corruption after being corrupted1 exists no longer1 since corruption is change from being to non-being4 ,therefore1 ,christ's body1 after it was dead1 did not remain identically the same1 because death is a substantial corruption4 ,on the contrary1 ,athanasius says 7,epist4 ad ,epict473 ,in that body which was circumcised and carried1 which ate1 and toiled1 and was nailed on the tree1 there was the impassible and incorporeal ,word of ,god3 the same was laid in the tomb4 ,but ,christ's living body was circumcised and nailed on the tree2 and ,christ's dead body was laid in the tomb4 ,therefore it was the same body living and dead4 ,i answer that1 ,the expression simply can be taken in two senses4 ,in the first instance by taking simply to be the same as absolutely2 thus that is said simply which is said without addition1 as the ,philosopher put it 7,topic4 ii73 and in this way the dead and living body of ,christ was simply identically the same3 since a thing is said to be simply identically the same from the identity of the subject4 ,but ,christ's body living and dead was identical in its suppositum because alive and dead it had none other besides the ,word of ,god1 as was stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,and it is in this sense that ,athanasius is speaking in the passage quoted4 ,in another way simply is the same as altogether or totally3 in which sense the body of ,christ1 dead and alive1 was not simply the same identically1 because it was not totally the same1 since life is of the essence of a living body2 for it is an essential and not an accidental predicate3 hence it follows that a body which ceases to be living does not remain totally the same4 ,moreover1 if it were to be said that ,christ's dead body did continue totally the same1 it would follow that it was not corrupted--,i mean1 by the corruption of death3 which is the heresy of the ,gaianites1 as ,isidore says 7,etym4 viii71 and is to be found in the ,decretals 7xxiv1 qu4 iii74 ,and ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 that the term 'corruption' denotes two things3 in one way it is the separation of the soul from the body and other things of the sort2 in another way1 the complete dissolving into elements4 ,consequently it is impious to say with ,julian and ,gaian that the ,lord's body was incorruptible after the first manner of corruption before the resurrection3 because ,christ's body would not be consubstantial with us1 nor truly dead1 nor would we have been saved in very truth4 ,but in the second way ,christ's body was incorrupt4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the dead body of everyone else does not continue united to an abiding hypostasis1 as ,christ's dead body did2 consequently the dead body of everyone else is not the same simply1 but only in some respect3 because it is the same as to its matter1 but not the same as to its form4 ,but ,christ's body remains the same simply1 on account of the identity of the suppositum1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since a thing is said to be the same identically according to suppositum1 but the same specifically according to form3 wherever the suppositum subsists in only one nature1 it follows of necessity that when the unity of species is taken away the unity of identity is also taken away4 ,but the hypostasis of the ,word of ,god subsists in two natures2 and consequently1 although in others the body does not remain the same according to the species of human nature1 still it continues identically the same in ,christ according to the suppositum of the ,word of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,corruption and death do not belong to ,christ by reason of the suppositum1 from which suppositum follows the unity of identity2 but by reason of the human nature1 according to which is found the difference of death and of life in ,christ's body4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ej1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,death ,conduced in ,any ,way to ,our ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's death did not conduce in any way to our salvation4 ,for death is a sort of privation1 since it is the privation of life4 ,but privation has not any power of activity1 because it is nothing positive4 ,therefore it could not work anything for our salvation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's ,passion wrought our salvation by way of merit4 ,but ,christ's death could not operate in this way1 because in death the body is separated from the soul1 which is the principle of meriting4 ,consequently1 ,christ's death did not accomplish anything towards our salvation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual4 ,but ,christ's death was corporeal4 ,therefore it could not be the cause of our salvation1 which is something spiritual4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,the one death of our ,saviour1 namely1 that of the body1 saved us from our two deaths1 that is1 of the soul and the body4 ,i answer that1 ,we may speak of ,christ's death in two ways1 in becoming and in fact4 ,death is said to be in becoming when anyone from natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death3 and in this way it is the same thing to speak of ,christ's death as of ,his ,passion3 so that in this sense ,christ's death is the cause of our salvation1 according to what has been already said of the ,passion 7,q4 #dh74 ,but death is considered in fact1 inasmuch as the separation of soul and body has already taken place3 and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of ,christ's death4 ,in this way ,christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit1 but only by way of causality1 that is to say1 inasmuch as the ,godhead was not separated from ,christ's flesh by death2 and therefore1 whatever befell ,christ's flesh1 even when the soul was departed1 was conducive to salvation in virtue of the ,godhead united4 ,but the effect of any cause is properly estimated according to its resemblance to the cause4 ,consequently1 since death is a kind of privation of one's own life1 the effect of ,christ's death is considered in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation3 and these are the death of the soul and of the body4 ,hence ,christ's death is said to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul1 caused by sin1 according to ,rom4 #d3be3 ,he was delivered up namely unto death for our sins3 and the death of the body1 consisting in the separation of the soul1 according to #a ,cor4 #ae3ed3 ,death is swallowed up in victory4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of the ,godhead united1 and not considered merely as ,his death4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,though ,christ's death1 considered in fact did not effect our salvation by way of merit1 yet it did so by way of causality1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's death was indeed corporeal2 but the body was the instrument of the ,godhead united to ,him1 working by ,its power1 although dead4 ,,question #ea ,,of ,,christ',s ,,burial 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's burial1 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting for ,christ to be buried8 7#b7 ,concerning the manner of ,his burial2 7#c7 ,whether ,his body was decomposed in the tomb8 7#d7 ,concerning the length of time ,he lay in the tomb4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ea1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,be ,buried8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting for ,christ to have been buried1 because it is said of ,him 7,ps4 #hg3f73 ,he is ,vulg43 ',i am' become as a man without help1 free among the dead4 ,but the bodies of the dead are enclosed in a tomb2 which seems contrary to liberty4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting for ,christ to have been buried4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing should be done to ,christ except it was helpful to our salvation4 ,but ,christ's burial seems in no way to be conducive to our salvation4 ,therefore1 it was not fitting for ,him to be buried4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems out of place for ,god who is above the high heavens to be laid in the earth4 ,but what befalls the dead body of ,christ is attributed to ,god by reason of the union4 ,therefore it appears to be unbecoming for ,christ to be buried4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #bf3aj7 of the woman who anointed ,him3 ,she has wrought a good work upon ,me1 and then ,he added 7,matt4 #bf3ab7--;for she1 in pouring this ointment upon ,my body1 hath done it for ,my burial4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ to be buried4 ,first of all1 to establish the truth of ,his death2 for no one is laid in the grave unless there be certainty of death4 ,hence we read 7,mk4 #ae3dd1 #de71 that ,pilate by diligent inquiry assured himself of ,christ's death before granting leave for ,his burial4 ,secondly1 because by ,christ's rising from the grave1 to them who are in the grave1 hope is given of rising again through ,him1 according to ,john #e3be1 #bh3 ,all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the ,son of ,god 4 4 4 and they that hear shall live4 ,thirdly1 as an example to them who dying spiritually to their sins are hidden away from the disturbance of men 7,ps4 #cj3ba74 ,hence it is said 7,col4 #c3c73 ,you are dead1 and your life is hid with ,christ in ,god4 ,wherefore the baptized likewise who through ,christ's death die to sins1 are as it were buried with ,christ by immersion1 according to ,rom4 #f3d3 ,we are buried together with ,christ by baptism into death4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,though buried1 ,christ proved ,himself free among the dead3 since1 although imprisoned in the tomb1 ,he could not be hindered from going forth by rising again4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,christ's death wrought our salvation1 so likewise did ,his burial4 ,hence ,jerome says 7,super ,marc4 xiv73 ,by ,christ's burial we rise again2 and on ,isa4 #ec3i3 ,he shall give the ungodly for ,his burial1 a gloss says3 ,he shall give to ,god and the ,father the ,gentiles who were without godliness1 because ,he purchased them by ,his death and burial4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as is said in a discourse made at the ,council of ,ephesus 99,p4 iii1 cap4 #i1 ,nothing that saves man is derogatory to ,god2 showing ,him to be not passible1 but merciful3 and in another discourse of the same ,council 99,p4 iii1 cap4 #aj3 ,god does not repute anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation4 ,thus thou shalt not deem ,god's ,nature to be so vile1 as though ,it may sometimes be subjected to injuries4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ea1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,was ,buried in a ,becoming ,manner8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was buried in an unbecoming manner4 ,for ,his burial should be in keeping with ,his death4 ,but ,christ underwent a most shameful death1 according to ,wis4 #b3bj3 ,let us condemn ,him to a most shameful death4 ,it seems therefore unbecoming for honorable burial to be accorded to ,christ1 inasmuch as ,he was buried by men of position--namely1 by ,joseph of ,arimathea1 who was a noble counselor1 to use ,mark's expression 7,mk4 #ae3dc71 and by ,nicodemus1 who was a ruler of the ,jews1 as ,john states 7,john #c3a74 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing should be done to ,christ which might set an example of wastefulness4 ,but it seems to savor of waste that in order to bury ,christ ,nicodemus came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes about a hundred pounds weight1 as recorded by ,john 7#ai3ci71 especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint ,his body for the burial1 as ,mark relates 7,mk4 #ad3bh74 ,consequently1 this was not done becomingly with regard to ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is not becoming for anything done to be inconsistent with itself4 ,but ,christ's burial on the one hand was simple1 because ,joseph wrapped ,his body in a clean linen cloth1 as is related by ,matthew 7#bg3ei71 but not with gold or gems1 or silk1 as ,jerome observes3 yet on the other hand there appears to have been some display1 inasmuch as they buried ,him with fragrant spices 7,john #ai3dj74 ,consequently1 the manner of ,christ's burial does not seem to have been seemly4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,what things soever were written1 especially of ,christ1 were written for our learning1 according to ,rom4 #ae3d4 ,but some of the things written in the ,gospels touching ,christ's burial in no wise seem to pertain to our instruction--as that ,he was buried in a garden 4 4 4 in a tomb which was not ,his own1 which was new1 and hewed out in a rock4 ,therefore the manner of ,christ's burial was not becoming4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #aa3aj73 ,and ,his sepulchre shall be glorious4 ,i answer that1 ,the manner of ,christ's burial is shown to be seemly in three respects4 ,first1 to confirm faith in ,his death and resurrection4 ,secondly1 to commend the devotion of those who gave ,him burial4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei i73 ,the ,gospel mentions as praiseworthy the deed of those who received ,his body from the cross1 and with due care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it4 ,thirdly1 as to the mystery whereby those are molded who are buried together with ,christ into death 7,rom4 #f3d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,with regard to ,christ's death1 ,his patience and constancy in enduring death are commended1 and all the more that ,his death was the more despicable3 but in ,his honorable burial we can see the power of the dying ,man1 who1 even in death1 frustrated the intent of ,his murderers1 and was buried with honor3 and thereby is foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come were to serve the dead ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,on that expression of the ,evangelist 7,john #ai3dj7 that they buried ,him as the manner of the ,jews is to bury1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 in ,joan4 cxx73 ,he admonishes us that in offices of this kind which are rendered to the dead1 the custom of each nation should be observed4 ,now it was the custom of this people to anoint bodies with various spices in order the longer to preserve them from corruption 99,cf4 ,catena ,aurea in ,joan4 xix4 ,accordingly it is said in ,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 iii that in all such things1 it is not the use thereof1 but the luxury of the user that is at fault2 and1 farther on3 what in other persons is frequently criminal1 in a divine or prophetic person is a sign of something great4 ,for myrrh and aloes by their bitterness denote penance1 by which man keeps ,christ within himself without the corruption of sin2 while the odor of the ointments expresses good report4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,myrrh and aloes were used on ,christ's body in order that it might be preserved from corruption1 and this seemed to imply a certain need 7in the body73 hence the example is set us that we may lawfully use precious things medicinally1 from the need of preserving our body4 ,but the wrapping up of the body was merely a question of becoming propriety4 ,and we ought to content ourselves with simplicity in such things4 ,yet1 as ,jerome observes1 by this act was denoted that he swathes ,jesus in clean linen1 who receives ,him with a pure soul4 ,hence1 as ,bede says on ,mark #ae3df3 ,the ,church's custom has prevailed for the sacrifice of the altar to be offered not upon silk1 nor upon dyed cloth1 but on linen of the earth2 as the ,lord's body was buried in a clean winding-sheet4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ was buried in a garden to express that by ,his death and burial we are delivered from the death which we incur through ,adam's sin committed in the garden of paradise4 ,but for this was our ,lord buried in the grave of a stranger1 as ,augustine says in a sermon 7ccxlviii71 because ,he died for the salvation of others2 and a sepulchre is the abode of death4 ,also the extent of the poverty endured for us can be thereby estimated3 since ,he who while living had no home1 after death was laid to rest in another's tomb1 and being naked was clothed by ,joseph4 ,but ,he is laid in a new sepulchre1 as ,jerome observes on ,matt4 #bg3fj1 lest after the resurrection it might be pretended that someone else had risen1 while the other corpses remained4 ,the new sepulchre can also denote ,mary's virginal womb4 ,and furthermore it may be understood that all of us are renewed by ,christ's burial2 death and corruption being destroyed4 ,moreover1 ,he was buried in a monument hewn out of a rock1 as ,jerome says on ,matt4 #bg3fd1 lest1 if it had been constructed of many stones1 they might say that ,he was stolen away by digging away the foundations of the tomb4 ,hence the great stone which was set shows that the tomb could not be opened except by the help of many hands4 ,again1 if ,he had been buried in the earth1 they might have said3 ,they dug up the soil and stole ,him away1 as ,augustine observes 99,cf4 ,catena ,aurea4 ,hilary 7,comment4 in ,matth4 cap4 xxxiii7 gives the mystical interpretation1 saying that by the teaching of the apostles1 ,christ is borne into the stony heart of the gentile2 for it is hewn out by the process of teaching1 unpolished and new1 untenanted and open to the entrance of the fear of ,god4 ,and since naught besides ,him must enter into our hearts1 a great stone is rolled against the door4 ,furthermore1 as ,origen says 7,tract4 xxxv in ,matth473 ,it was not written by hazard3 ',joseph wrapped ,christ's body in a clean winding-sheet1 and placed it in a new monument1' and that 'he rolled a great stone1' because all things around the body of ,jesus are clean1 and new1 and exceeding great4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ea1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,body ,was ,reduced to ,dust in the ,tomb8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb4 ,for just as man dies in punishment of his first parent's sin1 so also does he return to dust1 since it was said to the first man after his sin3 ,dust thou art1 and into dust thou shalt return 7,gen4 #c3ai74 ,but ,christ endured death in order to deliver us from death4 ,therefore ,his body ought to be made to return to dust1 so as to free us from the same penalty4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's body was of the same nature as ours4 ,but directly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust1 and are disposed towards putrefaction1 because when the natural heat departs1 there supervenes heat from without which causes corruption4 ,therefore it seems that the same thing happened to ,christ's body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 ,christ willed to be buried in order to furnish men with the hope of rising likewise from the grave4 ,consequently1 ,he sought likewise to return to dust so as to give to them who have returned to dust the hope of rising from the dust4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ps4 #ae3aj73 ,nor wilt ,thou suffer ,thy holy one to see corruption3 and ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii7 expounds this of the corruption which comes of dissolving into elements4 ,i answer that1 ,it was not fitting for ,christ's body to putrefy1 or in any way be reduced to dust1 since the putrefaction of any body comes of that body's infirmity of nature1 which can no longer hold the body together4 ,but as was said above 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 ,christ's death ought not to come from weakness of nature1 lest it might not be believed to be voluntary3 and therefore ,he willed to die1 not from sickness1 but from suffering inflicted on ,him1 to which ,he gave ,himself up willingly4 ,and therefore1 lest ,his death might be ascribed to infirmity of nature1 ,christ did not wish ,his body to putrefy in any way or dissolve no matter how2 but for the manifestation of ,his ,divine power ,he willed that ,his body should continue incorrupt4 ,hence ,chrysostom says 7,cont4 ,jud4 et ,gent4 quod ',christus sit ,deus'7 that with other men1 especially with such as have wrought strenuously1 their deeds shine forth in their lifetime2 but as soon as they die1 their deeds go with them4 ,but it is quite the contrary with ,christ3 because previous to the cross all is sadness and weakness1 but as soon as ,he is crucified1 everything comes to light1 in order that you may learn it was not an ordinary man that was crucified4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since ,christ was not subject to sin1 neither was ,he prone to die or to return to dust4 ,yet of ,his own will ,he endured death for our salvation1 for the reasons alleged above 7,q4 #ea1 ,a4 #a74 ,but had ,his body putrefied or dissolved1 this fact would have been detrimental to man's salvation1 for it would not have seemed credible that the ,divine power was in ,him4 ,hence it is on ,his behalf that it is written 7,ps4 #ai3aj73 ,what profit is there in my blood1 whilst ,i go down to corruption8 as if ,he were to say3 ,if ,my body corrupt1 the profit of the blood shed will be lost4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's body was a subject of corruption according to the condition of its passible nature1 but not as to the deserving cause of putrefaction1 which is sin3 but the ,divine power preserved ,christ's body from putrefying1 just as it raised it up from death4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ rose from the tomb by ,divine power1 which is not narrowed within bounds4 ,consequently1 ,his rising from the grave was a sufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up by ,divine power1 not only from their graves1 but also from any dust whatever4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ea1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,was in the ,tomb ,only ,one ,day and ,two ,nights8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not in the tomb during only one day and two nights2 because ,he said 7,matt4 #ab3dj73 ,as ,jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights3 so shall the ,son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights4 ,but ,he was in the heart of the earth while ,he was in the grave4 ,therefore ,he was not in the tomb for only one day and two nights4 ,obj4 #b3 ,gregory says in a ,paschal ,homily 7,hom4 xxi73 ,as ,samson carried off the gates of ,gaza during the night1 even so ,christ rose in the night1 taking away the gates of hell4 ,but after rising ,he was not in the tomb4 ,therefore ,he was not two whole nights in the grave4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 light prevailed over darkness by ,christ's death4 ,but night belongs to darkness1 and day to light4 ,therefore it was more fitting for ,christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night1 rather than conversely4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,there were thirty-six hours from the evening of ,his burial to the dawn of the resurrection1 that is1 a whole night with a whole day1 and a whole night4 ,i answer that1 ,the very time during which ,christ remained in the tomb shows forth the effect of ,his death4 ,for it was said above 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #f7 that by ,christ's death we were delivered from a twofold death1 namely1 from the death of the soul and of the body3 and this is signified by the two nights during which ,he remained in the tomb4 ,but since ,his death did not come of sin1 but was endured from charity1 it has not the semblance of night1 but of day3 consequently it is denoted by the whole day during which ,christ was in the sepulchre4 ,and so it was fitting for ,christ to be in the sepulchre during one day and two nights4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii73 ,some men1 ignorant of ,scriptural language1 wished to compute as night those three hours1 from the sixth to the ninth hour1 during which the sun was darkened1 and as day those other three hours during which it was restored to the earth1 that is1 from the ninth hour until its setting3 for the coming night of the ,sabbath follows1 and if this be reckoned with its day1 there will be already two nights and two days4 ,now after the ,sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the ,sabbath1 that is1 of the dawning ,sunday1 on which the ,lord rose4 ,even so1 the reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand4 ,it remains then to find the solution in the customary usage of speech of the ,scriptures1 whereby the whole is understood from the part3 so that we are able to take a day and a night as one natural day4 ,and so the first day is computed from its ending1 during which ,christ died and was buried on the ,friday2 while the second day is an entire day with twenty-four hours of night and day2 while the night following belongs to the third day4 ,for as the primitive days were computed from light to night on account of man's future fall1 so these days are computed from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's restoration 7,de ,trin4 iv74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv2 cf4 ,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii71 ,christ rose with the dawn1 when light appears in part1 and still some part of the darkness of the night remains4 ,hence it is said of the women that when it was yet dark they came to the sepulchre 7,john #bj3a74 ,therefore1 in consequence of this darkness1 ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxi7 that ,christ rose in the middle of the night1 not that night is divided into two equal parts1 but during the night itself3 for the expression early can be taken as partly night and partly day1 from its fittingness with both4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the light prevailed so far in ,christ's death 7which is denoted by the one day7 that it dispelled the darkness of the two nights1 that is1 of our twofold death1 as stated above4 ,,question #eb ,,of ,,christ',s ,,descent ,,into ,,hell 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's descent into hell2 concerning which there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it was fitting for ,christ to descend into hell8 7#b7 ,into which hell did ,he descend8 7#c7 ,whether ,he was entirely in hell8 7#d7 ,whether ,he made any stay there8 7#e7 ,whether ,he delivered the ,holy ,fathers from hell8 7#f7 ,whether ,he delivered the lost from hell8 7#g7 ,whether ,he delivered the children who died in original sin8 7#h7 ,whether ,he delivered men from ,purgatory8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,descend into ,hell8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting for ,christ to descend into hell1 because ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,evod4 cliv473 ,nor could ,i find anywhere in the ,scriptures hell mentioned as something good4 ,but ,christ's soul did not descend into any evil place1 for neither do the souls of the just4 ,therefore it does not seem fitting for ,christ's soul to descend into hell4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it cannot belong to ,christ to descend into hell according to ,his ,divine ,nature1 which is altogether immovable2 but only according to ,his assumed nature4 ,but that which ,christ did or suffered in ,his assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation3 and to secure this it does not seem necessary for ,christ to descend into hell1 since ,he delivered us from both guilt and penalty by ,his ,passion which ,he endured in this world1 as stated above 7,q4 #di1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,consequently1 it was not fitting that ,christ should descend into hell4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 by ,christ's death ,his soul was separated from ,his body1 and this was laid in the sepulchre1 as stated above 7,q4 #ea74 ,but it seems that ,he descended into hell1 not according to ,his soul only1 because seemingly the soul1 being incorporeal1 cannot be a subject of local motion2 for this belongs to bodies1 as is proved in ,phys4 vi1 text4 #cb2 while descent implies corporeal motion4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ to descend into hell4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said in the ,creed3 ,he descended into hell3 and the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #d3i73 ,now that ,he ascended1 what is it1 but because ,he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth8 ,and a gloss adds3 that is--into hell4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ to descend into hell4 ,first of all1 because ,he came to bear our penalty in order to free us from penalty1 according to ,isa4 #ec3d3 ,surely ,he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows4 ,but through sin man had incurred not only the death of the body1 but also descent into hell4 ,consequently since it was fitting for ,christ to die in order to deliver us from death1 so it was fitting for ,him to descend into hell in order to deliver us also from going down into hell4 ,hence it is written 7,osee #ac3ad73 ,o death1 ,i will be thy death2 ,o hell1 ,i will be thy bite4 ,secondly1 because it was fitting when the devil was overthrown by the ,passion that ,christ should deliver the captives detained in hell1 according to ,zech4 #i3aa3 ,thou also by the blood of ,thy ,testament hast sent forth ,thy prisoners out of the pit4 ,and it is written 7,col4 #b3ae73 ,despoiling the principalities and powers1 ,he hath exposed them confidently4 ,thirdly1 that as ,he showed forth ,his power on earth by living and dying1 so also ,he might manifest it in hell1 by visiting it and enlightening it4 ,accordingly it is written 7,ps4 #bc3g73 ,lift up your gates1 ,o ye princes1 which the gloss thus interprets3 that is--,ye princes of hell1 take away your power1 whereby hitherto you held men fast in hell2 and so at the name of ,jesus every knee should bow1 not only of them that are in heaven1 but likewise of them that are in hell1 as is said in ,phil4 #b3aj4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the name of hell stands for an evil of penalty1 and not for an evil of guilt4 ,hence it was becoming that ,christ should descend into hell1 not as liable to punishment ,himself1 but to deliver them who were4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's ,passion was a kind of universal cause of men's salvation1 both of the living and of the dead4 ,but a general cause is applied to particular effects by means of something special4 ,hence1 as the power of the ,passion is applied to the living through the sacraments which make us like unto ,christ's ,passion1 so likewise it is applied to the dead through ,his descent into hell4 ,on which account it is written 7,zech4 #i3aa7 that ,he sent forth prisoners out of the pit1 in the blood of ,his testament1 that is1 by the power of ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's soul descended into hell not by the same kind of motion as that whereby bodies are moved1 but by that kind whereby the angels are moved1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ec1 ,a4 #a74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,went ,down into the ,hell of the ,lost8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ went down into the hell of the lost1 because it is said by the mouth of ,divine ,wisdom 7,ecclus4 #bd3de73 ,i will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth4 ,but the hell of the lost is computed among the lower parts of the earth according to ,ps4 #fb3aj3 ,they shall go into the lower parts of the earth4 ,therefore ,christ who is the ,wisdom of ,god1 went down even into the hell of the lost4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,peter says 7,acts #b3bd7 that ,god hath raised up ,christ1 having loosed the sorrows of hell1 as it was impossible that ,he should be holden by it4 ,but there are no sorrows in the hell of the ,fathers1 nor in the hell of the children1 since they are not punished with sensible pain on account of any actual sin1 but only with the pain of loss on account of original sin4 ,therefore ,christ went down into the hell of the lost1 or else into ,purgatory1 where men are tormented with sensible pain on account of actual sins4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,pet4 #c3ai7 that ,christ coming in spirit preached to those spirits that were in prison1 which had some time been incredulous3 and this is understood of ,christ's descent into hell1 as ,athanasius says 7,ep4 ad ,epict474 ,for he says that ,christ's body was laid in the sepulchre when ,he went to preach to those spirits who were in bondage1 as ,peter said4 ,but it is clear the unbelievers were in the hell of the lost4 ,therefore ,christ went down into the hell of the lost4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,evod4 clxiv73 ,if the sacred ,scriptures had said that ,christ came into ,abraham's bosom1 without naming hell or its woes1 ,i wonder whether any person would dare to assert that ,he descended into hell4 ,but since evident testimonies mention hell and its sorrows1 there is no reason for believing that ,christ went there except to deliver men from the same woes4 ,but the place of woes is the hell of the lost4 ,therefore ,christ descended into the hell of the lost4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 as ,augustine says in a sermon upon the ,resurrection3 ,christ descending into hell set free all the just who were held in the bonds of original sin4 ,but among them was ,job1 who says of himself 7,job #ag3af73 ,all that ,i have shall go down into the deepest pit4 ,therefore ,christ descended into the deepest pit4 ,on the contrary1 ,regarding the hell of the lost it is written 7,job #aj3ba73 ,before ,i go1 and return no more1 to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death4 ,now there is no fellowship of light with darkness1 according to #b ,cor4 #f3ad4 ,therefore ,christ1 who is the light1 did not descend into the hell of the lost4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be in a place in two ways4 ,first of all1 through its effect1 and in this way ,christ descended into each of the hells1 but in different manner4 ,for going down into the hell of the lost ,he wrought this effect1 that by descending thither ,he put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness3 but to them who were detained in ,purgatory ,he gave hope of attaining to glory3 while upon the holy ,fathers detained in hell solely on account of original sin1 ,he shed the light of glory everlasting4 ,in another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence3 and in this way ,christ's soul descended only into that part of hell wherein the just were detained4 so that ,he visited them in place1 according to ,his soul1 whom ,he visited interiorly by grace1 according to ,his ,godhead4 ,accordingly1 while remaining in one part of hell1 ,he wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell1 just as while suffering in one part of the earth ,he delivered the whole world by ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ1 who is the ,wisdom of ,god1 penetrated to all the lower parts of the earth1 not passing through them locally with ,his soul1 but by spreading the effects of ,his power in a measure to them all3 yet so that ,he enlightened only the just3 because the text quoted continues3 ,and ,i will enlighten all that hope in the ,lord4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,sorrow is twofold3 one is the suffering of pain which men endure for actual sin1 according to ,ps4 #ag3f3 ,the sorrows of hell encompassed me4 ,another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being deferred1 according to ,prov4 #ac3ab3 ,hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul3 and such was the sorrow which the holy ,fathers suffered in hell1 and ,augustine refers to it in a sermon on the ,passion1 saying that they besought ,christ with tearful entreaty4 ,now by descending into hell ,christ took away both sorrows1 yet in different ways3 for ,he did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them1 just as a physician is said to free a man from sickness by warding it off by means of physic4 ,likewise ,he removed the sorrows caused by glory deferred1 by bestowing glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these words of ,peter are referred by some to ,christ's descent into hell3 and they explain it in this sense3 ,christ preached to them who formerly were unbelievers1 and who were shut up in prison--that is1 in hell--in spirit--that is1 by ,his soul4 ,hence ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iii73 ,as ,he evangelized them who are upon the earth1 so did ,he those who were in hell2 not in order to convert unbelievers unto belief1 but to put them to shame for their unbelief1 since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the open manifesting of ,his ,godhead1 which was laid bare before them in the lower regions by ,his descending in power into hell4 ,augustine1 however1 furnishes a better exposition of the text in his ,epistle to ,evodius quoted above1 namely1 that the preaching is not to be referred to ,christ's descent into hell1 but to the operation of ,his ,godhead1 to which ,he gave effect from the beginning of the world4 ,consequently1 the sense is1 that to those 7spirits7 that were in prison--that is1 living in the mortal body1 which is1 as it were1 the soul's prison-house--by the spirit of ,his ,godhead ,he came and preached by internal inspirations1 and from without by the admonitions spoken by the righteous3 to those1 ,i say1 ,he preached which had been some time incredulous1 i4e4 not believing in the preaching of ,noe1 when they waited for the patience of ,god1 whereby the chastisement of the ,deluge was put off3 accordingly 7,peter7 adds3 ,in the days of ,noe1 when the ,ark was being built4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the expression ,abraham's bosom may be taken in two senses4 ,first of all1 as implying that restfulness1 existing there1 from sensible pain2 so that in this sense it cannot be called hell1 nor are there any sorrows there4 ,in another way it can be taken as implying the privation of longed-for glory3 in this sense it has the character of hell and sorrow4 ,consequently1 that rest of the blessed is now called ,abraham's bosom1 yet it is not styled hell1 nor are sorrows said to be now in ,abraham's bosom4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,gregory says 7,moral4 xiii73 ,even the higher regions of hell he calls the deepest hell 4 4 4 ,for if relatively to the height of heaven this darksome air is infernal1 then relatively to the height of this same air the earth lying beneath can be considered as infernal and deep4 ,and again in comparison with the height of the same earth1 those parts of hell which are higher than the other infernal mansions1 may in this way be designated as the deepest hell4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,whole ,christ ,was in ,hell8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the whole ,christ was not in hell4 ,for ,christ's body is one of ,his parts4 ,but ,his body was not in hell4 ,therefore1 the whole ,christ was not in hell4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing can be termed whole when its parts are severed4 ,but the soul and body1 which are the parts of human nature1 were separated at ,his death1 as stated above 7,q4 #ej1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d71 and it was after death that ,he descended into hell4 ,therefore the whole 7,christ7 could not be in hell4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the whole of a thing is said to be in a place when no part of it is outside such place4 ,but there were parts of ,christ outside hell2 for instance1 ,his body was in the grave1 and ,his ,godhead everywhere4 ,therefore the whole ,christ was not in hell4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,symbolo iii73 ,the whole ,son is with the ,father1 the whole ,son in heaven1 on earth1 in the ,virgin's womb1 on the ,cross1 in hell1 in paradise1 into which ,he brought the robber4 ,i answer that1 ,it is evident from what was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ca1 ,a4 #b1 ad #d71 the masculine gender is referred to the hypostasis or person1 while the neuter belongs to the nature4 ,now in the death of ,christ1 although the soul was separated from the body1 yet neither was separated from the ,person of the ,son of ,god1 as stated above 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #b74 ,consequently1 it must be affirmed that during the three days of ,christ's death the whole ,christ was in the tomb1 because the whole ,person was there through the body united with ,him1 and likewise ,he was entirely in hell1 because the whole ,person of ,christ was there by reason of the soul united with ,him1 and the whole ,christ was then everywhere by reason of the ,divine ,nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the body which was then in the grave is not a part of the uncreated ,person1 but of the assumed nature4 ,consequently1 the fact of ,christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole ,christ from being there3 but proves that not everything appertaining to human nature was there4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the whole human nature is made up of the united soul and body2 not so the ,divine ,person4 ,consequently when death severed the union of the soul with the body1 the whole ,christ remained1 but ,his whole human nature did not remain4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,person is whole in each single place1 but not wholly1 because it is not circumscribed by any place3 indeed1 all places put together could not comprise ,his immensity2 rather is it ,his immensity that embraces all things4 ,but it happens in those things which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively1 that if a whole be in some place1 then no part of it is outside that place4 ,but this is not the case with ,god4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,symbolo iii73 ,it is not according to times or places that we say that the whole ,christ is everywhere1 as if ,he were at one time whole in one place1 at another time whole in another3 but as being whole always and everywhere4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,made ,any ,stay in ,hell8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not make any stay in hell4 ,for ,christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence4 ,but ,he accomplished this deliverance at once by ,his descent1 for1 according to ,ecclus4 #aa3bc3 ,it is easy in the eyes of ,god on a sudden to make the poor man rich4 ,consequently ,he does not seem to have tarried in hell4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,passion 7clx7 that of a sudden at our ,lord and ,saviour's bidding all 'the bars of iron were burst' 7,cf4 ,isa4 #de3b74 ,hence on behalf of the angels accompanying ,christ it is written 7,ps4 #bc3g1 #i73 ,lift up your gates1 ,o ye princes4 ,now ,christ descended thither in order to break the bolts of hell4 ,therefore ,he did not make any stay in hell4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is related 7,luke #bc3dc7 that our ,lord while hanging on the cross said to the thief3 ,this day thou shalt be with ,me in paradise3 from which it is evident that ,christ was in paradise on that very day4 ,but ,he was not there with ,his body1 for that was in the grave4 ,therefore ,he was there with the soul which had gone down into hell3 and consequently it appears that ,he made no stay in hell4 ,on the contrary1 ,peter says 7,acts #b3bd73 ,whom ,god hath raised up1 having loosed the sorrows of hell1 as it was impossible that ,he should be held by it4 ,therefore it seems that ,he remained in hell until the hour of the ,resurrection4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,christ1 in order to take our penalties upon ,himself1 willed ,his body to be laid in the tomb1 so likewise ,he willed ,his soul to descend into hell4 ,but the body lay in the tomb for a day and two nights1 so as to demonstrate the truth of ,his death4 ,consequently1 it is to be believed that ,his soul was in hell1 in order that it might be brought back out of hell simultaneously with ,his body from the tomb4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when ,christ descended into hell ,he delivered the saints who were there1 not by leading them out at once from the confines of hell1 but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell itself4 ,nevertheless it was fitting that ,his soul should abide in hell as long as ,his body remained in the tomb4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by the expression bars of hell are understood the obstacles which kept the holy ,fathers from quitting hell1 through the guilt of our first parent's sin2 and these bars ,christ burst asunder by the power of ,his ,passion on descending into hell3 nevertheless ,he chose to remain in hell for some time1 for the reason stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,our ,lord's expression is not to be understood of the earthly corporeal paradise1 but of a spiritual one1 in which all are said to be who enjoy the ,divine glory4 ,accordingly1 the thief descended locally into hell with ,christ1 because it was said to him3 ,this day thou shalt be with ,me in paradise2 still as to reward he was in paradise1 because he enjoyed ,christ's ,godhead just as the other saints did4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ ,descending into ,hell ,delivered the ,holy ,fathers from ,thence8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ descending into hell did not deliver the holy ,fathers from thence4 ,for ,augustine 7,epist4 ad ,evod4 clxiv7 says3 ,i have not yet discovered what ,christ descending into hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in ,abraham's bosom1 from whom ,i fail to see that ,he ever departed according to the beatific presence of ,his ,godhead4 ,but had ,he delivered them1 ,he would have bestowed much upon them4 ,therefore it does not appear that ,christ delivered the holy ,fathers from hell4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one is detained in hell except on account of sin4 ,but during life the holy ,fathers were justified from sin through faith in ,christ4 ,consequently they did not need to be delivered from hell on ,christ's descent thither4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if you remove the cause1 you remove the effect4 ,but that ,christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away by the ,passion1 as stated above 7,q4 #di1 ,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 the holy ,fathers were not delivered on ,christ's descent into hell4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in the sermon on the ,passion already quoted that when ,christ descended into hell ,he broke down the gate and 'iron bars' of hell1 setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #b71 when ,christ descended into hell ,he worked through the power of ,his ,passion4 ,but through ,christ's ,passion the human race was delivered not only from sin1 but also from the debt of its penalty1 as stated above 7,q4 #di1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,now men were held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways3 first of all for actual sin which each had committed personally3 secondly1 for the sin of the whole human race1 which each one in his origin contracts from our first parent1 as stated in ,rom4 #e of which sin the penalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory1 as is evident from ,gen4 #b and #c3 because ,god cast out man from paradise after sin1 having beforehand threatened him with death should he sin4 ,consequently1 when ,christ descended into hell1 by the power of ,his ,passion ,he delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory1 so as to be unable to see ,god in ,his ,essence1 wherein man's beatitude lies1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #c1 ,a4 #h74 ,but the holy ,fathers were detained in hell for the reason1 that1 owing to our first parent's sin1 the approach to the life of glory was not opened4 ,and so when ,christ descended into hell ,he delivered the holy ,fathers from thence4 ,and this is what is written ,zech4 #i3aa3 ,thou also by the blood of ,thy testament hast sent forth ,thy prisoners out of the pit1 wherein is no water4 ,and 7,col4 #b3ae7 it is written that despoiling the principalities and powers1 i4e4 of hell1 by taking out ,isaac and ,jacob1 and the other just souls1 ,he led them1 i4e4 ,he brought them far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven1 as the gloss explains4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine is speaking there against such as maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings before ,christ's descent into hell4 ,hence shortly before the passage quoted he says3 ,some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the saints of old1 that on the ,lord's coming into hell they were freed from their sufferings4 ,but ,i fail to see how ,abraham1 into whose bosom the poor man was received1 was ever in such sufferings4 ,consequently1 when he afterwards adds that he had not yet discovered what ,christ's descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old1 this must be understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings4 ,yet ,christ bestowed something upon them as to their attaining glory3 and in consequence ,he dispelled the suffering which they endured through their glory being delayed3 still they had great joy from the very hope thereof1 according to ,john #h3ef3 ,abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day4 ,and therefore he adds3 ,i fail to see that ,he ever departed1 according to the beatific presence of ,his ,godhead1 that is1 inasmuch as even before ,christ's coming they were happy in hope1 although not yet fully happy in fact4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the holy ,fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in ,christ2 also from the penalty of actual sins1 but not from the penalty of original sin1 whereby they were excluded from glory1 since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid3 just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins1 and from the penalty of original sin as to exclusion from glory1 yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit1 but not yet in the flesh1 according to ,rom4 #h3aj3 ,the body indeed is dead1 because of sin2 but the spirit liveth1 because of justification4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,directly ,christ died ,his soul went down into hell1 and bestowed the fruits of ,his ,passion on the saints detained there2 although they did not go out as long as ,christ remained in hell1 because ,his presence was part of the fulness of their glory4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ ,delivered ,any of the ,lost from ,hell8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did deliver some of the lost from hell1 because it is written 7,isa4 #bd3bb73 ,and they shall be gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit1 end they shall be shut up there in prison3 and after many days they shall be visited4 ,but there he is speaking of the lost1 who had adored the host of heaven1 according to ,jerome's commentary4 ,consequently it seems that even the lost were visited at ,christ's descent into hell2 and this seems to imply their deliverance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,zech4 #i3aa3 ,thou also by the blood of ,thy testament hast sent forth ,thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water1 the gloss observes3 ,thou hast delivered them who were held bound in prisons1 where no mercy refreshed them1 which that rich man prayed for4 ,but only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons4 ,therefore ,christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's power was not less in hell than in this world1 because ,he worked in every place by the power of ,his ,godhead4 ,but in this world ,he delivered some persons of every state4 ,therefore1 in hell also1 ,he delivered some from the state of the lost4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,osee #ac3ad73 ,o death1 ,i will be thy death2 ,o hell1 ,i will be thy bite3 upon which the gloss says3 ,by leading forth the elect1 and leaving there the reprobate4 ,but only the reprobate are in the hell of the lost4 ,therefore1 by ,christ's descent into hell none were delivered from the hell of the lost4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #e71 when ,christ descended into hell ,he worked by the power of ,his ,passion4 ,consequently1 ,his descent into hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were united to ,his ,passion through faith quickened by charity1 whereby sins are taken away4 ,now those detained in the hell of the lost either had no faith in ,christ's ,passion1 as infidels2 or if they had faith1 they had no conformity with the charity of the suffering ,christ3 hence they could not be cleansed from their sins4 ,and on this account ,christ's descent into hell brought them no deliverance from the debt of punishment in hell4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when ,christ descended into hell1 all who were in any part of hell were visited in some respect3 some to their consolation and deliverance1 others1 namely1 the lost1 to their shame and confusion4 ,accordingly the passage continues3 ,and the moon shall blush1 and the sun be put to shame1 etc4 ,this can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them in the ,day of ,judgment1 not for their deliverance1 but for their yet greater confusion1 according to ,sophon4 i1 #ab3 ,i will visit upon the men that are settled on their lees4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when the gloss says where no mercy refreshed them1 this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance1 because the holy ,fathers could not be delivered from this prison of hell before ,christ's coming4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it was not due to any lack of power on ,christ's part that some were not delivered from every state in hell1 as out of every state among men in this world2 but it was owing to the very different condition of each state4 ,for1 so long as men live here below1 they can be converted to faith and charity1 because in this life men are not confirmed either in good or in evil1 as they are after quitting this life4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,children ,who ,died in ,original ,sin ,were ,delivered by ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the children who died in original sin were delivered from hell by ,christ's descending thither4 ,for1 like the holy ,fathers1 the children were kept in hell simply because of original sin4 ,but the holy ,fathers were delivered from hell1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell by ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ae73 ,if by the offense of one1 many died2 much more the grace of ,god and the gift1 by the grace of one man1 ,jesus ,christ1 hath abounded unto many4 ,but the children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing to their first parent's sin4 ,therefore1 much more were they delivered from hell through the grace of ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,baptism works in virtue of ,christ's ,passion1 so also does ,christ's descent into hell1 as is clear from what has been said 7,a4 #d1 ad #b1 ,,aa4 #e1 #f74 ,but through ,baptism children are delivered from original sin and hell4 ,therefore1 they were similarly delivered by ,christ's descent into hell4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #c3be73 ,god hath proposed ,christ to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,but the children who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers of faith in ,christ4 ,therefore1 they did not receive the fruits of ,christ's propitiation1 so as to be delivered by ,him from hell4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #f71 ,christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to ,christ's ,passion1 in virtue whereof ,christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance4 ,but the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to ,christ's ,passion by faith and love3 for1 not having the use of free will1 they could have no faith of their own2 nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith4 ,consequently1 ,christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence4 ,and furthermore1 the holy ,fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of ,god1 to which no one can come except through grace2 according to ,rom4 #f3bc3 ,the grace of ,god is life everlasting4 ,therefore1 since children dying in original sin had no grace1 they were not delivered from hell4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the holy ,fathers1 although still held bound by the debt of original sin1 in so far as it touches human nature1 were nevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in ,christ3 consequently1 they were capable of that deliverance which ,christ brought by descending into hell4 ,but the same cannot be said of the children1 as is evident from what was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when the ,apostle says that the grace of ,god hath abounded unto many1 the word many 99,the ,vulgate reads 'plures1' i4e4 'many more' is to be taken1 not comparatively1 as if more were saved by ,christ's grace than lost by ,adam's sin3 but absolutely1 as if he said that the grace of the one ,christ abounded unto many1 just as ,adam's sin was contracted by many4 ,but as ,adam's sin was contracted by those only who descended seminally from him according to the flesh1 so ,christ's grace reached those only who became ,his members by spiritual regeneration3 which does not apply to children dying in original sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is applied to men in this life1 in which man's state can be changed from sin into grace3 but ,christ's descent into hell was vouchsafed to the souls after this life when they are no longer capable of the said change4 ,and consequently by baptism children are delivered from original sin and from hell1 but not by ,christ's descent into hell4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,christ by ,his ,descent into ,hell ,delivered ,souls from ,purgatory8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ by ,his descent into hell delivered souls from ,purgatory--for ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,evod4 clxiv73 ,because evident testimonies speak of hell and its pains1 there is no reason for believing that the ,saviour came thither except to rescue men from those same pains3 but ,i still wish to know whether it was all whom ,he found there1 or some whom ,he deemed worthy of such a benefit4 ,yet ,i do not doubt that ,christ went into hell1 and granted this favor to them who were suffering from its pains4 ,but1 as stated above 7,a4 #f71 ,he did not confer the benefit of deliverance upon the lost3 and there are no others in a state of penal suffering except those in ,purgatory4 ,consequently ,christ delivered souls from ,purgatory4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the very presence of ,christ's soul had no less effect than ,his sacraments have4 ,but souls are delivered from ,purgatory by the sacraments1 especially by the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 as shall be shown later 7,suppl41 ,q4 #ga1 ,a4 #i74 ,therefore much more were souls delivered from ,purgatory by the presence of ,christ descending into hell4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,poenit4 ix71 those whom ,christ healed in this life ,he healed completely4 ,also1 our ,lord says 7,john #g3bc73 ,i have healed the whole man on the sabbath-day4 ,but ,christ delivered them who were in ,purgatory from the punishment of the pain of loss1 whereby they were excluded from glory4 ,therefore1 ,he also delivered them from the punishment of ,purgatory4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory says 7,moral4 xiii73 ,since our ,creator and ,redeemer1 penetrating the bars of hell1 brought out from thence the souls of the elect1 ,he does not permit us to go thither1 from whence ,he has already by descending set others free4 ,but ,he permits us to go to ,purgatory4 ,therefore1 by descending into hell1 ,he did not deliver souls from ,purgatory4 ,i answer that1 ,as we have stated more than once 7,a4 #d1 ad #b1 ,,aa4 #e1 #f1 #g71 ,christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of ,his ,passion4 ,now ,christ's ,passion had a virtue which was neither temporal nor transitory1 but everlasting1 according to ,heb4 #aj3ad3 ,for by one oblation ,he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified4 ,and so it is evident that ,christ's ,passion had no greater efficacy then than it has now4 ,consequently1 they who were such as those who are now in ,purgatory1 were not set free from ,purgatory by ,christ's descent into hell4 ,but if any were found such as are now set free from ,purgatory by virtue of ,christ's ,passion1 then there was nothing to hinder them from being delivered from ,purgatory by ,christ's descent into hell4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,from this passage of ,augustine it cannot be concluded that all who were in ,purgatory were delivered from it1 but that such a benefit was bestowed upon some persons1 that is to say1 upon such as were already cleansed sufficiently1 or who in life1 by their faith and devotion towards ,christ's death1 so merited1 that when ,he descended1 they were delivered from the temporal punishment of ,purgatory4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's power operates in the sacraments by way of healing and expiation4 ,consequently1 the sacrament of the ,eucharist delivers men from ,purgatory inasmuch as it is a satisfactory sacrifice for sin4 ,but ,christ's descent into hell was not satisfactory2 yet it operated in virtue of the ,passion1 which was satisfactory1 as stated above 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #b71 but satisfactory in general1 since its virtue had to be applied to each individual by something specially personal 7,q4 #di1 ,a4 #a1 ad #d1 #e74 ,consequently1 it does not follow of necessity that all were delivered from ,purgatory by ,christ's descent into hell4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those defects from which ,christ altogether delivered men in this world were purely personal1 and concerned the individual2 whereas exclusion from ,god's glory was a general defect and common to all human nature4 ,consequently1 there was nothing to prevent those detained in ,purgatory being delivered by ,christ from their privation of glory1 but not from the debt of punishment in ,purgatory which pertains to personal defect4 ,just as on the other hand1 the holy ,fathers before ,christ's coming were delivered from their personal defects1 but not from the common defect1 as was stated above 7,a4 #g1 ad #a2 ,q4 #di1 ,a4 #e1 ad #a74 ,,question #ec ,,of ,,christ',s ,,resurrection 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider those things that concern ,christ's ,exaltation2 and we shall deal with 7#a7 ,his ,resurrection2 7#b7 ,his ,ascension2 7#c7 ,his sitting at the right hand of ,god the ,father2 7#d7 ,his ,judiciary ,power4 ,under the first heading there is a fourfold consideration3 7#a7 ,christ's ,resurrection in itself2 7#b7 the quality of the ,person rising2 7#c7 the manifestation of the ,resurrection2 7#d7 its causality4 ,concerning the first there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,the necessity of ,his ,resurrection2 7#b7 ,the time of the ,resurrection2 7#c7 ,its order2 7#d7 ,its cause4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ec1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,necessary for ,christ to ,rise ,again8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not necessary for ,christ to rise again4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,resurrection is the rising again of an animate being1 which was disintegrated and fallen4 ,but ,christ did not fall by sinning1 nor was ,his body dissolved1 as is manifest from what was stated above 7,q4 #ea1 ,a4 #c74 ,therefore1 it does not properly belong to ,him to rise again4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whoever rises again is promoted to a higher state1 since to rise is to be uplifted4 ,but after death ,christ's body continued to be united with the ,godhead1 hence it could not be uplifted to any higher condition4 ,therefore1 it was not due to it to rise again4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 all that befell ,christ's humanity was ordained for our salvation4 ,but ,christ's ,passion sufficed for our salvation1 since by it we were loosed from guilt and punishment1 as is clear from what was said above 7,q4 #di1 ,a4 #a1 #c74 ,consequently1 it was not necessary for ,christ to rise again from the dead4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #bd3df73 ,it behooved ,christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead4 ,i answer that1 ,it behooved ,christ to rise again1 for five reasons4 ,first of all2 for the commendation of ,divine ,justice1 to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for ,god's sake1 according to ,luke #a3eb3 ,he hath put down the mighty from their seat1 and hath exalted the humble4 ,consequently1 because ,christ humbled ,himself even to the death of the ,cross1 from love and obedience to ,god1 it behooved ,him to be uplifted by ,god to a glorious resurrection2 hence it is said in ,his ,person 7,ps4 #ach3b73 ,thou hast known1 i4e4 approved1 my sitting down1 i4e4 ,my humiliation and ,passion1 and my rising up1 i4e4 ,my glorification in the resurrection2 as the gloss expounds4 ,secondly1 for our instruction in the faith1 since our belief in ,christ's ,godhead is confirmed by ,his rising again1 because1 according to #b ,cor4 #ac3d1 although ,he was crucified through weakness1 yet ,he liveth by the power of ,god4 ,and therefore it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ad73 ,if ,christ be not risen again1 then is our preaching vain1 and our ,vulg43 'your' faith is also vain3 and 7,ps4 #bi3aj73 ,what profit is there in my blood8 that is1 in the shedding of ,my blood1 while ,i go down1 as by various degrees of evils1 into corruption8 ,as though ,he were to answer3 ,none4 ',for if ,i do not at once rise again but ,my body be corrupted1 ,i shall preach to no one1 ,i shall gain no one1' as the gloss expounds4 ,thirdly1 for the raising of our hope1 since through seeing ,christ1 who is our head1 rise again1 we hope that we likewise shall rise again4 ,hence it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ab73 ,now if ,christ be preached that ,he rose from the dead1 how do some among you say1 that there is no resurrection of the dead8 ,and 7,job #ai3be1 #bg73 ,i know1 that is with certainty of faith1 that my ,redeemer1 i4e4 ,christ1 liveth1 having risen from the dead2 and therefore in the last day ,i shall rise out of the earth 4 4 4 this my hope is laid up in my bosom4 ,fourthly1 to set in order the lives of the faithful3 according to ,rom4 #f3d3 ,as ,christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the ,father1 so we also may walk in newness of life3 and further on2 ,christ rising from the dead dieth now no more2 so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin1 but alive to ,god4 ,fifthly1 in order to complete the work of our salvation3 because1 just as for this reason did ,he endure evil things in dying that ,he might deliver us from evil1 so was ,he glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things2 according to ,rom4 #d3be3 ,he was delivered up for our sins1 and rose again for our justification4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although ,christ did not fall by sin1 yet ,he fell by death1 because as sin is a fall from righteousness1 so death is a fall from life3 hence the words of ,mic4 #g3h can be taken as though spoken by ,christ3 ,rejoice not thou1 my enemy1 over me1 because ,i am fallen3 ,i shall rise again4 ,likewise1 although ,christ's body was not disintegrated by returning to dust1 yet the separation of ,his soul and body was a kind of disintegration4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,godhead was united with ,christ's flesh after death by personal union1 but not by natural union2 thus the soul is united with the body as its form1 so as to constitute human nature4 ,consequently1 by the union of the body and soul1 the body was uplifted to a higher condition of nature1 but not to a higher personal state4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion wrought our salvation1 properly speaking1 by removing evils2 but the ,resurrection did so as the beginning and exemplar of all good things4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ec1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,rise ,again on the ,third ,day8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that ,christ should have risen again on the third day4 ,for the members ought to be in conformity with their head4 ,but we who are ,his members do not rise from death on the third day1 since our rising is put off until the end of the world4 ,therefore1 it seems that ,christ1 who is our head1 should not have risen on the third day1 but that ,his ,resurrection ought to have been deferred until the end of the world4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,peter said 7,acts #b3bd7 that it was impossible for ,christ to be held fast by hell and death4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day1 but that ,he ought to have risen at once on the same day2 especially since the gloss quoted above 7,a4 #a7 says that there is no profit in the shedding of ,christ's blood1 if ,he did not rise at once4 ,obj4 #c3 ,the day seems to start with the rising of the sun1 the presence of which causes the day4 ,but ,christ rose before sunrise3 for it is related 7,john #bj3a7 that ,mary ,magdalen cometh early1 when it was yet dark1 unto the sepulchre3 but ,christ was already risen1 for it goes on to say3 ,and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre4 ,therefore ,christ did not rise on the third day4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #bj3ai73 ,they shall deliver ,him to the ,gentiles to be mocked1 and scourged1 and crucified1 and the third day ,he shall rise again4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a7 ,christ's ,resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith4 ,but our faith regards ,christ's ,godhead and humanity1 for it is not enough to believe the one without the other1 as is evident from what has been said 7,q4 #cf1 ,a4 #d2 cf4 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #b1 ,,aa4 #g1 #h74 ,consequently1 in order that our faith in the truth of ,his ,godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that ,he should rise speedily1 and that ,his ,resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world4 ,but to confirm our faith regarding the truth of ,his humanity and death1 it was needful that there should be some interval between ,his death and rising4 ,for if ,he had risen directly after death1 it might seem that ,his death was not genuine and consequently neither would ,his ,resurrection be true4 ,but to establish the truth of ,christ's death1 it was enough for ,his rising to be deferred until the third day1 for within that time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive4 ,furthermore1 by ,his rising on the third day1 the perfection of the number three is commended1 which is the number of everything1 as having beginning1 middle1 and end1 as is said in ,de ,coelo i4 ,again in the mystical sense we are taught that ,christ by ,his one death 7i4e4 of the body7 which was light1 by reason of ,his righteousness1 destroyed our two deaths 7i4e4 of soul and body71 which are as darkness on account of sin2 consequently1 ,he remained in death for one day and two nights1 as ,augustine observes 7,de ,trin4 iv74 ,and thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the ,resurrection3 for the first was before the ,law2 the second under the ,law2 and the third under grace4 ,moreover the third state of the saints began with the ,resurrection of ,christ3 for1 the first was under figures of the ,law2 the second under the truth of faith2 while the third will be in the eternity of glory1 which ,christ inaugurated by rising again4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the head and members are likened in nature1 but not in power2 because the power of the head is more excellent than that of the members4 ,accordingly1 to show forth the excellence of ,christ's power1 it was fitting that ,he should rise on the third day1 while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,detention implies a certain compulsion4 ,but ,christ was not held fast by any necessity of death1 but was free among the dead3 and therefore ,he abode a while in death1 not as one held fast1 but of ,his own will1 just so long as ,he deemed necessary for the instruction of our faith4 ,and a task is said to be done at once which is performed within a short space of time4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ea1 ,a4 #d1 ad #a1 #b71 ,christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn1 to denote that by ,his ,resurrection ,he brought us to the light of glory2 just as ,he died when the day was drawing to its close1 and nearing to darkness1 in order to signify that by ,his death ,he would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment4 ,nevertheless ,he is said to have risen on the third day1 taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four hours4 ,and as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv73 ,the night until the dawn1 when the ,lord's ,resurrection was proclaimed1 belongs to the third day4 ,because ,god1 who made the light to shine forth from darkness1 in order that by the grace of the ,new ,testament and partaking of ,christ's rising we might hear this--'once ye were darkness1 but now light in the ,lord'--insinuates in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night3 for1 as the first days are computed from light to darkness on account of man's coming fall1 so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's restoration4 ,and so it is evident that even if ,he had risen at midnight1 ,he could be said to have risen on the third day1 taking it as a natural day4 ,but now that ,he rose early1 it can be affirmed that ,he rose on the third day1 even taking the artificial day which is caused by the sun's presence1 because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky4 ,hence it is written 7,mk4 #af3b7 that the women come to the sepulchre1 the sun being now risen2 which is not contrary to ,john's statement when it was yet dark1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,cons4 ,evang4 iii71 because1 as the day advances the more the light rises1 the more are the remaining shadows dispelled4 ,but when ,mark says 'the sun being now risen1' it is not to be taken as if the sun were already apparent over the horizon1 but as coming presently into those parts4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ec1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,was the ,first to ,rise from the ,dead8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ was not the first to rise from the dead1 because we read in the ,old ,testament of some persons raised to life by ,elias and ,eliseus1 according to ,heb4 #aa3ce3 ,women received their dead raised to life again3 also ,christ before ,his ,passion raised three dead persons to life4 ,therefore ,christ was not the first to rise from the dead4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 among the other miracles which happened during the ,passion1 it is narrated 7,matt4 #bg3eb7 that the monuments were opened1 and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again4 ,therefore ,christ was not the first to rise from the dead4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,christ by ,his own rising is the cause of our resurrection1 so by ,his grace ,he is the cause of our grace1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,but in point of time some others had grace previous to ,christ--for instance all the fathers of the ,old ,testament4 ,therefore some others came to the resurrection of the body before ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3bj73 ,christ is risen from the dead1 the first fruits of them that sleep--because1 says the gloss1 ,he rose first in point of time and dignity4 ,i answer that1 ,resurrection is a restoring from death to life4 ,now a man is snatched from death in two ways3 first of all1 from actual death1 so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead3 in another way1 so that he is not only rescued from death1 but from the necessity1 nay more1 from the possibility of dying again4 ,such is a true and perfect resurrection1 because so long as a man lives1 subject to the necessity of dying1 death has dominion over him in a measure1 according to ,rom4 #h3aj3 ,the body indeed is dead because of sin4 ,furthermore1 what has the possibility of existence1 is said to exist in some respect1 that is1 in potentiality4 ,thus it is evident that the resurrection1 whereby one is rescued from actual death only1 is but an imperfect one4 ,consequently1 speaking of perfect resurrection1 ,christ is the first of them who rise1 because by rising ,he was the first to attain life utterly immortal1 according to ,rom4 #f3i3 ,christ rising from the dead dieth now no more4 ,but by an imperfect resurrection1 some others have risen before ,christ1 so as to be a kind of figure of ,his ,resurrection4 ,and thus the answer to the first objection is clear3 because both those raised from the dead in the old ,testament1 and those raised by ,christ1 so returned to life that they had to die again4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,there are two opinions regarding them who rose with ,christ4 ,some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more1 because it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at all4 ,according to this view1 as ,jerome observes on ,matt4 #bg3eb1 #ec1 we must understand that they had not risen before our ,lord rose4 ,hence the ,evangelist says that coming out of the tombs after ,his ,resurrection1 they came into the holy city1 and appeared to many4 ,but ,augustine 7,ep4 ad ,evod4 clxiv7 while giving this opinion1 says3 ,i know that it appears some1 that by the death of ,christ the ,lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the end2 and if they slept not again by laying aside their bodies1 it remains to be seen how ,christ can be understood to be 'the first-born of the dead1' if so many preceded ,him unto that resurrection4 ,now if reply be made that this is said by anticipation1 so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the earthquake while ,christ was still hanging on the cross1 but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after ,he had risen1 the difficulty still arises--how is it that ,peter asserts that it was predicted not of ,david but of ,christ1 that ,his body would not see corruption1 since ,david's tomb was in their midst2 and thus he did not convince them1 if ,david's body was no longer there2 for even if he had risen soon after his death1 and his flesh had not seen corruption1 his tomb might nevertheless remain4 ,now it seems hard that ,david from whose seed ,christ is descended1 was not in that rising of the just1 if an eternal rising was conferred upon them4 ,also that saying in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews 7#aa3dj7 regarding the ancient just would be hard to explain1 'that they should not be perfected without us1' if they were already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the end when we shall be made perfect3 so that ,augustine would seem to think that they rose to die again4 ,in this sense ,jerome also in commenting on ,matthew 7#bg3eb1 #ec7 says3 ,as ,lazarus rose1 so also many of the bodies of the saints rose1 that they might bear witness to the risen ,christ4 ,nevertheless in a sermon for the ,assumption 99,ep4 ix ad ,paul4 et ,eustoch42 among the supposititious works ascribed to ,st4 ,jerome he seems to leave the matter doubtful4 ,but ,augustine's reasons seem to be much more cogent4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as everything preceding ,christ's coming was preparatory for ,christ1 so is grace a disposition for glory4 ,consequently1 it behooved all things appertaining to glory1 whether they regard the soul1 as the perfect fruition of ,god1 or whether they regard the body1 as the glorious resurrection1 to be first in ,christ as the author of glory3 but that grace should be first in those that were ordained unto ,christ4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ec1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,was the ,cause of ,his ,own ,resurrection8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ was not the cause of ,his own ,resurrection4 ,for whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising4 ,but ,christ was raised up by another1 according to ,acts #b3bd3 ,whom ,god hath raised up1 having loosed the sorrows of hell3 and ,rom4 #h3aa3 ,he that raised up ,jesus ,christ from the dead1 shall quicken also your mortal bodies4 ,therefore ,christ is not the cause of ,his own ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one is said to merit1 or ask from another1 that of which he is himself the cause4 ,but ,christ by ,his ,passion merited the ,resurrection1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 civ in ,joan473 ,the lowliness of the ,passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the ,resurrection4 ,moreover ,he asked the ,father that ,he might be raised up again1 according to ,ps4 #dj3aa3 ,but thou1 ,o ,lord1 have mercy on me1 and raise me up again4 ,therefore ,he was not the cause of ,his rising again4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,damascene proves 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv71 it is not the soul that rises again1 but the body1 which is stricken by death4 ,but the body could not unite the soul with itself1 since the soul is nobler4 ,therefore what rose in ,christ could not be the cause of ,his ,resurrection4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord says 7,john #aj3ah73 ,no one taketh ,my soul from ,me1 but ,i lay it down1 and ,i take it up again4 ,but to rise is nothing else than to take the soul up again4 ,consequently1 it appears that ,christ rose again of ,his own power4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ej1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c7 in consequence of death ,christ's ,godhead was not separated from ,his soul1 nor from ,his flesh4 ,consequently1 both the soul and the flesh of the dead ,christ can be considered in two respects3 first1 in respect of ,his ,godhead2 secondly1 in respect of ,his created nature4 ,therefore1 according to the virtue of the ,godhead united to it1 the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside1 and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned3 and thus ,christ rose by ,his own power4 ,and this is precisely what is written 7#b ,cor4 #ac3d73 ,for although ,he was crucified through our weakness1 yet ,he liveth by the power of ,god4 ,but if we consider the body and soul of the dead ,christ according to the power of created nature1 they could not thus be reunited1 but it was necessary for ,christ to be raised up by ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,divine power is the same thing as the operation of the ,father and the ,son2 accordingly these two things are mutually consequent1 that ,christ was raised up by the ,divine power of the ,father1 and by ,his own power4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ by praying besought and merited ,his ,resurrection1 as man and not as ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to its created nature ,christ's body is not more powerful than ,his soul2 yet according to its ,divine power it is more powerful4 ,again the soul by reason of the ,godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature4 ,consequently1 it was by the ,divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other1 but not by the power of their created nature4 ,,question #ed ,,of ,,the ,,quality ,,of ,,christ ,,rising ,,again 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the quality of the rising ,christ1 which presents four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ had a true body after ,his ,resurrection8 7#b7 ,whether ,he rose with ,his complete body8 7#c7 ,whether ,his was a glorified body8 7#d7 ,of the scars which showed in ,his body4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ed1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,had a ,true ,body ,after ,his ,resurrection8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not have a true body after ,his ,resurrection4 ,for a true body cannot be in the same place at the same time with another body4 ,but after the ,resurrection ,christ's body was with another at the same time in the same place3 since ,he entered among the disciples the doors being shut1 as is related in ,john #bj3bf4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not have a true body after ,his ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a true body does not vanish from the beholder's sight unless perchance it be corrupted4 ,but ,christ's body vanished out of the sight of the disciples as they gazed upon ,him1 as is related in ,luke #bd3ca4 ,therefore1 it seems that ,christ did not have a true body after ,his ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every true body has its determinate shape4 ,but ,christ's body appeared before the disciples in another shape1 as is evident from ,mk4 #ae3ab4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ did not possess a true body after ,his ,resurrection4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,luke #bd3cg7 that when ,christ appeared to ,his disciples they being troubled and frightened1 supposed that they saw a spirit1 as if ,he had not a true but an imaginary body3 but to remove their fears ,he presently added3 ,handle and see1 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4 ,consequently1 ,he had not an imaginary but a true body4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 that is said to rise1 which fell4 ,but ,christ's body fell by death2 namely1 inasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it4 ,hence1 in order for it to be a true resurrection1 it was necessary for the same body of ,christ to be once more united with the same soul4 ,and since the truth of the body's nature is from its form it follows that ,christ's body after ,his ,resurrection was a true body1 and of the same nature as it was before4 ,but had ,his been an imaginary body1 then ,his ,resurrection would not have been true1 but apparent4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's body after ,his ,resurrection1 not by miracle but from its glorified condition1 as some say1 entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut1 thus existing with another body in the same place4 ,but whether a glorified body can have this from some hidden property1 so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place1 will be discussed later 7,suppl41 ,q4 #hc1 ,a4 #d7 when the common resurrection will be dealt with4 ,for the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body1 but by virtue of the ,godhead united to it1 that this body1 although a true one1 entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut4 ,accordingly ,augustine says in a sermon for ,easter 7ccxlvii7 that some men argue in this fashion3 ,if it were a body2 if what rose from the sepulchre were what hung upon the tree1 how could it enter through closed doors8 ,and he answers3 ,if you understand how1 it is no miracle3 where reason fails1 faith abounds4 ,and 7,tract4 cxxi super ,joan47 he says3 ,closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a ,body wherein was the ,godhead2 for truly ,he could enter in by doors not open1 in whose ,birth ,his ,mother's virginity remained inviolate4 ,and ,gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of ,easter 7xxvi in ,evang474 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ec1 ,a4 #c71 ,christ rose to the immortal life of glory4 ,but such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual1 i4e4 subject to the spirit1 as the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3dd74 ,now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit1 it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject to the will of the spirit4 ,again1 that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object upon the sight1 as the ,philosopher shows 7,de ,anima ii74 ,consequently1 whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes1 and not to be seen when he does not wish it4 ,moreover ,christ had this not only from the condition of ,his glorified body1 but also from the power of ,his ,godhead1 by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified are miraculously unseen3 as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed ,bartholomew1 that if he wished he could be seen1 and not be seen if he did not wish it 99,apocryphal ,historia ,apost4 viii1 #b4 ,christ1 then1 is said to have vanished from the eyes of the disciples1 not as though ,he were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements2 but because ,he ceased1 of ,his own will1 to be seen by them1 either while ,he was present or while ,he was departing by the gift of agility4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,severianus 99,peter ,chrysologus3 ,serm4 lxxxii says in a sermon for ,easter3 ,let no one suppose that ,christ changed ,his features at the ,resurrection4 ,this is to be understood of the outline of ,his members2 since there was nothing out of keeping or deformed in the body of ,christ which was conceived of the ,holy ,ghost1 that had to be righted at the ,resurrection4 ,nevertheless ,he received the glory of clarity in the ,resurrection3 accordingly the same writer adds3 but the semblance is changed1 when1 ceasing to be mortal1 it becomes immortal2 so that it acquired the glory of countenance1 without losing the substance of the countenance4 ,yet ,he did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance2 but1 as it lay in ,his power for ,his body to be seen or not1 so it was within ,his power to present to the eyes of the beholders ,his form either glorified or not glorified1 or partly glorified and partly not1 or in any fashion whatsoever4 ,still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ed1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,body ,rose ,glorified8 99,some editions give this article as the third1 following the order of the introduction to the question4 ,but it is evident from the first sentence of the body of ,a4 #c 7,a4 #b in the aforesaid editions71 that the order of the ,leonine edition is correct4 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ's body did not rise glorified4 ,for glorified bodies shine1 according to ,matt4 #ac3dc3 ,then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their ,father4 ,but shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light1 but not of color4 ,therefore1 since ,christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color1 as it had been hitherto1 it seems that it was not a glorified one4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a glorified body is incorruptible4 ,but ,christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible2 because it was palpable1 as ,he ,himself says in ,luke #bd3ci3 ,handle1 and see4 ,now ,gregory says 7,hom4 in ,evang4 xxvi7 that what is handled must be corruptible1 and that which is incorruptible cannot be handled4 ,consequently1 ,christ's body was not glorified4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a glorified body is not animal1 but spiritual1 as is clear from #a ,cor4 #ae4 ,but after the ,resurrection ,christ's body seems to have been animal1 since ,he ate and drank with ,his disciples1 as we read in the closing chapters of ,luke and ,john4 ,therefore1 it seems that ,christ's body was not glorified4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,phil4 #c3ba73 ,he will reform the body of our lowness1 made like to the body of ,his glory4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's was a glorified body in ,his ,resurrection1 and this is evident from three reasons4 ,first of all1 because ,his ,resurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours1 as is stated in #a ,cor4 #ae3dc4 ,but in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies1 as is written in the same place3 ,it is sown in dishonor1 it shall rise in glory4 ,hence1 since the cause is mightier than the effect1 and the exemplar than the exemplate2 much more glorious1 then1 was the body of ,christ in ,his ,resurrection4 ,secondly1 because ,he merited the glory of ,his ,resurrection by the lowliness of ,his ,passion4 ,hence ,he said 7,john #ab3bg73 ,now is ,my soul troubled1 which refers to the ,passion2 and later ,he adds3 ,father1 glorify ,thy name1 whereby ,he asks for the glory of the ,resurrection4 ,thirdly1 because as stated above 7,q4 #cd1 ,a4 #d71 ,christ's soul was glorified from the instant of ,his conception by perfect fruition of the ,godhead4 ,but1 as stated above 7,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 it was owing to the ,divine economy that the glory did not pass from ,his soul to ,his body1 in order that by the ,passion ,he might accomplish the mystery of our redemption4 ,consequently1 when this mystery of ,christ's ,passion and death was finished1 straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the ,resurrection2 and so that body was made glorious4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity4 ,therefore1 since glory flows from the soul into the body1 it follows that1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dioscor4 cxviii71 the brightness or splendor of a glorified body is after the manner of natural color in the human body2 just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance1 according to the mode of the color4 ,but as it lies within the power of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or not4 ,accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness4 ,and it was in this way that ,christ's body appeared to the disciples after the ,resurrection4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,we say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance1 but also on account of its density4 ,but from rarity and density follow weight and lightness1 heat and cold1 and similar contraries1 which are the principles of corruption in elementary bodies4 ,consequently1 a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible4 ,but if there be a body that resists touch1 and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned1 which are the proper objects of human touch1 such as a heavenly body1 then such body cannot be said to be handled4 ,but ,christ's body after the ,resurrection was truly made up of elements1 and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires1 and therefore it could naturally be handled2 and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body1 it would likewise be corruptible4 ,but it had something else which made it incorruptible1 and this was not the nature of a heavenly body1 as some maintain1 and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later 7,suppl41 ,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #a71 but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul3 because1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dioscor4 cxviii73 ,god made the soul of such powerful nature1 that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body1 that is1 the vigor of incorruption4 ,and therefore ,gregory says 7,hom4 in ,evang4 xxvi73 ,christ's body is shown to be of the same nature1 but of different glory1 after the ,resurrection4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiii73 ,after the ,resurrection1 our ,saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with the disciples1 not from need of food1 but because it lay in ,his power4 ,for as ,bede says on ,luke #bd3da3 ,the thirsty earth sucks in the water1 and the sun's burning ray absorbs it2 the former from need1 the latter by its power4 ,hence after the ,resurrection ,he ate1 not as needing food1 but in order thus to show the nature of ,his risen body4 ,nor does it follow that ,his was an animal body that stands in need of food4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ed1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ's ,body ,rose ,again ,entire8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body did not rise entire4 ,for flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body3 whereas ,christ seems not to have had both1 for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ej73 ,flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of ,god4 ,but ,christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of ,god4 ,therefore it seems that ,he did not have flesh and blood4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 blood is one of the four humors4 ,consequently1 if ,christ had blood1 with equal reason ,he also had the other humors1 from which corruption is caused in animal bodies4 ,it would follow1 then1 that ,christ's body was corruptible1 which is unseemly4 ,therefore ,christ did not have flesh and blood4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the body of ,christ which rose1 ascended to heaven4 ,but some of ,his blood is kept as relics in various churches4 ,therefore ,christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,luke #bd3ci7 while addressing ,his disciples after the ,resurrection3 ,a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see ,me to have4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 ,christ's body in the ,resurrection was of the same nature1 but differed in glory4 ,accordingly1 whatever goes with the nature of a human body1 was entirely in the body of ,christ when ,he rose again4 ,now it is clear that flesh1 bones1 blood1 and other such things1 are of the very nature of the human body4 ,consequently1 all these things were in ,christ's body when ,he rose again2 and this also integrally1 without any diminution2 otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection1 if whatever was lost by death had not been restored4 ,hence our ,lord assured ,his faithful ones by saying 7,matt4 #aj3cj73 ,the very hairs of your head are all numbered3 and 7,luke #ba3ah73 ,a hair of your head shall not perish4 ,but to say that ,christ's body had neither flesh1 nor bones1 nor the other natural parts of a human body1 belongs to the error of ,eutyches1 ,bishop of ,constantinople1 who maintained that our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impalpable1 and more subtle than wind and air3 and that our ,lord1 after the hearts of the disciples who handled ,him were confirmed1 brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in ,him 99,st4 ,gregory1 ,moral4 in ,job #ad3ef4 ,now ,gregory condemns this in the same book1 because ,christ's body was not changed after the ,resurrection1 according to ,rom4 #f3i3 ,christ rising from the dead1 dieth now no more4 ,accordingly1 the very man who had said these things1 himself retracted them at his death4 ,for1 if it be unbecoming for ,christ to take a body of another nature in ,his conception1 a heavenly one for instance1 as ,valentine asserted1 it is much more unbecoming for ,him at ,his ,resurrection to resume a body of another nature1 because in ,his ,resurrection ,he resumed unto an everlasting life1 the body which in ,his conception ,he had assumed to a mortal life4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood1 but1 either for the guilt of flesh and blood1 as ,gregory says 99,st4 ,gregory1 ,moral4 in ,job #ad3ef1 or else for the corruption of flesh and blood3 because1 as ,augustine says 7,ad ,consent41 ,de ,resur4 ,carn471 there will be neither corruption there1 nor mortality of flesh and blood4 ,therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of ,god1 according to ,luke #bd3ci3 ,a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4 ,but flesh1 if understood as to its corruption1 will not possess it2 hence it is straightway added in the words of the ,apostle3 ,neither shall corruption possess incorruption4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says in the same book3 ,perchance by reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say2 ,if the blood was in the body of ,christ when ,he rose1 why not the rheum8 that is1 the phlegm2 why not also the yellow gall8 that is1 the gall proper2 and why not the black gall8 that is1 the bile1 with which four humors the body is tempered1 as medical science bears witness4 ,but whatever anyone may add1 let him take heed not to add corruption1 lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith2 because ,divine power is equal to taking away such qualities as it wills from the visible and tractable body1 while allowing others to remain1 so that there be no defilement1 i4e4 of corruption1 though the features be there2 motion without weariness1 the power to eat1 without need of food4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,all the blood which flowed from ,christ's body1 belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature1 rose again with ,his body3 and the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the truth and integrity of human nature4 ,but the blood preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from ,christ's side1 but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of ,christ4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ed1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ's ,body ,ought to ,have ,risen with ,its ,scars8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body ought not to have risen with its scars4 ,for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3eb73 ,the dead shall rise incorrupt4 ,but scars and wounds imply corruption and defect4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ1 the author of the resurrection1 to rise again with scars4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's body rose entire1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,but open scars are opposed to bodily integrity1 since they interfere with the continuity of the tissue4 ,it does not therefore seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in ,christ's body2 although the traces of the wounds might remain1 which would satisfy the beholder2 thus it was that ,thomas believed1 to whom it was said3 ,because thou hast seen ,me1 ,thomas1 thou hast believed 7,john #bj3bi74 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 that some things are truly said of ,christ after the ,resurrection1 which ,he did not have from nature but from special dispensation1 such as the scars1 in order to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that rose again4 ,now when the cause ceases1 the effect ceases4 ,therefore it seems that when the disciples were assured of the ,resurrection1 ,he bore the scars no longer4 ,but it ill became the unchangeableness of ,his glory that ,he should assume anything which was not to remain in ,him for ever4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,he ought not at ,his ,resurrection to have resumed a body with scars4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord said to ,thomas 7,john #bj3bg73 ,put in thy finger hither1 and see ,my hands2 and bring hither thy hand1 and put it into ,my side1 and be not faithless but believing4 ,i answer that1 ,it was fitting for ,christ's soul at ,his ,resurrection to resume the body with its scars4 ,in the first place1 for ,christ's own glory4 ,for ,bede says on ,luke #bd3dj that ,he kept ,his scars not from inability to heal them1 but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of ,his victory4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xxii73 ,perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the ,martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for ,christ's name3 because it will not be a deformity1 but a dignity in them2 and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them1 in the body1 though not of the body4 ,secondly1 to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to the faith in ,his ,resurrection 7,bede1 on ,luke #bd3dj74 ,thirdly1 that when ,he pleads for us with the ,father1 ,he may always show the manner of death ,he endured for us 7,bede1 on ,luke #bd3dj74 ,fourthly1 that ,he may convince those redeemed in ,his blood1 how mercifully they have been helped1 as ,he exposes before them the traces of the same death 7,bede1 on ,luke #bd3dj74 ,lastly1 that in the ,judgment-day ,he may upbraid them with their just condemnation 7,bede1 on ,luke #bd3dj74 ,hence1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 ii73 ,christ knew why ,he kept the scars in ,his body4 ,for1 as ,he showed them to ,thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them1 so will ,he show ,his wounds to ,his enemies1 so that ,he who is the ,truth may convict them1 saying3 ',behold the man whom you crucified2 see the wounds you inflicted2 recognize the side you pierced1 since it was opened by you and for you1 yet you would not enter4' ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the scars that remained in ,christ's body belong neither to corruption nor defect1 but to the greater increase of glory1 inasmuch as they are the trophies of ,his power2 and a special comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although those openings of the wounds break the continuity of the tissue1 still the greater beauty of glory compensates for all this1 so that the body is not less entire1 but more perfected4 ,thomas1 however1 not only saw1 but handled the wounds1 because as ,pope ,leo 99,cf4 ,append4 ,opp4 ,august41 ,serm4 clxii says3 ,it sufficed for his personal faith for him to have seen what he saw2 but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ willed the scars of ,his wounds to remain on ,his body1 not only to confirm the faith of ,his disciples1 but for other reasons also4 ,from these it seems that those scars will always remain on ,his body2 because1 as ,augustine says 7,ad ,consent41 ,de ,resurr4 ,carn473 ,i believe our ,lord's body to be in heaven1 such as it was when ,he ascended into heaven4 ,and ,gregory 7,moral4 xiv7 says that if aught could be changed in ,christ's body after ,his ,resurrection1 contrary to ,paul's truthful teaching1 then the ,lord after ,his ,resurrection returned to death2 and what fool would dare to say this1 save he that denies the true resurrection of the flesh8 ,accordingly1 it is evident that the scars which ,christ showed on ,his body after ,his ,resurrection1 have never since been removed from ,his body4 ,,question #ee ,,of ,,the ,,manifestation ,,of ,,the ,,resurrection 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the manifestation of the ,resurrection3 concerning which there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's ,resurrection ought to have been manifested to all men or only to some special individuals8 7#b7 ,whether it was fitting that they should see ,him rise8 7#c7 ,whether ,he ought to have lived with the disciples after the ,resurrection8 7#d7 ,whether it was fitting for ,him to appeal to the disciples in another shape8 7#e7 ,whether ,he ought to have demonstrated the ,resurrection by proofs8 7#f7 ,of the cogency of those proofs4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,resurrection ,ought to ,have ,been ,manifested to ,all8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,resurrection ought to have been manifested to all4 ,for just as a public penalty is due for public sin1 according to #a ,tim4 #e3bj3 ,them that sin reprove before all1 so is a public reward due for public merit4 ,but1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 civ in ,joan471 the glory of the ,resurrection is the reward of the humility of the ,passion4 ,therefore1 since ,christ's ,passion was manifested to all while ,he suffered in public1 it seems that the glory of the ,resurrection ought to have been manifested to all4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,christ's ,passion is ordained for our salvation1 so also is ,his ,resurrection1 according to ,rom4 #d3be3 ,he rose again for our justification4 ,but what belongs to the public weal ought to be manifested to all4 ,therefore ,christ's ,resurrection ought to have been manifested to all1 and not to some specially4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the ,resurrection3 hence it is said 7,acts #c3ae73 ,whom ,god hath raised from the dead1 of which we are witnesses4 ,now they bore witness by preaching in public3 and this is unbecoming in women1 according to #a ,cor4 #ad3cd3 ,let women keep silence in the churches3 and #a ,tim4 #b3ab3 ,i suffer not a woman to teach4 ,therefore1 it does not seem becoming for ,christ's ,resurrection to be manifested first of all to the women and afterwards to mankind in general4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,acts #aj3dj73 ,him ,god raised up the third day1 and gave ,him to be made manifest1 not to all the people1 but to witnesses preordained by ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law1 others by special favor of grace1 as things divinely revealed4 ,now1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv71 the divinely established law of such things is that they be revealed immediately by ,god to higher persons1 through whom they are imparted to others1 as is evident in the ordering of the heavenly spirits4 ,but such things as concern future glory are beyond the common ken of mankind1 according to ,isa4 #fd3d3 ,the eye hath not seen1 ,o ,god1 besides ,thee1 what things ,thou hast prepared for them that wait for ,thee4 ,consequently1 such things are not known by man except through ,divine revelation1 as the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #b3aj73 ,god hath revealed them to us by ,his spirit4 ,since1 then1 ,christ rose by a glorious ,resurrection1 consequently ,his ,resurrection was not manifested to everyone1 but to some1 by whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of others4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,passion was consummated in a body that still had a passible nature1 which is known to all by general laws3 consequently ,his ,passion could be directly manifested to all4 ,but the ,resurrection was accomplished through the glory of the ,father1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3d74 ,therefore it was manifested directly to some1 but not to all4 ,but that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners1 is to be understood of the punishment of this present life4 ,and in like manner public merits should be rewarded in public1 in order that others may be stirred to emulation4 ,but the punishments and rewards of the future life are not publicly manifested to all1 but to those specially who are preordained thereto by ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as ,christ's ,resurrection is for the common salvation of all1 so it came to the knowledge of all2 yet not so that it was directly manifested to all1 but only to some1 through whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of all4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church2 but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately4 ,and therefore as ,ambrose says on ,luke #bd3bb1 a woman is sent to them who are of her household1 but not to the people to bear witness to the ,resurrection4 ,but ,christ appeared to the woman first1 for this reason1 that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man1 so she might be the first to announce the dawn of ,christ's glorious ,resurrection4 ,hence ,cyril says on ,john #bj3ag3 ,woman who formerly was the minister of death1 is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery of the ,resurrection3 thus womankind has procured absolution from ignominy1 and removal of the curse4 ,hereby1 moreover1 it is shown1 so far as the state of glory is concerned1 that the female sex shall suffer no hurt2 but if women burn with greater charity1 they shall also attain greater glory from the ,divine vision3 because the women whose love for our ,lord was more persistent--so much so that when even the disciples withdrew from the sepulchre they did not depart 99,gregory1 ,hom4 xxv in ,evang4--were the first to see ,him rising in glory4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting ,that the ,disciples ,should ,see ,him ,rise ,again8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen ,him rise again1 because it was their office to bear witness to the ,resurrection1 according to ,acts #d3cc3 ,with great power did the apostles give testimony to the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ our ,lord4 ,but the surest witness of all is an eye-witness4 ,therefore it would have been fitting for them to see the very ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in order to have the certainty of faith the disciples saw ,christ ascend into heaven1 according to ,acts #a3i3 ,while they looked on1 ,he was raised up4 ,but it was also necessary for them to have faith in the ,resurrection4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the raising of ,lazarus was a sign of ,christ's coming ,resurrection4 ,but the ,lord raised up ,lazarus in sight of the disciples4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #af3i73 ,the ,lord rising early the first day of the week1 appeared first to ,mary ,magdalen4 ,now ,mary ,magdalen did not see ,him rise2 but1 while searching for ,him in the sepulchre1 she heard from the angel3 ,he is risen1 ,he is not here4 ,therefore no one saw ,him rise again4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ac3a73 ,those things that are of ,god1 are well ordered ,vulg43 ',those that are1 are ordained of ,god4 ,now the divinely established order is this1 that things above men's ken are revealed to them by angels1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 iv74 ,but ,christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life1 but to a kind of immortal and ,god-like condition1 according to ,rom4 #f3aj3 ,for in that ,he liveth1 ,he liveth unto ,god4 ,and therefore it was fitting for ,christ's ,resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly1 but to be proclaimed to them by angels4 ,accordingly1 ,hilary 7,comment4 ,matth4 cap4 ult47 says3 ,an angel is therefore the first herald of the ,resurrection1 that it might be declared out of obedience to the ,father's will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the apostles were able to testify to the ,resurrection even by sight1 because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw ,christ alive1 whom they had known to be dead4 ,but just as man comes from the hearing of faith to the beatific vision1 so did men come to the sight of the risen ,christ through the message already received from angels4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's ,ascension as to its term wherefrom1 was not above men's common knowledge1 but only as to its term whereunto4 ,consequently1 the disciples were able to behold ,christ's ,ascension as to the term wherefrom1 that is1 according as ,he was uplifted from the earth2 but they did not behold ,him as to the term whereunto1 because they did not see how ,he was received into heaven4 ,but ,christ's ,resurrection transcended common knowledge as to the term wherefrom1 according as ,his soul returned from hell and ,his body from the closed sepulchre2 and likewise as to the term whereunto1 according as ,he attained to the life of glory4 ,consequently1 the ,resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen by man4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as before1 which life is not beyond man's common ken4 ,consequently1 there is no parity4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,ought to ,have ,lived ,constantly with ,his ,disciples ,after the ,resurrection8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ ought to have lived constantly with ,his ,disciples1 because ,he appeared to them after ,his ,resurrection in order to confirm their faith in the ,resurrection1 and to bring them comfort in their disturbed state1 according to ,john #bj3bj3 ,the disciples were glad when they saw the ,lord4 ,but they would have been more assured and consoled had ,he constantly shown them ,his presence4 ,therefore it seems that ,he ought to have lived constantly with them4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to heaven1 but after forty days1 as is narrated in ,acts #a3c4 ,but meanwhile ,he could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples were met together4 ,therefore it seems that ,he ought to have lived with them continually4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii71 we read how ,christ appeared five times on the very day of ,his ,resurrection3 first to the women at the sepulchre2 secondly to the same on the way from the sepulchre2 thirdly to ,peter2 fourthly to the two disciples going to the town2 fifthly to several of them in ,jerusalem when ,thomas was not present4 ,therefore it also seems that ,he ought to have appeared several times on the other days before the ,ascension4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 our ,lord had said to them before the ,passion 7,matt4 #bf3cb73 ,but after ,i shall be risen again1 ,i will go before you into ,galilee2 moreover an angel and our ,lord ,himself repeated the same to the women after the ,resurrection3 nevertheless ,he was seen by them in ,jerusalem on the very day of the ,resurrection1 as stated above 7,obj4 #c72 also on the eighth day1 as we read in ,john #bj3bf4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,he did not live with the disciples in a fitting way after the ,resurrection4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #bj3bf7 that after eight days ,christ appeared to the disciples4 ,therefore ,he did not live constantly with them4 ,i answer that1 ,concerning the ,resurrection two things had to be manifested to the disciples1 namely1 the truth of the ,resurrection1 and the glory of ,him who rose4 ,now in order to manifest the truth of the ,resurrection1 it sufficed for ,him to appear several times before them1 to speak familiarly to them1 to eat and drink1 and let them touch ,him4 ,but in order to manifest the glory of the risen ,christ1 ,he was not desirous of living with them constantly as ,he had done before1 lest it might seem that ,he rose unto the same life as before4 ,hence 7,luke #bd3dd7 ,he said to them3 ,these are the words which ,i spoke to you1 while ,i was yet with you4 ,for ,he was there with them by ,his bodily presence1 but hitherto ,he had been with them not merely by ,his bodily presence1 but also in mortal semblance4 ,hence ,bede in explaining those words of ,luke1 while ,i was with you1 says3 that is1 while ,i was still in mortal flesh1 in which you are yet3 for ,he had then risen in the same flesh1 but was not in the same state of mortality as they4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples of the truth of the ,resurrection2 but continual intercourse might have led them into the error of believing that ,he had risen to the same life as was ,his before4 ,yet by ,his constant presence ,he promised them comfort in another life1 according to ,john #af3bb3 ,i will see you again1 and your heart shall rejoice2 and your joy no man shall take from you4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that ,christ did not stay continually with the disciples was not because ,he deemed it more expedient for ,him to be elsewhere3 but because ,he judged it to be more suitable for the apostles' instruction that ,he should not abide continually with them1 for the reason given above4 ,but it is quite unknown in what places ,he was bodily present in the meantime1 since ,scripture is silent1 and ,his dominion is in every place 7,cf4 ,ps4 #ajb3bb74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,he appeared oftener on the first day1 because the disciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in ,his ,resurrection from the very outset3 but after they had once accepted it1 they had no further need of being instructed by so many apparitions4 ,accordingly one reads in the ,gospel that after the first day ,he appeared again only five times4 ,for1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii71 after the first five apparitions ,he came again a sixth time when ,thomas saw ,him2 a seventh time was by the sea of ,tiberias at the capture of the fishes2 the eighth was on the mountain of ,galilee1 according to ,matthew2 the ninth occasion is expressed by ,mark1 'at length when they were at table1' because no more were they going to eat with ,him upon earth2 the tenth was on the very day1 when no longer upon the earth1 but uplifted into the cloud1 ,he was ascending into heaven4 ,but1 as ,john admits1 not all things were written down4 ,and ,he visited them frequently before ,he went up to heaven1 in order to comfort them4 ,hence it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ae3f1 #g7 that ,he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once 4 4 4 after that ,he was seen by ,james2 of which apparitions no mention is made in the ,gospels4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,chrysostom in explaining ,matt4 #bf3cb--;after ,i shall be risen again1 ,i will go before you into ,galilee1 says 7,hom4 lxxxiii in ,matth471 ,he goes not to some far off region in order to appear to them1 but among ,his own people1 and in those very places in which for the most part they had lived with ,him2 in order that they might thereby believe that ,he who was crucified was the same as ,he who rose again4 ,and on this account ,he said that ,he would go into ,galilee1 that they might be delivered from fear of the ,jews4 ,consequently1 as ,ambrose says 7,expos4 in ,luc471 ,the ,lord had sent word to the disciples that they were to see ,him in ,galilee2 yet ,he showed ,himself first to them when they were assembled together in the room out of fear4 7,nor is there any breaking of a promise here1 but rather a hastened fulfilling out of kindness7 99,cf4 ,catena ,aurea in ,luc4 xxiv1 #cf3 afterwards1 however1 when their minds were comforted1 they went into ,galilee4 ,nor is there any reason to prevent us from supposing that there were few in the room1 and many more on the mountain4 ,for1 as ,eusebius 99,of ,caesarea2 ,cf4 ,migne1 ,p4 ,g41 xxii1 #ajjc says1 ,two ,evangelists1 ,luke and ,john1 write that ,he appeared in ,jerusalem to the eleven only2 but the other two said that an angel and our ,saviour commanded not merely the eleven1 but all the disciples and brethren1 to go into ,galilee4 ,paul makes mention of them when he says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3f73 ',then ,he appeared to more then five hundred brethren at once4' ,the truer solution1 however1 is this1 that while they were in hiding in ,jerusalem ,he appeared to them at first in order to comfort them2 but in ,galilee it was not secretly1 nor once or twice1 that ,he made ,himself known to them with great power1 showing ,himself to them alive after ,his ,passion1 by many proofs1 as ,luke says 7,acts #a3c74 ,or as ,augustine writes 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii73 ,what was said by the angel and by our ,lord--that ,he would 'go before them into ,galilee1' must be taken prophetically4 ,for if we take ,galilee as meaning 'a passing1' we must understand that they were going to pass from the people of ,israel to the ,gentiles1 who would not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless ,he prepared the way for them in men's hearts3 and this is signified by the words ',he shall go before you into ,galilee4' ,but if by ,galilee we understand 'revelation1' we are to understand this as applying to ,him not in the form of a servant1 but in that form wherein ,he is equal to the ,father1 and which ,he has promised to them that love ,him4 ,although ,he has gone before us in this sense1 ,he has not abandoned us4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,appeared to the ,disciples in ,another ,shape8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples in another shape4 ,for a thing cannot appear in very truth other than it is4 ,but there was only one shape in ,christ4 ,therefore if ,he appeared under another1 it was not a true but a false apparition4 ,now this is not at all fitting1 because as ,augustine says 7,,qq4 lxxxiii1 qu4 #ad73 ,if ,he deceives ,he is not the ,truth2 yet ,christ is the ,truth4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples in another shape4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has1 except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions4 ,but since such illusions are brought about by magical arts1 they are unbecoming in ,christ1 according to what is written 7#b ,cor4 #f3ae73 ,what concord hath ,christ with ,belial8 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ought not to have appeared in another shape4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as our faith receives its surety from ,scripture1 so were the disciples assured of their faith in the ,resurrection by ,christ appearing to them4 ,but1 as ,augustine says in an ,epistle to ,jerome 7xxviii71 if but one untruth be admitted into the ,sacred ,scripture1 the whole authority of the ,scriptures is weakened4 ,consequently1 if ,christ appeared to the disciples1 in but one apparition1 otherwise than ,he was1 then whatever they saw in ,christ after the ,resurrection will be of less import1 which is not fitting4 ,therefore ,he ought not to have appeared in another shape4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,mk4 #af3ab73 ,after that ,he appeared in another shape to two of them walking1 as they were going into the country4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 ,christ's ,resurrection was to be manifested to men in the same way as ,divine things are revealed4 ,but ,divine things are revealed to men in various ways1 according as they are variously disposed4 ,for1 those who have minds well disposed1 perceive ,divine things rightly1 whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a certain confusion of doubt or error3 for1 the sensual men perceiveth not those things that are of the ,spirit of ,god1 as is said in #a ,cor4 #b3ad4 ,consequently1 after ,his ,resurrection ,christ appeared in ,his own shape to some who were well disposed to belief1 while ,he appeared in another shape to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith3 hence these said 7,luke #bd3ba73 ,we hoped that it was ,he that should have redeemed ,israel4 ,hence ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxiii in ,evang471 that ,he showed ,himself to them in body such as ,he was in their minds3 for1 because ,he was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts1 ,he made pretense of going on farther1 that is1 as if ,he were a stranger4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,qq4 ,evang4 ii71 not everything of which we make pretense is a falsehood2 but when what we pretend has no meaning then is it a falsehood4 ,but when our pretense has some signification1 it is not a lie1 but a figure of the truth2 otherwise everything said figuratively by wise and holy men1 or even by our ,lord ,himself1 would be set down as a falsehood1 because it is not customary to take such expressions in the literal sense4 ,and deeds1 like words1 are feigned without falsehood1 in order to denote something else4 ,and so it happened here1 as has been said4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii73 ,our ,lord could change ,his flesh so that ,his shape really was other than they were accustomed to behold2 for1 before ,his ,passion ,he was transfigured on the mountain1 so that ,his face shone like the sun4 ,but it did not happen thus now4 ,for not without reason do we understand this hindrance in their eyes to have been of ,satan's doing1 lest ,jesus might be recognized4 ,hence ,luke says 7#bd3af7 that their eyes were held1 that they should not know ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,such an argument would prove1 if they had not been brought back from the sight of a strange shape to that of ,christ's true countenance4 ,for1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii73 ,the permission was granted by ,christ1 namely1 that their eyes should be held fast in the aforesaid way1 until the ,sacrament of the bread2 that when they had shared in the unity of ,his body1 the enemy's hindrance may be understood to have been taken away1 so that ,christ might be recognized4 ,hence he goes on to say that 'their eyes were opened1 and they knew ,him'2 not that they were hitherto walking with their eyes shut2 but there was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what they saw4 ,this could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ ,should ,have ,demonstrated the ,truth of ,his ,resurrection by ,proofs8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ should not have demonstrated the truth of ,his ,resurrection by proofs4 ,for ,ambrose says 7,de ,fide1 ad ,gratian4 i73 ,let there be no proofs where faith is required4 ,but faith is required regarding the ,resurrection4 ,therefore proofs are out of place there4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxvi73 ,faith has no merit where human reason supplies the test4 ,but it was no part of ,christ's office to void the merit of faith4 ,consequently1 it was not for ,him to confirm the ,resurrection by proofs4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ came into the world in order that men might attain beatitude through ,him1 according to ,john #aj3aj3 ,i am come that they may have life1 and may have it more abundantly4 ,but supplying proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's beatitude2 because our ,lord ,himself said 7,john #bj3bi73 ,blessed are they that have not seen1 and have believed4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ ought not to manifest ,his ,resurrection by any proofs4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is related in ,acts #a3c1 that ,christ appeared to ,his disciples for forty days by many proofs1 speaking of the ,kingdom of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,the word proof is susceptible of a twofold meaning3 sometimes it is employed to designate any sort of reason in confirmation of what is a matter of doubt 99,tully1 ,topic4 ii3 and sometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth2 thus also ,aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works 99,cf4 ,prior4 ,anal4 ii2 ,rhetor4 i4 ,taking proof in the first sense1 ,christ did not demonstrate ,his ,resurrection to the disciples by proofs1 because such argumentative proof would have to be grounded on some principles3 and if these were not known to the disciples1 nothing would thereby be demonstrated to them1 because nothing can be known from the unknown4 ,and if such principles were known to them1 they would not go beyond human reason1 and consequently would not be efficacious for establishing faith in the ,resurrection1 which is beyond human reason1 since principles must be assumed which are of the same order1 according to #a ,poster4 ,but it was from the authority of the ,sacred ,scriptures that ,he proved to them the truth of ,his ,resurrection1 which authority is the basis of faith1 when ,he said3 ,all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the ,law1 and in the prophets1 and in the ,psalms1 concerning ,me3 as is set forth ,luke #bd3dd4 ,but if the term proof be taken in the second sense1 then ,christ is said to have demonstrated ,his ,resurrection by proofs1 inasmuch as by most evident signs ,he showed that ,he was truly risen4 ,hence where our version has by many proofs1 the ,greek text1 instead of proof has tekmerion1 i4e4 an evident sign affording positive proof 99,cf4 ,prior4 ,anal4 ii4 ,now ,christ showed these signs of the ,resurrection to ,his disciples1 for two reasons4 ,first1 because their hearts were not disposed so as to accept readily the faith in the ,resurrection4 ,hence ,he says ,himself 7,luke #bd3be73 ,o foolish and slow of heart to believe3 and 7,mk4 #af3ad73 ,he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart4 ,secondly1 that their testimony might be rendered more efficacious through the signs shown them1 according to #a ,john #a3a1 #c3 ,that which we have seen1 and have heard1 and our hands have handled 4 4 4 we declare4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human reason1 which are useless for demonstrating things of faith1 as was shown above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the merit of faith arises from this1 that at ,god's bidding man believes what he does not see4 ,accordingly1 only that reason debars merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for belief3 and this is demonstrative argument4 ,but ,christ did not make use of any such argument for demonstrating ,his ,resurrection4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated already 7ad #b71 the merit of beatitude1 which comes of faith1 is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to believe whatever he does not see4 ,but for a man to believe from visible signs the things he does not see1 does not entirely deprive him of faith nor of the merit of faith3 just as ,thomas1 to whom it was said 7,john #bj3bi73 ',because thou hast seen ,me1 ,thomas1 thou hast believed1' saw one thing and believed another 99,gregory1 ,hom4 xxvi3 the wounds were what he saw1 ,god was the object of ,his belief4 ,but his is the more perfect faith who does not require such helps for belief4 ,hence1 to put to shame the faith of some men1 our ,lord said 7,john #d3dh73 ,unless you see signs and wonders1 you believe not4 ,from this one can learn how they who are so ready to believe ,god1 even without beholding signs1 are blessed in comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ee1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,proofs ,which ,christ ,made ,use of ,manifested ,sufficiently the ,truth of ,his ,resurrection8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the proofs which ,christ made use of did not sufficiently manifest the truth of ,his ,resurrection4 ,for after the ,resurrection ,christ showed nothing to ,his disciples which angels appearing to men did not or could not show2 because angels have frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect1 have spoken and lived with them1 and eaten with them1 just as if they were truly men1 as is evident from ,genesis #ah1 of the angels whom ,abraham entertained1 and in the ,book of ,tobias1 of the angel who conducted him and brought him back4 ,nevertheless1 angels have not true bodies naturally united to them2 which is required for a resurrection4 ,consequently1 the signs which ,christ showed ,his disciples were not sufficient for manifesting ,his ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ rose again gloriously1 that is1 having a human nature with glory4 ,but some of the things which ,christ showed to ,his disciples seem contrary to human nature1 as for instance1 that ,he vanished out of their sight1 and entered in among them when the doors were shut3 and some other things seem contrary to glory1 as for instance1 that ,he ate and drank1 and bore the scars of ,his wounds4 ,consequently1 it seems that those proofs were neither sufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 after the ,resurrection ,christ's body was such that it ought not to be touched by mortal man2 hence ,he said to ,magdalen 7,john #bj3ag73 ,do not touch ,me2 for ,i am not yet ascended to ,my ,father4 ,consequently1 it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of ,his ,resurrection1 that ,he should permit ,himself to be handled by ,his disciples4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a glorified body3 yet ,he gave no sign thereof in ,his ,resurrection4 ,therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the quality of ,christ's ,resurrection4 ,obj4 #e3 99,this objection is wanting in the older codices1 and in the text of the ,leonine edition1 which1 however1 gives it in a note as taken from one of the more recent codices of the ,vatican4 ,further1 the angels introduced as witnesses for the ,resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the ,evangelists4 ,because in ,matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back1 while ,mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb2 and again1 whereas these mention one angel1 ,john says that there were two sitting1 and ,luke says that there were two standing4 ,consequently1 the arguments for the ,resurrection do not seem to agree4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ1 who is the ,wisdom of ,god1 ordereth all things sweetly and in a fitting manner1 according to ,wis4 #h3a4 ,i answer that1 ,christ manifested ,his ,resurrection in two ways3 namely1 by testimony2 and by proof or sign3 and each manifestation was sufficient in its own class4 ,for in order to manifest ,his ,resurrection ,he made use of a double testimony1 neither of which can be rebutted4 ,the first of these was the angels' testimony1 who announced the ,resurrection to the women1 as is seen in all the ,evangelists3 the other was the testimony of the ,scriptures1 which ,he set before them to show the truth of the ,resurrection1 as is narrated in the last chapter of ,luke4 ,again1 the proofs were sufficient for showing that the ,resurrection was both true and glorious4 ,that it was a true ,resurrection ,he shows first on the part of the body2 and this ,he shows in three respects2 first of all1 that it was a true and solid body1 and not phantastic or rarefied1 like the air4 ,and ,he establishes this by offering ,his body to be handled2 hence ,he says in the last chapter of ,luke 7#ci73 ,handle and see2 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones1 as you see ,me to have4 ,secondly1 ,he shows that it was a human body1 by presenting ,his true features for them to behold4 ,thirdly1 ,he shows that it was identically the same body which ,he had before1 by showing them the scars of the wounds2 hence1 as we read in the last chapter of ,luke 7#ci7 he said to them3 ,see ,my hands and feet1 that it is ,i ,myself4 ,secondly1 ,he showed them the truth of ,his ,resurrection on the part of ,his soul reunited with ,his body3 and ,he showed this by the works of the threefold life4 ,first of all1 in the operations of the nutritive life1 by eating and drinking with ,his disciples1 as we read in the last chapter of ,luke4 ,secondly1 in the works of the sensitive life1 by replying to ,his disciples' questions1 and by greeting them when they were in ,his presence1 showing thereby that ,he both saw and heard2 thirdly1 in the works of the intellective life by their conversing with ,him1 and discoursing on the ,scriptures4 ,and1 in order that nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete1 ,he also showed that ,he had the ,divine ,nature1 by working the miracle of the draught of fishes1 and further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding ,him3 because1 according to ,john #c3ac3 ,no man hath ascended into heaven1 but ,he that descended from heaven1 the ,son of ,man who is in heaven4 ,he also showed ,his disciples the glory of ,his ,resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed3 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxvi in ,evang473 ,our ,lord allowed them to handle ,his flesh which ,he had brought through closed doors1 to show that ,his body was of the same nature but of different glory4 ,it likewise was part of the property of glory that ,he vanished suddenly from their eyes1 as related in the last chapter of ,luke2 because thereby it was shown that it lay in ,his power to be seen or not seen2 and this belongs to a glorified body1 as stated above 7,q4 #ed1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b1 ,a4 #b1 ad #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,each separate argument would not suffice of itself for showing perfectly ,christ's ,resurrection1 yet all taken collectively establish it completely1 especially owing to the testimonies of the ,scriptures1 the sayings of the angels1 and even ,christ's own assertion supported by miracles4 ,as to the angels who appeared1 they did not say they were men1 as ,christ asserted that ,he was truly a man4 ,moreover1 the manner of eating was different in ,christ and the angels3 for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated1 there was no true eating1 although the food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body3 hence the angels said to ,tobias 7#ab3ah1 #ai73 ,when ,i was with you 4 4 4 ,i seemed indeed to eat and drink with you2 but ,i use an invisible meat4 ,but since ,christ's body was truly animated1 ,his eating was genuine4 ,for1 as ,augustine observes 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiii71 it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again4 ,hence ,bede says on ,luke #bd3da3 ,christ ate because ,he could1 not because ,he needed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as was observed above1 some proofs were employed by ,christ to prove the truth of ,his human nature1 and others to show forth ,his glory in rising again4 ,but the condition of human nature1 as considered in itself1 namely1 as to its present state1 is opposite to the condition of glory1 as is said in #a ,cor4 #ae3dc3 ,it is sown in weakness1 it shall rise in power4 ,consequently1 the proofs brought forward for showing the condition of glory1 seem to be in opposition to nature1 not absolutely1 but according to the present state1 and conversely4 ,hence ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxvi in ,evang473 ,the ,lord manifested two wonders1 which are mutually contrary according to human reason1 when after the ,resurrection ,he showed ,his body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,tract4 cxxi super ,joan471 these words of our ,lord1 ',do not touch ,me1 for ,i am not yet ascended to ,my ,father1' show that in that woman there is a figure of the ,church of the ,gentiles1 which did not believe in ,christ until ,he was ascended to the ,father4 ,or ,jesus would have men to believe in ,him1 i4e4 to touch ,him spiritually1 as being ,himself one with the ,father4 ,for to that man's innermost perceptions ,he is1 in some sort1 ascended unto the ,father1 who has become so far proficient in ,him1 as to recognize in ,him the equal with the ,father 4 4 4 whereas she as yet believed in ,him but carnally1 since she wept for ,him as for a man4 ,but when one reads elsewhere of ,mary having touched ,him1 when with the other women1 she 'came up and took hold of ,his feet1' that matters little1 as ,severianus says 99,chrysologus1 ,serm4 lxxvi1 for1 the first act relates to figure1 the other to sex2 the former is of ,divine grace1 the latter of human nature4 ,or as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxxxvi in ,joan473 ,this woman wanted to converse with ,christ just as before the ,passion1 and out of joy was thinking of nothing great1 although ,christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again4 ,and therefore ,he said3 ,i have not yet ascended to ,my ,father2 as if to say3 ,do not suppose ,i am leading an earthly life2 for if you see ,me upon earth1 it is because ,i have not yet ascended to ,my ,father1 but ,i am going to ascend shortly4 ,hence ,he goes on to say3 ,i ascend to ,my ,father1 and to your ,father4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,augustine says ad ,orosium 7,dial4 lxv1 ,qq473 ,our ,lord rose in clarified flesh2 yet ,he did not wish to appear before the disciples in that condition of clarity1 because their eyes could not gaze upon that brilliancy4 ,for if before ,he died for us and rose again the disciples could not look upon ,him when ,he was transfigured upon the mountain1 how much less were they able to gaze upon ,him when our ,lord's flesh was glorified4 ,it must also be borne in mind that after ,his ,resurrection our ,lord wished especially to show that ,he was the same as had died2 which the manifestation of ,his brightness would have hindered considerably3 because change of features shows more than anything else the difference in the person seen3 and this is because sight specially judges of the common sensibles1 among which is one and many1 or the same and different4 ,but before the ,passion1 lest ,his disciples might despise its weakness1 ,christ meant to show them the glory of ,his majesty2 and this the brightness of the body specially indicates4 ,consequently1 before the ,passion ,he showed the disciples ,his glory by brightness1 but after the ,resurrection by other tokens4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii73 ,we can understand one angel to have been seen by the women1 according to both ,matthew and ,mark1 if we take them as having entered the sepulchre1 that is1 into some sort of walled enclosure1 and that there they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument1 as ,matthew says2 and that this is ,mark's expression--'sitting on the right side'2 afterwards when they scanned the spot where the ,lord's body had lain1 they beheld two angels1 who were at first seated1 as ,john says1 and who afterwards rose so as to be seen standing1 as ,luke relates4 ,,question #ef ,,of ,,the ,,causality ,,of ,,christ',s ,,resurrection 7,in ,two ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the causality of ,christ's ,resurrection1 concerning which there are two points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of our resurrection8 7#b7 ,whether it is the cause of our justification8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ef1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ's ,resurrection ,is the ,cause of the ,resurrection of ,our ,bodies8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of our bodies1 because1 given a sufficient cause1 the effect must follow of necessity4 ,if1 then1 ,christ's ,resurrection be the sufficient cause of the resurrection of our bodies1 then all the dead should have risen again as soon as ,he rose4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,divine justice is the cause of the resurrection of the dead1 so that the body may be rewarded or punished together with the soul1 since they shared in merit or sin1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccles4 ,hier4 vii7 and ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv74 ,but ,god's justice must necessarily be accomplished1 even if ,christ had not risen4 ,therefore the dead would rise again even though ,christ did not4 ,consequently ,christ's ,resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of our bodies4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if ,christ's ,resurrection be the cause of the resurrection of our bodies1 it would be either the exemplar1 or the efficient1 or the meritorious cause4 ,now it is not the exemplar cause2 because it is ,god who will bring about the resurrection of our bodies1 according to ,john #e3ba3 ,the ,father raiseth up the dead3 and ,god has no need to look at any exemplar cause outside ,himself4 ,in like manner it is not the efficient cause2 because an efficient cause acts only through contact1 whether spiritual or corporeal4 ,now it is evident that ,christ's ,resurrection has no corporeal contact with the dead who shall rise again1 owing to distance of time and place2 and similarly it has no spiritual contact1 which is through faith and charity1 because even unbelievers and sinners shall rise again4 ,nor again is it the meritorious cause1 because when ,christ rose ,he was no longer a wayfarer1 and consequently not in a state of merit4 ,therefore1 ,christ's ,resurrection does not appear to be in any way the cause of ours4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 since death is the privation of life1 then to destroy death seems to be nothing else than to bring life back again2 and this is resurrection4 ,but by dying1 ,christ destroyed our death 99,preface of ,mass in ,paschal ,time4 ,consequently1 ,christ's death1 not ,his ,resurrection1 is the cause of our resurrection4 ,on the contrary1 on #a ,cor4 #ae3ab3 ,now if ,christ be preached1 that ,he rose again from the dead1 the gloss says3 ,who is the efficient cause of our resurrection4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in #b ,metaphysics1 text #d3 ,whatever is first in any order1 is the cause of all that come after it4 ,but ,christ's ,resurrection was the first in the order of our resurrection1 as is evident from what was said above 7,q4 #ec1 ,a4 #c74 ,hence ,christ's ,resurrection must be the cause of ours3 and this is what the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3bj1 #ba73 ,christ is risen from the dead1 the first-fruits of them that sleep2 for by a man came death1 and by a man the resurrection of the dead4 ,and this is reasonable4 ,because the principle of human life-giving is the ,word of ,god1 of whom it is said 7,ps4 #ce3aj73 ,with ,thee is the fountain of life3 hence ,he ,himself says 7,john #e3ba73 ,as the ,father raiseth up the dead1 and giveth life2 so the ,son also giveth life to whom ,he will4 ,now the divinely established natural order is that every cause operates first upon what is nearest to it1 and through it upon others which are more remote2 just as fire first heats the nearest air1 and through it it heats bodies that are further off3 and ,god ,himself first enlightens those substances which are closer to ,him1 and through them others that are more remote1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 xiii74 ,consequently1 the ,word of ,god first bestows immortal life upon that body which is naturally united with ,himself1 and through it works the resurrection in all other bodies4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as was stated above1 ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of ours through the power of the united ,word1 who operates according to ,his will4 ,and consequently1 it is not necessary for the effect to follow at once1 but according as the ,word of ,god disposes1 namely1 that first of all we be conformed to the suffering and dying ,christ in this suffering and mortal life2 and afterwards may come to share in the likeness of ,his ,resurrection4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god's justice is the first cause of our resurrection1 whereas ,christ's ,resurrection is the secondary1 and as it were the instrumental cause4 ,but although the power of the principal cause is not restricted to one instrument determinately1 nevertheless since it works through this instrument1 such instrument causes the effect4 ,so1 then1 the ,divine justice in itself is not tied down to ,christ's ,resurrection as a means of bringing about our resurrection3 because ,god could deliver us in some other way than through ,christ's ,passion and ,resurrection1 as already stated 7,q4 #df1 ,a4 #b74 ,but having once decreed to deliver us in this way1 it is evident that ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of ours4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,properly speaking1 ,christ's ,resurrection is not the meritorious cause1 but the efficient and exemplar cause of our resurrection4 ,it is the efficient cause1 inasmuch as ,christ's humanity1 according to which ,he rose again1 is as it were the instrument of ,his ,godhead1 and works by ,its power1 as stated above 7,q4 #ac1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c74 ,and therefore1 just as all other things which ,christ did and endured in ,his humanity are profitable to our salvation through the power of the ,godhead1 as already stated 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #f71 so also is ,christ's ,resurrection the efficient cause of ours1 through the ,divine power whose office it is to quicken the dead2 and this power by its presence is in touch with all places and times2 and such virtual contact suffices for its efficiency4 ,and since1 as was stated above 7ad #b71 the primary cause of human resurrection is the ,divine justice1 from which ,christ has the power of passing judgment1 because ,he is the ,son of ,man 7,john #e3bg72 the efficient power of ,his ,resurrection extends to the good and wicked alike1 who are subject to ,his judgment4 ,but just as the ,resurrection of ,christ's body1 through its personal union with the ,word1 is first in point of time1 so also is it first in dignity and perfection2 as the gloss says on #a ,cor4 #ae3bj1 #bc4 ,but whatever is most perfect is always the exemplar1 which the less perfect copies according to its mode2 consequently ,christ's ,resurrection is the exemplar of ours4 ,and this is necessary1 not on the part of ,him who rose again1 who needs no exemplar1 but on the part of them who are raised up1 who must be likened to that ,resurrection1 according to ,phil4 #c3ba3 ,he will reform the body of our lowness1 made like to the body of ,his glory4 ,now although the efficiency of ,christ's ,resurrection extends to the resurrection of the good and wicked alike1 still its exemplarity extends properly only to the just1 who are made conformable with ,his ,sonship1 according to ,rom4 #h3bi4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,considered on the part of their efficiency1 which is dependent on the ,divine power1 both ,christ's death and ,his ,resurrection are the cause both of the destruction of death and of the renewal of life3 but considered as exemplar causes1 ,christ's death--by which ,he withdrew from mortal life--is the cause of the destruction of our death2 while ,his ,resurrection1 whereby ,he inaugurated immortal life1 is the cause of the repairing of our life4 ,but ,christ's ,passion is furthermore a meritorious cause1 as stated above 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #a74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ef1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,resurrection ,is the ,cause of the ,resurrection of ,souls8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls1 because ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxiii super ,joan47 that bodies rise by ,his human dispensation1 but souls rise by the ,substance of ,god4 ,but ,christ's ,resurrection does not belong to ,god's ,substance1 but to the dispensation of ,his humanity4 ,therefore1 although ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of bodies rising1 nevertheless it does not seem to be the cause of the resurrection of souls4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a body does not act upon a spirit4 ,but the ,resurrection belongs to ,his body1 which death laid low4 ,therefore ,his ,resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 since ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause why bodies rise again1 the bodies of all men shall rise again1 according to #a ,cor4 #ae3ea3 ,we shall all indeed rise again4 ,but the souls of all will not rise again1 because according to ,matt4 #be3df3 some shall go into everlasting punishment4 ,therefore ,christ's ,resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness of sins4 ,but this was effected by ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,apoc4 #a3e3 ,he washed us from our sins in ,his own blood4 ,consequently1 ,christ's ,passion even more than ,his ,resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of souls4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #d3be73 ,he rose again for our justification1 which is nothing else than the resurrection of souls3 and on ,ps4 #bi3f3 ,in the evening weeping shall have place1 the gloss says1 ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of ours1 both of the soul at present1 and of the body in the future4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above1 ,christ's ,resurrection works in virtue of the ,godhead2 now this virtue extends not only to the resurrection of bodies1 but also to that of souls3 for it comes of ,god that the soul lives by grace1 and that the body lives by the soul4 ,consequently1 ,christ's ,resurrection has instrumentally an effective power not only with regard to the resurrection of bodies1 but also with respect to the resurrection of souls4 ,in like fashion it is an exemplar cause with regard to the resurrection of souls1 because even in our souls we must be conformed with the rising ,christ3 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3d-aa7 ,christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the ,father1 so we also may walk in newness of life3 and as ,he1 rising again from the dead1 dieth now no more1 so let us reckon that we 7,vulg43 'you'7 are dead to sin1 that we may live together with ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,augustine says that the resurrection of souls is wrought by ,god's ,substance1 as to participation1 because souls become good and just by sharing in the ,divine goodness1 but not by sharing in anything created4 ,accordingly1 after saying that souls rise by the ,divine ,substance1 he adds3 the soul is beatified by a participation with ,god1 and not by a participation with a holy soul4 ,but our bodies are made glorious by sharing in the glory of ,christ's body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the efficacy of ,christ's ,resurrection reaches souls not from any special virtue of ,his risen body1 but from the virtue of the ,godhead personally united with it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the resurrection of souls pertains to merit1 which is the effect of justification2 but the resurrection of bodies is ordained for punishment or reward1 which are the effects of ,him who judges4 ,now it belongs to ,christ1 not to justify all men1 but to judge them3 and therefore ,he raises up all as to their bodies1 but not as to their souls4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,two things concur in the justification of souls1 namely1 forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace4 ,consequently1 as to efficacy1 which comes of the ,divine power1 the ,passion as well as the ,resurrection of ,christ is the cause of justification as to both the above4 ,but as to exemplarity1 properly speaking ,christ's ,passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness of guilt1 by which forgiveness we die unto sin3 whereas ,christ's ,resurrection is the cause of newness of life1 which comes through grace or justice3 consequently1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #d3be7 that ,he was delivered up1 i4e4 to death1 for our sins1 i4e4 to take them away1 and rose again for our justification4 ,but ,christ's ,passion was also a meritorious cause1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #d2 ,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #a74 ,,question #eg ,,of ,,the ,,ascension ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's ,ascension3 concerning which there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it belonged for ,christ to ascend into heaven8 7#b7 ,according to which nature did it become ,him to ascend8 7#c7 ,whether ,he ascended by ,his own power8 7#d7 ,whether ,he ascended above all the corporeal heavens8 7#e7 ,whether ,he ascended above all spiritual creatures8 7#f7 ,of the effect of the ,ascension4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,was ,fitting for ,christ to ,ascend into ,heaven8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it was not fitting for ,christ to ascend into heaven4 ,for the ,philosopher says 7,de ,coelo ii7 that things which are in a state of perfection possess their good without movement4 ,but ,christ was in a state of perfection1 since ,he is the ,sovereign ,good in respect of ,his ,divine ,nature1 and sovereignly glorified in respect of ,his human nature4 ,consequently1 ,he has ,his good without movement4 ,but ascension is movement4 ,therefore it was not fitting for ,christ to ascend4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whatever is moved1 is moved on account of something better4 ,but it was no better thing for ,christ to be in heaven than upon earth1 because ,he gained nothing either in soul or in body by being in heaven4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ should not have ascended into heaven4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,son of ,god took human flesh for our salvation4 ,but it would have been more beneficial for men if ,he had tarried always with us upon earth2 thus ,he said to ,his disciples 7,luke #ag3bb73 ,the days will come when you shall desire to see one day of the ,son of man2 and you shall not see it4 ,therefore it seems unfitting for ,christ to have ascended into heaven4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as ,gregory says 7,moral4 xiv71 ,christ's body was in no way changed after the ,resurrection4 ,but ,he did not ascend into heaven immediately after rising again1 for ,he said after the ,resurrection 7,john #bj3ag73 ,i am not yet ascended to ,my ,father4 ,therefore it seems that neither should ,he have ascended after forty days4 ,on the contrary1 ,are the words of our ,lord 7,john #bj3ag73 ,i ascend to ,my ,father and to your ,father4 ,i answer that1 ,the place ought to be in keeping with what is contained therein4 ,now by ,his ,resurrection ,christ entered upon an immortal and incorruptible life4 ,but whereas our dwelling-place is one of generation and corruption1 the heavenly place is one of incorruption4 ,and consequently it was not fitting that ,christ should remain upon earth after the ,resurrection2 but it was fitting that ,he should ascend to heaven4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that which is best and possesses its good without movement is ,god ,himself1 because ,he is utterly unchangeable1 according to ,malachi #c3f3 ,i am the ,lord1 and ,i change not4 ,but every creature is changeable in some respect1 as is evident from ,augustine 7,gen4 ad lit4 viii74 ,and since the nature assumed by the ,son of ,god remained a creature1 as is clear from what was said above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #g2 ,q4 #af1 ,,aa4 #h1 #aj2 ,q4 #bj1 ,a4 #a71 it is not unbecoming if some movement be attributed to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by ascending into heaven ,christ acquired no addition to ,his essential glory either in body or in soul3 nevertheless ,he did acquire something as to the fittingness of place1 which pertains to the well-being of glory3 not that ,his body acquired anything from a heavenly body by way of perfection or preservation2 but merely out of a certain fittingness4 ,now this in a measure belonged to ,his glory2 and ,he had a certain kind of joy from such fittingness1 not indeed that ,he then began to derive joy from it when ,he ascended into heaven1 but that ,he rejoiced thereat in a new way1 as at a thing completed4 ,hence1 on ,ps4 #ae3aa3 ,at ,thy right hand are delights even unto the end1 the gloss says3 ,i shall delight in sitting nigh to ,thee1 when ,i shall be taken away from the sight of men4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although ,christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from the faithful by the ,ascension1 still the presence of ,his ,godhead is ever with the faithful1 as ,he ,himself says 7,matt4 #bh3bj73 ,behold1 ,i am with you all days1 even to the consummation of the world4 ,for1 by ascending into heaven ,he did not abandon those whom ,he adopted1 as ,pope ,leo says 7,de ,resurrec41 ,serm4 ii74 ,but ,christ's ,ascension into heaven1 whereby ,he withdrew ,his bodily presence from us1 was more profitable for us than ,his bodily presence would have been4 ,first of all1 in order to increase our faith1 which is of things unseen4 ,hence our ,lord said 7,john #bf7 that the ,holy ,ghost shall come and convince the world 4 4 4 of justice1 that is1 of the justice of those that believe1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xcv super ,joan473 ,for even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to shame2 wherefore he goes on to say 7#aj73 ',because ,i go to the ,father2 and you shall see ,me no longer'--,for 'blessed are they that see not1 yet believe4' ,hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved3 because 'you will believe in ,me whom you shall not see4' ,secondly1 to uplift our hope3 hence ,he says 7,john #ad3c73 ,if ,i shall go1 and prepare a place for you1 ,i will come again1 and will take you to ,myself2 that where ,i am1 you also may be4 ,for by placing in heaven the human nature which ,he assumed1 ,christ gave us the hope of going thither2 since wheresoever the body shall be1 there shall the eagles also be gathered together1 as is written in ,matt4 #bd3bh4 ,hence it is written likewise 7,mic4 #b3ac73 ,he shall go up that shall open the way before them4 ,thirdly1 in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly things4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,col4 #c3a1 #b73 ,seek the things that are above1 where ,christ is sitting at the right hand of ,god4 ,mind the things that are above1 not the things that are upon the earth3 for as is said 7,matt4 #f3ba73 ,where thy treasure is1 there is thy heart also4 ,and since the ,holy ,ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things1 therefore our ,lord said to ,his disciples 7,john #af3g73 ,it is expedient to you that ,i go2 for if ,i go not1 the ,paraclete will not come to you2 but if ,i go1 ,i will send ,him to you4 ,on which words ,augustine says 7,tract4 xciv super ,joan473 ,ye cannot receive the ,spirit1 so long as ye persist in knowing ,christ according to the flesh4 ,but when ,christ withdrew in body1 not only the ,holy ,ghost1 but both ,father and ,son were present with them spiritually4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,although a heavenly place befitted ,christ when ,he rose to immortal life1 nevertheless ,he delayed the ,ascension in order to confirm the truth of ,his ,resurrection4 ,hence it is written 7,acts #a3c71 that ,he showed ,himself alive after ,his ,passion1 by many proofs1 for forty days appearing to them3 upon which the gloss says that because ,he was dead for forty hours1 during forty days ,he established the fact of ,his being alive again4 ,or the forty days may be understood as a figure of this world1 wherein ,christ dwells in ,his ,church3 inasmuch as man is made out of the four elements1 and is cautioned not to transgress the ,decalogue4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ's ,ascension into ,heaven ,belonged to ,him ,according to ,his ,divine ,nature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,ascension into heaven belonged to ,him according to ,his ,divine ,nature4 ,for1 it is written 7,ps4 #df3f73 ,god is ascended with jubilee3 and 7,deut4 #cc3bf73 ,he that is mounted upon the heaven is thy helper4 ,but these words were spoken of ,god even before ,christ's ,incarnation4 ,therefore it belongs to ,christ to ascend into heaven as ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven as to descend from heaven1 according to ,john #c3ac3 ,no man hath ascended into heaven1 but ,he that descended from heaven3 and ,eph4 #d3aj3 ,he that descended is the same also that ascended4 ,but ,christ came down from heaven not as man1 but as ,god3 because previously ,his ,nature in heaven was not human1 but ,divine4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ascended into heaven as ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 by ,his ,ascension ,christ ascended to the ,father4 ,but it was not as man that ,he rose to equality with the ,father2 for in this respect ,he says3 ,he is greater than ,i1 as is said in ,john #ad3bh4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ ascended as ,god4 ,on the contrary1 on ,eph4 #d3aj3 ,that ,he ascended1 what is it1 but because ,he also descended1 a gloss says3 ,it is clear that ,he descended and ascended according to ,his humanity4 ,i answer that1 ,the expression according to can denote two things2 the condition of the one who ascends1 and the cause of his ascension4 ,when taken to express the condition of the one ascending1 the ,ascension in no wise belongs to ,christ according to the condition of ,his ,divine ,nature2 both because there is nothing higher than the ,divine ,nature to which ,he can ascend2 and because ascension is local motion1 a thing not in keeping with the ,divine ,nature1 which is immovable and outside all place4 ,yet the ,ascension is in keeping with ,christ according to ,his human nature1 which is limited by place1 and can be the subject of motion4 ,in this sense1 then1 we can say that ,christ ascended into heaven as man1 but not as ,god4 ,but if the phrase according to denote the cause of the ,ascension1 since ,christ ascended into heaven in virtue of ,his ,godhead1 and not in virtue of ,his human nature1 then it must be said that ,christ ascended into heaven not as man1 but as ,god4 ,hence ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,ascension3 ,it was our doing that the ,son of man hung upon the cross2 but it was ,his own doing that ,he ascended4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these utterances were spoken prophetically of ,god who was one day to become incarnate4 ,still it can be said that although to ascend does not belong to the ,divine ,nature properly1 yet it can metaphorically2 as1 for instance1 it is said to ascend in the heart of man 7cf4 ,ps4 #hc3f71 when his heart submits and humbles itself before ,god3 and in the same way ,god is said to ascend metaphorically with regard to every creature1 since ,he subjects it to ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,he who ascended is the same as ,he who descended4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 iv73 ,who is it that descends8 ,the ,god-,man4 ,who is it that ascends8 ,the self-same ,god-,man4 ,nevertheless a twofold descent is attributed to ,christ2 one1 whereby ,he is said to have descended from heaven1 which is attributed to the ,god-,man according as ,he is ,god3 for ,he is not to be understood as having descended by any local movement1 but as having emptied ,himself1 since when ,he was in the form of ,god ,he took the form of a servant4 ,for just as ,he is said to be emptied1 not by losing ,his fulness1 but because ,he took our littleness upon ,himself1 so likewise ,he is said to have descended from heaven1 not that ,he deserted heaven1 but because ,he assumed human nature in unity of person4 ,and there is another descent whereby ,he descended into the lower regions of the earth1 as is written ,eph4 #d3i2 and this is local descent3 hence this belongs to ,christ according to the condition of human nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ is said to ascend to the ,father1 inasmuch as ,he ascends to sit on the right hand of the ,father2 and this is befitting ,christ in a measure according to ,his ,divine ,nature1 and in a measure according to ,his human nature1 as will be said later 7,q4 #eh1 ,a4 #c74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,ascended by ,his ,own ,power8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not ascend by ,his own power1 because it is written 7,mk4 #af3ai7 that the ,lord ,jesus1 after ,he had spoken to them1 was taken up to heaven2 and 7,acts #a3i7 that1 while they looked on1 ,he was raised up1 and a cloud received ,him out of their sight4 ,but what is taken up1 and lifted up1 appears to be moved by another4 ,consequently1 it was not by ,his own power1 but by another's that ,christ was taken up into heaven4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's was an earthly body1 like to ours4 ,but it is contrary to the nature of an earthly body to be borne upwards4 ,moreover1 what is moved contrary to its nature is nowise moved by its own power4 ,therefore ,christ did not ascend to heaven by ,his own power4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's own power is ,divine4 ,but this motion does not seem to have been ,divine1 because1 whereas the ,divine power is infinite1 such motion would be instantaneous2 consequently1 ,he would not have been uplifted to heaven while the disciples looked on1 as is stated in ,acts #a3i4 ,therefore1 it seems that ,christ did not ascend to heaven by ,his own power4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #fc3a73 ,this beautiful one in his robe1 walking in the greatness of his strength4 ,also ,gregory says in a ,homily on the ,ascension 7xxix73 ,it is to be noted that we read of ,elias having ascended in a chariot1 that it might be shown that one who was mere man needed another's help4 ,but we do not read of our ,saviour being lifted up either in a chariot or by angels1 because ,he who had made all things was taken up above all things by ,his own power4 ,i answer that1 ,there is a twofold nature in ,christ1 to wit1 the ,divine and the human4 ,hence ,his own power can be accepted according to both4 ,likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding ,his human nature3 one is natural1 flowing from the principles of nature2 and it is quite evident that ,christ did not ascend into heaven by such power as this4 ,the other is the power of glory1 which is in ,christ's human nature2 and it was according to this that ,he ascended to heaven4 ,now there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to the nature of the fifth essence4 ,this1 as they say1 is light1 which they make out to be of the composition of the human body1 and by which they contend that contrary elements are reconciled2 so that in the state of this mortality1 elemental nature is predominant in human bodies3 so that1 according to the nature of this predominating element the human body is borne downwards by its own power3 but in the condition of glory the heavenly nature will predominate1 by whose tendency and power ,christ's body and the bodies of the saints are lifted up to heaven4 ,but we have already treated of this opinion in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #g71 and shall deal with it more fully in treating of the general resurrection 7,suppl41 ,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #a74 ,setting this opinion aside1 others assign as the cause of this power the glorified soul itself1 from whose overflow the body will be glorified1 as ,augustine writes to ,dioscorus 7,ep4 cxviii74 ,for the glorified body will be so submissive to the glorified soul1 that1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xxii71 wheresoever the spirit listeth1 thither the body will be on the instant2 nor will the spirit desire anything unbecoming to the soul or the body4 ,now it is befitting the glorified and immortal body for it to be in a heavenly place1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 ,christ's body ascended into heaven by the power of ,his soul willing it4 ,but as the body is made glorious by participation with the soul1 even so1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxiii in ,joan471 the soul is beatified by participating in ,god4 ,consequently1 the ,divine power is the first source of the ascent into heaven4 ,therefore ,christ ascended into heaven by ,his own power1 first of all by ,his ,divine power1 and secondly by the power of ,his glorified soul moving ,his body at will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,christ is said to have risen by ,his own power1 though ,he was raised to life by the power of the ,father1 since the ,father's power is the same as the ,son's2 so also ,christ ascended into heaven by ,his own power1 and yet was raised up and taken up to heaven by the ,father4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument proves that ,christ did not ascend into heaven by ,his own power1 i4e4 that which is natural to human nature3 yet ,he did ascend by ,his own power1 i4e4 ,his ,divine power1 as well as by ,his own power1 i4e4 the power of ,his beatified soul4 ,and although to mount upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body in its present condition1 in which the body is not entirely dominated by the soul1 still it will not be unnatural or forced in a glorified body1 whose entire nature is utterly under the control of the spirit4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the ,divine power be infinite1 and operate infinitely1 so far as the worker is concerned1 still the effect thereof is received in things according to their capacity1 and as ,god disposes4 ,now a body is incapable of being moved locally in an instant1 because it must be commensurate with space1 according to the division of which time is reckoned1 as is proved in ,physics vi4 ,consequently1 it is not necessary for a body moved by ,god to be moved instantaneously1 but with such speed as ,god disposes4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,ascended ,above ,all the ,heavens8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not ascend above all the heavens1 for it is written 7,ps4 #aj3e73 ,the ,lord is in ,his holy temple1 the ,lord's throne is in heaven4 ,but what is in heaven is not above heaven4 ,therefore ,christ did not ascend above all the heavens4 ,obj4 #b3 99,this objection with its solution is omitted in the ,leonine edition as not being in the original manuscript4 ,further1 there is no place above the heavens1 as is proved in ,de ,coelo i4 ,but every body must occupy a place4 ,therefore ,christ's body did not ascend above all the heavens4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 two bodies cannot occupy the same place4 ,since1 then1 there is no passing from place to place except through the middle space1 it seems that ,christ could not have ascended above all the heavens unless heaven were divided2 which is impossible4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it is narrated 7,acts #a3i7 that a cloud received ,him out of their sight4 ,but clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven4 ,consequently1 ,christ did not ascend above all the heavens4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 we believe that ,christ will dwell for ever in the place whither ,he has ascended4 ,but what is against nature cannot last for ever1 because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of more frequent occurrence4 ,therefore1 since it is contrary to nature for an earthly body to be above heaven1 it seems that ,christ's body did not ascend above heaven4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #d3aj73 ,he ascended above all the heavens that ,he might fill all things4 ,i answer that1 ,the more fully anything corporeal shares in the ,divine goodness1 the higher its place in the corporeal order1 which is order of place4 ,hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the higher1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,phys4 iv2 ,de ,coelo ii71 since it is by its form that every body partakes of the ,divine ,essence1 as is shown in ,physics i4 ,but through glory the body derives a greater share in the ,divine goodness than any other natural body does through its natural form2 while among other glorious bodies it is manifest that ,christ's body shines with greater glory4 ,hence it was most fitting for it to be set above all bodies4 ,thus it is that on ,eph4 #d3h3 ,ascending on high1 the gloss says3 in place and dignity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god's seat is said to be in heaven1 not as though heaven contained ,him1 but rather because it is contained by ,him4 ,hence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher1 but for ,him to be above all the heavens2 according to ,ps4 #h3b3 ,for ,thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens1 ,o ,god6 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 99,omitted in ,leonine edition2 see ,obj4#b ,a place implies the notion of containing2 hence the first container has the formality of first place1 and such is the first heaven4 ,therefore bodies need in themselves to be in a place1 in so far as they are contained by a heavenly body4 ,but glorified bodies1 ,christ's especially1 do not stand in need of being so contained1 because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies1 but from ,god through the soul4 ,so there is nothing to prevent ,christ's body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies1 and not in a containing place4 ,nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven1 since there is no place there1 nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body1 but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in ,christ4 ,so when ,aristotle proves 7,de ,coelo ii7 that there is no body beyond heaven1 this must be understood of bodies which are in a state of pure nature1 as is seen from the proofs4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although it is not of the nature of a body for it to be in the same place with another body1 yet ,god can bring it about miraculously that a body be with another in the same place1 as ,christ did when ,he went forth from the ,virgin's sealed womb1 also when ,he entered among the disciples through closed doors1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxvi74 ,therefore ,christ's body can be in the same place with another body1 not through some inherent property in the body1 but through the assistance and operation of the ,divine power4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,that cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the ascending ,christ3 but it appeared as a sign of the ,godhead1 just as ,god's glory appeared to ,israel in a cloud over the ,tabernacle 7,ex4 #dj3cb2 ,num4 #i3ae74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,a glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above heaven1 not from its natural principles1 but from the beatified soul1 from which it derives its glory3 and just as the upward motion of a glorified body is not violent1 so neither is its rest violent3 consequently1 there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ's ,body ,ascended ,above ,every ,spiritual ,creature8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's body did not ascend above every spiritual creature4 ,for no fitting comparison can be made between things which have no common ratio4 ,but place is not predicated in the same ratio of bodies and of spiritual creatures1 as is evident from what was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #h1 ,a4 #b1 ad #a1 #b2 ,q4 #eb1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's body cannot be said to have ascended above every spiritual creature4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,vera ,relig4 lv7 that a spirit always takes precedence over a body4 ,but the higher place is due to the higher things4 ,therefore it does not seem that ,christ ascended above every spiritual creature4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in every place a body exists1 since there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature4 ,therefore if no body obtains a higher place than a spirit in the order of natural bodies1 then there will be no place above every spiritual creature4 ,consequently1 ,christ's body could not ascend above every spiritual creature4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #a3ba73 ,god set ,him above all principality1 and ,power1 and every name that is named1 not only in this world1 but also in that which is to come4 ,i answer that1 ,the more exalted place is due to the nobler subject1 whether it be a place according to bodily contact1 as regards bodies1 or whether it be by way of spiritual contact1 as regards spiritual substances2 thus a heavenly place which is the highest of places is becomingly due to spiritual substances1 since they are highest in the order of substances4 ,but although ,christ's body is beneath spiritual substances1 if we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature1 nevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity1 when we call to mind its dignity of union whereby it is united personally with ,god4 ,consequently1 owing to this very fittingness1 a higher place is due to it above every spiritual creature4 ,hence ,gregory says in a ,homily on the ,ascension 7xxix in ,evang47 that ,he who had made all things1 was by ,his own power raised up above all things4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although a place is differently attributed to corporeal and spiritual substances1 still in either case this remains in common1 that the higher place is assigned to the worthier4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument holds good of ,christ's body according to the conditions of its corporeal nature1 but not according to its formality of union4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this comparison may be considered either on the part of the places2 and thus there is no place so high as to exceed the dignity of a spiritual substance3 in this sense the objection runs4 ,or it may be considered on the part of the dignity of the things to which a place is attributed3 and in this way it is due to the body of ,christ to be above spiritual creatures4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eg1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,ascension ,is the ,cause of ,our ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's ,ascension is not the cause of our salvation4 ,for1 ,christ was the cause of our salvation in so far as ,he merited it4 ,but ,he merited nothing for us by ,his ,ascension1 because ,his ,ascension belongs to the reward of ,his exaltation3 and the same thing is not both merit and reward1 just as neither are a road and its terminus the same4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,ascension is not the cause of our salvation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if ,christ's ,ascension be the cause of our salvation1 it seems that this is principally due to the fact that ,his ,ascension is the cause of ours4 ,but this was bestowed upon us by ,his ,passion1 for it is written 7,heb4 #aj3ai73 ,we have ,vulg43 ',having' confidence in the entering into the holies by ,his blood4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,ascension was not the cause of our salvation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the salvation which ,christ bestows is an everlasting one1 according to ,isa4 #ea3f3 ,my salvation shall be for ever4 ,but ,christ did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally2 for it is written 7,acts #a3aa73 ,he shall so come as you have seen ,him going1 into heaven4 ,besides1 we read of ,him showing ,himself to many holy people on earth after ,he went up to heaven1 to ,paul1 for instance 7,acts #i74 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ's ,ascension is not the cause of our salvation4 ,on the contrary1 ,he ,himself said 7,john #af3g73 ,it is expedient to you that ,i go2 i4e4 that ,i should leave you and ascend into heaven4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's ,ascension is the cause of our salvation in two ways3 first of all1 on our part2 secondly1 on ,his4 ,on our part1 in so far as by the ,ascension our souls are uplifted to ,him2 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c71 ,his ,ascension fosters1 first1 faith2 secondly1 hope2 thirdly1 charity4 ,fourthly1 our reverence for ,him is thereby increased1 since we no longer deem ,him an earthly man1 but the ,god of heaven2 thus the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #e3af73 ,if we have known ,christ according to the flesh--'that is1 as mortal1 whereby we reputed ,him as a mere man1' as the gloss interprets the words--but now we know ,him so no longer4 ,on ,his part1 in regard to those things which1 in ascending1 ,he did for our salvation4 ,first1 ,he prepared the way for our ascent into heaven1 according to ,his own saying 7,john #ad3b73 ,i go to prepare a place for you1 and the words of ,micheas 7#b3ac71 ,he shall go up that shall open the way before them4 ,for since ,he is our ,head the members must follow whither the ,head has gone3 hence ,he said 7,john #ad3c73 ,that where ,i am1 you also may be4 ,in sign whereof ,he took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell1 according to ,ps4 #fg3ai 7,cf4 ,eph4 #d3h73 ,ascending on high1 ,he led captivity captive1 because ,he took with ,him to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil--to heaven1 as to a place strange to human nature4 captives in deed of a happy taking1 since they were acquired by ,his victory4 ,secondly1 because as the high-priest under the ,old ,testament entered the holy place to stand before ,god for the people1 so also ,christ entered heaven to make intercession for us1 as is said in ,heb4 #g3be4 ,because the very showing of ,himself in the human nature which ,he took with ,him to heaven is a pleading for us1 so that for the very reason that ,god so exalted human nature in ,christ1 ,he may take pity on them for whom the ,son of ,god took human nature4 ,thirdly1 that being established in ,his heavenly seat as ,god and ,lord1 ,he might send down gifts upon men1 according to ,eph4 #d3aj3 ,he ascended above all the heavens1 that ,he might fill all things1 that is1 with ,his gifts1 according to the gloss4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,ascension is the cause of our salvation by way not of merit1 but of efficiency1 as was stated above regarding ,his ,resurrection 7,q4 #ef1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c1 #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's ,passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven1 properly speaking1 by removing the hindrance which is sin1 and also by way of merit3 whereas ,christ's ,ascension is the direct cause of our ascension1 as by beginning it in ,him who is our ,head1 with whom the members must be united4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ by once ascending into heaven acquired for ,himself and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a heavenly dwelling-place2 which worthiness suffers in no way1 if1 from some special dispensation1 ,he sometimes comes down in body to earth2 either in order to show ,himself to the whole world1 as at the judgment2 or else to show ,himself particularly to some individual1 e4g4 in ,paul's case1 as we read in ,acts #i4 ,and lest any man may think that ,christ was not bodily present when this occurred1 the contrary is shown from what the ,apostle says in #a ,cor4 #ad3h1 to confirm faith in the ,resurrection3 ,last of all ,he was seen also by me1 as by one born out of due time3 which vision would not confirm the truth of the ,resurrection except he had beheld ,christ's very body4 ,,question #eh ,,of ,,christ',s ,,sitting ,,at ,,the ,,right ,,hand ,,of ,,the ,,father 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's sitting at the right hand of the ,father1 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ is seated at the right hand of the ,father8 7#b7 ,whether this belongs to ,him according to the ,divine ,nature8 7#c7 ,whether it belongs to ,him according to ,his human nature8 7#d7 ,whether it is something proper to ,christ8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eh1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,fitting ,that ,christ ,should ,sit at the ,right ,hand of ,god the ,father8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem unfitting that ,christ should sit at the right hand of ,god the ,father4 ,for right and left are differences of bodily position4 ,but nothing corporeal can be applied to ,god1 since ,god is a spirit1 as we read in ,john #d3bd4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ does not sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if anyone sits at another's right hand1 then the latter is seated on his left4 ,consequently1 if ,christ sits at the right hand of the ,father1 it follows that the ,father is seated on the left of the ,son2 which is unseemly4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 sitting and standing savor of opposition4 ,but ,stephen 7,acts #g3ee7 said3 ,behold1 ,i see the heavens opened1 and the ,son of man standing on the right hand of ,god4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ does not sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written in the last chapter of ,mark 7#af3ai73 ,the ,lord ,jesus1 after ,he had spoken to them1 was taken up to heaven1 and sitteth on the right hand of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,the word sitting may have a twofold meaning2 namely1 abiding as in ,luke #bd3di3 ,sit ,douay3 ',stay' you in the city3 and royal or judiciary power1 as in ,prov4 #bj3h3 ,the king1 that sitteth on the throne of judgment1 scattereth away all evil with his look4 ,now in either sense it belongs to ,christ to sit at the ,father's right hand4 ,first of all inasmuch as ,he abides eternally unchangeable in the ,father's bliss1 which is termed ,his right hand1 according to ,ps4 #ae3aa3 ,at ,thy right hand are delights even to the end4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 i73 ',sitteth at the right hand of the ,father'3 ,to sit means to dwell1 just as we say of any man3 ',he sat in that country for three years'3 ,believe1 then1 that ,christ dwells so at the right hand of the ,father3 for ,he is happy1 and the ,father's right hand is the name for ,his bliss4 ,secondly1 ,christ is said to sit at the right hand of the ,father inasmuch as ,he reigns together with the ,father1 and has judiciary power from ,him2 just as he who sits at the king's right hand helps him in ruling and judging4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 ii73 ,by the expression 'right hand1' understand the power which this ,man1 chosen of ,god1 received1 that ,he might come to judge1 who before had come to be judged4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,we do not speak of the ,father's right hand as of a place1 for how can a place be designated by ,his right hand1 who ,himself is beyond all place8 ,right and left belong to things definable by limit4 ,but we style1 as the ,father's right hand1 the glory and honor of the ,godhead4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the argument holds good if sitting at the right hand be taken corporeally4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 i73 ,if we accept it in a carnal sense that ,christ sits at the ,father's right hand1 then the ,father will be on the left4 ,but there--that is1 in eternal bliss1 it is all right hand1 since no misery is there4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,gregory says in a ,homily on the ,ascension 7,hom4 xxix in ,evang471 it is the judge's place to sit1 while to stand is the place of the combatant or helper4 ,consequently1 ,stephen in his toil of combat saw ,him standing whom ,he had as his helper4 ,but ,mark describes ,him as seated after the ,ascension1 because after the glory of ,his ,ascension ,he will at the end be seen as judge4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eh1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,belongs to ,christ ,as ,god to ,sit at the ,right ,hand of the ,father8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it does not belong to ,christ as ,god to sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,for1 as ,god1 ,christ is the ,father's right hand4 ,but it does not appear to be the same thing to be the right hand of anyone and to sit on his right hand4 ,therefore1 as ,god1 ,christ does not sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the last chapter of ,mark 7#af3ai7 it is said that the ,lord ,jesus was taken up into heaven1 and sitteth on the right hand of ,god4 ,but it was not as ,god that ,christ was taken up to heaven4 ,therefore neither does ,he1 as ,god1 sit at the right hand of ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ as ,god is the equal of the ,father and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,consequently1 if ,christ sits as ,god at the right hand of the ,father1 with equal reason the ,holy ,ghost sits at the right hand of the ,father and of the ,son1 and the ,father ,himself on the right hand of the ,son2 which no one is found to say4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 that what we style as the ,father's right hand1 is the glory and honor of the ,godhead1 wherein the ,son of ,god existed before ages as ,god and as consubstantial with the ,father4 ,i answer that1 ,as may be gathered from what has been said 7,a4 #a7 three things can be understood under the expression right hand4 ,first of all1 as ,damascene takes it1 the glory of the ,godhead3 secondly1 according to ,augustine the beatitude of the ,father3 thirdly1 according to the same authority1 judiciary power4 ,now as we observed 7,a4 #a7 sitting denotes either abiding1 or royal or judiciary dignity4 ,hence1 to sit on the right hand of the ,father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the ,godhead with the ,father1 and to possess beatitude and judiciary power1 and that unchangeably and royally4 ,but this belongs to the ,son as ,god4 ,hence it is manifest that ,christ as ,god sits at the right hand of the ,father2 yet so that this preposition at1 which is a transitive one1 implies merely personal distinction and order of origin1 but not degree of nature or dignity1 for there is no such thing in the ,divine ,persons1 as was shown in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #db1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,son of ,god is called the ,father's right hand by appropriation1 just as ,he is called the ,power of the ,father 7#a ,cor4 #a3bd74 ,but right hand of the ,father1 in its three meanings given above1 is something common to the three ,persons4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ as man is exalted to ,divine honor2 and this is signified in the aforesaid sitting2 nevertheless such honor belongs to ,him as ,god1 not through any assumption1 but through ,his origin from eternity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in no way can it be said that the ,father is seated at the right hand of the ,son or of the ,holy ,ghost2 because the ,son and the ,holy ,ghost derive their origin from the ,father1 and not conversely4 ,the ,holy ,ghost1 however1 can be said properly to sit at the right hand of the ,father or of the ,son1 in the aforesaid sense1 although by a kind of appropriation it is attributed to the ,son1 to whom equality is appropriated2 thus ,augustine says 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 i7 that in the ,father there is unity1 in the ,son equality1 in the ,holy ,ghost the connection of unity with equality4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,it ,belongs to ,christ ,as ,man to ,sit at the ,right ,hand of the ,father8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it does not belong to ,christ as man to sit at the right hand of the ,father1 because1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,what we call the ,father's right hand is the glory and honor of the ,godhead4 ,but the glory and honor of the ,godhead do not belong to ,christ as man4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ as man does not sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude subjection1 because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning with him4 ,but ,christ as man is subject unto the ,father1 as is said in #a ,cor4 #ae3bh4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ as man does not sit at the ,father's right hand4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 on ,rom4 #h3cd3 ,who is at the right hand of ,god1 the gloss adds3 that is1 equal to the ,father in that honor1 whereby ,god is the ,father3 or1 on the right hand of the ,father1 that is1 in the mightier gifts of ,god4 ,and on ,heb4 #a3c3 sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high1 the gloss adds1 that is1 in equality with the ,father over all things1 both in place and dignity4 ,but equality with ,god does not belong to ,christ as man2 for in this respect ,christ ,himself says 7,john #ad3bh73 ,the ,father is greater than ,i4 ,consequently1 it appears unseemly for ,christ as man to sit on the ,father's right hand4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 ii73 ,by the expression 'right hand' understand the power which this ,man1 chosen of ,god1 received1 that ,he might come as judge1 who before had come to be judged4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 by the expression right hand is understood either the glory of ,his ,godhead1 or ,his eternal beatitude1 or ,his judicial and royal power4 ,now this preposition at signifies a kind of approach to the right hand2 thus denoting something in common1 and yet with a distinction1 as already observed 7,de ,symb4 ii74 ,and this can be in three ways3 first of all1 by something common in nature1 and a distinction in person2 and thus ,christ as the ,son of ,god1 sits at the right hand of the ,father1 because ,he has the same ,nature as the ,father3 hence these things belong to the ,son essentially1 just as to the ,father2 and this is to be in equality with the ,father4 ,secondly1 according to the grace of union1 which1 on the contrary1 implies distinction of nature1 and unity of person4 ,according to this1 ,christ as man is the ,son of ,god1 and consequently sits at the ,father's right hand2 yet so that the expression as does not denote condition of nature1 but unity of suppositum1 as explained above 7,q4 #af1 ,,aa4 #aj1 #aa74 ,thirdly1 the said approach can be understood according to habitual grace1 which is more fully in ,christ than in all other creatures1 so much so that human nature in ,christ is more blessed than all other creatures1 and possesses over all other creatures royal and judiciary power4 ,so1 then1 if as denote condition of nature1 then ,christ1 as ,god1 sits at the ,father's right hand1 that is1 in equality with the ,father2 but as man1 ,he sits at the right hand of the ,father1 that is1 in the ,father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures1 that is to say1 in greater beatitude1 and exercising judiciary power4 ,but if as denote unity of person1 thus again as man1 ,he sits at the ,father's right hand as to equality of honor1 inasmuch as with the same honor we venerate the ,son of ,god with ,his assumed nature1 as was said above 7,q4 #be1 ,a4 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's humanity according to the conditions of ,his nature has not the glory or honor of the ,godhead1 which it has nevertheless by reason of the ,person with whom it is united4 ,hence ,damascene adds in the passage quoted3 ,in which1 that is1 in the glory of the ,godhead1 the ,son of ,god existing before ages1 as ,god and consubstantial with the ,father1 sits in ,his conglorified flesh2 for1 under one adoration the one hypostasis1 together with ,his flesh1 is adored by every creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ as man is subject to the ,father1 if as denote the condition of nature3 in which respect it does not belong to ,him as man to sit at the ,father's right hand1 by reason of their mutual equality4 ,but it does thus belong to ,him to sit at the right hand of the ,father1 according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude and ,his judiciary power over every creature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it does not belong to ,christ's human nature to be in equality with the ,father1 but only to the ,person who assumed it2 but it does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in ,god's mightier gifts1 in so far as it implies exaltation above other creatures4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #eh1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,it ,is ,proper to ,christ to ,sit at the ,right ,hand of the ,father8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that it is not proper to ,christ to sit at the right hand of the ,father1 because the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #b3d1 #f73 ,god 4 4 4 hath raised us up together1 and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through ,christ ,jesus4 ,but to be raised up is not proper to ,christ4 ,therefore for like reason neither is it proper to ,him to sit on the right hand of ,god on high 7,heb4 #a3c74 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,symb4 i73 ,for ,christ to sit at the right hand of the ,father1 is to dwell in ,his beatitude4 ,but many more share in this4 ,therefore it does not appear to be proper to ,christ to sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ ,himself says 7,apoc4 #c3ba73 ,to him that shall overcome1 ,i will give to sit with ,me in ,my throne3 as ,i also have overcome1 and am set down with ,my ,father in ,his throne4 ,but it is by sitting on ,his ,father's throne that ,christ is seated at ,his right hand4 ,therefore others who overcome likewise1 sit at the ,father's right hand4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the ,lord says 7,matt4 #bj3bc73 ,to sit on ,my right or left hand1 is not ,mine to give to you1 but to them for whom it is prepared by ,my ,father4 ,but no purpose would be served by saying this1 unless it was prepared for some4 ,consequently1 to sit at the right hand is not proper to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #a3ac73 ,to which of the angels said ,he at any time3 ,sit thou on ,my right hand1 i4e4 'in ,my mightier gifts1' or 'as my equal in the ,godhead'8 99,the comment is from the gloss of ,peter ,lombard as if to answer3 ,to none4 ,but angels are higher than other creatures4 ,therefore1 much less does it belong to anyone save ,christ to sit at the ,father's right hand4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 ,christ is said to sit at the ,father's right hand inasmuch as ,he is on equality with the ,father in respect of ,his ,divine ,nature1 while in respect of ,his humanity1 ,he excels all creatures in the possession of ,divine gifts4 ,but each of these belongs exclusively to ,christ4 ,consequently1 it belongs to no one else1 angel or man1 but to ,christ alone1 to sit at the right hand of the ,father4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since ,christ is our ,head1 then what was bestowed on ,christ is bestowed on us through ,him4 ,and on this account1 since ,he is already raised up1 the ,apostle says that ,god has1 so to speak1 raised us up together with ,him1 still we ourselves are not raised up yet1 but are to be raised up1 according to ,rom4 #h3aa3 ,he who raised up ,jesus from the dead1 shall quicken also your mortal bodies3 and after the same manner of speech the ,apostle adds that ,he has made us to sit together with ,him1 in the heavenly places2 namely1 for the very reason that ,christ our ,head sits there4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since the right hand is the ,divine beatitude1 then to sit on the right hand does not mean simply to be in beatitude1 but to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power1 as a property and part of one's nature4 ,this belongs to ,christ alone1 and to no other creature4 ,yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on ,god's right hand2 hence it is written 7,matt4 #be3cc73 ,he shall set the sheep on ,his right hand4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by the throne is meant the judiciary power which ,christ has from the ,father3 and in this sense ,he is said to sit in the ,father's throne4 ,but other saints have it from ,christ2 and in this respect they are said to sit on ,christ's throne2 according to ,matt4 #ai3bh3 ,you also shall sit upon twelve seats1 judging the twelve tribes of ,israel4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxv in ,matth471 that place1 to wit1 sitting at the right hand1 is closed not only to all men1 but likewise to angels3 for1 ,paul declares it to be the prerogative of ,christ1 saying3 ',to which of the angels said ,he at any time3 ,sit on ,my right hand8' ,our ,lord therefore replied not as though some were going to sit there one day1 but condescending to the supplication of the questioners2 since more than others they sought this one thing alone1 to stand nigh to ,him4 ,still it can be said that the sons of ,zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing ,his judiciary power2 hence they did not ask to sit on the ,father's right hand or left1 but on ,christ's4 ,,question #ei ,,of ,,christ',s ,,judiciary ,,power 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider ,christ's judiciary power4 ,under this head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether judiciary power is to be attributed to ,christ8 7#b7 ,whether it belongs to ,him as man8 7#c7 ,whether ,he acquired it by merits8 7#d7 ,whether ,his judiciary power is universal with regard to all men8 7#e7 ,whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time1 we are to expect ,him in the future general judgment8 7#f7 ,whether ,his judiciary power extends likewise to the angels8 ,it will be more suitable to consider the execution of the ,last ,judgment when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world 99,see ,suppl41 ,,qq4 #hh1 seqq44 ,for the present it will be enough to touch on those points that concern ,christ's dignity4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,judiciary ,power ,is to ,be ,specially ,attributed to ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially attributed to ,christ4 ,for judgment of others seems to belong to their lord2 hence it is written 7,rom4 #ad3d73 ,who art thou that judgest another man's servant8 ,but1 it belongs to the entire ,trinity to be ,lord over creatures4 ,therefore judiciary power ought not to be attributed specially to ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,dan4 #g3i73 ,the ,ancient of days sat2 and further on 7,dan4 #g3aj71 the judgment sat1 and the books were opened4 ,but the ,ancient of days is understood to be the ,father1 because as ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 ii73 ,eternity is in the ,father4 ,consequently1 judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the ,father than to ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems to belong to the same person to judge as it does to convince4 ,but it belongs to the ,holy ,ghost to convince3 for our ,lord says 7,john #af3h73 ,and when ,he is come1 i4e4 the ,holy ,ghost1 ,he will convince the world of sin1 and of justice1 and of judgment4 ,therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the ,holy ,ghost rather than to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said of ,christ 7,acts #aj3db73 ,it is ,he who was appointed by ,god1 to be judge of the living end of the dead4 ,i answer that1 ,three things are required for passing judgment3 first1 the power of coercing subjects2 hence it is written 7,ecclus4 #g3f73 ,seek not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough to extirpate iniquities4 ,the second thing required is upright zeal1 so as to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice1 but from love of justice1 according to ,prov4 #c3ab3 ,for whom the ,lord loveth1 ,he chasteneth3 and as a father in the son ,he pleaseth ,himself4 ,thirdly1 wisdom is needed1 upon which judgment is based1 according to ,ecclus4 #aj3a3 ,a wise judge shall judge his people4 ,the first two are conditions for judging2 but on the third the very rule of judgment is based1 because the standard of judgment is the law of wisdom or truth1 according to which the judgment is passed4 ,now because the ,son is ,wisdom begotten1 and ,truth proceeding from the ,father1 and ,his perfect ,image1 consequently1 judiciary power is properly attributed to the ,son of ,god4 ,accordingly ,augustine says 7,de ,vera ,relig4 xxxi73 ,this is that unchangeable ,truth1 which is rightly styled the law of all arts1 and the art of the ,almighty ,craftsman4 ,but even as we and all rational souls judge aright of the things beneath us1 so does ,he who alone is ,truth itself pass judgment on us1 when we cling to ,him4 ,but the ,father judges ,him not1 for ,he is the ,truth no less than ,himself4 ,consequently1 whatever the ,father judges1 ,he judges through ,it4 ,further on he concludes by saying3 ,therefore the ,father judges no man1 but has given all judgment to the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument proves that judiciary power is common to the entire ,trinity1 which is quite true3 still by special appropriation such power is attributed to the ,son1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 vi71 eternity is attributed to the ,father1 because ,he is the ,principle1 which is implied in the idea of eternity4 ,and in the same place ,augustine says that the ,son is the art of the ,father4 ,so1 then1 judiciary authority is attributed to the ,father1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,principle of the ,son1 but the very rule of judgment is attributed to the ,son who is the art and wisdom of the ,father1 so that as the ,father does all things through the ,son1 inasmuch as the ,son is ,his art1 so ,he judges all things through the ,son1 inasmuch as the ,son is ,his wisdom and truth4 ,and this is implied by ,daniel1 when he says in the first passage that the ,ancient of days sat1 and when he subsequently adds that the ,son of ,man came even to the ,ancient of days1 who gave ,him power1 and glory1 and a kingdom3 and thereby we are given to understand that the authority for judging lies with the ,father1 from whom the ,son received the power to judge4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xcv in ,joan473 ,christ said that the ,holy ,ghost shall convince the world of sin1 as if to say ',he shall pour out charity upon your hearts4' ,for thus1 when fear is driven away1 you shall have freedom for convincing4 ,consequently1 then1 judgment is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost1 not as regards the rule of judgment1 but as regards man's desire to judge others aright4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,judiciary ,power ,belongs to ,christ ,as ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that judiciary power does not belong to ,christ as man4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,vera ,relig4 xxxi7 that judgment is attributed to the ,son inasmuch as ,he is the law of the first truth4 ,but this is ,christ's attribute as ,god4 ,consequently1 judiciary power does not belong to ,christ as man but as ,god4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good1 just as to punish the wicked4 ,but eternal beatitude1 which is the reward of good works1 is bestowed by ,god alone3 thus ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxiii super ,joan47 that the soul is made blessed by participation of ,god1 and not by participation of a holy soul4 ,therefore it seems that judiciary power does not belong to ,christ as man1 but as ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it belongs to ,christ's judiciary power to judge secrets of hearts1 according to #a ,cor4 #d3e3 ,judge not before the time2 until the ,lord come1 who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness1 and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts4 ,but this belongs exclusively to the ,divine power1 according to ,jer4 #ag3i1 #aj3 ,the heart of man is perverse and unsearchable1 who can know it8 ,i am the ,lord who search the heart1 and prove the reins3 who give to every one according to his way4 ,therefore judiciary power does not belong to ,christ as man but as ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said 7,john #e3bg73 ,he hath given ,him power to do judgment1 because ,he is the ,son of man4 ,i answer that1 ,chrysostom 7,hom4 xxxix in ,joan47 seems to think that judiciary power belongs to ,christ not as man1 but only as ,god4 ,accordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from ,john3 ',he gave ,him power to do judgment1 because ,he is the ,son of man3 wonder not at this4' ,for ,he received judiciary power1 not because ,he is man2 but because ,he is the ,son of the ineffable ,god1 therefore is ,he judge4 ,but since the expressions used were greater than those appertaining to man1 ,he said in explanation3 ',wonder not at this1 because ,he is the ,son of man1 for ,he is likewise the ,son of ,god4' ,and he proves this by the effect of the ,resurrection3 wherefore ,he adds3 ,because the hour cometh when the dead in their graves shall hear the voice of the ,son of ,god4 ,but it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging rests with ,god1 nevertheless the power to judge is committed to men with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction4 ,hence it is written 7,deut4 #a3af73 ,judge that which is just2 and further on 7,deut4 #a3ag73 ,because it is the judgment of ,god1 that is to say1 it is by ,his authority that you judge4 ,now it was said before 7,q4 #h1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d7 that ,christ even in ,his human nature is ,head of the entire ,church1 and that ,god has put all things under ,his feet4 ,consequently1 it belongs to ,him1 even according to ,his human nature1 to exercise judiciary power4 ,on this account1 it seems that the authority of ,scripture quoted above must be interpreted thus3 ,he gave ,him power to do judgment1 because ,he is the ,son of ,man2 not on account of the condition of ,his nature1 for thus all men would have this kind of power1 as ,chrysostom objects 7,hom4 xxxix in ,joan472 but because this belongs to the grace of the ,head1 which ,christ received in ,his human nature4 ,now judiciary power belongs to ,christ in this way according to ,his human nature on three accounts4 ,first1 because of ,his likeness and kinship with men2 for1 as ,god works through intermediary causes1 as being closer to the effects1 so ,he judges men through the ,man ,christ1 that ,his judgment may be sweeter to men4 ,hence 7,heb4 #d3ae7 the ,apostle says3 ,for we have not a high-priest1 who cannot have compassion on our infirmities2 but one tempted in all things like as we are1 without sin4 ,let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of ,his grace4 ,secondly1 because at the last judgment1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xix in ,joan471 there will be a resurrection of dead bodies1 which ,god will raise up through the ,son of ,man2 just as by the same ,christ ,he raises souls1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,son of ,god4 ,thirdly1 because1 as ,augustine observes 7,de ,verb4 ,dom41 ,serm4 cxxvii73 ,it was but right that those who were to be judged should see their judge4 ,but those to be judged were the good and the bad4 ,it follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the judgment to both good and wicked1 while the form of ,god should be kept for the good alone4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,judgment belongs to truth as its standard1 while it belongs to the man imbued with truth1 according as he is as it were one with truth1 as a kind of law and living justice 99,aristotle1 ,ethic4 v4 ,hence ,augustine quotes 7,de ,verb4 ,dom41 ,serm4 cxxvii7 the saying of #a ,cor4 #b3ae3 ,the spiritual man judgeth all things4 ,but beyond all creatures ,christ's soul was more closely united with truth1 and more full of truth2 according to ,john #a3ad3 ,we saw ,him 4 4 4 full of grace and truth4 ,and according to this it belongs principally to the soul of ,christ to judge all things4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it belongs to ,god alone to bestow beatitude upon souls by a participation with ,himself2 but it is ,christ's prerogative to bring them to such beatitude1 inasmuch as ,he is their ,head and the author of their salvation1 according to ,heb4 #b3aj3 ,who had brought many children into glory1 to perfect the author of their salvation by ,his ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to know and judge the secrets of hearts1 of itself belongs to ,god alone2 but from the overflow of the ,godhead into ,christ's soul it belongs to ,him also to know and to judge the secrets of hearts1 as we stated above 7,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #b71 when dealing with the knowledge of ,christ4 ,hence it is written 7,rom4 #b3af73 ,in the day when ,god shall judge the secrets of men by ,jesus ,christ4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,acquired ,his ,judiciary ,power by ,his ,merits8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ did not acquire ,his judiciary power by ,his merits4 ,for judiciary power flows from the royal dignity3 according to ,prov4 #bj3h3 ,the king that sitteth on the throne of judgment1 scattereth away all evil with his look4 ,but it was without merits that ,christ acquired royal power1 for it is ,his due as ,god's ,only-begotten ,son3 thus it is written 7,luke #a3cb73 ,the ,lord ,god shall give unto ,him the throne of ,david ,his father1 and ,he shall reign in the house of ,jacob for ever4 ,therefore ,christ did not obtain judiciary power by ,his merits4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 judiciary power is ,christ's due inasmuch as ,he is our ,head4 ,but the grace of headship does not belong to ,christ by reason of merit1 but follows the personal union of the ,divine and human natures3 according to ,john #a3ad1 #af3 ,we saw ,his glory 4 4 4 as of the ,only-,begotten of the ,father1 full of grace and truth 4 4 4 and of ,his fulness we all have received3 and this pertains to the notion of headship4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ did not have judiciary power from merits4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #b3ae73 ,the spiritual man judgeth all things4 ,but a man becomes spiritual through grace1 which is not from merits2 otherwise it is no more grace1 as is said in ,rom4 #aa3f4 ,therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to ,christ nor to others from any merits1 but from grace alone4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,job #cf3ag73 ,thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked1 cause and judgment thou shalt recover4 ,and ,augustine says 7,serm4 cxxvii73 ,the ,judge shall sit1 who stood before a judge2 ,he shall condemn the truly wicked1 who ,himself was falsely reputed wicked4 ,i answer that1 ,there is nothing to hinder one and the same thing from being due to some one from various causes3 as the glory of the body in rising was due to ,christ not only as befitting ,his ,godhead and ,his soul's glory1 but likewise from the merit of the lowliness of ,his ,passion 99,cf4 ,augustine1 ,tract4 civ in ,joan44 ,and in the same way it must be said that judiciary power belongs to the ,man ,christ on account of both ,his ,divine personality1 and the dignity of ,his headship1 and the fulness of ,his habitual grace3 and yet ,he obtained it from merit1 so that1 in accordance with the ,divine justice1 ,he should be judge who fought for ,god's justice1 and conquered1 and was unjustly condemned4 ,hence ,he ,himself says 7,apoc4 #c3ba73 ,i have overcome and am set down in ,my ,father's throne ,vulg43 'with ,my ,father in ,his throne'4 ,now judiciary power is understood by throne1 according to ,ps4 #i3e3 ,thou hast sat on the throne1 who judgest justice4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument holds good of judiciary power according as it is due to ,christ by reason of the union with the ,word of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument is based on the ground of ,his grace as ,head4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this argument holds good in regard to habitual grace1 which perfects ,christ's soul4 ,but although judiciary power be ,christ's due in these ways1 it is not hindered from being ,his due from merit4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,judiciary ,power ,belongs to ,christ with ,respect to ,all ,human ,affairs8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that judiciary power concerning all human affairs does not belong to ,christ4 ,for as we read in ,luke #ab3ac1 #ad1 when one of the crowd said to ,christ3 ,speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me2 ,he said to him3 ,man1 who hath appointed ,me judge1 or divider over you8 ,consequently1 ,he does not exercise judgment over all human affairs4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one exercises judgment except over his own subjects4 ,but1 according to ,heb4 #b3h1 we see not as yet all things subject to ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ has not judgment over all human affairs4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xx7 that it is part of ,divine judgment for the good to be afflicted sometimes in this world1 and sometimes to prosper1 and in like manner the wicked4 ,but the same was the case also before the ,incarnation4 ,consequently1 not all ,god's judgments regarding human affairs are included in ,christ's judiciary power4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said 7,john #e3bb73 ,the ,father hath given all judgment to the ,son4 ,i answer that1 ,if we speak of ,christ according to ,his ,divine ,nature1 it is evident that every judgment of the ,father belongs to the ,son2 for1 as the ,father does all things through ,his ,word1 so ,he judges all things through ,his ,word4 ,but if we speak of ,christ in ,his human nature1 thus again is it evident that all things are subject to ,his judgment4 ,this is made clear if we consider first of all the relationship subsisting between ,christ's soul and the ,word of ,god2 for1 if the spiritual man judgeth all things1 as is said in #a ,cor4 #b3ae1 inasmuch as his soul clings to the ,word of ,god1 how much more ,christ's soul1 which is filled with the truth of the ,word of ,god1 passes judgment upon all things4 ,secondly1 the same appears from the merit of ,his death2 because1 according to ,rom4 #ad3i3 ,to this end ,christ died and rose again2 that ,he might be ,lord both of the dead and of the living4 ,and therefore ,he has judgment over all men2 and on this account the ,apostle adds 7,rom4 #ad3aj73 ,we shall all stand before the judgment seat of ,christ3 and 7,dan4 #g3ad7 it is written that ,he gave ,him power1 and glory1 and a kingdom2 and all peoples1 tribes1 and tongues shall serve ,him4 ,thirdly1 the same thing is evident from comparison of human affairs with the end of human salvation4 ,for1 to whomsoever the substance is entrusted1 the accessory is likewise committed4 ,now all human affairs are ordered for the end of beatitude1 which is everlasting salvation1 to which men are admitted1 or from which they are excluded by ,christ's judgment1 as is evident from ,matt4 #be3ca1 #dj4 ,consequently1 it is manifest that all human affairs are included in ,christ's judiciary power4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as was said above 7,a4 #c1 ,obj4 #a71 judiciary power goes with royal dignity4 ,now ,christ1 although established king by ,god1 did not wish while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly kingdom2 consequently ,he said 7,john #ah3cf73 ,my kingdom is not of this world4 ,in like fashion ,he did not wish to exercise judiciary power over temporal concerns1 since ,he came to raise men to ,divine things4 ,hence ,ambrose observes on this passage in ,luke3 ,it is well that ,he who came down with a ,divine purpose should hold ,himself aloof from temporal concerns2 nor does ,he deign to be a judge of quarrels and an arbiter of property1 since ,he is judge of the quick and the dead1 and the arbitrator of merits4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,all things are subject to ,christ in respect of that power1 which ,he received from the ,father1 over all things1 according to ,matt4 #bh3ah3 ,all power is given to ,me in heaven and in earth4 ,but as to the exercise of this power1 all things are not yet subject to ,him3 this will come to pass in the future1 when ,he shall fulfil ,his will regarding all things1 by saving some and punishing others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,judgments of this kind were exercised by ,christ before ,his ,incarnation1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,word of ,god3 and the soul united with ,him personally became a partaker of this power by the ,incarnation4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,after the ,judgment ,that ,takes ,place in the ,present ,time1 ,there ,remains ,yet ,another ,general ,judgment8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that after the ,judgment that takes place in the present time1 there does not remain another ,general ,judgment4 ,for a judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards and punishments4 ,but rewards and punishments are allotted in this present time3 for our ,lord said to the thief on the cross 7,luke #bc3dc73 ,this day thou shalt be with ,me in paradise3 and 7,luke #af3bb7 it is said that the rich man died and was buried in hell4 ,therefore it is useless to look forward to a final ,judgment4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to another 7the ,septuagint7 version of ,nahum #a3i1 ,god shall not judge the same thing a second time4 ,but in the present time ,god judges both temporal and spiritual matters4 ,therefore1 it does not seem that another final judgment is to be expected4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 reward and punishment correspond with merit and demerit4 ,but merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in so far as it is the instrument of the soul4 ,therefore reward or punishment is not due to the body save as the soul's instrument4 ,therefore no other ,judgment is called for at the end 7of the world7 to requite man with reward or punishment in the body1 besides that ,judgment in which souls are now punished or rewarded4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said in ,john #ab3dh3 ,the word that ,i have spoken1 the same shall judge you ,vulg43 'him' in the last day4 ,therefore there will be a ,judgment at the last day besides that which takes place in the present time4 ,i answer that1 ,judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable subject before its consummation3 just as judgment cannot be given perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in itself and in its results3 because many actions appear to be profitable1 which in their effects prove to be hurtful4 ,and in the same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any man before the close of his life1 since he can be changed in many respects from good to evil1 or conversely1 or from good to better1 or from evil to worse4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #i3bg73 ,it is appointed unto men once to die1 and after this the ,judgment4 ,but it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself ends with death1 still it continues dependent in a measure on what comes after it in the future4 ,in one way1 as it still lives on in men's memories1 in which sometimes1 contrary to the truth1 good or evil reputations linger on4 ,in another way in a man's children1 who are so to speak something of their parent1 according to ,ecclus4 #cj3d3 ,his father is dead1 and he is as if he were not dead1 for he hath left one behind him that is like himself4 ,and yet many good men have wicked sons1 and conversely4 ,thirdly1 as to the result of his actions3 just as from the deceit of ,arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down to the close of the world2 and even until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the preaching of the apostles4 ,in a fourth way1 as to the body1 which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied1 and finally falls to dust utterly4 ,in a fifth way1 as to the things upon which a man's heart is set1 such as temporal concerns1 for example1 some of which quickly lapse1 while others endure longer4 ,now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the ,divine ,judgment2 and consequently1 a perfect and public ,judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time4 ,wherefore1 there must be a final ,judgment at the last day1 in which everything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly judged4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,some men have held the opinion that the souls of the saints shall not be rewarded in heaven1 nor the souls of the lost punished in hell1 until the ,judgment-day4 ,that this is false appears from the testimony of the ,apostle 7#b ,cor4 #e3h71 where he says3 ,we are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body1 and to be present with the ,lord3 that is1 not to walk by faith but by sight1 as appears from the context4 ,but this is to see ,god in ,his ,essence1 wherein consists eternal life1 as is clear from ,john #ag3c4 ,hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are in eternal life4 ,consequently1 it must be maintained that after death man enters into an unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul3 and therefore there is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the soul4 ,but since there are some other things pertaining to a man which go on through the whole course of time1 and which are not foreign to the ,divine judgment1 all these things must be brought to judgment at the end of time4 ,for although in regard to such things a man neither merits nor demerits1 still in a measure they accompany his reward or punishment4 ,consequently all these things must be weighed in the final judgment4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god shall not judge twice the same thing1 i4e4 in the same respect2 but it is not unseemly for ,god to judge twice according to different respects4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the reward or punishment of the body depends upon the reward or punishment of the soul1 nevertheless1 since the soul is changeable only accidentally1 on account of the body1 once it is separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable condition1 and receives its judgment4 ,but the body remains subject to change down to the close of time3 and therefore it must receive its reward or punishment then1 in the last ,judgment4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ei1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,judiciary ,power ,extends to the ,angels8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,christ's judiciary power does not extend to the angels1 because the good and wicked angels alike were judged in the beginning of the world1 when some fell through sin while others were confirmed in bliss4 ,but those already judged have no need of being judged again4 ,therefore ,christ's judiciary power does not extend to the angels4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the same person cannot be both judge and judged4 ,but the angels will come to judge with ,christ1 according to ,matt4 #be3ca3 ,when the ,son of ,man shall come in ,his majesty1 and all the angels with ,him4 ,therefore it seems that the angels will not be judged by ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the angels are higher than other creatures4 ,if ,christ1 then1 be judge not only of men but likewise of angels1 then for the same reason ,he will be judge of all creatures2 which seems to be false1 since this belongs to ,god's providence3 hence it is written 7,job #cd3ac73 ,what other hath ,he appointed over the earth8 or whom hath ,he set over the world which ,he made8 ,therefore ,christ is not the judge of the angels4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #f3c73 ,know you not that we shall judge angels8 ,but the saints judge only by ,christ's authority4 ,therefore1 much more does ,christ possess judiciary power over the angels4 ,i answer that1 ,the angels are subjects of ,christ's judiciary power1 not only with regard to ,his ,divine ,nature1 as ,he is the ,word of ,god1 but also with regard to ,his human nature4 ,and this is evident from three considerations4 ,first of all1 from the closeness of ,his assumed nature to ,god2 because1 according to ,heb4 #b3af3 ,for nowhere doth ,he take hold of the angels1 but of the seed of ,abraham ,he taketh hold4 ,consequently1 ,christ's soul is more filled with the truth of the ,word of ,god than any angel3 for which reason ,he also enlightens the angels1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vii71 and so ,he has power to judge them4 ,secondly1 because by the lowliness of ,his ,passion1 human nature in ,christ merited to be exalted above the angels2 so that1 as is said in ,phil4 #b3aj3 ,in the name of ,jesus every knee should bow1 of those that are in heaven1 on earth1 and under the earth4 ,and therefore ,christ has judiciary power even over the good and wicked angels3 in token whereof it is said in the ,apocalypse 7#g3aa7 that all the angels stood round about the throne4 ,thirdly1 on account of what they do for men1 of whom ,christ is the ,head in a special manner4 ,hence it is written 7,heb4 #a3ad73 ,they are ,vulg43 ',are they not' all ministering spirits1 sent to minister for them1 who shall receive the inheritance of salvation 7874 ,but they are submitted to ,christ's judgment1 first1 as regards the dispensing of those things which are done through them2 which dispensing is likewise done by the ,man ,christ1 to whom the angels ministered1 as related 7,matt4 #d3aa71 and from whom the devils besought that they might be sent into the swine1 according to ,matt4 #h3ca4 ,secondly1 as to other accidental rewards of the good angels1 such as the joy which they have at the salvation of men1 according to ,luke #ae3aj3 ,there shall be joy before the angels of ,god upon one sinner doing penance3 and furthermore as to the accidental punishments of the devils wherewith they are either tormented here1 or are shut up in hell2 and this also belongs to the ,man ,christ3 hence it is written 7,mk4 #a3bd7 that the devil cried out3 ,what have we to do with thee1 ,jesus of ,nazareth8 art ,thou come to destroy us8 ,thirdly1 as to the essential reward of the good angels1 which is everlasting bliss2 and as to the essential punishment of the wicked angels1 which is everlasting damnation4 ,but this was done by ,christ from the beginning of the world1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,word of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument considers judgment as to the essential reward and chief punishment4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,de ,vera ,relig4 xxxi73 ,although the spiritual man judgeth all things1 still he is judged by ,truth ,itself4 ,consequently1 although the angels judge1 as being spiritual creatures1 still they are judged by ,christ1 inasmuch as ,he is the ,truth4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ judges not only the angels1 but also the administration of all creatures4 ,for if1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iii7 the lower things are ruled by ,god through the higher1 in a certain order1 it must be said that all things are ruled by ,christ's soul1 which is above every creature4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #b3e73 ,for ,god hath not subjected unto angels the world to come--subject namely to ,christ--of whom we speak ,douay3 'whereof we speak' 99,the words subject namely to ,christ are from a gloss4 ,nor does it follow that ,god set another over the earth2 since one and the same ,person is ,god and ,man1 our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,let what has been said of the ,mystery of ,his ,incarnation suffice for the present4 ,,treatise ,,on ,,the ,,sacraments 7,,qq4 #fj-ij7 ,,question #fj ,,what ,,is ,a ,,sacrament8 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,after considering those things that concern the mystery of the incarnate ,word1 we must consider the sacraments of the ,church which derive their efficacy from the ,word incarnate ,himself4 ,first we shall consider the sacraments in general2 secondly1 we shall consider specially each sacrament4 ,concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold3 7#a7 ,what is a sacrament8 7#b7 ,of the necessity of the sacraments2 7#c7 of the effects of the sacraments2 7#d7 ,of their cause2 7#e7 ,of their number4 ,under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether a sacrament is a kind of sign8 7#b7 ,whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament8 7#c7 ,whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only1 or of several8 7#d7 ,whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible8 7#e7 ,whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a sacrament8 7#f7 ,whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a sacrament8 7#g7 ,whether determinate words are required8 7#h7 ,whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #a ,whether a ,sacrament ,is a ,kind of ,sign8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign4 ,for sacrament appears to be derived from sacring 7sacrando72 just as medicament1 from medicando 7healing74 ,but this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than of a sign4 ,therefore a sacrament is a kind of cause rather than a kind of sign4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sacrament seems to signify something hidden1 according to ,tob4 #ab3g3 ,it is good to hide the secret 7sacramentum7 of a king2 and ,eph4 #c3i3 ,what is the dispensation of the mystery 7sacramenti7 which hath been hidden from eternity in ,god4 ,but that which is hidden1 seems foreign to the nature of a sign2 for a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind1 besides the species which it impresses on the senses1 as ,augustine explains 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 ii74 ,therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 an oath is sometimes called a sacrament3 for it is written in the ,decretals 7,caus4 xxii1 qu4 #e73 ,children who have not attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear3 and whoever has foresworn himself once1 must no more be a witness1 nor be allowed to take a sacrament1 i4e4 an oath4 ,but an oath is not a kind of sign1 therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei x73 ,the visible sacrifice is the sacrament1 i4e4 the sacred sign1 of the invisible sacrifice4 ,i answer that1 ,all things that are ordained to one1 even in different ways1 can be denominated from it3 thus1 from health which is in an animal1 not only is the animal said to be healthy through being the subject of health3 but medicine also is said to be healthy through producing health2 diet through preserving it2 and urine1 through being a sign of health4 ,consequently1 a thing may be called a sacrament1 either from having a certain hidden sanctity1 and in this sense a sacrament is a sacred secret2 or from having some relationship to this sanctity1 which relationship may be that of a cause1 or of a sign or of any other relation4 ,but now we are speaking of sacraments in a special sense1 as implying the habitude of sign3 and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,because medicine is an efficient cause of health1 consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be referred to some first active cause3 so that a medicament implies a certain causality4 ,but sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated1 is not there taken as an efficient cause1 but rather as a formal or a final cause4 ,therefore it does not follow that a sacrament need always imply causality4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument considers sacrament in the sense of a sacred secret4 ,now not only ,god's but also the king's1 secret1 is said to be sacred and to be a sacrament3 because according to the ancients1 whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said to be holy or sacrosanct1 such as the city walls1 and persons of high rank4 ,consequently those secrets1 whether ,divine or human1 which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody whatever1 are called sacred secrets or sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things1 in so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness4 ,and in this sense it is called a sacrament3 not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now2 the word sacrament being thus used not equivocally but analogically1 i4e4 by reason of a different relation to the one thing1 viz4 something sacred4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,every ,sign of a ,holy ,thing ,is a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament4 ,for all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things2 according to ,rom4 #a3bj3 ,the invisible things of ,god are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made4 ,and yet all sensible things cannot be called sacraments4 ,therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whatever was done under the ,old ,law was a figure of ,christ ,who is the ,holy of ,holies 7,dan4 #i3bd71 according to #a ,cor4 #aj3aa3 ,all 7these7 things happened to them in figure2 and ,col4 #b3ag3 ,which are a shadow of things to come1 but the body is ,christ's4 ,and yet not all that was done by the ,fathers of the ,old ,testament1 not even all the ceremonies of the ,law1 were sacraments1 but only in certain special cases1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aja1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore it seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 even in the ,new ,testament many things are done in sign of some sacred thing2 yet they are not called sacraments2 such as sprinkling with holy water1 the consecration of an altar1 and such like4 ,therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,a definition is convertible with the thing defined4 ,now some define a sacrament as being the sign of a sacred thing2 moreover1 this is clear from the passage quoted above 7,a4 #a7 from ,augustine4 ,therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,signs are given to men1 to whom it is proper to discover the unknown by means of the known4 ,consequently a sacrament properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man2 so that properly speaking a sacrament1 as considered by us now1 is defined as being the sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sensible creatures signify something holy1 viz4 ,divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves2 but not inasmuch as we are made holy by them4 ,therefore they cannot be called sacraments as we understand sacraments now4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,some things pertaining to the ,old ,testament signified the holiness of ,christ considered as holy in ,himself4 ,others signified ,his holiness considered as the cause of our holiness2 thus the sacrifice of the ,paschal ,lamb signified ,christ's ,sacrifice whereby we are made holy3 and such like are properly styled sacraments of the ,old ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,names are given to things considered in reference to their end and state of completeness4 ,now a disposition is not an end1 whereas perfection is4 ,consequently things that signify disposition to holiness are not called sacraments1 and with regard to these the objection is verified3 only those are called sacraments which signify the perfection of holiness in man4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #c ,whether a ,sacrament ,is a ,sign of ,one ,thing ,only8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only4 ,for that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign1 and consequently occasions deception3 this is clearly seen in equivocal words4 ,but all deception should be removed from the ,christian religion1 according to ,col4 #b3h3 ,beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit4 ,therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a sign of several things4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 a sacrament signifies a holy thing in so far as it makes man holy4 ,but there is only one cause of man's holiness1 viz4 the blood of ,christ2 according to ,heb4 #ac3ab3 ,jesus1 that ,he might sanctify the people by ,his own blood1 suffered without the gate4 ,therefore it seems that a sacrament does not signify several things4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it has been said above 7,a4 #b1 ad #c7 that a sacrament signifies properly the very end of sanctification4 ,now the end of sanctification is eternal life1 according to ,rom4 #f3bb3 ,you have your fruit unto sanctification1 and the end life everlasting4 ,therefore it seems that the sacraments signify one thing only1 viz4 eternal life4 ,on the contrary1 ,in the ,sacrament of the ,altar1 two things are signified1 viz4 ,christ's true body1 and ,christ's mystical body2 as ,augustine says 7,liber ,sent4 ,prosper474 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b7 a sacrament properly speaking is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification4 ,in which three things may be considered2 viz4 the very cause of our sanctification1 which is ,christ's passion2 the form of our sanctification1 which is grace and the virtues2 and the ultimate end of our sanctification1 which is eternal life4 ,and all these are signified by the sacraments4 ,consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past1 i4e4 the passion of ,christ2 and an indication of that which is effected in us by ,christ's passion1 i4e4 grace2 and a prognostic1 that is1 a foretelling of future glory4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception1 when it signifies many things not ordained to one another4 ,but when it signifies many things inasmuch as1 through being mutually ordained1 they form one thing1 then the sign is not ambiguous but certain3 thus this word man signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together they form the human nature4 ,in this way a sacrament signifies the three things aforesaid1 inasmuch as by being in a certain order they are one thing4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies1 it must needs signify the effect1 which is implied in the sanctifying cause as such4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is enough for a sacrament that it signify that perfection which consists in the form1 nor is it necessary that it should signify only that perfection which is the end4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #d ,whether a ,sacrament ,is ,always ,something ,sensible8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a sacrament is not always something sensible4 ,because1 according to the ,philosopher 7,prior4 ,anal4 ii71 every effect is a sign of its cause4 ,but just as there are some sensible effects1 so are there some intelligible effects2 thus science is the effect of a demonstration4 ,therefore not every sign is sensible4 ,now all that is required for a sacrament is something that is a sign of some sacred thing1 inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,therefore something sensible is not required for a sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sacraments belong to the kingdom of ,god and the ,divine worship4 ,but sensible things do not seem to belong to the ,divine worship3 for we are told 7,john #d3bd7 that ,god is a spirit2 and they that adore ,him1 must adore ,him in spirit and in truth2 and 7,rom4 #ad3ag7 that the kingdom of ,god is not meat and drink4 ,therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,lib4 ,arb4 ii7 that sensible things are goods of least account1 since without them man can live aright4 ,but the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation1 as we shall show farther on 7,q4 #fa1 ,a4 #a73 so that man cannot live aright without them4 ,therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx super ,joan473 ,the word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament2 and he is speaking there of water which is a sensible element4 ,therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments4 ,i answer that1 ,divine wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode2 hence it is written 7,wis4 #h3a7 that she 4 4 4 ordereth all things sweetly3 wherefore also we are told 7,matt4 #be3ae7 that she gave to everyone according to his proper ability4 ,now it is part of man's nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible4 ,but a sign is that by means of which one attains to the knowledge of something else4 ,consequently1 since the sacred things which are signified by the sacraments1 are the spiritual and intelligible goods by means of which man is sanctified1 it follows that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things3 just as in the ,divine ,scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the guise of things sensible4 ,and hence it is that sensible things are required for the sacraments2 as ,dionysius also proves in his book on the heavenly hierarchy 7,coel4 ,hier4 i74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the name and definition of a thing is taken principally from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially3 and not from that which belongs to it through something else4 ,now a sensible effect being the primary and direct object of man's knowledge 7since all our knowledge springs from the senses7 by its very nature leads to the knowledge of something else3 whereas intelligible effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else1 except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing1 i4e4 by certain sensibles4 ,it is for this reason that the name sign is given primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses2 hence ,augustine says 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 ii7 that a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind1 besides the species which it impresses on the senses4 ,but intelligible effects do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by certain signs4 ,and in this way1 too1 certain things which are not sensible are termed sacraments as it were1 in so far as they are signified by certain sensible things1 of which we shall treat further on 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b2 ,a4 #c1 ad #b2 ,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #f2 ,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,sensible things considered in their own nature do not belong to the worship or kingdom of ,god3 but considered only as signs of spiritual things in which the kingdom of ,god consists4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,augustine speaks there of sensible things1 considered in their nature2 but not as employed to signify spiritual things1 which are the highest goods4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,determinate ,things ,are ,required for a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that determinate things are not required for a sacrament4 ,for sensible things are required in sacraments for the purpose of signification1 as stated above 7,a4 #d74 ,but nothing hinders the same thing being signified by divers sensible things3 thus in ,holy ,scripture ,god is signified metaphorically1 sometimes by a stone 7#b ,kings #bb3b2 ,zech4 #c3i2 #a ,cor4 #aj3d2 ,apoc4 #d3c72 sometimes by a lion 7,isa4 #ca3d2 ,apoc4 #e3e72 sometimes by the sun 7,isa4 #fj3ai1 #bj2 ,mal4 #d3b71 or by something similar4 ,therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the same sacrament4 ,therefore determinate things are not required for the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the health of the soul is more necessary than that of the body4 ,but in bodily medicines1 which are ordained to the health of the body1 one thing can be substituted for another which happens to be wanting4 ,therefore much more in the sacraments1 which are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul1 can one thing be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is not fitting that the salvation of men be restricted by the ,divine ,law3 still less by the ,law of ,christ1 ,who came to save all4 ,but in the state of the ,law of nature determinate things were not required in the sacraments1 but were put to that use through a vow1 as appears from ,gen4 #bh1 where ,jacob vowed that he would offer to ,god tithes and peace-offerings4 ,therefore it seems that man should not have been restricted1 especially under the ,new ,law1 to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,in the use of the sacraments two things may be considered1 namely1 the worship of ,god1 and the sanctification of man3 the former of which pertains to man as referred to ,god1 and the latter pertains to ,god in reference to man4 ,now it is not for anyone to determine that which is in the power of another1 but only that which is in his own power4 ,since1 therefore1 the sanctification of man is in the power of ,god ,who sanctifies1 it is not for man to decide what things should be used for his sanctification1 but this should be determined by ,divine institution4 ,therefore in the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 by which man is sanctified according to #a ,cor4 #f3aa1 ,you are washed1 you are sanctified1 we must use those things which are determined by ,divine institution4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,though the same thing can be signified by divers signs1 yet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier4 ,now it is ,god ,who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacraments1 and of similitudes in the ,scriptures4 ,and consequently1 just as the ,holy ,ghost decides by what similitudes spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages of ,scripture1 so also must it be determined by ,divine institution what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in this or that sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,sensible things are endowed with natural powers conducive to the health of the body3 and therefore if two of them have the same virtue1 it matters not which we use4 ,yet they are ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess naturally1 but only in virtue of the ,divine institution4 ,and therefore it was necessary that ,god should determine the sensible things to be employed in the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix71 diverse sacraments suit different times2 just as different times are signified by different parts of the verb1 viz4 present1 past1 and future4 ,consequently1 just as under the state of the ,law of nature man was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law1 to worship ,god1 so also the sensible things to be employed in the worship of ,god were determined by inward instinct4 ,but later on it became necessary for a law to be given 7to man7 from without3 both because the ,law of nature had become obscured by man's sins2 and in order to signify more expressly the grace of ,christ1 by which the human race is sanctified4 ,and hence the need for those things to be determinate1 of which men have to make use in the sacraments4 ,nor is the way of salvation narrowed thereby3 because the things which need to be used in the sacraments1 are either in everyone's possession or can be had with little trouble4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,words ,are ,required for the ,signification of the ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that words are not required for the signification of the sacraments4 ,for ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix73 ,what else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible word8 ,wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the sacraments seems to be the same as to add words to words4 ,but this is superfluous4 ,therefore words are not required besides the sensible things in the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a sacrament is some one thing1 but it does not seem possible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera4 ,since1 therefore1 sensible things and words are of different genera1 for sensible things are the product of nature1 but words1 of reason2 it seems that in the sacraments1 words are not required besides sensible things4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,new ,law succeed those of the ,old ,law3 since the former were instituted when the latter were abolished1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix74 ,but no form of words was required in the sacraments of the ,old ,law4 ,therefore neither is it required in those of the ,new ,law4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #e3be1 #bf73 ,christ loved the ,church1 and delivered ,himself up for it2 that ,he might sanctify it1 cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,and ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxx in ,joan473 ,the word is added to the element1 and this becomes a sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the sacraments1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #b1 #c71 are employed as signs for man's sanctification4 ,consequently they can be considered in three ways3 and in each way it is fitting for words to be added to the sensible signs4 ,for in the first place they can be considered in regard to the cause of sanctification1 which is the ,word incarnate3 to ,whom the sacraments have a certain conformity1 in that the word is joined to the sensible sign1 just as in the mystery of the ,incarnation the ,word of ,god is united to sensible flesh4 ,secondly1 sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is sanctified1 and who is composed of soul and body3 to whom the sacramental remedy is adjusted1 since it touches the body through the sensible element1 and the soul through faith in the words4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan47 on ,john #ae3c1 ,now you are clean by reason of the word1 etc43 ,whence hath water this so great virtue1 to touch the body and wash the heart1 but by the word doing it1 not because it is spoken1 but because it is believed8 ,thirdly1 a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification4 ,now ,augustine says 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 ii7 that words are the principal signs used by men2 because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts1 so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words4 ,and therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words4 ,for water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity1 and refreshment by reason of its being cool3 but when we say1 ,i baptize thee1 it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a spiritual cleansing4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sensible elements of the sacraments are called words by way of a certain likeness1 in so far as they partake of a certain significative power1 which resides principally in the very words1 as stated above4 ,consequently it is not a superfluous repetition to add words to the visible element in the sacraments2 because one determines the other1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although words and other sensible things are not in the same genus1 considered in their natures1 yet have they something in common as to the thing signified by them3 which is more perfectly done in words than in other things4 ,wherefore in the sacraments1 words and things1 like form and matter1 combine in the formation of one thing1 in so far as the signification of things is completed by means of words1 as above stated4 ,and under words are comprised also sensible actions1 such as cleansing and anointing and such like3 because they have a like signification with the things4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix71 the sacraments of things present should be different from sacraments of things to come4 ,now the sacraments of the ,old ,law foretold the coming of ,christ4 ,consequently they did not signify ,christ so clearly as the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 which flow from ,christ ,himself1 and have a certain likeness to ,him1 as stated above4 ,nevertheless in the ,old ,law1 certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of ,god1 both by the priests1 who were the ministers of those sacraments1 according to ,num4 #f3bc1 #bd3 ,thus shall you bless the children of ,israel1 and you shall say to them3 ,the ,lord bless thee1 etc42 and by those who made use of those sacraments1 according to ,deut4 #bf3c3 ,i profess this day before the ,lord thy ,god1 etc4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,determinate ,words ,are ,required in the ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments4 ,for as the ,philosopher says 7,peri ,herm4 i71 words are not the same for all4 ,but salvation1 which is sought through the sacraments1 is the same for all4 ,therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification1 as stated above 7,a4 #f74 ,but it happens that various words mean the same4 ,therefore determinate words are not required in the sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 corruption of anything changes its species4 ,but some corrupt the pronunciation of words1 and yet it is not credible that the sacramental effect is hindered thereby2 else unlettered men and stammerers1 in conferring sacraments1 would frequently do so invalidly4 ,therefore it seems that determinate words are not required in the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord used determinate words in consecrating the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 when ,he said 7,matt4 #bf3bf73 ,this is ,my ,body4 ,likewise ,he commanded ,his disciples to baptize under a form of determinate words1 saying 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,go ye and teach all nations1 baptizing them in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #f1 ad #b71 in the sacraments the words are as the form1 and sensible things are as the matter4 ,now in all things composed of matter and form1 the determining principle is on the part of the form1 which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter4 ,consequently for the being of a thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter3 for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the determinate form4 ,since1 therefore1 in the sacraments determinate sensible things are required1 which are as the sacramental matter1 much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx super ,joan471 the word operates in the sacraments not because it is spoken1 i4e4 not by the outward sound of the voice1 but because it is believed in accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith4 ,and this sense is indeed the same for all1 though the same words as to their sound be not used by all4 ,consequently no matter in what language this sense is expressed1 the sacrament is complete4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although it happens in every language that various words signify the same thing1 yet one of those words is that which those who speak that language use principally and more commonly to signify that particular thing3 and this is the word which should be used for the sacramental signification4 ,so also among sensible things1 that one is used for the sacramental signification which is most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect is signified3 thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily cleansing1 by which the spiritual cleansing is signified3 and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words--does so on purpose1 he does not seem to intend to do what the ,church intends3 and thus the sacrament seems to be defective4 ,but if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue1 and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense1 the sacrament seems to be defective4 ,this would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word1 for instance1 if one were to say in nomine matris instead of in nomine ,patris4 ,if1 however1 the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation1 the sacrament is complete4 ,this would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced2 for instance1 if one were to say patrias et filias4 ,for although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning1 yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech4 ,and so1 although the sensible sound is changed1 yet the sense remains the same4 ,what has been said about the various mispronunciations of words1 either at the beginning or at the end1 holds forasmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning1 whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change3 whereas with the ,greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs4 ,nevertheless the principal point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation3 for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words2 or so great that it destroys it4 ,but it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words1 and the other at the end4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fj1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,it ,is ,lawful to ,add ,anything to the ,words in ,which the ,sacramental ,form ,consists8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists4 ,for these sacramental words are not of less importance than are the words of ,holy ,scripture4 ,but it is not lawful to add anything to1 or to take anything from1 the words of ,holy ,scripture3 for it is written 7,deut4 #d3b73 ,you shall not add to the word that ,i speak to you1 neither shall you take away from it2 and 7,apoc4 #bb3ah1 #ai73 ,i testify to everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book3 if any man shall add to these things1 ,god shall add to him the plagues written in this book4 ,and if any man shall take away 4 4 4 ,god shall take away his part out of the book of life4 ,therefore it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to1 or to take anything from1 the sacramental forms4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the sacraments words are by way of form1 as stated above 7,a4 #f1 ad #b2 ,a4 #g74 ,but any addition or subtraction in forms changes the species1 as also in numbers 7,metaph4 viii74 ,therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form1 it will not be the same sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the sacramental form demands a certain number of words1 so does it require that these words should be pronounced in a certain order and without interruption4 ,if therefore1 the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of words1 in like manner it seems that neither is it1 if the words be pronounced in a different order or with interruptions4 ,on the contrary1 ,certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental forms1 which are not inserted by others3 thus the ,latins baptize under this form3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost2 whereas the ,greeks use the following form3 ,the servant of ,god1 ,n 4 4 4 is baptized in the name of the ,father1 etc4 ,yet both confer the sacrament validly4 ,therefore it is lawful to add something to1 or to take something from1 the sacramental forms4 ,i answer that1 ,with regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental forms1 two points seem to call for our attention4 ,one is on the part of the person who says the words1 and whose intention is essential to the sacrament1 as will be explained further on 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #h74 ,wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the ,church1 it seems that the sacrament is invalid3 because he seems not to intend to do what the ,church does4 ,the other point to be considered is the meaning of the words4 ,for since in the sacraments1 the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey1 as stated above 7,a4 #g1 ad #a71 we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words3 because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid4 ,now it is clear1 if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed1 that the essential sense of the words is destroyed2 and consequently the sacrament is invalid4 ,wherefore ,didymus says 7,de ,spir4 ,sanct4 ii73 ,if anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names1 i4e4 of the ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 his baptism will be invalid4 ,but if that which is omitted be not a substantial part of the form1 such an omission does not destroy the essential sense of the words1 nor consequently the validity of the sacrament4 ,thus in the form of the ,eucharist--,for this is ,my ,body1 the omission of the word for does not destroy the essential sense of the words1 nor consequently cause the sacrament to be invalid2 although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from negligence or contempt4 ,again1 it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense of the words3 for instance1 if one were to say3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father ,who is greater1 and of the ,son ,who is less1 with which form the ,arians baptized3 and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid4 ,but if the addition be such as not to destroy the essential sense1 the sacrament is not rendered invalid4 ,nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the beginning1 in the middle1 or at the end3 ,for instance1 if one were to say1 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father ,almighty1 and of the only ,begotten ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 the ,paraclete1 the baptism would be valid2 and in like manner if one were to say1 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost2 and may the ,blessed ,virgin succour thee1 the baptism would be valid4 ,perhaps1 however1 if one were to say1 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 and of the ,blessed ,virgin ,mary1 the baptism would be void2 because it is written 7#a ,cor4 #a3ac73 ,was ,paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of ,paul8 ,but this is true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the ,blessed ,virgin as in the name of the ,trinity1 by which baptism is consecrated3 for such a sense would be contrary to faith1 and would therefore render the sacrament invalid3 whereas if the addition1 and in the name of the ,blessed ,virgin be understood1 not as if the name of the ,blessed ,virgin effected anything in baptism1 but as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal grace1 then the sacrament is not rendered void4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is not lawful to add anything to the words of ,holy ,scripture as regards the sense2 but many words are added by ,doctors by way of explanation of the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,nevertheless1 it is not lawful to add even words to ,holy ,scripture as though such words were a part thereof1 for this would amount to forgery4 ,it would amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a sacramental form1 which is not so4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them4 ,consequently any addition or suppression of words which does not add to or take from the essential sense1 does not destroy the essence of the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if the words are interrupted to such an extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted1 the sacramental sense is destroyed1 and consequently1 the validity of the sacrament4 ,but this is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight1 that his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted4 ,the same is to be said of a change in the order of the words4 ,because if this destroys the sense of the words1 the sacrament is invalidated3 as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow a word4 ,but if the order is so changed that the sense of the words does not vary1 the sacrament is not invalidated1 according to the ,philosopher's dictum3 ,nouns and verbs mean the same though they be transposed 7,peri ,herm4 x74 ,,question #fa ,,of ,,the ,,necessity ,,of ,,the ,,sacraments 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the necessity of the sacraments2 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation8 7#b7 ,whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin8 7#c7 ,whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before ,christ8 7#d7 ,whether they were necessary after ,christ's coming8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fa1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,sacraments ,are ,necessary for ,man's ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation4 ,for the ,apostle says 7#a ,tim4 #d3h73 ,bodily exercise is profitable to little4 ,but the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise2 because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words1 as stated above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #f74 ,therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle was told 7#b ,cor4 #ab3i73 ,my grace is sufficient for thee4 ,but it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation4 ,therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 given a sufficient cause1 nothing more seems to be required for the effect4 ,but ,christ's ,passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation2 for the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3aj73 ,if1 when we were enemies1 we were reconciled to ,god by the death of ,his ,son3 much more1 being reconciled1 shall we be saved by ,his life4 ,therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix73 ,it is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination1 whether true or false1 except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments4 ,but it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion4 ,therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation4 ,i answer that1 ,sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons4 ,the first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible4 ,now it belongs to ,divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires4 ,divine wisdom1 therefore1 fittingly provides man with means of salvation1 in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments4 ,the second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things4 ,now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease4 ,consequently it was fitting that ,god should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs2 for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil1 his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them4 ,the third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things4 ,lest1 therefore1 it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions1 bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments1 by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices1 consisting in the worship of demons1 and all manner of harmful action1 consisting in sinful deeds4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that through the institution of the sacraments man1 consistently with his nature1 is instructed through sensible things2 he is humbled1 through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things1 seeing that he receives assistance through them3 and he is even preserved from bodily hurt1 by the healthy exercise of the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,bodily exercise1 as such1 is not very profitable3 but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily1 but to a certain extent spiritual1 viz4 in its signification and in its causality4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation4 ,but ,god gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him4 ,hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation4 ,but it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose3 because they obtain their effect through the power of ,christ's ,passion2 and ,christ's ,passion is1 so to say1 applied to man through the sacraments according to the ,apostle 7,rom4 #f3c73 ,all we who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fa1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,before ,sin ,sacraments ,were ,necessary to ,man8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to man4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b7 man needs sacraments that he may obtain grace4 ,but man needed grace even in the state of innocence1 as we stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ie1 ,a4 #d2 cf4 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aji1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #aad1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore sacraments were necessary in that state also4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the conditions of human nature1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,but man's nature is the same before and after sin4 ,therefore it seems that before sin1 man needed the sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 matrimony is a sacrament1 according to ,eph4 #e3cb3 ,this is a great sacrament2 but ,i speak in ,christ and in the ,church4 ,but matrimony was instituted before sin1 as may be seen in ,gen4 #b4 ,therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,none but the sick need remedies1 according to ,matt4 #i3ab3 ,they that are in health need not a physician4 ,now the sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted by sin4 ,therefore they were not necessary before sin4 ,i answer that1 ,sacraments were not necessary in the state of innocence4 ,this can be proved from the rectitude of that state1 in which the higher 7parts of man7 ruled the lower1 and nowise depended on them3 for just as the mind was subject to ,god1 so were the lower powers of the soul subject to the mind1 and the body to the soul4 ,and it would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either in knowledge or in grace1 by anything corporeal2 which happens in the sacraments4 ,therefore in the state of innocence man needed no sacraments1 whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in the state of innocence man needed grace3 not so that he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs1 but in a spiritual and invisible manner4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man's nature is the same before and after sin1 but the state of his nature is not the same4 ,because after sin1 the soul1 even in its higher part1 needs to receive something from corporeal things in order that it may be perfected3 whereas man had no need of this in that state4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence1 not as a sacrament1 but as a function of nature4 ,consequently1 however1 it foreshadowed something in relation to ,christ and the ,church3 just as everything else foreshadowed ,christ4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fa1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,there ,should ,have ,been ,sacraments ,after ,sin1 ,before ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that there should have been no sacraments after sin1 before ,christ4 ,for it has been stated that the ,passion of ,christ is applied to men through the sacraments3 so that ,christ's ,passion is compared to the sacraments as cause to effect4 ,but effect does not precede cause4 ,therefore there should have been no sacraments before ,christ's coming4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sacraments should be suitable to the state of the human race1 as ,augustine declares 7,contra ,faust4 xix74 ,but the state of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired by ,christ4 ,neither1 therefore1 should the sacraments have been changed1 so that besides the sacraments of the natural law1 others should be instituted in the law of ,moses4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the nearer a thing approaches to that which is perfect1 the more like it should it be4 ,now the perfection of human salvation was accomplished by ,christ2 to ,whom the sacraments of the ,old ,law were nearer than those that preceded the ,law4 ,therefore they should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of ,christ4 ,and yet the contrary is the case1 since it was foretold that the priesthood of ,christ would be according to the order of ,melchisedech1 and not 4 4 4 according to the order of ,aaron 7,heb4 #g3aa74 ,therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix7 that the first sacraments which the ,law commanded to be solemnized and observed were announcements of ,christ's future coming4 ,but it was necessary for man's salvation that ,christ's coming should be announced beforehand4 ,therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted before ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,sacraments are necessary for man's salvation1 in so far as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is made holy4 ,now after sin no man can be made holy save through ,christ1 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood1 to the showing of ,his justice 4 4 4 that ,he ,himself may be just1 and the justifier of him who is of the faith of ,jesus ,christ 7,rom4 #c3be1 #bf74 ,therefore before ,christ's coming there was need for some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the future coming of a ,saviour4 ,and these signs are called sacraments4 ,it is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before ,christ's coming4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,passion is the final cause of the old sacraments3 for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it4 ,now the final cause precedes not in time1 but in the intention of the agent4 ,consequently1 there is no reason against the existence of sacraments before ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the state of the human race after sin and before ,christ can be considered from two points of view4 ,first1 from that of faith3 and thus it was always one and the same3 since men were made righteous1 through faith in the future coming of ,christ4 ,secondly1 according as sin was more or less intense1 and knowledge concerning ,christ more or less explicit4 ,for as time went on sin gained a greater hold on man1 so much so that it clouded man's reason1 the consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were insufficient to make man live aright1 and it became necessary to have a written code of fixed laws1 and together with these certain sacraments of faith4 ,for it was necessary1 as time went on1 that the knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded1 since1 as ,gregory says 7,hom4 vi in ,ezech473 ,with the advance of time there was an advance in the knowledge of ,divine things4 ,consequently in the old ,law there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments significative of man's faith in the future coming of ,christ3 which sacraments are compared to those that preceded the ,law1 as something determinate to that which is indeterminate3 inasmuch as before the ,law it was not laid down precisely of what sacraments men were to make use3 whereas this was prescribed by the ,law2 and this was necessary both on account of the overclouding of the natural law1 and for the clearer signification of faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacrament of ,melchisedech which preceded the ,law is more like the ,sacrament of the ,new ,law in its matter3 in so far as he offered bread and wine 7,gen4 #ad3ah71 just as bread and wine are offered in the sacrifice of the ,new ,testament4 ,nevertheless the sacraments of the ,mosaic ,law are more like the thing signified by the sacrament1 i4e4 the ,passion of ,christ3 as clearly appears in the ,paschal ,lamb and such like4 ,the reason of this was lest1 if the sacraments retained the same appearance1 it might seem to be the continuation of one and the same sacrament1 where there was no interruption of time4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fa1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,there ,was ,need for ,any ,sacraments ,after ,christ ,came8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that there was no need for any sacraments after ,christ came4 ,for the figure should cease with the advent of the truth4 ,but grace and truth came by ,jesus ,christ 7,john #a3ag74 ,since1 therefore1 the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth1 it seems that there was no need for any sacraments after ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacraments consist in certain elements1 as stated above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #d74 ,but the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #d3c1 #d7 that when we were children we were serving under the elements of the world3 but that now when the fulness of time has come1 we are no longer children4 ,therefore it seems that we should not serve ,god under the elements of this world1 by making use of corporeal sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 according to ,james #a3ag with ,god there is no change1 nor shadow of alteration4 ,but it seems to argue some change in the ,divine will that ,god should give man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during the time of grace1 and other sacraments before ,christ's coming4 ,therefore it seems that other sacraments should not have been instituted after ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix7 that the sacraments of the ,old ,law were abolished because they were fulfilled2 and others were instituted1 fewer in number1 but more efficacious1 more profitable1 and of easier accomplishment4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ancient ,fathers were saved through faith in ,christ's future coming1 so are we saved through faith in ,christ's past birth and ,passion4 ,now the sacraments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified2 and signs should vary according as they signify the future1 the past1 or the present2 for as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix71 the same thing is variously pronounced as to be done and as having been done3 for instance the word passurus 7going to suffer7 differs from passus 7having suffered74 ,therefore the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 that signify ,christ in relation to the past1 must needs differ from those of the ,old ,law1 that foreshadowed the future4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v71 the state of the ,new ,law4 is between the state of the ,old ,law1 whose figures are fulfilled in the ,new1 and the state of glory1 in which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed4 ,wherefore then there will be no sacraments4 ,but now1 so long as we know through a glass in a dark manner1 7#a ,cor4 #ac3ab7 we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual things3 and this is the province of the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,apostle calls the sacraments of the ,old ,law weak and needy elements 7,gal4 #d3i7 because they neither contained nor caused grace4 ,hence the ,apostle says that those who used these sacraments served ,god under the elements of this world3 for the very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of this world4 ,but our sacraments both contain and cause grace3 consequently the comparison does not hold4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as the head of the house is not proved to have a changeable mind1 through issuing various commands to his household at various seasons1 ordering things differently in winter and summer2 so it does not follow that there is any change in ,god1 because ,he instituted sacraments of one kind after ,christ's coming1 and of another kind at the time of the ,law4 ,because the latter were suitable as foreshadowing grace2 the former as signifying the presence of grace4 ,,question #fb ,,of ,,the ,,sacraments' ,,principal ,,effect1 ,,which ,,is ,,grace 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the effect of the sacraments4 ,first of their principal effect1 which is grace2 secondly1 of their secondary effect1 which is a character4 ,concerning the first there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the sacraments of the ,new ,law are the cause of grace8 7#b7 ,whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts8 7#c7 ,whether the sacraments contain grace8 7#d7 ,whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace8 7#e7 ,whether the sacraments derive this power from ,christ's ,passion8 7#f7 ,whether the sacraments of the ,old ,law caused grace8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,sacraments ,are the ,cause of ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace4 ,for it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause3 since the nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect4 ,but a sacrament is a sign of grace4 ,therefore it is not its cause4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing3 since the agent is more excellent than the patient1 as ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii74 ,but the subject of grace is the human mind1 which is something spiritual4 ,therefore the sacraments cannot cause grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what is proper to ,god should not be ascribed to a creature4 ,but it is proper to ,god to cause grace1 according to ,ps4 #hc3ab3 ,the ,lord will give grace and glory4 ,since1 therefore1 the sacraments consist in certain words and created things1 it seems that they cannot cause grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan47 that the baptismal water touches the body and cleanses the heart4 ,but the heart is not cleansed save through grace4 ,therefore it causes grace3 and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the ,church4 ,i answer that1 ,we must needs say that in some way the sacraments of the ,new ,law cause grace4 ,for it is evident that through the sacraments of the ,new ,law man is incorporated with ,christ3 thus the ,apostle says of ,baptism 7,gal4 #c3bg73 ,as many of you as have been baptized in ,christ have put on ,christ4 ,and man is made a member of ,christ through grace alone4 ,some1 however1 say that they are the cause of grace not by their own operation1 but in so far as ,god causes grace in the soul when the sacraments are employed4 ,and they give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin1 receives1 by the king's command1 a hundred pounds3 not as though the leaden coin1 by any operation of its own1 caused him to be given that sum of money2 this being the effect of the mere will of the king4 ,hence ,bernard says in a sermon on the ,lord's ,supper3 ,just as a canon is invested by means of a book1 an abbot by means of a crozier1 a bishop by means of a ring1 so by the various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred4 ,but if we examine the question properly1 we shall see that according to the above mode the sacraments are mere signs4 ,for the leaden coin is nothing but a sign of the king's command that this man should receive money4 ,in like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a canonry4 ,hence1 according to this opinion the sacraments of the ,new ,law would be mere signs of grace2 whereas we have it on the authority of many saints that the sacraments of the ,new ,law not only signify1 but also cause grace4 ,we must therefore say otherwise1 that an efficient cause is twofold1 principal and instrumental4 ,the principal cause works by the power of its form1 to which form the effect is likened2 just as fire by its own heat makes something hot4 ,in this way none but ,god can cause grace3 since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the ,divine ,nature1 according to #b ,pet4 #a3d3 ,he hath given us most great and precious promises2 that we may be ,vulg43 'you may be made' partakers of the ,divine ,nature4 ,but the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form1 but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent3 so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent3 for instance1 the couch is not like the axe1 but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind4 ,and it is thus that the sacraments of the ,new ,law cause grace3 for they are instituted by ,god to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix73 ,all these things1 viz4 pertaining to the sacraments1 are done and pass away1 but the power1 viz4 of ,god1 which works by them1 remains ever4 ,now that is1 properly speaking1 an instrument by which someone works3 wherefore it is written 7,titus #c3e73 ,he saved us by the laver of regeneration4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of its effect1 even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself sensible and manifest4 ,but an instrumental cause1 if manifest1 can be called a sign of a hidden effect1 for this reason1 that it is not merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the principal agent4 ,and in this sense the sacraments of the ,new ,law are both cause and signs4 ,hence1 too1 is it that1 to use the common expression1 they effect what they signify4 ,from this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament2 being ordained to something sacred1 not only as a sign1 but also as a cause4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,an instrument has a twofold action2 one is instrumental1 in respect of which it works not by its own power but by the power of the principal agent3 the other is its proper action1 which belongs to it in respect of its proper form3 thus it belongs to an axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness1 but to make a couch1 in so far as it is the instrument of an art4 ,but it does not accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper action3 for it is by cutting that it makes a couch4 ,in like manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation1 which they exercise on the body that they touch1 accomplish through the ,divine institution an instrumental operation on the soul2 for example1 the water of baptism1 in respect of its proper power1 cleanses the body1 and thereby1 inasmuch as it is the instrument of the ,divine power1 cleanses the soul3 since from soul and body one thing is made4 ,and thus it is that ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii7 that it touches the body and cleanses the heart4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this argument considers that which causes grace as principal agent2 for this belongs to ,god alone1 as stated above4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,sacramental ,grace ,confers ,anything in ,addition to the ,grace of the ,virtues and ,gifts8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts4 ,for the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently1 both in its essence and in its powers2 as is clear from what was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,but grace is ordained to the perfecting of the soul4 ,therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the soul's defects are caused by sin4 ,but all sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts3 because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue4 ,since1 therefore1 sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's defects1 it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every addition or subtraction of form varies the species 7,metaph4 viii74 ,if1 therefore1 sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts1 it follows that it is called grace equivocally3 and so we are none the wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,if sacramental grace confers nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts1 it is useless to confer the sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts4 ,but there is nothing useless in ,god's works4 ,therefore it seems that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d71 grace1 considered in itself1 perfects the essence of the soul1 in so far as it is a certain participated likeness of the ,divine ,nature4 ,and just as the soul's powers flow from its essence1 so from grace there flow certain perfections into the powers of the soul1 which are called virtues and gifts1 whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their actions4 ,now the sacraments are ordained unto certain special effects which are necessary in the ,christian life3 thus ,baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration1 by which man dies to vice and becomes a member of ,christ3 which effect is something special in addition to the actions of the soul's powers3 and the same holds true of the other sacraments4 ,consequently just as the virtues and gifts confer1 in addition to grace commonly so called1 a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper actions1 so does sacramental grace confer1 over and above grace commonly so called1 and in addition to the virtues and gifts1 a certain ,divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament4 ,it is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct3 but as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a ,christian life1 sacramental grace is needed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and gifts1 as to present and future time1 in so far as they prevent man from sinning4 ,but in regard to past sins1 the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt remains1 man is provided with a special remedy in the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so called1 as species to genus4 ,wherefore just as it is not equivocal to use the term animal in its generic sense1 and as applied to a man1 so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and of sacramental grace4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,sacraments of the ,new ,law ,contain ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments of the ,new ,law do not contain grace4 ,for it seems that what is contained is in the container4 ,but grace is not in the sacraments2 neither as in a subject1 because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit2 nor as in a vessel1 for according to ,phys4 iv1 a vessel is a movable place1 and an accident cannot be in a place4 ,therefore it seems that the sacraments of the ,new ,law do not contain grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may obtain grace4 ,but since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one subject to another4 ,therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal1 even if it be therein2 for the soul is not contained by the body2 rather does it contain the body4 ,since1 therefore1 grace is something spiritual1 it seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,hugh of ,s4 ,victor says 7,de ,sacram4 i7 that a sacrament1 through its being sanctified1 contains an invisible grace4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is said to be in another in various ways2 in two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments4 ,first1 as in its sign2 for a sacrament is a sign of grace4 ,secondly1 as in its cause2 for1 as stated above 7,a4 #a7 a sacrament of the ,new ,law is an instrumental cause of grace4 ,wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the ,new ,law1 not as to its specific likeness1 as an effect in its univocal cause2 nor as to some proper and permanent form proportioned to such an effect1 as effects in non-univocal causes1 for instance1 as things generated are in the sun2 but as to a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete in its natural being1 as will be explained later on 7,a4 #d74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its subject2 nor as in a vessel considered as a place1 but understood as the instrument of some work to be done1 according to ,ezech4 #i3a3 ,everyone hath a destroying vessel ,douay3 'weapon' in his hand4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although an accident does not pass from one subject to another1 nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into its subject through the instrument2 not so that it be in each of these in the same way1 but in each according to its respective nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something1 it contains it and is not contained by it4 ,but1 in a sacrament1 grace has a passing and incomplete mode of being3 and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,there ,be in the ,sacraments a ,power of ,causing ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of causing grace4 ,for the power of causing grace is a spiritual power4 ,but a spiritual power cannot be in a body2 neither as proper to it1 because power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot transcend it2 nor as derived from something else1 because that which is received into anything follows the mode of the recipient4 ,therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being and some degree of good4 ,but there is no assignable kind of being to which such a power can belong2 as anyone may see by running through them all4 ,nor is it reducible to some degree of good2 for neither is it one of the goods of least account1 since sacraments are necessary for salvation3 nor is it an intermediate good1 such as are the powers of the soul1 which are natural powers2 nor is it one of the greater goods1 for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind4 ,therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if there be such a power in the sacraments1 its presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of ,god4 ,but it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by ,god should cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete4 ,therefore it seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the same thing cannot be in several4 ,but several things concur in the completion of a sacrament1 namely1 words and things3 while in one sacrament there can be but one power4 ,therefore it seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan473 ,whence hath water so great power1 that it touches the body and cleanses the heart8 ,and ,bede says that ,our ,lord conferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of ,his most pure body4 ,i answer that1 ,those who hold that the sacraments do not cause grace save by a certain coincidence1 deny the sacraments any power that is itself productive of the sacramental effect1 and hold that the ,divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect4 ,but if we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace1 we must needs allow that there is in the sacraments a certain instrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects4 ,now such power is proportionate to the instrument3 and consequently it stands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything1 as the instrument to the principal agent4 ,for an instrument1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 does not work save as moved by the principal agent1 which works of itself4 ,and therefore the power of the principal agent exists in nature completely and perfectly3 whereas the instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into another1 and is incomplete2 just as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject1 after the manner of a permanent and complete power1 as the argument proves4 ,but there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual power from being in a body2 in so far as a body can be moved by a particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular spiritual effect2 thus in the very voice which is perceived by the senses there is a certain spiritual power1 inasmuch as it proceeds from a mental concept1 of arousing the mind of the hearer4 ,it is in this way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments1 inasmuch as they are ordained by ,god unto the production of a spiritual effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as motion1 through being an imperfect act1 is not properly in a genus1 but is reducible to a genus of perfect act1 for instance1 alteration to the genus of quality3 so1 instrumental power1 properly speaking1 is not in any genus1 but is reducible to a genus and species of perfect act4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument through its being moved by the principal agent1 so does a sacrament receive spiritual power from ,christ's blessing and from the action of the minister in applying it to a sacramental use4 ,hence ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7,st4 ,maximus of ,turin1 ,serm4 xii73 ,nor should you marvel1 if we say that water1 a corporeal substance1 achieves the cleansing of the soul4 ,it does indeed1 and penetrates every secret hiding-place of the conscience4 ,for subtle and clear as it is1 the blessing of ,christ makes it yet more subtle1 so that it permeates into the very principles of life and searches the innermost recesses of the heart4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,just as the one same power of the principal agent is instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the production of an effect1 forasmuch as they are one as being so ordained3 so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and things1 forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,sacraments of the ,new ,law ,derive ,their ,power from ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments of the ,new ,law do not derive their power from ,christ's ,passion4 ,for the power of the sacraments is in the causing of grace which is the principle of spiritual life in the soul4 ,but as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xix in ,joan473 ,the ,word1 as ,he was in the beginning with ,god1 quickens souls2 as ,he was made flesh1 quickens bodies4 ,since1 therefore1 ,christ's ,passion pertains to the ,word as made flesh1 it seems that it cannot cause the power of the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the power of the sacraments seems to depend on faith4 for as ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan471 the ,divine ,word perfects the sacrament not because it is spoken1 but because it is believed4 ,but our faith regards not only ,christ's ,passion1 but also the other mysteries of ,his humanity1 and in a yet higher measure1 ,his ,godhead4 ,therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not due specially to ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments are ordained unto man's justification1 according to #a ,cor4 #f3aa3 ,you are washed 4 4 4 you are justified4 ,now justification is ascribed to the ,resurrection1 according to ,rom4 #d3be3 7,who7 rose again for our justification4 ,therefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from ,christ's ,resurrection rather than from ,his ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 on ,rom4 #e3ad3 ,after the similitude of the transgression of ,adam1 etc41 the gloss says3 ,from the side of ,christ asleep on the ,cross flowed the sacraments which brought salvation to the ,church4 ,consequently1 it seems that the sacraments derive their power from ,christ's ,passion4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a7 a sacrament in causing grace works after the manner of an instrument4 ,now an instrument is twofold2 the one1 separate1 as a stick1 for instance2 the other1 united1 as a hand4 ,moreover1 the separate instrument is moved by means of the united instrument1 as a stick by the hand4 ,now the principal efficient cause of grace is ,god ,himself1 in comparison with ,whom ,christ's humanity is as a united instrument1 whereas the sacrament is as a separate instrument4 ,consequently1 the saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments from ,christ's ,godhead through ,his humanity4 ,now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things3 namely1 to take away the defects consequent on past sins1 in so far as they are transitory in act1 but endure in guilt2 and1 further1 to perfect the soul in things pertaining to ,divine ,worship in regard to the ,christian ,religion4 ,but it is manifest from what has been stated above 7,q4 #dh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #f2 ,q4 #di1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c7 that ,christ delivered us from our sins principally through ,his ,passion1 not only by way of efficiency and merit1 but also by way of satisfaction4 ,likewise by ,his ,passion ,he inaugurated the ,rites of the ,christian ,religion by offering ,himself--an oblation and a sacrifice to ,god 7,eph4 #e3b74 ,wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the ,church derive their power specially from ,christ's ,passion1 the virtue of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments4 ,it was in sign of this that from the side of ,christ hanging on the ,cross there flowed water and blood1 the former of which belongs to ,baptism1 the latter to the ,eucharist1 which are the principal sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,word1 forasmuch as ,he was in the beginning with ,god1 quickens souls as principal agent2 but ,his flesh1 and the mysteries accomplished therein1 are as instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul3 while in giving life to the body they act not only as instrumental causes1 but also to a certain extent as exemplars1 as we stated above 7,q4 #ef1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ dwells in us by faith 7,eph4 #c3ag74 ,consequently1 by faith ,christ's power is united to us4 ,now the power of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to ,his ,passion4 ,and therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in ,his ,passion1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in ,his ,blood4 ,therefore the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally from faith in ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,justification is ascribed to the ,resurrection by reason of the term whither1 which is newness of life through grace4 ,but it is ascribed to the ,passion by reason of the term whence1 i4e4 in regard to the forgiveness of sin4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,sacraments of the ,old ,law ,caused ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments of the ,old ,law caused grace4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #e1 ad #b7 the sacraments of the ,new ,law derive their efficacy from faith in ,christ's ,passion4 ,but there was faith in ,christ's ,passion under the ,old ,law1 as well as under the ,new1 since we have the same spirit of faith 7#b ,cor4 #d3ac74 ,therefore just as the sacraments of the ,new ,law confer grace1 so did the sacraments of the ,old ,law4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there is no sanctification save by grace4 ,but men were sanctified by the sacraments of the ,old ,law3 for it is written 7,lev4 #h3ca73 ,and when he1 i4e4 ,moses1 had sanctified them1 i4e4 ,aaron and his sons1 in their vestments1 etc4 ,therefore it seems that the sacraments of the ,old ,law conferred grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,bede says in a homily on the ,circumcision3 ,under the ,law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against the wound of original sin1 as baptism in the time of revealed grace4 ,but ,baptism confers grace now4 ,therefore circumcision conferred grace2 and in like manner1 the other sacraments of the ,law2 for just as ,baptism is the door of the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the ,old ,law3 hence the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #e3c73 ,i testify to every man circumcising himself1 that he is a debtor to the whole law4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,gal4 #d3i73 ,turn you again to the weak and needy elements8 i4e4 to the ,law1 says the gloss1 which is called weak1 because it does not justify perfectly4 ,but grace justifies perfectly4 ,therefore the sacraments of the old ,law did not confer grace4 ,i answer that1 ,it cannot be said that the sacraments of the ,old ,law conferred sanctifying grace of themselves1 i4e4 by their own power3 since thus ,christ's ,passion would not have been necessary1 according to ,gal4 #b3ba3 ,if justice be by the ,law1 then ,christ died in vain4 ,but neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring sanctifying grace from ,christ's ,passion4 ,for as it was stated above 7,a4 #e71 the power of ,christ's ,passion is united to us by faith and the sacraments1 but in different ways2 because the link that comes from faith is produced by an act of the soul2 whereas the link that comes from the sacraments1 is produced by making use of exterior things4 ,now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of time1 from causing movement1 even before it exists in reality1 in so far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul3 thus the end1 which is subsequent in point of time1 moves the agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him4 ,on the other hand1 what does not yet actually exist1 does not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior things4 ,consequently1 the efficient cause cannot in point of time come into existence after causing movement1 as does the final cause4 ,it is therefore clear that the sacraments of the ,new ,law do reasonably derive the power of justification from ,christ's ,passion1 which is the cause of man's righteousness2 whereas the sacraments of the ,old ,law did not4 ,nevertheless the ,fathers of old were justified by faith in ,christ's ,passion1 just as we are4 ,and the sacraments of the old ,law were a kind of protestation of that faith1 inasmuch as they signified ,christ's ,passion and its effects4 ,it is therefore manifest that the sacraments of the ,old ,law were not endowed with any power by which they conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace3 and they merely signified faith by which men were justified4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,fathers of old had faith in the future ,passion of ,christ1 which1 inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind1 was able to justify them4 ,but we have faith in the past ,passion of ,christ1 which is able to justify1 also by the real use of sacramental things as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that sanctification was but a figure3 for they were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the ,divine worship according to the rite of the ,old ,law1 which was wholly ordained to the foreshadowing of ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there have been many opinions about ,circumcision4 ,for1 according to some1 ,circumcision conferred no grace1 but only remitted sin4 ,but this is impossible2 because man is not justified from sin save by grace1 according to ,rom4 #c3bd3 ,being justified freely by ,his grace4 ,wherefore others said that by ,circumcision grace is conferred1 as to the privative effects of sin1 but not as to its positive effects4 ,but this also appears to be false1 because by ,circumcision1 children received the faculty of obtaining glory1 which is the ultimate positive effect of grace4 ,moreover1 as regards the order of the formal cause1 positive effects are naturally prior to privative effects1 though according to the order of the material cause1 the reverse is the case3 for a form does not exclude privation save by informing the subject4 ,hence others say that ,circumcision conferred grace also as regards a certain positive effect1 i4e4 by making man worthy of eternal life1 but not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin4 ,and so at one time it seemed to me4 ,but if the matter be considered carefully1 this too appears to be untrue2 because the very least grace is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence1 and to merit eternal life4 ,and therefore it seems better to say that ,circumcision was a sign of justifying faith3 wherefore the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #d3aa7 that ,abraham received the sign of ,circumcision1 a seal of the justice of faith4 ,consequently grace was conferred in ,circumcision in so far as it was a sign of ,christ's future ,passion1 as will be made clear further on 7,q4 #gj1 ,a4 #d74 ,,question #fc ,,of ,,the ,,other ,,effect ,,of ,,the ,,sacraments1 ,,which ,,is ,a ,,character 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments1 which is a character3 and concerning this there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul8 7#b7 ,what is this character8 7#c7 ,of whom is this character8 7#d7 ,what is its subject8 7#e7 ,is it indelible8 7#f7 ,whether every sacrament imprints a character8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #a ,whether a ,sacrament ,imprints a ,character on the ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character on the soul4 ,for the word character seems to signify some kind of distinctive sign4 ,but ,christ's members are distinguished from others by eternal predestination1 which does not imply anything in the predestined1 but only in ,god predestinating1 as we have stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #bc1 ,a4 #b74 ,for it is written 7#b ,tim4 #b3ai73 ,the sure foundation of ,god standeth firm1 having this seal3 ,the ,lord knoweth who are ,his4 ,therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on the soul4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a character is a distinctive sign4 ,now a sign1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,doctr4 ,christ4 ii7 is that which conveys something else to the mind1 besides the species which it impresses on the senses4 ,but nothing in the soul can impress a species on the senses4 ,therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the believer is distinguished from the unbeliever by the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 so was it under the ,old ,law4 ,but the sacraments of the ,old ,law did not imprint a character2 whence they are called justices of the flesh 7,heb4 #i3aj7 by the ,apostle4 ,therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #a3ba1 #bb73 ,he 4 4 4 that hath anointed us is ,god2 ,who also hath sealed us1 and given the pledge of the spirit in our hearts4 ,but a character means nothing else than a kind of sealing4 ,therefore it seems that by the sacraments ,god imprints ,his character on us4 ,i answer that1 ,as is clear from what has been already stated 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e7 the sacraments of the ,new ,law are ordained for a twofold purpose2 namely1 for a remedy against sins2 and for the perfecting of the soul in things pertaining to the ,divine worship according to the rite of the ,christian life4 ,now whenever anyone is deputed to some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof2 thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be marked with certain characters on the body1 through being deputed to a bodily service4 ,since1 therefore1 by the sacraments men are deputed to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of ,god1 it follows that by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual character4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii73 ,if a deserter from the battle1 through dread of the mark of enlistment on his body1 throws himself on the emperor's clemency1 and having besought and received mercy1 return to the fight2 is that character renewed1 when the man has been set free and reprimanded8 is it not rather acknowledged and approved8 ,are the ,christian sacraments1 by any chance1 of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark8 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the faithful of ,christ are destined to the reward of the glory that is to come1 by the seal of ,divine ,predestination4 ,but they are deputed to acts becoming the ,church that is now1 by a certain spiritual seal that is set on them1 and is called a character4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament3 since we know that a certain one has received the baptismal character1 through his being cleansed by the sensible water4 ,nevertheless from a kind of likeness1 anything that assimilates one thing to another1 or discriminates one thing from another1 even though it be not sensible1 can be called a character or a seal2 thus the ,apostle calls ,christ the figure or charakter of the substance of the ,father 7,heb4 #a3c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #f7 the sacraments of the ,old ,law had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a spiritual effect4 ,consequently in those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual character1 and bodily circumcision sufficed1 which the ,apostle calls a seal 7,rom4 #d3aa74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #b ,whether a ,character ,is a ,spiritual ,power8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a character is not a spiritual power4 ,for character seems to be the same thing as figure2 hence 7,heb4 #a3c71 where we read figure of ,his substance1 for figure the ,greek has charakter4 ,now figure is in the fourth species of quality1 and thus differs from power which is in the second species4 ,therefore character is not a spiritual power4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii73 ,the ,divine ,beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in ,itself1 and grants this share to him by conferring on him ,its light as a kind of seal4 ,consequently1 it seems that a character is a kind of light4 ,now light belongs rather to the third species of quality4 ,therefore a character is not a power1 since this seems to belong to the second species4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 character is defined by some thus3 ,a character is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination conferred by a hierarch4 ,now a sign is in the genus of relation1 not of power4 ,therefore a character is not a spiritual power4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 a power is in the nature of a cause and principle 7,metaph4 v74 ,but a sign which is set down in the definition of a character is rather in the nature of an effect4 ,therefore a character is not a spiritual power4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 ii73 ,there are three things in the soul1 power1 habit1 and passion4 ,now a character is not a passion3 since a passion passes quickly1 whereas a character is indelible1 as will be made clear further on 7,a4 #e74 ,in like manner it is not a habit3 because no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill3 whereas a character is indifferent to either1 since some use it well1 some ill4 ,now this cannot occur with a habit3 because no one abuses a habit of virtue1 or uses well an evil habit4 ,it remains1 therefore1 that a character is a power4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 the sacraments of the ,new ,law produce a character1 in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship of ,god according to the rite of the ,christian religion4 ,wherefore ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii71 after saying that ,god by a kind of sign grants a share of ,himself to those that approach ,him1 adds by making them ,godlike and communicators of ,divine gifts4 ,now the worship of ,god consists either in receiving ,divine gifts1 or in bestowing them on others4 ,and for both these purposes some power is needed2 for to bestow something on others1 active power is necessary2 and in order to receive1 we need a passive power4 ,consequently1 a character signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to the ,divine worship4 ,but it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental3 as we have stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #d7 of the virtue which is in the sacraments4 ,for to have a sacramental character belongs to ,god's ministers3 and a minister is a kind of instrument1 as the ,philosopher says 7,polit4 i74 ,consequently1 just as the virtue which is in the sacraments is not of itself in a genus1 but is reducible to a genus1 for the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature3 so also a character is not properly in a genus or species1 but is reducible to the second species of quality4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,configuration is a certain boundary of quantity4 ,wherefore1 properly speaking1 it is only in corporeal things2 and of spiritual things is said metaphorically4 ,now that which decides the genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly4 ,consequently1 a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality1 although some have held this to be the case4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the third species of quality contains only sensible passions or sensible qualities4 ,now a character is not a sensible light4 ,consequently1 it is not in the third species of quality as some have maintained4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the relation signified by the word sign must needs have some foundation4 ,now the relation signified by this sign which is a character1 cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the soul3 because then it would belong to every soul naturally4 ,consequently1 there must be something in the soul on which such a relation is founded4 ,and it is in this that a character essentially consists4 ,therefore it need not be in the genus relation as some have held4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,a character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to the sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted4 ,but considered in itself1 it is in the nature of a principle1 in the way already explained4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,sacramental ,character ,is the ,character of ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacramental character is not the character of ,christ4 ,for it is written 7,eph4 #d3cj73 ,grieve not the ,holy ,spirit of ,god1 whereby you are sealed4 ,but a character consists essentially in something that seals4 ,therefore the sacramental character should be attributed to the ,holy ,ghost rather than to ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a character has the nature of a sign4 ,and it is a sign of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament4 ,now grace is poured forth into the soul by the whole ,trinity2 wherefore it is written 7,ps4 #hc3ab73 ,the ,lord will give grace and glory4 ,therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed specially to ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a man is marked with a character that he may be distinguishable from others4 ,but the saints are distinguishable from others by charity1 which1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 xv71 alone separates the children of the ,kingdom from the children of perdition3 wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have the character of the beast 7,apoc4 #ac3af1 #ag74 ,but charity is not attributed to ,christ1 but rather to the ,holy ,ghost according to ,rom4 #e3e3 ,the charity of ,god is poured forth in our hearts1 by the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who is given to us2 or even to the ,father1 according to #b ,cor4 #ac3ac3 ,the grace of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ and the charity of ,god4 ,therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed to ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,some define character thus3 ,a character is a distinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal ,character1 whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of the creating and re-creating ,trinity1 and distinguishing him from those who are not so enlikened1 according to the state of faith4 ,but the eternal ,character is ,christ ,himself1 according to ,heb4 #a3c3 ,who being the brightness of ,his glory and the figure1 or character1 of ,his substance4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that the character should properly be attributed to ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as has been made clear above 7,a4 #a71 a character is properly a kind of seal1 whereby something is marked1 as being ordained to some particular end3 thus a coin is marked for use in exchange of goods1 and soldiers are marked with a character as being deputed to military service4 ,now the faithful are deputed to a twofold end4 ,first and principally to the enjoyment of glory4 ,and for this purpose they are marked with the seal of grace according to ,ezech4 #i3d3 ,mark ,thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn2 and ,apoc4 #g3c3 ,hurt not the earth1 nor the sea1 nor the trees1 till we sign the servants of our ,god in their foreheads4 ,secondly1 each of the faithful is deputed to receive1 or to bestow on others1 things pertaining to the worship of ,god4 ,and this1 properly speaking1 is the purpose of the sacramental character4 ,now the whole rite of the ,christian religion is derived from ,christ's priesthood4 ,consequently1 it is clear that the sacramental character is specially the character of ,christ1 to ,whose character the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters1 which are nothing else than certain participations of ,christ's ,priesthood1 flowing from ,christ ,himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man is assigned to future glory1 and which is effected by grace4 ,now grace is attributed to the ,holy ,ghost1 inasmuch as it is through love that ,god gives us something gratis1 which is the very nature of grace3 while the ,holy ,ghost is love4 ,wherefore it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ab3d73 ,there are diversities of graces1 but the same ,spirit4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sacramental character is a thing as regards the exterior sacrament1 and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect4 ,consequently1 something can be attributed to a character in two ways4 ,first1 if the character be considered as a sacrament3 and thus it is a sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament4 ,secondly1 if it be considered as a character4 ,and thus it is a sign conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in whom is vested the authority over that to which he is assigned3 thus soldiers who are assigned to military service1 are marked with their leader's sign1 by which they are1 in a fashion1 likened to him4 ,and in this way those who are deputed to the ,christian worship1 of which ,christ is the author1 receive a character by which they are likened to ,christ4 ,consequently1 properly speaking1 this is ,christ's character4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a character distinguishes one from another1 in relation to some particular end1 to which he1 who receives the character is ordained3 as has been stated concerning the military character 7,a4 #a7 by which a soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy's soldier in relation to the battle4 ,in like manner the character of the faithful is that by which the faithful of ,christ are distinguished from the servants of the devil1 either in relation to eternal life1 or in relation to the worship of the ,church that now is4 ,of these the former is the result of charity and grace1 as the objection runs2 while the latter results from the sacramental character4 ,wherefore the character of the beast may be understood by opposition1 to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are assigned to eternal punishment1 or the profession of an unlawful form of worship4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,character ,be ,subjected in the ,powers of the ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the character is not subjected in the powers of the soul4 ,for a character is said to be a disposition to grace4 ,but grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore it seems that the character is in the essence of the soul and not in the powers4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject of anything save habit and disposition4 ,but a character1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 is neither habit nor disposition1 but rather a power3 the subject of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul4 ,therefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of the soul1 but rather in its essence4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the powers of the soul are divided into those of knowledge and those of appetite4 ,but it cannot be said that a character is only in a cognitive power1 nor1 again1 only in an appetitive power3 since it is neither ordained to knowledge only1 nor to desire only4 ,likewise1 neither can it be said to be in both1 because the same accident cannot be in several subjects4 ,therefore it seems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul1 but rather in the essence4 ,on the contrary1 ,a character1 according to its definition given above 7,a4 #c71 is imprinted in the rational soul by way of an image4 ,but the image of the ,trinity in the soul is seen in the powers4 ,therefore a character is in the powers of the soul4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 a character is a kind of seal by which the soul is marked1 so that it may receive1 or bestow on others1 things pertaining to ,divine worship4 ,now the ,divine worship consists in certain actions3 and the powers of the soul are properly ordained to actions1 just as the essence is ordained to existence4 ,therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the soul1 but in its power4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the subject is ascribed to an accident in respect of that to which the accident disposes it proximately1 but not in respect of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly4 ,now a character disposes the soul directly and proximately to the fulfilling of things pertaining to ,divine worship3 and because such cannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace1 since1 according to ,john #d3bd1 they that adore ,god must adore ,him in spirit and in truth1 consequently1 the ,divine bounty bestows grace on those who receive the character1 so that they may accomplish worthily the service to which they are deputed4 ,therefore the subject should be ascribed to a character in respect of those actions that pertain to the ,divine worship1 rather than in respect of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the essence of the soul is the subject of the natural power1 which flows from the principles of the essence4 ,now a character is not a power of this kind1 but a spiritual power coming from without4 ,wherefore1 just as the essence of the soul1 from which man has his natural life1 is perfected by grace from which the soul derives spiritual life2 so the natural power of the soul is perfected by a spiritual power1 which is a character4 ,for habit and disposition belong to a power of the soul1 since they are ordained to actions of which the powers are the principles4 ,and in like manner whatever is ordained to action1 should be attributed to a power4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above1 a character is ordained unto things pertaining to the ,divine worship2 which is a protestation of faith expressed by exterior signs4 ,consequently1 a character needs to be in the soul's cognitive power1 where also is faith4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #e ,whether a ,character ,can ,be ,blotted ,out from the ,soul8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a character can be blotted out from the soul4 ,because the more perfect an accident is1 the more firmly does it adhere to its subject4 ,but grace is more perfect than a character2 because a character is ordained unto grace as to a further end4 ,now grace is lost through sin4 ,much more1 therefore1 is a character so lost4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by a character a man is deputed to the ,divine worship1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,but some pass from the worship of ,god to a contrary worship by apostasy from the faith4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that such lose the sacramental character4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when the end ceases1 the means to the end should cease also3 thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage1 because begetting will cease1 which is the purpose of marriage4 ,now the exterior worship to which a character is ordained1 will not endure in heaven1 where there will be no shadows1 but all will be truth without a veil4 ,therefore the sacramental character does not last in the soul for ever3 and consequently it can be blotted out4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii73 ,the ,christian sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark of military service4 ,but the character of military service is not repeated1 but is recognized and approved in the man who obtains the emperor's forgiveness after offending him4 ,therefore neither can the sacramental character be blotted out4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 in a sacramental character ,christ's faithful have a share in ,his ,priesthood2 in the sense that as ,christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood1 so ,his faithful are likened to ,him by sharing a certain spiritual power with regard to the sacraments and to things pertaining to the ,divine worship4 ,for this reason it is unbecoming that ,christ should have a character3 but ,his ,priesthood is compared to a character1 as that which is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of itself4 ,now ,christ's ,priesthood is eternal1 according to ,ps4 #aji3d3 ,thou art a priest for ever1 according to the order of ,melchisedech4 ,consequently1 every sanctification wrought by ,his ,priesthood1 is perpetual1 enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures4 ,this is clear even in inanimate things2 for the consecration of a church or an altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed4 ,since1 therefore1 the subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part1 where faith resides1 as stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #c72 it is clear that1 the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible1 a character cannot be blotted out from the soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,both grace and character are in the soul1 but in different ways4 ,for grace is in the soul1 as a form having complete existence therein3 whereas a character is in the soul1 as an instrumental power1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,now a complete form is in its subject according to the condition of the subject4 ,and since the soul as long as it is a wayfarer is changeable in respect of the free-will1 it results that grace is in the soul in a changeable manner4 ,but an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the principal agent3 and consequently a character exists in the soul in an indelible manner1 not from any perfection of its own1 but from the perfection of ,christ's ,priesthood1 from which the character flows like an instrumental power4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii71 even apostates are not deprived of their baptism1 for when they repent and return to the fold they do not receive it again2 whence we conclude that it cannot be lost4 ,the reason of this is that a character is an instrumental power1 as stated above 7ad #a71 and the nature of an instrument as such is to be moved by another1 but not to move itself2 this belongs to the will4 ,consequently1 however much the will be moved in the contrary direction1 the character is not removed1 by reason of the immobility of the principal mover4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although external worship does not last after this life1 yet its end remains4 ,consequently1 after this life the character remains1 both in the good as adding to their glory1 and in the wicked as increasing their shame3 just as the character of the military service remains in the soldiers after the victory1 as the boast of the conquerors1 and the disgrace of the conquered4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fc1 ,art4 #f ,whether a ,character ,is ,imprinted by ,each ,sacrament of the ,new ,law8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a character is imprinted by all the sacraments of the ,new ,law3 because each sacrament of the ,new ,law makes man a participator in ,christ's ,priesthood4 ,but the sacramental character is nothing but a participation in ,christ's ,priesthood1 as already stated 7,,aa4 #c1 #e74 ,therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a character may be compared to the soul in which it is1 as a consecration to that which is consecrated4 ,but by each sacrament of the ,new ,law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore it seems that a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a character is both a reality and a sacrament4 ,but in each sacrament of the ,new ,law1 there is something which is only a reality1 and something which is only a sacrament1 and something which is both reality and sacrament4 ,therefore a character is imprinted by each sacrament of the ,new ,law4 ,on the contrary1 ,those sacraments in which a character is imprinted1 are not reiterated1 because a character is indelible1 as stated above 7,a4 #e73 whereas some sacraments are reiterated1 for instance1 penance and matrimony4 ,therefore not all the sacraments imprint a character4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #e71 the sacraments of the ,new ,law are ordained for a twofold purpose1 namely1 as a remedy for sin1 and for the ,divine worship4 ,now all the sacraments1 from the fact that they confer grace1 have this in common1 that they afford a remedy against sin3 whereas not all the sacraments are directly ordained to the ,divine worship4 ,thus it is clear that penance1 whereby man is delivered from sin1 does not afford man any advance in the ,divine worship1 but restores him to his former state4 ,now a sacrament may belong to the ,divine worship in three ways3 first in regard to the thing done2 secondly1 in regard to the agent2 thirdly1 in regard to the recipient4 ,in regard to the thing done1 the ,eucharist belongs to the ,divine worship1 for the ,divine worship consists principally therein1 so far as it is the sacrifice of the ,church4 ,and by this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on man2 because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action or benefit received1 since rather is it the end and consummation of all the sacraments1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,but it contains within itself ,christ1 in ,whom there is not the character1 but the very plenitude of the ,priesthood4 ,but it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental agents3 for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed to confer sacraments on others3 while the sacrament of ,baptism pertains to the recipients1 since it confers on man the power to receive the other sacraments of the ,church2 whence it is called the door of the sacraments4 ,in a way ,confirmation also is ordained for the same purpose1 as we shall explain in its proper place 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c74 ,consequently1 these three sacraments imprint a character1 namely1 ,baptism1 ,confirmation1 and order4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,every sacrament makes man a participator in ,christ's ,priesthood1 from the fact that it confers on him some effect thereof4 ,but every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something pertaining to the worship of the priesthood of ,christ3 while it is just this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,man is sanctified by each of the sacraments1 since sanctity means immunity from sin1 which is the effect of grace4 ,but in a special way some sacraments1 which imprint a character1 bestow on man a certain consecration1 thus deputing him to the ,divine worship3 just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated forasmuch as they are deputed to ,divine worship4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although a character is a reality and a sacrament1 it does not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament1 is also a character4 ,with regard to the other sacraments we shall explain further on what is the reality and what is the sacrament4 ,,question #fd ,,of ,,the ,,causes ,,of ,,the ,,sacraments 7,in ,ten ,articles7 ,in the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments1 both as to authorship and as to ministration4 ,concerning which there are ten points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,god alone works inwardly in the sacraments8 7#b7 ,whether the institution of the sacraments is from ,god alone8 7#c7 ,of the power which ,christ exercised over the sacraments2 7#d7 ,whether ,he could transmit that power to others8 7#e7 ,whether the wicked can have the power of administering the sacraments8 7#f7 ,whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments8 7#g7 ,whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments8 7#h7 ,whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments8 7#i7 ,whether right faith is required therein2 so that it be impossible for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament8 7#aj7 ,whether a right intention is required therein8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,god ,alone1 or the ,minister ,also1 ,works ,inwardly ,unto the ,sacramental ,effect8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that not ,god alone1 but also the minister1 works inwardly unto the sacramental effect4 ,for the inward sacramental effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by grace4 ,but it belongs to the ministers of the ,church to cleanse1 enlighten and perfect1 as ,dionysius explains 7,coel4 ,hier4 v74 ,therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only of ,god1 but also of the ministers of the ,church4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 certain prayers are offered up in conferring the sacraments4 ,but the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to ,god than those of any other1 according to ,john #i3ca3 ,if a man be a server of ,god1 and doth ,his will1 him ,he heareth4 ,therefore it stems that a man obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from a good minister4 ,consequently1 the interior effect is partly the work of the minister and not of ,god alone4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 man is of greater account than an inanimate thing4 ,but an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect3 since water touches the body and cleanses the soul1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan474 ,therefore the interior sacramental effect is partly the work of man and not of ,god alone4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,rom4 #h3cc73 ,god that justifieth4 ,since1 then1 the inward effect of all the sacraments is justification1 it seems that ,god alone works the interior sacramental effect4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two ways of producing an effect2 first1 as a principal agent2 secondly1 as an instrument4 ,in the former way the interior sacramental effect is the work of ,god alone3 first1 because ,god alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes place2 and no agent can operate immediately where it is not3 secondly1 because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is from ,god alone1 as we have established in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aab1 ,a4 #a72 while the character which is the interior effect of certain sacraments1 is an instrumental power which flows from the principal agent1 which is ,god4 ,in the second way1 however1 the interior sacramental effect can be the work of man1 in so far as he works as a minister4 ,for a minister is of the nature of an instrument1 since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic1 while the interior effect is produced through the power of the principal agent1 which is ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the ministers of the ,church is not a washing from sin3 deacons are said to cleanse1 inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of the faithful1 or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the reception of the sacraments4 ,in like manner also priests are said to enlighten ,god's people1 not indeed by giving them grace1 but by conferring on them the sacraments of grace2 as ,dionysius explains 7,coel4 ,hier4 v74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the prayers which are said in giving the sacraments1 are offered to ,god1 not on the part of the individual1 but on the part of the whole ,church1 whose prayers are acceptable to ,god1 according to ,matt4 #ah3ai3 ,if two of you shall consent upon earth1 concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask1 it shall be done to them by ,my ,father4 ,nor is there any reason why the devotion of a just man should not contribute to this effect4 ,but that which is the sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the ,church or of the minister1 but through the merit of ,christ's ,passion1 the power of which operates in the sacraments1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e74 ,wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better minister4 ,and yet something in addition may be impetrated for the receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister3 but this is not the work of the minister1 but the work of ,god ,who hears the minister's prayer4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect1 except instrumentally1 as stated above4 ,in like manner neither do men produce the sacramental effect1 except ministerially1 as also stated above4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,sacraments ,are ,instituted by ,god ,alone8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments are not instituted by ,god alone4 ,for those things which ,god has instituted are delivered to us in ,holy ,scripture4 ,but in the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere mentioned in ,holy ,scripture2 for instance1 the chrism with which men are confirmed1 the oil with which priests are anointed1 and many others1 both words and actions1 which we employ in the sacraments4 ,therefore the sacraments were not instituted by ,god alone4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a sacrament is a kind of sign4 ,now sensible things have their own natural signification4 ,nor can it be said that ,god takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others2 because ,he approves of all that ,he made4 ,moreover1 it seems to be peculiar to the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs2 for ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xxi73 ,the demons are enticed 4 4 4 by means of creatures1 which were created not by them but by ,god1 by various means of attraction according to their various natures1 not as an animal is enticed by food1 but as a spirit is drawn by a sign4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that there is no need for the sacraments to be instituted by ,god4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the apostles were ,god's vicegerents on earth3 hence the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #b3aj73 ,for what ,i have pardoned1 if ,i have pardoned anything1 for your sakes have ,i done it in the person of ,christ1 i4e4 as though ,christ ,himself had pardoned4 ,therefore it seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 ,the institutor of anything is he who gives it strength and power3 as in the case of those who institute laws4 ,but the power of a sacrament is from ,god alone1 as we have shown above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore ,god alone can institute a sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,as appears from what has been said above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a71 the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual effects4 ,now an instrument has its power from the principal agent4 ,but an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold2 viz4 he who institutes the sacraments1 and he who makes use of the sacrament instituted1 by applying it for the production of the effect4 ,now the power of a sacrament cannot be from him who makes use of the sacrament3 because he works but as a minister4 ,consequently1 it follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor of the sacrament4 ,since1 therefore1 the power of the sacrament is from ,god alone1 it follows that ,god alone can institute the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the sacrament2 but belong to the solemnity which is added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients4 ,but those things that are essential to the sacrament1 are instituted by ,christ ,himself1 ,who is ,god and man4 ,and though they are not all handed down by the ,scriptures1 yet the ,church holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles1 according to the saying of the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #aa3cd73 ,the rest ,i will set in order when ,i come4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,from their very nature sensible things have a certain aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects3 but this aptitude is fixed by the ,divine institution to some special signification4 ,this is what ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor means by saying 7,de ,sacram4 i7 that a sacrament owes its signification to its institution4 ,yet ,god chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental signification1 not as though ,his choice were restricted to them1 but in order that their signification be more suitable to them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the apostles and their successors are ,god's vicars in governing the ,church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith4 ,wherefore1 just as they may not institute another ,church1 so neither may they deliver another faith1 nor institute other sacraments3 on the contrary1 the ,church is said to be built up with the sacraments which flowed from the side of ,christ while hanging on the ,cross4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,as ,man ,had the ,power of ,producing the ,inward ,sacramental ,effect8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ as man had the power of producing the interior sacramental effect4 ,for ,john the ,baptist said 7,john #a3cc73 ,he1 ,who sent me to baptize in water1 said to me3 ,he upon ,whom thou shalt see the ,spirit descending and remaining upon ,him1 ,he it is that baptizeth with the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but to baptize with the ,holy ,ghost is to confer inwardly the grace of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and the ,holy ,ghost descended upon ,christ as man1 not as ,god3 for thus ,he ,himself gives the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ1 as man1 had the power of producing the inward sacramental effect4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #i3f73 ,that you may know that the ,son of ,man hath power on earth to forgive sins4 ,but forgiveness of sins is an inward sacramental effect4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect4 ,now it is clear that ,christ instituted the sacraments4 ,therefore it is ,he that produces the inward sacramental effect4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament1 except he produce the sacramental effect by his own power4 ,but ,christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament2 as in the case of ,magdalen to whom ,he said3 ,thy sins are forgiven ,thee 7,luke #g3dh74 ,therefore it seems that ,christ1 as man1 produces the inward sacramental effect4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the principal agent in causing the inward effect is that in virtue of which the sacrament operates4 ,but the sacraments derive their power from ,christ's ,passion and through the invocation of ,his ,name2 according to #a ,cor4 #a3ac3 ,was ,paul then crucified for you8 or were you baptized in the name of ,paul8 ,therefore ,christ1 as man1 produces the inward sacramental effect4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,isidore1 ,etym4 vi7 says3 ,the ,divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary effect4 ,now the ,divine power is ,christ's as ,god1 not as man4 ,therefore ,christ produces the inward sacramental effect1 not as man but as ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,christ produces the inward sacramental effect1 both as ,god and as man1 but not in the same way4 ,for1 as ,god1 ,he works in the sacraments by authority3 but1 as man1 ,his operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently1 but instrumentally4 ,for it has been stated 7,q4 #dh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #f2 ,q4 #di1 ,a4 #a7 that ,christ's ,passion which belongs to ,him in respect of ,his human nature1 is the cause of justification1 both meritoriously and efficiently1 not as the principal cause thereof1 or by ,his own authority1 but as an instrument1 in so far as ,his humanity is the instrument of ,his ,godhead1 as stated above 7,q4 #ac1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c2 ,q4 #ai1 ,a4 #a74 ,nevertheless1 since it is an instrument united to the ,godhead in unity of ,person1 it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard to extrinsic instruments1 which are the ministers of the ,church and the sacraments themselves1 as has been explained above 7,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 just as ,christ1 as ,god1 has power of authority over the sacraments1 so1 as man1 ,he has the power of ministry in chief1 or power of excellence4 ,and this consists in four things4 ,first in this1 that the merit and power of ,his ,passion operates in the sacraments1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e74 ,and because the power of the ,passion is communicated to us by faith1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in ,his blood1 which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of ,christ3 therefore1 secondly1 ,christ's power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this1 that they are sanctified by the invocation of ,his name4 ,and because the sacraments derive their power from their institution1 hence1 thirdly1 the excellence of ,christ's power consists in this1 that ,he1 ,who gave them their power1 could institute the sacraments4 ,and since cause does not depend on effect1 but rather conversely1 it belongs to the excellence of ,christ's power1 that ,he could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament4 ,thus it is clear how to solve the objections2 for the arguments on either side are true to a certain extent1 as explained above4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,christ ,could ,communicate to ,ministers the ,power ,which ,he ,had in the ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ could not communicate to ministers the power which ,he had in the sacraments4 ,for as ,augustine argues against ,maximin1 if ,he could1 but would not1 ,he was jealous of ,his power4 ,but jealousy was far from ,christ ,who had the fulness of charity4 ,since1 therefore1 ,christ did not communicate ,his power to ministers1 it seems that ,he could not4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,john #ad3ab3 ,greater than these shall he do1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxii73 ,i affirm this to be altogether greater1 namely1 for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous1 than to create heaven and earth4 ,but ,christ could not communicate to ,his disciples the power of creating heaven and earth3 neither1 therefore1 could ,he give them the power of making the ungodly to be righteous4 ,since1 therefore1 the justification of the ungodly is effected by the power that ,christ has in the sacraments1 it seems that ,he could not communicate that power to ministers4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it belongs to ,christ as ,head of the ,church that grace should flow from ,him to others1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,but this could not be communicated to others2 since then the ,church would be deformed1 having many heads4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ could not communicate ,his power to ministers4 ,on the contrary1 on ,john #a3ca3 ,i knew ,him not1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 v7 that he did not know that our ,lord having the authority of baptizing 4 4 4 would keep it to ,himself4 ,but ,john would not have been in ignorance of this1 if such a power were incommunicable4 ,therefore ,christ could communicate ,his power to ministers4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 ,christ had a twofold power in the sacraments4 ,one was the power of authority1 which belongs to ,him as ,god3 and this power ,he could not communicate to any creature2 just as neither could ,he communicate the ,divine ,essence4 ,the other was the power of excellence1 which belongs to ,him as man4 ,this power ,he could communicate to ministers2 namely1 by giving them such a fulness of grace--that their merits would conduce to the sacramental effect--that by the invocation of their names1 the sacraments would be sanctified--and that they themselves might institute sacraments1 and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without observing the sacramental rite4 ,for a united instrument1 the more powerful it is1 is all the more able to lend its power to the separated instrument2 as the hand can to a stick4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it was not through jealousy that ,christ refrained from communicating to ministers ,his power of excellence1 but for the good of the faithful2 lest they should put their trust in men1 and lest there should be various kinds of sacraments1 giving rise to division in the ,church2 as may be seen in those who said3 ,i am of ,paul1 ,i am of ,apollo1 and ,i of ,cephas 7#a ,cor4 #a3ab74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this objection is true of the power of authority1 which belongs to ,christ as ,god4 ,at the same time the power of excellence can be called authority in comparison to other ministers4 ,whence on #a ,cor4 #a3ac3 ,is ,christ divided8 the gloss says that ,he could give power of authority in baptizing1 to those to whom ,he gave the power of administering it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads in the ,church1 that ,christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers ,his power of excellence4 ,if1 however1 ,he had done so1 ,he would have been ,head in chief2 the others in subjection to ,him4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,sacraments ,can ,be ,conferred by ,evil ,ministers8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil ministers4 ,for the sacraments of the ,new ,law are ordained for the purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace4 ,now evil men1 being themselves unclean1 cannot cleanse others from sin1 according to ,ecclus4 #cd3d3 ,who ,vulg43 ',what' can be made clean by the unclean8 ,moreover1 since they have not grace1 it seems that they cannot give grace1 for no one gives what he has not4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 all the power of the sacraments is derived from ,christ1 as stated above 7,a4 #c2 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e74 ,but evil men are cut off from ,christ3 because they have not charity1 by which the members are united to their ,head1 according to #a ,john #d3af3 ,he that abideth in charity1 abideth in ,god1 and ,god in him4 ,therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments1 the sacrament is invalid2 for instance1 if the required matter or form be wanting4 ,but the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin1 according to ,lev4 #ba3ag1 #ah3 ,whosoever of thy seed throughout their families1 hath a blemish1 he shall not offer bread to his ,god1 neither shall he approach to minister to ,him4 ,therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked1 the sacrament has no effect4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says on ,john #a3cc3 ,he upon ,whom thou shalt see the ,spirit1 etc4 7,tract4 v in ,joan471 that ,john did not know that our ,lord1 having the authority of baptizing1 would keep it to ,himself1 but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men 4 4 4 ,what is a bad minister to thee1 where the ,lord is good8 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 the ministers of the ,church work instrumentally in the sacraments1 because1 in a way1 a minister is of the nature of an instrument4 ,but1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d71 an instrument acts not by reason of its own form1 but by the power of the one who moves it4 ,consequently1 whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument1 is accidental to it3 for instance1 that a physician's body1 which is the instrument of his soul1 wherein is his medical art1 be healthy or sickly2 or that a pipe1 through which water passes1 be of silver or lead4 ,therefore the ministers of the ,church can confer the sacraments1 though they be wicked4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ministers of the ,church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments1 nor do they confer grace on them3 it is ,christ ,who does this by ,his own power while ,he employs them as instruments4 ,consequently1 those who approach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's members are united to their ,head by charity1 so that they may receive life from ,him2 for as it is written 7#a ,john #c3ad73 ,he that loveth not abideth in death4 ,now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless instrument1 and separated from him as to bodily union1 provided it be united to him by some sort of motion3 for a workman works in one way with his hand1 in another with his axe4 ,consequently1 it is thus that ,christ works in the sacraments1 both by wicked men as lifeless instruments1 and by good men as living instruments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a thing is required in a sacrament in two ways4 ,first1 as being essential to it3 and if this be wanting1 the sacrament is invalid2 for instance1 if the due form or matter be wanting4 ,secondly1 a thing is required for a sacrament1 by reason of a certain fitness4 ,and in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,wicked ,men ,sin in ,administering the ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments4 ,for just as men serve ,god in the sacraments1 so do they serve ,him in works of charity2 whence it is written 7,heb4 #ac3af73 ,do not forget to do good and to impart1 for by such sacrifices ,god's favor is obtained4 ,but the wicked do not sin in serving ,god by works of charity3 indeed1 they should be persuaded to do so1 according to ,dan4 #d3bd3 ,let my counsel be acceptable to the king2 ,redeem thou thy sins with alms4 ,therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 whoever co-operates with another in his sin1 is also guilty of sin1 according to ,rom4 #a3cb3 ,he is ,vulg43 ',they are' worthy of death2 not only he that commits the sin1 but also he who consents to them that do them4 ,but if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments1 those who receive sacraments from them1 co-operate in their sin4 ,therefore they would sin also2 which seems unreasonable4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it seems that no one should act when in doubt1 for thus man would be driven to despair1 as being unable to avoid sin4 ,but if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments1 they would be in a state of perplexity3 since sometimes they would sin also if they did not administer sacraments2 for instance1 when by reason of their office it is their bounden duty to do so2 for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #i3af73 ,for a necessity lieth upon me3 ,woe is unto me if ,i preach not the gospel4 ,sometimes also on account of some danger2 for instance1 if a child in danger of death be brought to a sinner for baptism4 ,therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 i7 that it is wrong for the wicked even to touch the symbols1 i4e4 the sacramental signs4 ,and he says in the epistle to ,demophilus3 ,it seems presumptuous for such a man1 i4e4 a sinner1 to lay hands on priestly things2 he is neither afraid nor ashamed1 all unworthy that he is1 to take part in ,divine things1 with the thought that ,god does not see what he sees in himself3 he thinks1 by false pretenses1 to cheat ,him ,whom he calls his ,father2 he dares to utter1 in the person of ,christ1 words polluted by his infamy1 ,i will not call them prayers1 over the ,divine symbols4 ,i answer that1 ,a sinful action consists in this1 that a man fails to act as he ought to1 as the ,philosopher explains 7,ethic4 ii74 ,now it has been said 7,a4 #e1 ad #c7 that it is fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous2 because ministers should be like unto their ,lord1 according to ,lev4 #ai3b3 ,be ye holy1 because ,i 4 4 4 am holy2 and ,ecclus4 #aj3b3 ,as the judge of the people is himself1 so also are his ministers4 ,consequently1 there can be no doubt that the wicked sin by exercising the ministry of ,god and the ,church1 by conferring the sacraments4 ,and since this sin pertains to irreverence towards ,god and the contamination of holy things1 as far as the man who sins is concerned1 although holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated2 it follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,works of charity are not made holy by some process of consecration1 but they belong to the holiness of righteousness1 as being in a way parts of righteousness4 ,consequently1 when a man shows himself as a minister of ,god1 by doing works of charity1 if he be righteous1 he will be made yet holier2 but if he be a sinner1 he is thereby disposed to holiness4 ,on the other hand1 the sacraments are holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration4 ,wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister1 that he may be suitable for his ministry3 for which reason he acts unbecomingly and sins1 if while in a state of sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,he who approaches a sacrament1 receives it from a minister of the ,church1 not because he is such and such a man1 but because he is a minister of the ,church4 ,consequently1 as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry1 he that receives a sacrament from him1 does not communicate in his sin1 but communicates with the ,church from whom he has his ministry4 ,but if the ,church1 by degrading1 excommunicating1 or suspending him1 does not tolerate him in the ministry1 he that receives a sacrament from him sins1 because he communicates in his sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply1 if by reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister sacraments2 because he can repent of his sin and so minister lawfully4 ,but there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed1 if we suppose that he wishes to remain in sin4 ,however1 in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize1 he would not sin in baptizing4 ,for it is clear that then he does not exercise the ministry of the ,church1 but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his services4 ,it is not so with the other sacraments1 which are not so necessary as baptism1 as we shall show further on 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d2 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #c74 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,angels ,can ,administer ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that angels can administer sacraments4 ,because a higher minister can do whatever the lower can2 thus a priest can do whatever a deacon can3 but not conversely4 ,but angels are higher ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 ix74 ,therefore1 since men can be ministers of sacraments1 it seems that much more can angels be4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in heaven holy men are likened to the angels 7,matt4 #bb3cj74 ,but some holy men1 when in heaven1 can be ministers of the sacraments2 since the sacramental character is indelible1 as stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #e74 ,therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers of sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as stated above 7,q4 #h1 ,a4 #g71 the devil is head of the wicked1 and the wicked are his members4 ,but sacraments can be administered by the wicked4 ,therefore it seems that they can be administered even by demons4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #e3a73 ,every high priest taken from among men1 is ordained for men in the things that appertain to ,god4 ,but angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men4 ,therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to ,god1 i4e4 in the sacraments4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c2 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e71 the whole power of the sacraments flows from ,christ's ,passion1 which belongs to ,him as man4 ,and ,him in their very nature men1 not angels1 resemble2 indeed1 in respect of ,his ,passion1 ,he is described as being a little lower than the angels 7,heb4 #b3i74 ,consequently1 it belongs to men1 but not to angels1 to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration4 ,but it must be observed that as ,god did not bind ,his power to the sacraments1 so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament2 so neither did ,he bind ,his power to the ministers of the ,church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments4 ,and since good angels are messengers of truth2 if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels1 it should be considered valid1 because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of ,god3 for instance1 certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels 99,see ,acta ,s4,s41 ,september #bi4 ,but if demons1 who are lying spirits1 were to perform a sacramental rite1 it should be pronounced as invalid4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,what men do in a less perfect manner1 i4e4 by sensible sacraments1 which are proportionate to their nature1 angels also do1 as ministers of a higher degree1 in a more perfect manner1 i4e4 invisibly--by cleansing1 enlightening1 and perfecting4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their share of glory1 but not as to the conditions of their nature3 and consequently not in regard to the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,wicked men do not owe their power of conferring sacraments to their being members of the devil4 ,consequently1 it does not follow that a fortiori the devil1 their head1 can do so4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #h ,whether the ,minister's ,intention ,is ,required for the ,validity of a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the minister's intention is not required for the validity of a sacrament4 ,for the minister of a sacrament works instrumentally4 ,but the perfection of an action does not depend on the intention of the instrument1 but on that of the principal agent4 ,therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of a sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one man's intention cannot be known to another4 ,therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a sacrament1 he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament4 ,consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation2 the more that some sacraments are necessary for salvation1 as we shall state further on 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #d74 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he does not attend4 ,but sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend to what they say or do1 through thinking of something else4 ,therefore in this respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of intention4 ,on the contrary1 ,what is unintentional happens by chance4 ,but this cannot be said of the sacramental operation4 ,therefore the sacraments require the intention of the minister4 ,i answer that1 ,when a thing is indifferent to many uses1 it must needs be determined to one1 if that one has to be effected4 ,now those things which are done in the sacraments1 can be done with various intent2 for instance1 washing with water1 which is done in baptism1 may be ordained to bodily cleanliness1 to the health of the body1 to amusement1 and many other similar things4 ,consequently1 it needs to be determined to one purpose1 i4e4 the sacramental effect1 by the intention of him who washes4 ,and this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments2 for instance the words1 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,an inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the effect2 but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent4 ,but an animate instrument1 such as a minister1 is not only moved1 but in a sense moves itself1 in so far as by his will he moves his bodily members to act4 ,consequently1 his intention is required1 whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent2 that is1 it is necessary that he intend to do that which ,christ and the ,church do4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,on this point there are two opinions4 ,for some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary2 in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid3 and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament1 is made good by ,christ1 ,who baptizes inwardly3 whereas in adults1 who have that intention1 this defect is made good by their faith and devotion4 ,this might be true enough of the ultimate effect1 i4e4 justification from sins2 but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental1 viz4 the character1 it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient1 since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament4 ,consequently1 others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole ,church1 whose minister he is2 while in the words uttered by him1 the intention of the ,church is expressed2 and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament1 except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although he who thinks of something else1 has no actual intention1 yet he has habitual intention1 which suffices for the validity of the sacrament2 for instance if1 when a priest goes to baptize someone1 he intends to do to him what the ,church does4 ,wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters1 the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention4 ,nevertheless1 the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention4 ,but this is not entirely in man's power1 because when a man wishes to be very intent on something1 he begins unintentionally to think of other things1 according to ,ps4 #ci3ah3 ,my heart hath forsaken me4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,faith ,is ,required of ,necessity in the ,minister of a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #h71 the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament4 ,but faith directs in intention as ,augustine says against ,julian 7,in ,psalm xxxi1 cf4 ,contra ,julian iv74 ,therefore1 if the minister is without the true faith1 the sacrament is invalid4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if a minister of the ,church has not the true faith1 it seems that he is a heretic4 ,but heretics1 seemingly1 cannot confer sacraments4 ,for ,cyprian says in an epistle against heretics 7lxxiii73 ,everything whatsoever heretics do1 is carnal1 void and counterfeit1 so that nothing that they do should receive our approval4 ,and ,pope ,leo says in his epistle to ,leo ,augustus 7clvi73 ,it is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of ,alexandria1 by an act of dire and senseless cruelty4 ,the sacrifice is no longer offered1 the chrism is no longer consecrated1 all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men4 ,therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 those who have not the true faith seem to be separated from the ,church by excommunication3 for it is written in the second canonical epistle of ,john 7#aj73 ,if any man come to you1 and bring not this doctrine1 receive him not into the house1 nor say to him2 ,god speed you3 and 7,titus #c3aj73 ,a man that is a heretic1 after the first and second admonition avoid4 ,but it seems that an excommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the ,church3 since he is separated from the ,church1 to whose ministry the dispensation of the sacraments belongs4 ,therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says against the ,donatist ,petilian3 ,remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to ,god's sacraments1 by rendering them either invalid or less holy4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #e71 since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments1 he acts not by his own but by ,christ's power4 ,now just as charity belongs to a man's own power so also does faith4 ,wherefore1 just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity1 and even sinners can confer sacraments1 as stated above 7,a4 #e72 so neither is it necessary that he should have faith1 and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament1 provided that the other essentials be there4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to something else1 and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers3 for instance1 he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever1 and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation4 ,and thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament4 ,but if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers1 although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly1 yet he does know that the ,catholic ,church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done4 ,wherefore1 his unbelief notwithstanding1 he can intend to do what the ,church does1 albeit he esteem it to be nothing4 ,and such an intention suffices for a sacrament3 because as stated above 7,a4 #h1 ad #b7 the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the ,church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the ,church3 and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament4 ,but some do observe the form prescribed by the ,church3 and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality4 ,i say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the ,church2 because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them1 he sins2 and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament4 ,wherefore ,augustine 7,fulgentius1 ,de ,fide ad ,pet47 says3 ,be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the ,church1 unless they come back to the ,church1 will reap disaster from their ,baptism4 ,in this sense ,pope ,leo says that the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the ,church of ,alexandria2 viz4 in regard to the reality of the sacrament1 not as to the sacrament itself4 ,cyprian1 however1 thought that heretics do not confer even the sacrament3 but in this respect we do not follow his opinion4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de unico ,baptismo xiii73 ,though the martyr ,cyprian refused to recognize ,baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics1 yet so great are his merits1 culminating in the crown of martyrdom1 that the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault1 and if anything needed pruning1 the sickle of his passion cut it off4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible1 as explained above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #c74 ,consequently1 if a man be suspended by the ,church1 or excommunicated or degraded1 he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments1 but the permission to use this power4 ,wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament1 but he sins in so doing4 ,he also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man3 so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament1 unless ignorance excuses him4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fd1 ,art4 #aj ,whether the ,validity of a ,sacrament ,requires a ,good ,intention in the ,minister8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister4 ,for the minister's intention should be in conformity with the ,church's intention1 as explained above 7,a4 #h1 ad #a74 ,but the intention of the ,church is always good4 ,therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one4 ,but a playful intention destroys a sacrament3 for instance1 if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun4 ,much more1 therefore1 does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament3 for instance1 if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a perverse intention vitiates the whole work1 according to ,luke #aa3cd3 ,if thy eye be evil1 thy whole body will be darksome4 ,but the sacraments of ,christ cannot be contaminated by evil men2 as ,augustine says against ,petilian 7,cont4 ,litt4 ,petil ii74 ,therefore it seems that1 if the minister's intention is perverse1 the sacrament is invalid4 ,on the contrary1 ,a perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister4 ,but the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament3 neither1 therefore1 does his perverse intention4 ,i answer that1 ,the minister's intention may be perverted in two ways4 ,first in regard to the sacrament3 for instance1 when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament1 but to make a mockery of it4 ,such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament1 especially if it be manifested outwardly4 ,secondly1 the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament3 for instance1 a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her2 or to consecrate the ,body of ,christ1 so as to use it for sorcery4 ,and because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows1 consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament2 but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof3 but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament1 while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect4 ,consequently1 the minister who conforms his intention to the ,church as to the former rectitude1 but not as to the latter1 perfects the sacrament indeed1 but gains no merit for himself4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention1 necessary for the validity of a sacrament4 ,consequently1 there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention1 not the action of another4 ,consequently1 the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action3 not in so far as it is the action of ,christ1 ,whose minister he is4 ,it is just as if the servant minister of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention1 whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so4 ,,question #fe ,,of ,,the ,,number ,,of ,,the ,,sacraments 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the number of the sacraments3 and concerning this there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether there are seven sacraments8 7#b7 ,the order of the sacraments among themselves2 7#c7 ,their mutual comparison2 7#d7 ,whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,there ,should ,be ,seven ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments4 ,for the sacraments derive their efficacy from the ,divine power1 and the power of ,christ's ,passion4 ,but the ,divine power is one1 and ,christ's ,passion is one2 since by one oblation ,he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified 7,heb4 #aj3ad74 ,therefore there should be but one sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect caused by sin4 ,now this is twofold1 punishment and guilt4 ,therefore two sacraments would be enough4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 sacraments belong to the actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy1 as ,dionysius explains 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v74 ,but1 as he says1 there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy1 namely1 to cleanse1 to enlighten1 to perfect4 ,therefore there should be no more than three sacraments4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix7 that the sacraments of the ,new ,law are less numerous than those of the ,old ,law4 ,but in the ,old ,law there was no sacrament corresponding to ,confirmation and ,extreme ,unction4 ,therefore these should not be counted among the sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 lust is not more grievous than other sins1 as we have made clear in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #e2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #aed1 ,a4 #c74 ,but there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other sins4 ,therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust4 ,obj4 #f3 ,on the other hand1 ,it seems that there should be more than seven sacraments4 ,for sacraments are a kind of sacred sign4 ,but in the ,church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs1 such as ,holy ,water the ,consecration of ,altars1 and such like4 ,therefore there are more than seven sacraments4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor 7,de ,sacram4 i7 says that the sacraments of the ,old ,law were oblations1 tithes and sacrifices4 ,but the ,sacrifice of the ,church is one sacrament1 called the ,eucharist4 ,therefore oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments4 ,obj4 #h3 ,further1 there are three kinds of sin1 original1 mortal and venial4 ,now ,baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin1 and ,penance against mortal sin4 ,therefore besides the seven sacraments1 there should be another against venial sin4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #a71 the sacraments of the ,church were instituted for a twofold purpose3 namely1 in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship of ,god according to the religion of ,christian life1 and to be a remedy against the defects caused by sin4 ,and in either way it is becoming that there should be seven sacraments4 ,for spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the body3 just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to things spiritual4 ,now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life in two ways3 first1 in regard to his own person2 secondly1 in regard to the whole community of the society in which he lives1 for man is by nature a social animal4 ,with regard to himself man is perfected in the life of the body1 in two ways2 first1 directly 7per se71 i4e4 by acquiring some vital perfection2 secondly1 indirectly 7per accidens71 i4e4 by the removal of hindrances to life1 such as ailments1 or the like4 ,now the life of the body is perfected directly1 in three ways4 ,first1 by generation whereby a man begins to be and to live3 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is ,baptism1 which is a spiritual regeneration1 according to ,titus #c3e3 ,by the laver of regeneration1 etc4 ,secondly1 by growth whereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength3 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is ,confirmation1 in which the ,holy ,ghost is given to strengthen us4 ,wherefore the disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus3 ,stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high 7,luke #bd3di74 ,thirdly1 by nourishment1 whereby life and strength are preserved to man2 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the ,eucharist4 ,wherefore it is said 7,john #f3ed73 ,except you eat of the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 you shall not have life in you4 ,and this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life1 both corporally and spiritually2 but since man is liable at times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity1 i4e4 sin1 hence man needs a cure from his infirmity2 which cure is twofold4 ,one is the healing1 that restores health3 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is ,penance1 according to ,ps4 #dj3e3 ,heal my soul1 for ,i have sinned against ,thee4 ,the other is the restoration of former vigor by means of suitable diet and exercise3 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is ,extreme ,unction1 which removes the remainder of sin1 and prepares man for final glory4 ,wherefore it is written 7,james #e3ae73 ,and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him4 ,in regard to the whole community1 man is perfected in two ways4 ,first1 by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise public acts3 and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the sacrament of order1 according to the saying of ,heb4 #g3bg1 that priests offer sacrifices not for themselves only1 but also for the people4 ,secondly in regard to natural propagation4 ,this is accomplished by ,matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual life3 since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature4 ,we may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin4 ,for ,baptism is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life2 ,confirmation1 against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth2 the ,eucharist1 against the soul's proneness to sin2 ,penance1 against actual sin committed after baptism2 ,extreme ,unction1 against the remainders of sins--of those sins1 namely1 which are not sufficiently removed by ,penance1 whether through negligence or through ignorance2 order1 against divisions in the community2 ,matrimony1 as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual1 and against the decrease in numbers that results from death4 ,some1 again1 gather the number of sacraments from a certain adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects resulting from sin4 ,they say that ,baptism corresponds to ,faith1 and is ordained as a remedy against original sin2 ,extreme ,unction1 to ,hope1 being ordained against venial sin2 the ,eucharist1 to ,charity1 being ordained against the penal effect which is malice2 ,order1 to ,prudence1 being ordained against ignorance2 ,penance to ,justice1 being ordained against mortal sin2 ,matrimony1 to ,temperance1 being ordained against concupiscence2 ,confirmation1 to ,fortitude1 being ordained against infirmity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the same principal agent uses various instruments unto various effects1 in accordance with the thing to be done4 ,in the same way the ,divine power and the ,passion of ,christ work in us through the various sacraments as through various instruments4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,guilt and punishment are diversified both according to species1 inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and punishment1 and according to men's various states and habitudes4 ,and in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments1 as explained above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in hierarchical actions we must consider the agents1 the recipients and the actions4 ,the agents are the ministers of the ,church2 and to these the sacrament of order belongs4 ,the recipients are those who approach the sacraments3 and these are brought into being by ,matrimony4 ,the actions are cleansing1 enlightening1 and perfecting4 ,mere cleansing1 however1 cannot be a sacrament of the ,new ,law1 which confers grace3 yet it belongs to certain sacramentals1 i4e4 catechism and exorcism4 ,but cleansing coupled with enlightening1 according to ,dionysius1 belongs to ,baptism2 and1 for him who falls back into sin1 they belong secondarily to ,penance and ,extreme ,unction4 ,and perfecting1 as regards power1 which is1 as it were1 a formal perfection1 belongs to ,confirmation3 while1 as regards the attainment of the end1 it belongs to the ,eucharist4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,in the sacrament of ,confirmation we receive the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost in order to be strengthened2 while in ,extreme ,unction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory2 and neither of these two purposes was becoming to the ,old ,testament4 ,consequently1 nothing in the old ,law could correspond to these sacraments4 ,nevertheless1 the sacraments of the old ,law were more numerous1 on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and ceremonies4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,there was need for a special sacrament to be applied as a remedy against venereal concupiscence3 first because by this concupiscence1 not only the person but also the nature is defiled3 secondly1 by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,holy ,water and other consecrated things are not called sacraments1 because they do not produce the sacramental effect1 which is the receiving of grace4 ,they are1 however1 a kind of disposition to the sacraments3 either by removing obstacles1 thus holy water is ordained against the snares of the demons1 and against venial sins3 or by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament2 thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence for the ,eucharist4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,oblations and tithes1 both the ,law of nature and in the ,law of ,moses1 ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the ministers and the poor1 but also figuratively2 and consequently they were sacraments4 ,but now they remain no longer as figures1 and therefore they are not sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #h3 ,the infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting out of venial sin4 ,wherefore1 since grace is infused in each of the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 none of them was instituted directly against venial sin4 ,this is taken away by certain sacramentals1 for instance1 ,holy ,water and such like4 ,some1 however1 hold that ,extreme ,unction is ordained against venial sin4 ,but of this we shall speak in its proper place 7,suppl41 ,q4 #cj1 ,a4 #a74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,order of the ,sacraments1 ,as ,given ,above1 ,is ,becoming8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the order of the sacraments as given above is unbecoming4 ,for according to the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #ae3df71 that was 4 4 4 first 4 4 4 which is natural1 afterwards that which is spiritual4 ,but man is begotten through ,matrimony by a first and natural generation2 while in ,baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual generation4 ,therefore ,matrimony should precede ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 through the sacrament of order man receives the power of agent in sacramental actions4 ,but the agent precedes his action4 ,therefore order should precede ,baptism and the other sacraments4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,eucharist is a spiritual food2 while ,confirmation is compared to growth4 ,but food causes1 and consequently precedes1 growth4 ,therefore the ,eucharist precedes ,confirmation4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,penance prepares man for the ,eucharist4 ,but a disposition precedes perfection4 ,therefore ,penance should precede the ,eucharist4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 that which is nearer the last end comes after other things4 ,but1 of all the sacraments1 ,extreme ,unction is nearest to the last end which is ,happiness4 ,therefore it should be placed last among the sacraments4 ,on the contrary1 ,the order of the sacraments1 as given above1 is commonly adopted by all4 ,i answer that1 ,the reason of the order among the sacraments appears from what has been said above 7,a4 #a74 ,for just as unity precedes multitude1 so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection of the individual1 naturally precede those which are intended for the perfection of the multitude2 and consequently the last place among the sacraments is given to order and ,matrimony1 which are intended for the perfection of the multitude3 while ,matrimony is placed after order1 because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life1 to which the sacraments are ordained4 ,moreover1 among things ordained to the perfection of the individual1 those naturally come first which are ordained directly to the perfection of the spiritual life1 and afterwards1 those which are ordained thereto indirectly1 viz4 by removing some supervening accidental cause of harm2 such are ,penance and ,extreme ,unction3 while1 of these1 ,extreme ,unction is naturally placed last1 for it preserves the healing which was begun by ,penance4 ,of the remaining three1 it is clear that ,baptism which is a spiritual regeneration1 comes first2 then ,confirmation1 which is ordained to the formal perfection of power2 and after these the ,eucharist which is ordained to final perfection4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of nature4 ,but in so far as it has something spiritual it is a sacrament4 ,and because it has the least amount of spirituality it is placed last4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,for a thing to be an agent it must first of all be perfect in itself4 ,wherefore those sacraments by which a man is perfected in himself1 are placed before the sacrament of order1 in which a man is made a perfecter of others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,nourishment both precedes growth1 as its cause2 and follows it1 as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man4 ,consequently1 the ,eucharist can be placed before ,confirmation1 as ,dionysius places it 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii1 iv71 and can be placed after it1 as the ,master does 7iv1 #b1 #h74 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this argument would hold if ,penance were required of necessity as a preparation to the ,eucharist4 ,but this is not true3 for if anyone be without mortal sin1 he does not need ,penance in order to receive the ,eucharist4 ,thus it is clear that ,penance is an accidental preparation to the ,eucharist1 that is to say1 sin being supposed4 ,wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second ,book of ,paralipomenon 7cf4 #b ,paral #cc3ah73 ,thou1 ,o ,lord of the righteous1 didst not impose penance on righteous men4 99,the words quoted are from the apocryphal ,prayer of ,manasses1 which1 before the ,council of ,trent1 was to be found inserted in some ,latin copies of the ,bible4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,extreme ,unction1 for this very reason1 is given the last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the perfection of the individual4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,eucharist ,is the ,greatest of the ,sacraments8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,eucharist is not the principal of the sacraments4 ,for the common good is of more account than the good of the individual 7#a ,ethic4 ii74 ,but ,matrimony is ordained to the common good of the human race by means of generation3 whereas the sacrament of the ,eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient4 ,therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 those sacraments1 seemingly1 are greater1 which are conferred by a greater minister4 ,but the sacraments of ,confirmation and order are conferred by a bishop only1 who is a greater minister than a mere minister such as a priest1 by whom the sacraments of the ,eucharist is conferred4 ,therefore those sacraments are greater4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 those sacraments are greater that have the greater power4 ,but some of the sacraments imprint a character1 viz4 ,baptism1 ,confirmation and order2 whereas the ,eucharist does not4 ,therefore those sacraments are greater4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 that seems to be greater1 on which others depend without its depending on them4 ,but the ,eucharist depends on ,baptism3 since no one can receive the ,eucharist except he has been baptized4 ,therefore ,baptism is greater than the ,eucharist4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii7 that ,no one receives hierarchical perfection save by the most ,god-like ,eucharist4 ,therefore this sacrament is greater than all the others and perfects them4 ,i answer that1 ,absolutely speaking1 the sacrament of the ,eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments3 and this may be shown in three ways4 ,first of all because it contains ,christ ,himself substantially3 whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a share of ,christ's power1 as we have shown above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #d1 ad #c1 ,a4 #e74 ,now that which is essentially such is always of more account than that which is such by participation4 ,secondly1 this is made clear by considering the relation of the sacraments to one another4 ,for all the other sacraments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end4 ,for it is manifest that the sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the ,eucharist3 and the sacrament of ,baptism to the reception of the ,eucharist3 while a man is perfected by ,confirmation1 so as not to fear to abstain from this sacrament4 ,by ,penance and ,extreme ,unction man is prepared to receive the ,body of ,christ worthily4 ,and ,matrimony at least in its signification1 touches this sacrament2 in so far as it signifies the union of ,christ with the ,church1 of which union the ,eucharist is a figure3 hence the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #e3cb73 ,this is a great sacrament3 but ,i speak in ,christ and in the ,church4 ,thirdly1 this is made clear by considering the rites of the sacraments4 ,for nearly all the sacraments terminate in the ,eucharist1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii73 thus those who have been ordained receive ,holy ,communion1 as also do those who have been baptized1 if they be adults4 ,the remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several ways4 ,for on the ground of necessity1 ,baptism is the greatest of the sacraments2 while from the point of view of perfection1 order comes first2 while ,confirmation holds a middle place4 ,the sacraments of ,penance and ,extreme ,unction are on a degree inferior to those mentioned above2 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 they are ordained to the ,christian life1 not directly1 but accidentally1 as it were1 that is to say1 as remedies against supervening defects4 ,and among these1 ,extreme ,unction is compared to ,penance1 as ,confirmation to ,baptism2 in such a way1 that ,penance is more necessary1 whereas ,extreme ,unction is more perfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the body4 ,but the common spiritual good of the whole ,church is contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the ,eucharist4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by order and ,confirmation the faithful of ,christ are deputed to certain special duties2 and this can be done by the prince alone4 ,consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs exclusively to a bishop1 who is1 as it were1 a prince in the ,church4 ,but a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 rather is this sacrament the end of all duties1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacramental character1 as stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #c71 is a kind of participation in ,christ's priesthood4 ,wherefore the sacrament that unites man to ,christ ,himself1 is greater than a sacrament that imprints ,christ's character4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this argument proceeds on the ground of necessity4 ,for thus ,baptism1 being of the greatest necessity1 is the greatest of the sacraments1 just as order and ,confirmation have a certain excellence considered in their administration2 and ,matrimony by reason of its signification4 ,for there is no reason why a thing should not be greater from a certain point of view which is not greater absolutely speaking4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,all the ,sacraments ,are ,necessary for ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that all the sacraments are necessary for salvation4 ,for what is not necessary seems to be superfluous4 ,but no sacrament is superfluous1 because ,god does nothing without a purpose 7,de ,coelo et ,mundo i74 ,therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as it is said of ,baptism 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter in to the kingdom of ,god1 so of the ,eucharist is it said 7,john #f3ed73 ,except you eat of the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink of ,his blood1 you shall not have life in you4 ,therefore1 just as ,baptism is a necessary sacrament1 so is the ,eucharist4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a man can be saved without the sacrament of ,baptism1 provided that some unavoidable obstacle1 and not his contempt for religion1 debar him from the sacrament1 as we shall state further on 7,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #b74 ,but contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation4 ,therefore1 in like manner1 all the sacraments are necessary for salvation4 ,on the contrary1 ,children are saved by ,baptism alone without the other sacraments4 ,i answer that1 ,necessity of end1 of which we speak now1 is twofold4 ,first1 a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained2 thus food is necessary for human life4 ,and this is simple necessity of end4 ,secondly1 a thing is said to be necessary1 if1 without it1 the end cannot be attained so becomingly3 thus a horse is necessary for a journey4 ,but this is not simple necessity of end4 ,in the first way1 three sacraments are necessary for salvation4 ,two of them are necessary to the individual2 ,baptism1 simply and absolutely2 ,penance1 in the case of mortal sin committed after ,baptism2 while the sacrament of order is necessary to the ,church1 since where there is no governor the people shall fall 7,prov4 #aa3ad74 ,but in the second way the other sacraments are necessary4 ,for in a sense ,confirmation perfects ,baptism2 ,extreme ,unction perfects ,penance2 while ,matrimony1 by multiplying them1 preserves the numbers in the ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,for a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way4 ,it is thus that the sacraments are necessary1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,these words of our ,lord are to be understood of spiritual1 and not of merely sacramental1 eating1 as ,augustine explains 7,tract4 xxvi super ,joan474 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although contempt of any of the sacraments is a hindrance to salvation1 yet it does not amount to contempt of the sacrament1 if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation4 ,else those who do not receive orders1 and those who do not contract ,matrimony1 would be guilty of contempt of those sacraments4 ,,question #ff ,,of ,,the ,,sacrament ,,of ,,baptism 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,we have now to consider each sacrament specially3 7#a7 ,baptism2 7#b7 ,confirmation2 7#c7 the ,eucharist2 7#d7 ,penance2 7#e7 ,extreme ,unction2 7#f7 ,order2 7#g7 ,matrimony4 ,concerning the first1 our consideration will be twofold3 7#a7 of ,baptism itself2 7#b7 of things preparatory to ,baptism4 ,concerning the first1 four points arise for our consideration3 7#a7 ,things pertaining to the sacrament of ,baptism2 7#b7 ,the minister of this sacrament2 7#c7 ,the recipients of this sacrament2 7#d7 ,the effect of this sacrament4 ,concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,what is ,baptism8 ,is it a washing8 7#b7 ,of the institution of this sacrament2 7#c7 ,whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament8 7#d7 ,whether plain water be required8 7#e7 ,whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost8 7#f7 ,whether one could baptize with this form3 ,i baptize thee in the name of ,christ8 7#g7 ,whether immersion is necessary for ,baptism8 7#h7 ,whether trine immersion is necessary8 7#i7 ,whether ,baptism can be reiterated8 7#aj7 ,of the ,baptismal rite2 7#aa7 ,of the various kinds of ,baptism2 7#ab7 ,of the comparison between various ,baptisms4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,baptism ,is the ,mere ,washing8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism is not the mere washing4 ,for the washing of the body is something transitory3 but ,baptism is something permanent4 ,therefore ,baptism is not the mere washing2 but rather is it the regeneration1 the seal1 the safeguarding1 the enlightenment1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv74 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor says 7,de ,sacram4 ii7 that ,baptism is water sanctified by ,god's word for the blotting out of sins4 ,but the washing itself is not water1 but a certain use of water4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx super ,joan473 ,the word is added to the element1 and this becomes a sacrament4 ,now1 the element is the water4 ,therefore ,baptism is the water and not the washing4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ecclus4 #cd3cj73 ,he that washeth himself 7baptizatur7 after touching the dead1 if he touch him again1 what does his washing avail8 ,it seems1 therefore1 that ,baptism is the washing or bathing4 ,i answer that1 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism1 three things may be considered3 namely1 that which is sacrament only2 that which is reality and sacrament2 and that which is reality only4 ,that which is sacrament only1 is something visible and outward2 the sign1 namely1 of the inward effect3 for such is the very nature of a sacrament4 ,and this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use1 which is the washing4 ,hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament3 which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor4 ,for in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is a material element3 and in defining ,baptism he says it is water4 ,but this is not true4 ,for since the sacraments of the ,new ,law effect a certain sanctification1 there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed4 ,now1 the sanctification is not completed in water2 but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue1 not permanent but transient1 passes from the water1 in which it is1 into man who is the subject of true sanctification4 ,consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water1 but in applying the water to man1 i4e4 in the washing4 ,hence the ,master 7iv1 #c7 says that ,baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words4 ,the ,baptismal character is both reality and sacrament3 because it is something real signified by the outward washing2 and a sacramental sign of the inward justification3 and this last is the reality only1 in this sacrament--namely1 the reality signified and not signifying4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that which is both sacrament and reality--i4e4 the character--and that which is reality only--i4e4 the inward justification--remain3 the character remains and is indelible1 as stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #e72 the justification remains1 but can be lost4 ,consequently ,damascene defined ,baptism1 not as to that which is done outwardly1 and is the sacrament only2 but as to that which is inward4 ,hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character--namely1 seal and safeguarding2 inasmuch as the character which is called a seal1 so far as itself is concerned1 safeguards the soul in good4 ,he also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament--namely1 regeneration which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness2 and enlightenment1 which refers especially to faith1 by which man receives spiritual life1 according to ,habac #b 7,heb4 #aj3ch2 cf4 ,habac #b3d73 ,but 7,my7 just man liveth by faith2 and ,baptism is a sort of protestation of faith2 whence it is called the ,sacrament of ,faith4 ,likewise ,dionysius defined ,baptism by its relation to the other sacraments1 saying 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii7 that it is the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments2 and again by its relation to heavenly glory1 which is the universal end of all the sacraments1 when he adds1 preparing the way for us1 whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom2 and again as to the beginning of spiritual life1 when he adds1 the conferring of our most sacred and ,godlike regeneration4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as already stated1 the opinion of ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor on this question is not to be followed4 ,nevertheless the saying that ,baptism is water may be verified in so far as water is the material principle of ,baptism3 and thus there would be causal predication4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,when the words are added1 the element becomes a sacrament1 not in the element itself1 but in man1 to whom the element is applied1 by being used in washing him4 ,indeed1 this is signified by those very words which are added to the element1 when we say3 ,i baptize thee1 etc4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,baptism ,was ,instituted ,after ,christ's ,passion8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism was instituted after ,christ's ,passion4 ,for the cause precedes the effect4 ,now ,christ's ,passion operates in the sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,therefore ,christ's ,passion precedes the institution of the sacraments of the ,new ,law3 especially the sacrament of ,baptism since the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3c73 ,all we1 who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death1 etc4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,new ,law derive their efficacy from the mandate of ,christ4 ,but ,christ gave the disciples the mandate of ,baptism after ,his ,passion and ,resurrection1 when ,he said3 ,going1 teach ye all nations1 baptizing them in the name of the ,father1 etc4 7,matt4 #bh3ai74 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism was instituted after ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,baptism is a necessary sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #d73 wherefore1 seemingly1 it must have been binding on man as soon as it was instituted4 ,but before ,christ's ,passion men were not bound to be baptized3 for ,circumcision was still in force1 which was supplanted by ,baptism4 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism was not instituted before ,christ's ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7,append4 ,serm41 clxxxv73 ,as soon as ,christ was plunged into the waters1 the waters washed away the sins of all4 ,but this was before ,christ's ,passion4 ,therefore ,baptism was instituted before ,christ's ,passion4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a71 sacraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace4 ,wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted1 when it receives the power of producing its effect4 ,now ,baptism received this power when ,christ was baptized4 ,consequently ,baptism was truly instituted then1 if we consider it as a sacrament4 ,but the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the ,passion and ,resurrection4 ,first1 because ,christ's ,passion put an end to the figurative sacraments1 which were supplanted by ,baptism and the other sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,secondly1 because by ,baptism man is made conformable to ,christ's ,passion and ,resurrection1 in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness4 ,consequently it behooved ,christ to suffer and to rise again1 before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to ,christ's ,death and ,resurrection4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,even before ,christ's ,passion1 ,baptism1 inasmuch as it foreshadowed it1 derived its efficacy therefrom2 but not in the same way as the sacraments of the ,old ,law4 ,for these were mere figures3 whereas ,baptism derived the power of justifying from ,christ ,himself1 to ,whose power the ,passion itself owed its saving virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was not meet that men should be restricted to a number of figures by ,christ1 ,who came to fulfil and replace the figure by ,his reality4 ,therefore before ,his ,passion ,he did not make ,baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted2 but wished men to become accustomed to its use2 especially in regard to the ,jews1 to whom all things were figurative1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 iv74 ,but after ,his ,passion and ,resurrection ,he made ,baptism obligatory1 not only on the ,jews1 but also on the ,gentiles1 when ,he gave the commandment3 ,going1 teach ye all nations4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,sacraments are not obligatory except when we are commanded to receive them4 ,and this was not before the ,passion1 as stated above4 ,for our ,lord's words to ,nicodemus 7,john #c3e71 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god1 seem to refer to the future rather than to the present4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,water ,is the ,proper ,matter of ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that water is not the proper matter of ,baptism4 ,for ,baptism1 according to ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v7 and ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv71 has a power of enlightening4 ,but enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire4 ,therefore ,baptism should be conferred with fire rather than with water3 and all the more since ,john the ,baptist said when foretelling ,christ's ,baptism 7,matt4 #c3aa73 ,he shall baptize you in the ,holy ,ghost and fire4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the washing away of sins is signified in ,baptism4 ,but many other things besides water are employed in washing1 such as wine1 oil1 and such like4 ,therefore ,baptism can be conferred with these also2 and consequently water is not the proper matter of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,church flowed from the side of ,christ hanging on the cross1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e74 ,but not only water flowed therefrom1 but also blood4 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism can also be conferred with blood4 ,and this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of ,baptism1 because it is written 7,apoc4 #a3e73 7,who7 washed us from our sins in ,his own blood4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as ,augustine 7cf4 ,master of the ,sentences1 iv1 #c7 and ,bede 7,exposit4 in ,luc4 iii1 #ba7 say1 ,christ1 by the touch of ,his most pure flesh1 endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue4 ,but all waters are not connected with the waters of the ,jordan which ,christ touched with ,his flesh4 ,consequently it seems that ,baptism cannot be conferred with any water2 and therefore water1 as such1 is not the proper matter of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 if water1 as such1 were the proper matter of ,baptism1 there would be no need to do anything to the water before using it for ,baptism4 ,but in solemn ,baptism the water which is used for baptizing1 is exorcized and blessed4 ,therefore it seems that water1 as such1 is not the proper matter of ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,i answer that1 ,by ,divine institution water is the proper matter of ,baptism2 and with reason4 ,first1 by reason of the very nature of ,baptism1 which is a regeneration unto spiritual life4 ,and this answers to the nature of water in a special degree2 wherefore seeds1 from which all living things1 viz4 plants and animals are generated1 are moist and akin to water4 ,for this reason certain philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things4 ,secondly1 in regard to the effects of ,baptism1 to which the properties of water correspond4 ,for by reason of its moistness it cleanses2 and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins4 ,by reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat3 wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes4 ,by reason of its transparency1 it is susceptive of light2 hence its adaptability to ,baptism as the sacrament of ,faith4 ,thirdly1 because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of ,christ1 by which we are justified4 ,for1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xxv in ,joan47 on ,john #c3e1 ,unless a man be born again1 etc41 ,when we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried1 and being submerged is hidden below1 and thence he rises again renewed4 ,fourthly1 because by being so universal and abundant1 it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament3 for it can easily be obtained everywhere4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,fire enlightens actively4 ,but he who is baptized does not become an enlightener1 but is enlightened by faith1 which cometh by hearing 7,rom4 #aj3ag74 ,consequently water is more suitable1 than fire1 for ,baptism4 ,but when we find it said3 ,he shall baptize you in the ,holy ,ghost and fire1 we may understand fire1 as ,jerome says 7,in ,matth4 ii71 to mean the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues 7,acts #b3c74 ,or we may understand it to mean tribulation1 as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 iii in ,matth473 because tribulation washes away sin1 and tempers concupiscence4 ,or again1 as ,hilary says 7,super ,matth4 ii7 that when we have been baptized in the ,holy ,ghost1 we still have to be perfected by the fire of the judgment4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing1 as water4 ,neither do they wash so efficiently3 for whatever is washed with them1 contracts a certain smell therefrom2 which is not the case if water be used4 ,moreover1 they are not so universal or so abundant as water4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,water flowed from ,christ's side to wash us2 blood1 to redeem us4 ,wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 while water belongs to the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of ,christ's blood4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ's power flowed into all waters1 by reason of1 not connection of place1 but likeness of species1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7,append4 ,serm4 cxxxv73 ,the blessing that flowed from the ,saviour's ,baptism1 like a mystic river1 swelled the course of every stream1 and filled the channels of every spring4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the blessing of the water is not essential to ,baptism1 but belongs to a certain solemnity1 whereby the devotion of the faithful is aroused1 and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,plain ,water ,is ,necessary for ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that plain water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,for the water which we have is not plain water2 as appears especially in sea-water1 in which there is a considerable proportion of the earthly element1 as the ,philosopher shows 7,meteor4 ii74 ,yet this water may be used for ,baptism4 ,therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the solemn celebration of ,baptism1 chrism is poured into the water4 ,but this seems to take away the purity and plainness of the water4 ,therefore pure and plain water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the water that flowed from the side of ,christ hanging on the cross was a figure of ,baptism1 as stated above 7,a4 #c1 ad #c74 ,but that water1 seemingly1 was not pure1 because the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body1 such as ,christ's4 ,therefore it seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 lye does not seem to be pure water1 for it has the properties of heating and drying1 which are contrary to those of water4 ,nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for ,baptism2 for the water of the ,baths can be so used1 which has filtered through a sulphurous vein1 just as lye percolates through ashes4 ,therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 rose-water is distilled from roses1 just as chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies4 ,but seemingly1 such like waters may be used in ,baptism2 just as rain-water1 which is distilled from vapors4 ,since1 therefore1 such waters are not pure and plain water1 it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,the proper matter of ,baptism is water1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,but plain water alone has the nature of water4 ,therefore pure plain water is necessary for ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways3 first1 by being mixed with another body2 secondly1 by alteration4 ,and each of these may happen in a twofold manner2 artificially and naturally4 ,now art fails in the operation of nature3 because nature gives the substantial form1 which art cannot give2 for whatever form is given by art is accidental2 except perchance when art applies a proper agent to its proper matter1 as fire to a combustible2 in which manner animals are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction4 ,whatever artificial change1 then1 takes place in the water1 whether by mixture or by alteration1 the water's nature is not changed4 ,consequently such water can be used for ,baptism3 unless perhaps such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something other than water2 thus mud is earth rather than water1 and diluted wine is wine rather than water4 ,but if the change be natural1 sometimes it destroys the nature of the water2 and this is when by a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body3 thus water changed into the juice of the grape is wine1 wherefore it has not the nature of water4 ,sometimes1 however1 there may be a natural change of the water1 without destruction of species3 and this1 both by alteration1 as we may see in the case of water heated by the sun2 and by mixture1 as when the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth4 ,we must therefore say that any water may be used for ,baptism1 no matter how much it may be changed1 as long as the species of water is not destroyed2 but if the species of water be destroyed1 it cannot be used for ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand1 is not so great as to destroy the species of water4 ,and therefore such waters may be used for ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with it3 just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like are boiled3 except the substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water2 in this we may be guided by the specific gravity 7spissitudine74 ,if1 however1 from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained1 it can be used for ,baptism3 just as water strained from mud1 although mud cannot be used for baptizing4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the water which flowed from the side of ,christ hanging on the cross1 was not the phlegmatic humor1 as some have supposed4 ,for a liquid of this kind cannot be used for ,baptism1 as neither can the blood of an animal1 or wine1 or any liquid extracted from plants4 ,it was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body1 to prove the reality of our ,lord's body1 and confute the error of the ,manichees3 water1 which is one of the four elements1 showing ,christ's body to be composed of the four elements2 blood1 proving that it was composed of the four humors4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of ,sulphur ,baths3 because such like waters are not incorporated1 artificially or naturally1 with certain mixed bodies1 and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses3 consequently it cannot be used for ,baptism4 ,for the same reason chemical waters cannot be used1 as neither can wine4 ,nor does the comparison hold with rain-water1 which for the most part is formed by the condensing of vapors1 themselves formed from water1 and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies2 which liquid matter by the force of nature1 which is stronger than art1 is transformed in this process of condensation into real water1 a result which cannot be produced artificially4 ,consequently rain-water retains no properties of any mixed body2 which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical waters4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,this ,be a ,suitable ,form of ,baptism3 ,i ,baptize ,thee in the ,name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this is not a suitable form of ,baptism3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for action should be ascribed to the principal agent rather than to the minister4 ,now the minister of a sacrament acts as an instrument1 as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #a72 while the principal agent in ,baptism is ,christ1 according to ,john #a3cc1 ,he upon ,whom thou shalt see the ,spirit descending and remaining upon ,him1 ,he it is that baptizeth4 ,it is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say1 ,i baptize thee3 the more so that ,ego 7,i7 is understood in the word baptizo 7,i baptize71 so that it seems redundant4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there is no need for a man who does an action1 to make mention of the action done2 thus he who teaches1 need not say1 ,i teach you4 ,now our ,lord gave at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of teaching1 when ,he said 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,going1 teach ye all nations1 etc4 ,therefore there is no need in the form of ,baptism to mention the action of baptizing4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the person baptized sometimes does not understand the words2 for instance1 if he be deaf1 or a child4 ,but it is useless to address such a one2 according to ,ecclus4 #cb3f3 ,where there is no hearing1 pour not out words4 ,therefore it is unfitting to address the person baptized with these words3 ,i baptize thee4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it may happen that several are baptized by several at the same time2 thus the apostles on one day baptized three thousand1 and on another1 five thousand 7,acts #b1 #d74 ,therefore the form of ,baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the words1 ,i baptize thee3 but one should be able to say1 ,we baptize you4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 ,baptism derives its power from ,christ's ,passion4 ,but ,baptism is sanctified by the form4 ,therefore it seems that ,christ's ,passion should be mentioned in the form of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 a name signifies a thing's property4 ,but there are three ,personal ,properties of the ,divine ,persons1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #cb1 ,a4 #c74 ,therefore we should not say1 in the name1 but in the names of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 the ,person of the ,father is designated not only by the name ,father1 but also by that of ,unbegotten and ,begetter2 and the ,son by those of ,word1 ,image1 and ,begotten2 and the ,holy ,ghost by those of ,gift1 ,love1 and the ,proceeding ,one4 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism is valid if conferred in these names4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,going 4 4 4 teach ye all nations1 baptizing them in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,baptism receives its consecration from its form1 according to ,eph4 #e3bf3 ,cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,and ,augustine says 7,de ,unico ,baptismo iv7 that ,baptism is consecrated by the words of the ,gospel4 ,consequently the cause of ,baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form4 ,now this cause is twofold2 the principal cause from which it derives its virtue1 and this is the ,blessed ,trinity2 and the instrumental cause1 viz4 the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly4 ,wherefore both causes should be expressed in the form of ,baptism4 ,now the minister is designated by the words1 ,i baptize thee2 and the principal cause in the words1 in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore this is the suitable form of ,baptism3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,action is attributed to an instrument as to the immediate agent2 but to the principal agent inasmuch as the instrument acts in virtue thereof4 ,consequently it is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the act of baptizing1 in the words1 ,i baptize thee2 indeed1 our ,lord attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing1 when ,he said3 ,baptizing them1 etc4 ,but the principal cause is indicated as conferring the sacrament by ,his own power1 in the words1 in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost3 for ,christ does not baptize without the ,father and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,the ,greeks1 however1 do not attribute the act of baptizing to the minister1 in order to avoid the error of those who in the past ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers1 saying 7#a ,cor4 #a3ab73 ,i am of ,paul 4 4 4 and ,i of ,cephas4 ,wherefore they use the form3 ,may the servant of ,christ1 ,n 4 4 41 be baptized1 in the name of the ,father1 etc4 ,and since the action performed by the minister is expressed with the invocation of the ,trinity1 the sacrament is validly conferred4 ,as to the addition of ,ego in our form1 it is not essential2 but it is added in order to lay greater stress on the intention4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since a man may be washed with water for several reasons1 the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the words of the form4 ,and this is not done by saying3 ,in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost2 because we are bound to do all things in that ,name 7,col4 #c3ag74 ,wherefore unless the act of baptizing be expressed1 either as we do1 or as the ,greeks do1 the sacrament is not valid2 according to the decretal of ,alexander ,,iii3 ,if anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,amen1 without saying1 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,amen1 the child is not baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the words which are uttered in the sacramental forms1 are said not merely for the purpose of signification1 but also for the purpose of efficiency1 inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that ,word1 by ,whom all things were made4 ,consequently they are becomingly addressed not only to men1 but also to insensible creatures2 for instance1 when we say3 ,i exorcize thee1 creature salt 7,roman ,ritual74 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,several cannot baptize one at the same time3 because an action is multiplied according to the number of the agents1 if it be done perfectly by each4 ,so that if two were to combine1 of whom one were mute1 and unable to utter the words1 and the other were without hands1 and unable to perform the action1 they could not both baptize at the same time1 one saying the words and the other performing the action4 ,on the other hand1 in a case of necessity1 several could be baptized at the same time2 for no single one of them would receive more than one baptism4 ,but it would be necessary1 in that case1 to say3 ,i baptize ye4 ,nor would this be a change of form1 because ye is the same as thee and thee4 ,whereas we does not mean ,i and ,i1 but ,i and thou2 so that this would be a change of form4 ,likewise it would be a change of form to say1 ,i baptize myself3 consequently no one can baptize himself4 ,for this reason did ,christ choose to be baptized by ,john 7,extra1 ,de ,baptismo et ejus effectu1 cap4 ,debitum74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,although ,christ's ,passion is the principal cause as compared to the minister1 yet it is an instrumental cause as compared to the ,blessed ,trinity4 ,for this reason the ,trinity is mentioned rather than ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,although there are three personal names of the three ,persons1 there is but one essential name4 ,now the ,divine power which works in ,baptism1 pertains to the ,essence2 and therefore we say1 in the name1 and not1 in the names4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,just as water is used in ,baptism1 because it is more commonly employed in washing1 so for the purpose of designating the three ,persons1 in the form of ,baptism1 those names are chosen1 which are generally used1 in a particular language1 to signify the ,persons4 ,nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,baptism ,can ,be ,conferred in the ,name of ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism can be conferred in the name of ,christ4 ,for just as there is one ,faith1 so is there one ,baptism 7,eph4 #d3e74 ,but it is related 7,acts #h3ab7 that in the name of ,jesus ,christ they were baptized1 both men and women4 ,therefore now also can ,baptism be conferred in the name of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,spir4 ,sanct4 i73 ,if you mention ,christ1 you designate both the ,father by ,whom ,he was anointed1 and the ,son ,himself1 ,who was anointed1 and the ,holy ,ghost with ,whom ,he was anointed4 ,but ,baptism can be conferred in the name of the ,trinity3 therefore also in the name of ,christ4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,pope ,nicholas ,i1 answering questions put to him by the ,bulgars1 said3 ,those who have been baptized in the name of the ,trinity1 or only in the name of ,christ1 as we read in the ,acts of the ,apostles 7it is all the same1 as ,blessed ,ambrose saith71 must not be rebaptized4 ,but they would be baptized again if they had not been validly baptized with that form4 ,therefore ,baptism can be celebrated in the name of ,christ by using this form3 ,i baptize thee in the name of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,pelagius ,,ii wrote to the ,bishop ,gaudentius3 ,if any people living in your ,worship's neighborhood1 avow that they have been baptized in the name of the ,lord only1 without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the ,blessed ,trinity1 when they come in quest of the ,catholic ,faith4 ,didymus1 too1 says 7,de ,spir4 ,sanct473 ,if indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names1 viz4 of the three ,persons1 he baptizes invalidly4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #c71 the sacraments derive their efficacy from ,christ's institution4 ,consequently1 if any of those things be omitted which ,christ instituted in regard to a sacrament1 it is invalid2 save by special dispensation of ,him ,who did not bind ,his power to the sacraments4 ,now ,christ commanded the sacrament of ,baptism to be given with the invocation of the ,trinity4 ,and consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the ,trinity1 destroys the integrity of ,baptism4 ,nor does it matter that in the name of one ,person another is implied1 as the name of the ,son is implied in that of the ,father1 or that he who mentions the name of only one ,person may believe aright in the ,three2 because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter1 so does it require a sensible form4 ,hence1 for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the ,trinity1 unless the ,trinity be expressed in sensible words4 ,for this reason at ,christ's ,baptism1 wherein was the source of the sanctification of our ,baptism1 the ,trinity was present in sensible signs3 viz4 the ,father in the voice1 the ,son in the human nature1 the ,holy ,ghost in the dove4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it was by a special revelation from ,christ that in the primitive ,church the apostles baptized in the name of ,christ2 in order that the name of ,christ1 which was hateful to ,jews and ,gentiles1 might become an object of veneration1 in that the ,holy ,ghost was given in ,baptism at the invocation of that ,name4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,ambrose here gives this reason why exception could1 without inconsistency1 be allowed in the primitive ,church2 namely1 because the whole ,trinity is implied in the name of ,christ1 and therefore the form prescribed by ,christ in the ,gospel was observed in its integrity1 at least implicitly4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,pope ,nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two authorities given in the preceding objections3 wherefore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given above4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,immersion in ,water ,is ,necessary for ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that immersion in water is necessary for ,baptism4 ,because it is written 7,eph4 #d3e73 ,one faith1 one baptism4 ,but in many parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by immersion4 ,therefore it seems that there can be no ,baptism without immersion4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3c1 #d73 ,all we who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death3 for we are buried together with ,him1 by ,baptism into death4 ,but this is done by immersion3 for ,chrysostom says on ,john #c3e3 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 etc43 ,when we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb1 our old man is buried1 and being submerged1 is hidden below1 and thence he rises again renewed4 ,therefore it seems that immersion is essential to ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if ,baptism is valid without total immersion of the body1 it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour water over any part of the body4 ,but this seems unreasonable2 since original sin1 to remedy which is the principal purpose of ,baptism1 is not in only one part of the body4 ,therefore it seems that immersion is necessary for ,baptism1 and that mere sprinkling is not enough4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,heb4 #aj3bb73 ,let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith1 having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience1 and our bodies washed with clean water4 ,i answer that1 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body1 whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins4 ,now washing may be done with water not only by immersion1 but also by sprinkling or pouring4 ,and1 therefore1 although it is safer to baptize by immersion1 because this is the more ordinary fashion1 yet ,baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring1 according to ,ezech4 #cf3be3 ,i will pour upon you clean water1 as also the ,blessed ,lawrence is related to have baptized4 ,and this especially in cases of urgency3 either because there is a great number to be baptized1 as was clearly the case in ,acts #b and #d1 where we read that on one day three thousand believed1 and on another five thousand3 or through there being but a small supply of water1 or through feebleness of the minister1 who cannot hold up the candidate for ,baptism2 or through feebleness of the candidate1 whose life might be endangered by immersion4 ,we must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,what is accidental to a thing does not diversify its essence4 ,now bodily washing with water is essential to ,baptism3 wherefore ,baptism is called a laver1 according to ,eph4 #e3bf3 ,cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,but that the washing be done this or that way1 is accidental to ,baptism4 ,and consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's burial is more clearly represented by immersion3 wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use and more commendable4 ,yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion1 albeit not so clearly2 for no matter how the washing is done1 the body of a man1 or some part thereof1 is put under water1 just as ,christ's body was put under the earth4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the principal part of the body1 especially in relation to the exterior members1 is the head1 wherein all the senses1 both interior and exterior1 flourish4 ,and therefore1 if the whole body cannot be covered with water1 because of the scarcity of water1 or because of some other reason1 it is necessary to pour water over the head1 in which the principle of animal life is made manifest4 ,and although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve for procreation1 yet those members are not to be sprinkled in preference to the head1 because by ,baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted1 but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted4 ,consequently that part of the body should be washed in preference1 in which the works of the soul are made manifest4 ,nevertheless in the ,old ,law the remedy against original sin was affixed to the member of procreation2 because ,he through ,whom original sin was to be removed1 was yet to be born of the seed of ,abraham1 whose faith was signified by circumcision according to ,rom4 #d3aa4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,trine ,immersion ,is ,essential to ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that trine immersion is essential to ,baptism4 ,for ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,symbol1 addressed to the ,neophytes3 ,rightly were you dipped three times1 since you were baptized in the name of the ,trinity4 ,rightly were you dipped three times1 because you were baptized in the name of ,jesus ,christ1 ,who on the third day rose again from the dead4 ,for that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the burial of the ,lord by which you were buried with ,christ in ,baptism4 ,now both seem to be essential to ,baptism1 namely1 that in ,baptism the ,trinity of ,persons should be signified1 and that we should be conformed to ,christ's burial4 ,therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacraments derive their efficacy from ,christ's mandate4 ,but trine immersion was commanded by ,christ3 for ,pope ,pelagius ,,ii wrote to ,bishop ,gaudentius3 ,the ,gospel precept given by our ,lord ,god ,himself1 our ,saviour ,jesus ,christ1 admonishes us to confer the sacrament of ,baptism to each one in the name of the ,trinity and also with trine immersion4 ,therefore1 just as it is essential to ,baptism to call on the name of the ,trinity1 so is it essential to baptize by trine immersion4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if trine immersion be not essential to ,baptism1 it follows that the sacrament of ,baptism is conferred at the first immersion2 so that if a second or third immersion be added1 it seems that ,baptism is conferred a second or third time1 which is absurd4 ,therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of ,baptism1 and trine immersion is essential thereto4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory wrote to the ,bishop ,leander3 ,it cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a single immersion3 since the ,trinity can be represented in the three immersions1 and the unity of the ,godhead in one immersion4 ,i answer that ,as stated above 7,a4 #g1 ad #a71 washing with water is of itself required for ,baptism1 being essential to the sacrament3 whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament4 ,consequently1 as ,gregory in the words above quoted explains1 both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves2 since one immersion signifies the oneness of ,christ's death and of the ,godhead2 while trine immersion signifies the three days of ,christ's burial1 and also the ,trinity of ,persons4 ,but for various reasons1 according as the ,church has ordained1 one mode has been in practice1 at one time1 the other at another time4 ,for since from the very earliest days of the ,church some have had false notions concerning the ,trinity1 holding that ,christ is a mere man1 and that ,he is not called the ,son of ,god or ,god except by reason of ,his merit1 which was chiefly in ,his death2 for this reason they did not baptize in the name of the ,trinity1 but in memory of ,christ's death1 and with one immersion4 ,and this was condemned in the early ,church4 ,wherefore in the ,apostolic ,canons 7xlix7 we read3 ,if any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration1 but with one immersion1 which baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of the ,lord1 let him be deposed3 for our ,lord did not say1 ,baptize ye in ,my death1 but ,in the name of the ,father and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,later on1 however1 there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized3 as ,augustine 7,super4 ,joan41 cf4 ,de ,haeres4 lxix7 relates of the ,donatists4 ,wherefore1 in detestation of their error1 only one immersion was ordered to be made1 by the 7fourth7 council of ,toledo1 in the acts of which we read3 ,in order to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion4 ,but now that this motive has ceased1 trine immersion is universally observed in ,baptism3 and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would sin gravely1 through not following the ritual of the ,church4 ,it would1 however1 be valid ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,trinity acts as principal agent in ,baptism4 ,now the likeness of the agent enters into the effect1 in regard to the form and not in regard to the matter4 ,wherefore the ,trinity is signified in ,baptism by the words of the form4 ,nor is it essential for the ,trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used2 although this is done to make the signification clearer4 ,in like manner ,christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one immersion4 ,and the three days of ,his burial were not necessary for our salvation1 because even if ,he had been buried or dead for one day1 this would have been enough to consummate our redemption3 yet those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality of ,his death1 as stated above 7,q4 #ec1 ,a4 #b74 ,it is therefore clear that neither on the part of the ,trinity1 nor on the part of ,christ's ,passion1 is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,pope ,pelagius understood the trine immersion to be ordained by ,christ in its equivalent2 in the sense that ,christ commanded ,baptism to be conferred in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,nor can we argue from the form to the use of the matter1 as stated above 7ad #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #h71 the intention is essential to ,baptism4 ,consequently1 one ,baptism results from the intention of the ,church's minister1 who intends to confer one ,baptism by a trine immersion4 ,wherefore ,jerome says on ,eph4 #d3e1 #f3 ,though the ,baptism1 i4e4 the immersion1 be thrice repeated1 on account of the mystery of the ,trinity1 yet it is reputed as one ,baptism4 ,if1 however1 the intention were to confer one ,baptism at each immersion together with the repetition of the words of the form1 it would be a sin1 in itself1 because it would be a repetition of ,baptism4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,baptism ,may ,be ,reiterated8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism may be reiterated4 ,for ,baptism was instituted1 seemingly1 in order to wash away sins4 ,but sins are reiterated4 ,therefore much more should ,baptism be reiterated3 because ,christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,john the ,baptist received special commendation from ,christ1 ,who said of him 7,matt4 #aa3aa73 ,there hath not risen among them that are born of women1 a greater than ,john the ,baptist4 ,but those whom ,john had baptized were baptized again1 according to ,acts #ai3a-g1 where it is stated that ,paul rebaptized those who had received the ,baptism of ,john4 ,much more1 therefore1 should those be rebaptized1 who have been baptized by heretics or sinners4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it was decreed in the ,council of ,nicaea 7,can4 xix7 that if any of the ,paulianists or ,cataphrygians should be converted to the ,catholic ,church1 they were to be baptized3 and this seemingly should be said in regard to other heretics4 ,therefore those whom the heretics have baptized1 should be baptized again4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,baptism is necessary for salvation4 ,but sometimes there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been baptized4 ,therefore it seems that they should be baptized again4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the ,eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c74 ,but the sacrament of the ,eucharist is reiterated4 ,much more reason1 therefore1 is there for ,baptism to be reiterated4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written1 7,eph4 #d3e73 ,one faith1 one ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,baptism cannot be reiterated4 ,first1 because ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration2 inasmuch as a man dies to the old life1 and begins to lead the new life4 ,whence it is written 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 ,he cannot see ,vulg43 'enter into' the kingdom of ,god4 ,now one man can be begotten but once4 ,wherefore ,baptism cannot be reiterated1 just as neither can carnal generation4 ,hence ,augustine says on ,john #c3d3 ',can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again'3 ,so thou1 says he1 must understand the birth of the ,spirit1 as ,nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh 4 4 4 4 ,as there is no return to the womb1 so neither is there to ,baptism4 ,secondly1 because we are baptized in ,christ's death1 by which we die unto sin and rise again unto newness of life 7cf4 ,rom4 #f3c1 #d74 ,now ,christ died but once 7,rom4 #f3aj74 ,wherefore neither should ,baptism be reiterated4 ,for this reason 7,heb4 #f3f7 is it said against some who wished to be baptized again3 ,crucifying again to themselves the ,son of ,god2 on which the gloss observes3 ,christ's one death hallowed the one ,baptism4 ,thirdly1 because ,baptism imprints a character1 which is indelible1 and is conferred with a certain consecration4 ,wherefore1 just as other consecrations are not reiterated in the ,church1 so neither is ,baptism4 ,this is the view expressed by ,augustine1 who says 7,contra ,epist4 ,parmen4 ii7 that the military character is not renewed3 and that the sacrament of ,christ is not less enduring than this bodily mark1 since we see that not even apostates are deprived of ,baptism1 since when they repent and return they are not baptized anew4 ,fourthly1 because ,baptism is conferred principally as a remedy against original sin4 ,wherefore1 just as original sin is not renewed1 so neither is ,baptism reiterated1 for as it is written 7,rom4 #e3ah71 as by the offense of one1 unto all men to condemnation1 so also by the justice of one1 unto all men to justification of life4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,baptism derives its efficacy from ,christ's ,passion1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #a74 ,wherefore1 just as subsequent sins do not cancel the virtue of ,christ's ,passion1 so neither do they cancel ,baptism1 so as to call for its repetition4 ,on the other hand the sin which hindered the effect of ,baptism is blotted out on being submitted to ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says on ,john #a3cc3 ',and ,i knew ,him not'3 ,behold2 after ,john had baptized1 ,baptism was administered2 after a murderer has baptized1 it is not administered3 because ,john gave his own ,baptism2 the murderer1 ,christ's2 for that sacrament is so sacred1 that not even a murderer's administration contaminates it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,paulianists and ,cataphrygians used not to baptize in the name of the ,trinity4 ,wherefore ,gregory1 writing to the ,bishop ,quiricus1 says3 ,those heretics who are not baptized in the name of the ,trinity1 such as the ,bonosians and ,cataphrygians 7who were of the same mind as the ,paulianists71 since the former believe not that ,christ is ,god 7holding ,him to be a mere man71 while the latter1 i4e4 the ,cataphrygians1 are so perverse as to deem a mere man1 viz4 ,montanus1 to be the ,holy ,ghost3 all these are baptized when they come to holy ,church1 for the baptism which they received while in that state of error was no ,baptism at all1 not being conferred in the name of the ,trinity4 ,on the other hand1 as set down in ,de ,eccles4 ,dogm4 xxii3 ,those heretics who have been baptized in the confession of the name of the ,trinity are to be received as already baptized when they come to the ,catholic ,faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,according to the ,decretal of ,alexander ,,iii3 ,those about whose ,baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these words prefixed to the form3 ',if thou art baptized1 ,i do not rebaptize thee2 but if thou art not baptized1 ,i baptize thee1' etc43 for that does not appear to be repeated1 which is not known to have been done4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,both sacraments1 viz4 ,baptism and the ,eucharist1 are a representation of our ,lord's death and ,passion1 but not in the same way4 ,for ,baptism is a commemoration of ,christ's death in so far as man dies with ,christ1 that he may be born again into a new life4 ,but the ,eucharist is a commemoration of ,christ's death1 in so far as the suffering ,christ ,himself is offered to us as the ,paschal banquet1 according to #a ,cor4 #e3g1 #h3 ,christ our pasch is sacrificed2 therefore let us feast4 ,and forasmuch as man is born once1 whereas he eats many times1 so is ,baptism given once1 but the ,eucharist frequently4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #aj ,whether the ,church ,observes a ,suitable ,rite in ,baptizing8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,church observes an unsuitable rite in baptizing4 ,for as ,chrysostom 7,chromatius1 in ,matth4 #c3ae7 says3 ,the waters of ,baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that believe1 had they not been hallowed by the touch of our ,lord's body4 ,now this took place at ,christ's ,baptism1 which is commemorated in the ,feast of the ,epiphany4 ,therefore solemn ,baptism should be celebrated at the ,feast of the ,epiphany rather than on the eves of ,easter and ,whitsunday4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it seems that several matters should not be used in the same sacrament4 ,but water is used for washing in ,baptism4 ,therefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy oil first on the breast1 and then between the shoulders1 and a third time with chrism on the top of the head4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in ,christ ,jesus 4 4 4 there is neither male nor female 7,gal4 #c3bc7 4 4 4 neither ,barbarian nor ,scythian 7,col4 #c3aa71 nor1 in like manner1 any other such like distinctions4 ,much less1 therefore can a difference of clothing have any efficacy in the ,faith of ,christ4 ,it is consequently unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have been baptized4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,baptism can be celebrated without such like ceremonies4 ,therefore it seems that those mentioned above are superfluous2 and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by the ,church in the baptismal rite4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,church is ruled by the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who does nothing inordinate4 ,i answer that1 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism something is done which is essential to the sacrament1 and something which belongs to a certain solemnity of the sacrament4 ,essential indeed1 to the sacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of the sacrament2 and the minister who is the instrumental cause2 and the use of the matter1 namely1 washing with water1 which designates the principal sacramental effect4 ,but all the other things which the ,church observes in the baptismal rite1 belong rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament4 ,and these1 indeed1 are used in conjunction with the sacrament for three reasons4 ,first1 in order to arouse the devotion of the faithful1 and their reverence for the sacrament4 ,for if there were nothing done but a mere washing with water1 without any solemnity1 some might easily think it to be an ordinary washing4 ,secondly1 for the instruction of the faithful4 ,because simple and unlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs1 for instance1 pictures and the like4 ,and in this way by means of the sacramental ceremonies they are either instructed1 or urged to seek the signification of such like sensible signs4 ,and consequently1 since1 besides the principal sacramental effect1 other things should be known about ,baptism1 it was fitting that these also should be represented by some outward signs4 ,thirdly1 because the power of the devil is restrained1 by prayers1 blessings1 and the like1 from hindering the sacramental effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ was baptized on the ,epiphany with the ,baptism of ,john1 as stated above 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #b71 with which baptism1 indeed1 the faithful are not baptized1 rather are they baptized with ,christ's ,baptism4 ,this has its efficacy from the ,passion of ,christ1 according to ,rom4 #f3c3 ,we who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death2 and in the ,holy ,ghost1 according to ,john #c3e3 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it is that solemn ,baptism is held in the ,church1 both on ,easter ,eve1 when we commemorate our ,lord's burial and resurrection2 for which reason our ,lord gave ,his disciples the commandment concerning ,baptism as related by ,matthew 7#bh3ai73 and on ,whitsun-eve1 when the celebration of the ,feast of the ,holy ,ghost begins2 for which reason the apostles are said to have baptized three thousand on the very day of ,pentecost when they had received the ,holy ,ghost4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the use of water in ,baptism is part of the substance of the sacrament2 but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity4 ,for the candidate is first of all anointed with ,holy oil on the breast and between the shoulders1 as one who wrestles for ,god1 to use ,ambrose's expression 7,de ,sacram4 i73 thus are prize-fighters wont to besmear themselves with oil4 ,or1 as ,innocent ,,iii says in a decretal on the ,holy ,unction3 ,the candidate is anointed on the breast1 in order to receive the gift of the ,holy ,ghost1 to cast off error and ignorance1 and to acknowledge the true faith1 since 'the just man liveth by faith'2 while he is anointed between the shoulders1 that he may be clothed with the grace of the ,holy ,ghost1 lay aside indifference and sloth1 and become active in good works2 so that the sacrament of faith may purify the thoughts of his heart1 and strengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor4 ,but after ,baptism1 as ,rabanus says 7,de ,sacram4 iii71 he is forthwith anointed on the head by the priest with ,holy ,chrism1 who proceeds at once to offer up a prayer that the neophyte may have a share in ,christ's kingdom1 and be called a ,christian after ,christ4 ,or1 as ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iii71 his head is anointed1 because the senses of a wise man are in his head 7,eccl #b3ad73 to wit1 that he may be ready to satisfy everyone that asketh him to give a reason of his faith 7cf4 #a ,pet4 #c3ae2 ,innocent ,,iii1 ,decretal on ,holy ,unction74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this white garment is given1 not as though it were unlawful for the neophyte to use others3 but as a sign of the glorious resurrection1 unto which men are born again by ,baptism2 and in order to designate the purity of life1 to which he will be bound after being baptized1 according to ,rom4 #f3d3 ,that we may walk in newness of life4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,although those things that belong to the solemnity of a sacrament are not essential to it1 yet are they not superfluous1 since they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing1 as stated above4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,three ,kinds of ,baptism ,are ,fittingly ,described--viz4 ,baptism of ,water1 of ,blood1 and of the ,spirit8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the three kinds of ,baptism are not fittingly described as ,baptism of ,water1 of ,blood1 and of the ,spirit1 i4e4 of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,because the ,apostle says 7,eph4 #d3e73 ,one ,faith1 one ,baptism4 ,now there is but one ,faith4 ,therefore there should not be three ,baptisms4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism is a sacrament1 as we have made clear above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a74 ,now none but ,baptism of ,water is a sacrament4 ,therefore we should not reckon two other ,baptisms4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 distinguishes several other kinds of ,baptism4 ,therefore we should admit more than three ,baptisms4 ,on the contrary1 on ,heb4 #f3b1 ,of the doctrine of ,baptisms1 the gloss says3 ,he uses the plural1 because there is ,baptism of ,water1 of ,repentance1 and of ,blood4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e71 ,baptism of ,water has its efficacy from ,christ's ,passion1 to which a man is conformed by ,baptism1 and also from the ,holy ,ghost1 as first cause4 ,now although the effect depends on the first cause1 the cause far surpasses the effect1 nor does it depend on it4 ,consequently1 a man may1 without ,baptism of ,water1 receive the sacramental effect from ,christ's ,passion1 in so far as he is conformed to ,christ by suffering for ,him4 ,hence it is written 7,apoc4 #g3ad73 ,these are they who are come out of great tribulation1 and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the ,lamb4 ,in like manner a man receives the effect of ,baptism by the power of the ,holy ,ghost1 not only without ,baptism of ,water1 but also without ,baptism of ,blood3 forasmuch as his heart is moved by the ,holy ,ghost to believe in and love ,god and to repent of his sins3 wherefore this is also called ,baptism of ,repentance4 ,of this it is written 7,isa4 #d3d73 ,if the ,lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of ,zion1 and shall wash away the blood of ,jerusalem out of the midst thereof1 by the spirit of judgment1 and by the spirit of burning4 ,thus1 therefore1 each of these other ,baptisms is called ,baptism1 forasmuch as it takes the place of ,baptism4 ,wherefore ,augustine says 7,de ,unico ,baptismo ,parvulorum iv73 ,the ,blessed ,cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom1 though not baptized1 it was said3 ',today shalt thou be with ,me in ,paradise' that suffering can take the place of ,baptism4 ,having weighed this in my mind again and again1 ,i perceive that not only can suffering for the name of ,christ supply for what was lacking in ,baptism1 but even faith and conversion of heart1 if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of ,baptism is not practicable4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the other two ,baptisms are included in the ,baptism of ,water1 which derives its efficacy1 both from ,christ's ,passion and from the ,holy ,ghost4 ,consequently for this reason the unity of ,baptism is not destroyed4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #a71 a sacrament is a kind of sign4 ,the other two1 however1 are like the ,baptism of ,water1 not1 indeed1 in the nature of sign1 but in the baptismal effect4 ,consequently they are not sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,damascene enumerates certain figurative ,baptisms4 ,for instance1 the ,deluge was a figure of our ,baptism1 in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the ,church2 since then a few 4 4 4 souls were saved in the ark ,vulg43 'by water'1 according to #a ,pet4 #c3bj4 ,he also mentions the crossing of the ,red ,sea3 which was a figure of our ,baptism1 in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin2 hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3b7 that all 4 4 4 were baptized in the cloud and in the sea4 ,and again he mentions the various washings which were customary under the ,old ,law1 which were figures of our ,baptism1 as to the cleansing from sins3 also the ,baptism of ,john1 which prepared the way for our ,baptism4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ff1 ,art4 #ab ,whether the ,baptism of ,blood ,is the ,most ,excellent of ,these8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,baptism of ,blood is not the most excellent of these three4 ,for the ,baptism of ,water impresses a character2 which the ,baptism of ,blood cannot do4 ,therefore the ,baptism of ,blood is not more excellent than the ,baptism of ,water4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,baptism of ,blood is of no avail without the ,baptism of the ,spirit1 which is by charity2 for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #ac3c73 ,if ,i should deliver my body to be burned1 and have not charity1 it profiteth me nothing4 ,but the ,baptism of the ,spirit avails without the ,baptism of ,blood2 for not only the martyrs are saved4 ,therefore the ,baptism of ,blood is not the most excellent4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the ,baptism of ,water derives its efficacy from ,christ's ,passion1 to which1 as stated above 7,a4 #aa71 the ,baptism of ,blood corresponds1 so ,christ's ,passion derives its efficacy from the ,holy ,ghost1 according to ,heb4 #i3ad3 ,the ,blood of ,christ1 ,who by the ,holy ,ghost offered ,himself unspotted unto ,god1 shall cleanse our conscience from dead works1 etc4 ,therefore the ,baptism of the ,spirit is more excellent than the ,baptism of ,blood4 ,therefore the ,baptism of ,blood is not the most excellent4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,ad ,fortunatum7 speaking of the comparison between ,baptisms says3 ,the newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest3 the martyr in the presence of the persecutor4 ,the former is sprinkled with water1 after he has confessed2 the latter with his blood4 ,the former receives the ,holy ,ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands2 the latter is made the temple of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #aa71 the shedding of blood for ,christ's sake1 and the inward operation of the ,holy ,ghost1 are called baptisms1 in so far as they produce the effect of the ,baptism of ,water4 ,now the ,baptism of ,water derives its efficacy from ,christ's ,passion and from the ,holy ,ghost1 as already stated 7,a4 #aa74 ,these two causes act in each of these three ,baptisms2 most excellently1 however1 in the ,baptism of ,blood4 ,for ,christ's ,passion acts in the ,baptism of ,water by way of a figurative representation2 in the ,baptism of the ,spirit or of ,repentance1 by way of desire2 but in the ,baptism of ,blood1 by way of imitating the 7,divine7 act4 ,in like manner1 too1 the power of the ,holy ,ghost acts in the ,baptism of ,water through a certain hidden power2 in the ,baptism of ,repentance by moving the heart2 but in the ,baptism of ,blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love1 according to ,john #ae3ac3 ,greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a character is both reality and a sacrament4 ,and we do not say that the ,baptism of ,blood is more excellent1 considering the nature of a sacrament2 but considering the sacramental effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the shedding of blood is not in the nature of a ,baptism if it be without charity4 ,hence it is clear that the ,baptism of ,blood includes the ,baptism of the ,spirit1 but not conversely4 ,and from this it is proved to be more perfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to ,christ's ,passion1 but also to the ,holy ,ghost1 as stated above4 ,,question #fg ,,of ,,the ,,ministers ,,by ,,whom ,,the ,,sacrament ,,of ,,baptism ,,is ,,conferred 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of ,baptism is conferred4 ,and concerning this there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize8 7#b7 ,whether this belongs to a priest1 or to a bishop only8 7#c7 ,whether a layman can confer the sacrament of ,baptism8 7#d7 ,whether a woman can do this8 7#e7 ,whether an unbaptized person can baptize8 7#f7 ,whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same person8 7#g7 ,whether it is essential that someone should raise the person baptized from the sacred font8 7#h7 ,whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to instruct him8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,it ,is ,part of a ,deacon's ,duty to ,baptize8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize4 ,because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our ,lord at the same time1 according to ,matt4 #bh3ai3 ,going 4 4 4 teach ye all nations1 baptizing them1 etc4 ,but it is part of a deacon's duty to preach the gospel4 ,therefore it seems that it is also part of a deacon's duty to baptize4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v7 to cleanse is part of the deacon's duty4 ,but cleansing from sins is effected specially by ,baptism1 according to ,eph4 #e3bf3 ,cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,therefore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to baptize4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is told of ,blessed ,laurence1 who was a deacon1 that he baptized many4 ,therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons to baptize4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,gelasius ,i says 7the passage is to be found in the ,decrees1 dist4 #ic73 ,we order the deacons to keep within their own province2 and further on3 ,without bishop or priest they must not dare to baptize1 except in cases of extreme urgency1 when the aforesaid are a long way off4 ,i answer that1 ,just as the properties and duties of the heavenly orders are gathered from their names1 as ,dionysius says 7,coel4 ,hier4 vi71 so can we gather1 from the names of the ecclesiastical orders1 what belongs to each order4 ,now deacons are so called from being ministers2 because1 to wit1 it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament1 but to minister to others1 his elders1 in the sacramental dispensations4 ,and so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of ,baptism officially as it were2 but to assist and serve his elders in the bestowal of this and other sacraments4 ,hence ,isidore says 7,epist4 ad ,ludifred473 ,it is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests1 in all the rites of ,christ's sacraments1 viz4 those of ,baptism1 of the ,chrism1 of the ,paten and ,chalice4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is the deacon's duty to read the ,gospel in church1 and to preach it as one catechizing2 hence ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v7 that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among whom he includes the catechumens4 ,but to teach1 i4e4 to expound the ,gospel1 is the proper office of a bishop1 whose action is to perfect1 as ,dionysius teaches 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v72 and to perfect is the same as to teach4 ,consequently1 it does not follow that the office of baptizing belongs to deacons4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii71 ,baptism has a power not only of cleansing but also of enlightening4 ,consequently1 it is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse only3 viz4 either by driving away the unclean1 or by preparing them for the reception of a sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,because ,baptism is a necessary sacrament1 deacons are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at hand2 as appears from the authority of ,gelasius quoted above4 ,and it was thus that ,blessed ,laurence1 being but a deacon1 baptized4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #b ,whether to ,baptize ,is ,part of the ,priestly ,office1 or ,proper to ,that of ,bishops8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly office1 but proper to that of bishops4 ,because1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ,obj4 #a71 the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the same precept 7,matt4 #bh3ai74 ,but to teach1 which is to perfect1 belongs to the office of bishop1 as ,dionysius declares 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v1 vi74 ,therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by ,baptism a man is admitted to the body of the ,christian people3 and to do this seems consistent with no other than the princely office4 ,now the bishops hold the position of princes in the ,church1 as the gloss observes on ,luke #aj3a3 indeed1 they even take the place of the apostles1 of whom it is written 7,ps4 #dd3ag73 ,thou shalt make them princes over all the earth4 ,therefore it seems that to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,isidore says 7,epist4 ad ,ludifred47 that it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches1 to anoint altars1 to consecrate 7conficere7 the chrism2 he it is that confers the ecclesiastical orders1 and blesses the consecrated virgins4 ,but the sacrament of ,baptism is greater than all these4 ,therefore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal office4 ,on the contrary1 ,isidore says 7,de ,officiis4 ii73 ,it is certain that ,baptism was entrusted to priests alone4 ,i answer that1 ,priests are consecrated for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of ,christ's ,body1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c74 ,now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity1 according to the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #aj3ag73 ,we1 being many1 are one bread1 one body1 all that partake of one bread and one chalice4 ,moreover1 by ,baptism a man becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity1 wherefore also he receives the right to approach our ,lord's ,table4 ,consequently1 just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the ,eucharist1 which is the principal purpose of the priesthood1 so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize3 since it seems to belong to one and the same1 to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the whole4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our ,lord enjoined on the apostles1 whose place is taken by the bishops1 both duties1 namely1 of teaching and of baptizing1 but in different ways4 ,because ,christ committed to them the duty of teaching1 that they might exercise it themselves as being the most important duty of all3 wherefore the apostles themselves said 7,acts #f3b73 ,it is not reason that we should leave the word of ,god and serve tables4 ,on the other hand1 ,he entrusted the apostles with the office of baptizing1 to be exercised vicariously2 wherefore the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #a3ag73 ,christ sent me not to baptize1 but to preach the ,gospel4 ,and the reason for this was that the merit and wisdom of the minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect1 as they have in teaching1 as may be seen from what we have stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b2 ,,aa4 #e1 #i74 ,a proof of this is found also in the fact that our ,lord ,himself did not baptize1 but ,his disciples1 as ,john relates 7#d3b74 ,nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot baptize2 since what a lower power can do1 that can also a higher power4 ,wherefore also the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #a3ad1 #af7 that he had baptized some4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to lower officials1 while greater affairs are restricted to higher officials2 according to ,ex4 #ah3bb3 ,when any great matter soever shall fall out1 let them refer it to thee1 and let them judge the lesser matters only4 ,consequently it belongs to the lower officials of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders2 while to the highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the higher orders of the state4 ,now by ,baptism a man attains only to the lowest rank among the ,christian people3 and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the ,church to baptize1 namely1 the priests1 who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of ,christ1 as the gloss says in the passage quoted from ,luke #aj4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c71 the sacrament of ,baptism holds the first place in the order of necessity2 but in the order of perfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to bishops4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #c ,whether a ,layman ,can ,baptize8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a layman cannot baptize4 ,because1 as stated above 7,a4 #b71 to baptize belongs properly to the priestly order4 ,but those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted to one that is not ordained4 ,therefore it seems that a layman1 who has no orders1 cannot baptize4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is a greater thing to baptize1 than to perform the other sacramental rites of ,baptism1 such as to catechize1 to exorcize1 and to bless the baptismal water4 ,but these things cannot be done by laymen1 but only by priests4 ,therefore it seems that much less can laymen baptize4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as ,baptism is a necessary sacrament1 so is ,penance4 ,but a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of ,penance4 ,neither1 therefore1 can he baptize4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,gelasius ,i and ,isidore say that it is often permissible for ,christian laymen to baptize1 in cases of urgent necessity4 ,i answer that1 ,it is due to the mercy of ,him ,who will have all men to be saved 7#a ,tim4 #b3d7 that in those things which are necessary for salvation1 man can easily find the remedy4 ,now the most necessary among all the sacraments is ,baptism1 which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life3 since for children there is no substitute1 while adults cannot otherwise than by ,baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment4 ,consequently1 lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy1 it was ordained1 both that the matter of ,baptism should be something common that is easily obtainable by all1 i4e4 water2 and that the minister of ,baptism should be anyone1 even not in orders1 lest from lack of being baptized1 man should suffer loss of his salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity2 but this is not essential to the sacrament4 ,consequently1 if a layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency2 he would sin1 yet he would confer the sacrament2 nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,these sacramental rites of ,baptism belong to the solemnity of1 and are not essential to1 ,baptism4 ,and therefore they neither should nor can be done by a layman1 but only by a priest1 whose office it is to baptize solemnly4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d71 ,penance is not so necessary as ,baptism2 since contrition can supply the defect of the priestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment1 nor again is it given to children4 ,therefore the comparison with ,baptism does not stand1 because its effect cannot be supplied by anything else4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #d ,whether a ,woman ,can ,baptize8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a woman cannot baptize4 ,for we read in the acts of the ,council of ,carthage 7iv73 ,however learned and holy a woman may be1 she must not presume to teach men in the church1 or to baptize4 ,but in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church1 according to #a ,cor4 #ad3ce3 ,it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church4 ,therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any circumstances permitted to baptize4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 to baptize belongs to those having authority4 wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of souls4 ,but women are not qualified for this2 according to #a ,tim4 #b3ab3 ,i suffer not a woman to teach1 nor to use authority over man1 but to be subject to him ,vulg43 'but to be in silence'4 ,therefore a woman cannot baptize4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold the place of the mother's womb1 as ,augustine says on ,john #c3d1 ,can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb1 and be born again8 ,while he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of father4 ,but this is unfitting for a woman4 ,therefore a woman cannot baptize4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,urban ,,ii says 7,decreta xxx73 ,in reply to the questions asked by your beatitude1 we consider that the following answer should be given3 that the baptism is valid when1 in cases of necessity1 a woman baptizes a child in the name of the ,trinity4 ,i answer that1 ,christ is the chief ,baptizer1 according to ,john #a3cc3 ,he upon ,whom thou shalt see the ,spirit descending and remaining upon ,him1 ,he it is that baptizeth4 ,for it is written in ,col4 #c 7cf4 ,gal4 #c3bh71 that in ,christ there is neither male nor female4 ,consequently1 just as a layman can baptize1 as ,christ's minister1 so can a woman4 ,but since the head of the woman is the man1 and the head of 4 4 4 man1 is ,christ 7#a ,cor4 #aa3c71 a woman should not baptize if a man be available for the purpose2 just as neither should a layman in the presence of a cleric1 nor a cleric in the presence of a priest4 ,the last1 however1 can baptize in the presence of a bishop1 because it is part of the priestly office4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public1 but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately2 so she is not permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly1 and yet she can baptize in a case of urgency4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when ,baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form1 it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls1 or by one representing him4 ,but this is not required in cases of urgency1 when a woman may baptize4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in carnal generation male and female co-operate according to the power of their proper nature2 wherefore the female cannot be the active1 but only the passive1 principle of generation4 ,but in spiritual generation they do not act1 either of them1 by their proper power1 but only instrumentally by the power of ,christ4 ,consequently1 on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in a case of urgency4 ,if1 however1 a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so doing1 there would be no need of rebaptism3 as we have said in regard to laymen 7,a4 #c1 ad #a74 ,but the baptizer herself would sin1 as also those who took part with her therein1 either by receiving ,baptism from her1 or by bringing someone to her to be baptized4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,one ,that ,is ,not ,baptized ,can ,confer the ,sacrament of ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,for none gives what he has not4 ,but a non-baptized person has not the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,therefore he cannot give it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a man confers the sacrament of ,baptism inasmuch as he is a minister of the ,church4 ,but one that is not baptized1 belongs nowise to the ,church1 i4e4 neither really nor sacramentally4 ,therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it4 ,but one that is not baptized1 cannot receive the other sacraments4 ,much less1 therefore1 can he confer any sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,isidore says3 ,the ,roman ,pontiff does not consider it to be the man who baptizes1 but that the ,holy ,ghost confers the grace of ,baptism1 though he that baptizes be a pagan4 ,but he who is baptized1 is not called a pagan4 ,therefore he who is not baptized can confer the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,augustine left this question without deciding it4 ,for he says 7,contra ,ep4 ,parmen4 ii73 ,this is indeed another question1 whether even those can baptize who were never ,christians2 nor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon1 without the authority of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a matter4 ,but afterwards it was decided by the ,church that the unbaptized1 whether ,jews or pagans1 can confer the sacrament of ,baptism1 provided they baptize in the form of the ,church4 ,wherefore ,pope ,nicolas ,i replies to the questions propounded by the ,bulgars3 ,you say that many in your country have been baptized by someone1 whether ,christian or pagan you know not4 ,if these were baptized in the name of the ,trinity1 they must not be rebaptized4 ,but if the form of the ,church be not observed1 the sacrament of ,baptism is not conferred4 ,and thus is to be explained what ,gregory ,,ii 99,gregory ,,iii writes to ,bishop ,boniface3 ,those whom you assert to have been baptized by pagans1 namely1 with a form not recognized by the ,church1 we command you to rebaptize in the name of the ,trinity4 ,and the reason of this is that1 just as on the part of the matter1 as far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned1 any water will suffice1 so1 on the part of the minister1 any man is competent4 ,consequently1 an unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency4 ,so that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another1 one baptizing the other and being afterwards baptized by him3 and each would receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament4 ,but if this were done outside a case of urgency1 each would sin grievously1 both the baptizer and the baptized1 and thus the baptismal effect would be frustrated1 although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the man who baptizes offers but his outward ministration2 whereas ,christ it is ,who baptizes inwardly1 ,who can use all men to whatever purpose ,he wills4 ,consequently1 the unbaptized can baptize3 because1 as ,pope ,nicolas ,i says1 the ,baptism is not theirs1 i4e4 the baptizers'1 but ,his1 i4e4 ,christ's4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,he who is not baptized1 though he belongs not to the ,church either in reality or sacramentally1 can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action1 namely1 in so far as he intends to do what the ,church does1 and in baptizing observes the ,church's form1 and thus acts as the minister of ,christ1 ,who did not confine ,his power to those that are baptized1 as neither did ,he to the sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the other sacraments are not so necessary as ,baptism4 ,and therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should baptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,several ,can ,baptize at the ,same ,time8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that several can baptize at the same time4 ,for unity is contained in multitude1 but not vice versa4 ,wherefore it seems that many can do whatever one can but not vice versa3 thus many draw a ship which one could draw4 ,but one man can baptize4 ,therefore several1 too1 can baptize one at the same time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is more difficult for one agent to act on many things1 than for many to act at the same time on one4 ,but one man can baptize several at the same time4 ,much more1 therefore1 can many baptize one at the same time4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity4 ,now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at the same time2 for instance1 suppose a child to be in danger of death1 and two persons present1 one of whom is dumb1 and the other without hands or arms2 for then the mutilated person would have to pronounce the words1 and the dumb person would have to perform the act of baptizing4 ,therefore it seems that several can baptize one at the same time4 ,on the contrary1 ,where there is one agent there is one action4 ,if1 therefore1 several were to baptize one1 it seems to follow that there would be several baptisms3 and this is contrary to ,eph4 #d3e3 one ,faith1 one ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,the ,sacrament of ,baptism derives its power principally from its form1 which the ,apostle calls the word of life 7,eph4 #e3bf74 ,consequently1 if several were to baptize one at the same time1 we must consider what form they would use4 ,for were they to say3 ,we baptize thee in the name of the ,father and of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost1 some maintain that the sacrament of ,baptism would not be conferred1 because the form of the ,church would not be observed1 i4e4 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father and of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but this reasoning is disproved by the form observed in the ,greek ,church4 ,for they might say3 ,the servant of ,god1 ,n 4 4 41 is baptized in the name of the ,father and of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost1 under which form the ,greeks receive the sacrament of ,baptism3 and yet this form differs far more from the form that we use1 than does this3 ,we baptize thee4 ,the point to be observed1 however1 is this1 that by this form1 ,we baptize thee1 the intention expressed is that several concur in conferring one ,baptism3 and this seems contrary to the notion of a minister2 for a man does not baptize save as a minister of ,christ1 and as standing in ,his place2 wherefore just as there is one ,christ1 so should there be one minister to represent ,christ4 ,hence the ,apostle says pointedly 7,eph4 #d3e73 one ,lord1 one ,faith1 one ,baptism4 ,consequently1 an intention which is in opposition to this seems to annul the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,on the other hand1 if each were to say3 ,i baptize thee in the name of the ,father and of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost1 each would signify his intention as though he were conferring ,baptism independently of the other4 ,this might occur in the case where both were striving to baptize someone2 and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the words first would confer the sacrament of ,baptism2 while the other1 however great his right to baptize1 if he presume to utter the words1 would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer4 ,if1 however1 they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same time1 and dipped or sprinkled the man together1 they should be punished for baptizing in an improper manner1 but not for rebaptizing3 because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized person1 and each1 so far as he is concerned1 would baptize4 ,nor would they confer several sacraments3 but the one ,christ baptizing inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both together4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument avails in those agents that act by their own power4 ,but men do not baptize by their own1 but by ,christ's power1 ,who1 since ,he is one1 perfects ,his work by means of one minister4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in a case of necessity one could baptize several at the same time under this form3 ,i baptize ye3 for instance1 if they were threatened by a falling house1 or by the sword or something of the kind1 so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them singly4 ,nor would this cause a change in the ,church's form1 since the plural is nothing but the singular doubled3 especially as we find the plural expressed in ,matt4 #bh3ai3 ,baptizing them1 etc4 ,nor is there parity between the baptizer and the baptized2 since ,christ1 the baptizer in chief1 is one3 while many are made one in ,christ by ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a71 the integrity of ,baptism consists in the form of words and the use of the matter4 ,consequently1 neither he who only pronounces the words1 baptizes1 nor he who dips4 ,wherefore if one pronounces the words and the other dips1 no form of words can be fitting4 ,for neither could he say3 ,i baptize thee3 since he dips not1 and therefore baptizes not4 ,nor could they say3 ,we baptize thee3 since neither baptizes4 ,for if of two men1 one write one part of a book1 and the other write the other1 it would not be a proper form of speech to say3 ,we wrote this book1 but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #g ,whether in ,baptism ,it ,is ,necessary for ,someone to ,raise the ,baptized from the ,sacred ,font8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that in ,baptism it is not necessary for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font4 ,for our ,baptism is consecrated by ,christ's ,baptism and is conformed thereto4 ,but ,christ when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font1 but according to ,matt4 #c3af1 ,jesus being baptized1 forthwith came out of the water4 ,therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized should anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,but in carnal generation nothing else is required but the active principle1 i4e4 the father1 and the passive principle1 i4e4 the mother4 ,since1 then1 in ,baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father1 while the very water of ,baptism takes the place of the mother1 as ,augustine says in a sermon on the ,epiphany 7cxxxv72 it seems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing ridiculous should be observed in the sacraments of the ,church4 ,but it seems ridiculous that after being baptized1 adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred font1 should be held up by another4 ,therefore there seems no need for anyone1 especially in the ,baptism of adults1 to raise the baptized from the sacred font4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii7 that the priests taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide4 ,i answer that1 ,the spiritual regeneration1 which takes place in ,baptism1 is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation3 wherefore it is written 7#a ,pet4 #b3b73 ,as new-born babes1 endowed with reason desire milk ,vulg43 'desire reasonable milk' without guile4 ,now1 in carnal generation the new-born child needs nourishment and guidance3 wherefore1 in spiritual generation also1 someone is needed to undertake the office of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing one who is yet a novice in the ,faith1 concerning things pertaining to ,christian faith and mode of life1 which the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with watching over the people generally3 because little children and novices need more than ordinary care4 ,consequently someone is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for the purpose of instructing and guiding them4 ,it is to this that ,dionysius refers 7,eccl4 ,hier4 xi7 saying3 ,it occurred to our heavenly guides1 i4e4 the ,apostles1 and they decided1 that infants should be taken charge of thus3 that the parents of the child should hand it over to some instructor versed in holy things1 who would thenceforth take charge of the child1 and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in the road of salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ was baptized not that ,he might be regenerated1 but that ,he might regenerate others3 wherefore after ,his ,baptism ,he needed no tutor like other children4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in carnal generation nothing is essential besides a father and a mother3 yet to ease the latter in her travail1 there is need for a midwife2 and for the child to be suitably brought up there is need for a nurse and a tutor3 while their place is taken in ,baptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font4 ,consequently this is not essential to the sacrament1 and in a case of necessity one alone can baptize with water4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is not on account of bodily weakness that the baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent1 but on account of spiritual weakness1 as stated above4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,he ,who ,raises ,anyone from the ,sacred ,font ,is ,bound to ,instruct ,him8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font is not bound to instruct him4 ,for none but those who are themselves instructed can give instruction4 ,but even the uneducated and ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font4 ,therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a son is instructed by his father better than by a stranger3 for1 as the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 viii71 a son receives from his father1 being1 food1 and education4 ,if1 therefore1 godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren1 it would be fitting for the carnal father1 rather than another1 to be the godparent of his own child4 ,and yet this seems to be forbidden1 as may be seen in the ,decretals 7xxx1 qu4 #a1 ,cap4 ,pervenit and ,dictum est74 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is better for several to instruct than for one only4 ,if1 therefore1 godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren1 it would be better to have several godparents than only one4 ,yet this is forbidden in a decree of ,pope ,leo1 who says3 ,a child should not have more than one godparent1 be this a man or a woman4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in a sermon for ,easter 7clxviii73 ,in the first place ,i admonish you1 both men and women1 who have raised children in ,baptism1 that ye stand before ,god as sureties for those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font4 ,i answer that1 ,every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has undertaken to perform4 ,now it has been stated above 7,a4 #g7 that godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor4 ,consequently they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for them to do so3 for instance when and where children are brought up among unbelievers4 ,but if they are brought up among ,catholic ,christians1 the godparents may well be excused from this responsibility1 since it may be presumed that the children will be carefully instructed by their parents4 ,if1 however1 they perceive in any way that the contrary is the case1 they would be bound1 as far as they are able1 to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,where the danger is imminent1 the godparent1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 vii71 should be someone versed in holy things4 ,but where the danger is not imminent1 by reason of the children being brought up among ,catholics1 anyone is admitted to this position1 because the things pertaining to the ,christian rule of life and faith are known openly by all4 ,nevertheless an unbaptized person cannot be a godparent1 as was decreed in the ,council of ,mainz1 although an unbaptized person3 because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament1 wherefore as the godparent is not1 as stated above 7,a4 #g1 ad #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal generation1 so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body2 according to ,heb4 #ab3i3 ,moreover we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors1 and we reverenced them3 shall we not much more obey the ,father of ,spirits1 and live8 ,therefore the spiritual father should be distinct from the carnal father1 unless necessity demanded otherwise4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,education would be full of confusion if there were more than one head instructor4 ,wherefore there should be one principal sponsor in ,baptism3 but others can be allowed as assistants4 ,,question #fh ,,of ,,those ,,who ,,receive ,,baptism 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,we have now to consider those who receive ,baptism2 concerning which there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether all are bound to receive ,baptism8 7#b7 ,whether a man can be saved without ,baptism8 7#c7 ,whether ,baptism should be deferred8 7#d7 ,whether sinners should be baptized8 7#e7 ,whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized8 7#f7 ,whether ,confession of sins is necessary8 7#g7 ,whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized8 7#h7 ,whether faith is necessary8 7#i7 ,whether infants should be baptized8 7#aj7 ,whether the children of ,jews should be baptized against the will of their parents8 7#aa7 ,whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb8 7#ab7 ,whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,all ,are ,bound to ,receive ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that not all are bound to receive ,baptism4 ,for ,christ did not narrow man's road to salvation4 ,but before ,christ's coming men could be saved without ,baptism3 therefore also after ,christ's coming4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism seems to have been instituted principally as a remedy for original sin4 ,now1 since a man who is baptized is without original sin1 it seems that he cannot transmit it to his children4 ,therefore it seems that the children of those who have been baptized1 should not themselves be baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,baptism is given in order that a man may1 through grace1 be cleansed from sin4 ,but those who are sanctified in the womb1 obtain this without ,baptism4 ,therefore they are not bound to receive ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,again it is stated in ,de ,eccl4 ,dogm4 xli1 that we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized4 ,i answer that1 ,men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation4 ,now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through ,christ2 wherefore the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ah73 ,as by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation2 so also by the justice of one1 unto all men unto justification of life4 ,but for this end is ,baptism conferred on a man1 that being regenerated thereby1 he may be incorporated in ,christ1 by becoming ,his member3 wherefore it is written 7,gal4 #c3bg73 ,as many of you as have been baptized in ,christ1 have put on ,christ4 ,consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized3 and that without ,baptism there is no salvation for men4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,at no time1 not even before the coming of ,christ1 could men be saved unless they became members of ,christ3 because1 as it is written 7,acts #d3ab71 there is no other name under heaven given to men1 whereby we must be saved4 ,but before ,christ's coming1 men were incorporated in ,christ by faith in ,his future coming3 of which faith circumcision was the seal1 as the ,apostle calls it 7,rom4 #d3aa73 whereas before circumcision was instituted1 men were incorporated in ,christ by faith alone1 as ,gregory says 7,moral4 iv71 together with the offering of sacrifices1 by means of which the ,fathers of old made profession of their faith4 ,again1 since ,christ's coming1 men are incorporated in ,christ by faith2 according to ,eph4 #c3ag3 ,that ,christ may dwell by faith in your hearts4 ,but faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future3 just as we use other parts of the verb1 to signify the present1 the past1 and the future4 ,consequently although the sacrament itself of ,baptism was not always necessary for salvation1 yet faith1 of which ,baptism is the sacrament1 was always necessary4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as we have stated in the ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b1 those who are baptized are renewed in spirit by ,baptism1 while their body remains subject to the oldness of sin1 according to ,rom4 #h3aj3 ,the body1 indeed1 is dead because of sin1 but the spirit liveth because of justification4 ,wherefore ,augustine 7,contra ,julian4 vi7 proves that not everything that is in man is baptized4 ,now it is manifest that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul1 but in respect of his body4 ,consequently the children of those who are baptized are born with original sin2 wherefore they need to be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those who are sanctified in the womb1 receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin1 but they do not therefore receive the character1 by which they are conformed to ,christ4 ,consequently1 if any were to be sanctified in the womb now1 they would need to be baptized1 in order to be conformed to ,christ's other members by receiving the character4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #b ,whether a ,man ,can ,be ,saved ,without ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that no man can be saved without ,baptism4 ,for our ,lord said 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter the kingdom of ,god4 ,but those alone are saved who enter ,god's kingdom4 ,therefore none can be saved without ,baptism1 by which a man is born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the book ,de ,eccl4 ,dogm4 xli1 it is written3 ,we believe that no catechumen1 though he die in his good works1 will have eternal life1 except he suffer martyrdom1 which contains all the sacramental virtue of ,baptism4 ,but if it were possible for anyone to be saved without ,baptism1 this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works1 for they seem to have the faith that worketh by charity 7,gal4 #e3f74 ,therefore it seems that none can be saved without ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as stated above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #d71 the sacrament of ,baptism is necessary for salvation4 ,now that is necessary without which something cannot be 7,metaph4 v74 ,therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,super ,levit4 lxxxiv7 that some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments1 and to their profit2 but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification1 consisting in a visible sacrament1 without the invisible sanctification1 it will be to no profit4 ,since1 therefore1 the sacrament of ,baptism pertains to the visible sanctification1 it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of ,baptism1 by means of the invisible sanctification4 ,i answer that1 ,the sacrament of ,baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways4 ,first1 both in reality and in desire2 as is the case with those who neither are baptized1 nor wished to be baptized3 which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament1 in regard to those who have the use of the free-will4 ,consequently those to whom ,baptism is wanting thus1 cannot obtain salvation3 since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in ,christ1 through ,whom alone can salvation be obtained4 ,secondly1 the sacrament of ,baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire3 for instance1 when a man wishes to be baptized1 but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving ,baptism4 ,and such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized1 on account of his desire for ,baptism1 which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity1 whereby ,god1 ,whose power is not tied to visible sacraments1 sanctifies man inwardly4 ,hence ,ambrose says of ,valentinian1 who died while yet a catechumen3 ,i lost him whom ,i was to regenerate3 but he did not lose the grace he prayed for4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as it is written 7#a ,kings #af3g71 man seeth those things that appear1 but the ,lord beholdeth the heart4 ,now a man who desires to be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost by ,baptism1 is regenerated in heart though not in body4 ,thus the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #b3bi7 that the circumcision is that of the heart1 in the spirit1 not in the letter2 whose praise is not of men but of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,no man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment4 ,now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives ,baptism1 or suffers martyrdom3 for which reason is it stated that martyrdom contains all the sacramental virtue of ,baptism1 i4e4 as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment4 ,suppose1 therefore1 a catechumen to have the desire for ,baptism 7else he could not be said to die in his good works1 which cannot be without faith that worketh by charity71 such a one1 were he to die1 would not forthwith come to eternal life1 but would suffer punishment for his past sins1 but he himself shall be saved1 yet so as by fire as is stated #a ,cor4 #c3ae4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without1 at least1 ,baptism of desire2 which1 with ,god1 counts for the deed 7,augustine1 ,enarr4 in ,ps4 #eg74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,baptism ,should ,be ,deferred8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism should be deferred4 ,for ,pope ,leo says 7,epist4 xvi73 ,two seasons1 i4e4 ,easter and ,whitsuntide1 are fixed by the ,roman ,pontiff for the celebration of ,baptism4 ,wherefore we admonish your ,beatitude not to add any other days to this custom4 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism should be conferred not at once1 but delayed until the aforesaid seasons4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 we read in the decrees of the ,council of ,agde 7,can4 xxxiv73 ,if ,jews whose bad faith often 'returns to the vomit1' wish to submit to the ,law of the ,catholic ,church1 let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens2 and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of ,baptism4 ,therefore men should not be baptized at once1 and ,baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as we read in ,isa4 #bg3i1 this is all the fruit1 that the sin 4 4 4 should be taken away4 ,now sin seems to be taken away1 or at any rate lessened1 if ,baptism be deferred4 ,first1 because those who sin after ,baptism1 sin more grievously1 according to ,heb4 #aj3bi3 ,how much more1 do you think1 he deserveth worse punishments1 who hath 4 4 4 esteemed the blood of the testament1 i4e4 ,baptism1 unclean1 by which he was sanctified8 ,secondly1 because ,baptism takes away past1 but not future1 sins3 wherefore the more it is deferred1 the more sins it takes away4 ,therefore it seems that ,baptism should be deferred for a long time4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ecclus4 #e3h73 ,delay not to be converted to the ,lord1 and defer it not from day to day4 ,but the perfect conversion to ,god is of those who are regenerated in ,christ by ,baptism4 ,therefore ,baptism should not be deferred from day to day4 ,i answer that1 ,in this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults4 ,for if they be children1 ,baptism should not be deferred4 ,first1 because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion4 ,secondly1 because of the danger of death1 for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,on the other hand1 adults have a remedy in the mere desire for ,baptism1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,and therefore ,baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted1 but it should be deferred until some fixed time4 ,first1 as a safeguard to the ,church1 lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses1 according to #a ,john #d3a3 ,believe not every spirit1 but try the spirits1 if they be of ,god4 ,and those who approach ,baptism are put to this test1 when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time4 ,secondly1 this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized2 for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith1 and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the ,christian mode of life4 ,thirdly1 a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to ,baptism at the principal festivities1 viz4 of ,easter and ,pentecost1 the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion4 ,there are1 however1 two reasons for forgoing this delay4 ,first1 when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for ,baptism2 thus1 ,philip baptized the ,eunuch at once 7,acts #h72 and ,peter1 ,cornelius and those who were with him 7,acts #aj74 ,secondly1 by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death4 ,wherefore ,pope ,leo says 7,epist4 xvi73 ,those who are threatened by death1 sickness1 siege1 persecution1 or shipwreck1 should be baptized at any time4 ,yet if a man is forestalled by death1 so as to have no time to receive the sacrament1 while he awaits the season appointed by the ,church1 he is saved1 yet so as by fire1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #b74 ,nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed by the ,church1 except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of the authorities of the ,church4 ,but even this sin1 with his other sins1 can be washed away by his subsequent contrition1 which takes the place of ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #aa74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this decree of ,pope ,leo1 concerning the celebration of ,baptism at two seasons1 is to be understood with the exception of the danger of death 7which is always to be feared in children7 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this decree concerning the ,jews was for a safeguard to the ,church1 lest they corrupt the faith of simple people1 if they be not fully converted4 ,nevertheless1 as the same passage reads further on1 if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness1 they should be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism1 by the grace which it bestows1 removes not only past sins1 but hinders the commission of future sins4 ,now this is the point to be considered--that men may not sin3 it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous1 or that their sins be washed away1 according to #a ,john #b3a1 #b3 ,my little children1 these things ,i write to you1 that you may not sin4 ,but if any man sin1 we have an advocate with the ,father1 ,jesus ,christ the just2 and ,he is the propitiation for our sins4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,sinners ,should ,be ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that sinners should be baptized4 ,for it is written 7,zech4 #ac3a73 ,in that day there shall be a fountain open to the ,house of ,david1 and to the inhabitants of ,jerusalem3 for the washing of the sinner and of the unclean woman3 and this is to be understood of the fountain of ,baptism4 ,therefore it seems that the sacrament of ,baptism should be offered even to sinners4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #i3ab73 ,they that are in health need not a physician1 but they that are ill4 ,but they that are ill are sinners4 ,therefore since ,baptism is the remedy of ,christ the physician of our souls1 it seems that this sacrament should be offered to sinners4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners4 ,but sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the very character of ,baptism1 since it is a disposition to grace4 ,therefore it seems that the sacrament of ,baptism should be offered to sinners4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,serm4 clxix73 ,he ,who created thee without thee1 will not justify thee without thee4 ,but since a sinner's will is ill-disposed1 he does not co-operate with ,god4 ,therefore it is useless to employ ,baptism as a means of justification4 ,i answer that1 ,a man may be said to be a sinner in two ways4 ,first1 on account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the past3 and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of ,baptism should be conferred1 since it is instituted specially for this purpose1 that by it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away1 according to ,eph4 #e3bf3 ,cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life4 ,secondly1 a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and purposes to remain in sin3 and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of ,baptism should not be conferred4 ,first1 indeed1 because by ,baptism men are incorporated in ,christ1 according to ,gal4 #c3bg3 ,as many of you as have been baptized in ,christ1 have put on ,christ4 ,now so long as a man wills to sin1 he cannot be united to ,christ1 according to #b ,cor4 #f3ad3 ,what participation hath justice with injustice8 ,wherefore ,augustine says in his book on ,penance 7,serm4 cccli7 that no man who has the use of free-will can begin the new life1 except he repent of his former life4 ,secondly1 because there should be nothing useless in the works of ,christ and of the ,church4 ,now that is useless which does not reach the end to which it is ordained2 and1 on the other hand1 no one having the will to sin can1 at the same time1 be cleansed from sin1 which is the purpose of ,baptism2 for this would be to combine two contradictory things4 ,thirdly1 because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental signs4 ,now a sign is false if it does not correspond with the thing signified4 ,but the very fact that a man presents himself to be cleansed by ,baptism1 signifies that he prepares himself for the inward cleansing3 while this cannot be the case with one who purposes to remain in sin4 ,therefore it is manifest that on such a man the sacrament of ,baptism is not to be conferred4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the words quoted are to be understood of those sinners whose will is set on renouncing sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the physician of souls1 i4e4 ,christ1 works in two ways4 ,first1 inwardly1 by ,himself3 and thus ,he prepares man's will so that it wills good and hates evil4 ,secondly1 ,he works through ministers1 by the outward application of the sacraments3 and in this way ,his work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly4 ,therefore the sacrament of ,baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom there appears some sign of their interior conversion3 just as neither is bodily medicine given to a sick man1 unless he show some sign of life4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is the sacrament of faith4 ,now dead faith does not suffice for salvation2 nor is it the foundation1 but living faith alone1 that worketh by charity 7,gal4 #e3f71 as ,augustine says 7,de ,fide et oper474 ,neither1 therefore1 can the sacrament of ,baptism give salvation to a man whose will is set on sinning1 and hence expels the form of faith4 ,moreover1 the impression of the baptismal character cannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin2 for ,god compels no man to be virtuous1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii74 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,works of ,satisfaction ,should ,be ,enjoined on ,sinners ,that ,have ,been ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized4 ,for ,god's justice seems to demand that a man should be punished for every sin of his1 according to ,eccles4 #ab3ad3 ,all things that are done1 ,god will bring into judgment4 ,but works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment of past sins4 ,therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently converted are drilled into righteousness1 and are made to avoid the occasions of sin3 for satisfaction consists in extirpating the causes of vice1 and closing the doors to sin 7,de ,eccl4 ,dogm4 iv74 ,but this is most necessary in the case of those who have been baptized recently4 ,therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 man owes satisfaction to ,god not less than to his neighbor4 ,but if those who were recently baptized have injured their neighbor1 they should be told to make reparation to ,god by works of penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose commenting on ,rom4 #aa3bi3 ,the gifts and the calling of ,god are without repentance1 says3 ,the grace of ,god requires neither sighs nor groans in ,baptism1 nor indeed any work at all1 but faith alone2 and remits all1 gratis4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3c1 #d71 all we who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death3 for we are buried together with ,him1 by ,baptism unto death2 which is to say that by ,baptism man is incorporated in the very death of ,christ4 ,now it is manifest from what has been said above 7,q4 #dh1 ,,aa4 #b1 #d2 ,q4 #di1 ,a4 #c7 that ,christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins1 not for ours only1 but also for those of the whole world1 according to #a ,john #b3b4 ,consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on one who is being baptized1 for any sins whatever3 and this would be to dishonor the ,passion and death of ,christ1 as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who were to be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says in his book on ,infant ,baptism 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i71 the effect of ,baptism is to make those1 who are baptized1 to be incorporated in ,christ as ,his members4 ,wherefore the very pains of ,christ were satisfactory for the sins of those who were to be baptized2 just as the pain of one member can be satisfactory for the sin of another member4 ,hence it is written 7,isa4 #ec3d73 ,surely ,he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,those who have been lately baptized should be drilled into righteousness1 not by penal1 but by easy works1 so as to advance to perfection by taking exercise1 as infants by taking milk1 as a gloss says on ,ps4 #acj3b3 ,as a child that is weaned is towards his mother4 ,for this reason did our ,lord excuse ,his disciples from fasting when they were recently converted1 as we read in ,matt4 #i3ad1 #ae3 and the same is written #a ,pet4 #b3b3 ,as new-born babes desire 4 4 4 milk 4 4 4 that thereby you may grow unto salvation4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,to restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor1 and to make satisfaction for wrong done to him1 is to cease from sin3 for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not being reconciled to one's neighbor1 is a sin4 ,wherefore those who are baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor1 as also to desist from sin4 ,but they are not to be enjoined to suffer any punishment for past sins4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,sinners ,who ,are ,going to ,be ,baptized ,are ,bound to ,confess ,their ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are bound to confess their sins4 ,for it is written 7,matt4 #c3f7 that many were baptized by ,john in the ,jordan confessing their sins4 ,but ,christ's ,baptism is more perfect than ,john's4 ,therefore it seems that there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive ,christ's ,baptism should confess their sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,prov4 #bh3ac73 ,he that hideth his sins1 shall not prosper2 but he that shall confess and forsake them1 shall obtain mercy4 ,now for this is a man baptized1 that he may obtain mercy for his sins4 ,therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess their sins4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,penance is required before ,baptism1 according to ,acts #b3ch3 ,do penance and be baptized every one of you4 ,but confession is a part of ,penance4 ,therefore it seems that confession of sins should take place before ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,confession of sins should be sorrowful3 thus ,augustine says 7,de ,vera et ,falsa ,poenit4 xiv73 ,all these circumstances should be taken into account and deplored4 ,now1 as ,ambrose says on ,rom4 #aa3bi1 the grace of ,god requires neither sighs nor groans in ,baptism4 ,therefore confession of sins should not be required of those who are going to be baptized4 ,i answer that1 ,confession of sins is twofold4 ,one is made inwardly to ,god3 and such confession of sins is required before ,baptism3 in other words1 man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them2 since he cannot begin the new life1 except he repent of his former life1 as ,augustine says in his book on ,penance 7,serm4 cccli74 ,the other is the outward confession of sins1 which is made to a priest2 and such confession is not required before ,baptism4 ,first1 because this confession1 since it is directed to the person of the minister1 belongs to the sacrament of ,penance1 which is not required before ,baptism1 which is the door of all the sacraments4 ,secondly1 because the reason why a man makes outward confession to a priest1 is that the priest may absolve him from his sins1 and bind him to works of satisfaction1 which should not be enjoined on the baptized1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be released from their sins by the keys of the ,church1 since all are forgiven them in ,baptism4 ,thirdly1 because the very act of confession made to a man is penal1 by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing3 whereas no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who is being baptized4 ,therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are being baptized2 but that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the ,church's ritual they renounce ,satan and all his works4 ,and in this sense a gloss explains ,matt4 #c3f1 saying that in ,john's ,baptism those who are going to be baptized learn that they should confess their sins and promise to amend their life4 ,if1 however1 any persons about to be baptized1 wish1 out of devotion1 to confess their sins1 their confession should be heard2 not for the purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction1 but in order to instruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious habits4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sins were not forgiven in ,john's ,baptism1 which1 however1 was the ,baptism of ,penance4 ,consequently it was fitting that those who went to receive that ,baptism1 should confess their sins1 so that they should receive a penance in proportion to their sins4 ,but ,christ's ,baptism is without outward penance1 as ,ambrose says 7on ,rom4 #aa3bi72 and therefore there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is enough that the baptized make inward confession to ,god1 and also an outward general confession1 for them to prosper and obtain mercy3 and they need no special outward confession1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,confession is a part of sacramental ,penance1 which is not required before ,baptism1 as stated above3 but the inward virtue of ,penance is required4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,intention of ,receiving the ,sacrament of ,baptism ,is ,required on the ,part of the ,one ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament of ,baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized4 ,for the one baptized is1 as it were1 patient in the sacrament4 ,but an intention is required not on the part of the patient but on the part of the agent4 ,therefore it seems that the intention of receiving ,baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if what is necessary for ,baptism be omitted1 the ,baptism must be repeated2 for instance1 if the invocation of the ,trinity be omitted1 as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #i1 ad #c74 ,but it does not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the intention of receiving ,baptism3 else1 since his intention cannot be proved1 anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack of intention4 ,therefore it seems that no intention is required on the part of the one baptized1 in order that he receive the sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,baptism is given as a remedy for original sin4 ,but original sin is contracted without the intention of the person born4 ,therefore1 seemingly1 ,baptism requires no intention on the part of the person baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,according to the ,church's ritual1 those who are to be baptized ask of the ,church that they may receive ,baptism3 and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,by ,baptism a man dies to the old life of sin1 and begins a certain newness of life1 according to ,rom4 #f3d3 ,we are buried together with ,christ by ,baptism into death2 that1 as ,christ is risen from the dead 4 4 4 so we also may walk in newness of life4 ,consequently1 just as1 according to ,augustine 7,serm4 cccli71 he who has the use of free-will1 must1 in order to die to the old life1 will to repent of his former life2 so must he1 of his own will1 intend to lead a new life1 the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament4 ,therefore on the part of the one baptized1 it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when a man is justified by ,baptism1 his passiveness is not violent but voluntary3 wherefore it is necessary for him to intend to receive that which is given him4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament1 he must be rebaptized4 ,but if there be doubt about this1 the form to be used should be3 ,if thou art not baptized1 ,i baptize thee4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is a remedy not only against original1 but also against actual sins1 which are caused by our will and intention4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,faith ,is ,required on the ,part of the ,one ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that faith is required on the part of the one baptized4 ,for the sacrament of ,baptism was instituted by ,christ4 ,but ,christ1 in giving the form of ,baptism1 makes faith to precede ,baptism 7,mk4 #af3af73 ,he that believeth and is baptized1 shall be saved4 ,therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the ,church4 ,but according to the ,church's ritual1 the man who comes to be baptized is asked concerning his faith3 ,dost thou believe in ,god the ,father ,almighty8 ,therefore it seems that faith is required for ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the intention of receiving the sacrament is required for ,baptism4 ,but this cannot be without right faith1 since ,baptism is the sacrament of right faith3 for thereby men are incorporated in ,christ1 as ,augustine says in his book on ,infant ,baptism 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i72 and this cannot be without right faith1 according to ,eph4 #c3ag3 ,that ,christ may dwell by faith in your hearts4 ,therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot receive the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 unbelief is a most grievous sin1 as we have shown in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #aj1 ,a4 #c74 ,but those who remain in sin should not be baptized3 therefore neither should those who remain in unbelief4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory writing to the bishop ,quiricus says3 ,we have learned from the ancient tradition of the ,fathers that when heretics1 baptized in the name of the ,trinity1 come back to ,holy ,church1 they are to be welcomed to her bosom1 either with the anointing of chrism1 or the imposition of hands1 or the mere profession of faith4 ,but such would not be the case if faith were necessary for a man to receive ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,as appears from what has been said above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #f2 ,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #i7 ,baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul1 viz4 the character and grace4 ,therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for ,baptism4 ,first1 as something without which grace1 which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament1 cannot be had4 ,and thus right faith is necessary for ,baptism1 because1 as it appears from ,rom4 #c3bb1 the justice of ,god is by faith of ,jesus ,christ4 ,secondly1 something is required of necessity for ,baptism1 because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted4 ,and thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes3 provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament4 ,for the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of ,baptism1 but by the power of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our ,lord is speaking there of ,baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace3 which of course cannot be without right faith3 wherefore ,he says pointedly3 ,he that believeth and is baptized1 shall be saved4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,church's intention in baptizing men is that they may be cleansed from sin1 according to ,isa4 #bg3i3 ,this is all the fruit1 that the sin 4 4 4 should be taken away4 ,and therefore1 as far as she is concerned1 she does not intend to give ,baptism save to those who have right faith1 without which there is no remission of sins4 ,and for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether they believe4 ,if1 on the contrary1 anyone1 without right faith1 receive ,baptism outside the ,church1 he does not receive it unto salvation4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,baptism4 contr4 ,donat4 iv73 ,from the ,church being compared to ,paradise we learn that men can receive her ,baptism even outside her fold1 but that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,even he who has not right faith on other points1 can have right faith about the sacrament of ,baptism3 and so he is not hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament4 ,yet even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament1 it is enough1 for the receiving of the sacrament1 that he should have a general intention of receiving ,baptism1 according as ,christ instituted1 and as the ,church bestows it4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,just as the sacrament of ,baptism is not to be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins1 so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief4 ,yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him1 though not unto salvation4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,children ,should ,be ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that children should not be baptized4 ,for the intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being baptized1 as stated above 7,a4 #g74 ,but children cannot have such an intention1 since they have not the use of free-will4 ,therefore it seems that they cannot receive the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism is the sacrament of faith1 as stated above 7,q4 #ci1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,but children have not faith1 which demands an act of the will on the part of the believer1 as ,augustine says 7,super ,joan4 xxvi74 ,nor can it be said that their salvation is implied in the faith of their parents2 since the latter are sometimes unbelievers1 and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation of their children4 ,therefore it seems that children cannot be baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,pet4 #c3ba7 that ,baptism saveth men2 not the putting away of the filth of the flesh1 but the examination of a good conscience towards ,god4 ,but children have no conscience1 either good or bad1 since they have not the use of reason3 nor can they be fittingly examined1 since they understand not4 ,therefore children should not be baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii73 ,our heavenly guides1 i4e4 the ,apostles1 approved of infants being admitted to ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ag71 if by one man's offense death reigned through one1 namely ,adam1 much more they who receive abundance of grace1 and of the gift1 and of justice1 shall reign in life through one1 ,jesus ,christ4 ,now children contract original sin from the sin of ,adam2 which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death1 which passed upon all on account of the sin of the first man1 as the ,apostle says in the same passage 7,rom4 #e3ab74 ,much more1 therefore1 can children receive grace through ,christ1 so as to reign in eternal life4 ,but our ,lord ,himself said 7,john #c3e73 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 he cannot enter into the kingdom of ,god4 ,consequently it became necessary to baptize children1 that1 as in birth they incurred damnation through ,adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through ,christ4 ,moreover it was fitting that children should receive ,baptism1 in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the ,christian mode of life1 they may the more easily persevere therein2 according to ,prov4 #bb3e3 ,a young man according to his way1 even when he is old1 he will not depart from it4 ,this reason is also given by ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the spiritual regeneration effected by ,baptism is somewhat like carnal birth1 in this respect1 that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently1 but through the nourishment of its mother1 so also children before the use of reason1 being as it were in the womb of their mother the ,church1 receive salvation not by their own act1 but by the act of the ,church4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i73 ,the ,church1 our mother1 offers her maternal mouth for her children1 that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries3 for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice1 nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation 4 4 4 ,and if they are rightly said to believe1 because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors1 why should they not also be said to repent1 since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world8 ,for the same reason they can be said to intend1 not by their own act of intention1 since at times they struggle and cry2 but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says1 writing to ,boniface 7,cont4 duas ,ep4 ,pelag4 i71 in the ,church of our ,saviour little children believe through others1 just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in ,baptism4 ,nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers1 because1 as ,augustine says1 writing to the same ,boniface 7,ep4 xcviii71 little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls1 not so much from the hands of those that carry them 7yet from these too1 if they be good and faithful7 as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful4 ,for they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered1 and by whose charity they are united in communion with the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and the unbelief of their own parents1 even if after ,baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons1 hurts not the children4 ,for as ,augustine says 7,cont4 duas ,ep4 ,pelag4 i7 when once the child has been begotten by the will of others1 he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will1 according to ,ezech4 #ah3d3 ',as the soul of the ,father1 so also the soul of the son is mine2 the soul that sinneth1 the same shall die4' ,yet he contracted from ,adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament1 because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence4 ,but the faith of one1 indeed of the whole ,church1 profits the child through the operation of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who unites the ,church together1 and communicates the goods of one member to another4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as a child1 when he is being baptized1 believes not by himself but by others1 so is he examined not by himself but through others1 and these in answer confess the ,church's faith in the child's stead1 who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith4 ,and the child acquires a good conscience in himself1 not indeed as to the act1 but as to the habit1 by sanctifying grace4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,children of ,jews or ,other ,unbelievers ,should ,be ,baptized ,against the ,will of ,their ,parents8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that children of ,jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents4 ,for it is a matter of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal death than from the danger of temporal death4 ,but one ought to rescue a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death1 even if its parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued4 ,therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of unbelievers from the danger of eternal death1 even against their parents' will4 ,obj4 #b3 ,the children of slaves are themselves slaves1 and in the power of their masters4 ,but ,jews and all other unbelievers are the slaves of kings and rulers4 ,therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children of ,jews baptized1 as well as those of other slaves who are unbelievers4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every man belongs more to ,god1 from ,whom he has his soul1 than to his carnal father1 from whom he has his body4 ,therefore it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents1 and consecrated to ,god by ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written in the ,decretals 7,dist4 xlv71 quoting the council of ,toledo3 ,in regard to the ,jews the holy synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe3 for such are not to be saved against their will1 but willingly1 that their righteousness may be without flaw4 ,i answer that1 ,the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not4 ,if they have1 then they already begin to control their own actions1 in things that are of ,divine or natural law4 ,and therefore of their own accord1 and against the will of their parents1 they can receive ,baptism1 just as they can contract marriage4 ,consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized4 ,if1 however1 they have not yet the use of free-will1 according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves4 ,for which reason we say that even the children of the ancients were saved through the faith of their parents4 ,wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will2 just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will4 ,moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers2 for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief1 by reason of their natural affection for their parents4 ,therefore it is not the custom of the ,church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is not right to rescue a man from death of the body against the order of civil law3 for instance1 if a man be condemned to death by the judge who has tried him1 none should use force in order to rescue him from death4 ,consequently1 neither should anyone infringe the order of the natural law1 in virtue of which a child is under the care of its father1 in order to rescue it from the danger of eternal death4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery1 which does not exclude the order of the natural and ,divine law4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,man is ordained unto ,god through his reason1 by which he can know ,god4 ,wherefore a child1 before it has the use of reason1 is ordained to ,god1 by a natural order1 through the reason of its parents1 under whose care it naturally lies1 and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to ,god are to be done in respect of the child4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #aa ,whether a ,child ,can ,be ,baptized ,while ,yet in ,its ,mother's ,womb8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb4 ,for the gift of ,christ is more efficacious unto salvation than ,adam's sin unto condemnation1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ae74 ,but a child while yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation on account of ,adam's sin4 ,for much more reason1 therefore1 can it be saved through the gift of ,christ1 which is bestowed by means of ,baptism4 ,therefore a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a child1 while yet in its mother's womb1 seems to be part of its mother4 ,now1 when the mother is baptized1 whatever is in her and part of her1 is baptized4 ,therefore it seems that when the mother is baptized1 the child in her womb is baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body4 ,but of two evils the less should be chosen4 ,if1 therefore1 the child in the mother's womb cannot be baptized1 it would be better for the mother to be opened1 and the child to be taken out by force and baptized1 than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without ,baptism4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it happens at times that some part of the child comes forth first1 as we read in ,gen4 #ch3bg3 ,in the very delivery of the infants1 one put forth a hand1 whereon the midwife tied a scarlet thread1 saying3 ,this shall come forth the first4 ,but he drawing back his hand1 the other came forth4 ,now sometimes in such cases there is danger of death4 ,therefore it seems that that part should be baptized1 while the child is yet in its mother's womb4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,ep4 ad ,dardan473 ,no one can be born a second time unless he be born first4 ,but ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration4 ,therefore no one should be baptized before he is born from the womb4 ,i answer that1 ,it is essential to ,baptism that some part of the body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water1 since ,baptism is a kind of washing1 as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a74 ,but an infant's body1 before being born from the womb1 can nowise be washed with water2 unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water1 with which the mother's body is washed1 reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb4 ,but this is impossible3 both because the child's soul1 to the sanctification of which ,baptism is ordained1 is distinct from the soul of the mother2 and because the body of the animated infant is already formed1 and consequently distinct from the body of the mother4 ,therefore the ,baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,cont4 ,julian4 vi73 ,if what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body1 so as to be considered a part thereof1 we should not baptize an infant whose mother1 through danger of death1 was baptized while she bore it in her womb4 ,since1 then1 it1 i4e4 the infant1 is baptized1 it certainly did not belong to the mother's body while it was in the womb4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men4 ,consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man1 so as to receive the sacrament1 at the hands of man1 unto salvation4 ,they can1 however1 be subject to the action of ,god1 in ,whose sight they live1 so as1 by a kind of privilege1 to receive the grace of sanctification2 as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,an internal member of the mother is something of hers by continuity and material union of the part with the whole3 whereas a child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being joined with1 and yet distinct from her4 ,wherefore there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,we should not do evil that there may come good 7,rom4 #c3h74 ,therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be baptized4 ,if1 however1 the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb1 she should be opened that the child may be baptized4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,unless death be imminent1 we should wait until the child has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it4 ,if1 however1 the head1 wherein the senses are rooted1 appear first1 it should be baptized1 in cases of danger3 nor should it be baptized again1 if perfect birth should ensue4 ,and seemingly the same should be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body appear first4 ,but as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its integrity in the same degree as the head1 some hold that since the matter is doubtful1 whenever any other part of the body has been baptized1 the child1 when perfect birth has taken place1 should be baptized with the form3 ,if thou art not baptized1 ,i baptize thee1 etc4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fh1 ,art4 #ab ,whether ,madmen and ,imbeciles ,should ,be ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be baptized4 ,for in order to receive ,baptism1 the person baptized must have the intention1 as stated above 7,a4 #g74 ,but since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason1 they can have but a disorderly intention4 ,therefore they should not be baptized4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 man excels irrational animals in that he has reason4 ,but madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason1 indeed in some cases we do not expect them ever to have it1 as we do in the case of children4 ,it seems1 therefore1 that just as irrational animals are not baptized1 so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps4 ,but it is not customary to baptize people while they sleep4 ,therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,confess4 iv7 of his friend that he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of3 and yet ,baptism was efficacious with him4 ,therefore ,baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason4 ,i answer that1 ,in the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction is to be made4 ,for some are so from birth1 and have no lucid intervals1 and show no signs of the use of reason4 ,and with regard to these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with regard to children who are baptized in the ,faith of the ,church1 as stated above 7,a4 #i1 ad #b74 ,but there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a state of insanity4 ,and with regard to these we must be guided by their wishes as expressed by them when sane3 so that1 if then they manifested a desire to receive ,baptism1 it should be given to them when in a state of madness or imbecility1 even though then they refuse4 ,if1 on the other hand1 while sane they showed no desire to receive ,baptism1 they must not be baptized4 ,again1 there are some who1 though mad or imbecile from birth1 have1 nevertheless1 lucid intervals1 in which they can make right use of reason4 ,wherefore1 if then they express a desire for ,baptism1 they can be baptized though they be actually in a state of madness4 ,and in this case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are sane1 so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly4 ,but if during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive ,baptism1 they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity4 ,lastly there are others who1 though not altogether sane1 yet can use their reason so far as to think about their salvation1 and understand the power of the sacrament4 ,and these are to be treated the same as those who are sane1 and who are baptized if they be willing1 but not against their will4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,imbeciles who never had1 and have not now1 the use of reason1 are baptized1 according to the ,church's intention1 just as according to the ,church's ritual1 they believe and repent2 as we have stated above of children 7,a4 #i1 ad ,obj474 ,but those who have had the use of reason at some time1 or have now1 are baptized according to their own intention1 which they have now1 or had when they were sane4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason accidentally1 i4e4 through some impediment in a bodily organ2 but not like irrational animals through want of a rational soul4 ,consequently the comparison does not hold4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a person should not be baptized while asleep1 except he be threatened with the danger of death4 ,in which case he should be baptized1 if previously he has manifested a desire to receive ,baptism1 as we have stated in reference to imbeciles3 thus ,augustine relates of his friend that he was baptized while unconscious1 because he was in danger of death 7,confess4 iv74 ,,question #fi ,,of ,,the ,,effects ,,of ,,baptism 7,in ,ten ,articles7 ,we must now consider the effects of ,baptism1 concerning which there are ten points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether all sins are taken away by ,baptism8 7#b7 ,whether man is freed from all punishment by ,baptism8 7#c7 ,whether ,baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this life8 7#d7 ,whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by ,baptism8 7#e7 ,of the effects of virtue which are conferred by ,baptism8 7#f7 ,whether even children receive grace and virtues in ,baptism8 7#g7 ,whether ,baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those who are baptized8 7#h7 ,whether ,baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized8 7#i7 ,whether insincerity hinders the effect of ,baptism8 7#aj7 ,whether ,baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,all ,sins ,are ,taken ,away by ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that not all sins are taken away by ,baptism4 ,for ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration1 which corresponds to carnal generation4 ,but by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin4 ,therefore none but original sin is taken away by ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of actual sins4 ,but penance is required in adults before ,baptism1 according to ,acts #b3ch3 ,do penance and be baptized every one of you4 ,therefore ,baptism has nothing to do with the remission of actual sins4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 various diseases demand various remedies3 because as ,jerome says on ,mk4 #i3bg1 #bh3 ,what is a cure for the heel is no cure for the eye4 ,but original sin1 which is taken away by ,baptism1 is generically distinct from actual sin4 ,therefore not all sins are taken away by ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ezech4 #cf3be73 ,i will pour upon you clean water1 and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness4 ,i answer that1 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3c71 all we1 who are baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 are baptized in ,his death4 ,and further on he concludes 7,rom4 #f3aa73 ,so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin1 but alive unto ,god in ,christ ,jesus our ,lord4 ,hence it is clear that by ,baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin1 and begins to live unto the newness of grace4 ,but every sin belongs to the primitive oldness4 ,consequently every sin is taken away by ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ae1 #af71 the sin of ,adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of ,christ1 which is bestowed in ,baptism3 for judgment was by one unto condemnation2 but grace is of many offenses1 unto justification4 ,wherefore ,augustine says in his book on ,infant ,baptism 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i71 that in carnal generation1 original sin alone is contracted2 but when we are born again of the ,spirit1 not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,no sin can be forgiven save by the power of ,christ's ,passion3 hence the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #i3bb7 that without shedding of blood there is no remission4 ,consequently no movement of the human will suffices for the remission of sin1 unless there be faith in ,christ's ,passion1 and the purpose of participating in it1 either by receiving ,baptism1 or by submitting to the keys of the ,church4 ,therefore when an adult approaches ,baptism1 he does indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being baptized1 but more perfectly through the actual reception of ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this argument is true of special remedies4 ,but ,baptism operates by the power of ,christ's ,passion1 which is the universal remedy for all sins2 and so by ,baptism all sins are loosed4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,man ,is ,freed by ,baptism from ,all ,debt of ,punishment ,due to ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that man is not freed by ,baptism from all debt of punishment due to sin4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #ac3a73 ,those things that are of ,god are well ordered ,vulg43 ',those that are1 are ordained of ,god'4 ,but guilt is not set in order save by punishment1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 cxl74 ,therefore ,baptism does not take away the debt of punishment due to sins already committed4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to the sacrament itself2 since the sacraments of the ,new ,law effect what they signify1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,but the washing of ,baptism has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing from the stain of sin1 but none1 seemingly1 with the remission of the debt of punishment4 ,therefore the debt of punishment is not taken away by ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when the debt of punishment has been remitted1 a man no longer deserves to be punished1 and so it would be unjust to punish him4 ,if1 therefore1 the debt of punishment be remitted by ,baptism1 it would be unjust1 after ,baptism1 to hang a thief who had committed murder before4 ,consequently the severity of human legislation would be relaxed on account of ,baptism2 which is undesirable4 ,therefore ,baptism does not remit the debt of punishment4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose1 commenting on ,rom4 #aa3bi1 ,the gifts and the calling of ,god ate without repentance1 says3 ,the grace of ,god in ,baptism remits all1 gratis4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #di1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b2 ,q4 #fh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d1 #e7 by ,baptism a man is incorporated in the ,passion and death of ,christ1 according to ,rom4 #f3h3 ,if we be dead with ,christ1 we believe that we shall live also together with ,christ4 ,hence it is clear that the ,passion of ,christ is communicated to every baptized person1 so that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died4 ,now ,christ's ,passion1 as stated above 7,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #e71 is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins of all men4 ,consequently he who is baptized1 is freed from the debt of all punishment due to him for his sins1 just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since the pains of ,christ's ,passion are communicated to the person baptized1 inasmuch as he is made a member of ,christ1 just as if he himself had borne those pains1 his sins are set in order by the pains of ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,water not only cleanses but also refreshes4 ,and thus by refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment1 just as by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in punishments inflicted by a human tribunal1 we have to consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of ,god1 but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by another's sin4 ,consequently1 although a murderer is freed by ,baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of ,god1 he remains1 nevertheless1 in debt to men2 and it is right that they should be edified at his punishment1 since they were scandalized at his sin4 ,but the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of kindness4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,baptism ,should ,take ,away the ,penalties of ,sin ,that ,belong to ,this ,life8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism should take away the penalties of sin that belong to this life4 ,for as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ae71 the gift of ,christ is farther-reaching than the sin of ,adam4 ,but through ,adam's sin1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ab71 death entered into this world1 and1 consequently1 all the other penalties of the present life4 ,much more1 therefore1 should man be freed from the penalties of the present life1 by the gift of ,christ which is received in ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism takes away the guilt of both original and actual sin4 ,now it takes away the guilt of actual sin in such a way as to free man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom4 ,therefore it also frees man from the penalties of the present life1 which are a punishment of original sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if the cause be removed1 the effect is removed4 ,but the cause of these penalties is original sin1 which is taken away by ,baptism4 ,therefore such like penalties should not remain4 ,on the contrary1 on ,rom4 #f3f1 that the body of sin may be destroyed1 a gloss says3 ,the effect of ,baptism is that the old man is crucified1 and the body of sin destroyed1 not as though the living flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence with which it has been bespattered from its birth2 but that it may not hurt him1 when dead1 though it was in him when he was born4 ,therefore for the same reason neither are the other penalties taken away by ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the present life yet it does not take them away during the present life1 but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when this mortal hath put on immortality 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ed74 ,and this is reasonable4 ,first1 because1 by ,baptism1 man is incorporated in ,christ1 and is made ,his member1 as stated above 7,a4 #c2 ,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #e74 ,consequently it is fitting that what takes place in the ,head should take place also in the member incorporated4 ,now1 from the very beginning of ,his conception ,christ was full of grace and truth1 yet ,he had a passible body1 which through ,his ,passion and death was raised up to a life of glory4 ,wherefore a ,christian receives grace in ,baptism1 as to his soul2 but he retains a passible body1 so that he may suffer for ,christ therein3 yet at length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #h3aa73 ,he that raised up ,jesus ,christ from the dead1 shall quicken also our ,vulg43 'your' mortal bodies1 because of ,his ,spirit that dwelleth in us ,vulg43 'you'3 and further on in the same chapter 7,rom4 #h3ag73 ,heirs indeed of ,god1 and joint heirs with ,christ3 yet so1 if we suffer with ,him1 that we may be also glorified with ,him4 ,secondly1 this is suitable for our spiritual training3 namely1 in order that1 by fighting against concupiscence and other defects to which he is subject1 man may receive the crown of victory4 ,wherefore on ,rom4 #f3f1 that the body of sin may be destroyed1 a gloss says3 ,if a man after ,baptism live in the flesh1 he has concupiscence to fight against1 and to conquer by ,god's help4 ,in sign of which it is written 7,judges #c3a1 #b73 ,these are the nations which the ,lord left1 that by them ,he might instruct ,israel 4 4 4 that afterwards their children might learn to fight with their enemies1 and to be trained up to war4 ,thirdly1 this was suitable1 lest men might seek to be baptized for the sake of impassibility in the present life1 and not for the sake of the glory of life eternal4 ,wherefore the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3ai73 ,if in this life only we have hope in ,christ1 we are of all men most miserable4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as a gloss says on ,rom4 #f3f1 that we may serve sin no longer--,like a man who1 having captured a redoubtable enemy1 slays him not forthwith1 but suffers him to live for a little time in shame and suffering2 so did ,christ first of all fetter our punishment1 but at a future time ,he will destroy it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as the gloss says on the same passage 7cf4 ad #a71 the punishment of sin is twofold1 the punishment of hell1 and temporal punishment4 ,christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell1 so that those who are baptized and truly repent1 should not be subject to it4 ,he did not1 however1 altogether abolish temporal punishment yet awhile2 for hunger1 thirst1 and death still remain4 ,but ,he overthrew its kingdom and power in the sense that man should no longer be in fear of them3 and at length ,he will altogether exterminate it at the last day4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as we stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 original sin spread in this way1 that at first the person infected the nature1 and afterwards the nature infected the person4 ,whereas ,christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards the person1 and afterwards will simultaneously repair what pertains to the nature in all men4 ,consequently by ,baptism ,he takes away from man forthwith the guilt of original sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly vision4 ,but the penalties of the present life1 such as death1 hunger1 thirst1 and the like1 pertain to the nature1 from the principles of which they arise1 inasmuch as it is deprived of original justice4 ,therefore these defects will not be taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through the glorious resurrection4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,grace and ,virtues ,are ,bestowed on ,man by ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by ,baptism4 ,because1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a71 the sacraments of the ,new ,law effect what they signify4 ,but the baptismal cleansing signifies the cleansing of the soul from guilt1 and not the fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues4 ,therefore it seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one does not need to receive what one has already acquired4 ,but some approach ,baptism who have already grace and virtues3 thus we read 7,acts #aj3a1 #b73 ,there was a certain man in ,cesarea1 named ,cornelius1 a centurion of that which is called the ,italian band1 a religious man and fearing ,god2 who1 nevertheless1 was afterwards baptized by ,peter4 ,therefore grace and virtues are not bestowed by ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 virtue is a habit3 which is defined as a quality not easily removed1 by which one may act easily and pleasurably4 ,but after ,baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue2 and experiences difficulty in doing good1 in which the act of virtue consists4 ,therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,titus #c3e1 #f73 ,he saved us by the laver of regeneration1 i4e4 by ,baptism1 and renovation of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,whom ,he hath poured forth upon us abundantly1 i4e4 unto the remission of sins and the fulness of virtues1 as a gloss expounds4 ,therefore the grace of the ,holy ,ghost and the fulness of virtues are given in ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,augustine says in the book on ,infant ,baptism 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i7 the effect of ,baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in ,christ as ,his members4 ,now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from ,christ the ,head to all ,his members1 according to ,john #a3af3 ,of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,hence it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as the baptismal water by its cleansing signifies the washing away of guilt1 and by its refreshment the remission of punishment1 so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of grace and virtues4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b2 ,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #b7 man receives the forgiveness of sins before ,baptism in so far as he has ,baptism of desire1 explicitly or implicitly2 and yet when he actually receives ,baptism1 he receives a fuller remission1 as to the remission of the entire punishment4 ,so also before ,baptism ,cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in ,christ and their desire for ,baptism1 implicit or explicit3 but afterwards when baptized1 they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues4 ,hence in ,ps4 #bb3b1 ,he hath brought me up on the water of refreshment1 a gloss says3 ,he has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,difficulty in doing good and proneness to evil are in the baptized1 not through their lacking the habits of the virtues1 but through concupiscence which is not taken away in ,baptism4 ,but just as concupiscence is diminished by ,baptism1 so as not to enslave us1 so also are both the aforesaid defects diminished1 so that man be not overcome by them4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,certain ,acts of the ,virtues ,are ,fittingly ,set ,down ,as ,effects of ,baptism1 to ,wit--,incorporation in ,christ1 ,enlightenment1 and ,fruitfulness8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that certain acts of the virtues are unfittingly set down as effects of ,baptism1 to wit--incorporation in ,christ1 enlightenment1 and fruitfulness4 ,for ,baptism is not given to an adult1 except he believe2 according to ,mk4 #af3af3 ,he that believeth and is baptized1 shall be saved4 ,but it is by faith that man is incorporated in ,christ1 according to ,eph4 #c3ag3 ,that ,christ may dwell by faith in your hearts4 ,therefore no one is baptized except he be already incorporated in ,christ4 ,therefore incorporation with ,christ is not the effect of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 enlightenment is caused by teaching1 according to ,eph4 #c3h1 #i3 ,to me the least of all the saints1 is given this grace 4 4 4 to enlighten all men1 etc4 ,but teaching by the catechism precedes ,baptism4 ,therefore it is not the effect of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 fruitfulness pertains to active generation4 ,but a man is regenerated spiritually by ,baptism4 ,therefore fruitfulness is not an effect of ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in the book on ,infant ,baptism 7,de ,pecc4 ,merit4 et ,remiss4 i7 that the effect of ,baptism is that the baptized are incorporated in ,christ4 ,and ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii7 ascribes enlightenment to ,baptism4 ,and on ,ps4 #bb3b1 ,he hath brought me up on the water of refreshment1 a gloss says that the sinner's soul1 sterilized by drought1 is made fruitful by ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,by ,baptism man is born again unto the spiritual life1 which is proper to the faithful of ,christ1 as the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #b3bj73 ,and that ,i live now in the flesh2 ,i live in the faith of the ,son of ,god4 ,now life is only in those members that are united to the head1 from which they derive sense and movement4 ,and therefore it follows of necessity that by ,baptism man is incorporated in ,christ1 as one of ,his members4 ,again1 just as the members derive sense and movement from the material head1 so from their spiritual ,head1 i4e4 ,christ1 do ,his members derive spiritual sense consisting in the knowledge of truth1 and spiritual movement which results from the instinct of grace4 ,hence it is written 7,john #a3ad1 #af73 ,we have seen ,him 4 4 4 full of grace and truth2 and of ,his fulness we all have received4 ,and it follows from this that the baptized are enlightened by ,christ as to the knowledge of truth1 and made fruitful by ,him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,adults who already believe in ,christ are incorporated in ,him mentally4 ,but afterwards1 when they are baptized1 they are incorporated in ,him1 corporally1 as it were1 i4e4 by the visible sacrament2 without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated in ,him even mentally4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by catechizing3 but ,god enlightens the baptized inwardly1 by preparing their hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth1 according to ,john #f3de3 ,it is written in the prophets 4 4 4 ,they shall all be taught of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the fruitfulness which ,i ascribed as an effect of ,baptism is that by which man brings forth good works2 not that by which he begets others in ,christ1 as the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #d3ae73 ,in ,christ ,jesus by the ,gospel ,i have begotten you4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,children ,receive ,grace and ,virtue in ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that children do not receive grace and virtues in ,baptism4 ,for grace and virtues are not possessed without faith and charity4 ,but faith1 as ,augustine says 7,ep4 xcviii71 depends on the will of the believer3 and in like manner charity depends on the will of the lover4 ,now children have not the use of the will1 and consequently they have neither faith nor charity4 ,therefore children do not receive grace and virtues in ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,john #ad3ab1 ,greater than these shall he do1 ,augustine says that in order for the ungodly to be made righteous ,christ worketh in him1 but not without him4 ,but a child1 through not having the use of free-will1 does not co-operate with ,christ unto its justification3 indeed at times it does its best to resist4 ,therefore it is not justified by grace and virtues4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,rom4 #d3e73 ,to him that worketh not1 yet believing in ,him that justifieth the ungodly1 his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of ,god4 ,but a child believeth not in ,him that justifieth the ungodly4 ,therefore a child receives neither sanctifying grace nor virtues4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 what is done with a carnal intention does not seem to have a spiritual effect4 ,but sometimes children are taken to ,baptism with a carnal intention1 to wit1 that their bodies may be healed4 ,therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect consisting in grace and virtue4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,enchiridion lii73 ,when little children are baptized1 they die to that sin which they contracted in birth3 so that to them also may be applied the words3 ',we are buried together with ,him by ,baptism unto death'3 7and he continues thus7 'that as ,christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the ,father1 so we also may walk in newness of life4' ,now newness of life is through grace and virtues4 ,therefore children receive grace and virtues in ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,some of the early writers held that children do not receive grace and virtues in ,baptism1 but that they receive the imprint of the character of ,christ1 by the power of which they receive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age4 ,but this is evidently false1 for two reasons4 ,first1 because children1 like adults1 are made members of ,christ in ,baptism2 hence they must1 of necessity1 receive an influx of grace and virtues from the ,head4 ,secondly1 because1 if this were true1 children that die after ,baptism1 would not come to eternal life2 since according to ,rom4 #f3bc1 the grace of ,god is life everlasting4 ,and consequently ,baptism would not have profited them unto salvation4 ,now the source of their error was that they did not recognize the distinction between habit and act4 ,and so1 seeing children to be incapable of acts of virtue1 they thought that they had no virtues at all after ,baptism4 ,but this inability of children to act is not due to the absence of habits1 but to an impediment on the part of the body3 thus also when a man is asleep1 though he may have the habits of virtue1 yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,faith and charity depend on man's will1 yet so that the habits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which is in children2 whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will1 which is not in children4 ,in this sense ,augustine says in the book on ,infant ,baptism 7,ep4 xcviii73 ,the little child is made a believer1 not as yet by that faith which depends on the will of the believer1 but by the sacrament of faith itself1 which causes the habit of faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says in his book on ,charity 7,ep4 ,joan4 ad ,parth4 iii71 no man is born of water and the ,holy ,ghost unwillingly which is to be understood not of little children but of adults4 ,in like manner we are to understand as applying to adults1 that man without himself is not justified by ,christ4 ,moreover1 if little children who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can1 this is not imputed to them1 since so little do they know what they do1 that they seem not to do it at all3 as ,augustine says in a book on the ,presence of ,god1 addressed to ,dardanus 7,ep4 clxxxvii74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 7,serm4 clxxvi73 ,mother ,church lends other feet to the little children that they may come2 another heart that they may believe2 another tongue that they may confess4 ,so that children believe1 not by their own act1 but by the faith of the ,church1 which is applied to them3 by the power of which faith1 grace and virtues are bestowed on them4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the carnal intention of those who take children to be baptized does not hurt the latter1 as neither does one's sin hurt another1 unless he consent4 ,hence ,augustine says in his letter to ,boniface 7,ep4 xcviii73 ,be not disturbed because some bring children to be baptized1 not in the hope that they may be born again to eternal life by the spiritual grace1 but because they think it to be a remedy whereby they may preserve or recover health4 ,for they are not deprived of regeneration1 through not being brought for this intention4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,effect of ,baptism ,is to ,open the ,gates of the ,heavenly ,kingdom8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it is not the effect of ,baptism1 to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom4 ,for what is already opened needs no opening4 ,but the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by ,christ's ,passion3 hence it is written 7,apoc4 #d3a73 ,after these things ,i looked and behold 7a great7 door was opened in heaven4 ,therefore it is not the effect of ,baptism1 to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism has had its effects ever since it was instituted4 ,but some were baptized with ,christ's ,baptism1 before ,his ,passion1 according to ,john #c3bb1 #bf3 and if they had died then1 the gates of the heavenly kingdom would not have been opened to them1 since none entered therein before ,christ1 according to ,mic4 #b3ac3 ,he went up ,vulg43 'shall go up' that shall open the way before them4 ,therefore it is not the effect of ,baptism1 to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the baptized are still subject to death and the other penalties of the present life1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,but entrance to the heavenly kingdom is opened to none that are subject to punishment3 as is clear in regard to those who are in purgatory4 ,therefore it is not the effect of ,baptism1 to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom4 ,on the contrary1 on ,luke #c3ba1 ,heaven was opened1 the gloss of ,bede says3 ,we see here the power of ,baptism2 from which when a man comes forth1 the gates of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him4 ,i answer that1 ,to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom is to remove the obstacle that prevents one from entering therein4 ,now this obstacle is guilt and the debt of punishment4 ,but it has been shown above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b7 that all guilt and also all debt of punishment are taken away by ,baptism4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the effect of ,baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the baptized in so far as it incorporates them in the ,passion of ,christ1 by applying its power to man4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when ,christ's ,passion was not as yet consummated actually but only in the faith of believers1 ,baptism proportionately caused the gates to be opened1 not in fact but in hope4 ,for the baptized who died then looked forward1 with a sure hope1 to enter the heavenly kingdom4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the baptized are subject to death and the penalties of the present life1 not by reason of a personal debt of punishment but by reason of the state of their nature4 ,and therefore this is no bar to their entrance to the heavenly kingdom1 when death severs the soul from the body2 since they have paid1 as it were1 the debt of nature4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,baptism ,has an ,equal ,effect in ,all8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism has not an equal effect in all4 ,for the effect of ,baptism is to remove guilt4 ,but in some it takes away more sins than in others2 for in children it takes away only original sins1 whereas in adults it takes away actual sins1 in some many1 in others few4 ,therefore ,baptism has not an equal effect in all4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 grace and virtues are bestowed on man by ,baptism4 ,but some1 after ,baptism1 seem to have more grace and more perfect virtue than others who have been baptized4 ,therefore ,baptism has not an equal effect in all4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nature is perfected by grace1 as matter by form4 ,but a form is received into matter according to its capacity4 ,therefore1 since some of the baptized1 even children1 have greater capacity for natural gifts than others have1 it seems that some receive greater grace than others4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 in ,baptism some receive not only spiritual1 but also bodily health2 thus ,constantine was cleansed in ,baptism from leprosy4 ,but all the infirm do not receive bodily health in ,baptism4 ,therefore it has not an equal effect in all4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,eph4 #d3e73 ,one ,faith1 one ,baptism4 ,but a uniform cause has a uniform effect4 ,therefore ,baptism has an equal effect in all4 ,i answer that1 ,the effect of ,baptism is twofold1 the essential effect1 and the accidental4 ,the essential effect of ,baptism is that for which ,baptism was instituted1 namely1 the begetting of men unto spiritual life4 ,therefore1 since all children are equally disposed to ,baptism1 because they are baptized not in their own faith1 but in that of the ,church1 they all receive an equal effect in ,baptism4 ,whereas adults1 who approach ,baptism in their own faith1 are not equally disposed to ,baptism2 for some approach thereto with greater1 some with less1 devotion4 ,and therefore some receive a greater1 some a smaller share of the grace of newness2 just as from the same fire1 he receives more heat who approaches nearest to it1 although the fire1 as far as it is concerned1 sends forth its heat equally to all4 ,but the accidental effect of ,baptism1 is that to which ,baptism is not ordained1 but which the ,divine power produces miraculously in ,baptism3 thus on ,rom4 #f3f1 that we may serve sin no longer1 a gloss says3 this is not bestowed in ,baptism1 save by an ineffable miracle of the ,creator1 so that the law of sin1 which is in our members1 be absolutely destroyed4 ,and such like effects are not equally received by all the baptized1 even if they approach with equal devotion3 but they are bestowed according to the ordering of ,divine providence4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the least baptismal grace suffices to blot out all sins4 ,wherefore that in some more sins are loosed than in others is not due to the greater efficacy of ,baptism1 but to the condition of the recipient3 for in each one it looses whatever it finds4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that greater or lesser grace appears in the baptized1 may occur in two ways4 ,first1 because one receives greater grace in ,baptism than another1 on account of his greater devotion1 as stated above4 ,secondly1 because1 though they receive equal grace1 they do not make an equal use of it1 but one applies himself more to advance therein1 while another by his negligence baffles grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the various degrees of capacity in men arise1 not from a variety in the mind which is renewed by ,baptism 7since all men1 being of one species1 are of one form71 but from the diversity of bodies4 ,but it is otherwise with the angels1 who differ in species4 ,and therefore gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according to their diverse capacity for natural gifts1 but not on men4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,bodily health is not the essential effect of ,baptism1 but a miraculous work of ,divine providence4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,insincerity ,hinders the ,effect of ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of ,baptism4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #c3bg73 ,as many of you as have been baptized in ,christ ,jesus1 have put on ,christ4 ,but all that receive the ,baptism of ,christ1 are baptized in ,christ4 ,therefore they all put on ,christ3 and this is to receive the effect of ,baptism4 ,consequently insincerity does not hinder the effect of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,divine power which can change man's will to that which is better1 works in ,baptism4 ,but the effect of the efficient cause cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause4 ,therefore insincerity cannot hinder the effect of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the effect of ,baptism is grace1 to which sin is in opposition4 ,but many other sins are more grievous than insincerity1 which are not said to hinder the effect of ,baptism4 ,therefore neither does insincerity4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,wis4 #a3e73 ,the ,holy ,spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful4 ,but the effect of ,baptism is from the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore insincerity hinders the effect of ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 ii71 ,god does not compel man to be righteous4 ,consequently in order that a man be justified by ,baptism1 his will must needs embrace both ,baptism and the baptismal effect4 ,now1 a man is said to be insincere by reason of his will being in contradiction with either ,baptism or its effect4 ,for1 according to ,augustine 7,de ,bapt4 cont4 ,donat4 vii71 a man is said to be insincere1 in four ways3 first1 because he does not believe1 whereas ,baptism is the sacrament of ,faith2 secondly1 through scorning the sacrament itself2 thirdly1 through observing a rite which differs from that prescribed by the ,church in conferring the sacrament2 fourthly1 through approaching the sacrament without devotion4 ,wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the effect of ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to be baptized in ,christ1 may be taken in two ways4 ,first1 in ,christ1 i4e4 in conformity with ,christ4 ,and thus whoever is baptized in ,christ so as to be conformed to ,him by ,faith and ,charity1 puts on ,christ by grace4 ,secondly1 a man is said to be baptized in ,christ1 in so far as he receives ,christ's sacrament4 ,and thus all put on ,christ1 through being configured to ,him by the character1 but not through being conformed to ,him by grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when ,god changes man's will from evil to good1 man does not approach with insincerity4 ,but ,god does not always do this4 ,nor is this the purpose of the sacrament1 that an insincere man be made sincere2 but that he who comes in sincerity1 be justified4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a man is said to be insincere who makes a show of willing what he wills not4 ,now whoever approaches ,baptism1 by that very fact makes a show of having right faith in ,christ1 of veneration for this sacrament1 and of wishing to conform to the ,church1 and to renounce sin4 ,consequently1 to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave1 if he approach ,baptism1 he approaches insincerely1 which is the same as to approach without devotion4 ,but this must be understood of mortal sin1 which is in opposition to grace3 but not of venial sin4 ,consequently1 here insincerity includes1 in a way1 every sin4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #fi1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,baptism ,produces ,its ,effect ,when the ,insincerity ,ceases8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,baptism does not produce its effect1 when the insincerity ceases4 ,for a dead work1 which is void of charity1 can never come to life4 ,but he who approaches ,baptism insincerely1 receives the sacrament without charity4 ,therefore it can never come to life so as to bestow grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 insincerity seems to be stronger than ,baptism1 because it hinders its effect4 ,but the stronger is not removed by the weaker4 ,therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by ,baptism which has been hindered by insincerity4 ,and thus ,baptism will not receive its full effect1 which is the remission of all sins4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it may happen that a man approach ,baptism insincerely1 and afterwards commit a number of sins4 ,and yet these sins will not be taken away by ,baptism2 because ,baptism washes away past1 not future1 sins4 ,such a ,baptism1 therefore1 will never have its effect1 which is the remission of all sins4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,bapt4 cont4 ,donat4 i73 ,then does ,baptism begin to have its salutary effect1 when truthful confession takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins from being washed away1 so long as the heart persisted in malice and sacrilege4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #i71 ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration4 ,now when a thing is generated1 it receives together with the form1 the form's effect1 unless there be an obstacle2 and when this is removed1 the form of the thing generated produces its effect3 thus at the same time as a weighty body is generated1 it has a downward movement1 unless something prevent this2 and when the obstacle is removed1 it begins forthwith to move downwards4 ,in like manner when a man is baptized1 he receives the character1 which is like a form2 and he receives in consequence its proper effect1 which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted4 ,but this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity4 ,wherefore1 when this obstacle is removed by ,penance1 ,baptism forthwith produces its effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is the work of ,god1 not of man4 ,consequently1 it is not dead in the man1 who being insincere1 is baptized without charity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,insincerity is not removed by ,baptism but by ,penance3 and when it is removed1 ,baptism takes away all guilt1 and all debt of punishment due to sins1 whether committed before ,baptism1 or even co-existent with ,baptism4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,bapt4 cont4 ,donat4 i73 ,yesterday is blotted out1 and whatever remains over and above1 even the very last hour and moment preceding ,baptism1 the very moment of ,baptism4 ,but from that moment forward he is bound by his obligations4 ,and so both ,baptism and ,penance concur in producing the effect of ,baptism1 but ,baptism as the direct efficient cause1 ,penance as the indirect cause1 i4e4 as removing the obstacle4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the effect of ,baptism is to take away not future1 but present and past sins4 ,and consequently1 when the insincerity passes away1 subsequent sins are indeed remitted1 but by ,penance1 not by ,baptism4 ,wherefore they are not remitted1 like the sins which preceded ,baptism1 as to the whole debt of punishment4 ,,question #gj ,,of ,,circumcision 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider things that are preparatory to ,baptism3 and 7#a7 that which preceded ,baptism1 viz4 ,circumcision1 7#b7 those which accompany ,baptism1 viz4 ,catechism and ,exorcism4 ,concerning the first there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether circumcision was a preparation for1 and a figure of1 ,baptism8 7#b7 ,its institution2 7#c7 ,its rite2 7#d7 ,its effect4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gj1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,circumcision ,was a ,preparation ,for1 and a ,figure of ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that circumcision was not a preparation for1 and a figure of ,baptism4 ,for every figure has some likeness to that which it foreshadows4 ,but circumcision has no likeness to ,baptism4 ,therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for1 and a figure of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,apostle1 speaking of the ,fathers of old1 says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3b71 that all were baptized in the cloud1 and in the sea3 but not that they were baptized in circumcision4 ,therefore the protecting pillar of a cloud1 and the crossing of the ,red ,sea1 rather than circumcision1 were a preparation for1 and a figure of ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it was stated above 7,q4 #ch1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c7 that the baptism of ,john was a preparation for ,christ's4 ,consequently1 if circumcision was a preparation for1 and a figure of ,christ's ,baptism1 it seems that ,john's baptism was superfluous3 which is unseemly4 ,therefore circumcision was not a preparation for1 and a figure of ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,col4 #b3aa1 #ab73 ,you are circumcised with circumcision1 not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh1 but in the circumcision of ,christ1 buried with ,him in ,baptism4 ,i answer that1 ,baptism is called the ,sacrament of ,faith2 in so far1 to wit1 as in ,baptism man makes a profession of faith1 and by ,baptism is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful4 ,now our faith is the same as that of the ,fathers of old1 according to the ,apostle 7#b ,cor4 #d3ac73 ,having the same spirit of faith 4 4 4 we 4 4 4 believe4 ,but circumcision was a protestation of faith2 wherefore by circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful4 ,consequently1 it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for ,baptism and a figure thereof1 forasmuch as all things happened to the ,fathers of old in figure 7#a ,cor4 #aj3aa72 just as their faith regarded things to come4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,circumcision was like ,baptism as to the spiritual effect of the latter4 ,for just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule1 so ,baptism despoils man of carnal behavior4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the ,red ,sea were indeed figures of our ,baptism1 whereby we are born again of water1 signified by the ,red ,sea2 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 signified by the pillar of cloud3 yet man did not make1 by means of these1 a profession of faith1 as by circumcision2 so that these two things were figures but not sacraments4 ,but circumcision was a sacrament1 and a preparation for ,baptism2 although less clearly figurative of ,baptism1 as to externals1 than the aforesaid4 ,and for this reason the ,apostle mentions them rather than circumcision4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,john's baptism was a preparation for ,christ's as to the act done3 but circumcision1 as to the profession of faith1 which is required in ,baptism1 as stated above4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gj1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,circumcision ,was ,instituted in a ,fitting ,manner8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that circumcision was instituted in an unfitting manner4 ,for as stated above 7,a4 #a7 a profession of faith was made in circumcision4 ,but none could ever be delivered from the first man's sin1 except by faith in ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,therefore circumcision should have been instituted forthwith after the first man's sin1 and not at the time of ,abraham4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in circumcision man made profession of keeping the ,old ,law1 just as in ,baptism he makes profession of keeping the ,new ,law2 wherefore the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #e3c73 ,i testify 4 4 4 to every man circumcising himself1 that he is a debtor to do the whole ,law4 ,but the observance of the ,law was not promulgated at the time of ,abraham1 but rather at the time of ,moses4 ,therefore it was unfitting for circumcision to be instituted at the time of ,abraham4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 circumcision was a figure of1 and a preparation for1 ,baptism4 ,but ,baptism is offered to all nations1 according to ,matt4 #bh3ai3 ,going 4 4 4 teach ye all nations1 baptizing them4 ,therefore circumcision should have been instituted as binding1 not the ,jews only1 but also all nations4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual circumcision1 as the shadow to the reality4 ,but spiritual circumcision which is of ,christ1 regards indifferently both sexes1 since in ,christ ,jesus there is neither male nor female1 as is written ,col4 #c 99,gal4 #c3bh4 ,therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns only males1 was unfitting4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read 7,gen4 #ag7 that circumcision was instituted by ,god1 ,whose works are perfect 7,deut4 #cb3d74 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a7 circumcision was a preparation for ,baptism1 inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in ,christ1 which we also profess in ,baptism4 ,now among the ,fathers of old1 ,abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of ,christ1 when it was said to him3 ,in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed 7,gen4 #bb3ah74 ,moreover1 he was the first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers1 in accordance with the commandment of the ,lord1 ,who said to him 7,gen4 #ac3a73 ,go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred4 ,therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of ,abraham4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,immediately after the sin of our first parent1 on account of the knowledge possessed by ,adam1 who was fully instructed about ,divine things1 both faith and natural reason flourished in man to such an extent1 that there was no need for any signs of faith and salvation to be prescribed to him1 but each one was wont to make protestation of his faith1 by outward signs of his profession1 according as he thought best4 ,but about the time of ,abraham faith was on the wane1 many being given over to idolatry4 ,moreover1 by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded even in regard to sins against nature4 ,and therefore it was fitting that then1 and not before1 circumcision should be instituted1 as a profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the observance of the ,law was not to be promulgated until the people were already gathered together3 because the law is ordained to the public good1 as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ij1 ,a4 #b74 ,now it behooved the body of the faithful to be gathered together by a sensible sign1 which is necessary in order that men be united together in any religion1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,faust4 xix74 ,consequently1 it was necessary for circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the ,law4 ,those ,fathers1 however1 who lived before the ,law1 taught their families concerning ,divine things by way of paternal admonition4 ,hence the ,lord said of ,abraham 7,gen4 #ah3ai73 ,i know that he will command his children1 and his household after him to keep the way of the ,lord4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation1 to which ,god calls all men1 according to #a ,tim4 #b3d3 ,who will have all men to be saved4 ,wherefore ,baptism is offered to all nations4 ,on the other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of salvation1 but signified it as to be achieved by ,christ1 ,who was to be born of the ,jewish nation4 ,for this reason circumcision was given to that nation alone4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the institution of circumcision is as a sign of ,abraham's faith1 who believed that himself would be the father of ,christ ,who was promised to him3 and for this reason it was suitable that it should be for males only4 ,again1 original sin1 against which circumcision was specially ordained1 is contracted from the father1 not from the mother1 as was stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,a4 #e74 ,but ,baptism contains the power of ,christ1 ,who is the universal cause of salvation for all1 and is ,the ,remission of all sins 7,post-,communion1 ,tuesday in ,whitweek74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gj1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,rite of ,circumcision ,was ,fitting8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting4 ,for circumcision1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 was a profession of faith4 ,but faith is in the apprehensive power1 whose operations appear mostly in the head4 ,therefore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the sacraments we make use of such things as are in more frequent use2 for instance1 water1 which is used for washing1 and bread1 which we use for nourishment4 ,but1 in cutting1 we use an iron knife more commonly than a stone knife4 ,therefore circumcision should not have been performed with a stone knife4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as ,baptism was instituted as a remedy against original sin1 so also was circumcision1 as ,bede says 7,hom4 in ,circum474 ,but now ,baptism is not put off until the eighth day1 lest children should be in danger of loss on account of original sin1 if they should die before being baptized4 ,on the other hand1 sometimes ,baptism is put off until after the eighth day4 ,therefore the eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision1 but this day should have been anticipated1 just as sometimes it was deferred4 ,on the contrary1 ,the aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a gloss on ,rom4 #d3aa3 ,and he received the sign of circumcision4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 circumcision was established1 as a sign of faith1 by ,god of ,whose wisdom there is no number 7,ps4 #adf3e74 ,now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom4 ,consequently1 it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member4 ,first1 because it was a sign of that faith whereby ,abraham believed that ,christ would be born of his seed4 ,secondly1 because it was to be a remedy against original sin1 which is contracted through the act of generation4 ,thirdly1 because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence1 which thrives principally in those members1 by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a stone knife was not essential to circumcision4 ,wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is required by any divine precept2 nor did the ,jews1 as a rule1 make use of such a knife for circumcision2 indeed1 neither do they now4 ,nevertheless1 certain well-known circumcisions are related as having been performed with a stone knife1 thus 7,ex4 #d3be7 we read that ,sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her son1 and 7,joshua #e3b73 ,make thee knives of stone1 and circumcise the second time the children of ,israel4 ,which signified that spiritual circumcision would be done by ,christ1 of ,whom it is written 7#a ,cor4 #aj3d73 ,now the rock was ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the eighth day was fixed for circumcision3 first1 because of the mystery2 since1 ,christ1 by taking away from the elect1 not only guilt but also all penalties1 will perfect the spiritual circumcision1 in the eighth age 7which is the age of those that rise again71 as it were1 on the eighth day4 ,secondly1 on account of the tenderness of the infant before the eighth day4 ,wherefore even in regard to other animals it is prescribed 7,lev4 #bb3bg73 ,when a bullock1 or a sheep1 or a goat1 is brought forth1 they shall be seven days under the udder of their dam3 but the eighth day and thenceforth1 they may be offered to the ,lord4 ,moreover1 the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the precept2 so that1 to wit1 those who delayed beyond the eighth day1 sinned1 even though it were the sabbath1 according to ,john #g3bc3 7,if7 a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day1 that the ,law of ,moses may not be broken4 ,but it was not necessary for the validity of the sacrament3 because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day1 they could be circumcised afterwards4 ,some also say that in imminent danger of death1 it was allowable to anticipate the eighth day4 ,but this cannot be proved either from the authority of ,scripture or from the custom of the ,jews4 ,wherefore it is better to say with ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor 7,de ,sacram4 i7 that the eighth day was never anticipated for any motive1 however urgent4 ,hence on ,prov4 #d3c3 ,i was 4 4 4 an only son in the sight of my mother1 a gloss says1 that ,bersabee's other baby boy did not count because through dying before the eighth day it received no name2 and consequently neither was it circumcised4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gj1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,circumcision ,bestowed ,sanctifying ,grace8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,gal4 #b3ba73 ,if justice be by the ,law1 then ,christ died in vain1 i4e4 without cause4 ,but circumcision was an obligation imposed by the ,law1 according to ,gal4 #e3c3 ,i testify 4 4 4 to every man circumcising himself1 that he is a debtor to do the whole law4 ,therefore1 if justice be by circumcision1 ,christ died in vain1 i4e4 without cause4 ,but this cannot be allowed4 ,therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 before the institution of circumcision faith alone sufficed for justification2 hence ,gregory says 7,moral4 iv73 ,faith alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of ,baptism avails with us4 ,but faith has lost nothing of its strength through the commandment of circumcision4 ,therefore faith alone justified little ones1 and not circumcision4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 we read 7,joshua #e3e1 #f7 that the people that were born in the desert1 during the forty years 4 4 4 were uncircumcised4 ,if1 therefore1 original sin was taken away by circumcision1 it seems that all who died in the desert1 both little children and adults1 were lost4 ,and the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day1 which was that of circumcision1 which day could not be anticipated1 as stated above 7,a4 #c1 ad #c74 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom4 ,but before the ,passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised4 ,therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 original sin is not remitted without actual sin being remitted also3 because it is wicked to hope for half forgiveness from ,god1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,vera et ,falsa ,poenit4 ix74 ,but we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin4 ,therefore neither did it remit original sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says1 writing to ,valerius in answer to ,julian 7,de ,nup4 et ,concup4 ii73 ,from the time that circumcision was instituted among ,god's people1 as 'a seal of the justice of the faith1' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin2 just as ,baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man4 ,i answer that1 ,all are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision4 ,but some said that no grace was conferred1 and that the only effect was to remit sin4 ,the ,master holds this opinion 7,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #a71 and in a gloss on ,rom4 #d3aa4 ,but this is impossible1 since guilt is not remitted except by grace1 according to ,rom4 #c3b3 ,being justified freely by ,his grace1 etc4 ,wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision1 as to that effect which is the remission of guilt1 but not as to its positive effects2 lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the ,law1 and that1 consequently1 the coming of ,christ was unnecessary4 ,but neither can this opinion stand4 ,first1 because by circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time1 which is the last positive effect of grace4 ,secondly1 because1 in the order of the formal cause1 positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation1 although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause3 since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject4 ,consequently1 others said that grace was conferred in circumcision1 also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life2 but not as to all its effects1 for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes1 nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the ,law4 ,and this was my opinion at one time 7,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #a2 ,q4 #b1 ,a4 #d74 ,but if one consider the matter carefully1 it is clear that this is not true4 ,because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence1 and avoid every mortal sin1 that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the ,law2 for the smallest degree of charity loves ,god more than cupidity loves thousands of gold and silver 7,ps4 #aah3gb74 ,we must say1 therefore1 that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace1 but not as in ,baptism4 ,because in ,baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of ,baptism itself1 which power ,baptism has as the instrument of ,christ's ,passion already consummated4 ,whereas circumcision bestowed grace1 inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in ,christ's future ,passion3 so that the man who was circumcised1 professed to embrace that faith2 whether1 being an adult1 he made profession for himself1 or1 being a child1 someone else made profession for him4 ,hence1 too1 the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #d3aa71 that ,abraham received the sign of circumcision1 a seal of the justice of the faith3 because1 to wit1 justice was of faith signified3 not of circumcision signifying4 ,and since ,baptism operates instrumentally by the power of ,christ's ,passion1 whereas circumcision does not1 therefore ,baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in ,christ1 and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision2 since greater is the effect of a thing already present1 than of the hope thereof4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument would prove if justice were of circumcision otherwise than through faith in ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as before the institution of circumcision1 faith in ,christ to come justified both children and adults1 so1 too1 after its institution4 ,but before1 there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith2 because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one ,god4 ,it is probable1 however1 that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to ,god for their children1 especially if these were in any danger4 ,or bestowed some blessing on them1 as a seal of faith2 just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,there was an excuse for the people in the desert failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision1 both because they knew not when the camp was removed1 and because1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart from other nations4 ,nevertheless1 as ,augustine says 7,,qq4 in ,josue vi71 those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through contempt4 ,it seems1 however1 that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert1 for it is written 7,ps4 #ajd3cg73 ,there was not among their tribes one that was feeble3 and that those alone died in the desert1 who had been circumcised in ,egypt4 ,if1 however1 some of the uncircumcised did die there1 the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution of circumcision4 ,and this applies also to those children who1 at the time of the ,law1 died before the eighth day4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,original sin was taken away in circumcision1 in regard to the person2 but on the part of the entire nature1 there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven1 which obstacle was removed by ,christ's ,passion4 ,consequently1 before ,christ's ,passion not even ,baptism gave entrance to the kingdom4 ,but were circumcision to avail after ,christ's ,passion1 it would give entrance to the kingdom4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,when adults were circumcised1 they received remission not only of original1 but also of actual sin3 yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment1 as in ,baptism1 in which grace is conferred more copiously4 ,,question #ga ,,of ,,the ,,preparations ,,that ,,accompany ,,baptism 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the preparations that accompany ,baptism3 concerning which there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether catechism should precede ,baptism8 7#b7 ,whether exorcism should precede ,baptism8 7#c7 ,whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing1 effects anything1 or is a mere sign8 7#d7 ,whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or exorcized by priests8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ga1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,catechism ,should ,precede ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that catechism should not precede ,baptism4 ,for by ,baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life4 ,but man begins to live before being taught4 ,therefore man should not be catechized1 i4e4 taught1 before being baptized4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,baptism is given not only to adults1 but also to children1 who are not capable of being taught1 since they have not the use of reason4 ,therefore it is absurd to catechize them4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a man1 when catechized1 confesses his faith4 ,now a child cannot confess its faith by itself1 nor can anyone else in its stead2 both because no one can bind another to do anything2 and because one cannot know whether the child1 having come to the right age1 will give its assent to faith4 ,therefore catechism should not precede ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,rabanus says 7,de ,instit4 ,cleric4 i73 ,before ,baptism man should be prepared by catechism1 in order that the catechumen may receive the rudiments of faith4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #gj1 ,a4 #a71 ,baptism is the ,sacrament of ,faith3 since it is a profession of the ,christian faith4 ,now in order that a man receive the faith1 he must be instructed therein1 according to ,rom4 #aj3ad3 ,how shall they believe ,him1 of ,whom they have not heard8 ,and how shall they hear without a preacher8 ,and therefore it is fitting that catechism should precede ,baptism4 ,hence when our ,lord bade ,his disciples to baptize1 ,he made teaching to precede ,baptism1 saying3 ,go ye 4 4 4 and teach all nations1 baptizing them1 etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the life of grace unto which a man is regenerated1 presupposes the life of the rational nature1 in which man is capable of receiving instruction4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as ,mother ,church1 as stated above 7,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #f1 ad #c71 lends children another's feet that they may come1 and another's heart that they may believe1 so1 too1 she lends them another's ears1 that they may hear1 and another's mind1 that through others they may be taught4 ,and therefore1 as they are to be baptized1 on the same grounds they are to be instructed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,he who answers in the child's stead3 ,i do believe1 does not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the right age1 else he would say3 ,he will believe2 but in the child's stead he professes the ,church's faith which is communicated to that child1 the sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it1 and to which faith he is bound by another4 ,for there is nothing unfitting in a person being bound by another in things necessary for salvation4 ,in like manner the sponsor1 in answering for the child1 promises to use his endeavors that the child may believe4 ,this1 however1 would not be sufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ga1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,exorcism ,should ,precede ,baptism8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that exorcism should not precede ,baptism4 ,for exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed4 ,but not all are such like4 ,therefore exorcism should not precede ,baptism4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 so long as man is a subject of sin1 the devil has power over him1 according to ,john #h3cd3 ,whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin4 ,but sin is taken away by ,baptism4 ,therefore men should not be exorcized before ,baptism4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,holy water was introduced in order to ward off the power of the demons4 ,therefore exorcism was not needed as a further remedy4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,celestine says 7,epist4 ad ,episcop4 ,galliae73 ,whether children or young people approach the sacrament of regeneration1 they should not come to the fount of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics4 ,i answer that1 ,whoever purposes to do a work wisely1 first removes the obstacles to his work2 hence it is written 7,jer4 #d3c73 ,break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns4 ,now the devil is the enemy of man's salvation1 which man acquires by ,baptism2 and he has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is subject to original1 or even actual1 sin4 ,consequently it is fitting that before ,baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms1 lest they impede man's salvation4 ,which expulsion is signified by the 7priest7 breathing 7upon the person to be baptized72 while the blessing1 with the imposition of hands1 bars the way against the return of him who was cast out4 ,then the salt which is put in the mouth1 and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle1 signify the receiving of doctrine1 as to the ears2 consent thereto as to the nose2 and confession thereof1 as to the mouth4 ,and the anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the energumens are so-called from laboring inwardly under the outward operation of the devil4 ,and though not all that approach ,baptism are troubled by him in their bodies1 yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons1 at least on account of the guilt of original sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from obtaining glory1 is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution2 but in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament1 his power is cast out by the exorcisms4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,holy water is used against the assaults of demons from without4 ,but exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the demons which are from within4 ,hence those who are exorcized are called energumens1 as it were laboring inwardly4 ,or we may say that just as ,penance is given as a further remedy against sin1 because ,baptism is not repeated2 so ,holy ,water is given as a further remedy against the assaults of demons1 because the baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ga1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,what ,is ,done in the ,exorcism ,effects ,anything1 or ,is a ,mere ,sign8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that what is done in the exorcism does not effect anything1 but is a mere sign4 ,for if a child die after the exorcisms1 before being baptized1 it is not saved4 ,but the effects of what is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of man2 hence it is written 7,mk4 #af3af73 ,he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved4 ,therefore what is done in the exorcism effects nothing1 but is a mere sign4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing is required for a sacrament of the ,new ,law1 but that it should be a sign and a cause1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a74 ,if1 therefore1 the things done in the exorcism effect anything1 it seems that each of them is a sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the exorcism is ordained to ,baptism1 so if anything be effected in the exorcism1 it is ordained to the effect of ,baptism4 ,but disposition must needs precede the perfect form3 because form is not received save into matter already disposed4 ,it would follow1 therefore1 that none could obtain the effect of ,baptism unless he were previously exorcized2 which is clearly false4 ,therefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 just as some things are done in the exorcism before ,baptism1 so are some things done after ,baptism2 for instance1 the priest anoints the baptized on the top of the head4 ,but what is done after ,baptism seems to have no effect2 for1 if it had1 the effect of ,baptism would be imperfect4 ,therefore neither have those things an effect1 which are done in exorcism before ,baptism4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,symbolo ,i73 ,little children are breathed upon and exorcized1 in order to expel from them the devil's hostile power1 which deceived man4 ,but the ,church does nothing in vain4 ,therefore the effect of these breathings is that the power of the devils is expelled4 ,i answer that1 ,some say that the things done in the exorcism have no effect1 but are mere signs4 ,but this is clearly false2 since in exorcizing1 the ,church uses words of command to cast out the devil's power1 for instance1 when she says3 ,therefore1 accursed devil1 go out from him1 etc4 ,therefore we must say that they have some effect1 but1 other than that of ,baptism4 ,for ,baptism gives man grace unto the full remission of sins4 ,but those things that are done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment against the reception of saving grace4 ,of these1 one is the outward impediment1 so far as the demons strive to hinder man's salvation4 ,and this impediment is removed by the breathings1 whereby the demon's power is cast out1 as appears from the passage quoted from ,augustine1 i4e4 as to the devil not placing obstacles against the reception of the sacrament4 ,nevertheless1 the demon's power over man remains as to the stain of sin1 and the debt of punishment1 until sin be washed away by ,baptism4 ,and in this sense ,cyprian says 7,epist4 lxxvi73 ,know that the devil's evil power remains until the pouring of the saving water3 but in ,baptism he loses it all4 ,the other impediment is within1 forasmuch as1 from having contracted original sin1 man's sense is closed to the perception of the mysteries of salvation4 ,hence ,rabanus says 7,de ,instit4 ,cleric4 i7 that by means of the typifying spittle and the touch of the priest1 the ,divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen1 that his nostrils being opened he may perceive the odor of the knowledge of ,god1 that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of ,god1 that his senses be opened in his inmost heart to respond4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,what is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin for which man is punished after death2 but only the impediments against his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament4 ,wherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not been baptized4 ,praepositivus1 however1 says that children who die after being exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser darkness4 ,but this does not seem to be true3 because that darkness consists in privation of the vision of ,god1 which cannot be greater or lesser4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal effect1 which is grace that remits sin1 or supplies some defect in man4 ,but those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect this2 they merely remove these impediments4 ,consequently1 they are not sacraments but sacramentals4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the disposition that suffices for receiving the baptismal grace is the faith and intention1 either of the one baptized1 if it be an adult1 or of the ,church1 if it be a child4 ,but these things that are done in the exorcism1 are directed to the removal of the impediments4 ,and therefore one may receive the effect of ,baptism without them4 ,yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity4 ,and then1 if the danger pass1 they should be supplied1 that uniformity in ,baptism may be observed4 ,nor are they supplied to no purpose after ,baptism3 because1 just as the effect of ,baptism may be hindered before it is received1 so can it be hindered after it has been received4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,of those things that are done after ,baptism in respect of the person baptized1 something is done which is not a mere sign1 but produces an effect1 for instance1 the anointing on the top of the head1 the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal grace4 ,and there is something which has no effect1 but is a mere sign1 for instance1 the baptized are given a white garment to signify the newness of life4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ga1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,it ,belongs to a ,priest to ,catechize and ,exorcize the ,person to ,be ,baptized8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it does not belong to a priest to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized4 ,for it belongs to the office of ministers to operate on the unclean1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v74 ,but catechumens who are instructed by catechism1 and energumens who are cleansed by exorcism1 are counted among the unclean1 as ,dionysius says in the same place4 ,therefore to catechize and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests1 but rather to that of the ministers4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 catechumens are instructed in the ,faith by the ,holy ,scripture which is read in the church by ministers3 for just as the ,old ,testament is recited by the ,readers1 so the ,new ,testament is read by the ,deacons and ,subdeacons4 ,and thus it belongs to the ministers to catechize4 ,in like manner it belongs1 seemingly1 to the ministers to exorcize4 ,for ,isidore says 7,epist4 ad ,ludifred473 ,the exorcist should know the exorcisms by heart1 and impose his hands on the energumens and catechumens during the exorcism4 ,therefore it belongs not to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to catechize is the same as to teach1 and this is the same as to perfect4 ,now this belongs to the office of a bishop1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v74 ,therefore it does not belong to the priestly office4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,nicolas ,i says3 ,the catechizing of those who are to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each church4 ,and ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxix super ,ezech473 ,when priests place their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism1 what else do they but cast out the devils8 ,i answer that1 ,the minister compared to the priest1 is as a secondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent3 as is implied in the very word minister4 ,now the secondary agent does nothing without the principal agent in operating4 ,and the more mighty the operation1 so much the mightier instruments does the principal agent require4 ,but the operation of the priest in conferring the sacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are preparatory to the sacrament4 ,and so the highest ministers who are called deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments themselves3 for ,isidore says 7,epist4 ad ,ludifred47 that it belongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in ,christ's sacraments1 in ,baptism1 to wit1 in the ,chrism1 in the ,paten and ,chalice2 while the inferior ministers assist the priest in those things which are preparatory to the sacraments3 the readers1 for instance1 in catechizing2 the exorcists in exorcizing4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the minister's operation in regard to the unclean is ministerial and1 as it were1 instrumental1 but the priest's is principal4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to readers and exorcists belongs the duty of catechizing and exorcizing1 not1 indeed1 principally1 but as ministers of the priest in these things4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,instruction is manifold4 ,one leads to the embracing of the ,faith2 and is ascribed by ,dionysius to bishops 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii7 and can be undertaken by any preacher1 or even by any believer4 ,another is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of faith1 and how to comport himself in receiving the sacraments3 this belongs secondarily to the ministers1 primarily to the priests4 ,a third is instruction in the mode of ,christian life3 and this belongs to the sponsors4 ,a fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of faith1 and on the perfection of ,christian life3 this belongs to bishops ex officio1 in virtue of their office4 ,,question #gb ,,of ,,the ,,sacrament ,,of ,,confirmation 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the ,sacrament of ,confirmation4 ,concerning this there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,confirmation is a sacrament8 7#b7 ,its matter2 7#c7 ,whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should have been previously consecrated by a bishop8 7#d7 ,its form2 7#e7 ,whether it imprints a character8 7#f7 ,whether the character of ,confirmation presupposes the character of ,baptism8 7#g7 ,whether it bestows grace8 7#h7 ,who is competent to receive this sacrament8 7#i7 ,in what part of the body8 7#aj7 ,whether someone is required to stand for the person to be confirmed8 7#aa7 ,whether this sacrament is given by bishops only8 7#ab7 ,of its rite4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,confirmation ,is a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,confirmation is not a sacrament4 ,for sacraments derive their efficacy from the ,divine institution1 as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #b74 ,but we read nowhere of ,confirmation being instituted by ,christ4 ,therefore it is not a sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,new ,law were foreshadowed in the ,old ,law2 thus the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3b-d71 that all in ,moses were baptized1 in the cloud and in the sea2 and did all eat the same spiritual food1 and all drank the same spiritual drink4 ,but ,confirmation was not foreshadowed in the old ,testament4 ,therefore it is not a sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation4 ,but man can be saved without ,confirmation3 since children that are baptized1 who die before being confirmed1 are saved4 ,therefore ,confirmation is not a sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 by all the sacraments of the ,church1 man is conformed to ,christ1 ,who is the ,author of the sacraments4 ,but man cannot be conformed to ,christ by ,confirmation1 since we read nowhere of ,christ being confirmed4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,melchiades wrote to the bishops of ,spain3 ,concerning the point on which you sought to be informed1 i4e4 whether the imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament than ,baptism1 know that each is a great sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the sacraments of the ,new ,law are ordained unto special effects of grace3 and therefore where there is a special effect of grace1 there we find a special sacrament ordained for the purpose4 ,but since sensible and material things bear a likeness to things spiritual and intelligible1 from what occurs in the life of the body1 we can perceive that which is special to the spiritual life4 ,now it is evident that in the life of the body a certain special perfection consists in man's attaining to the perfect age1 and being able to perform the perfect actions of a man3 hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ac3aa73 ,when ,i became a man1 ,i put away the things of a child4 ,and thence it is that besides the movement of generation whereby man receives life of the body1 there is the movement of growth1 whereby man is brought to the perfect age4 ,so therefore does man receive spiritual life in ,baptism1 which is a spiritual regeneration3 while in ,confirmation man arrives at the perfect age1 as it were1 of the spiritual life4 ,hence ,pope ,melchiades says3 ,the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who comes down on the waters of ,baptism bearing salvation in ,his flight1 bestows at the font1 the fulness of innocence2 but in ,confirmation ,he confers an increase of grace4 ,in ,baptism we are born again unto life2 after ,baptism we are strengthened4 ,and therefore it is evident that ,confirmation is a special sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,concerning the institution of this sacrament there are three opinions4 ,some 7,alexander of ,hales1 ,summa ,theol4 ,p4 ,,iv1 ,q4 ,,ix2 ,st4 ,bonaventure1 ,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #g7 have maintained that this sacrament was instituted neither by ,christ1 nor by the apostles2 but later in the course of time by one of the councils4 ,others 7,pierre de ,tarentaise1 ,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #g7 held that it was instituted by the apostles4 ,but this cannot be admitted2 since the institution of a new sacrament belongs to the power of excellence1 which belongs to ,christ alone4 ,and therefore we must say that ,christ instituted this sacrament not by bestowing1 but by promising it1 according to ,john #af3g3 ,if ,i go not1 the ,paraclete will not come to you1 but if ,i go1 ,i will send ,him to you4 ,and this was because in this sacrament the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost is bestowed1 which was not to be given before ,christ's ,resurrection and ,ascension2 according to ,john #g3ci3 ,as yet the ,spirit was not given1 because ,jesus was not yet glorified4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness of grace3 wherefore there could be nothing corresponding to it in the ,old ,law1 since the ,law brought nothing to perfection 7,heb4 #g3ai74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #d71 all the sacraments are in some way necessary for salvation3 but some1 so that there is no salvation without them2 some as conducing to the perfection of salvation2 and thus it is that ,confirmation is necessary for salvation3 although salvation is possible without it1 provided it be not omitted out of contempt4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,those who receive ,confirmation1 which is the sacrament of the fulness of grace1 are conformed to ,christ1 inasmuch as from the very first instant of ,his conception ,he was full of grace and truth 7,john #a3ad74 ,this fulness was made known at ,his ,baptism1 when the ,holy ,ghost descended in a bodily shape 4 4 4 upon ,him 7,luke #c3bb74 ,hence 7,luke #d3a7 it is written that ,jesus being full of the ,holy ,ghost1 returned from the ,jordan4 ,nor was it fitting to ,christ's dignity1 that ,he1 ,who is the ,author of the sacraments1 should receive the fulness of grace from a sacrament4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,chrism ,is a ,fitting ,matter for ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that chrism is not a fitting matter for this sacrament4 ,for this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a71 was instituted by ,christ when ,he promised ,his disciples the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but ,he sent them the ,holy ,ghost without their being anointed with chrism4 ,moreover1 the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament without chrism1 by the mere imposition of hands3 for it is written 7,acts #h3ag7 that the apostles laid their hands upon those who were baptized1 and they received the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore chrism is not the matter of this sacrament3 since the matter is essential to the sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,confirmation perfects1 in a way1 the sacrament of ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d73 and so it ought to be conformed to it as perfection to the thing perfected4 ,but the matter1 in ,baptism1 is a simple element1 viz4 water4 ,therefore chrism1 which is made of oil and balm1 is not a fitting matter for this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing4 ,but any oil will do for anointing3 for instance1 oil made from nuts1 and from anything else4 ,therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it has been stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #c7 that water is used as the matter of ,baptism1 because it is easily procured everywhere4 ,but olive oil is not to be procured everywhere2 and much less is balm4 ,therefore chrism1 which is made of these1 is not a fitting matter for this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory says 7,registr4 iv73 ,let no priest dare to sign the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred chrism4 ,therefore chrism is the matter of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament4 ,for1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 in this sacrament the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost is given for the spiritual strength which belongs to the perfect age4 ,now when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to have intercourse with others2 whereas until then he lives an individual life1 as it were1 confined to himself4 ,now the grace of the ,holy ,ghost is signified by oil2 hence ,christ is said to be anointed with the oil of gladness 7,ps4 #dd3h71 by reason of ,his being gifted with the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,consequently oil is a suitable matter of this sacrament4 ,and balm is mixed with the oil1 by reason of its fragrant odor1 which spreads about3 hence the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #b3ae73 ,we are the good odor of ,christ1 etc4 ,and though many other things be fragrant1 yet preference is given to balm1 because it has a special odor of its own1 and because it confers incorruptibility3 hence it is written 7,ecclus4 #bd3ba73 ,my odor is as the purest balm4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ1 by the power which ,he exercises in the sacraments1 bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament1 i4e4 the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost1 without the sacrament itself1 because they had received the first fruits of the ,spirit 7,rom4 #h3bc74 ,nevertheless1 something of keeping with the matter of this sacrament was displayed to the apostles in a sensible manner when they received the ,holy ,ghost4 ,for that the ,holy ,ghost came down upon them in a sensible manner under the form of fire1 refers to the same signification as oil3 except in so far as fire has an active power1 while oil has a passive power1 as being the matter and incentive of fire4 ,and this was quite fitting3 for it was through the apostles that the grace of the ,holy ,ghost was to flow forth to others4 ,again1 the ,holy ,ghost came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue4 ,which refers to the same signification as balm3 except in so far as the tongue communicates with others by speech1 but balm1 by its odor4 because1 to wit1 the apostles were filled with the ,holy ,ghost1 as teachers of the ,faith2 but the rest of the believers1 as doing that which gives edification to the faithful4 ,in like manner1 too1 when the apostles imposed their hands1 and when they preached1 the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost came down under visible signs on the faithful1 just as1 at the beginning1 ,he came down on the apostles3 hence ,peter said 7,acts #aa3ae73 ,when ,i had begun to speak1 the ,holy ,ghost fell upon them1 as upon us also in the beginning4 ,consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter1 where ,god sent sensible signs miraculously4 ,however1 the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament1 when such like visible signs were lacking4 ,for ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iv73 ,there is a certain perfecting operation which our guides1 i4e4 the apostles1 call the sacrifice of ,chrism4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may be received simply2 wherefore simple matter is fitting to it4 ,but this sacrament is given that we may receive the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,whose operations are manifold1 according to ,wis4 #g3bb1 ,in her is the ,holy ,spirit 4 4 4 one1 manifold2 and #a ,cor4 #ab3d1 ,there are diversities of graces1 but the same ,spirit4 ,consequently a compound matter is appropriate to this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these properties of oil1 by reason of which it symbolizes the ,holy ,ghost1 are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil4 ,in fact1 the olive-tree itself1 through being an evergreen1 signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,moreover1 this oil is called oil properly1 and is very much in use1 wherever it is to be had4 ,and whatever other liquid is so called1 derives its name from its likeness to this oil3 nor are the latter commonly used1 unless it be to supply the want of olive oil4 ,therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,baptism is the sacrament of absolute necessity2 and so its matter should be at hand everywhere4 ,but it is enough that the matter of this sacrament1 which is not of such great necessity1 be easily sent to all parts of the world4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,it ,is ,essential to ,this ,sacrament ,that the ,chrism ,which ,is ,its ,matter ,be ,previously ,consecrated by a ,bishop8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it is not essential to this sacrament1 that the chrism1 which is its matter1 be previously consecrated by a bishop4 ,for ,baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less efficacious than this sacrament4 ,but1 though the baptismal water receives a kind of blessing before being used for ,baptism2 yet this is not essential to the sacrament3 since in a case of necessity it can be dispensed with4 ,therefore neither is it essential to this sacrament that the chrism should be previously consecrated by a bishop4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the same should not be consecrated twice4 ,but the sacramental matter is sanctified1 in the very conferring of the sacrament1 by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed2 hence ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan473 ,the word is added to the element1 and this becomes a sacrament4 ,therefore the chrism should not be consecrated before this sacrament is given4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 every consecration employed in the sacraments is ordained to the bestowal of grace4 ,but the sensible matter composed of oil and balm is not receptive of grace4 ,therefore it should not be consecrated4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,innocent ,i says 7,ep4 ad ,decent473 ,priests1 when baptizing1 may anoint the baptized with chrism1 previously consecrated by a bishop3 but they must not sign the brow with the same oil2 this belongs to the bishop alone1 when he gives the ,paraclete4 ,now this is done in this sacrament4 ,therefore it is necessary for this sacrament that its matter be previously consecrated by a bishop4 ,i answer that1 ,the entire sanctification of the sacraments is derived from ,christ1 as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #c74 ,but it must be observed that ,christ did use certain sacraments having a corporeal matter1 viz4 ,baptism1 and also the ,eucharist4 ,and consequently1 from ,christ's very act in using them1 the matter of these sacraments received a certain aptitude to the perfection of the sacrament4 ,hence ,chrysostom 7,chromatius1 ,in ,matth4 #c3ae7 says that the waters of ,baptism could never wash away the sins of believers1 had they not been sanctified by contact with our ,lord's body4 ,and again1 our ,lord ,himself taking bread 4 4 4 blessed 4 4 4 and in like manner the chalice 7,matt4 #bf3bf1 #bg2 ,luke #bb3ai1 #bj74 ,for this reason there is no need for the matter of these sacraments to be blessed previously1 since ,christ's blessing is enough4 ,and if any blessing be used1 it belongs to the solemnity of the sacrament1 not to its essence4 ,but ,christ did not make use of visible anointings1 so as not to slight the invisible unction whereby ,he was anointed above ,his fellows 7,ps4 #dd3h74 ,and hence both chrism1 and the holy oil1 and the oil of the sick are blessed before being put to sacramental use4 ,this suffices for the reply to the ,first ,objection4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,each consecration of the chrism has not the same object4 ,for just as an instrument derives instrumental power in two ways1 viz4 when it receives the form of an instrument1 and when it is moved by the principal agent2 so too the sacramental matter needs a twofold sanctification1 by one of which it becomes fit matter for the sacrament1 while by the other it is applied to the production of the effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,corporeal matter is receptive of grace1 not so as to be the subject of grace1 but only as the instrument of grace1 as explained above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #c74 ,and this sacramental matter is consecrated1 either by ,christ1 or by a bishop1 who1 in the ,church1 impersonates ,christ4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,proper ,form of ,this ,sacrament ,is3 ,i ,sign ,thee with the ,sign of the ,cross1 ,etc48 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the proper form of this sacrament is not3 ,i sign thee with the sign of the cross1 ,i confirm thee with the chrism of salvation1 in the name of the ,father and of the ,son and of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,amen4 ,for the use of the sacraments is derived from ,christ and the apostles4 ,but neither did ,christ institute this form1 nor do we read of the apostles making use of it4 ,therefore it is not the proper form of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as the sacrament is the same everywhere1 so should the form be the same3 because everything has unity1 just as it has being1 from its form4 ,but this form is not used by all3 for some say3 ,i confirm thee with the chrism of sanctification4 ,therefore the above is not the proper form of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament should be conformed to ,baptism1 as the perfect to the thing perfected1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ,obj4 #b74 ,but in the form of ,baptism no mention is made of signing the character2 nor again of the cross of ,christ1 though in ,baptism man dies with ,christ1 as the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #f3c-h72 nor of the effect which is salvation1 though ,baptism is necessary for salvation4 ,again1 in the baptismal form1 only one action is included2 and the person of the baptizer is expressed in the words3 ,i baptize thee1 whereas the contrary is to be observed in the above form4 ,therefore this is not the proper form of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,is the authority of the ,church1 who always uses this form4 ,i answer that1 ,the above form is appropriate to this sacrament4 ,for just as the form of a natural thing gives it its species1 so a sacramental form should contain whatever belongs to the species of the sacrament4 ,now as is evident from what has been already said 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 in this sacrament the ,holy ,ghost is given for strength in the spiritual combat4 ,wherefore in this sacrament three things are necessary2 and they are contained in the above form4 ,the first of these is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual strength which cause is the ,blessed ,trinity3 and this is expressed in the words1 ,in the name of the ,father1 etc4 ,the second is the spiritual strength itself bestowed on man unto salvation by the sacrament of visible matter2 and this is referred to in the words1 ,i confirm thee with the chrism of salvation4 ,the third is the sign which is given to the combatant1 as in a bodily combat3 thus are soldiers marked with the sign of their leaders4 ,and to this refer the words1 ,i sign thee with the sign of the cross1 in which sign1 to wit1 our ,king triumphed 7cf4 ,col4 #b3ae74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #a71 sometimes the effect of this sacrament1 i4e4 the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost1 was given through the ministry of the apostles1 under certain visible signs1 wrought miraculously by ,god1 ,who can bestow the sacramental effect1 independently of the sacrament4 ,in these cases there was no need for either the matter or the form of this sacrament4 ,on the other hand1 sometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the sacraments4 ,and then1 they used both matter and form according to ,christ's command4 ,for the apostles1 in conferring the sacraments1 observed many things which are not handed down in those ,scriptures that are in general use4 ,hence ,dionysius says at the end of his treatise on the ,ecclesiastical ,hierarchy 7chap4 vii73 ,it is not allowed to explain in writing the prayers which are used in the sacraments1 and to publish their mystical meaning1 or the power which1 coming from ,god1 gives them their efficacy2 we learn these things by holy tradition without any display199 i4e4 secretly4 99,the passage quoted in the text of the ,summa differs slightly from the above1 which is translated directly from the works of ,dionysius4 ,hence the ,apostle1 speaking of the celebration of the ,eucharist1 writes 7#a ,cor4 #aa3cd73 ,the rest ,i will set in order1 when ,i come4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,holiness is the cause of salvation4 ,therefore it comes to the same whether we say chrism of salvation or of sanctification4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is the regeneration unto the spiritual life1 whereby man lives in himself4 ,and therefore in the baptismal form that action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be sanctified4 ,but this sacrament is ordained not only to the sanctification of man in himself1 but also to strengthen him in his outward combat4 ,consequently not only is mention made of interior sanctification1 in the words1 ,i confirm thee with the chrism of salvation3 but furthermore man is signed outwardly1 as it were with the standard of the cross1 unto the outward spiritual combat2 and this is signified by the words1 ,i sign thee with the sign of the cross4 ,but in the very word baptize1 which signifies to cleanse1 we can understand both the matter1 which is the cleansing water1 and the effect1 which is salvation4 ,whereas these are not understood by the word confirm2 and consequently they had to be expressed4 ,again1 it has been said above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #e1 ad #a7 that the pronoun ,i is not necessary to the ,baptismal form1 because it is included in the first person of the verb4 ,it is1 however1 included in order to express the intention4 ,but this does not seem so necessary in ,confirmation1 which is conferred only by a minister of excellence1 as we shall state later on 7,a4 #aa74 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,sacrament of ,confirmation ,imprints a ,character8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacrament of ,confirmation does not imprint a character4 ,for a character means a distinctive sign4 ,but a man is not distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of ,confirmation1 for this is the effect of ,baptism2 nor from the rest of the faithful1 because this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual combat1 which is enjoined to all the faithful4 ,therefore a character is not imprinted in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it was stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #b7 that a character is a spiritual power4 ,now a power must be either active or passive4 ,but the active power in the sacraments is conferred by the sacrament of order3 while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,therefore no character is imprinted by the sacrament of ,confirmation4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in circumcision1 which is a character of the body1 no spiritual character is imprinted4 ,but in this sacrament a character is imprinted on the body1 when the sign of the cross is signed with chrism on man's brow4 ,therefore a spiritual character is not imprinted by this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,a character is imprinted in every sacrament that is not repeated4 ,but this sacrament is not repeated3 for ,gregory ,,ii says 7,ep4 iv ad ,bonifac473 ,as to the man who was confirmed a second time by a bishop1 such a repetition must be forbidden4 ,therefore a character is imprinted in ,confirmation4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #b71 a character is a spiritual power ordained to certain sacred actions4 ,now it has been said above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a7 that1 just as ,baptism is a spiritual regeneration unto ,christian life1 so also is ,confirmation a certain spiritual growth bringing man to perfect spiritual age4 ,but it is evident1 from a comparison with the life of the body1 that the action which is proper to man immediately after birth1 is different from the action which is proper to him when he has come to perfect age4 ,and therefore by the sacrament of ,confirmation man is given a spiritual power in respect of sacred actions other than those in respect of which he receives power in ,baptism4 ,for in ,baptism he receives power to do those things which pertain to his own salvation1 forasmuch as he lives to himself3 whereas in ,confirmation he receives power to do those things which pertain to the spiritual combat with the enemies of the ,faith4 ,this is evident from the example of the apostles1 who1 before they received the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost1 were in the upper room 4 4 4 persevering 4 4 4 in prayer 7,acts #a3ac1 #ad72 whereas afterwards they went out and feared not to confess their faith in public1 even in the face of the enemies of the ,christian ,faith4 ,and therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in the sacrament of ,confirmation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all have to wage the spiritual combat with our invisible enemies4 ,but to fight against visible foes1 viz4 against the persecutors of the ,faith1 by confessing ,christ's name1 belongs to the confirmed1 who have already come spiritually to the age of virility1 according to #a ,john #b3ad3 ,i write unto you1 young men1 because you are strong1 and the word of ,god abideth in you1 and you have overcome the wicked one4 ,and therefore the character of ,confirmation is a distinctive sign1 not between unbelievers and believers1 but between those who are grown up spiritually and those of whom it is written3 ,as new-born babes 7#a ,pet4 #b3b74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,all the sacraments are protestations of faith4 ,therefore just as he who is baptized receives the power of testifying to his faith by receiving the other sacraments2 so he who is confirmed receives the power of publicly confessing his faith by words1 as it were ex officio4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacraments of the ,old ,law are called justice of the flesh 7,heb4 #i3aj7 because1 to wit1 they wrought nothing inwardly4 ,consequently in circumcision a character was imprinted in the body only1 but not in the soul4 ,but in ,confirmation1 since it is a sacrament of the ,new ,law1 a spiritual character is imprinted at the same time1 together with the bodily character4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,character of ,confirmation ,presupposes of ,necessity1 the ,baptismal ,character8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the character of ,confirmation does not presuppose1 of necessity1 the baptismal character4 ,for the sacrament of ,confirmation is ordained to the public confession of the ,faith of ,christ4 ,but many1 even before ,baptism1 have publicly confessed the ,faith of ,christ by shedding their blood for the ,faith4 ,therefore the character of ,confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is not related of the apostles that they were baptized2 especially1 since it is written 7,john #d3b7 that ,christ ,himself did not baptize1 but ,his disciples4 ,yet afterwards they were confirmed by the coming of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore1 in like manner1 others can be confirmed before being baptized4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,acts #aj3dd-dh7 that while ,peter was yet speaking 4 4 4 the ,holy ,ghost fell on all them that heard the word 4 4 4 and ,vulg43 'for' they heard them speaking with tongues3 and afterwards he commanded them to be baptized4 ,therefore others with equal reason can be confirmed before being baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,rabanus says 7,de ,instit4 ,cleric4 i73 ,lastly the ,paraclete is given to the baptized by the imposition of the high priest's hands1 in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the ,holy ,ghost so as to publish his faith4 ,i answer that1 ,the character of ,confirmation1 of necessity supposes the baptismal character3 so that1 in effect1 if one who is not baptized were to be confirmed1 he would receive nothing1 but would have to be confirmed again after receiving ,baptism4 ,the reason of this is that1 ,confirmation is to ,baptism as growth to birth1 as is evident from what has been said above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a74 ,now it is clear that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first born3 and in like manner1 unless a man be first baptized1 he cannot receive the sacrament of ,confirmation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,divine power is not confined to the sacraments4 ,hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the ,faith of ,christ publicly1 without receiving the sacrament of ,confirmation3 just as he can also receive remission of sins without ,baptism4 ,yet1 just as none receive the effect of ,baptism without the desire of ,baptism2 so none receive the effect of ,confirmation1 without the desire of ,confirmation4 ,and man can have this even before receiving ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,augustine says 7,ep4 cclxv71 from our ,lord's words1 ',he that is washed1 needeth not but to wash his feet' 7,john #ac3aj71 we gather that ,peter and ,christ's other disciples had been baptized1 either with ,john's ,baptism1 as some think2 or with ,christ's1 which is more credible4 ,for ,he did not refuse to administer ,baptism1 so as to have servants by whom to baptize others4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those who heard the preaching of ,peter received the effect of ,confirmation miraculously3 but not the sacrament of ,confirmation4 ,now it has been stated 7ad #a7 that the effect of ,confirmation can be bestowed on man before ,baptism1 whereas the sacrament cannot4 ,for just as the effect of ,confirmation1 which is spiritual strength1 presupposes the effect of ,baptism1 which is justification1 so the sacrament of ,confirmation presupposes the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,sanctifying ,grace ,is ,bestowed in ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament4 ,for sanctifying grace is ordained against sin4 ,but this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #f7 is given only to the baptized1 who are cleansed from sin4 ,therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 sinners especially need sanctifying grace1 by which alone can they be justified4 ,if1 therefore1 sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament1 it seems that it should be given to those who are in sin4 ,and yet this is not true4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there can only be one species of sanctifying grace1 since it is ordained to one effect4 ,but two forms of the same species cannot be in the same subject4 ,since1 therefore1 man receives sanctifying grace in ,baptism1 it seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in ,confirmation1 which is given to none but the baptized4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,melchiades says 7,ep4 ad ,episc4 ,hispan473 ,the ,holy ,ghost bestows at the font the fulness of innocence2 but in ,confirmation ,he confers an increase of grace4 ,i answer that1 ,in this sacrament1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #d71 the ,holy ,ghost is given to the baptized for strength3 just as ,he was given to the apostles on the day of ,pentecost1 as we read in ,acts #b2 and just as ,he was given to the baptized by the imposition of the apostles' hands1 as related in ,acts #h3ag4 ,now it has been proved in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #dc1 ,a4 #c7 that the ,holy ,ghost is not sent or given except with sanctifying grace4 ,consequently it is evident that sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin2 but it has other effects also1 because it suffices to carry man through every step as far as eternal life4 ,hence to ,paul was it said 7#b ,cor4 #ab3i73 ,my grace is sufficient for thee3 and he says of himself 7#a ,cor4 #ae3aj73 ,by the grace of ,god ,i am what ,i am4 ,therefore sanctifying grace is given not only for the remission of sin1 but also for growth and stability in righteousness4 ,and thus is it bestowed in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as appears from its very name1 this sacrament is given in order to confirm what it finds already there4 ,and consequently it should not be given to those who are not in a state of grace4 ,for this reason1 just as it is not given to the unbaptized1 so neither should it be given to the adult sinners1 except they be restored by ,penance4 ,wherefore was it decreed in the ,council of ,orleans 7,can4 iii7 that men should come to ,confirmation fasting2 and should be admonished to confess their sins first1 so that being cleansed they may be able to receive the gift of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,and then this sacrament perfects the effects of ,penance1 as of ,baptism3 because by the grace which he has received in this sacrament1 the penitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin4 ,and if any adult approach1 being in a state of sin of which he is not conscious or for which he is not perfectly contrite1 he will receive the remission of his sins through the grace bestowed in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #b71 the sacramental grace adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide sense1 something that produces a special effect1 and to which the sacrament is ordained4 ,if1 then1 we consider1 in its wide sense1 the grace bestowed in this sacrament1 it does not differ from that bestowed in ,baptism1 but increases what was already there4 ,on the other hand1 if we consider it as to that which is added over and above1 then one differs in species from the other4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,should ,be ,given to ,all8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament should not be given to all4 ,for this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence1 as stated above 7,a4 #aa1 ad #b74 ,but all are not suited for that which belongs to excellence4 ,therefore this sacrament should not be given to all4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by this sacrament man advances spiritually to perfect age4 ,but perfect age is inconsistent with childhood4 ,therefore at least it should not be given to children4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,pope ,melchiades says 7,ep4 ad ,episc4 ,hispan47 after ,baptism we are strengthened for the combat4 ,but women are incompetent to combat1 by reason of the frailty of their sex4 ,therefore neither should women receive this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,pope ,melchiades says 7,ep4 ad ,episc4 ,hispan473 ,although the benefit of ,regeneration suffices for those who are on the point of death1 yet the graces of ,confirmation are necessary for those who are to conquer4 ,confirmation arms and strengthens those to whom the struggles and combats of this world are reserved4 ,and he who comes to die1 having kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in ,baptism1 is confirmed by death2 for after death he can sin no more4 ,therefore this sacrament should not be given to those who are on the point of death3 and so it should not be given to all4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,acts #b3b7 that the ,holy ,ghost in coming1 filled the whole house1 whereby the ,church is signified2 and afterwards it is added that they were all filled with the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness4 ,therefore it should be given to all who belong to the ,church4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 man is spiritually advanced by this sacrament to perfect age4 ,now the intention of nature is that everyone born corporally1 should come to perfect age3 yet this is sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body1 which is forestalled by death4 ,but much more is it ,god's intention to bring all things to perfection1 since nature shares in this intention inasmuch as it reflects ,him3 hence it is written 7,deut4 #cb3d73 ,the works of ,god are perfect4 ,now the soul1 to which spiritual birth and perfect spiritual age belong1 is immortal2 and just as it can in old age attain to spiritual birth1 so can it attain to perfect 7spiritual7 age in youth or childhood2 because the various ages of the body do not affect the soul4 ,therefore this sacrament should be given to all4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence1 not indeed1 like the sacrament of order1 of one man over another1 but of man in regard to himself3 thus the same man1 when arrived at maturity1 excels himself as he was when a boy4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above1 the age of the body does not affect the soul4 ,consequently even in childhood man can attain to the perfection of spiritual age1 of which it is written 7,wis4 #d3h73 ,venerable old age is not that of long time1 nor counted by the number of years4 ,and hence it is that many children1 by reason of the strength of the ,holy ,ghost which they had received1 fought bravely for ,christ even to the shedding of their blood4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 i ,de ,machab471 in earthly contests fitness of age1 physique and rank are required2 and consequently slaves1 women1 old men1 and boys are debarred from taking part therein4 ,but in the heavenly combats1 the ,stadium is open equally to all1 to every age1 and to either sex4 ,again1 he says 7,hom4 de ,militia ,spirit473 ,in ,god's eyes even women fight1 for many a woman has waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man4 ,for some have rivaled men in the courage with which they have suffered martyrdom2 and some indeed have shown themselves stronger than men4 ,therefore this sacrament should be given to women4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as we have already observed1 the soul1 to which spiritual age belongs1 is immortal4 ,wherefore this sacrament should be given to those on the point of death1 that they may be seen to be perfect at the resurrection1 according to ,eph4 #d3ac3 ,until we all meet into the unity of faith 4 4 4 unto the measure of the age of the fulness of ,christ4 ,and hence ,hugh of ,st4 ,victor says 7,de ,sacram4 ii71 ,it would be altogether hazardous1 if anyone happened to go forth from this life without being confirmed3 not that such a one would be lost1 except perhaps through contempt2 but that this would be detrimental to his perfection4 ,and therefore even children dying after ,confirmation obtain greater glory1 just as here below they receive more grace4 ,the passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that1 with regard to the dangers of the present combat1 those who are on the point of death do not need this sacrament4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,should ,be ,given to ,man on the ,forehead8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament should not be given to man on the forehead4 ,for this sacrament perfects ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,but the sacrament of ,baptism is given to man over his whole body4 ,therefore this sacrament should not be given on the forehead only4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is given for spiritual strength1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #d74 ,but spiritual strength is situated principally in the heart4 ,therefore this sacrament should be given over the heart rather than on the forehead4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is given to man that he may freely confess the faith of ,christ4 ,but with the mouth1 confession is made unto salvation1 according to ,rom4 #aj3aj4 ,therefore this sacrament should be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead4 ,on the contrary1 ,rabanus says 7,de ,instit4 ,cleric4 i73 ,the baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head1 but by the bishop on the forehead4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #d71 in this sacrament man receives the ,holy ,ghost for strength in the spiritual combat1 that he may bravely confess the ,faith of ,christ even in face of the enemies of that ,faith4 ,wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the cross on the forehead1 with chrism1 for two reasons4 ,first1 because he is signed with the sign of the cross1 as a soldier with the sign of his leader1 which should be evident and manifest4 ,now1 the forehead1 which is hardly ever covered1 is the most conspicuous part of the human body4 ,wherefore the confirmed is anointed with chrism on the forehead1 that he may show publicly that he is a ,christian3 thus too the apostles after receiving the ,holy ,ghost showed themselves in public1 whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room4 ,secondly1 because man is hindered from freely confessing ,christ's name1 by two things--by fear and by shame4 ,now both these things betray themselves principally on the forehead on account of the proximity of the imagination1 and because the 7vital7 spirits mount directly from the heart to the forehead3 hence those who are ashamed1 blush1 and those who are afraid1 pale 7,ethic4 iv74 ,and therefore man is signed with chrism1 that neither fear nor shame may hinder him from confessing the name of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual life1 which belongs to the whole man4 ,but in ,confirmation we are strengthened for the combat2 the sign of which should be borne on the forehead1 as in a conspicuous place4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the principle of fortitude is in the heart1 but its sign appears on the forehead3 wherefore it is written 7,ezech4 #c3h73 ,behold ,i have made 4 4 4 thy forehead harder than their foreheads4 ,hence the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 whereby man is confirmed in himself1 belongs to the heart1 according to ,ps4 #ajc3ae3 ,that bread may strengthen man's heart4 ,but the sacrament of ,confirmation is required as a sign of fortitude against others2 and for this reason it is given on the forehead4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this sacrament is given that we may confess freely3 but not that we may confess simply1 for this is also the effect of ,baptism4 ,and therefore it should not be given on the mouth1 but on the forehead1 where appear the signs of those passions which hinder free confession4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,he ,who ,is ,confirmed ,needs ,one to ,stand99 for ,him8 99,literally1 to hold him ,objection #a3 ,it seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand for him4 ,for this sacrament is given not only to children but also to adults4 ,but adults can stand for themselves4 ,therefore it is absurd that someone else should stand for them4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 he that belongs already to the ,church1 has free access to the prince of the ,church1 i4e4 the bishop4 ,but this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #f71 is given only to one that is baptized1 who is already a member of the ,church4 ,therefore it seems that he should not be brought by another to the bishop in order to receive this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is given for spiritual strength1 which has more vigor in men than in women1 according to ,prov4 #ca3aj3 ,who shall find a valiant woman8 ,therefore at least a woman should not stand for a man in confirmation4 ,on the contrary1 ,are the following words of ,pope ,innocent1 which are to be found in the ,decretals 7,,xxx1 ,q4 #d73 ,if anyone raise the children of another's marriage from the sacred font1 or stand for them in ,confirmation1 etc4 ,therefore1 just as someone is required as sponsor of one who is baptized1 so is someone required to stand for him who is to be confirmed4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #d1 #i71 this sacrament is given to man for strength in the spiritual combat4 ,now1 just as one newly born requires someone to teach him things pertaining to ordinary conduct1 according to ,heb4 #ab3i3 ,we have had fathers of our flesh1 for instructors1 and we obeyed ,vulg43 'reverenced' them2 so they who are chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are informed of things concerning the conduct of the battle1 and hence in earthly wars1 generals and captains are appointed to the command of the others4 ,for this reason he also who receives this sacrament1 has someone to stand for him1 who1 as it were1 has to instruct him concerning the fight4 ,likewise1 since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of spiritual age1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #b1 #e71 therefore he who approaches this sacrament is upheld by another1 as being spiritually a weakling and a child4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although he who is confirmed1 be adult in body1 nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,though he who is baptized is made a member of the ,church1 nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a ,christian soldier4 ,and therefore he is brought to the bishop1 as to the commander of the army1 by one who is already enrolled as a ,christian soldier4 ,for one who is not yet confirmed should not stand for another in ,confirmation4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to ,col4 #c 997,gal4 #c3bh71 in ,christ ,jesus there is neither male nor female4 ,consequently it matters not whether a man or a woman stand for one who is to be confirmed4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,only a ,bishop ,can ,confer ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that not only a bishop can confer this sacrament4 ,for ,gregory 7,regist4 iv71 writing to ,bishop ,januarius1 says3 ,we hear that some were scandalized because we forbade priests to anoint with chrism those who have been baptized4 ,yet in doing this we followed the ancient custom of our ,church3 but if this trouble some so very much we permit priests1 where no bishop is to be had1 to anoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism4 ,but that which is essential to the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of avoiding scandal4 ,therefore it seems that it is not essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacrament of ,baptism seems to be more efficacious than the sacrament of ,confirmation3 since it bestows full remission of sins1 both as to guilt and as to punishment1 whereas this sacrament does not4 ,but a simple priest1 in virtue of his office1 can give the sacrament of ,baptism3 and in a case of necessity anyone1 even without orders1 can baptize4 ,therefore it is not essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the top of the head1 where according to medical men the reason is situated 7i4e4 the particular reason1 which is called the cogitative faculty71 is more noble than the forehead1 which is the site of the imagination4 ,but a simple priest can anoint the baptized with chrism on the top of the head4 ,therefore much more can he anoint them with chrism on the forehead1 which belongs to this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,eusebius 7,ep4 iii ad ,ep4 ,tusc47 says3 ,the sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great veneration1 and can be given by none but the high priests4 ,nor is it related or known to have been conferred in apostolic times by others than the apostles themselves2 nor can it ever be either licitly or validly performed by others than those who stand in their place4 ,and if anyone presume to do otherwise1 it must be considered null and void2 nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of the ,church4 ,therefore it is essential to this sacrament1 which is called the sacrament of the imposition of the hand1 that it be given by a bishop4 ,i answer that1 ,in every work the final completion is reserved to the supreme act or power2 thus the preparation of the matter belongs to the lower craftsmen1 the higher gives the form1 but the highest of all is he to whom pertains the use1 which is the end of things made by art2 thus also the letter which is written by the clerk1 is signed by his employer4 ,now the faithful of ,christ are a ,divine work1 according to #a ,cor4 #c3i3 ,you are ,god's building2 and they are also an epistle1 as it were1 written with the ,spirit of ,god1 according to #b ,cor4 #c3b1 #c4 ,and this sacrament of ,confirmation is1 as it were1 the final completion of the sacrament of ,baptism2 in the sense that by ,baptism man is built up into a spiritual dwelling1 and is written like a spiritual letter2 whereas by the sacrament of ,confirmation1 like a house already built1 he is consecrated as a temple of the ,holy ,ghost1 and as a letter already written1 is signed with the sign of the cross4 ,therefore the conferring of this sacrament is reserved to bishops1 who possess supreme power in the ,church3 just as in the primitive ,church1 the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost was given by the apostles1 in whose place the bishops stand 7,acts #h74 ,hence ,pope ,urban ,i says3 ,all the faithful should1 after ,baptism1 receive the ,holy ,ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hand1 that they may become perfect ,christians4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ,pope has the plenitude of power in the ,church1 in virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things that belong to the higher orders3 thus he allows priests to confer minor orders1 which belong to the episcopal power4 ,and in virtue of this fulness of power the ,pope1 ,blessed ,gregory1 allowed simple priests to confer this sacrament1 so long as the scandal was ended4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is more efficacious than this sacrament as to the removal of evil1 since it is a spiritual birth1 that consists in change from non-being to being4 ,but this sacrament is more efficacious for progress in good2 since it is a spiritual growth from imperfect being to perfect being4 ,and hence this sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,rabanus says 7,de ,instit4 ,cleric4 i71 the baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head1 but by the bishop on the forehead2 that the former unction may symbolize the descent of the ,holy ,ghost on him1 in order to consecrate a dwelling to ,god3 and that the second also may teach us that the sevenfold grace of the same ,holy ,ghost descends on man with all fulness of sanctity1 knowledge and virtue4 ,hence this unction is reserved to bishops1 not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of the body1 but by reason of its having a more powerful effect4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,art4 #ab ,whether the ,rite of ,this ,sacrament ,is ,appropriate8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the rite of this sacrament is not appropriate4 ,for the sacrament of ,baptism is of greater necessity than this1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #d2 ,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,but certain seasons are fixed for ,baptism1 viz4 ,easter and ,pentecost4 ,therefore some fixed time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as this sacrament requires devotion both in the giver and in the receiver1 so also does the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,but in the sacrament of ,baptism it is not necessary that it should be received or given fasting4 ,therefore it seems unfitting for the ,council of ,orleans to declare that those who come to ,confirmation should be fasting2 and the ,council of ,meaux1 that bishops should not give the ,holy ,ghost with imposition of the hand except they be fasting4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 chrism is a sign of the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,but the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost was given to ,christ's faithful on the day of ,pentecost1 as related in ,acts #b3a4 ,therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of ,pentecost rather than on ,maundy ,thursday4 ,on the contrary1 ,is the use of the ,church1 who is governed by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,our ,lord promised ,his faithful 7,matt4 #ah3bj7 saying3 ,where there are two or three gathered together in ,my name1 there am ,i in the midst of them4 ,and therefore we must hold firmly that the ,church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of ,christ4 ,and for this reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by the ,church1 in this and the other sacraments1 is appropriate4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,pope ,melchiades says 7,ep4 ad ,epis4 ,hispan471 these two sacraments1 viz4 ,baptism and ,confirmation1 are so closely connected that they can nowise be separated save by death intervening1 nor can one be duly celebrated without the other4 ,consequently the same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of ,baptism and of this sacrament4 ,but since this sacrament is given only by bishops1 who are not always present where priests are baptizing1 it was necessary1 as regards the common use1 to defer the sacrament of ,confirmation to other seasons also4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sick and those in danger of death are exempt from this prohibition1 as we read in the decree of the ,council of ,meaux4 ,and therefore1 on account of the multitude of the faithful1 and on account of imminent dangers1 it is allowed for this sacrament1 which can be given by none but a bishop1 to be given or received even by those who are not fasting3 since one bishop1 especially in a large diocese1 would not suffice to confirm all1 if he were confined to certain times4 ,but where it can be done conveniently1 it is more becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to the acts of the ,council of ,pope ,martin1 it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism4 ,but since solemn ,baptism1 for which chrism has to be used1 is celebrated on ,easter ,eve1 it was rightly decreed1 that chrism should be consecrated by the bishop two days beforehand1 that it may be sent to the various parts of the diocese4 ,moreover1 this day is sufficiently appropriate to the blessing of sacramental matter1 since thereon was the ,eucharist instituted1 to which1 in a certain way1 all the other sacraments are ordained1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c74 ,,question #gc ,,of ,,the ,,sacrament ,,of ,,the ,,eucharist 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the sacrament of the ,eucharist2 and first of all we treat of the sacrament itself2 secondly1 of its matter2 thirdly1 of its form2 fourthly1 of its effects2 fifthly1 of the recipients of this sacrament2 sixthly1 of the minister2 seventhly1 of the rite4 ,under the first heading there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the ,eucharist is a sacrament8 7#b7 ,whether it is one or several sacraments8 7#c7 ,whether it is necessary for salvation8 7#d7 ,its names2 7#e7 ,its institution2 7#f7 ,its figures4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,eucharist ,is a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,eucharist is not a sacrament4 ,for two sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end1 because every sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect4 ,therefore1 since both ,confirmation and the ,eucharist are ordained for perfection1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iv71 it seems that the ,eucharist is not a sacrament1 since ,confirmation is one1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #gb1 ,a4 #a74 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in every sacrament of the ,new ,law1 that which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the sacrament1 just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing1 as stated above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #f2 ,q4 #ff1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c1 #g74 ,but the species of bread and wine1 which are the objects of our senses in this sacrament1 neither produce ,christ's true body1 which is both reality and sacrament1 nor ,his mystical body1 which is the reality only in the ,eucharist4 ,therefore1 it seems that the ,eucharist is not a sacrament of the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 sacraments of the ,new ,law1 as having matter1 are perfected by the use of the matter1 as ,baptism is by ablution1 and ,confirmation by signing with chrism4 ,if1 then1 the ,eucharist be a sacrament1 it would be perfected by the use of the matter1 and not by its consecration4 ,but this is manifestly false1 because the words spoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament1 as will be shown later on 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore the ,eucharist is not a sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said in the ,collect 99,postcommunion pro vivis et defunctis3 ,may this ,thy ,sacrament not make us deserving of punishment4 ,i answer that1 ,the ,church's sacraments are ordained for helping man in the spiritual life4 ,but the spiritual life is analogous to the corporeal1 since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual4 ,now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal life1 since thereby man receives life2 and growth1 whereby man is brought to maturity3 so likewise food is required for the preservation of life4 ,consequently1 just as for the spiritual life there had to be ,baptism1 which is spiritual generation2 and ,confirmation1 which is spiritual growth3 so there needed to be the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 which is spiritual food4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,perfection is twofold4 ,the first lies within man himself2 and he attains it by growth3 such perfection belongs to ,confirmation4 ,the other is the perfection which comes to man from the addition of food1 or clothing1 or something of the kind2 and such is the perfection befitting the ,eucharist1 which is the spiritual refreshment4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the water of ,baptism does not cause any spiritual effect by reason of the water1 but by reason of the power of the ,holy ,ghost1 which power is in the water4 ,hence on ,john #e3d1 ,an angel of the ,lord at certain times1 etc41 ,chrysostom observes3 ,the water does not act simply as such upon the baptized1 but when it receives the grace of the ,holy ,ghost1 then it looses all sins4 ,but the true body of ,christ bears the same relation to the species of the bread and wine1 as the power of the ,holy ,ghost does to the water of ,baptism3 hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect except from the virtue of ,christ's true body4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a sacrament is so termed because it contains something sacred4 ,now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes2 either absolutely1 or in relation to something else4 ,the difference between the ,eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that whereas the ,eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely1 namely1 ,christ's own body2 the baptismal water contains something which is sacred in relation to something else1 namely1 the sanctifying power3 and the same holds good of chrism and such like4 ,consequently1 the sacrament of the ,eucharist is completed in the very consecration of the matter1 whereas the other sacraments are completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the individual4 ,and from this follows another difference4 ,for1 in the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 what is both reality and sacrament is in the matter itself1 but what is reality only1 namely1 the grace bestowed1 is in the recipient2 whereas in ,baptism both are in the recipient1 namely1 the character1 which is both reality and sacrament1 and the grace of pardon of sins1 which is reality only4 ,and the same holds good of the other sacraments4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,eucharist ,is ,one ,sacrament or ,several8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,eucharist is not one sacrament but several1 because it is said in the ,collect 99,postcommunion pro vivis et defunctis3 ,may the sacraments which we have received purify us1 ,o ,lord3 and this is said on account of our receiving the ,eucharist4 ,consequently the ,eucharist is not one sacrament but several4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without the species being multiplied3 thus it is impossible for one man to be many animals4 ,but1 as stated above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #a71 sign is the genus of sacrament4 ,since1 then1 there are more signs than one1 to wit1 bread and wine1 it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of the matter1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,but in this sacrament there is a double consecration of the matter4 ,therefore1 it is a twofold sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3ag73 ,for we1 being many1 are one bread1 one body1 all that partake of one bread3 from which it is clear that the ,eucharist is the sacrament of the ,church's unity4 ,but a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament4 ,therefore the ,eucharist is one sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in ,metaph4 v1 a thing is said to be one1 not only from being indivisible1 or continuous1 but also when it is complete2 thus we speak of one house1 and one man4 ,a thing is one in perfection1 when it is complete through the presence of all that is needed for its end2 as a man is complete by having all the members required for the operation of his soul1 and a house by having all the parts needful for dwelling therein4 ,and so this sacrament is said to be one4 ,because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment1 which is conformed to corporeal refreshment4 ,now there are two things required for corporeal refreshment1 namely1 food1 which is dry sustenance1 and drink1 which is wet sustenance4 ,consequently1 two things concur for the integrity of this sacrament1 to wit1 spiritual food and spiritual drink1 according to ,john3 ,my flesh is meat indeed1 and ,my blood is drink indeed4 ,therefore1 this sacrament is materially many1 but formally and perfectively one4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the same ,collect at first employs the plural3 ,may the sacraments which we have received purify us2 and afterwards the singular number3 ,may this sacrament of ,thine not make us worthy of punishment3 so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure several1 yet simply one4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the bread and wine are materially several signs1 yet formally and perfectively one1 inasmuch as one refreshment is prepared therefrom4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,from the double consecration of the matter no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially1 as stated above4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,eucharist ,is ,necessary for ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation4 ,for our ,lord said 7,john #f3ed73 ,except you eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 you shall not have life in you4 ,but ,christ's flesh is eaten and ,his blood drunk in this sacrament4 ,therefore1 without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food4 ,but bodily food is requisite for bodily health4 ,therefore1 also is this sacrament1 for spiritual health4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,baptism is the sacrament of our ,lord's ,passion1 without which there is no salvation1 so also is the ,eucharist4 ,for the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bf73 ,for as often as you shall eat this bread1 and drink the chalice1 you shall show the death of the ,lord1 until ,he come4 ,consequently1 as ,baptism is necessary for salvation1 so also is this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine writes 7,ad ,bonifac4 contra ,pelag4 ,i73 ,nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life1 who are deprived of the body and blood of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,two things have to be considered in this sacrament1 namely1 the sacrament itself1 and what is contained in it4 ,now it was stated above 7,a4 #a1 ,obj4 #b7 that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body1 without which there can be no salvation2 for there is no entering into salvation outside the ,church1 just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ,ark1 which denotes the ,church1 according to #a ,pet4 #c3bj1 #ba4 ,and it has been said above 7,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #b71 that before receiving a sacrament1 the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament4 ,accordingly1 before actual reception of this sacrament1 a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it1 just as he can before ,baptism through the desire of ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #b74 ,yet there is a difference in two respects4 ,first of all1 because ,baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life1 and the door of the sacraments2 whereas the ,eucharist is1 as it were1 the consummation of the spiritual life1 and the end of all the sacraments1 as was observed above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #f73 for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the ,eucharist4 ,consequently1 the reception of ,baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life1 while the receiving of the ,eucharist is requisite for its consummation2 by partaking not indeed actually1 but in desire1 as an end is possessed in desire and intention4 ,another difference is because by ,baptism a man is ordained to the ,eucharist1 and therefore from the fact of children being baptized1 they are destined by the ,church to the ,eucharist2 and just as they believe through the ,church's faith1 so they desire the ,eucharist through the ,church's intention1 and1 as a result1 receive its reality4 ,but they are not disposed for ,baptism by any previous sacrament1 and consequently before receiving ,baptism1 in no way have they ,baptism in desire2 but adults alone have3 consequently1 they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself4 ,therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as ,baptism is4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says1 explaining ,john #f3ed1 ,this food and this drink1 namely1 of ,his flesh and blood3 ,he would have us understand the fellowship of ,his body and members1 which is the ,church in ,his predestinated1 and called1 and justified1 and glorified1 ,his holy and believing ones4 ,hence1 as he says in his ,epistle to ,boniface 7,pseudo-,beda1 in #a ,cor4 #aj3ag73 ,no one should entertain the slightest doubt1 that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the body and blood of ,christ1 when in ,baptism he is made a member of ,christ's body2 nor is he deprived of his share in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of ,christ's body1 before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the difference between corporeal and spiritual food lies in this1 that the former is changed into the substance of the person nourished1 and consequently it cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of2 but spiritual food changes man into itself1 according to that saying of ,augustine 7,confess4 vii71 that he heard the voice of ,christ as it were saying to him3 ,nor shalt thou change ,me into thyself1 as food of thy flesh1 but thou shalt be changed into ,me4 ,but one can be changed into ,christ1 and be incorporated in ,him by mental desire1 even without receiving this sacrament4 ,and consequently the comparison does not hold4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,baptism is the sacrament of ,christ's death and ,passion1 according as a man is born anew in ,christ in virtue of ,his ,passion2 but the ,eucharist is the sacrament of ,christ's ,passion according as a man is made perfect in union with ,christ ,who suffered4 ,hence1 as ,baptism is called the sacrament of ,faith1 which is the foundation of the spiritual life1 so the ,eucharist is termed the sacrament of ,charity1 which is the bond of perfection 7,col4 #c3ad74 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,is ,suitably ,called by ,various ,names8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by various names4 ,for names should correspond with things4 ,but this sacrament is one1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,therefore1 it ought not to be called by various names4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a species is not properly denominated by what is common to the whole genus4 ,but the ,eucharist is a sacrament of the ,new ,law2 and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be conferred by them1 which the name ,eucharist denotes1 for it is the same thing as good grace4 ,furthermore1 all the sacraments bring us help on our journey through this present life1 which is the notion conveyed by ,viaticum4 ,again something sacred is done in all the sacraments1 which belongs to the notion of ,sacrifice2 and the faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments1 which this ,greek word ,synaxis and the ,latin ,communio express4 ,therefore1 these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a host 99,from ,latin hostia1 a victim seems to be the same as a sacrifice4 ,therefore1 as it is not properly called a sacrifice1 so neither is it properly termed a ,host4 ,on the contrary1 is the use of these expressions by the faithful4 ,i answer that1 ,this sacrament has a threefold significance4 ,one with regard to the past1 inasmuch as it is commemorative of our ,lord's ,passion1 which was a true sacrifice1 as stated above 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #c71 and in this respect it is called a ,sacrifice4 ,with regard to the present it has another meaning1 namely1 that of ,ecclesiastical unity1 in which men are aggregated through this ,sacrament2 and in this respect it is called ,communion or ,synaxis4 ,for ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 that it is called ,communion because we communicate with ,christ through it1 both because we partake of ,his flesh and ,godhead1 and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it4 ,with regard to the future it has a third meaning1 inasmuch as this sacrament foreshadows the ,divine fruition1 which shall come to pass in heaven2 and according to this it is called ,viaticum1 because it supplies the way of winning thither4 ,and in this respect it is also called the ,eucharist1 that is1 good grace1 because the grace of ,god is life everlasting 7,rom4 #f3bc72 or because it really contains ,christ1 ,who is full of grace4 ,in ,greek1 moreover1 it is called ,metalepsis1 i4e4 ,assumption1 because1 as ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv71 we thereby assume the ,godhead of the ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,there is nothing to hinder the same thing from being called by several names1 according to its various properties or effects4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,what is common to all the sacraments is attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this sacrament is called a ,sacrifice inasmuch as it represents the ,passion of ,christ2 but it is termed a ,host inasmuch as it contains ,christ1 ,who is a host 7,douay3 'sacrifice'7 4 4 4 of sweetness 7,eph4 #e3b74 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,institution of ,this ,sacrament ,was ,appropriate8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the institution of this sacrament was not appropriate1 because as the ,philosopher says 7,de ,gener4 ii73 ,we are nourished by the things from whence we spring4 ,but by ,baptism1 which is spiritual regeneration1 we receive our spiritual being1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii74 ,therefore we are also nourished by ,baptism4 ,consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament as spiritual nourishment4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 men are united with ,christ through this sacrament as the members with the head4 ,but ,christ is the ,head of all men1 even of those who have existed from the beginning of the world1 as stated above 7,q4 #h1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f74 ,therefore the institution of this sacrament should not have been postponed till the ,lord's supper4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is called the memorial of our ,lord's ,passion1 according to ,matt4 #bf 7,luke #bb3ai73 ,do this for a commemoration of ,me4 ,but a commemoration is of things past4 ,therefore1 this sacrament should not have been instituted before ,christ's ,passion4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 a man is prepared by ,baptism for the ,eucharist1 which ought to be given only to the baptized4 ,but ,baptism was instituted by ,christ after ,his ,passion and ,resurrection1 as is evident from ,matt4 #bh3ai4 ,therefore1 this sacrament was not suitably instituted before ,christ's ,passion4 ,on the contrary1 ,this sacrament was instituted by ,christ1 of ,whom it is said 7,mk4 #g3cg7 that ,he did all things well4 ,i answer that1 ,this sacrament was appropriately instituted at the supper1 when ,christ conversed with ,his disciples for the last time4 ,first of all1 because of what is contained in the sacrament3 for ,christ is ,himself contained in the ,eucharist sacramentally4 ,consequently1 when ,christ was going to leave ,his disciples in ,his proper species1 ,he left ,himself with them under the sacramental species2 as the ,emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence4 ,hence ,eusebius says3 ,since ,he was going to withdraw ,his assumed body from their eyes1 and bear it away to the stars1 it was needful that on the day of the supper ,he should consecrate the sacrament of ,his body and blood for our sakes1 in order that what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a mystery4 ,secondly1 because without faith in the ,passion there could never be any salvation1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood4 ,it was necessary accordingly that there should be at all times among men something to show forth our ,lord's ,passion2 the chief sacrament of which in the old ,law was the ,paschal ,lamb4 ,hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #e3g73 ,christ our ,pasch is sacrificed4 ,but its successor under the ,new ,testament is the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 which is a remembrance of the ,passion now past1 just as the other was figurative of the ,passion to come4 ,and so it was fitting that when the hour of the ,passion was come1 ,christ should institute a new ,sacrament after celebrating the old1 as ,pope ,leo ,i says 7,serm4 lviii74 ,thirdly1 because last words1 chiefly such as are spoken by departing friends1 are committed most deeply to memory2 since then especially affection for friends is more enkindled1 and the things which affect us most are impressed the deepest in the soul4 ,consequently1 since1 as ,pope ,alexander ,i says1 among sacrifices there can be none greater than the body and blood of ,christ1 nor any more powerful oblation2 our ,lord instituted this sacrament at ,his last parting with ,his disciples1 in order that it might be held in the greater veneration4 ,and this is what ,augustine says 7,respons4 ad ,januar4 i73 ,in order to commend more earnestly the death of this mystery1 our ,saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples whom ,he was about to quit for the ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we are nourished from the same things of which we are made1 but they do not come to us in the same way2 for those out of which we are made come to us through generation1 while the same1 as nourishing us1 come to us through being eaten4 ,hence1 as we are new-born in ,christ through ,baptism1 so through the ,eucharist we eat ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our ,lord's ,passion1 as containing ,christ crucified2 consequently it could not be instituted before the ,incarnation2 but then there was room for only such sacraments as were prefigurative of the ,lord's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this sacrament was instituted during the supper1 so as in the future to be a memorial of our ,lord's ,passion as accomplished4 ,hence ,he said expressively3 ,as often as ye shall do these things 99,cf4 ,canon of the ,mass1 speaking of the future4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the institution responds to the order of intention4 ,but the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 although after ,baptism in the receiving1 is yet previous to it in intention2 and therefore it behooved to be instituted first4 ,or else it can be said that ,baptism was already instituted in ,christ's ,baptism2 hence some were already baptized with ,christ's ,baptism1 as we read in ,john #c3bb4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,paschal ,lamb ,was the ,chief ,figure of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the ,paschal ,lamb was not the chief figure of this sacrament1 because 7,ps4 #aji3d7 ,christ is called a priest according to the order of ,melchisedech1 since ,melchisedech bore the figure of ,christ's sacrifice1 in offering bread and wine4 ,but the expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another4 ,therefore1 it seems that ,melchisedech's offering was the principal figure of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the passage of the ,red ,sea was a figure of ,baptism1 according to #a ,cor4 #aj3b3 ,all 4 4 4 were baptized in the cloud and in the sea4 ,but the immolation of the ,paschal ,lamb was previous to the passage of the ,red ,sea1 and the ,manna came after it1 just as the ,eucharist follows ,baptism4 ,therefore the ,manna is a more expressive figure of this sacrament than the ,paschal ,lamb4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the principal power of this sacrament is that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven1 being a kind of viaticum4 ,but this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the high-priest entered once a year into the ,holy of ,holies with blood1 as the ,apostle proves in ,heb4 #i4 ,consequently1 it seems that that sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the ,paschal ,lamb4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #e3g1 #h73 ,christ our ,pasch is sacrificed2 therefore let us feast 4 4 4 with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth4 ,i answer that1 ,we can consider three things in this sacrament3 namely1 that which is sacrament only1 and this is the bread and wine2 that which is both reality and sacrament1 to wit1 ,christ's true body2 and lastly that which is reality only1 namely1 the effect of this sacrament4 ,consequently1 in relation to what is sacrament only1 the chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of ,melchisedech1 who offered up bread and wine4 ,in relation to ,christ crucified1 ,who is contained in this sacrament1 its figures were all the sacrifices of the ,old ,testament1 especially the sacrifice of expiation1 which was the most solemn of all4 ,while with regard to its effect1 the chief figure was the ,manna1 having in it the sweetness of every taste 7,wis4 #af3bj71 just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all respects4 ,the ,paschal ,lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways4 ,first of all1 because it was eaten with unleavened loaves1 according to ,ex4 #ab3h3 ,they shall eat flesh 4 4 4 and unleavened bread4 ,as to the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of ,israel on the fourteenth day of the moon2 and this was a figure of the ,passion of ,christ1 ,who is called the ,lamb on account of ,his innocence4 ,as to the effect1 because by the blood of the ,paschal ,lamb the children of ,israel were preserved from the destroying ,angel1 and brought from the ,egyptian captivity2 and in this respect the ,paschal ,lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament1 because it represents it in every respect4 ,from this the answer to the ,objections is manifest4 ,,question #gd ,,of ,,the ,,matter ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the matter of this sacrament3 and first of all as to its species2 secondly1 the change of the bread and wine into the body of ,christ2 thirdly1 the manner in which ,christ's body exists in this sacrament2 fourthly1 the accidents of bread and wine which continue in this sacrament4 ,under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament8 7#b7 ,whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the matter of this sacrament8 7#c7 ,whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread8 7#d7 ,whether it is unleavened or fermented bread8 7#e7 ,whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape8 7#f7 ,whether water should be mixed with it8 7#g7 ,whether water is of necessity for this sacrament8 7#h7 ,of the quantity of the water added4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,matter of ,this ,sacrament ,is ,bread and ,wine8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread and wine4 ,because this sacrament ought to represent ,christ's ,passion more fully than did the sacraments of the ,old ,law4 ,but the flesh of animals1 which was the matter of the sacraments under the ,old ,law1 shows forth ,christ's ,passion more fully than bread and wine4 ,therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh of animals than bread and wine4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place4 ,but in many lands bread is not to be found1 and in many places wine is not to be found4 ,therefore bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is for both hale and weak4 ,but to some weak persons wine is hurtful4 ,therefore it seems that wine ought not to be the matter of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,alexander ,i says 7,ep4 ad omnes orth4 i73 ,in oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered4 ,i answer that1 ,some have fallen into various errors about the matter of this sacrament4 ,some1 known as the ,artotyrytae1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,haeres4 xxviii71 offer bread and cheese in this sacrament1 contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the first ages1 from fruits of the earth and sheep4 ,others1 called ,cataphrygae and ,pepuziani1 are reputed to have made their ,eucharistic bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body1 and mixed with flour4 ,others1 styled ,aquarii1 under guise of sobriety1 offer nothing but water in this sacrament4 ,now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that ,christ instituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine1 as is evident from ,matt4 #bf4 ,consequently1 bread and wine are the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,and the reasonableness of this is seen first1 in the use of this sacrament1 which is eating3 for1 as water is used in the sacrament of ,baptism for the purpose of spiritual cleansing1 since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water2 so bread and wine1 wherewith men are commonly fed1 are employed in this sacrament for the use of spiritual eating4 ,secondly1 in relation to ,christ's ,passion1 in which the blood was separated from the body4 ,and therefore in this sacrament1 which is the memorial of our ,lord's ,passion1 the bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body1 and the wine as the sacrament of the blood4 ,thirdly1 as to the effect1 considered in each of the partakers4 ,for1 as ,ambrose 7,mag4 ,sent4 iv1 ,d1 xi7 says on #a ,cor4 #aa3bj1 this sacrament avails for the defense of soul and body2 and therefore ,christ's body is offered under the species of bread for the health of the body1 and the blood under the species of wine for the health of the soul1 according to ,lev4 #ag3ad3 ,the life of the animal ,vulg43 'of all flesh' is in the blood4 ,fourthly1 as to the effect with regard to the whole ,church1 which is made up of many believers1 just as bread is composed of many grains1 and wine flows from many grapes1 as the gloss observes on #a ,cor4 #aj3ag3 ,we being many are 4 4 4 one body1 etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents the ,passion more forcibly1 nevertheless it is less suitable for the common use of this sacrament1 and for denoting the unity of the ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although wheat and wine are not produced in every country1 yet they can easily be conveyed to every land1 that is1 as much as is needful for the use of this sacrament3 at the same time one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking1 because it would not be a complete sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much harm3 yet if there be fear of harm1 it is not necessary for all who take ,christ's body to partake also of ,his blood1 as will be stated later 7,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #ab74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #b ,whether a ,determinate ,quantity of ,bread and ,wine ,is ,required for the ,matter of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament4 ,because the effects of grace are no less set in order than those of nature4 ,but1 there is a limit set by nature upon all existing things1 and a reckoning of size and development 7,de ,anima ii74 ,consequently1 in this sacrament1 which is called ,eucharist1 that is1 a good grace1 a determinate quantity of the bread and wine is required4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ gave no power to the ministers of the ,church regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of ,his sacraments1 according to #b ,cor4 #aj3h3 ,of our power which the ,lord hath given us unto edification1 and not for your destruction4 ,but it would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the cellar4 ,therefore he cannot do this4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if anyone be baptized in the sea1 the entire sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism1 but only the water wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed4 ,therefore1 neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated4 ,on the contrary1 ,much is opposed to little1 and great to small4 ,but there is no quantity1 however small1 of the bread and wine which cannot be consecrated4 ,therefore1 neither is there any quantity1 however great1 which cannot be consecrated4 ,i answer that1 ,some have maintained that the priest could not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine1 for instance1 all the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask4 ,but this does not appear to be true1 because in all things containing matter1 the reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end1 just as the matter of a saw is iron1 so as to adapt it for cutting4 ,but the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful4 ,consequently1 the quantity of the matter of this sacrament must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful4 ,but this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful who are actually present2 otherwise the parish priest having few parishioners could not consecrate many hosts4 ,it remains1 then1 for the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number of the faithful absolutely4 ,but the number of the faithful is not a determinate one4 ,hence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the matter of every natural object has its determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate form4 ,but the number of the faithful1 for whose use this sacrament is ordained1 is not a determinate one4 ,consequently there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the power of the ,church's ministers is ordained for two purposes3 first for the proper effect1 and secondly for the end of the effect4 ,but the second does not take away the first4 ,hence1 if the priest intends to consecrate the body of ,christ for an evil purpose1 for instance1 to make mockery of it1 or to administer poison through it1 he commits sin by his evil intention1 nevertheless1 on account of the power committed to him1 he accomplishes the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is perfected in the use of the matter3 and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is used4 ,but this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the matter4 ,consequently there is no parallel4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,wheaten ,bread ,is ,required for the ,matter of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the matter of this sacrament1 because this sacrament is a reminder of our ,lord's ,passion4 ,but barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the ,passion than wheaten bread1 as being more bitter1 and because ,christ used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain1 as narrated in ,john #f4 ,therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in natural things the shape is a sign of species4 ,but some cereals resemble wheat1 such as spelt and maize1 from which in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament4 ,therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 mixing dissolves species4 ,but wheaten flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain1 except in the instance of specially selected grain4 ,therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 what is corrupted appears to be of another species4 ,but some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted1 and which no longer seems to be wheaten bread4 ,therefore1 it seems that such bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,christ is contained in this sacrament1 and ,he compares ,himself to a grain of wheat1 saying 7,john #ab3bd73 ,unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die1 itself remaineth alone4 ,therefore bread from corn1 i4e4 wheaten bread1 is the matter of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 for the use of the sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among men4 ,now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by men2 since other breads seem to be employed when this fails4 ,and consequently ,christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under this species of bread4 ,moreover this bread strengthens man1 and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament4 ,consequently1 the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the ,old ,law2 both on account of the hardness of the bread1 and because1 as ,augustine says 7,q4 #hc73 ,the flour within the barley1 wrapped up as it is within a most tenacious fibre1 denotes either the ,law itself1 which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments2 or else it denotes the people themselves1 who were not yet despoiled of carnal desires1 which clung to their hearts like fibre4 ,but this sacrament belongs to ,christ's sweet yoke1 and to the truth already manifested1 and to a spiritual people4 ,consequently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a begetter begets a thing like to itself in species1 yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents1 owing either to the matter1 or to weakness within the generative power4 ,and therefore1 if there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat 7as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground71 the bread made from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament3 and this does not obtain either in barley1 or in spelt1 or even in maize1 which is of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain4 ,but the resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity2 just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the same species4 ,hence from such grains1 which cannot in any way be generated from wheat grain1 bread cannot be made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a moderate mixing does not alter the species1 because that little is as it were absorbed by the greater4 ,consequently1 then1 if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat1 bread may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this sacrament2 but if the mixing be notable1 for instance1 half and half2 or nearly so1 then such mixing alters the species2 consequently1 bread made therefrom will not be the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that the species of bread is lost1 as when the continuity of its parts is destroyed1 and the taste1 color1 and other accidents are changed2 hence the body of ,christ may not be made from such matter4 ,but sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species1 but merely disposition towards corruption1 which a slight change in the savor betrays1 and from such bread the body of ,christ may be made3 but he who does so1 sins from irreverence towards the sacrament4 ,and because starch comes of corrupted wheat1 it does not seem as if the body of ,christ could be made of the bread made therefrom1 although some hold the contrary4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,ought to ,be ,made of ,unleavened ,bread8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of unleavened bread4 ,because in this sacrament we ought to imitate ,christ's institution4 ,but ,christ appears to have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread1 because1 as we have read in ,ex4 #ab1 the ,jews1 according to the ,law1 began to use unleavened bread on the day of the ,passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon2 and ,christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which ,he celebrated before the festival day of the ,pasch 7,john #ac3a1 #d74 ,therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with fermented bread4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace4 ,but the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the ,law1 as is clear from ,ex4 #ab4 ,therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c71 the ,eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as ,baptism is the sacrament of faith4 ,but the fervor of charity is signified by fermented bread1 as is declared by the gloss on ,matt4 #ac3cc3 ,the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven1 etc4 ,therefore this sacrament ought to be made of leavened bread4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread1 which do not vary the species4 ,but in the matter for the sacrament of ,baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the accidents1 as to whether it be salt or fresh1 warm or cold water4 ,therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed1 as to whether the bread be unleavened or leavened4 ,on the contrary1 ,according to the ,decretals 7,extra1 ,de ,celebr4 ,miss471 a priest is punished for presuming to celebrate1 using fermented bread and a wooden cup4 ,i answer that1 ,two things may be considered touching the matter of this sacrament1 namely1 what is necessary1 and what is suitable4 ,it is necessary that the bread be wheaten1 without which the sacrament is not valid1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,it is not1 however1 necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened1 since it can be celebrated in either4 ,but it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his ,church in the celebration of the sacrament4 ,now in this matter there are various customs of the ,churches3 for1 ,gregory says3 ,the ,roman ,church offers unleavened bread1 because our ,lord took flesh without union of sexes3 but the ,greek ,churches offer leavened bread1 because the ,word of the ,father was clothed with flesh2 as leaven is mixed with the flour4 ,hence1 as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread in the ,latin ,church1 so a ,greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the ,greeks would also sin1 as perverting the rite of his ,church4 ,nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened bread is more reasonable4 ,first1 on account of ,christ's institution3 for ,he instituted this sacrament on the first day of the ,azymes 7,matt4 #bf3ag2 ,mk4 #ad3ab2 ,luke #bb3g71 on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the ,jews1 as is stated in ,ex4 #ab3ae1 #ai4 ,secondly1 because bread is properly the sacrament of ,christ's body1 which was conceived without corruption1 rather than of ,his ,godhead1 as will be seen later 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a74 ,thirdly1 because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful1 which is required in the use of this sacrament1 according to #a ,cor4 #e3g3 ,christ our ,pasch is sacrificed3 therefore let us feast 4 4 4 with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth4 ,however1 this custom of the ,greeks is not unreasonable both on account of its signification1 to which ,gregory refers1 and in detestation of the heresy of the ,nazarenes1 who mixed up legal observances with the ,gospel4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as we read in ,ex4 #ab1 the paschal solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon4 ,so1 then1 after immolating the ,paschal ,lamb1 ,christ instituted this sacrament3 hence this day is said by ,john to precede the day of the ,pasch1 while the other three ,evangelists call it the first day of the ,azymes1 when fermented bread was not found in the houses of the ,jews1 as stated above4 ,fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our ,lord's ,passion 7,q4 #df1 ,a4 #i1 ad #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the ,law1 but to conform to ,christ's institution2 so they are not ,judaizing2 otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be ,judaizing1 because the ,jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect1 because it makes the bread more savory and larger2 but it also signifies corruption from its very nature4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption1 this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread1 as stated above 7,a4 #c1 ad #d72 consequently1 there is a wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal water3 because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could not be validly used for the sacrament4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,wine of the ,grape ,is the ,proper ,matter of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,because1 as water is the matter of ,baptism1 so is wine the matter of this sacrament4 ,but ,baptism can be conferred with any kind of water4 ,therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any kind of wine1 such as of pomegranates1 or of mulberries2 since vines do not grow in some countries4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape1 as ,isidore says 7,etym4 xx74 ,but this sacrament cannot be celebrated with vinegar4 ,therefore1 it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes1 so also are the juice of unripe grapes and must4 ,but it does not appear that this sacrament may be made from such1 according to what we read in the ,sixth ,council 7,trull41 ,can4 #bh73 ,we have learned that in some churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation2 and so they dispense both together to the people4 ,consequently we give order that no priest shall do this in future4 ,and ,pope ,julius ,i rebukes some priests who offer wine pressed from the grape in the sacrament of the ,lord's chalice4 ,consequently1 it seems that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,as our ,lord compared ,himself to the grain of wheat1 so also ,he compared ,himself to the vine1 saying 7,john #ae3a73 ,i am the true vine4 ,but only bread from wheat is the matter of this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore1 only wine from the grape is the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,this sacrament can only be performed with wine from the grape4 ,first of all on account of ,christ's institution1 since ,he instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape1 as is evident from ,his own words1 in instituting this sacrament 7,matt4 #bf3bi73 ,i will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine4 ,secondly1 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #c71 that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which is properly and universally considered as such4 ,now that is properly called wine1 which is drawn from the grape1 whereas other liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the grape4 ,thirdly1 because the wine from the grape is more in keeping with the effect of this sacrament1 which is spiritual2 because it is written 7,ps4 #ajc3ae73 ,that wine may cheer the heart of man4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,such liquors are called wine1 not properly but only from their resemblance thereto4 ,but genuine wine can be conveyed to such countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish1 in a quantity sufficient for this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,wine becomes vinegar by corruption2 hence there is no returning from vinegar to wine1 as is said in ,metaph4 viii4 ,and consequently1 just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt1 so neither can it be made from vinegar4 ,it can1 however1 be made from wine which is turning sour1 just as from bread turning corrupt1 although he who does so sins1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of incomplete generation1 and therefore it has not yet the species of wine3 on which account it may not be used for this sacrament4 ,must1 however1 has already the species of wine1 for its sweetness 99,aut dulcis musti ,vulcano decoquit humorem2 ,virgil1 ,georg4 i1 #bie indicates fermentation which is the result of its natural heat 7,meteor4 iv72 consequently this sacrament can be made from must4 ,nevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament1 because then there would be something else besides wine4 ,it is furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice1 as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape1 since this is unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must4 ,but in case of necessity it may be done3 for it is said by the same ,pope ,julius1 in the passage quoted in the argument3 ,if necessary1 let the grape be pressed into the chalice4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,water ,should ,be ,mixed with the ,wine8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine1 since ,christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of ,melchisedech1 who 7,gen4 #ad3ah7 is related to have offered up bread and wine only4 ,consequently it seems that water should not be added in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the various sacraments have their respective matters4 ,but water is the matter of ,baptism4 ,therefore it should not be employed as the matter of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament4 ,but nothing is added to the bread4 ,therefore neither should anything be added to the wine4 ,on the contrary1 ,pope ,alexander ,i writes 7,ep4 #a ad omnes orth473 ,in the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the ,lord1 only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice4 ,i answer that1 ,water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament4 ,first of all on account of its institution3 for it is believed with probability that our ,lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country3 hence it is written 7,prov4 #i3e73 ,drink the wine which ,i have mixed for you4 ,secondly1 because it harmonizes with the representation of our ,lord's ,passion3 hence ,pope ,alexander ,i says 7,ep4 #a ad omnes orth473 ,in the ,lord's chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered1 but both mixed because we read that both flowed from ,his side in the ,passion4 ,thirdly1 because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament1 since as ,pope ,julius says 7,concil4 ,bracarens iii1 ,can4 #a73 ,we see that the people are signified by the water1 but ,christ's blood by the wine4 ,therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice1 the people is made one with ,christ4 ,fourthly1 because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament1 which is the entering into everlasting life3 hence ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 v73 ,the water flows into the chalice1 and springs forth unto everlasting life4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 v71 just as ,christ's sacrifice is denoted by the offering of ,melchisedech1 so likewise it is signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert1 according to #a ,cor4 #aj3d3 ,but they drank of the spiritual rock which came after them4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in ,baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution3 but in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment1 according to ,ps4 #bb3c3 ,he hath brought me up on the water of refreshment4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,bread is made of water and flour2 and therefore1 since water is mixed with the wine1 neither is without water4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,mixing with ,water ,is ,essential to ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the mixing with water is essential to this sacrament4 ,because ,cyprian says to ,cecilius 7,ep4 lxiii73 ,thus the ,lord's chalice is not water only and wine only1 but both must be mixed together3 in the same way as neither the ,lord's body be of flour only1 except both1 i4e4 the flour and the water be united as one4 ,but the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this sacrament4 ,consequently1 for the like reason1 so is the mixing of water with the wine4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 at our ,lord's ,passion1 of which this is the memorial1 water as well as blood flowed from ,his side4 ,but wine1 which is the sacrament of the blood1 is necessary for this sacrament4 ,for the same reason1 therefore1 so is water4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if water were not essential to this sacrament1 it would not matter in the least what kind of water was used2 and so water distilled from roses1 or any other kind might be employed2 which is contrary to the usage of the ,church4 ,consequently water is essential to this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,cyprian says 7,ep4 lxiii73 ,if any of our predecessors1 out of ignorance or simplicity1 has not kept this usage1 i4e4 of mixing water with the wine1 one may pardon his simplicity2 which would not be the case if water were essential to the sacrament1 as the wine or the bread4 ,therefore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the thing signified4 ,now the adding of water to the wine is for the purpose of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful1 in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine is signified the union of the people with ,christ1 as stated 7,a4 #f74 ,moreover1 the flowing of water from the side of ,christ hanging on the cross refers to the same1 because by the water is denoted the cleansing from sins1 which was the effect of ,christ's ,passion4 ,now it was observed above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c71 that this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter3 while the usage of the faithful is not essential to the sacrament1 but only a consequence thereof4 ,consequently1 then1 the adding of water is not essential to the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense in which we say that a thing cannot be1 which cannot be suitably4 ,and so the comparison refers to what ought to be done1 not to what is essential to be done2 since water is of the essence of bread1 but not of the essence of wine4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the shedding of the blood belonged directly to ,christ's ,passion3 for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human body4 ,but the flowing of the water was not necessary for the ,passion2 but merely to show its effect1 which is to wash away sins1 and to refresh us from the heat of concupiscence4 ,and therefore the water is not offered apart from the wine in this sacrament1 as the wine is offered apart from the bread2 but the water is offered mixed with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament1 as of its very essence2 but the water as something added to the wine4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,since the mixing of water with the wine is not necessary for the sacrament1 it does not matter1 as to the essence of the sacrament1 what kind of water is added to the wine1 whether natural water1 or artificial1 as rose-water1 although1 as to the propriety of the sacrament1 he would sin who mixes any other than natural and true water1 because true water flowed from the side of ,christ hanging on the cross1 and not phlegm1 as some have said1 in order to show that ,christ's body was truly composed of the four elements2 as by the flowing blood1 it was shown to be composed of the four humors1 as ,pope ,innocent ,,iii says in a certain ,decree4 ,but because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this sacrament1 as making the composition of bread1 if rose-water1 or any other liquor besides true water1 be mixed with the flour1 the sacrament would not be valid1 because it would not be true bread4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,water ,should ,be ,added in ,great ,quantity8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity1 because as blood flowed sensibly from ,christ's side1 so did water3 hence it is written 7,john #ai3ce73 ,he that saw it1 hath given testimony4 ,but water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in great quantity4 ,consequently it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted4 ,but what is corrupted no longer exists4 ,therefore1 it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none4 ,but it is not lawful to add none4 ,therefore1 neither is it lawful to add a little4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if it sufficed to add a little1 then as a consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire cask4 ,but this seems ridiculous4 ,therefore it does not suffice for a small quantity to be added4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is said in the ,decretals 7,extra1 ,de ,celeb4 ,miss473 ,the pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding water in greater quantity than the wine1 in the sacrifice1 where according to the reasonable custom of the entire ,church more wine than water ought to be employed4 ,i answer that1 ,there is a threefold opinion regarding the water added to the wine1 as ,pope ,innocent ,,iii says in a certain ,decretal4 ,for some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood3 but such an opinion cannot stand1 because in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and the blood of ,christ4 ,because1 as ,ambrose says in ,de ,officiis 7,de ,mysteriis ix73 ,before the blessing it is another species that is named1 after the blessing the ,body is signified2 otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria4 ,and therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood1 so the water is changed into the water which flowed from ,christ's side4 ,but this cannot be maintained reasonably1 because according to this the water would be consecrated apart from the wine1 as the wine is from the bread4 ,and therefore as he 7,innocent ,,iii1 ,decretals1 ,extra1 ,de ,celeb4 ,miss47 says1 the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is changed into wine1 and the wine into blood4 ,now1 this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be changed into wine4 ,consequently1 it is always safer to add little water1 especially if the wine be weak1 because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the wine4 ,hence ,pope ,julius ,i reprehends some who keep throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must1 and at the time of sacrifice wash a part of it with water1 and so make the offering4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,for the signification of this sacrament it suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine3 but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if no water were added1 the signification would be utterly excluded3 but when the water is changed into wine1 it is signified that the people is incorporated with ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if water were added to a cask1 it would not suffice for the signification of this sacrament1 but the water must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament4 ,,question #ge ,,of ,,the ,,change ,,of ,,bread ,,and ,,wine ,,into ,,the ,,body ,,and ,,blood ,,of ,,christ 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of ,christ2 under which head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration899 7#b7 ,whether it is annihilated8 7#c7 ,whether it is changed into the body and blood of ,christ8 7#d7 ,whether the accidents remain after the change8 7#e7 ,whether the substantial form remains there8 7#f7 ,whether this change is instantaneous8 7#g7 ,whether it is more miraculous than any other change8 7#h7 ,by what words it may be suitably expressed8 99,the titles of the ,articles here given were taken by ,st4 ,thomas from his ,commentary on the ,sentences 7,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #ij74 ,however1 in writing the ,articles he introduced a new point of inquiry1 that of the ,first ,article2 and substituted another division of the matter under discussion1 as may be seen by referring to the titles of the various ,articles4 ,most editions have ignored ,st4 ,thomas's original division1 and give the one to which he subsequently adhered4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,body of ,christ ,be in ,this ,sacrament in ,very ,truth1 or ,merely ,as in a ,figure or ,sign8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the body of ,christ is not in this sacrament in very truth1 but only as in a figure1 or sign4 ,for it is written 7,john #f3ed7 that when our ,lord had uttered these words3 ,except you eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 etc41 ,many of ,his disciples on hearing it said3 'this is a hard saying'3 to whom ,he rejoined3 ,it is the spirit that quickeneth2 the flesh profiteth nothing3 as if ,he were to say1 according to ,augustine's exposition on ,ps4 #d 99,on ,ps4 #ih3i3 ,give a spiritual meaning to what ,i have said4 ,you are not to eat this body which you see1 nor to drink the blood which they who crucify ,me are to spill4 ,it is a mystery that ,i put before you3 in its spiritual sense it will quicken you2 but the flesh profiteth nothing4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #bh3bj73 ,behold ,i am with you all days even to the consummation of the world4 ,now in explaining this1 ,augustine makes this observation 7,tract4 xxx in ,joan473 ,the ,lord is on high until the world be ended2 nevertheless the truth of the ,lord is here with us2 for the body1 in which ,he rose again1 must be in one place2 but ,his truth is spread abroad everywhere4 ,therefore1 the body of ,christ is not in this sacrament in very truth1 but only as in a sign4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 no body can be in several places at the one time4 ,for this does not even belong to an angel2 since for the same reason it could be everywhere4 ,but ,christ's is a true body1 and it is in heaven4 ,consequently1 it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar1 but only as in a sign4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the ,church's sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful4 ,but according to ,gregory in a certain ,homily 7xxviii in ,evang471 the ruler is rebuked for demanding ,christ's bodily presence4 ,moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the ,holy ,ghost because they were attached to ,his bodily presence1 as ,augustine says on ,john #af3g3 ,except ,i go1 the ,paraclete will not come to you 7,tract4 xciv in ,joan474 ,therefore ,christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to ,his bodily presence4 ,on the contrary1 ,hilary says 7,de ,trin4 viii73 ,there is no room for doubt regarding the truth of ,christ's body and blood2 for now by our ,lord's own declaring and by our faith ,his flesh is truly food1 and ,his blood is truly drink4 ,and ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 vi73 ,as the ,lord ,jesus ,christ is ,god's true ,son so is it ,christ's true flesh which we take1 and ,his true blood which we drink4 ,i answer that1 ,the presence of ,christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense1 nor understanding1 but by faith alone1 which rests upon ,divine authority4 ,hence1 on ,luke #bb3ai3 ,this is ,my body which shall be delivered up for you1 ,cyril says3 ,doubt not whether this be true2 but take rather the ,saviour's words with faith2 for since ,he is the ,truth1 ,he lieth not4 ,now this is suitable1 first for the perfection of the ,new ,law4 ,for1 the sacrifices of the ,old ,law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,heb4 #aj3a3 ,for the law having a shadow of the good things to come1 not the very image of the things4 ,and therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the ,new ,law instituted by ,christ should have something more1 namely1 that it should contain ,christ ,himself crucified1 not merely in signification or figure1 but also in very truth4 ,and therefore this sacrament which contains ,christ ,himself1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii71 is perfective of all the other sacraments1 in which ,christ's virtue is participated4 ,secondly1 this belongs to ,christ's love1 out of which for our salvation ,he assumed a true body of our nature4 ,and because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends1 as the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 ix71 ,he promises us ,his bodily presence as a reward1 saying 7,matt4 #bd3bh73 ,where the body is1 there shall the eagles be gathered together4 ,yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage ,he does not deprive us of ,his bodily presence2 but unites us with ,himself in this sacrament through the truth of ,his body and blood4 ,hence 7,john #f3eg7 he says3 ,he that eateth ,my flesh1 and drinketh ,my blood1 abideth in ,me1 and ,i in him4 ,hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity1 and the uplifter of our hope1 from such familiar union of ,christ with us4 ,thirdly1 it belongs to the perfection of faith1 which concerns ,his humanity just as it does ,his ,godhead1 according to ,john #ad3a3 ,you believe in ,god1 believe also in ,me4 ,and since faith is of things unseen1 as ,christ shows us ,his ,godhead invisibly1 so also in this sacrament ,he shows us ,his flesh in an invisible manner4 ,some men accordingly1 not paying heed to these things1 have contended that ,christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign1 a thing to be rejected as heretical1 since it is contrary to ,christ's words4 ,hence ,berengarius1 who had been the first deviser of this heresy1 was afterwards forced to withdraw his error1 and to acknowledge the truth of the faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,from this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding ,augustine's words4 ,for when ,augustine says3 ,you are not to eat this body which you see1 he means not to exclude the truth of ,christ's body1 but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them4 ,and by the words3 ,it is a mystery that ,i put before you2 in its spiritual sense it will quicken you1 he intends not that the body of ,christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification1 but spiritually1 that is1 invisibly1 and by the power of the spirit4 ,hence 7,tract4 xxvii71 expounding ,john #f3fd3 the flesh profiteth nothing1 he says3 ,yea1 but as they understood it1 for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body1 or as sold in the shambles1 not as it is quickened by the spirit 4 4 4 ,let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh 4 4 4 then the flesh profiteth very much3 for if the flesh profiteth nothing1 the ,word had not been made flesh1 that ,it might dwell among us4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that saying of ,augustine and all others like it are to be understood of ,christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species2 according as our ,lord ,himself says 7,matt4 #bf3aa73 ,but ,me you have not always4 ,nevertheless ,he is invisibly under the species of this sacrament1 wherever this sacrament is performed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place1 which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place2 but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament4 ,hence we say that ,christ's body is upon many altars1 not as in different places1 but sacramentally3 and thereby we do not understand that ,christ is there only as in a sign1 although a sacrament is a kind of sign2 but that ,christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this argument holds good of ,christ's bodily presence1 as ,he is present after the manner of a body1 that is1 as it is in its visible appearance1 but not as it is spiritually1 that is1 invisibly1 after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit4 ,hence ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvii in ,joan47 says3 ,if thou hast understood ,christ's words spiritually concerning ,his flesh1 they are spirit and life to thee2 if thou hast understood them carnally1 they are also spirit and life1 but not to thee4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #b ,whether in ,this ,sacrament the ,substance of the ,bread and ,wine ,remains ,after the ,consecration8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the substance of the bread and wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration3 because ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,since it is customary for men to eat bread and drink wine1 ,god has wedded his ,godhead to them1 and made them ,his body and blood3 and further on3 ,the bread of communication is not simple bread1 but is united to the ,godhead4 ,but wedding together belongs to things actually existing4 ,therefore the bread and wine are at the same time1 in this sacrament1 with the body and the blood of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there ought to be conformity between the sacraments4 ,but in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains1 like the substance of water in ,baptism1 and the substance of chrism in ,confirmation4 ,therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament1 inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity1 as one bread is made from many grains and wine from many grapes1 as ,augustine says in his book on the ,creed 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan474 ,but this belongs to the substance of bread and wine4 ,therefore1 the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,although the figure of the bread and wine be seen1 still1 after the ,consecration1 they are to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration4 ,but this opinion cannot stand3 first of all1 because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed1 to which it belongs that ,christ's true body exists in this sacrament2 which indeed was not there before the consecration4 ,now a thing cannot be in any place1 where it was not previously1 except by change of place1 or by the conversion of another thing into itself2 just as fire begins anew to be in some house1 either because it is carried thither1 or because it is generated there4 ,now it is evident that ,christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion4 ,first of all1 because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven3 for what is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one4 ,secondly1 because every body moved locally passes through all intermediary spaces1 which cannot be said here4 ,thirdly1 because it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to be terminated in different places at the one time1 whereas the body of ,christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in several places4 ,and consequently it remains that ,christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself4 ,but what is changed into another thing1 no longer remains after such change4 ,hence the conclusion is that1 saving the truth of this sacrament1 the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration4 ,secondly1 because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament1 in which it is said3 ,this is ,my body1 which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there2 for the substance of bread never is the body of ,christ4 ,rather should one say in that case3 ,here is ,my body4 ,thirdly1 because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament1 if any substance were there1 which could not be adored with adoration of latria4 ,fourthly1 because it is contrary to the rite of the ,church1 according to which it is not lawful to take the body of ,christ after bodily food1 while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another4 ,hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god wedded ,his ,godhead1 i4e4 ,his ,divine power1 to the bread and wine1 not that these may remain in this sacrament1 but in order that ,he may make from them ,his body and blood4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ is not really present in the other sacraments1 as in this2 and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments1 but not in this4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the species which remain in this sacrament1 as shall be said later 7,a4 #e71 suffice for its signification2 because the nature of the substance is known by its accidents4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,substance of the ,bread or ,wine ,is ,annihilated ,after the ,consecration of ,this ,sacrament1 or ,dissolved into ,their ,original ,matter8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament1 or dissolved into its original matter4 ,for whatever is corporeal must be somewhere4 ,but the substance of bread1 which is something corporeal1 does not remain1 in this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #b72 nor can we assign any place where it may be4 ,consequently it is nothing after the consecration4 ,therefore1 it is either annihilated1 or dissolved into its original matter4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what is the term wherefrom in every change exists no longer1 except in the potentiality of matter2 e4g4 when air is changed into fire1 the form of the air remains only in the potentiality of matter2 and in like fashion when what is white becomes black4 ,but in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term wherefrom1 while the body or the blood of ,christ is the term whereunto3 for ,ambrose says in ,de ,officiis 7,de ,myster4 ix73 ,before the blessing it is called another species1 after the blessing the body of ,christ is signified4 ,therefore1 when the consecration takes place1 the substance of the bread or wine no longer remains1 unless perchance dissolved into its 7original7 matter4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 one of two contradictories must be true4 ,but this proposition is false3 ,after the consecration the substance of the bread or wine is something4 ,consequently1 this is true3 ,the substance of the bread or wine is nothing4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,q4 #hc73 ,god is not the cause of tending to nothing4 ,but this sacrament is wrought by ,divine power4 ,therefore1 in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated4 ,i answer that1 ,because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament1 some1 deeming that it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into ,christ's flesh and blood1 have maintained that by the consecration1 the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter1 or that it is annihilated4 ,now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is the four elements4 ,for dissolution cannot be made into primary matter1 so that a subject can exist without a form1 since matter cannot exist without a form4 ,but since after the consecration nothing remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood of ,christ1 it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved1 depart from thence by local motion1 which would be perceived by the senses4 ,in like manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last instant of the consecration2 but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of ,christ1 just as the form is already present in the last instant of generation4 ,hence no instant can be assigned in which the original matter can be there4 ,for it cannot be said that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the original matter1 or that it successively quits the species1 for if this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration1 then at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of ,christ together with the substance of bread1 which is contrary to what has been said above 7,a4 #b74 ,but if this begin to come to pass before the consecration1 there will then be a time in which under one part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the body of ,christ1 which is not fitting4 ,they seem indeed to have taken this into careful consideration1 wherefore they formulated their proposition with an alternative viz4 that 7the substance7 may be annihilated4 ,but even this cannot stand1 because no way can be assigned whereby ,christ's true body can begin to be in this sacrament1 except by the change of the substance of bread into it1 which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the substance of the bread1 or dissolution into the original matter4 ,likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or annihilation1 since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the form3 ,this is ,my body4 ,hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion is false4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the substance of the bread or wine1 after the consecration1 remains neither under the sacramental species1 nor elsewhere2 yet it does not follow that it is annihilated2 for it is changed into the body of ,christ2 just as if the air1 from which fire is generated1 be not there or elsewhere1 it does not follow that it is annihilated4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the form1 which is the term wherefrom1 is not changed into another form2 but one form succeeds another in the subject2 and therefore the first form remains only in the potentiality of matter4 ,but here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of ,christ1 as stated above4 ,hence the conclusion does not follow4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although after the consecration this proposition is false3 ,the substance of the bread is something1 still that into which the substance of the bread is changed1 is something1 and consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,bread ,can ,be ,converted into the ,body of ,christ8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of ,christ4 ,for conversion is a kind of change4 ,but in every change there must be some subject1 which from being previously in potentiality is now in act4 because as is said in ,phys4 iii3 motion is the act of a thing existing in potentiality4 ,but no subject can be assigned for the substance of the bread and of the body of ,christ1 because it is of the very nature of substance for it not to be in a subject1 as it is said in ,praedic4 iii4 ,therefore it is not possible for the whole substance of the bread to be converted into the body of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the form of the thing into which another is converted1 begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted into it3 as when air is changed into fire not already existing1 the form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air2 and in like manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man1 the form of the man begins to be anew in the matter of the food4 ,therefore1 if bread be changed into the body of ,christ1 the form of ,christ's body must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread1 which is false4 ,consequently1 the bread is not changed into the substance of ,christ's body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when two things are diverse1 one never becomes the other1 as whiteness never becomes blackness1 as is stated in ,phys4 i4 ,but since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse1 as being the principles of formal difference1 so two signate matters are of themselves diverse1 as being the principles of material distinction4 ,consequently1 it is not possible for this matter of bread to become this matter whereby ,christ's body is individuated1 and so it is not possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance of ,christ's body4 ,on the contrary1 ,eusebius ,emesenus says3 ,to thee it ought neither to be a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things be changed into the substance of ,christ4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 since ,christ's true body is in this sacrament1 and since it does not begin to be there by local motion1 nor is it contained therein as in a place1 as is evident from what was stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b71 it must be said then that it begins to be there by conversion of the substance of bread into itself4 ,yet this change is not like natural changes1 but is entirely supernatural1 and effected by ,god's power alone4 ,hence ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,see how ,christ's word changes nature's laws1 as ,he wills3 a man is not wont to be born save of man and woman3 see therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of a ,virgin3 and 99,the passage in the brackets is not in the ,leonine edition 7,de ,myster4 iv73 ,it is clear that a ,virgin begot beyond the order of nature3 and what we make is the body from the ,virgin4 ,why1 then1 do you look for nature's order in ,christ's body1 since the ,lord ,jesus was ,himself brought forth of a ,virgin beyond nature8 ,chrysostom likewise 7,hom4 xlvii71 commenting on ,john #f3fd3 ,the words which ,i have spoken to you1 namely1 of this sacrament1 are spirit and life1 says3 i4e4 spiritual1 having nothing carnal1 nor natural consequence2 but they are rent from all such necessity which exists upon earth1 and from the laws here established4 ,for it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act4 ,but every created agent is limited in its act1 as being of a determinate genus and species3 and consequently the action of every created agent bears upon some determinate act4 ,now the determination of every thing in actual existence comes from its form4 ,consequently1 no natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in something2 and on this account every change made according to nature's laws is a formal change4 ,but ,god is infinite act1 as stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #g1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #bf1 ,a4 #b72 hence ,his action extends to the whole nature of being4 ,therefore ,he can work not only formal conversion1 so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject2 but also the change of all being1 so that1 to wit1 the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another4 ,and this is done by ,divine power in this sacrament2 for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of ,christ's body1 and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of ,christ's blood4 ,hence this is not a formal1 but a substantial conversion2 nor is it a kind of natural movement3 but1 with a name of its own1 it can be called transubstantiation4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this objection holds good in respect of formal change1 because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject2 but it does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance4 ,hence1 since this substantial change implies a certain order of substances1 one of which is changed into the other1 it is in both substances as in a subject1 just as order and number4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument also is true of formal conversion or change1 because1 as stated above 7ad #a71 a form must be in some matter or subject4 ,but this is not so in a change of the entire substance2 for in this case no subject is possible4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,form cannot be changed into form1 nor matter into matter by the power of any finite agent4 ,such a change1 however1 can be made by the power of an infinite agent1 which has control over all being1 because the nature of being is common to both forms and to both matters2 and whatever there is of being in the one1 the author of being can change into whatever there is of being in the other1 withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,accidents of the ,bread and ,wine ,remain in ,this ,sacrament ,after the ,change8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not remain in this sacrament4 ,for when that which comes first is removed1 that which follows is also taken away4 ,but substance is naturally before accident1 as is proved in ,metaph4 vii4 ,since1 then1 after consecration1 the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacrament1 it seems that its accidents cannot remain4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament of truth4 ,but we judge of substance by accidents4 ,it seems1 then1 that human judgment is deceived1 if1 while the accidents remain1 the substance of the bread does not4 ,consequently this is unbecoming to this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 although our faith is not subject to reason1 still it is not contrary to reason1 but above it1 as was said in the beginning of this work 7,i1 ,q4 #a1 ,a4 #f1 ad #b2 ,a4 #h74 ,but our reason has its origin in the senses4 ,therefore our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses1 as it is when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes to be the substance of ,christ's body4 ,therefore it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain subject to the senses1 and for the substance of bread not to remain4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 what remains after the change has taken place seems to be the subject of change4 ,if therefore the accidents of the bread remain after the change has been effected1 it seems that the accidents are the subject of the change4 ,but this is impossible2 for an accident cannot have an accident 7,metaph4 iii74 ,therefore the accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in his book on the ,sentences of ,prosper 7,lanfranc1 ,de ,corp4 et ,sang4 ,dom4 xiii73 ,under the species which we behold1 of bread and wine1 we honor invisible things1 i4e4 flesh and blood4 ,i answer that1 ,it is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration4 ,and this is reasonably done by ,divine providence4 ,first of all1 because it is not customary1 but horrible1 for men to eat human flesh1 and to drink blood4 ,and therefore ,christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men1 namely1 bread and wine4 ,secondly1 lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers1 if we were to eat our ,lord under ,his own species4 ,thirdly1 that while we receive our ,lord's body and blood invisibly1 this may redound to the merit of faith4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as is said in the book ,de ,causis1 an effect depends more on the first cause than on the second4 ,and therefore by ,god's power1 which is the first cause of all things1 it is possible for that which follows to remain1 while that which is first is taken away4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,there is no deception in this sacrament2 for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present4 ,but the intellect1 whose proper object is substance as is said in ,de ,anima iii1 is preserved by faith from deception4 ,and this serves as answer to the third argument2 because faith is not contrary to the senses1 but concerns things to which sense does not reach4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this change has not properly a subject1 as was stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #a72 nevertheless the accidents which remain have some resemblance of a subject4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,substantial ,form of the ,bread ,remains in ,this ,sacrament ,after the ,consecration8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration4 ,for it has been said 7,a4 #e7 that the accidents remain after the consecration4 ,but since bread is an artificial thing1 its form is an accident4 ,therefore it remains after the consecration4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the form of ,christ's body is ,his soul3 for it is said in ,de ,anima ii1 that the soul is the act of a physical body which has life in potentiality4 ,but it cannot be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul4 ,therefore it appears that it remains after the consecration4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the proper operation of a things follows its substantial form4 ,but what remains in this sacrament1 nourishes1 and performs every operation which bread would do were it present4 ,therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration4 ,on the contrary1 ,the substantial form of bread is of the substance of bread4 ,but the substance of the bread is changed into the body of ,christ1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #b1 #c1 #d74 ,therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain4 ,i answer that1 ,some have contended that after the consecration not only do the accidents of the bread remain1 but also its substantial form4 ,but this cannot be4 ,first of all1 because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain1 nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of ,christ1 excepting the matter2 and so it would follow that it would be changed1 not into the whole body of ,christ1 but into its matter1 which is repugnant to the form of the sacrament1 wherein it is said3 ,this is ,my body4 ,secondly1 because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain1 it would remain either in matter1 or separated from matter4 ,the first cannot be1 for if it were to remain in the matter of the bread1 then the whole substance of the bread would remain1 which is against what was said above 7,a4 #b74 ,nor could it remain in any other matter1 because the proper form exists only in its proper matter4 ,but if it were to remain separate from matter1 it would then be an actually intelligible form1 and also an intelligence2 for all forms separated from matter are such4 ,thirdly1 it would be unbefitting this sacrament3 because the accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament1 in order that the body of ,christ may be seen under them1 and not under its proper species1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,and therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread does not remain4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,there is nothing to prevent art from making a thing whose form is not an accident1 but a substantial form2 as frogs and serpents can be produced by art3 for art produces such forms not by its own power1 but by the power of natural energies4 ,and in this way it produces the substantial forms of bread1 by the power of fire baking the matter made up of flour and water4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the soul is the form of the body1 giving it the whole order of perfect being1 i4e4 being1 corporeal being1 and animated being1 and so on4 ,therefore the form of the bread is changed into the form of ,christ's body1 according as the latter gives corporeal being1 but not according as it bestows animated being4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of the accidents1 such as to affect the senses1 and such operations are found in the species of the bread after the consecration on account of the accidents which remain4 ,but some other operations follow the bread either by reason of the matter1 such as that it is changed into something else1 or else by reason of the substantial form1 such as an operation consequent upon its species1 for instance1 that it strengthens man's heart 7,ps4 #ajc3ae72 and such operations are found in this sacrament1 not on account of the form or matter remaining1 but because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents themselves1 as will be said later 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b1 #c2 ,,aa4 #e1 #f74 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,this ,change ,is ,wrought ,instantaneously8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this change is not wrought instantaneously1 but successively4 ,for in this change there is first the substance of bread1 and afterwards the substance of ,christ's body4 ,neither1 then1 is in the same instant1 but in two instants4 ,but there is a mid-time between every two instants4 ,therefore this change must take place according to the succession of time1 which is between the last instant in which the bread is there1 and the first instant in which the body of ,christ is present4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in every change something is in becoming and something is in being4 ,but these two things do not exist at the one time for1 what is in becoming1 is not yet1 whereas what is in being1 already is4 ,consequently1 there is a before and an after in such change3 and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous1 but successive4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv7 that this sacrament is made by the words of ,christ4 ,but ,christ's words are pronounced successively4 ,therefore the change takes place successively4 ,on the contrary1 ,this change is effected by a power which is infinite1 to which it belongs to operate in an instant4 ,i answer that1 ,a change may be instantaneous from a threefold reason4 ,first on the part of the form1 which is the terminus of the change4 ,for1 if it be a form that receives more and less1 it is acquired by its subject successively1 such as health2 and therefore because a substantial form does not receive more and less1 it follows that its introduction into matter is instantaneous4 ,secondly on the part of the subject1 which sometimes is prepared successively for receiving the form2 thus water is heated successively4 ,when1 however1 the subject itself is in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form1 it receives it suddenly1 as a transparent body is illuminated suddenly4 ,thirdly on the part of the agent1 which possesses infinite power3 wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for the form4 ,thus it is written 7,mk4 #g3cd7 that when ,christ had said1 ',ephpheta1' which is ',be thou opened1' immediately his ears were opened1 and the string of his tongue was loosed4 ,for these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous4 ,first1 because the substance of ,christ's body which is the term of this conversion1 does not receive more or less4 ,secondly1 because in this conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively4 ,thirdly1 because it is effected by ,god's infinite power4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,some 99,cf4 ,albert the ,great1 ,sent4 iv1 ,d1 #aa2 ,st4 ,bonaventure1 ,sent41 iv1 ,d1 #aa do not grant simply that there is a mid-time between every two instants4 ,for they say that this is true of two instants referring to the same movement1 but not if they refer to different things4 ,hence between the instant that marks the close of rest1 and another which marks the beginning of movement1 there is no mid-time4 ,but in this they are mistaken1 because the unity of time and of instant1 or even their plurality1 is not taken according to movements of any sort1 but according to the first movement of the heavens1 which is the measure of all movement and rest4 ,accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement depending on the movement of the heavens4 ,but there are some movements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens1 nor measured by it1 as was said in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ec1 ,a4 #c7 concerning the movements of the angels4 ,hence between two instants responding to those movements there is no mid-time4 ,but this is not to the point1 because although the change in question has no relation of itself to the movement of the heavens1 still it follows the pronouncing of the words1 which 7pronouncing7 must necessarily be measured by the movement of the heavens4 ,and therefore there must of necessity be a mid-time between every two signate instants in connection with that change4 ,some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last1 and the instant in which the body of ,christ is first1 are indeed two in comparison with the things measured1 but are one comparatively to the time measuring2 as when two lines touch1 there are two points on the part of the two lines1 but one point on the part of the place containing them4 ,but here there is no likeness1 because instant and time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements1 as a line and point are of a body1 but only the extrinsic measure1 as place is to bodies4 ,hence others say that it is the same instant in fact1 but another according to reason4 ,but according to this it would follow that things really opposite would exist together2 for diversity of reason does not change a thing objectively4 ,and therefore it must be said that this change1 as stated above1 is wrought by ,christ's words which are spoken by the priest1 so that the last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which ,christ's body is in the sacrament2 and that the substance of the bread is there during the whole preceding time4 ,of this time no instant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one1 because time is not made up of successive instants1 as is proved in ,phys4 vi4 ,and therefore a first instant can be assigned in which ,christ's body is present2 but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread is there1 but a last time can be assigned4 ,and the same holds good in natural changes1 as is evident from the ,philosopher 7,phys4 viii74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in instantaneous changes a thing is in becoming1 and is in being simultaneously2 just as becoming illuminated and to be actually illuminated are simultaneous3 for in such1 a thing is said to be in being according as it now is2 but to be in becoming1 according as it was not before4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7ad #a71 this change comes about in the last instant of the pronouncing of the words4 ,for then the meaning of the words is finished1 which meaning is efficacious in the forms of the sacraments4 ,and therefore it does not follow that this change is successive4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ge1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,this ,proposition ,is ,false3 ,the ,body of ,christ ,is ,made ,out of ,bread8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this proposition is false3 ,the body of ,christ is made out of bread4 ,for everything out of which another is made1 is that which is made the other2 but not conversely3 for we say that a black thing is made out of a white thing1 and that a white thing is made black3 and although we may say that a man becomes black still we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man1 as is shown in ,phys4 i4 ,if it be true1 then1 that ,christ's body is made out of bread1 it will be true to say that bread is made the body of ,christ4 ,but this seems to be false1 because the bread is not the subject of the making1 but rather its term4 ,therefore1 it is not said truly that ,christ's body is made out of bread4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the term of becoming is something that is1 or something that is made4 ,but this proposition is never true3 ,the bread is the body of ,christ2 or ,the bread is made the body of ,christ2 or again1 ,the bread will be the body of ,christ4 ,therefore it seems that not even this is true3 ,the body of ,christ is made out of bread4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 everything out of which another is made is converted into that which is made from it4 ,but this proposition seems to be false3 ,the bread is converted into the body of ,christ1 because such conversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the world1 in which it is not said that non-being is converted into being4 ,therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false3 ,the body of ,christ is made out of bread4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 that out of which something is made1 can be that thing4 ,but this proposition is false3 ,bread can be the body of ,christ4 ,therefore this is likewise false3 ,the body of ,christ is made out of bread4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,when the consecration takes place1 the body of ,christ is made out of the bread4 ,i answer that1 ,this conversion of bread into the body of ,christ has something in common with creation1 and with natural transmutation1 and in some respect differs from both4 ,for the order of the terms is common to these three2 that is1 that after one thing there is another 7for1 in creation there is being after non-being2 in this sacrament1 ,christ's body after the substance of bread2 in natural transmutation white after black1 or fire after air72 and that the aforesaid terms are not coexistent4 ,now the conversion1 of which we are speaking1 has this in common with creation1 that in neither of them is there any common subject belonging to either of the extremes2 the contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation4 ,again1 this conversion has something in common with natural transmutation in two respects1 although not in the same fashion4 ,first of all because in both1 one of the extremes passes into the other1 as bread into ,christ's body1 and air into fire2 whereas non-being is not converted into being4 ,but this comes to pass differently on the one side and on the other2 for in this sacrament the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of ,christ2 whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other1 the previous form being laid aside4 ,secondly1 they have this in common1 that on both sides something remains the same2 whereas this does not happen in creation3 yet differently2 for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation2 whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain4 ,from these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in such matters4 ,for1 because in no one of the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent1 therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the present tense3 for we do not say1 ,non-being is being or1 ,bread is the body of ,christ1 or1 ,air is fire1 or1 ,white is black4 ,yet because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use the preposition ex 7out of71 which denotes order2 for we can truly and properly say that being is made out of non-being1 and out of bread1 the body of ,christ1 and out of air1 fire1 and out of white1 black4 ,but because in creation one of the extremes does not pass into the other1 we cannot use the word conversion in creation1 so as to say that non-being is converted into being3 we can1 however1 use the word in this sacrament1 just as in natural transmutation4 ,but since in this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the whole substance1 on that account this conversion is properly termed transubstantiation4 ,again1 since there is no subject of this conversion1 the things which are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject1 are not to be granted in this conversion4 ,and in the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject1 by reason whereof we say that a white thing can be black1 or that air can be fire2 although the latter is not so proper as the former3 for the subject of whiteness1 in which there is potentiality to blackness1 is the whole substance of the white thing2 since whiteness is not a part thereof2 whereas the subject of the form of air is part thereof3 hence when it is said1 ,air can be fire1 it is verified by synecdoche by reason of the part4 ,but in this conversion1 and similarly in creation1 because there is no subject1 it is not said that one extreme can be the other1 as that non-being can be being1 or that bread can be the body of ,christ3 and for the same reason it cannot be properly said that being is made of 7de7 non-being1 or that the body of ,christ is made of bread1 because this preposition of 7de7 denotes a consubstantial cause1 which consubstantiality of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to something common in the subject4 ,and for the same reason it is not granted that bread will be the body of ,christ1 or that it may become the body of ,christ1 just as it is not granted in creation that non-being will be being1 or that non-being may become being1 because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the subject3 for instance1 when we say that a white thing becomes black1 or a white thing will be black4 ,nevertheless1 since in this sacrament1 after the change1 something remains the same1 namely1 the accidents of the bread1 as stated above 7,a4 #e71 some of these expressions may be admitted by way of similitude1 namely1 that bread is the body of ,christ1 or1 bread will be the body of ,christ1 or the body of ,christ is made of bread2 provided that by the word bread is not understood the substance of bread1 but in general that which is contained under the species of bread1 under which species there is first contained the substance of bread1 and afterwards the body of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that out of which something else is made1 sometimes implies together with the subject1 one of the extremes of the transmutation1 as when it is said a black thing is made out of a white one2 but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the extreme1 as when it is said--out of morning comes the day4 ,and so it is not granted that the latter becomes the former1 that is1 that morning becomes the day4 ,so likewise in the matter in hand1 although it may be said properly that the body of ,christ is made out of bread1 yet it is not said properly that bread becomes the body of ,christ1 except by similitude1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that out of which another is made1 will sometimes be that other because of the subject which is implied4 ,and therefore1 since there is no subject of this change1 the comparison does not hold4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in this change there are many more difficulties than in creation1 in which there is but this one difficulty1 that something is made out of nothing2 yet this belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause1 which presupposes nothing else4 ,but in this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that whole1 so that nothing of the former may remain 7which does not belong to the common mode of production of a cause71 but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while the substance is destroyed1 and many other difficulties of which we shall treat hereafter 7,q4 #gg74 ,nevertheless the word conversion is admitted in this sacrament1 but not in creation1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as was observed above1 potentiality belongs to the subject1 whereas there is no subject in this conversion4 ,and therefore it is not granted that bread can be the body of ,christ3 for this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of the creature1 but solely by the active power of the ,creator4 ,,question #gf ,,of ,,the ,,way ,,in ,,which ,,christ ,,is ,,in ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the manner in which ,christ exists in this sacrament2 and under this head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the whole ,christ is under this sacrament8 7#b7 ,whether the entire ,christ is under each species of the sacrament8 7#c7 ,whether the entire ,christ is under every part of the species8 7#d7 ,whether all the dimensions of ,christ's body are in this sacrament8 7#e7 ,whether the body of ,christ is in this sacrament locally8 7#f7 ,whether after the consecration1 the body of ,christ is moved when the host or chalice is moved8 7#g7 ,whether ,christ's body1 as it is in this sacrament1 can be seen by the eye8 7#h7 ,whether the true body of ,christ remains in this sacrament when ,he is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,whole ,christ ,is ,contained ,under ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the whole ,christ is not contained under this sacrament1 because ,christ begins to be in this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine4 ,but it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed either into the ,godhead or into the soul of ,christ4 ,since therefore ,christ exists in three substances1 namely1 the ,godhead1 soul and body1 as shown above 7,q4 #b1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #e1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c71 it seems that the entire ,christ is not under this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ is in this sacrament1 forasmuch as it is ordained to the refection of the faithful1 which consists in food and drink1 as stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a74 ,but our ,lord said 7,john #f3ef73 ,my flesh is meat indeed1 and ,my blood is drink indeed4 ,therefore1 only the flesh and blood of ,christ are contained in this sacrament4 ,but there are many other parts of ,christ's body1 for instance1 the nerves1 bones1 and such like4 ,therefore the entire ,christ is not contained under this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under the measure of a lesser4 ,but the measure of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure of ,christ's body4 ,therefore it is impossible that the entire ,christ be contained under this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,officiis73 ,christ is in this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,it is absolutely necessary to confess according to ,catholic faith that the entire ,christ is in this sacrament4 ,yet we must know that there is something of ,christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner3 first1 as it were1 by the power of the sacrament2 secondly1 from natural concomitance4 ,by the power of the sacrament1 there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed1 as expressed by the words of the form1 which are effective in this as in the other sacraments2 for instance1 by the words3 ,this is ,my body1 or1 ,this is ,my blood4 ,but from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated4 ,for if any two things be really united1 then wherever the one is really1 there must the other also be3 since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the ,godhead or the soul of ,christ1 it follows as a consequence that the ,godhead or the soul of ,christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament1 but from real concomitance4 ,for since the ,godhead never set aside the assumed body1 wherever the body of ,christ is1 there1 of necessity1 must the ,godhead be2 and therefore it is necessary for the ,godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with ,his body4 ,hence we read in the profession of faith at ,ephesus 7,p4 ,i41 chap4 xxvi73 ,we are made partakers of the body and blood of ,christ1 not as taking common flesh1 nor as of a holy man united to the ,word in dignity1 but the truly life-giving flesh of the ,word ,himself4 ,on the other hand1 ,his soul was truly separated from ,his body1 as stated above 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #e74 ,and therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when ,he was dead1 the soul of ,christ would not have been there1 neither by the power of the sacrament1 nor from real concomitance4 ,but since ,christ rising from the dead dieth now no more 7,rom4 #f3i71 ,his soul is always really united with ,his body4 ,and therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of ,christ is present by the power of the sacrament1 but ,his soul from real concomitance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by the power of the sacrament there is contained under it1 as to the species of the bread1 not only the flesh1 but the entire body of ,christ1 that is1 the bones the nerves1 and the like4 ,and this is apparent from the form of this sacrament1 wherein it is not said3 ,this is ,my flesh1 but ,this is ,my body4 ,accordingly1 when our ,lord said 7,john #f3ef73 ,my flesh is meat indeed1 there the word flesh is put for the entire body1 because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating1 as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals1 but not on the bones or the like4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as has been already stated 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #e71 after the consecration of the bread into the body of ,christ1 or of the wine into ,his blood1 the accidents of both remain4 ,from which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of ,christ1 but substance into substance4 ,and so the substance of ,christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament1 but not the dimensions of ,christ's body or blood4 ,hence it is clear that the body of ,christ is in this sacrament by way of substance1 and not by way of quantity4 ,but the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity2 as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air1 and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual4 ,wherefore1 after the consecration1 the whole substance of ,christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament1 just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,whole ,christ ,is ,contained ,under ,each ,species of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the whole ,christ is not contained under both species of this sacrament4 ,for this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful1 not by virtue of the species1 but by virtue of what is contained under the species1 because the species were there even before the consecration1 from which comes the power of this sacrament4 ,if nothing1 then1 be contained under one species1 but what is contained under the other1 and if the whole ,christ be contained under both1 it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it was stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a7 that all the other parts of the body1 such as the bones1 nerves1 and the like1 are comprised under the name of flesh4 ,but the blood is one of the parts of the human body1 as ,aristotle proves 7,de ,anima ,histor4 i74 ,if1 then1 ,christ's blood be contained under the species of bread1 just as the other parts of the body are contained there1 the blood ought not to be consecrated apart1 just as no other part of the body is consecrated separately4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 what is once in being cannot be again in becoming4 ,but ,christ's body has already begun to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread4 ,therefore1 it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine2 and so ,christ's body will not be contained under the species of the wine1 and accordingly neither the entire ,christ4 ,therefore the whole ,christ is not contained under each species4 ,on the contrary1 ,the gloss on #a ,cor4 #aa3be1 commenting on the word ,chalice1 says that under each species1 namely1 of the bread and wine1 the same is received2 and thus it seems that ,christ is entire under each species4 ,i answer that1 ,after what we have said above 7,a4 #a71 it must be held most certainly that the whole ,christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each4 ,for the body of ,christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament1 while the blood is there from real concomitance1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a7 in regard to the soul and ,godhead of ,christ2 and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament1 and ,his body by real concomitance1 as is also ,his soul and ,godhead3 because now ,christ's blood is not separated from ,his body1 as it was at the time of ,his ,passion and death4 ,hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then1 the body of ,christ would have been under the species of the bread1 but without the blood2 and1 under the species of the wine1 the blood would have been present without the body1 as it was then1 in fact4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although the whole ,christ is under each species1 yet it is so not without purpose4 ,for in the first place this serves to represent ,christ's ,passion1 in which the blood was separated from the body2 hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its shedding4 ,secondly1 it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament1 that ,christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food1 and the blood as drink4 ,thirdly1 it is in keeping with its effect1 in which sense it was stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a7 that the body is offered for the salvation of the body1 and the blood for the salvation of the soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in ,christ's ,passion1 of which this is the memorial1 the other parts of the body were not separated from one another1 as the blood was1 but the body remained entire1 according to ,ex4 #ab3df3 ,you shall not break a bone thereof4 ,and therefore in this sacrament the blood is consecrated apart from the body1 but no other part is consecrated separately from the rest4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above1 the body of ,christ is not under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament1 but by real concomitance3 and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body of ,christ is not there of itself1 but concomitantly4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,is ,entire ,under ,every ,part of the ,species of the ,bread and ,wine8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ is not entire under every part of the species of bread and wine4 ,because those species can be divided infinitely4 ,if therefore ,christ be entirely under every part of the said species1 it would follow that ,he is in this sacrament an infinite number of times3 which is unreasonable2 because the infinite is repugnant not only to nature1 but likewise to grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 since ,christ's is an organic body1 it has parts determinately distant4 ,for a determinate distance of the individual parts from each other is of the very nature of an organic body1 as that of eye from eye1 and eye from ear4 ,but this could not be so1 if ,christ were entire under every part of the species2 for every part would have to be under every other part1 and so where one part would be1 there another part would be4 ,it cannot be then that the entire ,christ is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in the chalice4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's body always retains the true nature of a body1 nor is it ever changed into a spirit4 ,now it is the nature of a body for it to be quantity having position 7,predic4 iv74 ,but it belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various parts exist in various parts of place4 ,therefore1 apparently it is impossible for the entire ,christ to be under every part of the species4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in a sermon 7,gregory1 ,sacramentarium73 ,each receives ,christ the ,lord1 ,who is entire under every morsel1 nor is ,he less in each portion1 but bestows ,himself entire under each4 ,i answer that1 ,as was observed above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c71 because the substance of ,christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the sacrament1 while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real concomitance1 consequently ,christ's body is in this sacrament substantively1 that is1 in the way in which substance is under dimensions1 but not after the manner of dimensions1 which means1 not in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimensive quantity of place4 ,now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every part of the dimensions under which it is contained2 just as the entire nature of air is under every part of air1 and the entire nature of bread under every part of bread2 and this indifferently1 whether the dimensions be actually divided 7as when the air is divided or the bread cut71 or whether they be actually undivided1 but potentially divisible4 ,and therefore it is manifest that the entire ,christ is under every part of the species of the bread1 even while the host remains entire1 and not merely when it is broken1 as some say1 giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror1 which appears as one in the unbroken mirror1 whereas when the mirror is broken1 there is an image in each part of the broken mirror3 for the comparison is not perfect1 because the multiplying of such images results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in the various parts of the mirror2 but here there is only one consecration1 whereby ,christ's body is in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,number follows division1 and therefore so long as quantity remains actually undivided1 neither is the substance of any thing several times under its proper dimensions1 nor is ,christ's body several times under the dimensions of the bread2 and consequently not an infinite number of times1 but just as many times as it is divided into parts4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the determinate distance of parts in an organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity2 but the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity4 ,and since the conversion of the substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body of ,christ1 and since according to the manner of substance the body of ,christ is properly and directly in this sacrament2 such distance of parts is indeed in ,christ's true body1 which1 however1 is not compared to this sacrament according to such distance1 but according to the manner of its substance1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this argument is based on the nature of a body1 arising from dimensive quantity4 ,but it was said above 7ad #b7 that ,christ's body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity1 but by reason of its substance1 as already stated4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,whole ,dimensive ,quantity of ,christ's ,body ,is in ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the whole dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is not in this sacrament4 ,for it was said 7,a4 #c7 that ,christ's entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host4 ,but no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole1 and in its every part4 ,therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity of ,christ's body to be there4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be together1 even though one be separate from its subject1 and the other in a natural body1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,metaph4 iii74 ,but the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament1 as is evident to our senses4 ,consequently1 the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is not there4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by side1 the greater will overlap the lesser4 ,but the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host according to every dimension4 ,therefore1 if the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body be in this sacrament together with the dimensive quantity of the host1 the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is extended beyond the quantity of the host1 which nevertheless is not without the substance of ,christ's body4 ,therefore1 the substance of ,christ's body will be in this sacrament even outside the species of the bread1 which is unreasonable1 since the substance of ,christ's body is in this sacrament1 only by the consecration of the bread1 as stated above 7,a4 #b74 ,consequently1 it is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of ,christ's body to be in this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,the existence of the dimensive quantity of any body cannot be separated from the existence of its substance4 ,but in this sacrament the entire substance of ,christ's body is present1 as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,therefore the entire dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is in this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 any part of ,christ is in this sacrament in two ways3 in one way1 by the power of the sacrament2 in another1 from real concomitance4 ,by the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is not in this sacrament2 for1 by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament1 whereat the conversion is terminated4 ,but the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of ,christ's body1 and not at its dimensions2 which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration1 while only the substance of the bread passes away4 ,nevertheless1 since the substance of ,christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents1 hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of ,christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the manner of being of every thing is determined by what belongs to it of itself1 and not according to what is coupled accidentally with it3 thus an object is present to the sight1 according as it is white1 and not according as it is sweet1 although the same object may be both white and sweet2 hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of whiteness1 and not after that of sweetness4 ,since1 then1 the substance of ,christ's body is present on the altar by the power of this sacrament1 while its dimensive quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally1 therefore the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is in this sacrament1 not according to its proper manner 7namely1 that the whole is in the whole1 and the individual parts in individual parts71 but after the manner of substance1 whose nature is for the whole to be in the whole1 and the whole in every part4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the same subject at the same time1 so that each be there according to the proper manner of dimensive quantity4 ,but in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner1 that is1 according to commensuration3 not so the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body1 for that is there after the manner of substance1 as stated above 7ad #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the dimensive quantity of ,christ's body is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration1 which is proper to quantity1 and to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the lesser2 but in the way mentioned above 7ad #a1 #b74 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,christ's ,body ,is in ,this ,sacrament ,as in a ,place8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place4 ,because1 to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place4 ,but ,christ's body seems to be definitively in this sacrament1 because it is so present where the species of the bread and wine are1 that it is nowhere else upon the altar3 likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively1 because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host1 that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it4 ,therefore ,christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the place of the bread and wine is not empty1 because nature abhors a vacuum2 nor is the substance of the bread there1 as stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #b72 but only the body of ,christ is there4 ,consequently the body of ,christ fills that place4 ,but whatever fills a place is there locally4 ,therefore the body of ,christ is in this sacrament locally4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as stated above 7,a4 #d71 the body of ,christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quantity1 and with all its accidents4 ,but to be in a place is an accident of a body2 hence where is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents4 ,therefore ,christ's body is in this sacrament locally4 ,on the contrary1 ,the place and the object placed must be equal1 as is clear from the ,philosopher 7,phys4 iv74 ,but the place1 where this sacrament is1 is much less than the body of ,christ4 ,therefore ,christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c2 ,a4 #c71 ,christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity1 but rather after the manner of substance4 ,but every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity1 namely1 inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity4 ,hence it remains that ,christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place1 but after the manner of substance1 that is to say1 in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions2 because the substance of ,christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament3 hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions1 but after the manner of substance1 so neither is the substance of ,christ's body4 ,nevertheless the substance of ,christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions1 as was the substance of the bread3 and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions1 because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions2 but the substance of ,christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions1 so that1 on the contrary1 the proper dimensions of ,christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance2 which is contrary to the notion of a located body4 ,hence in no way is ,christ's body locally in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively1 because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed3 whereas it is in heaven under its own species1 and on many other altars under the sacramental species4 ,likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively1 because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity1 as stated above4 ,but that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament1 nor on any other part of the altar1 is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively1 but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine1 as stated above 7,a4 #a2 ,q4 #ae1 ,a4 #b1 sqq474 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the place in which ,christ's body is1 is not empty2 nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of ,christ's body1 which is not there locally1 as stated above2 but it is filled with the sacramental species1 which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions1 or at least miraculously1 as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,a4 #d71 the accidents of ,christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance4 ,and therefore those accidents of ,christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament4 ,but to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container4 ,and therefore it is not necessary for ,christ to be in this sacrament as in a place4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,christ's ,body ,is in ,this ,sacrament ,movably8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ's body is movably in this sacrament1 because the ,philosopher says 7,topic4 ii7 that when we are moved1 the things within us are moved3 and this is true even of the soul's spiritual substance4 ,but ,christ is in this sacrament1 as shown above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore ,he is moved when it is moved4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the truth ought to correspond with the figure4 ,but1 according to the commandment 7,ex4 #ab3aj71 concerning the ,paschal ,lamb1 a figure of this sacrament1 there remained nothing until the morning4 ,neither1 therefore1 if this sacrament be reserved until morning1 will ,christ's body be there2 and so it is not immovably in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if ,christ's body were to remain under this sacrament even until the morrow1 for the same reason it will remain there during all coming time2 for it cannot be said that it ceases to be there when the species pass1 because the existence of ,christ's body is not dependent on those species4 ,yet ,christ does not remain in this sacrament for all coming time4 ,it seems1 then1 that straightway on the morrow1 or after a short time1 ,he ceases to be under this sacrament4 ,and so it seems that ,christ is in this sacrament movably4 ,on the contrary1 it is impossible for the same thing to be in motion and at rest1 else contradictories would be verified of the same subject4 ,but ,christ's body is at rest in heaven4 ,therefore it is not movably in this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,when any thing is one1 as to subject1 and manifold in being1 there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one respect1 and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing for a body to be white1 and another thing1 to be large2 hence it can be moved as to its whiteness1 and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude4 ,but in ,christ1 being in ,himself and being under the sacrament are not the same thing1 because when we say that ,he is under this sacrament1 we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament4 ,according to this being1 then1 ,christ is not moved locally of ,himself1 but only accidentally1 because ,christ is not in this sacrament as in a place1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,but what is not in a place1 is not moved of itself locally1 but only according to the motion of the subject in which it is4 ,in the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament1 by any other change whatever1 as for instance1 that it ceases to be under this sacrament3 because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself1 cannot be the principle of failing2 but when something else fails1 then it ceases to be in it2 just as ,god1 ,whose existence is unfailing and immortal1 ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist4 ,and in this way1 since ,christ has unfailing and incorruptible being1 ,he ceases to be under this sacrament1 not because ,he ceases to be1 nor yet by local movement of ,his own1 as is clear from what has been said1 but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist4 ,hence it is clear that ,christ1 strictly speaking is immovably in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument deals with accidental movement1 whereby things within us are moved together with us4 ,but with things which can of themselves be in a place1 like bodies1 it is otherwise than with things which cannot of themselves be in a place1 such as forms and spiritual substances4 ,and to this mode can be reduced what we say of ,christ1 being moved accidentally1 according to the existence which ,he has in this sacrament1 in which ,he is not present as in a place4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it was this argument which seems to have convinced those who held that ,christ's body does not remain under this sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow4 ,it is against these that ,cyril says 7,ep4 lxxxiii73 ,some are so foolish as to say that the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament1 if any of its fragments remain until the next day3 for ,christ's consecrated body is not changed1 and the power of the blessing1 and the life-giving grace is perpetually in it4 ,thus are all other consecrations irremovable so long as the consecrated things endure2 on which account they are not repeated4 ,and although the truth corresponds with the figure1 still the figure cannot equal it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the body of ,christ remains in this sacrament not only until the morrow1 but also in the future1 so long as the sacramental species remain3 and when they cease1 ,christ's body ceases to be under them1 not because it depends on them1 but because the relationship of ,christ's body to those species is taken away1 in the same way as ,god ceases to be the ,lord of a creature which ceases to exist4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,body of ,christ1 ,as ,it ,is in ,this ,sacrament1 ,can ,be ,seen by ,any ,eye1 at ,least by a ,glorified ,one8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the body of ,christ1 as it is in this sacrament1 can be seen by the eye1 at least by a glorified one4 ,for our eyes are hindered from beholding ,christ's body in this sacrament1 on account of the sacramental species veiling it4 ,but the glorified eye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are4 ,therefore1 the glorified eye can see ,christ's body as it is in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the glorified bodies of the saints will be made like to the body of ,christ's glory1 according to ,phil4 #c3ba4 ,but ,christ's eye beholds ,himself as ,he is in this sacrament4 ,therefore1 for the same reason1 every other glorified eye can see ,him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the angels1 according to ,luke #bj3cf4 ,but the angels see the body of ,christ as it is in this sacrament1 for even the devils are found to pay reverence thereto1 and to fear it4 ,therefore1 for like reason1 the glorified eye can see ,christ as ,he is in this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,as long as a thing remains the same1 it cannot at the same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species4 ,but the glorified eye sees ,christ always1 as ,he is in ,his own species1 according to ,isa4 #cc3ag3 7,his eyes7 shall see the king in his beauty4 ,it seems1 then1 that it does not see ,christ1 as ,he is under the species of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the eye is of two kinds1 namely1 the bodily eye properly so-called1 and the intellectual eye1 so-called by similitude4 ,but ,christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye4 ,first of all1 because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium1 through its accidents4 ,now the accidents of ,christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance2 so that the accidents of ,christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies2 consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye4 ,secondly1 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c2 ,a4 #c71 ,christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament4 ,but substance1 as such1 is not visible to the bodily eye1 nor does it come under any one of the senses1 nor under the imagination1 but solely under the intellect1 whose object is what a thing is 7,de ,anima iii74 ,and therefore1 properly speaking1 ,christ's body1 according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament1 is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination1 but only by the intellect1 which is called the spiritual eye4 ,moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects4 ,for since the way in which ,christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural1 it is visible in itself to a supernatural1 i4e4 the ,divine1 intellect1 and consequently to a beatified intellect1 of angel or of man1 which1 through the participated glory of the ,divine intellect1 sees all supernatural things in the vision of the ,divine ,essence4 ,but it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone1 like other supernatural things4 ,and not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it2 consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive ,christ in this sacrament1 except through faith1 to which they do not pay willing assent2 yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs1 according to ,james #b3ai3 ,the devils believe1 and tremble4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,our bodily eye1 on account of the sacramental species1 is hindered from beholding the body of ,christ underlying them1 not merely as by way of veil 7just as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with any corporeal veil71 but also because ,christ's body bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament1 not through its own accidents1 but through the sacramental species4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,christ's own bodily eye sees ,himself existing under the sacrament1 yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the sacrament1 because that belongs to the intellect4 ,but it is not the same with any other glorified eye1 because ,christ's eye is under this sacrament1 in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,no angel1 good or bad1 can see anything with a bodily eye1 but only with the mental eye4 ,hence there is no parallel reason1 as is evident from what was said above4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gf1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,christ's ,body ,is ,truly ,there ,when ,flesh or a ,child ,appears ,miraculously in ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ's body is not truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament4 ,because ,his body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species cease to be present1 as stated above 7,a4 #f74 ,but when flesh or a child appears1 the sacramental species cease to be present4 ,therefore ,christ's body is not truly there4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 wherever ,christ's body is1 it is there either under its own species1 or under those of the sacrament4 ,but when such apparitions occur1 it is evident that ,christ is not present under ,his own species1 because the entire ,christ is contained in this sacrament1 and ,he remains entire under the form in which ,he ascended to heaven3 yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh1 or at times as a small child4 ,now it is evident that ,he is not there under the sacramental species1 which is that of bread or wine4 ,consequently1 it seems that ,christ's body is not there in any way4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by consecration and conversion1 as was said above 7,q4 #ge1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c1 #d74 ,but the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated1 nor are they converted into ,christ's true body and blood4 ,therefore the body or the blood of ,christ is not under those species4 ,on the contrary1 ,when such apparition takes place1 the same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first1 which would not be done if ,christ were not truly there1 to ,whom we show reverence of latria4 ,therefore1 when such apparition occurs1 ,christ is under the sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,such apparition comes about in two ways1 when occasionally in this sacrament flesh1 or blood1 or a child1 is seen4 ,sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders1 whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh1 or blood1 or a child1 while no change takes place in the sacrament4 ,and this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child1 while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread2 or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the appearance of flesh or a child1 and afterwards under the appearance of bread4 ,nor is there any deception there1 as occurs in the feats of magicians1 because such species is divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth1 namely1 for the purpose of showing that ,christ's body is truly under this sacrament2 just as ,christ without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to ,emmaus4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,qq4 ,evang4 ii7 that when our pretense is referred to some significance1 it is not a lie1 but a figure of the truth4 ,and since in this way no change is made in the sacrament1 it is manifest that1 when such apparition occurs1 ,christ does not cease to be under this sacrament4 ,but it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders1 but by an appearance which really exists outwardly4 ,and this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by everyone under such an appearance1 and it remains so not for an hour1 but for a considerable time2 and1 in this case some think that it is the proper species of ,christ's body4 ,nor does it matter that sometimes ,christ's entire body is not seen there1 but part of ,his flesh1 or else that it is not seen in youthful guise1 but in the semblance of a child1 because it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part1 and under its own semblance or in strange guise1 as will be said later 7,suppl41 ,q4 #he1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c74 ,but this seems unlikely4 ,first of all1 because ,christ's body under its proper species can be seen only in one place1 wherein it is definitively contained4 ,hence since it is seen in its proper species1 and is adored in heaven1 it is not seen under its proper species in this sacrament4 ,secondly1 because a glorified body1 which appears at will1 disappears when it wills after the apparition2 thus it is related 7,luke #bd3ca7 that our ,lord vanished out of sight of the disciples4 ,but that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this sacrament1 continues for a long time2 indeed1 one reads of its being sometimes enclosed1 and1 by order of many bishops1 preserved in a pyx1 which it would be wicked to think of ,christ under ,his proper semblance4 ,consequently1 it remains to be said1 that1 while the dimensions remain the same as before1 there is a miraculous change wrought in the other accidents1 such as shape1 color1 and the rest1 so that flesh1 or blood1 or a child1 is seen4 ,and1 as was said already1 this is not deception1 because it is done to represent the truth1 namely1 to show by this miraculous apparition that ,christ's body and blood are truly in this sacrament4 ,and thus it is clear that as the dimensions remain1 which are the foundation of the other accidents1 as we shall see later on 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #b71 the body of ,christ truly remains in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when such apparition takes place1 the sacramental species sometimes continue entire in themselves2 and sometimes only as to that which is principal1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated above1 during such apparitions ,christ's proper semblance is not seen1 but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders1 or in the sacramental dimensions themselves1 as was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine continue1 while a miraculous change is wrought in the other accidents1 as stated above4 ,,question #gg ,,of ,,the ,,accidents ,,which ,,remain ,,in ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament2 under which head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether the accidents which remain are without a subject8 7#b7 ,whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents8 7#c7 ,whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body8 7#d7 ,whether they can be corrupted8 7#e7 ,whether anything can be generated from them8 7#f7 ,whether they can nourish8 7#g7 ,of the breaking of the consecrated bread8 7#h7 ,whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,accidents ,remain in ,this ,sacrament ,without a ,subject8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject1 because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth4 ,but for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which ,god established in nature2 and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit1 since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject4 ,therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it1 or the definition of another thing be applied to it2 for instance1 that1 while man remains a man1 he can be an irrational animal4 ,for it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one time3 for the definition of a thing is what its name expresses1 as is said in ,metaph4 iv4 ,but it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be in a subject1 while the definition of substance is that it must subsist of itself1 and not in another4 ,therefore it cannot come to pass1 even by miracle1 that the accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 an accident is individuated by its subject4 ,if therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject1 they will not be individual1 but general1 which is clearly false1 because thus they would not be sensible1 but merely intelligible4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain any composition4 ,but before the consecration they were not composed either of matter and form1 nor of existence 7quo est7 and essence 7quod est74 ,therefore1 even after consecration they are not composite in either of these ways4 ,but this is unreasonable1 for thus they would be simpler than angels1 whereas at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses4 ,therefore1 in this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory says in an ,easter ,homily 7,lanfranc1 ,de ,corp4 et ,sang4 ,dom4 xx7 that the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before1 namely1 of the bread and wine4 ,therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain1 it seems that these species remain without a subject4 ,i answer that1 ,the species of the bread and wine1 which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration1 are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine1 for that does not remain1 as stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #b72 nor in the substantial form1 for that does not remain 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #f71 and if it did remain1 it could not be a subject1 as ,boethius declares 7,de ,trin4 i74 ,furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of ,christ's body and blood1 because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents2 nor is it possible for ,christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities4 ,now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject4 ,but even this cannot be3 in the first place1 because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents4 ,secondly1 because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is1 nay more1 the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species4 ,thirdly1 because accidents do not pass from subject to subject1 so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another2 because an accident is individuated by the subject2 hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject1 and at another time in another4 ,fourthly1 since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents1 it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it4 ,nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration1 because the words of consecration do not signify this1 and they effect only what they signify4 ,therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject4 ,this can be done by ,divine power3 for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second1 ,god ,who is the first cause both of substance and accident1 can by ,his unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause1 just as without natural causes ,he can produce other effects of natural causes1 even as ,he formed a human body in the ,virgin's womb1 without the seed of man 7,hymn for ,christmas1 ,first ,vespers74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,there is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing1 the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace1 as is evident in the raising of the dead1 and in the restoring of sight to the blind3 even thus in human affairs1 to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law4 ,and so1 even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject1 still for a special reason1 according to the order of grace1 the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject1 on account of the reasons given above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #e74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,since being is not a genus1 then being cannot be of itself the essence of either substance or accident4 ,consequently1 the definition of substance is not--a being of itself without a subject1 nor is the definition of accident--a being in a subject2 but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance to have existence not in a subject2 while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident to have existence in a subject4 ,but in this sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not in a subject1 but through the ,divine power sustaining them2 and consequently they do not cease to be accidents1 because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them1 nor does the definition of substance apply to them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread and wine2 and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of ,christ1 they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before1 hence they are individual and sensible4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,these accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents1 so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained2 but their subjects had such being through them1 just as snow is white through whiteness4 ,but after the consecration the accidents which remain have being2 hence they are compounded of existence and essence1 as was said of the angels1 in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #ej1 ,a4 #b1 ad #c72 and besides they have composition of quantitative parts4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #b ,whether in ,this ,sacrament the ,dimensive ,quantity of the ,bread or ,wine ,is the ,subject of the ,other ,accidents8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents4 ,for accident is not the subject of accident2 because no form can be a subject1 since to be a subject is a property of matter4 ,but dimensive quantity is an accident4 ,therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other accidents4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 just as quantity is individuated by substance1 so also are the other accidents4 ,if1 then1 the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had before1 in which it is preserved1 for like reason the other accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the substance4 ,therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject1 since every accident is individuated by its own subject4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 among the other accidents that remain1 of the bread and wine1 the senses perceive also rarity and density1 which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter2 because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions1 while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions1 as is said in ,phys4 iv4 ,it does not seem1 then1 that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity1 which is not the subject of sensible qualities4 ,since1 then1 the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible1 it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration4 ,on the contrary1 ,qualities are divisible only accidentally1 that is1 by reason of the subject4 ,but the qualities remaining in this sacrament are divided by the division of dimensive quantity1 as is evident through our senses4 ,therefore1 dimensive quantity is the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,it is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains3 first of all1 because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses2 nor is sense deceived in such4 ,secondly1 because the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity1 hence ,plato also assigned great and small as the first differences of matter 7,aristotle1 ,metaph4 iv74 ,and because the first subject is matter1 the consequence is that all other accidents are related to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity2 just as the first subject of color is said to be the surface1 on which account some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies1 as is said in ,metaph4 iii4 ,and since1 when the subject is withdrawn1 the accidents remain according to the being which they had before1 it follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity4 ,thirdly1 because1 since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents1 it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation3 for it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in several2 and this happens in two ways4 ,first1 because it is not natural to it to be in any one2 and in this way immaterial separated forms1 subsisting of themselves1 are also individuals of themselves4 ,secondly1 because a form1 be it substantial or accidental1 is naturally in someone indeed1 not in several1 as this whiteness1 which is in this body4 ,as to the first1 matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms1 because1 since these forms1 considered in themselves1 are naturally in something as in a subject1 from the very fact that one of them is received in matter1 which is not in another1 it follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another4 ,as to the second1 it must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity4 ,for that something is naturally in another one solely1 is due to the fact that that other is undivided in itself1 and distinct from all others4 ,but it is on account of quantity that substance can be divided1 as is said in ,phys4 i4 ,and therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind1 namely1 inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter4 ,hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation1 so that we can imagine several lines of the same species1 differing in position1 which is included in the notion of this quantity2 for it belongs to dimension for it to be quantity having position 7,aristotle1 ,categor4 iv71 and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents1 rather than the other way about4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,one accident cannot of itself be the subject of another1 because it does not exist of itself4 ,but inasmuch as an accident is received in another thing1 one is said to be the subject of the other1 inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another1 as the surface is said to be the subject of color4 ,hence when ,god makes an accident to exist of itself1 it can also be of itself the subject of another4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the other accidents1 even as they were in the substance of the bread1 were individuated by means of dimensive quantity1 as stated above4 ,and therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament1 rather than conversely4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies1 by reason of their having much or little matter under dimensions2 just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of substance4 ,and consequently1 as the accidents are preserved by ,divine power when the substance is withdrawn1 so1 when matter is withdrawn1 the qualities which go with matter1 such as rarity and density1 are preserved by ,divine power4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter1 but from sensible matter1 as is said in ,metaph4 vii4 ,but matter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities4 ,and therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity1 which remains in this sacrament without a subject1 is not mathematical quantity4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,species ,remaining in ,this ,sacrament ,can ,change ,external ,objects8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external objects4 ,for it is proved in ,phys4 vii1 that forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter1 but not from forms which are without matter1 because like makes like4 ,but the sacramental species are species without matter1 since they remain without a subject1 as is evident from what was said above 7,a4 #a74 ,therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 when the action of the principal agent ceases1 then the action of the instrument must cease1 as when the carpenter rests1 the hammer is moved no longer4 ,but all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal agent4 ,therefore1 since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament1 as was shown above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #f71 it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to change external matter4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing acts outside its species1 because an effect cannot surpass its cause4 ,but all the sacramental species are accidents4 ,therefore they cannot change external matter1 at least as to a substantial form4 ,on the contrary1 ,if they could not change external bodies1 they could not be felt2 for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a sensible thing1 as is said in ,de ,anima ii4 ,i answer that1 ,because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being1 the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being4 ,therefore1 because1 according to what was said above 7,a4 #a71 it is an effect of the ,divine power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance of the bread and wine was present1 it follows that they continue in their action4 ,consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained1 now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood of ,christ4 ,hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sacramental species1 although they are forms existing without matter1 still retain the same being which they had before in matter1 and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon the being of substance2 and therefore1 as it is an effect of ,divine power that the sacramental species exist without substance1 so is it an effect of ,divine power that they can act without a substantial form1 because every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon ,god as the first agent4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a substantial form directly1 but by means of the active and passive qualities1 which act in virtue of the substantial form4 ,but by ,divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the sacramental species1 just as it was before3 and consequently their action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally1 just in the same way as anything can act outside its species1 not as by its own power1 but by the power of the chief agent4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,sacramental ,species ,can ,be ,corrupted8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted1 because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the matter4 ,but the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament1 as is clear from what was said above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore these species cannot be corrupted4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no form is corrupted except accidentally1 that is1 when its subject is corrupted2 hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible1 as is seen in spiritual substances4 ,but the sacramental species are forms without a subject4 ,therefore they cannot be corrupted4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if they be corrupted1 it will either be naturally or miraculously4 ,but they cannot be corrupted naturally1 because no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken place4 ,neither can they be corrupted miraculously1 because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration1 whereby the sacramental species are preserved3 and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of corruption4 ,therefore1 in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted4 ,on the contrary1 ,we perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted4 ,i answer that1 ,corruption is movement from being into non-being 7,aristotle1 ,phys4 v74 ,now it has been stated 7,a4 #c7 that the sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the substance of the bread was present4 ,consequently1 as the being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present1 so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away4 ,but such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways3 in one way1 of themselves2 in another way1 accidentally4 ,they could be corrupted of themselves1 as by alteration of the qualities1 and increase or decrease of the quantity1 not in the way in which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies1 such as the substances of the bread and wine are not1 but by addition or division2 for1 as is said in ,metaph4 iii1 one dimension is dissolved by division1 and two dimensions result2 while on the contrary1 by addition1 two dimensions become one4 ,and in this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration1 because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and addition2 and since it is the subject of sensible qualities1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 it can likewise be the subject of their alteration1 for instance1 if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered4 ,an accident can be corrupted in another way1 through the corruption of its subject1 and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration2 for although the subject does not remain1 still the being which they had in the subject does remain1 which being is proper1 and suited to the subject4 ,and therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent1 as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption1 and1 moreover1 was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents4 ,nevertheless1 a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions2 because1 when the body and the blood of ,christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine1 if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine1 then the body and blood of ,christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change1 whether the change be on the part of the quality1 as for instance1 when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified2 or on the part of the quantity1 as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine4 ,but if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted1 then ,christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament2 and this either on the part of the qualities1 as when the color1 savor1 and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine2 or else on the part of the quantity1 as1 for instance1 if the bread be reduced to fine particles1 or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a thing1 in so far as the being of some form is in matter1 it results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter4 ,but if such being were not in matter1 yet like such being as is in matter1 it could be taken away by corruption1 even where there is no matter2 as takes place in this sacrament1 as is evident from what was said above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the sacramental species are forms not in matter1 yet they have the being which they had in matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this corruption of species is not miraculous1 but natural2 nevertheless1 it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the consecration1 namely1 that those sacramental species retain without a subject1 the same being as they had in a subject2 just as a blind man1 to whom sight is given miraculously1 sees naturally4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,anything ,can ,be ,generated from the ,sacramental ,species8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species3 because1 whatever is generated1 is generated out of some matter3 for nothing is generated out of nothing1 although by creation something is made out of nothing4 ,but there is no matter underlying the sacramental species except that of ,christ's body1 and that body is incorruptible4 ,therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another3 thus a line is not made of whiteness4 ,but accident and substance differ generically4 ,therefore1 since the sacramental species are accidents1 it seems that no substance can be generated from them4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if any corporeal substance be generated from them1 such substance will not be without accident4 ,therefore1 if any corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species1 then substance and accident would be generated from accident1 namely1 two things from one1 which is impossible4 ,consequently1 it is impossible for any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental species4 ,on the contrary1 ,the senses are witness that something is generated out of the sacramental species1 either ashes1 if they be burned1 worms if they putrefy1 or dust if they be crushed4 ,i answer that1 ,since the corruption of one thing is the generation of another 7,de ,gener4 i71 something must be generated necessarily from the sacramental species if they be corrupted1 as stated above 7,a4 #d72 for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether1 as if reduced to nothing2 on the contrary1 something sensible manifestly succeeds to them4 ,nevertheless1 it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them4 ,for it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of ,christ which are truly there1 because these are incorruptible4 ,but if the substance1 or even the matter1 of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament1 then1 as some have maintained1 it would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them4 ,but that supposition is false1 as was stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,,aa4 #b1 #d1 #h74 ,hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the sacramental species1 but from the surrounding atmosphere4 ,but this can be shown in many ways to be impossible4 ,in the first place1 because when a thing is generated from another1 the latter at first appears changed and corrupted2 whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere2 hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom4 ,secondly1 because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations4 ,thirdly1 because it is possible for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied2 nor would it be possible for an earthen body1 large enough to be generated from the atmosphere1 unless a great and1 in fact1 exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place4 ,fourthly1 because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them1 such as iron or stone1 which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid things4 ,hence this opinion cannot stand1 because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses4 ,and therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during the corruption of the species1 and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine1 ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated4 ,but this explanation seems an impossible one4 ,first of all1 because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of ,christ1 as was shown above 7,q4 #ge1 ,,aa4 #b1 #d71 the substance of the bread and wine cannot return1 except the body and blood of ,christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine1 which is impossible3 thus if air be turned into fire1 the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air4 ,but if the substance of bread or wine be annihilated1 it cannot return again1 because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same4 ,unless perchance it be said that the said substance returns1 because ,god creates anew another new substance to replace the first4 ,secondly1 this seems to be impossible1 because no time can be assigned when the substance of the bread returns4 ,for1 from what was said above 7,a4 #d2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #f1 ad #c71 it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain1 there remain also the body and blood of ,christ1 which are not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this sacrament1 according to what was stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain2 nor1 again1 when these species pass away2 because then the substance of the bread and wine would be without their proper accidents1 which is impossible4 ,unless perchance it be said that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there returns 7not1 indeed1 the substance of bread and wine1 because it is in that very instant that they have the being of the substance generated from the species1 but7 the matter of the bread and wine2 which1 matter1 properly speaking1 would be more correctly described as created anew1 than as returning4 ,and in this sense the aforesaid position might be held4 ,however1 since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place miraculously in this sacrament1 except in virtue of the consecration itself1 which does not imply either creation or return of matter1 it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the subject of subsequent forms4 ,now this is proper to matter2 and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity2 and therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine1 if it were present1 can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine1 not1 indeed1 by a new miracle1 but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated1 nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,those sacramental species are indeed accidents1 yet they have the act and power of substance1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature1 and receives miraculously the power and property of substance2 and therefore it can pass to both1 that is1 into substance and dimension4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,sacramental ,species ,can ,nourish8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish1 because1 as ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 v71 it is not this bread that enters into our body1 but the bread of everlasting life1 which supports the substance of our soul4 ,but whatever nourishes enters into the body4 ,therefore this bread does not nourish3 and the same reason holds good of the wine4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as is said in ,de ,gener4 ii1 ,we are nourished by the very things of which we are made4 ,but the sacramental species are accidents1 whereas man is not made of accidents1 because accident is not a part of substance4 ,therefore it seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima ii7 that food nourishes according as it is a substance1 but it gives increase by reason of its quantity4 ,but the sacramental species are not a substance4 ,consequently they cannot nourish4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle speaking of this sacrament says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3ba73 ,one1 indeed1 is hungry1 and another is drunk3 upon which the gloss observes that he alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery1 and after the consecration of the bread and wine1 claimed their oblations1 and not sharing them with others1 took the whole1 so as even to become intoxicated thereby4 ,but this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish4 ,therefore the sacramental species do nourish4 ,i answer that1 ,this question presents no difficulty1 now that we have solved the preceding question4 ,because1 as stated in ,de ,anima ii1 food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished4 ,now it has been stated 7,a4 #e7 that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them4 ,and they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms4 ,consequently1 it is evident that they nourish4 ,but the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain2 viz4 that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body1 but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses 7as a man is heartened by the odor of meat1 and intoxicated by the fumes of wine74 ,because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man1 whose body needs repair owing to constant waste3 and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity4 ,in like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand1 who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine3 both because the form does not remain1 as stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #f73 and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter1 which takes the form of the one nourished1 while the form of the nourishment passes away3 hence it is said in ,de ,anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike1 but at the end is like4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,after the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two ways4 ,first1 as to the species1 which retain the name of the previous substance1 as ,gregory says in an ,easter ,homily 7,lanfranc1 ,de ,corp4 et ,sang4 ,dom4 xx74 ,secondly1 ,christ's very body can be called bread1 since it is the mystical bread coming down from heaven4 ,consequently1 ,ambrose uses the word bread in this second meaning1 when he says that this bread does not pass into the body1 because1 to wit1 ,christ's body is not changed into man's body1 but nourishes his soul4 ,but he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the human body is made1 yet they are changed into those things stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although the sacramental species are not a substance1 still they have the virtue of a substance1 as stated above4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,sacramental ,species ,are ,broken in ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament1 because the ,philosopher says in ,meteor4 iv that bodies are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores2 a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species4 ,therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 breaking is followed by sound4 ,but the sacramental species emit no sound3 because the ,philosopher says 7,de ,anima ii71 that what emits sound is a hard body1 having a smooth surface4 ,therefore the sacramental species are not broken4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object4 ,but it is ,christ's true body that is eaten1 according to ,john #f3eg3 ,he that eateth ,my flesh1 and drinketh ,my blood4 ,therefore it is ,christ's body that is broken and masticated3 and hence it is said in the confession of ,berengarius3 ,i agree with the ,holy ,catholic ,church1 and with heart and lips ,i profess1 that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar1 are the true body and blood of ,christ after consecration1 and are truly handled and broken by the priest's hands1 broken and crushed by the teeth of believers4 ,consequently1 the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species4 ,on the contrary1 ,breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity4 ,but nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is broken here1 because neither ,christ's body is broken1 as being incorruptible1 nor is the substance of the bread1 because it no longer remains4 ,therefore the sacramental species are broken4 ,i answer that1 ,many opinions prevailed of old on this matter4 ,some held that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality1 but merely in the eyes of the beholders4 ,but this contention cannot stand1 because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment1 and one of these objects is breaking1 whereby from one thing arise many3 and these are common sensibles1 as is stated in ,de ,anima ii4 ,others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking1 but without any subject4 ,but this again contradicts our senses2 because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament1 which formerly was one1 and is now divided into many1 and this must be the subject of the breaking4 ,but it cannot be said that ,christ's true body is broken4 ,first of all1 because it is incorruptible and impassible3 secondly1 because it is entire under every part1 as was shown above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #c71 which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken4 ,it remains1 then1 that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread1 as in a subject1 just as the other accidents4 ,and as the sacramental species are the sacrament of ,christ's true body1 so is the breaking of these species the sacrament of our ,lord's ,passion1 which was in ,christ's true body4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as rarity and density remain under the sacramental species1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #c71 so likewise porousness remains1 and in consequence breakableness4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,hardness results from density2 therefore1 as density remains under the sacramental species1 hardness remains there too1 and the capability of sound as a consequence4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,what is eaten under its own species1 is also broken and masticated under its own species2 but ,christ's body is eaten not under its proper1 but under the sacramental species4 ,hence in explaining ,john #f3fd1 ,the flesh profiteth nothing1 ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvii in ,joan47 says that this is to be taken as referring to those who understood carnally3 for they understood the flesh1 thus1 as it is divided piecemeal1 in a dead body1 or as sold in the shambles4 ,consequently1 ,christ's very body is not broken1 except according to its sacramental species4 ,and the confession made by ,berengarius is to be understood in this sense1 that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species1 under which the body of ,christ truly is4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gg1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,any ,liquid ,can ,be ,mingled with the ,consecrated ,wine8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine1 because everything mingled with another partakes of its quality4 ,but no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species1 because those accidents are without a subject1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of the wine4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species1 then some one thing must be the result4 ,but no one thing can result from the liquid1 which is a substance1 and the sacramental species1 which are accidents2 nor from the liquid and ,christ's blood1 which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease4 ,therefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine1 then that also would appear to be consecrated2 just as water added to holy-water becomes holy4 ,but the consecrated wine is truly ,christ's blood4 ,therefore the liquid added would likewise be ,christ's blood otherwise than by consecration1 which is unbecoming4 ,therefore no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 if one of two things be entirely corrupted1 there is no mixture 7,de ,gener4 i74 ,but if we mix any liquid1 it seems that the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted1 so that the blood of ,christ ceases to be beneath it2 both because great and little are difference of quantity1 and alter it1 as white and black cause a difference of color2 and because the liquid mixed1 as having no obstacle1 seems to permeate the whole1 and so ,christ's blood ceases to be there1 since it is not there with any other substance4 ,consequently1 no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated1 just as before4 ,i answer that1 ,the truth of this question is evident from what has been said already4 ,for it was said above 7,a4 #c2 ,a4 #e1 ad #b7 that the species remaining in this sacrament1 as they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration1 so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon1 so that they can do or receive whatever their substance could do or receive1 were it there present4 ,but it is evident that if the substance of wine were there present1 then some other liquid could be mingled with it4 ,nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid4 ,for if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine1 then the whole would be a mixed substance4 ,now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them1 but each passes into a third resulting from both3 hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer4 ,but if the liquid added were of another species1 for instance1 if water were mixed1 the species of the wine would be dissolved1 and there would be a liquid of another species4 ,but if liquid of the same species were added1 of instance1 wine with wine1 the same species would remain1 but the wine would not be the same numerically1 as the diversity of the accidents shows3 for instance1 if one wine were white and the other red4 ,but if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the whole1 the entire wine would not be mixed1 but only part of it1 which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter3 still it would remain the same specifically1 not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it1 but even if it were of another species1 since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine 7,de ,gener4 i74 ,now it is evident that the body and blood of ,christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same1 as stated above 7,a4 #d2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #f1 ad #c72 because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated4 ,hence1 if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine1 and be mixed with it throughout1 the result would be something numerically distinct1 and the blood of ,christ will remain there no longer4 ,but if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout1 but to reach only a part of the species1 ,christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine1 yet will remain under the rest4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,pope ,innocent ,,iii in a ,decretal writes thus3 ,the very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added1 because1 if water is added1 it takes the savor of the wine4 ,the result is1 then1 that the accidents change the subject1 just as subject changes accidents2 for nature yields to miracle1 and power works beyond custom4 ,but this must not be understood as if the same identical accident1 which was in the wine previous to consecration1 is afterwards in the wine that is added2 but such change is the result of action2 because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of substance1 as stated above1 and so they act upon the liquid added1 by changing it4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the substance of ,christ's blood4 ,nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species1 yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part1 after the way mentioned above 7,a4 #e71 whereby something can be generated from those species4 ,and if they be entirely corrupted1 there remains no further question1 because the whole will be uniform4 ,but if they be corrupted in part1 there will be one dimension according to the continuity of quantity1 but not one according to the mode of being1 because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject2 as in a body that is made up of two metals1 there will be one body quantitatively1 but not one as to the species of the matter4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,pope ,innocent says in the aforesaid ,decretal1 if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice1 it is not changed into the blood1 nor is it mingled with the blood1 but1 mixed with the accidents of the previous wine1 it is diffused throughout the body which underlies them1 yet without wetting what surrounds it4 ,now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of ,christ to cease to be under the whole2 because a thing is said to be diffused throughout1 not because it touches the body of ,christ according to its proper dimensions1 but according to the sacramental dimensions1 under which it is contained4 ,now it is not the same with holy water1 because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water1 as the consecration of the wine does4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid1 the substance of ,christ's blood ceases to be under the whole1 and for the reason given above 7,obj4 #d72 which1 however1 is not a cogent one2 because more or less diversify dimensive quantity1 not as to its essence1 but as to the determination of its measure4 ,in like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole1 and not simply by the dimensions2 which1 although they are present without a subject1 still they are opposed to another liquid1 just as substance would be if it were present1 according to what was said at the beginning of the article4 ,,question #gh ,,of ,,the ,,form ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the form of this sacrament2 concerning which there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,what is the form of this sacrament8 7#b7 ,whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate8 7#c7 ,whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate8 7#d7 ,of the power of each form8 7#e7 ,of the truth of the expression8 7#f7 ,of the comparison of the one form with the other8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,this ,is the ,form of ,this ,sacrament3 ,this ,is ,my ,body1 and ,this ,is the ,chalice of ,my ,blood8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this is not the form of this sacrament3 ,this is ,my body1 and1 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood4 ,because those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament1 wherewith ,christ consecrated ,his body and blood4 ,but ,christ first blessed the bread which ,he took1 and said afterwards3 ,take ye and eat2 this is ,my body 7,matt4 #bf3bf74 ,therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament3 and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,eusebius ,emissenus 7,pseudo-,hieron3 ,ep4 xxix2 ,pseudo-,isid43 ,hom4 iv7 says3 ,the invisible ,priest changes visible creatures into ,his own body1 saying3 ',take ye and eat2 this is ,my body4' ,therefore1 the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament3 and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the form of ,baptism both the minister and his act are expressed1 when it is said1 ,i baptize thee4 ,but in the words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act4 ,therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection2 hence the sacrament of ,baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only1 omitting all the others4 ,therefore1 if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament1 it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone1 while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass2 yet this seems to be false1 because1 were the other words to be passed over1 the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them1 whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood4 ,consequently1 the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,the consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the ,lord ,jesus4 ,because1 by all the other words spoken1 praise is rendered to ,god1 prayer is put up for the people1 for kings1 and others2 but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament1 the priest uses no longer his own words1 but the words of ,christ4 ,therefore1 it is ,christ's words that perfect this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,this sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects4 ,first of all1 in this1 that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter1 while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter4 ,secondly1 because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing1 from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power1 which through the priest who is an animated instrument1 can pass on to inanimate instruments4 ,but in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance1 which can only be done by ,god2 hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words4 ,and because the form should suit the thing1 therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects4 ,first1 because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter1 as for instance1 baptizing1 or signing2 but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter1 which consists in transubstantiation1 as when it is said1 ,this is ,my body1 or1 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood4 ,secondly1 because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister1 whether by way of exercising an act1 as when it is said1 ,i baptize thee1 or ,i confirm thee1 etc42 or by way of command1 as when it is said in the sacrament of order1 ,take the power1 etc42 or by way of entreaty1 as when in the sacrament of ,extreme ,unction it is said1 ,by this anointing and our intercession1 etc4 ,but the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if ,christ were speaking in person1 so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament1 except to pronounce the words of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,there are many opinions on this matter4 ,some have said that ,christ1 ,who had power of excellence in the sacraments1 performed this sacrament without using any form of words1 and that afterwards ,he pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter4 ,and the words of ,pope ,innocent ,,iii seem to convey the same sense 7,de ,sacr4 ,alt4 ,myst4 iv71 where he says3 ,in good sooth it can be said that ,christ accomplished this sacrament by ,his ,divine power1 and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate4 ,but in opposition to this view are the words of the ,gospel in which it is said that ,christ blessed1 and this blessing was effected by certain words4 ,accordingly those words of ,innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion1 rather than determining the point4 ,others1 again1 have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us4 ,but this statement cannot stand1 because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished2 hence1 if the consecration was not performed then by these words1 neither would it be now4 ,accordingly1 others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now2 but that ,christ spoke them twice1 at first secretly1 in order to consecrate1 and afterwards openly1 to instruct others4 ,but even this will not hold good1 because the priest in consecrating uses these words1 not as spoken in secret1 but as openly pronounced4 ,accordingly1 since these words have no power except from ,christ pronouncing them1 it seems that ,christ also consecrated by pronouncing them openly4 ,and therefore others said that the ,evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually happened1 as is seen from ,augustine 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 ii74 ,hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus3 ,taking the bread ,he blessed it1 saying3 ,this is ,my body1 and then ,he broke it1 and gave it to ,his disciples4 ,but the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the ,gospel2 because the participle saying implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before4 ,and it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken1 as if ,christ had just then pronounced those words1 when ,he gave it to ,his disciples2 but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before2 so that the sense is3 ,while ,he was blessing1 and breaking1 and giving it to ,his disciples1 ,he spoke the words1 ',take ye1' etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in these words1 ,take ye and eat1 the use of the consecrated1 matter is indicated1 which is not of the necessity of this sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #g74 ,and therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form4 ,nevertheless1 because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament1 in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing1 consequently1 the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words3 and it was in this way that ,eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words1 as to its first and second perfection4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter1 which is of the essence of the sacrament3 such is not the case in this sacrament2 hence there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words1 while leaving out the rest1 especially the words in the ,canon of the ,mass4 ,but that this is false can be seen both from ,ambrose's words quoted above1 as well as from the fact that the ,canon of the ,mass is not the same in all places or times1 but various portions have been introduced by various people4 ,accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament1 this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of ,christ1 even though the words were pronounced without those that precede4 ,the priest1 however1 would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus1 as he would not be observing the rite of the ,church4 ,nor does the comparison with ,baptism prove anything2 for it is a sacrament of necessity3 whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof1 as ,augustine says 7cf4 ,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,this ,is the ,proper ,form for the ,consecration of the ,bread3 ,this ,is ,my ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament3 ,this is ,my body4 ,for the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form4 ,but the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of ,christ1 and this is better expressed by the word becomes than by is4 ,therefore1 in the form of the consecration we ought to say3 ,this becomes ,my body4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv71 ,christ's words consecrate this sacrament4 ,what word of ,christ8 ,this word1 whereby all things are made4 ,the ,lord commanded1 and the heavens and earth were made4 ,therefore1 it would be a more proper form of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed1 so as to say3 ,be this ,my body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase1 just as the term of the change is implied in the predicate4 ,but just as that into which the change is made is something determinate1 for the change is into nothing else but the body of ,christ1 so also that which is converted is determinate1 since only bread is converted into the body of ,christ4 ,therefore1 as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate1 so also should a noun be inserted in the subject1 so that it be said3 ,this bread is ,my body4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 just as the term of the change is determinate in nature1 because it is a body1 so also is it determinate in person4 ,consequently1 in order to determine the person1 it ought to be said3 ,this is the body of ,christ4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it4 ,consequently1 the conjunction for is improperly added in some books1 since it does not belong to the substance of the form4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord used this form in consecrating1 as is evident from ,matt4 #bf3bf4 ,i answer that1 ,this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread4 ,for it was said 7,a4 #a7 that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the body of ,christ4 ,now the form of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament4 ,consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of ,christ4 ,and herein are three things to be considered3 namely1 the actual conversion1 the term whence1 and the term whereunto4 ,now the conversion can be considered in two ways3 first1 in becoming1 secondly1 in being4 ,but the conversion ought not to be signified in this form as in becoming1 but as in being4 ,first1 because such conversion is not successive1 as was said above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #g71 but instantaneous2 and in such changes the becoming is nothing else than the being4 ,secondly1 because the sacramental forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art4 ,now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect1 on which the artist's intention is fixed2 just as the art-form in the builder's mind is principally the form of the house constructed1 and secondarily of the constructing4 ,accordingly1 in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed as in being1 to which the intention is referred4 ,and since the conversion is expressed in this form as in being1 it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they exist in the fact of conversion4 ,but then the term whereunto has the proper nature of its own substance2 whereas the term whence does not remain in its own substance1 but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses1 and can be determined in relation to the senses4 ,hence the term whence of the conversion is conveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun1 relative to the sensible accidents which continue2 but the term whereunto is expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion1 and this is ,christ's entire body1 and not merely ,his flesh2 as was said above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b74 ,hence this form is most appropriate3 ,this is ,my body4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the ultimate effect of this conversion is not a becoming but a being1 as stated above1 and consequently prominence should be given to this in the form4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,god's word operated in the creation of things1 and it is the same which operates in this consecration1 yet each in different fashion3 because here it operates effectively and sacramentally1 that is1 in virtue of its signification4 ,and consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood and present time4 ,but in the creation of things it worked merely effectively1 and such efficiency is due to the command of ,his wisdom2 and therefore in the creation of things the ,lord's word is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood1 as in ,gen4 #a3c3 ,let there be light1 and light was made4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the term whence does not retain the nature of its substance in the being of the conversion1 as the term whereunto does4 ,therefore there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the pronoun ,my1 which implicitly points to the chief person1 i4e4 the person of the speaker1 sufficiently indicates ,christ's person1 in ,whose person these words are uttered1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the conjunction for is set in this form according to the custom of the ,roman ,church1 who derived it from ,peter the ,apostle2 and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding3 and therefore it is not part of the form1 just as the words preceding the form are not4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,this ,is the ,proper ,form for the ,consecration of the ,wine3 ,this ,is the ,chalice of ,my ,blood1 ,etc48 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine4 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood1 of the ,new and ,eternal ,testament1 the ,mystery of ,faith1 which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins4 ,for as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into ,christ's body1 so is the wine changed into ,christ's blood1 as is clear from what was said above 7,q4 #gf1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #c74 ,but in the form of the consecration of the bread1 the body of ,christ is expressly mentioned1 without any addition4 ,therefore in this form the blood of ,christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case1 and the chalice in the nominative1 when it is said3 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine1 since both are ,christ's words4 ,but directly the words are spoken--,this is ,my body1 there is perfect consecration of the bread4 ,therefore1 directly these other words are uttered--,this is the chalice of ,my blood1 there is perfect consecration of the blood2 and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form1 especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,new ,testament seems to be an internal inspiration1 as is evident from the ,apostle quoting the words of ,jeremias 7#ca3ca73 ,i will perfect unto the house of ,israel a ,new ,testament 4 4 4 ,i will give ,my laws into their mind 7,heb4 #h3h74 ,but a sacrament is an outward visible act4 ,therefore1 in the form of the sacrament the words of the ,new ,testament are improperly added4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence4 ,but what is eternal has no beginning of its existence4 ,therefore it is incorrect to say of the ,new and ,eternal1 because it seems to savor of a contradiction4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 occasions of error ought to be withheld from men1 according to ,isa4 #eg3ad3 ,take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of ,my people4 ,but some have fallen into error in thinking that ,christ's body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament4 ,therefore it is out of place to add the mystery of faith4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 it was said above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c1 ad #c71 that as ,baptism is the sacrament of faith1 so is the ,eucharist the sacrament of charity4 ,consequently1 in this form the word charity ought rather to be used than faith4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 the whole of this sacrament1 both as to body and blood1 is a memorial of our ,lord's ,passion1 according to #a ,cor4 #aa3bf3 ,as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice1 you shall show the death of the ,lord4 ,consequently1 mention ought to be made of ,christ's ,passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood1 than in the form of the consecration of the body1 especially since our ,lord said3 ,this is ,my body1 which shall be delivered up for you 7,luke #bb3ai74 ,obj4 #h3 ,further1 as was already observed 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #di1 ,a4 #c71 ,christ's ,passion sufficed for all2 while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many4 ,therefore it ought to be said3 ,which shall be shed for all1 or else for many1 without adding1 for you4 ,objection #i3 ,further1 the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from ,christ's institution4 ,but no ,evangelist narrates that ,christ spoke all these words4 ,therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,church1 instructed by the apostles1 uses this form4 ,i answer that1 ,there is a twofold opinion regarding this form4 ,some have maintained that the words ,this is the chalice of ,my blood alone belong to the substance of this form1 but not those words which follow4 ,now this seems incorrect1 because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate1 that is1 of ,christ's blood4 consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression4 ,and on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words1 ,as often as ye shall do this1 which belong to the use of this sacrament1 and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form4 ,hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words1 under the same rite and manner1 namely1 holding the chalice in his hands4 ,moreover1 in ,luke #bb3bj1 the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words3 ,this is the chalice1 the new testament in ,my blood4 ,consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form2 but that by the first words1 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood1 the change of the wine into blood is denoted1 as explained above 7,a4 #b7 in the form for the consecration of the bread2 but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the ,passion1 which power works in this sacrament1 and is ordained for three purposes4 ,first and principally for securing our eternal heritage1 according to ,heb4 #aj3ai3 ,having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of ,christ2 and in order to denote this1 we say1 of the ,new and ,eternal ,testament4 ,secondly1 for justifying by grace1 which is by faith according to ,rom4 #c3be1 #bf3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his blood 4 4 4 that ,he ,himself may be just1 and the justifier of him who is of the faith of ,jesus ,christ3 and on this account we add1 ,the ,mystery of ,faith4 ,thirdly1 for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things1 according to ,heb4 #i3ad3 ,the blood of ,christ 4 4 4 shall cleanse our conscience from dead works1 that is1 from sins2 and on this account1 we say1 which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the expression ,this is the chalice of ,my blood is a figure of speech1 which can be understood in two ways4 ,first1 as a figure of metonymy2 because the container is put for the contained1 so that the meaning is3 ,this is ,my blood contained in the chalice2 of which mention is now made1 because ,christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament1 inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful1 which is not implied under the notion of blood2 consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage4 ,secondly1 it can be taken by way of metaphor1 so that ,christ's ,passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison1 because1 like a cup1 it inebriates1 according to ,lam4 #c3ae3 ,he hath filled me with bitterness1 he hath inebriated me with wormwood3 hence our ,lord ,himself spoke of ,his ,passion as a chalice1 when ,he said 7,matt4 #bf3ci73 ,let this chalice pass away from ,me3 so that the meaning is3 ,this is the chalice of ,my ,passion4 ,this is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body2 because it was by the ,passion that the blood was separated from the body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as was said above 7ad #a2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b1 ad #a71 the blood consecrated apart expressly represents ,christ's ,passion1 and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the ,passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body1 since the body is the subject of the ,passion4 ,this is also pointed out in our ,lord's saying1 which shall be delivered up for you1 as if to say1 which shall undergo the ,passion for you4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a testament is the disposal of a heritage4 ,but ,god disposed of a heavenly heritage to men1 to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of ,jesus ,christ2 because1 according to ,heb4 #i3af3 ,where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in4 ,now ,christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways4 ,first of all in figure1 and this belongs to the ,old ,testament2 consequently the ,apostle concludes 7,heb4 #i3af73 ,whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood1 which is evident from this1 that as related in ,ex4 #bd3g1 #h1 when every commandment of the law had been read by ,moses1 he sprinkled all the people saying3 ,this is the blood of the testament which the ,lord hath enjoined unto you4 ,secondly1 it was shown in very truth2 and this belongs to the ,new ,testament4 ,this is what the ,apostle premises when he says 7,rom4 #i3ae73 ,therefore ,he is the ,mediator of the ,new ,testament1 that by means of ,his death 4 4 4 they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance4 ,consequently1 we say here1 ,the blood of the ,new ,testament1 because it is shown now not in figure but in truth2 and therefore we add1 which shall be shed for you4 ,but the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood1 according as we are justified by ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,this ,testament is a new one by reason of its showing forth3 yet it is called eternal both on account of ,god's eternal pre-ordination1 as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament4 ,moreover1 ,christ's ,person is eternal1 in ,whose blood this testament is appointed4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the word mystery is inserted1 not in order to exclude reality1 but to show that the reality is hidden1 because ,christ's blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner1 and ,his ,passion was dimly foreshadowed in the ,old ,testament4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,it is called the ,sacrament of ,faith1 as being an object of faith3 because by faith alone do we hold the presence of ,christ's blood in this sacrament4 ,moreover ,christ's ,passion justifies by faith4 ,baptism is called the ,sacrament of ,faith because it is a profession of faith4 ,this is called the ,sacrament of ,charity1 as being figurative and effective thereof4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,as stated above 7ad #b71 the blood consecrated apart represents ,christ's blood more expressively2 and therefore mention is made of ,christ's ,passion and its fruits1 in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body4 ,reply ,obj4 #h3 ,the blood of ,christ's ,passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the ,jews1 to whom the blood of the ,old ,testament was exhibited1 but also in the ,gentiles2 nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament1 and in those others who partake of it2 but likewise in those for whom it is offered4 ,and therefore ,he says expressly1 for you1 the ,jews1 and for many1 namely the ,gentiles2 or1 for you who eat of it1 and for many1 for whom it is offered4 ,reply ,obj4 #i3 ,the ,evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments1 which in the primitive ,church had to be kept concealed1 as ,dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy2 their object was to write the story of ,christ4 ,nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the ,scriptures4 ,because the words1 ,this is the chalice1 are found in ,luke #bb3bj1 and #a ,cor4 #aa3be1 while ,matthew says in chapter #bf3bh3 ,this is ,my blood of the ,new ,testament1 which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins4 ,the words added1 namely1 eternal and mystery of faith1 were handed down to the ,church by the apostles1 who received them from our ,lord1 according to #a ,cor4 #aa3bc3 ,i have received of the ,lord that which also ,i delivered unto you4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #d ,whether in the ,aforesaid ,words of the ,forms ,there ,be ,any ,created ,power ,which ,causes the ,consecration8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration4 ,because ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,the change of the bread into ,christ's body is caused solely by the power of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but the power of the ,holy ,ghost is uncreated4 ,therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 miraculous works are wrought not by any created power1 but solely by ,divine power1 as was stated in the ,first ,part 7,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d74 ,but the change of the bread and wine into ,christ's body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things1 or than the formation of ,christ's body in the womb of a virgin3 which things could not be done by any created power4 ,therefore1 neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power of the aforesaid words4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the aforesaid words are not simple1 but composed of many2 nor are they uttered simultaneously1 but successively4 ,but1 as stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #g71 this change is wrought instantaneously4 ,hence it must be done by a simple power4 ,therefore it is not effected by the power of those words4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,if there be such might in the word of the ,lord ,jesus that things non-existent came into being1 how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue1 and to be changed into something else8 ,and so1 what was bread before consecration is now the body of ,christ after consecration1 because ,christ's word changes a creature into something different4 ,i answer that1 ,some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation1 nor in the other forms of the sacraments1 or even in the sacraments themselves1 for producing the sacramental effects4 ,this1 as was shown above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a71 is both contrary to the teachings of the saints1 and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,hence1 since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others1 as stated above 7,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #c71 the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought in it3 instrumental1 however1 as in the other sacraments1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d74 ,for since these words are uttered in the person of ,christ1 it is from ,his command that they receive their instrumental power from ,him1 just as ,his other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally1 as was observed above 7,q4 #dh1 ,a4 #f2 ,q4 #ef1 ,a4 #a1 ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when the bread is said to be changed into ,christ's body solely by the power of the ,holy ,ghost1 the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded3 just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,no creature can work miracles as the chief agent4 ,yet it can do so instrumentally1 just as the touch of ,christ's hand healed the leper4 ,and in this fashion ,christ's words change the bread into ,his body4 ,but in ,christ's conception1 whereby ,his body was fashioned1 it was impossible for anything derived from ,his body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body4 ,likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received4 ,consequently there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the aforesaid words1 which work the consecration1 operate sacramentally4 ,consequently1 the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning1 which is terminated in the uttering of the last word4 ,and therefore the aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered1 taken in conjunction with those uttered before4 ,and this power is simple by reason of the thing signified1 although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,aforesaid ,expressions ,are ,true8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true4 ,because when we say3 ,this is ,my body1 the word this designates a substance4 ,but according to what was said above 7,,aa4 #a1 #d1 ad #c2 ,q4 #ge1 ,,aa4 #b1 #g71 when the pronoun this is spoken1 the substance of the bread is still there1 because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of pronouncing the words4 ,but it is false to say3 ,bread is ,christ's body4 ,consequently this expression1 ,this is ,my body1 is false4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the pronoun this appeals to the senses4 ,but the sensible species in this sacrament are neither ,christ's body nor even its accidents4 ,therefore this expression1 ,this is ,my body1 cannot be true4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as was observed above 7,a4 #d1 ad #c71 these words1 by their signification1 effect the change of the bread into the body of ,christ4 ,but an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect4 ,therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of ,christ4 ,but previous to the change this expression1 ,this is ,my body1 is false4 ,therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply2 and the same reason holds good of the other phrase3 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood1 etc4 ,on the contrary1 ,these words are pronounced in the person of ,christ1 ,who says of ,himself 7,john #ad3f73 ,i am the truth4 ,i answer that1 ,there have been many opinions on this point4 ,some have said that in this expression1 ,this is ,my body1 the word this implies demonstration as conceived1 and not as exercised1 because the whole phrase is taken materially1 since it is uttered by a way of narration3 for the priest relates that ,christ said3 ,this is ,my body4 ,but such a view cannot hold good1 because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present1 and consequently the sacrament would not be valid3 for ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxx in ,joan473 ,the word is added to the element1 and this becomes a sacrament4 ,moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents3 for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by ,christ2 since it is evident that then they were employed1 not materially1 but significatively4 ,and therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they are taken significatively1 and not merely materially4 ,nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital1 as though they were spoken by ,christ1 because owing to ,christ's infinite power1 just as through contact with ,his flesh the regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with ,christ1 but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all future ages1 so likewise from ,christ's uttering these words they derived their consecrating power1 by whatever priest they be uttered1 as if ,christ present were saying them4 ,and therefore others have said that in this phrase the word this appeals1 not to the senses1 but to the intellect2 so that the meaning is1 ,this is ,my body--i4e4 ,the thing signified by 'this' is ,my body4 ,but neither can this stand1 because1 since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified1 from such a form it would not result that ,christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament1 but merely as in a sign1 which is heretical1 as stated above 7,q4 #he1 ,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 others have said that the word this appeals to the senses2 not at the precise instant of its being uttered1 but merely at the last instant thereof2 as when a man says1 ,now ,i am silent1 this adverb now points to the instant immediately following the speech3 because the sense is3 ,directly these words are spoken ,i am silent4 ,but neither can this hold good1 because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be3 ,my body is ,my body1 which the above phrase does not effect1 because this was so even before the utterance of the words3 hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean this4 ,consequently1 then1 it remains to be said1 as stated above 7,a4 #d71 that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of ,christ4 ,and therefore it is compared to other sentences1 which have power only of signifying and not of producing1 as the concept of the practical intellect1 which is productive of the thing1 is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things1 because words are signs of concepts1 as the ,philosopher says 7,peri ,herm4 i74 ,and therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose the thing understood1 but makes it1 so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified1 but makes it2 for such is the relation of ,god's word to the things made by the ,word4 ,now this change takes place not successively1 but in an instant1 as stated above 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #g74 ,consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words being spoken1 yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion2 viz4 that the body of ,christ is the body of ,christ2 nor again that the subject be understood to stand for that which it was before the conversion1 namely1 the bread1 but for that which is commonly related to both1 i4e4 that which is contained in general under those species4 ,for these words do not make the body of ,christ to be the body of ,christ1 nor do they make the bread to be the body of ,christ2 but what was contained under those species1 and was formerly bread1 they make to be the body of ,christ4 ,and therefore expressly our ,lord did not say3 ,this bread is ,my body1 which would be the meaning of the second opinion2 nor ,this ,my body is ,my body1 which would be the meaning of the third opinion3 but in general3 ,this is ,my body1 assigning no noun on the part of the subject1 but only a pronoun1 which signifies substance in common1 without quality1 that is1 without a determinate form4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the term this points to a substance1 yet without determining its proper nature1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the pronoun this does not indicate the accidents1 but the substance underlying the accidents1 which at first was bread1 and is afterwards the body of ,christ1 which body1 although not informed by those accidents1 is yet contained under them4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the meaning of this expression is1 in the order of nature1 understood before the thing signified1 just as a cause is naturally prior to the effect2 but not in order of time1 because this cause has its effect with it at the same time1 and this suffices for the truth of the expression4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gh1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,form of the ,consecration of the ,bread ,accomplishes ,its ,effect ,before the ,form of the ,consecration of the ,wine ,be ,completed8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed4 ,for1 as ,christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread1 so does ,his blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine4 ,if1 then1 the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine1 it would follow that ,christ's body would be present in this sacrament without the blood1 which is improper4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one sacrament has one completion3 hence although there be three immersions in ,baptism1 yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third be completed4 ,but all this sacrament is one1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread1 the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered1 as stated above 7,a4 #d1 ad #c74 ,therefore1 for the same reason1 neither do the words for the consecration of ,christ's body produce their effect1 until the words for consecrating ,christ's blood are spoken4 ,on the contrary1 ,directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread1 the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored1 which would not be done if ,christ's body were not there1 for that would be an act of idolatry4 ,therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before the words are spoken for consecrating the wine4 ,i answer that1 ,some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms1 namely1 for consecrating the bread and the wine1 await each other's action1 so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered4 ,but this cannot stand1 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #e1 ad #c71 for the truth of this phrase1 ,this is ,my body1 wherein the verb is in the present tense1 it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used2 otherwise1 if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards1 a verb of the future tense would be employed1 and not one of the present tense1 so that we should not say1 ,this is ,my body1 but ,this will be ,my body4 ,but the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken4 ,and therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously1 and such is the effect of this sacrament2 otherwise it would not be a true speech4 ,moreover1 this opinion is against the rite of the ,church1 which forthwith adores the body of ,christ after the words are uttered4 ,hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action1 but has its effect on the instant4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred4 ,hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete1 the body of ,christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament1 and the blood by real concomitance2 but afterwards by the consecration of the wine1 conversely1 the blood of ,christ is there by the power of the sacrament1 and the body by real concomitance1 so that the entire ,christ is under either species1 as stated above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this sacrament is one in perfection1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #b71 namely1 inasmuch as it is made up of two things1 that is1 of food and drink1 each of which of itself has its own perfection2 but the three immersions of ,baptism are ordained to one simple effect1 and therefore there is no resemblance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech1 but the words of the different forms do not1 and consequently there is no parallel4 ,,question #gi ,,of ,,the ,,effects ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,eight ,articles7 ,we must now consider the effects of this sacrament1 and under this head there are eight points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether this sacrament bestows grace8 7#b7 ,whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament8 7#c7 ,whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament8 7#d7 ,whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament8 7#e7 ,whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this sacrament8 7#f7 ,whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins8 7#g7 ,whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients8 7#h7 ,of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,grace ,is ,bestowed ,through ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that grace is not bestowed through this sacrament4 ,for this sacrament is spiritual nourishment4 ,but nourishment is only given to the living4 ,therefore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace1 this sacrament belongs only to one in the state of grace4 ,therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance4 ,in like manner neither is it given so as grace may be increased1 because spiritual growth belongs to the sacrament of ,confirmation1 as stated above 7,q4 #gb1 ,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 grace is not bestowed through this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment4 ,but spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather than to its bestowal4 ,therefore it seems that grace is not given through this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as was said above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a71 ,christ's body is offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body1 and ,his blood for that of the soul4 ,now it is not the body which is the subject of grace1 but the soul1 as was shown in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d74 ,therefore grace is not bestowed through this sacrament1 at least so far as the body is concerned4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord says 7,john #f3eb73 ,the bread which ,i will give1 is ,my flesh for the life of the world4 ,but the spiritual life is the effect of grace4 ,therefore grace is bestowed through this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the effect of this sacrament ought to be considered1 first of all and principally1 from what is contained in this sacrament1 which is ,christ2 ,who1 just as by coming into the world1 ,he visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world1 according to ,john #a3ag3 ,grace and truth came by ,jesus ,christ1 so also1 by coming sacramentally into man causes the life of grace1 according to ,john #f3eh3 ,he that eateth ,me1 the same also shall live by ,me4 ,hence ,cyril says on ,luke #bb3ai3 ,god's life-giving ,word by uniting ,himself with ,his own flesh1 made it to be productive of life4 ,for it was becoming that ,he should be united somehow with bodies through ,his sacred flesh and precious blood1 which we receive in a life-giving blessing in the bread and wine4 ,secondly1 it is considered on the part of what is represented by this sacrament1 which is ,christ's ,passion1 as stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b1 ad #a74 ,and therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which ,christ's ,passion wrought in the world4 ,hence1 ,chrysostom says on the words1 ,immediately there came out blood and water 7,john #ai3cd73 ,since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence1 when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice1 so approach as if you were going to drink from ,christ's own side4 ,hence our ,lord ,himself says 7,matt4 #bf3bh73 ,this is ,my blood 4 4 4 which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins4 ,thirdly1 the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in which this sacrament is given2 for it is given by way of food and drink4 ,and therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily life1 namely1 by sustaining1 giving increase1 restoring1 and giving delight4 ,accordingly1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 v73 ,this is the bread of everlasting life1 which supports the substance of our soul4 ,and ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xlvi in ,joan473 ,when we desire it1 ,he lets us feel ,him1 and eat ,him1 and embrace ,him4 ,and hence our ,lord says 7,john #f3ef73 ,my flesh is meat indeed1 and ,my blood is drink indeed4 ,fourthly1 the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species under which it is given4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan473 ,our ,lord betokened ,his body and blood in things which out of many units are made into some one whole3 for out of many grains is one thing made1 viz4 bread2 and many grapes flow into one thing1 viz4 wine4 ,and therefore he observes elsewhere 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan473 ,o sacrament of piety1 ,o sign of unity1 ,o bond of charity6 ,and since ,christ and ,his ,passion are the cause of grace1 and since spiritual refreshment1 and charity cannot be without grace1 it is clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing grace2 nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof2 from his own desire1 as in the case of the adult1 or from the ,church's desire in the case of children1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c74 ,hence it is due to the efficacy of its power1 that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he is enabled to lead the spiritual life4 ,it remains1 then1 that when the sacrament itself is really received1 grace is increased1 and the spiritual life perfected3 yet in different fashion from the sacrament of ,confirmation1 in which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the outward assaults of ,christ's enemies4 ,but by this sacrament grace receives increase1 and the spiritual life is perfected1 so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this sacrament confers grace spiritually together with the virtue of charity4 ,hence ,damascene 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 compares this sacrament to the burning coal which ,isaias saw 7,isa4 #f3f73 ,for a live ember is not simply wood1 but wood united to fire2 so also the bread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the ,godhead4 ,but as ,gregory observes in a ,homily for ,pentecost1 ,god's love is never idle2 for1 wherever it is it does great works4 ,and consequently through this sacrament1 as far as its power is concerned1 not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed1 but it is furthermore aroused to act1 according to #b ,cor4 #e3ad3 ,the charity of ,christ presseth us4 ,hence it is that the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament1 by being spiritually gladdened1 and as it were inebriated with the sweetness of the ,divine goodness1 according to ,cant #e3a3 ,eat1 ,o friends1 and drink1 and be inebriated1 my dearly beloved4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,because the sacraments operate according to the similitude by which they signify1 therefore by way of assimilation it is said that in this sacrament the body is offered for the salvation of the body1 and the blood for the salvation of the soul1 although each works for the salvation of both1 since the entire ,christ is under each1 as stated above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b74 ,and although the body is not the immediate subject of grace1 still the effect of grace flows into the body while in the present life we present our ,vulg43 'your' members as instruments of justice unto ,god 7,rom4 #f3ac71 and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of the soul4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,attaining of ,glory ,is an ,effect of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of this sacrament4 ,for an effect is proportioned to its cause4 ,but this sacrament belongs to wayfarers 7viatoribus71 and hence it is termed ,viaticum4 ,since1 then1 wayfarers are not yet capable of glory1 it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 given sufficient cause1 the effect follows4 ,but many take this sacrament who will never come to glory1 as ,augustine declares 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xxi74 ,consequently1 this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto glory4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the greater is not brought about by the lesser1 for nothing acts outside its species4 ,but it is the lesser thing to receive ,christ under a strange species1 which happens in this sacrament1 than to enjoy ,him in ,his own species1 which belongs to glory4 ,therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,john #f3eb73 ,if any man eat of this bread1 he shall live for ever4 ,but eternal life is the life of glory4 ,therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,in this sacrament we may consider both that from which it derives its effect1 namely1 ,christ contained in it1 as also ,his ,passion represented by it2 and that through which it works its effect1 namely1 the use of the sacrament1 and its species4 ,now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the attaining of eternal life4 ,because it was by ,his ,passion that ,christ opened to us the approach to eternal life1 according to ,heb4 #i3ae3 ,he is the ,mediator of the ,new ,testament2 that by means of ,his death 4 4 4 they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance4 ,accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said3 ,this is the chalice of ,my blood1 of the ,new and ,eternal ,testament4 ,in like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the present life1 although imperfectly1 but perfectly in the state of glory4 ,hence ,augustine says on the words1 ,my flesh is meat indeed 7,john #f3ef73 ,seeing that in meat and drink1 men aim at this1 that they hunger not nor thirst1 this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal and incorruptible1 in the fellowship of the saints1 where shall be peace1 and unity1 full and perfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,christ's ,passion1 in virtue whereof this sacrament is accomplished1 is indeed the sufficient cause of glory1 yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory1 but we must first suffer with ,him in order that we may also be glorified afterwards with ,him 7,rom4 #h3ag71 so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory1 but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory4 ,and therefore it is called ,viaticum1 a figure whereof we read in #c ,kings #ai3h3 ,elias ate and drank1 and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of ,god1 ,horeb4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,just as ,christ's ,passion has not its effect in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be1 so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily4 ,hence ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan471 expounding the same passage1 observes3 ,the sacrament is one thing1 the power of the sacrament another4 ,many receive it from the altar 4 4 4 and by receiving 4 4 4 die 4 4 4 ,eat1 then1 spiritually the heavenly bread1 bring innocence to the altar4 ,it is no wonder1 then1 if those who do not keep innocence1 do not secure the effect of this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,that ,christ is received under another species belongs to the nature of a sacrament1 which acts instrumentally4 ,but there is nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty effect1 as is evident from what was said above 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #c1 ad #c74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,forgiveness of ,mortal ,sin ,is an ,effect of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament4 ,for it is said in one of the ,collects 7,postcommunion1 ,pro vivis et defunctis73 ,may this sacrament be a cleansing from crimes4 ,but mortal sins are called crimes4 ,therefore mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament1 like ,baptism1 works by the power of ,christ's ,passion4 ,but mortal sins are forgiven by ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament1 especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said3 ,which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 grace is bestowed through this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,but by grace a man is justified from mortal sins1 according to ,rom4 #c3bd3 ,being justified freely by ,his grace4 ,therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bi73 ,he that eateth and drinketh unworthily1 eateth and drinketh judgment to himself3 and a gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary3 ,he eats and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin1 or who handles 7the sacrament7 irreverently2 and such a one eats and drinks judgment1 i4e4 damnation1 unto himself4 ,therefore1 he that is in mortal sin1 by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin1 rather than obtains forgiveness of his sin4 ,i answer that1 ,the power of this sacrament can be considered in two ways4 ,first of all1 in itself3 and thus this sacrament has from ,christ's ,passion the power of forgiving all sins1 since the ,passion is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins4 ,secondly1 it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of the sacrament1 in so far as there is1 or is not1 found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament4 ,now whoever is conscious of mortal sin1 has within him an obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacrament2 since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament1 both because he is not alive spiritually1 and so he ought not to eat the spiritual nourishment1 since nourishment is confined to the living2 and because he cannot be united with ,christ1 which is the effect of this sacrament1 as long as he retains an attachment towards mortal sin4 ,consequently1 as is said in the book ,de ,eccles4 ,dogm43 ,if the soul leans towards sin1 it is burdened rather than purified from partaking of the ,eucharist4 ,hence1 in him who is conscious of mortal sin1 this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness of sin4 ,nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two ways4 ,first of all1 by being received1 not actually1 but in desire2 as when a man is first justified from sin4 ,secondly1 when received by one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious1 and for which he has no attachment2 since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at first1 but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he obtains the grace of charity1 which will perfect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we ask that this sacrament may be the cleansing of crimes1 or of those sins of which we are unconscious1 according to ,ps4 #ah3ac3 ,lord1 cleanse me from my hidden sins2 or that our contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins2 or that strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,baptism is spiritual generation1 which is a transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being1 and is given by way of ablution4 ,consequently1 in both respects he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly approach ,baptism4 ,but in this sacrament man receives ,christ within himself by way of spiritual nourishment1 which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins4 ,therefore the comparison does not hold good4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of mortal sin2 yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first bestowed on the sinner4 ,but it is not given so in this sacrament4 ,hence the argument does not prove4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,venial ,sins ,are ,forgiven ,through ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament1 because this is the sacrament of charity1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan474 ,but venial sins are not contrary to charity1 as was shown in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,therefore1 since contrary is taken away by its contrary1 it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament1 then all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is4 ,but it does not appear that all are forgiven1 because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin1 against what is said in #a ,john #a3h3 ,if we say that we have no sin1 we deceive ourselves4 ,therefore no venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 contraries mutually exclude each other4 ,but venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament3 because ,augustine says on the words1 ,if any man eat of it he shall ,vulg43 'may' not die for ever 7,john #f3ej73 ,bring innocence to the altar3 your sins1 though they be daily 4 4 4 let them not be deadly4 ,therefore neither are venial sins taken away by this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,innocent ,,iii says 7,de ,s4 ,alt4 ,myst4 iv7 that this sacrament blots out venial sins1 and wards off mortal sins4 ,i answer that1 ,two things may be considered in this sacrament1 to wit1 the sacrament itself1 and the reality of the sacrament3 and it appears from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving venial sins4 ,for this sacrament is received under the form of nourishing food4 ,now nourishment from food is requisite for the body to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat4 ,but something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of concupiscence through venial sins1 which lessen the fervor of charity1 as was shown in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,and therefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins4 ,hence ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 v7 that this daily bread is taken as a remedy against daily infirmity4 ,the reality of this sacrament is charity1 not only as to its habit1 but also as to its act1 which is kindled in this sacrament2 and by this means venial sins are forgiven4 ,consequently1 it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,venial sins1 although not opposed to the habit of charity1 are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act1 which act is kindled by this sacrament2 by reason of which act venial sins are blotted out4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man could not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin3 but that the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the power of charity1 to which this sacrament belongs1 is greater than that of venial sins3 because charity by its act takes away venial sins1 which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act of charity4 ,and the same holds good of this sacrament4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,entire ,punishment ,due to ,sin ,is ,forgiven ,through ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the entire punishment due to sin is forgiven through this sacrament4 ,for through this sacrament man receives the effect of ,christ's ,passion within himself as stated above 7,,aa4 #a1 #b71 just as he does through ,baptism4 ,but through ,baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment1 through the virtue of ,christ's ,passion1 which satisfied sufficiently for all sins1 as was explained above 7,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore it seems the whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,pope ,alexander ,i says 7,ep4 ad omnes orth473 ,no sacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of ,christ4 ,but man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old ,law3 for it is written 7,lev4 #d1 #e73 ,if a man shall sin1 let him offer 7so and so7 for his sin1 and it shall be forgiven him4 ,therefore this sacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is certain that some part of the debt of punishment is forgiven by this sacrament2 for which reason it is sometimes enjoined upon a man1 by way of satisfaction1 to have masses said for himself4 ,but if one part of the punishment is forgiven1 for the same reason is the other forgiven3 owing to ,christ's infinite power contained in this sacrament4 ,consequently1 it seems that the whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,in that case no other punishment would have to be enjoined2 just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized4 ,i answer that1 ,this sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament4 it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up2 and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received4 ,and therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient1 and the effect of a sacrifice in the offerer1 or in them for whom it is offered4 ,if1 then1 it be considered as a sacrament1 it produces its effect in two ways3 first of all directly through the power of the sacrament2 secondly as by a kind of concomitance1 as was said above regarding what is contained in the sacrament 7,q4 #gf1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,through the power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was instituted4 ,now it was instituted not for satisfaction1 but for nourishing spiritually through union between ,christ and ,his members1 as nourishment is united with the person nourished4 ,but because this union is the effect of charity1 from the fervor of which man obtains forgiveness1 not only of guilt but also of punishment1 hence it is that as a consequence1 and by concomitance with the chief effect1 man obtains forgiveness of the punishment1 not indeed of the entire punishment1 but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor4 ,but in so far as it is a sacrifice1 it has a satisfactory power4 ,yet in satisfaction1 the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than the quantity of the offering4 ,hence our ,lord says 7,mk4 #ab3dc3 cf4 ,luke #ba3d7 of the widow who offered two mites that she cast in more than all4 ,therefore1 although this offering suffices of its own quantity to satisfy for all punishment1 yet it becomes satisfactory for them for whom it is offered1 or even for the offerers1 according to the measure of their devotion1 and not for the whole punishment4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is directly ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt3 not so the ,eucharist1 because ,baptism is given to man as dying with ,christ1 whereas the ,eucharist is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through ,christ4 ,consequently there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment1 neither as to the quantity of the thing offered1 as this sacrament does1 nor as to personal devotion2 from which it comes to pass that even here the whole punishment is not taken away4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if part of the punishment and not the whole be taken away by this sacrament1 it is due to a defect not on the part of ,christ's power1 but on the part of man's devotion4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,man ,is ,preserved by ,this ,sacrament from ,future ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament from future sins4 ,for there are many that receive this sacrament worthily1 who afterwards fall into sin4 ,now this would not happen if this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins4 ,consequently1 it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the ,eucharist is the sacrament of charity1 as stated above 7,a4 #d74 ,but charity does not seem to preserve from future sins1 because it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it1 as was stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aa74 ,therefore it seems that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the origin of sin within us is the law of sin1 which is in our members1 as declared by the ,apostle 7,rom4 #g3bc74 ,but the lessening of the fomes1 which is the law of sin1 is set down as an effect not of this sacrament1 but rather of ,baptism4 ,therefore preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,john #f3ej73 ,this is the bread which cometh down from heaven2 that if any man eat of it1 he may not die3 which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the body4 ,therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death1 which is through sin4 ,i answer that1 ,sin is the spiritual death of the soul4 ,hence man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved from future death of the body3 and this happens in two ways4 ,first of all1 in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against inner decay1 and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from death4 ,secondly1 by being guarded against outward assaults2 and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body4 ,now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways4 ,for1 first of all1 by uniting man with ,christ through grace1 it strengthens his spiritual life1 as spiritual food and spiritual medicine1 according to ,ps4 #ajc3e3 7,that7 bread strengthens ,vulg43 'may strengthen' man's heart4 ,augustine likewise says 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan473 ,approach without fear2 it is bread1 not poison4 ,secondly1 inasmuch as it is a sign of ,christ's ,passion1 whereby the devils are conquered1 it repels all the assaults of demons4 ,hence ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 xlvi in ,joan473 ,like lions breathing forth fire1 thus do we depart from that table1 being made terrible to the devil4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the effect of this sacrament is received according to man's condition3 such is the case with every active cause in that its effect is received in matter according to the condition of the matter4 ,but such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will can be bent to good or evil4 ,hence1 although this sacrament of itself has the power of preserving from sin1 yet it does not take away from man the possibility of sinning4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,even charity of itself keeps man from sin1 according to ,rom4 #ac3aj3 ,the love of our neighbor worketh no evil3 but it is due to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing charity1 just as after receiving this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although this sacrament is not ordained directly to lessen the fomes1 yet it does lessen it as a consequence1 inasmuch as it increases charity1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,q4 #hc71 the increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence4 ,but it directly strengthens man's heart in good2 whereby he is also preserved from sin4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,benefit ,others ,besides the ,recipients8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament benefits only the recipients4 ,for this sacrament is of the same genus as the other sacraments1 being one of those into which that genus is divided4 ,but the other sacraments only benefit the recipients2 thus the baptized person alone receives effect of ,baptism4 ,therefore1 neither does this sacrament benefit others than the recipients4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of grace and glory1 and the forgiveness of sin1 at least of venial sin4 ,if therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others besides the recipients1 a man might happen to acquire grace and glory and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself1 through another receiving or offering this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when the cause is multiplied1 the effect is likewise multiplied4 ,if therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the recipients1 it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one mass1 whereas this is not the ,church's custom3 for instance1 that many receive communion for the salvation of one individual4 ,consequently1 it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the recipient4 ,on the contrary1 ,prayer is made for many others during the celebration of this sacrament2 which would serve no purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others4 ,therefore1 this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who receive it4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #c71 this sacrament is not only a sacrament1 but also a sacrifice4 ,for1 it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament ,christ's ,passion is represented1 whereby ,christ offered ,himself a ,victim to ,god 7,eph4 #e3b71 and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species4 ,so1 then1 this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacrifice1 because it is offered for all who partake of it4 ,for it is said in the ,canon of the ,mass3 ,may as many of us as1 by participation at this ,altar1 shall receive the most sacred body and blood of ,thy ,son1 be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace4 ,but to others who do not receive it1 it is beneficial by way of sacrifice1 inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation4 ,hence it is said in the ,canon of the ,mass3 ,be mindful1 ,o ,lord1 of ,thy servants1 men and women 4 4 4 for whom we offer1 or who offer up to ,thee1 this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own1 for the redemption of their souls1 for the hope of their safety and salvation4 ,and our ,lord expressed both ways1 saying 7,matt4 #bf3bh1 with ,luke #bb3bj73 ,which for you1 i4e4 who receive it1 and for many1 i4e4 others1 shall be shed unto remission of sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this sacrament has this in addition to the others1 that it is a sacrifice3 and therefore the comparison fails4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as ,christ's ,passion benefits all1 for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory1 whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with ,christ's ,passion through faith and charity1 so likewise this sacrifice1 which is the memorial of our ,lord's ,passion1 has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity4 ,hence ,augustine says to ,renatus 7,de ,anima et ejus origine i73 ,who may offer ,christ's body except for them who are ,christ's members8 ,hence in the ,canon of the ,mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the ,church4 ,but it benefits them who are members1 more or less1 according to the measure of their devotion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament1 but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice3 consequently1 when one or even several receive the body of ,christ1 no help accrues to others4 ,in like fashion even when the priest consecrates several hosts in one mass1 the effect of this sacrament is not increased1 since there is only one sacrifice2 because there is no more power in several hosts than in one1 since there is only one ,christ present under all the hosts and under one4 ,hence1 neither will any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated hosts in one mass4 ,but the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses1 and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multiplied4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #gi1 ,art4 #h ,whether the ,effect of ,this ,sacrament ,is ,hindered by ,venial ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the effect of this sacrament is not hindered by venial sin4 ,for ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan471 commenting on ,john #f3eb1 ,if any man eat of this bread1 etc41 says3 ,eat the heavenly bread spiritually2 bring innocence to the altar2 your sins1 though they be daily1 let them not be deadly4 ,from this it is evident that venial sins1 which are called daily sins1 do not prevent spiritual eating4 ,but they who eat spiritually1 receive the effect of this sacrament4 ,therefore1 venial sins do not hinder the effect of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is not less powerful than ,baptism4 ,but1 as stated above 7,q4 #fi1 ,,aa4 #i1 #aj71 only pretense checks the effect of ,baptism1 and venial sins do not belong to pretense2 because according to ,wis4 #a3e3 the ,holy ,spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful1 yet ,he is not put to flight by venial sins4 ,therefore neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing which is removed by the action of any cause1 can hinder the effect of such cause4 ,but venial sins are taken away by this sacrament4 ,therefore1 they do not hinder its effect4 ,on the contrary1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv73 ,the fire of that desire which is within us1 being kindled by the burning coal1 i4e4 this sacrament1 will consume our sins1 and enlighten our hearts1 so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike4 ,but the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins1 which hinder the fervor of charity1 as was shown in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,a4 #d2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,venial sins can be taken in two ways3 first of all as past1 secondly as in the act of being committed4 ,venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this sacrament4 ,for it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect4 ,considered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect of this sacrament1 but merely in part4 ,for1 it has been stated above 7,a4 #a71 that the effect of this sacrament is not only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity1 but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness3 which is indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial sins2 but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken away4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,he that approaches this sacrament with actual venial sin1 eats spiritually indeed1 in habit but not in act3 and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament1 but not in its actual effect4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,baptism is not ordained1 as this sacrament is1 for the fervor of charity as its actual effect4 ,because ,baptism is spiritual regeneration1 through which the first perfection is acquired1 which is a habit or form2 but this sacrament is spiritual eating1 which has actual delight4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this argument deals with past venial sins1 which are taken away by this sacrament4 ,,question #hj ,,of ,,the ,,use ,,or ,,receiving ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament ,,in ,,general 7,in ,twelve ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament1 first of all in general2 secondly1 how ,christ used this sacrament4 ,under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament1 namely1 sacramentally and spiritually8 7#b7 ,whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually8 7#c7 ,whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally8 7#d7 ,whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally8 7#e7 ,of the degree of this sin2 7#f7 ,whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches it8 7#g7 ,whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this sacrament8 7#h7 ,whether it is to be received only when one is fasting8 7#i7 ,whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason8 7#aj7 ,whether it is to be received daily8 7#aa7 ,whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether8 7#ab7 ,whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,there ,are ,two ,ways to ,be ,distinguished of ,eating ,christ's ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of eating ,christ's body1 namely1 sacramentally and spiritually4 ,for1 as ,baptism is spiritual regeneration1 according to ,john #c3e3 ,unless a man be born again of water and the ,holy ,ghost1 etc41 so also this sacrament is spiritual food3 hence our ,lord1 speaking of this sacrament1 says 7,john #f3fd73 ,the words that ,i have spoken to you are spirit and life4 ,but there are no two distinct ways of receiving ,baptism1 namely1 sacramentally and spiritually4 ,therefore neither ought this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 when two things are so related that one is on account of the other1 they should not be put in contradistinction to one another1 because the one derives its species from the other4 ,but sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end4 ,therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 things which cannot exist without one another ought not to be divided in contrast with each other4 ,but it seems that no one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally2 otherwise the fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually4 ,moreover1 sacramental eating would be to no purpose1 if the spiritual eating could be had without it4 ,therefore it is not right to distinguish a twofold eating1 namely1 sacramental and spiritual4 ,on the contrary1 ,the gloss says on #a ,cor4 #aa3bi3 ,he that eateth and drinketh unworthily1 etc43 ,we hold that there are two ways of eating1 the one sacramental1 and the other spiritual4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two things to be considered in the receiving of this sacrament1 namely1 the sacrament itself1 and its fruits1 and we have already spoken of both 7,,qq4 #gc1 #gi74 ,the perfect way1 then1 of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake of its effect4 ,now1 as was stated above 7,q4 #gi1 ,,aa4 #c1 #h71 it sometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of this sacrament2 and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect one4 ,therefore1 as the perfect is divided against the imperfect1 so sacramental eating1 whereby the sacrament only is received without its effect1 is divided against spiritual eating1 by which one receives the effect of this sacrament1 whereby a man is spiritually united with ,christ through faith and charity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the same distinction is made regarding ,baptism and the other sacraments3 for1 some receive the sacrament only1 while others receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament4 ,however1 there is a difference1 because1 since the other sacraments are accomplished in the use of the matter1 the receiving of the sacrament is the actual perfection of the sacrament2 whereas this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of the matter3 and consequently both uses follow the sacrament4 ,on the other hand1 in ,baptism and in the other sacraments that imprint a character1 they who receive the sacrament receive some spiritual effect1 that is1 the character4 which is not the case in this sacrament4 ,and therefore1 in this sacrament1 rather than in ,baptism1 the sacramental use is distinguished from the spiritual use4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,that sacramental eating which is also a spiritual eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating1 but is included under it2 but that sacramental eating which does not secure the effect1 is divided in contrast with spiritual eating2 just as the imperfect1 which does not attain the perfection of its species1 is divided in contrast with the perfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c71 the effect of the sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire1 though not in reality4 ,consequently1 just as some are baptized with the ,baptism of desire1 through their desire of baptism1 before being baptized in the ,baptism of water2 so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally4 ,now this happens in two ways4 ,first of all1 from desire of receiving the sacrament itself1 and thus are said to be baptized1 and to eat spiritually1 and not sacramentally1 they who desire to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted4 ,secondly1 by a figure3 thus the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3b71 that the fathers of old were baptized in the cloud and in the sea1 and that they did eat 4 4 4 spiritual food1 and 4 4 4 drank 4 4 4 spiritual drink4 ,nevertheless sacramental eating is not without avail1 because the actual receiving of the sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does the desire thereof1 as stated above of ,baptism 7,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #d1 ad #b74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,it ,belongs to ,man ,alone to ,eat ,this ,sacrament ,spiritually8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually1 but likewise to angels4 ,because on ,ps4 #gg3be3 ,man ate the bread of angels1 the gloss says3 that is1 the body of ,christ1 ,who is truly the food of angels4 ,but it would not be so unless the angels were to eat ,christ spiritually4 ,therefore the angels eat ,christ spiritually4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan47 says3 ,by this meat and drink1 ,he would have us to understand the fellowship of ,his body and members1 which is the ,church in ,his predestinated ones4 ,but not only men1 but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship4 ,therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,augustine in his book ,de ,verbis ,domini 7,serm4 cxlii7 says3 ,christ is to be eaten spiritually1 as ,he ,himself declares3 ',he that eateth ,my flesh and drinketh ,my blood1 abideth in ,me1 and ,i in him4' ,but this belongs not only to men1 but also to the holy angels1 in whom ,christ dwells by charity1 and they in ,him4 ,consequently1 it seems that to eat ,christ spiritually is not for men only1 but also for the angels4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan47 says3 ,eat the bread of the altar spiritually2 take innocence to the altar4 ,but angels do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking something therefrom4 ,therefore the angels do not eat spiritually4 ,i answer that1 ,christ ,himself is contained in this sacrament1 not under ,his proper species1 but under the sacramental species4 ,consequently there are two ways of eating spiritually4 ,first1 as ,christ ,himself exists under ,his proper species1 and in this way the angels eat ,christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with ,him in the enjoyment of perfect charity1 and in clear vision 7and this is the bread we hope for in heaven71 and not by faith1 as we are united with ,him here4 ,in another way one may eat ,christ spiritually1 as ,he is under the sacramental species1 inasmuch as a man believes in ,christ1 while desiring to receive this sacrament2 and this is not merely to eat ,christ spiritually1 but likewise to eat this sacrament2 which does not fall to the lot of the angels4 ,and therefore although the angels feed on ,christ spiritually1 yet it does not belong to them to eat this sacrament spiritually4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the receiving of ,christ under this sacrament is ordained to the enjoyment of heaven1 as to its end1 in the same way as the angels enjoy it2 and since the means are gauged by the end1 hence it is that such eating of ,christ whereby we receive ,him under this sacrament1 is1 as it were1 derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy ,christ in heaven4 ,consequently1 man is said to eat the bread of angels1 because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly and principally1 since they enjoy ,him in his proper species2 and secondly it belongs to men1 who receive ,christ under this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,both men and angels belong to the fellowship of ,his mystical body2 men by faith1 and angels by manifest vision4 ,but the sacraments are proportioned to faith1 through which the truth is seen through a glass and in a dark manner4 ,and therefore1 properly speaking1 it does not belong to angels1 but to men1 to eat this sacrament spiritually4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ dwells in men through faith1 according to their present state1 but ,he is in the blessed angels by manifest vision4 ,consequently the comparison does not hold1 as stated above 7ad #b74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,just ,man ,alone ,may ,eat ,christ ,sacramentally8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that none but the just man may eat ,christ sacramentally4 ,for ,augustine says in his book ,de ,remedio ,penitentiae 7cf4 ,tract4 in ,joan4 xxv1 n4 #ab2 xxvi1 n4 #a73 ,why make ready tooth and belly8 ,believe1 and thou hast eaten 4 4 4 ,for to believe in ,him1 this it is1 to eat the living bread4 ,but the sinner does not believe in ,him2 because he has not living faith1 to which it belongs to believe in ,god1 as stated above in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #b1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #d1 ,a4 #e74 ,therefore the sinner cannot eat this sacrament1 which is the living bread4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament is specially called the sacrament of charity1 as stated above 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #c1 ad #f74 ,but as unbelievers lack faith1 so all sinners lack charity4 ,now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of eating this sacrament1 since in the sacramental form it is called the ,mystery of ,faith4 ,therefore1 for like reason1 the sinner cannot eat ,christ's body sacramentally4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sinner is more abominable before ,god than the irrational creature3 for it is said of the sinner 7,ps4 #dh3ba73 ,man when he was in honor did not understand2 he hath been compared to senseless beasts1 and made like to them4 ,but an irrational animal1 such as a mouse or a dog1 cannot receive this sacrament1 just as it cannot receive the sacrament of ,baptism4 ,therefore it seems that for the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan471 commenting on the words1 that if any man eat of it he may not die1 says3 ,many receive from the altar1 and by receiving die3 whence the ,apostle saith1 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself4' ,but only sinners die by receiving4 ,therefore sinners eat the body of ,christ sacramentally1 and not the just only4 ,i answer that1 ,in the past1 some have erred upon this point1 saying that ,christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners2 but that directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners1 it ceases to be under the sacramental species4 ,but this is erroneous2 because it detracts from the truth of this sacrament1 to which truth it belongs that so long as the species last1 ,christ's body does not cease to be under them1 as stated above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #f1 ad #c2 ,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #h74 ,but the species last so long as the substance of the bread would remain1 if it were there1 as was stated above 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #d74 ,now it is clear that the substance of bread taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be1 but it continues until digested by natural heat3 hence ,christ's body remains just as long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners4 ,hence it must be said that the sinner1 and not merely the just1 can eat ,christ's body4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,such words and similar expressions are to be understood of spiritual eating1 which does not belong to sinners4 ,consequently1 it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen1 through ignorance of the distinction between corporeal and spiritual eating4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental species1 he would receive ,christ's body under the sacrament3 hence he would eat ,christ sacramentally1 if the word sacramentally qualify the verb on the part of the thing eaten4 ,but if it qualify the verb on the part of the one eating1 then1 properly speaking1 he does not eat sacramentally1 because he uses what he takes1 not as a sacrament1 but as simple food4 ,unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to receive what the ,church bestows2 without having proper faith regarding the other articles1 or regarding this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host1 the substance of ,christ's body would not cease to be under the species1 so long as those species remain1 and that is1 so long as the substance of bread would have remained2 just as if it were to be cast into the mire4 ,nor does this turn to any indignity regarding ,christ's body1 since ,he willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from ,his dignity2 especially since the mouse or dog does not touch ,christ's body in its proper species1 but only as to its sacramental species4 ,some1 however1 have said that ,christ's body would cease to be there1 directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog2 but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament1 as stated above4 ,none the less it must not be said that the irrational animal eats the body of ,christ sacramentally2 since it is incapable of using it as a sacrament4 ,hence it eats ,christ's body accidentally1 and not sacramentally1 just as if anyone not knowing a host to be consecrated were to consume it4 ,and since no genus is divided by an accidental difference1 therefore this manner of eating ,christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual eating4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,sinner ,sins in ,receiving ,christ's ,body ,sacramentally8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving ,christ's body sacramentally1 because ,christ has no greater dignity under the sacramental species than under ,his own4 ,but sinners did not sin when they touched ,christ's body under its proper species2 nay1 rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins1 as we read in ,luke #g of the woman who was a sinner2 while it is written 7,matt4 #ad3cf7 that as many as touched the hem of ,his garment were healed4 ,therefore1 they do not sin1 but rather obtain salvation1 by receiving the body of ,christ4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 this sacrament1 like the others1 is a spiritual medicine4 ,but medicine is given to the sick for their recovery1 according to ,matt4 #i3ab3 ,they that are in health need not a physician4 ,now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners4 ,therefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts1 since it contains ,christ4 ,but according to ,augustine 7,de ,lib4 ,arb4 ii71 the greatest gifts are those which no one can abuse4 ,now no one sins except by abusing something4 ,therefore no sinner sins by receiving this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch1 so also is it by sight4 ,consequently1 if the sinner sins by receiving the sacrament1 it seems that he would sin by beholding it1 which is manifestly untrue1 since the ,church exposes this sacrament to be seen and adored by all4 ,therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious of his sin4 ,yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body of ,christ1 for according to this all who receive it would sin1 as exposing themselves to danger1 since the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #d3d73 ,i am not conscious to myself of anything1 yet ,i am not hereby justified4 ,therefore1 the sinner1 if he receive this sacrament1 does not appear to be guilty of sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bi73 ,he that eateth and drinketh unworthily1 eateth and drinketh judgment to himself4 ,now the gloss says on this passage3 ,he eats and drinks unworthily who is in sin1 or who handles it irreverently4 ,therefore1 if anyone1 while in mortal sin1 receives this sacrament1 he purchases damnation1 by sinning mortally4 ,i answer that1 ,in this sacrament1 as in the others1 that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament4 ,now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #f73 one which is signified and contained1 namely1 ,christ ,himself2 while the other is signified but not contained1 namely1 ,christ's mystical body1 which is the fellowship of the saints4 ,therefore1 whoever receives this sacrament1 expresses thereby that he is made one with ,christ1 and incorporated in ,his members2 and this is done by living faith1 which no one has who is in mortal sin4 ,and therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin1 is guilty of lying to this sacrament1 and consequently of sacrilege1 because he profanes the sacrament3 and therefore he sins mortally4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when ,christ appeared under ,his proper species1 ,he did not give ,himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union with ,himself1 as ,he gives ,himself to be received in this sacrament4 ,and therefore sinners in touching ,him under ,his proper species did not incur the sin of lying to ,godlike things1 as sinners do in receiving this sacrament4 ,furthermore1 ,christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin2 consequently ,he fittingly allowed ,himself to be touched by sinners4 ,but as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the ,resurrection1 he forbade the woman to touch ,him1 for her faith in ,him was defective1 according to ,john #bj3ag3 ,do not touch ,me1 for ,i am not yet ascended to ,my ,father1 i4e4 in your heart1 as ,augustine explains 7,tract4 cxxi in ,joan474 ,and therefore sinners1 who lack living faith regarding ,christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness2 because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition4 ,so likewise ,baptism and ,penance are as purgative medicines1 given to take away the fever of sin2 whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen1 and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by the greatest gifts ,augustine understands the soul's virtues1 which no one uses to evil purpose1 as though they were principles of evil4 ,nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of them1 as objects of an evil use1 as is seen in those who are proud of their virtues4 ,so likewise this sacrament1 so far as the sacrament is concerned1 is not the principle of an evil use1 but the object thereof4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan473 ,many receive ,christ's body unworthily2 whence we are taught what need there is to beware of receiving a good thing evilly 4 4 4 ,for behold1 of a good thing1 received evilly1 evil is wrought3 just as on the other hand1 in the ,apostle's case1 good was wrought through evil well received1 namely1 by bearing patiently the sting of ,satan4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ's body is not received by being seen1 but only its sacrament1 because sight does not penetrate to the substance of ,christ's body1 but only to the sacramental species1 as stated above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #g74 ,but he who eats1 receives not only the sacramental species1 but likewise ,christ ,himself ,who is under them4 ,consequently1 no one is forbidden to behold ,christ's body1 when once he has received ,christ's sacrament1 namely1 ,baptism3 whereas the non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament1 as is clear from ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 vii74 ,but only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are united with ,christ not merely sacramentally1 but likewise really4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come about in two ways4 ,first of all through his own fault1 either because through ignorance of the law 7which ignorance does not excuse him71 he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin1 as for example if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be a mortal sin2 or because he neglects to examine his conscience1 which is opposed to what the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bh73 ,let a man prove himself1 and so let him eat of that bread1 and drink of the chalice4 ,and in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives ,christ's body commits sin1 although unconscious thereof1 because the very ignorance is a sin on his part4 ,secondly1 it may happen without fault on his part1 as1 for instance1 when he has sorrowed over his sin1 but is not sufficiently contrite3 and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of ,christ1 because a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite4 ,it suffices1 however1 if he find in himself the marks of contrition1 for instance1 if he grieve over past sins1 and propose to avoid them in the future 99,cf4 ,rule of ,augustine4 ,but if he be ignorant that what he did was a sinful act1 through ignorance of the fact1 which excuses1 for instance1 if a man approach a woman whom he believed to be his wife whereas she was not1 he is not to be called a sinner on that account2 in the same way if he has utterly forgotten his sin1 general contrition suffices for blotting it out1 as will be said hereafter 7,suppl41 ,q4 #b1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b72 hence he is no longer to be called a sinner4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #e ,whether to ,approach ,this ,sacrament with ,consciousness of ,sin ,is the ,gravest of ,all ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that to approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins2 because the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bg73 ,whosoever shall eat this bread1 or drink the chalice of the ,lord unworthily1 shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the ,lord3 upon which the gloss observes3 ,he shall be punished as though he slew ,christ4 ,but the sin of them who slew ,christ seems to have been most grave4 ,therefore this sin1 whereby a man approaches ,christ's table with consciousness of sin1 appears to be the gravest4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,jerome says in an ,epistle 7xlix73 ,what hast thou to do with women1 thou that speakest familiarly with ,god at the altar8 99,the remaining part of the quotation is not from ,st4 ,jerome4 ,say1 priest1 say1 cleric1 how dost thou kiss the ,son of ,god with the same lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot8 ,judas1 thou betrayest the ,son of ,man with a kiss6 ,and thus it appears that the fornicator approaching ,christ's table sins as ,judas did1 whose sin was most grave4 ,but there are many other sins which are graver than fornication1 especially the sin of unbelief4 ,therefore the sin of every sinner approaching ,christ's table is the gravest of all4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to ,god than corporeal4 ,but if anyone was to cast ,christ's body into mud or a cess-pool1 his sin would be reputed a most grave one4 ,therefore1 he sins more deeply by receiving it with sin1 which is spiritual uncleanness1 upon his soul4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says on the words1 ,if ,i had not come1 and had not spoken to them1 they would be without sin 7,tract4 lxxxix in ,joan471 that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief1 in which all sins are comprised1 and so the greatest of all sins appears to be1 not this1 but rather the sin of unbelief4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,,aa4 #c1 #f2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c71 one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways3 first of all essentially1 secondly accidentally4 ,essentially1 in regard to its species1 which is taken from its object3 and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater4 ,and since ,christ's ,godhead is greater than ,his humanity1 and ,his humanity greater than the sacraments of ,his humanity1 hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are committed against the ,godhead1 such as unbelief and blasphemy4 ,the second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed against ,his humanity3 hence it is written 7,matt4 #ab3cb73 ,whosoever shall speak a word against the ,son of ,man1 it shall be forgiven him2 but he that shall speak against the ,holy ,ghost1 it shall not be forgiven him1 neither in this world nor in the world to come4 ,in the third place come sins committed against the sacraments1 which belong to ,christ's humanity2 and after these are the other sins committed against mere creatures4 ,accidentally1 one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's part4 ,for example1 the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt1 or from sure knowledge2 and the same reason holds good of other circumstances4 ,and according to this1 the above sin can be graver in some1 as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament3 but in others it is less grave2 for instance1 in those who from fear of their sin being discovered1 approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin4 ,so1 then1 it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than many others1 yet it is not the greatest of all4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the sin of them who slew ,christ1 by way of similitude1 because each is committed against ,christ's body2 but not according to the degree of the crime4 ,because the sin of ,christ's slayers was much graver1 first of all1 because their sin was against ,christ's body in its own species1 while this sin is against it under sacramental species2 secondly1 because their sin came of the intent of injuring ,christ1 while this does not4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sin of the fornicator receiving ,christ's body is likened to ,judas kissing ,christ1 as to the resemblance of the sin1 because each outrages ,christ with the sign of friendship4 but not as to the extent of the sin1 as was observed above 7ad #a74 ,and this resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators3 because by other mortal sins1 sinners act against the charity of ,christ1 of which this sacrament is the sign1 and all the more according as their sins are graver4 ,but in a measure the sin of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament1 because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh1 which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this sacrament4 ,however1 the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the hindrance to its fervor4 ,hence the sin of unbelief1 which fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the ,church1 simply speaking1 makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament2 because it is the sacrament of the ,church's unity1 as stated above 7,q4 #fa1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins more grievously than the believer who is in sin2 and shows greater contempt towards ,christ ,who is in the sacrament1 especially if he does not believe ,christ to be truly in this sacrament2 because1 so far as lies in him1 he lessens the holiness of the sacrament1 and the power of ,christ acting in it1 and this is to despise the sacrament in itself4 ,but the believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of sin1 by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament1 not in itself1 but in its use4 ,hence the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #aa3bi7 in assigning the cause of this sin1 says1 not discerning the body of the ,lord1 that is1 not distinguishing it from other food3 and this is what he does who disbelieves ,christ's presence in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the man who would throw this sacrament into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin4 ,first of all1 because he would intend to outrage the sacrament1 whereas the sinner receiving ,christ's body unworthily has no such intent2 secondly1 because the sinner is capable of grace2 hence he is more capable of receiving this sacrament than any irrational creature4 ,hence he would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to eat1 or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,priest ,ought to ,deny the ,body of ,christ to the ,sinner ,seeking ,it8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the priest should deny the body of ,christ to the sinner seeking it4 ,for ,christ's precept is not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone4 ,but 7,matt4 #g3f7 our ,lord gave this command3 ,give not that which is holy to dogs4 ,now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacrament to sinners4 ,therefore1 neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 one must choose the lesser of two evils4 ,but it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy2 or if an unconsecrated host be given to him2 than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of ,christ4 ,consequently1 it seems that the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of ,christ be exposed to infamy1 or that an unconsecrated host be given to him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the body of ,christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof4 ,because we read in the ,decretals3 ,it often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks2 wherefore we command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts1 that the abbot shall celebrate ,mass1 or someone else deputed by him1 in the presence of the community2 and so1 when the ,mass is over1 all shall communicate under these words3 ',may the body of ,christ prove thee today4' ,and further on3 ,if any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest1 for each charge he must say ,mass and communicate1 and show that he is innocent of each act imputed4 ,but secret sinners must not be disclosed1 for1 once the blush of shame is set aside1 they will indulge the more in sin1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,verbis4 ,dom42 cf4 ,serm4 lxxxii74 ,consequently1 ,christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners1 even if they ask for it4 ,on the contrary1 on ,ps4 #ba3cj3 ,all the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored1 ,augustine says3 ,let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of the earth1 i4e4 sinners1 from eating at the table of the ,lord4 ,i answer that1 ,a distinction must be made among sinners3 some are secret2 others are notorious1 either from evidence of the fact1 as public usurers1 or public robbers1 or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal4 ,therefore ,holy ,communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it4 ,hence ,cyprian writes to someone 7,ep4 lxi73 ,you were so kind as to consider that ,i ought to be consulted regarding actors1 and that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you2 as to whether ,i thought that ,holy ,communion ought to be given to such with the other ,christians4 ,i think that it is beseeming neither the ,divine majesty1 nor ,christian discipline1 for the ,church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion4 ,but if they be not open sinners1 but occult1 the ,holy ,communion should not be denied them if they ask for it4 ,for since every ,christian1 from the fact that he is baptized1 is admitted to the ,lord's table1 he may not be robbed of his right1 except from some open cause4 ,hence on #a ,cor4 #e3aa1 ,if he who is called a brother among you1 etc41 ,augustine's gloss remarks3 ,we cannot inhibit any person from ,communion1 except he has openly confessed1 or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal4 ,nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner1 or warn all openly in public1 from approaching the ,lord's table1 until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the ,church2 because after repentance and reconciliation1 ,communion must not be refused even to public sinners1 especially in the hour of death4 ,hence in the 7#crd7 ,council of ,carthage 7,can4 xxxv7 we read3 ,reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors1 or others of the sort1 or to apostates1 after their conversion to ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs1 that is1 to notorious sinners3 whereas hidden deeds may not be published1 but are to be left to the ,divine judgment4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of ,christ1 rather than be defamed1 nevertheless for the priest administering the body of ,christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin mortally2 because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,quaest4 super ,gen4 #db73 ,it is a most dangerous exchange1 for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil4 ,but the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the ,lord's table unworthily4 ,yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one2 because the priest by so doing1 so far as he is concerned1 makes others1 either the bystanders or the communicant1 commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host2 because1 as ,augustine says on ,ps4 #ih3e3 ,let no one eat ,christ's flesh1 except he first adore it4 ,hence in the ,decretals 7,extra1 ,de ,celeb4 ,miss41 ,ch4 ,de ,homine7 it is said3 ,although he who reputes himself unworthy of the ,sacrament1 through consciousness of his sin1 sins gravely1 if he receive2 still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of ,roman ,pontiffs3 because ,pope ,stephen ,v writes as follows3 ,the ,sacred ,canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water2 it belongs to our government to judge of public crimes committed1 and that by means of confession made spontaneously1 or by proof of witnesses3 but private and unknown crimes are to be left to ,him ,who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men4 ,and the same is found in the ,decretals 7,extra1 ,de ,purgationibus1 ,ch4 ,ex tuarum74 ,because in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of ,god2 hence such things cannot be done without sin4 ,and it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament1 which was instituted as a means of salvation4 ,consequently1 the body of ,christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime1 as by way of examination4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #g ,whether the ,seminal ,loss ,that ,occurs ,during ,sleep ,hinders ,anyone from ,receiving ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from receiving the body of ,christ3 because no one is prevented from receiving the body of ,christ except on account of sin4 ,but seminal loss happens without sin3 for ,augustine says 7,gen4 ad lit4 xii7 that the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present itself to the mind of the sleeper1 so that the latter be unable to distinguish the image from the reality1 and is moved carnally and with the result that usually follows such motions2 and there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things4 ,consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,gregory says in a ,letter to ,augustine1 ,bishop of the ,english 7,regist4 xi73 ,those who pay the debt of marriage not from lust1 but from desire to have children1 should be left to their own judgment1 as to whether they should enter the church and receive the mystery of our ,lord's body1 after such intercourse3 because they ought not to be forbidden from receiving it1 since they have passed through the fire unscorched4 ,from this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake1 if it be without sin1 is no hindrance to receiving the body of ,christ4 ,consequently1 much less is it in the case of one asleep4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them only bodily uncleanness4 ,but there are other bodily defilements which according to the ,law forbade entrance into the holy places1 yet which under the ,new ,law do not prevent receiving this sacrament3 as1 for instance1 in the case of a woman after child-birth1 or in her periods1 or suffering from issue of blood1 as ,gregory writes to ,augustine1 ,bishop of the ,english 7,regist4 xi74 ,therefore it seems that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from receiving this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the sacrament1 nor is mortal sin after repentance4 ,but even supposing that seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin1 whether of intemperance1 or of bad thoughts1 for the most part such sin is venial2 and if occasionally it be mortal1 a man may repent of it by morning and confess it4 ,consequently1 it seems that he ought not to be prevented from receiving this sacrament4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 a sin against the ,fifth ,commandment is greater than a sin against the ,sixth4 ,but if a man dream that he has broken the ,fifth or ,seventh or any other ,commandment1 he is not on that account debarred from receiving this sacrament4 ,therefore it seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream against the ,sixth ,commandment4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,lev4 #ae3af73 ,the man from whom the seed of copulation goeth out 4 4 4 shall be unclean until evening4 ,but for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments4 ,therefore1 it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two things to be weighed regarding the aforesaid movements3 one on account of which they necessarily prevent a man from receiving this sacrament2 the other1 on account of which they do so1 not of necessity1 but from a sense of propriety4 ,mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this sacrament3 and although these movements during sleep1 considered in themselves1 cannot be a mortal sin1 nevertheless1 owing to their cause1 they sometimes have mortal sin connected with them2 which cause1 therefore1 must be investigated4 ,sometimes they are due to an external spiritual cause1 viz4 the deception of the demons1 who can stir up phantasms1 as was stated in the ,first ,part 7,i1 ,q4 #aaa1 ,a4 #c71 through the apparition of which1 these movements occasionally follow4 ,sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause1 such as previous thoughts4 ,at other times they arise from some internal corporeal cause1 as from abundance or weakness of nature1 or even from surfeit of meat or drink4 ,now every one of these three causes can be without sin at all1 or else with venial sin1 or with mortal sin4 ,if it be without sin1 or with venial sin1 it does not necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament1 so as to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the ,lord3 but should it be with mortal sin1 it prevents it of necessity4 ,for such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not striving to receive fervently2 and this can be either a mortal or a venial sin4 ,at other times it is due to malice alone on the part of the demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament4 ,so we read in the ,conferences of the ,fathers 7,cassian1 ,collat4 xxii7 that when a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which he had to receive ,communion1 his superiors1 discovering that there was no fault on his part1 ruled that he was not to refrain from communicating on that account1 and the demoniacal illusion ceased4 ,in like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin whatever1 as when one has to think of such things on account of lecturing or debating2 and if it be done without concupiscence and delectation1 the thoughts will not be unclean but honest2 and yet defilement can come of such thoughts1 as is clear from the authority of ,augustine 7,obj4 #a74 ,at other times such thoughts come of concupiscence and delectation1 and should there be consent1 it will be a mortal sin3 otherwise it will be a venial sin4 ,in the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin1 as when it arises from bodily debility1 and hence some individuals suffer seminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours2 or it can come from the abundance of nature3 for1 just as blood can flow without sin1 so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood1 according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,gener4 ,animal4 i74 ,but occasionally it is with sin1 as when it is due to excess of food or drink4 ,and this also can be either venial or mortal sin2 although more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to consent1 rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink4 ,hence ,gregory1 writing to ,augustine1 ,bishop of the ,english 7,regist4 xi71 says that one ought to refrain from ,communion when this arises from evil thoughts1 but not when it arises from excess of food or drink1 especially if necessity call for ,communion4 ,so1 then1 one must judge from its cause whether such bodily defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament4 ,at the same time a sense of decency forbids ,communion on two accounts4 ,the first of these is always verified1 viz4 the bodily defilement1 with which1 out of reverence for the sacrament1 it is unbecoming to approach the altar 7and hence those who wish to touch any sacred object1 wash their hands73 except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual or of long standing1 such as leprosy or issue of blood1 or anything else of the kind4 ,the other reason is the mental distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements1 especially when they take place with unclean imaginings4 ,now this obstacle1 which arises from a sense of decency1 can be set aside owing to any necessity1 as ,gregory says 7,regist4 xi73 ,as when perchance either a festival day calls for it1 or necessity compels one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,a person is hindered necessarily1 only by mortal sin1 from receiving this sacrament3 but from a sense of decency one may be hindered through other causes1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,conjugal intercourse1 if it be without sin1 7for instance1 if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring1 or of paying the marriage debt71 does not prevent the receiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question which happen without sin1 as stated above2 namely1 on account of the defilement to the body and distraction to the mind4 ,on this account ,jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on ,matthew 7,epist4 xxviii1 among ,st4 ,jerome's works73 ,if the loaves of ,proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives carnally1 how much less may this bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in conjugal embraces8 ,it is not that we condemn marriages1 but that at the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the ,lamb1 we ought not to indulge in carnal acts4 ,but since this is to be understood in the sense of decency1 and not of necessity1 ,gregory says that such a person is to be left to his own judgment4 ,but if1 as ,gregory says 7,regist4 xi71 it be not desire of begetting offspring1 but lust that prevails1 then such a one should be forbidden to approach this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,gregory says in his ,letter quoted above to ,augustine1 ,bishop of the ,english1 in the ,old ,testament some persons were termed polluted figuratively1 which the people of the ,new ,law understand spiritually4 ,hence such bodily uncleannesses1 if perpetual or of long standing1 do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament1 as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments2 but if they pass speedily1 like the uncleanness of the aforesaid movements1 then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens4 ,hence it is written 7,deut4 #bc3aj73 ,if there be among you any man1 that is defiled in a dream by night1 he shall go forth out of the camp2 and he shall not return before he be washed with water in the evening4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away1 nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,to dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness1 nor such distraction of mind as fornication1 on account of its intense delectation2 still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful in itself1 especially if it be mortal sin1 then owing to its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,food or ,drink ,taken ,beforehand ,hinders the ,receiving of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not hinder the receiving of this sacrament4 ,for this sacrament was instituted by our ,lord at the supper4 ,but when the supper was ended our ,lord gave the sacrament to ,his disciples1 as is evident from ,luke #bb3bj1 and from #a ,cor4 #aa3be4 ,therefore it seems that we ought to take this sacrament after receiving other food4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7#a ,cor4 #aa3cc73 ,when you come together to eat1 namely1 the ,lord's body1 wait for one another2 if any man be hungry1 let him eat at home3 and thus it seems that after eating at home a man may eat ,christ's body in the ,church4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 we read in the 7#crd7 ,council of ,carthage 7,can4 xxix73 ,let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who are fasting1 with the exception of the anniversary day on which the ,lord's ,supper is celebrated4 ,therefore1 at least on that day1 one may receive the body of ,christ after partaking of other food4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the taking of water or medicine1 or of any other food or drink in very slight quantity1 or of the remains of food continuing in the mouth1 neither breaks the ,church's fast1 nor takes away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament4 ,consequently1 one is not prevented by the above things from receiving this sacrament4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 some eat and drink late at night1 and possibly after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning when the food is not digested4 ,but it would savor more of moderation if a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive this sacrament about the ninth hour1 since also there is occasionally a longer interval of time4 ,consequently1 it seems that such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 there is no less reverence due to this sacrament after receiving it1 than before4 ,but one may take food and drink after receiving the sacrament4 ,therefore one may do so before receiving it4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,resp4 ad ,januar41 ,ep4 liv73 ,it has pleased the ,holy ,ghost that1 out of honor for this great sacrament1 the ,lord's body should enter the mouth of a ,christian before other foods4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament in two ways3 first of all in itself1 like mortal sin1 which is repugnant to what is signified by this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #d73 secondly1 on account of the ,church's prohibition2 and thus a man is prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or drink1 for three reasons4 ,first1 as ,augustine says 7,resp4 ad ,januar41 ,ep4 liv71 out of respect for this sacrament1 so that it may enter into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink4 ,secondly1 because of its signification1 i4e4 to give us to understand that ,christ1 ,who is the reality of this sacrament1 and ,his charity1 ought to be first of all established in our hearts1 according to ,matt4 #f3cc3 ,seek first the kingdom of ,god4 ,thirdly1 on account of the danger of vomiting and intemperance1 which sometimes arise from over-indulging in food1 as the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aa3ba73 ,one1 indeed1 is hungry1 and another is drunk4 ,nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule1 for they should be given ,communion at once1 even after food1 should there be any doubt as to their danger1 lest they die without ,communion1 because necessity has no law4 ,hence it is said in the ,canon de ,consecratione3 ,let the priest at once take ,communion to the sick person1 lest he die without ,communion4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,augustine says in the same book1 the fact that our ,lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake of it1 or receive it at meal-time1 as did those whom the ,apostle reproves and corrects4 ,for our ,saviour1 in order the more strongly to commend the depth of this mystery1 wished to fix it closely in the hearts and memories of the disciples2 and on that account ,he gave no command for it to be received in that order1 leaving this to the apostles1 to whom ,he was about to entrust the government of the churches4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss3 ,if any man be hungry and loath to await the rest1 let him partake of his food at home1 that is1 let him fill himself with earthly bread1 without partaking of the ,eucharist afterwards4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the wording of this decree is in accordance with the former custom observed by some of receiving the body of ,christ on that day after breaking their fast1 so as to represent the ,lord's supper4 ,but this is now abrogated1 because as ,augustine says 7,resp4 ad ,januar41 ,ep4 liv71 it is customary throughout the whole world for ,christ's body to be received before breaking the fast4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #adg1 ,a4 #f1 ad #b71 there are two kinds of fast4 ,first1 there is the natural fast1 which implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of food or drink3 and such fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons given above4 ,and therefore it is never lawful to take this sacrament after taking water1 or other food or drink1 or even medicine1 no matter how small the quantity be4 ,nor does it matter whether it nourishes or not1 whether it be taken by itself or with other things1 provided it be taken by way of food or drink4 ,but the remains of food left in the mouth1 if swallowed accidentally1 do not hinder receiving this sacrament1 because they are swallowed not by way of food but by way of saliva4 ,the same holds good of the unavoidable remains of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is rinsed1 provided they be not swallowed in great quantity1 but mixed with saliva4 ,secondly1 there is the fast of the ,church1 instituted for afflicting the body3 and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned 7in the objection71 because they do not give much nourishment1 but are taken rather as an alterative4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,that this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a ,christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely of all time1 otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament3 but it must be understood of the same day2 and although the beginning of the day varies according to different systems of reckoning 7for some begin their day at noon1 some at sunset1 others at midnight1 and others at sunrise71 the ,roman ,church begins it at midnight4 ,consequently1 if any person takes anything by way of food or drink after midnight1 he may not receive this sacrament on that day2 but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight4 ,nor does it matter1 so far as the precept is concerned1 whether he has slept after taking food or drink1 or whether he has digested it2 but it does matter as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion1 for1 if the mind be much disturbed1 one becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,the greatest devotion is called for at the moment of receiving this sacrament1 because it is then that the effect of the sacrament is bestowed1 and such devotion is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes after it4 ,and therefore it was ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after4 ,nevertheless there ought to be some interval between receiving this sacrament and taking other food4 ,consequently1 both the ,postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the ,mass1 and the communicants say their own private prayers4 ,however1 according to the ancient ,canons1 the following ordination was made by ,pope ,clement ,i1 7,ep4 ii71 ,if the ,lord's portion be eaten in the morning1 the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the sixth hour1 and if they take it at the third or fourth hour1 they shall fast until evening4 ,for in olden times1 the priest celebrated ,mass less frequently1 and with greater preparation3 but now1 because the sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener1 the same could not be easily observed1 and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,those ,who ,have ,not the ,use of ,reason ,ought to ,receive ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that those who have not the use of reason ought not to receive this sacrament4 ,for it is required that man should approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination1 according to #a ,cor4 #aa3bh3 ,let a man prove himself1 and so let him eat of that bread1 and drink of the chalice4 ,but this is not possible for those who are devoid of reason4 ,therefore this sacrament should not be given to them4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 among those who have not the use of reason are the possessed1 who are called energumens4 ,but such persons are kept from even beholding this sacrament1 according to ,dionysius 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who have not the use of reason4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 among those that lack the use of reason are children1 the most innocent of all4 ,but this sacrament is not given to children4 ,therefore much less should it be given to others deprived of the use of reason4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read in the ,first ,council of ,orange1 7,canon #ac72 and the same is to be found in the ,decretals 7xxvi1 #f73 ,all things that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane3 and consequently1 since this is the sacrament of piety1 it must be given to them4 ,i answer that1 ,men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways4 ,first1 when they are feeble-minded1 as a man who sees dimly is said not to see3 and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards this sacrament1 it is not to be denied them4 ,in another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason4 ,either1 then1 they never had the use of reason1 and have remained so from birth2 and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to them1 because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards the sacrament3 or else1 they were not always devoid of reason1 and then1 if when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion towards this sacrament1 it ought to be given to them in the hour of death2 unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out4 ,hence we read in the acts of the ,fourth ,council of ,carthage 7,canon #gf74 and the same is to be found in the ,decretals 7xxvi1 #f73 ,if a sick man ask to receive the sacrament of ,penance2 and if1 when the priest who has been sent for comes to him1 he be so weak as to be unable to speak1 or becomes delirious1 let them1 who heard him ask1 bear witness1 and let him receive the sacrament of ,penance4 then if it be thought that he is going to die shortly1 let him be reconciled by imposition of hands1 and let the ,eucharist be placed in his mouth4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,those lacking the use of reason can have devotion towards the sacrament2 actual devotion in some cases1 and past in others4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not yet baptized1 in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct1 since it thrives in them through the presence of original sin4 ,but as to baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits1 the same reason holds good of them as of others who are demented4 ,hence ,cassian says 7,collat4 vii73 ,we do not remember the most ,holy ,communion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed by unclean spirits4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the same reason holds good of newly born children as of the insane who never have had the use of reason3 consequently1 the sacred mysteries are not to be given to them4 ,although certain ,greeks do the contrary1 because ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 ii7 that ,holy ,communion is to be given to them who are baptized2 not understanding that ,dionysius is speaking there of the ,baptism of adults4 ,nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our ,lord saying 7,john #f3ed71 ,except you eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 you shall not have life in you2 because1 as ,augustine writes to ,boniface 7,pseudo-,beda1 ,comment4 in #a ,cor4 #aj3ag71 then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker1 i4e4 spiritually1 of the body and blood of the ,lord1 when he is made a member of ,christ's body in ,baptism4 ,but when children once begin to have some use of reason so as to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament1 then it can be given to them4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,it ,is ,lawful to ,receive ,this ,sacrament ,daily8 ,objection #a3 ,it does not appear to be lawful to receive this sacrament daily1 because1 as ,baptism shows forth our ,lord's ,passion1 so also does this sacrament4 ,now one may not be baptized several times1 but only once1 because ,christ died once only for our sins1 according to #a ,pet4 #c3ah4 ,therefore1 it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the reality ought to answer to the figure4 ,but the ,paschal ,lamb1 which was the chief figure of this sacrament1 as was said above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #i7 was eaten only once in the year2 while the ,church once a year commemorates ,christ's ,passion1 of which this sacrament is the memorial4 ,it seems1 then1 that it is lawful to receive this sacrament not daily1 but only once in the year4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as containing ,christ4 ,but it is a token of reverence to refrain from receiving this sacrament2 hence the ,centurion is praised for saying 7,matt4 #h3h71 ,lord1 ,i am not worthy that ,thou shouldst enter under my roof2 also ,peter1 for saying 7,luke #e3h71 ,depart from me1 for ,i am a sinful man1 ,o ,lord4 ,therefore1 it is not praiseworthy for a man to receive this sacrament daily4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this sacrament frequently1 then the oftener it were taken the more praise-worthy it would be4 ,but there would be greater frequency if one were to receive it several times daily2 and yet this is not the custom of the ,church4 ,consequently1 it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the ,church by her statutes intends to promote the welfare of the faithful4 ,but the ,church's statute only requires ,communion once a year2 hence it is enacted 7,extra1 ,de ,poenit4 et ,remiss4 xii73 ,let every person of either sex devoutly receive the sacrament of the ,eucharist at least at ,easter2 unless by the advice of his parish priest1 and for some reasonable cause1 he considers he ought to refrain from receiving for a time4 ,consequently1 it is not praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,de ,verb4 ,dom41 ,serm4 xxviii73 ,this is our daily bread2 take it daily1 that it may profit thee daily4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two things to be considered regarding the use of this sacrament4 ,the first is on the part of the sacrament itself1 the virtue of which gives health to men2 and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily4 ,hence ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv73 ,if1 whenever ,christ's blood is shed1 it is shed for the forgiveness of sins1 ,i who sin often1 should receive it often3 ,i need a frequent remedy4 ,the second thing to be considered is on the part of the recipient1 who is required to approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion4 ,consequently1 if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every day1 he will do well to receive it daily4 ,hence1 ,augustine after saying1 ,receive daily1 that it may profit thee daily1 adds3 ,so live1 as to deserve to receive it daily4 ,but because many persons are lacking in this devotion1 on account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal from which they suffer1 it is not expedient for all to approach this sacrament every day2 but they should do so as often as they find themselves properly disposed4 ,hence it is said in ,de ,eccles4 ,dogmat4 liii3 ,i neither praise nor blame daily reception of the ,eucharist4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism a man is conformed to ,christ's death1 by receiving ,his character within him4 ,and therefore1 as ,christ died but once1 so a man ought to be baptized but once4 ,but a man does not receive ,christ's character in this sacrament2 ,he receives ,christ ,himself1 ,whose virtue endures for ever4 ,hence it is written 7,heb4 #aj3ad73 ,by one oblation ,he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified4 ,consequently1 since man has daily need of ,christ's health-giving virtue1 he may commendably receive this sacrament every day4 ,and since ,baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration1 therefore1 as a man is born naturally but once1 so ought he by ,baptism to be reborn spiritually but once1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xi in ,joan471 commenting on ,john #c3d1 ,how can a man be born again1 when he is grown old8 ,but this sacrament is spiritual food2 hence1 just as bodily food is taken every day1 so is it a good thing to receive this sacrament every day4 ,hence it is that our ,lord 7,luke #aa3c71 teaches us to pray1 ,give us this day our daily bread3 in explaining which words ,augustine observes 7,de ,verb4 ,dom41 ,serm4 xxviii73 ,if you receive it1 i4e4 this sacrament1 every day1 every day is today for thee1 and ,christ rises again every day in thee1 for when ,christ riseth it is today4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the ,paschal ,lamb was the figure of this sacrament chiefly as to ,christ's ,passion represented therein2 and therefore it was partaken of once a year only1 since ,christ died but once4 ,and on this account the ,church celebrates once a year the remembrance of ,christ's ,passion4 ,but in this sacrament the memorial of ,his ,passion is given by way of food which is partaken of daily2 and therefore in this respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to the people in the desert4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,reverence for this sacrament consists in fear associated with love2 consequently reverential fear of ,god is called filial fear1 as was said in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fg1 ,a4 #d1 ad #b2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #ai1 ,,aa4 #i1 #aa1 #ab72 because the desire of receiving arises from love1 while the humility of reverence springs from fear4 ,consequently1 each of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament2 both as to receiving it daily1 and as to refraining from it sometimes4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,ep4 liv73 ,if one says that the ,eucharist should not be received daily1 while another maintains the contrary1 let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh right2 for ,zaccheus and the ,centurion did not contradict one another while the one received the ,lord with joy1 whereas the other said3 ',lord ,i am not worthy that ,thou shouldst enter under my roof'2 since both honored our ,saviour1 though not in the same way4 ,but love and hope1 whereunto the ,scriptures constantly urge us1 are preferable to fear4 ,hence1 too1 when ,peter had said1 ,depart from me1 for ,i am a sinful man1 ,o ,lord1 ,jesus answered3 ,fear not4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,because our ,lord said 7,luke #aa3c71 ,give us this day our daily bread1 we are not on that account to communicate several times daily1 for1 by one daily communion the unity of ,christ's ,passion is set forth4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,various statutes have emanated according to the various ages of the ,church4 ,in the primitive ,church1 when the devotion of the ,christian faith was more flourishing1 it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily3 hence ,pope ,anaclete says 7,ep4 i73 ,when the consecration is finished1 let all communicate who do not wish to cut themselves off from the ,church2 for so the apostles have ordained1 and the holy ,roman ,church holds4 ,later on1 when the fervor of faith relaxed1 ,pope ,fabian 7,third ,council of ,tours1 ,canon #a7 gave permission that all should communicate1 if not more frequently1 at least three times in the year1 namely1 at ,easter1 ,pentecost1 and ,christmas4 ,pope ,soter likewise 7,second ,council of ,chalon1 ,canon xlvii7 declares that ,communion should be received on ,holy ,thursday1 as is set forth in the ,decretals 7,de ,consecratione1 dist4 #b74 ,later on1 when iniquity abounded and charity grew cold 7,matt4 #bd3ab71 ,pope ,innocent ,,iii commanded that the faithful should communicate at least once a year1 namely1 at ,easter4 ,however1 in ,de ,eccles4 ,dogmat4 xxiii1 the faithful are counseled to communicate on all ,sundays4 ,,eleventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #aa ,whether ,it ,is ,lawful to ,abstain ,altogether from ,communion8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from ,communion4 ,because the ,centurion is praised for saying 7,matt4 #h3h73 ,lord1 ,i am not worthy that ,thou shouldst enter under my roof2 and he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from ,communion can be compared to the ,centurion1 as stated above 7,a4 #aj1 ad #c74 ,therefore1 since we do not read of ,christ entering his house1 it seems to be lawful for any individual to abstain from ,communion his whole life long4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not of necessity for salvation4 ,but this sacrament is not of necessity for salvation1 as was stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c74 ,therefore it is permissible to abstain from ,communion altogether4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 sinners are not bound to go to ,communion3 hence ,pope ,fabian 7,third ,council of ,tours1 ,canon #a7 after saying1 ,let all communicate thrice each year1 adds3 ,except those who are hindered by grievous crimes4 ,consequently1 if those who are not in the state of sin are bound to go to ,communion1 it seems that sinners are better off than good people1 which is unfitting4 ,therefore1 it seems lawful even for the godly to refrain from ,communion4 ,on the contrary1 ,our ,lord said 7,john #f3ed73 ,except ye eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man1 and drink ,his blood1 you shall not have life in you4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 there are two ways of receiving this sacrament namely1 spiritually and sacramentally4 ,now it is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually1 because this is to be incorporated in ,christ1 as was said above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #c1 ad #a74 ,now spiritual eating comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament1 as was said above 7,a4 #a1 ad #c1 ,a4 #b74 ,therefore1 a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive this sacrament4 ,now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity presented itself4 ,consequently1 it is evident that a man is bound to receive this sacrament1 not only by virtue of the ,church's precept1 but also by virtue of the ,lord's command 7,luke #bb3ai73 ,do this in memory of ,me4 ,but by the precept of the ,church there are fixed times for fulfilling ,christ's command4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,gregory says3 ,he is truly humble1 who is not obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good4 ,consequently1 humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from ,communion against the precept of ,christ and the ,church4 ,again the ,centurion was not commanded to receive ,christ into his house4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this sacrament is said not to be as necessary as ,baptism1 with regard to children1 who can be saved without the ,eucharist1 but not without the sacrament of ,baptism3 both1 however1 are of necessity with regard to adults4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from receiving this sacrament1 so that they are not better off on that account2 and although while continuing in their sins they are not on that account excused from transgressing the precept1 nevertheless1 as ,pope ,innocent ,,iii says1 penitents1 who refrain on the advice of their priest1 are excused4 ,,twelfth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hj1 ,art4 #ab ,whether ,it ,is ,lawful to ,receive the ,body of ,christ ,without the ,blood8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems unlawful to receive the body of ,christ without the blood4 ,for ,pope ,gelasius says 7cf4 ,de ,consecr4 ii73 ,we have learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred body1 abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood4 ,i know not for what superstitious motive they do this3 therefore let them either receive the entire sacrament1 or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether4 ,therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of ,christ without ,his blood4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b1 ad #a74 ,consequently1 if the body be taken without the blood1 it will be an imperfect sacrament1 which seems to savor of sacrilege2 hence ,pope ,gelasius adds 7cf4 ,de ,consecr4 ii71 because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without a great sacrilege4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our ,lord's ,passion1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,,aa4 #d1 #e2 ,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a71 and is received for the health of soul4 ,but the ,passion is expressed in the blood rather than in the body2 moreover1 as stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a71 the blood is offered for the health of the soul4 ,consequently1 one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood4 ,therefore1 such as approach this sacrament ought not to take ,christ's body without ,his blood4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is the custom of many churches for the body of ,christ to be given to the communicant without ,his blood4 ,i answer that1 ,two points should be observed regarding the use of this sacrament1 one on the part of the sacrament1 the other on the part of the recipients2 on the part of the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood to be received1 since the perfection of the sacrament lies in both1 and consequently1 since it is the priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament1 he ought on no account to receive ,christ's body without the blood4 ,but on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for1 lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery4 ,now this could especially happen in receiving the blood1 for1 if incautiously handled1 it might easily be spilt4 ,and because the multitude of the ,christian people increased1 in which there are old1 young1 and children1 some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament1 on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people1 but to be received by the priest alone4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,pope ,gelasius is speaking of priests1 who1 as they consecrate the entire sacrament1 ought to communicate in the entire sacrament4 ,for1 as we read in the 7,twelfth7 ,council of ,toledo1 ,what kind of a sacrifice is that1 wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share8 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful1 but in the consecration of the matter4 ,and hence there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament2 if the people receive the body without the blood1 provided that the priest who consecrates receive both4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,our ,lord's ,passion is represented in the very consecration of this sacrament1 in which the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood4 ,but the body can be received by the people without the blood3 nor is this detrimental to the sacrament4 ,because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all2 and ,christ is fully contained under either species1 as was shown above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b74 ,,question #ha ,,of ,,the ,,use ,,which ,,christ ,,made ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament ,,at ,,its ,,institution 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the use which ,christ made of this sacrament at its institution2 under which heading there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ received ,his own body and blood8 7#b7 ,whether ,he gave it to ,judas8 7#c7 ,what kind of body did ,he receive or give1 namely1 was it passible or impassible8 7#d7 ,what would have been the condition of ,christ's body under this sacrament1 if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three days ,he lay dead8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,received ,his ,own ,body and ,blood8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ did not receive ,his own body and blood1 because nothing ought to be asserted of either ,christ's doings or sayings1 which is not handed down by the authority of ,sacred ,scripture4 ,but it is not narrated in the gospels that ,he ate ,his own body or drank ,his own blood4 ,therefore we must not assert this as a fact4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 nothing can be within itself except perchance by reason of its parts1 for instance1 as one part is in another1 as is stated in ,phys4 iv4 ,but what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and drinker4 ,therefore1 since the entire ,christ is under each species of the sacrament1 it seems impossible for ,him to have received this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the receiving of this sacrament is twofold1 namely1 spiritual and sacramental4 ,but the spiritual was unsuitable for ,christ1 as ,he derived no benefit from the sacrament2 and in consequence so was the sacramental1 since it is imperfect without the spiritual1 as was observed above 7,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 in no way did ,christ partake of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,jerome says 7,ad ,hedib41 ,ep4 xxx71 ,the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 ,himself the guest and banquet1 is both the partaker and what is eaten4 ,i answer that1 ,some have said that ,christ during the supper gave ,his body and blood to ,his disciples1 but did not partake of it ,himself4 ,but this seems improbable4 ,because ,christ ,himself was the first to fulfill what ,he required others to observe3 hence ,he willed first to be baptized when imposing ,baptism upon others3 as we read in ,acts #a3a3 ,jesus began to do and to teach4 ,hence ,he first of all took ,his own body and blood1 and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples4 ,and hence the gloss upon ,ruth #c3g1 ,when he had eaten and drunk1 says3 ,christ ate and drank at the supper1 when ,he gave to the disciples the sacrament of ,his body and blood4 ,hence1 'because the children partook 99,vulg43 'are partakers' 7,heb4 #b3ad7 of ,his flesh and blood1 ,he also hath been partaker in the same4' ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we read in the ,gospels how ,christ took the bread 4 4 4 and the chalice2 but it is not to be understood that ,he took them merely into ,his hands1 as some say1 but that ,he took them in the same way as ,he gave them to others to take4 ,hence when ,he said to the disciples1 ,take ye and eat1 and again1 ,take ye and drink1 it is to be understood that ,he ,himself1 in taking it1 both ate and drank4 ,hence some have composed this rhyme3 ,the ,king at supper sits1 ,the twelve as guests ,he greets1 ,clasping ,himself in ,his hands1 ,the food ,himself now eats4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as was said above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #e71 ,christ as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to place1 not according to ,his own dimensions1 but according to the dimensions of the sacramental species2 so that ,christ is ,himself in every place where those species are4 ,and because the species were able to be both in the hands and the mouth of ,christ1 the entire ,christ could be in both ,his hands and mouth4 ,now this could not come to pass were ,his relation to place to be according to ,his proper dimensions4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was stated above 7,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace1 but furthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness4 ,but although grace was not increased in ,christ through ,his receiving this sacrament1 yet ,he had a certain spiritual delectation from the new institution of this sacrament4 ,hence ,he ,himself said 7,luke #bb3ae73 ,with desire ,i have desired to eat this ,pasch with you1 which words ,eusebius explains of the new mystery of the ,new ,testament1 which ,he gave to the disciples4 ,and therefore ,he ate it both spiritually and sacramentally1 inasmuch as ,he received ,his own body under the sacrament which sacrament of ,his own body ,he both understood and prepared2 yet differently from others who partake of it both sacramentally and spiritually1 for these receive an increase of grace1 and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its truth4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,christ ,gave ,his ,body to ,judas8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ did not give ,his body to ,judas4 ,because1 as we read 7,matt4 #bf3bi71 our ,lord1 after giving ,his body and blood to the disciples1 said to them3 ,i will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine1 until that day when ,i shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of ,my ,father4 ,from this it appears that those to whom ,he had given ,his body and blood were to drink of it again with ,him4 ,but ,judas did not drink of it afterwards with ,him4 ,therefore he did not receive ,christ's body and blood with the other disciples4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what the ,lord commanded1 ,he ,himself fulfilled1 as is said in ,acts #a3a3 ,jesus began to do and to teach4 ,but ,he gave the command 7,matt4 #g3f73 ,give not that which is holy to dogs4 ,therefore1 knowing ,judas to be a sinner1 seemingly ,he did not give him ,his body and blood4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is distinctly related 7,john #ac3bf7 that ,christ gave dipped bread to ,judas4 ,consequently1 if ,he gave ,his body to him1 it appears that ,he gave it him in the morsel1 especially since we read 7,john #ac3bf7 that after the morsel1 ,satan entered into him4 ,and on this passage ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan473 ,from this we learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way 4 4 4 ,for if he be 'chastised' who does 'not discern1' i4e4 distinguish1 the body of the ,lord from other meats1 how must he be 'condemned' who1 feigning himself a friend1 comes to ,his table a foe8 ,but 7,judas7 did not receive our ,lord's body with the dipped morsel2 thus ,augustine commenting on ,john #ac3bf1 ,when ,he had dipped the bread1 ,he gave it to ,judas1 the son of ,simon the ,iscariot ,vulg43 'to ,judas ,iscariot1 the son of ,simon'1 says 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan473 ,judas did not receive ,christ's body then1 as some think who read carelessly4 ,therefore it seems that ,judas did not receive the body of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,chrysostom says 7,hom4 lxxxii in ,matth473 ,judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries3 hence on both sides his crime becomes the more heinous1 both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries1 and because he became none the better for approaching1 neither from fear1 nor from the benefit received1 nor from the honor conferred on him4 ,i answer that1 ,hilary1 in commenting on ,matt4 #bf3ag1 held that ,christ did not give ,his body and blood to ,judas4 ,and this would have been quite proper1 if the malice of ,judas be considered4 ,but since ,christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice1 it was not in keeping with ,his teaching authority to sever ,judas1 a hidden sinner1 from ,communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof2 lest the ,church's prelates might have an example for doing the like1 and lest ,judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning4 ,therefore1 it remains to be said that ,judas received our ,lord's body and blood with the other disciples1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii71 and ,augustine 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan474 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this is ,hilary's argument1 to show that ,judas did not receive ,christ's body4 ,but it is not cogent2 because ,christ is speaking to the disciples1 from whose company ,judas separated himself3 and it was not ,christ that excluded him4 ,therefore ,christ for ,his part drinks the wine even with ,judas in the kingdom of ,god2 but ,judas himself repudiated this banquet4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the wickedness of ,judas was known to ,christ as ,god2 but it was unknown to ,him1 after the manner in which men know it4 ,consequently1 ,christ did not repel ,judas from ,communion2 so as to furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,without any doubt ,judas did not receive ,christ's body in the dipped bread2 he received mere bread4 ,yet as ,augustine observes 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan471 perchance the feigning of ,judas is denoted by the dipping of the bread2 just as some things are dipped to be dyed4 ,if1 however1 the dipping signifies here anything good 7for instance1 the sweetness of the ,divine goodness1 since bread is rendered more savory by being dipped71 then1 not undeservedly1 did condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good4 ,and owing to that ingratitude1 what is good became evil to him1 as happens to them who receive ,christ's body unworthily4 ,and as ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxii in ,joan471 it must be understood that our ,lord had already distributed the sacrament of ,his body and blood to all ,his disciples1 among whom was ,judas also1 as ,luke narrates3 and after that1 we came to this1 where1 according to the relation of ,john1 our ,lord1 by dipping and handing the morsel1 does most openly declare ,his betrayer4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,christ ,received and ,gave to the ,disciples ,his ,impassible ,body8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ both received and gave to the disciples ,his impassible body4 ,because on ,matt4 #ag3b1 ,he was transfigured before them1 the gloss says3 ,he gave to the disciples at the supper that body which ,he had through nature1 but neither mortal nor passible4 ,and again1 on ,lev4 #b3e1 if thy oblation be from the frying-pan1 the gloss says3 ,the ,cross mightier than all things made ,christ's flesh fit for being eaten1 which before the ,passion did not seem so suited4 ,but ,christ gave ,his body as suited for eating4 ,therefore ,he gave it just as it was after the ,passion1 that is1 impassible and immortal4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 every passible body suffers by contact and by being eaten4 ,consequently1 if ,christ's body was passible1 it would have suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in the person of ,christ are not more powerful than when uttered by ,christ ,himself4 ,but now by virtue of the sacramental words it is ,christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar4 ,therefore1 much more so was it then4 ,on the contrary1 ,as ,innocent ,,iii says 7,de ,sacr4 ,alt4 ,myst4 iv71 ,he bestowed on the disciples ,his body such as it was4 ,but then ,he had a passible and a mortal body4 ,therefore1 ,he gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples4 ,i answer that1 ,hugh of ,saint ,victor 7,innocent ,,iii1 ,de ,sacr4 ,alt4 ,myst4 iv71 maintained1 that before the ,passion1 ,christ assumed at various times the four properties of a glorified body--namely1 subtlety in ,his birth1 when ,he came forth from the closed womb of the ,virgin2 agility1 when ,he walked dryshod upon the sea2 clarity1 in the ,transfiguration2 and impassibility at the ,last ,supper1 when ,he gave ,his body to the disciples to be eaten4 ,and according to this ,he gave ,his body in an impassible and immortal condition to ,his disciples4 ,but whatever may be the case touching the other qualities1 concerning which we have already stated what should be held 7,q4 #bh1 ,a4 #b1 ad #c2 ,q4 #de1 ,a4 #b71 nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible4 ,for it is manifest that the same body of ,christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species1 was received by them under the sacramental species4 ,but as seen in its own species it was not impassible2 nay more1 it was ready for the ,passion4 ,therefore1 neither was ,christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental species4 ,yet there was present in the sacrament1 in an impassible manner1 that which was passible of itself2 just as that was there invisibly which of itself was visible4 ,for as sight requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent medium of sight1 so does passion require contact of the suffering body with the active agents4 ,but ,christ's body1 according as it is under the sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b2 ,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #e71 is not compared with its surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimensions1 whereby bodies touch each other1 but through the dimensions of the bread and wine2 consequently1 it is those species which are acted upon and are seen1 but not ,christ's own body4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ is said not to have given ,his mortal and passible body at the supper1 because ,he did not give it in mortal and passible fashion4 ,but the ,cross made ,his flesh adapted for eating1 inasmuch as this sacrament represents ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument would hold1 if ,christ's body1 as it was passible1 were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #d71 the accidents of ,christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance1 but not by the power of the sacrament1 whereby the substance of ,christ's body comes to be there4 ,and therefore the power of the sacramental words extends to this1 that the body1 i4e4 ,christ's1 is under this sacrament1 whatever accidents really exist in it4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ha1 ,art4 #d ,whether1 ,if ,this ,sacrament ,had ,been ,reserved in a ,pyx1 or ,consecrated at the ,moment of ,christ's ,death by ,one of the ,apostles1 ,christ ,himself ,would ,have ,died ,there8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a pyx at the moment of ,christ's death1 or had then been consecrated by one of the apostles1 that ,christ would not have died there4 ,for ,christ's death happened through ,his ,passion4 ,but even then ,he was in this sacrament in an impassible manner4 ,therefore1 ,he could not die in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on the death of ,christ1 ,his blood was separated from the body4 ,but ,his flesh and blood are together in this sacrament4 ,therefore ,he could not die in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 death ensues from the separation of the soul from the body4 ,but both the body and the soul of ,christ are contained in this sacrament4 ,therefore ,christ could not die in this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,the same ,christ ,who was upon the cross would have been in this sacrament4 ,but ,he died upon the cross4 ,therefore1 if this sacrament had been reserved1 ,he would have died therein4 ,i answer that1 ,christ's body is substantially the same in this sacrament1 as in its proper species1 but not after the same fashion2 because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions3 but it does not do so as it is in this sacrament1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,and therefore1 all that belongs to ,christ1 as ,he is in ,himself1 can be attributed to ,him both in ,his proper species1 and as ,he exists in the sacrament2 such as to live1 to die1 to grieve1 to be animate or inanimate1 and the like2 while all that belongs to ,him in relation to outward bodies1 can be attributed to ,him as ,he exists in ,his proper species1 but not as ,he is in this sacrament2 such as to be mocked1 to be spat upon1 to be crucified1 to be scourged1 and the rest4 ,hence some have composed this verse3 ,our ,lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils ,but cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as was stated above1 suffering belongs to a body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body4 ,and therefore ,christ1 as in this sacrament1 cannot suffer2 yet ,he can die4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as was said above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #b71 in virtue of the consecration1 the body of ,christ is under the species of bread1 while ,his blood is under the species of wine4 ,but now that ,his blood is not really separated from ,his body2 by real concomitance1 both ,his blood is present with the body under the species of the bread1 and ,his body together with the blood under the species of the wine4 ,but at the time when ,christ suffered1 when ,his blood was really separated from ,his body1 if this sacrament had been consecrated1 then the body only would have been present under the species of the bread1 and the blood only under the species of the wine4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as was observed above 7,q4 #gf1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a71 ,christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance2 because it is not without the body3 but it is not there in virtue of the consecration4 ,and therefore1 if this sacrament had been consecrated then1 or reserved1 when ,his soul was really separated from ,his body1 ,christ's soul would not have been under this sacrament1 not from any defect in the form of the words1 but owing to the different dispositions of the thing contained4 ,,question #hb ,,of ,,the ,,minister ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,ten ,articles7 ,we now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament3 under which head there are ten points for our inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament8 7#b7 ,whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same host8 7#c7 ,whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament8 7#d7 ,whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from communicating8 7#e7 ,whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament8 7#f7 ,whether the ,mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of a good one8 7#g7 ,whether those who are heretics1 schismatics1 or excommunicated1 can perform this sacrament8 7#h7 ,whether degraded priests can do so8 7#i7 ,whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of sinning8 7#aj7 ,whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating8 99,this is the order observed by ,st4 ,thomas in writing the ,articles2 but in writing this prologue1 he placed ,article #aj immediately after ,article #d 7,cf4 ,leonine edition74 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,consecration of ,this ,sacrament ,belongs to a ,priest ,alone8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the consecration of this sacrament does not belong exclusively to a priest4 ,because it was said above 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #d7 that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words1 which are the form of this sacrament4 ,but those words are not changed1 whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else4 ,therefore1 it seems that not only a priest1 but anyone else1 can consecrate this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the priest performs this sacrament in the person of ,christ4 ,but a devout layman is united with ,christ through charity4 ,therefore1 it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament4 ,hence ,chrysostom 7,opus imperfectum in ,matth41 ,hom4 xliii7 says that every holy man is a priest4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind1 so also is this sacrament1 as is clear from what was said above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #b74 ,but a layman can also baptize1 as was stated above 7,q4 #fg1 ,a4 #c74 ,consequently1 the consecration of this sacrament is not proper to a priest4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter4 ,but the consecration of other matters such as the chrism1 the holy oil1 and blessed oil1 belongs exclusively to a bishop2 yet their consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration of the ,eucharist1 in which the entire ,christ is contained4 ,therefore it belongs1 not to a priest1 but only to a bishop1 to perform this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,isidore says in an ,epistle to ,ludifred 7,decretals1 dist4 #be73 ,it belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of the ,lord's body and blood upon ,god's altar4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #gh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #d71 such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of ,christ4 ,now whoever performs any act in another's stead1 must do so by the power bestowed by such a one4 ,but as the power of receiving this sacrament is conceded by ,christ to the baptized person1 so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on ,christ's behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination3 for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the ,lord said 7,luke #bb3ai73 ,do this for a commemoration of ,me4 ,therefore1 it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the sacramental power is in several things1 and not merely in one3 thus the power of ,baptism lies both in the words and in the water4 ,accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the words1 but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his consecration and ordination1 when the bishop says to him3 ,receive the power of offering up the ,sacrifice in the ,church for the living as well as for the dead4 ,for instrumental power lies in several instruments through which the chief agent acts4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a devout layman is united with ,christ by spiritual union through faith and charity1 but not by sacramental power3 consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices1 of which it is said 7,ps4 #a3ai73 ,a sacrifice to ,god is an afflicted spirit2 and 7,rom4 #ab3a73 ,present your bodies a living sacrifice4 ,hence1 too1 it is written 7#a ,pet4 #b3e73 ,a holy priesthood1 to offer up spiritual sacrifices4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the receiving of this sacrament is not of such necessity as the receiving of ,baptism1 as is evident from what was said above 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #d2 ,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #aa1 ad #b74 ,and therefore1 although a layman can baptize in case of necessity1 he cannot perform this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the bishop receives power to act on ,christ's behalf upon ,his mystical body1 that is1 upon the ,church2 but the priest receives no such power in his consecration1 although he may have it by commission from the bishop4 ,consequently all such things as do not belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop1 such as the consecration of this sacrament4 ,but it belongs to the bishop to deliver1 not only to the people1 but likewise to priests1 such things as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties4 ,and because the blessing of the chrism1 and of the holy oil1 and of the oil of the sick1 and other consecrated things1 such as altars1 churches1 vestments1 and sacred vessels1 makes such things fit for use in performing the sacraments which belong to the priestly duty1 therefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesiastical order4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,several ,priests ,can ,consecrate ,one and the ,same ,host8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and the same host4 ,for it was said above 7,q4 #fg1 ,a4 #f71 that several cannot at the same time baptize one individual4 ,but the power of a priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing4 ,therefore1 several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same time4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 what can be done by one1 is superfluously done by several4 ,but there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments4 ,since1 then1 one is sufficient for consecrating1 it seems that several cannot consecrate one host4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,tract4 xxvi in ,joan471 this is the sacrament of unity4 ,but multitude seems to be opposed to unity4 ,therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is the custom of some ,churches for priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 when a priest is ordained he is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from our ,lord at the ,supper4 ,and therefore1 according to the custom of some ,churches1 as the apostles supped when ,christ supped1 so the newly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop4 ,nor is the consecration1 on that account1 repeated over the same host1 because as ,innocent ,,iii says 7,de ,sacr4 ,alt4 ,myst4 iv71 the intention of all should be directed to the same instant of the consecration4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,we do not read of ,christ baptizing with the apostles when ,he committed to them the duty of baptizing2 consequently there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,if each individual priest were acting in his own power1 then other celebrants would be superfluous1 since one would be sufficient4 ,but whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in ,christ's stead2 and since many are one in ,christ 7,gal4 #c3bh72 consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or by many1 except that the rite of the ,church must be observed4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity1 which is brought about by many being one in ,christ4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,dispensing of ,this ,sacrament ,belongs to a ,priest ,alone8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone4 ,for ,christ's blood belongs to this sacrament no less than ,his body4 ,but ,christ's blood is dispensed by deacons3 hence the blessed ,lawrence said to the blessed ,sixtus 7,office of ,st4 ,lawrence1 ,resp4 at ,matins73 ,try whether you have chosen a fit minister1 to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the ,lord's blood4 ,therefore1 with equal reason the dispensing of ,christ's body does not belong to priests only4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments4 ,but this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter1 and not in the use1 to which the dispensing belongs4 ,therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the ,lord's body4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii1 iv7 that this sacrament1 like chrism1 has the power of perfecting4 ,but it belongs1 not to priests1 but to bishops1 to sign with the chrism4 ,therefore likewise1 to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #ab73 ,it has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the ,lord's body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick3 ,the synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue2 and let the priest himself communicate the sick4 ,i answer that1 ,the dispensing of ,christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons4 ,first1 because1 as was said above 7,a4 #a71 he consecrates as in the person of ,christ4 ,but as ,christ consecrated ,his body at the supper1 so also ,he gave it to others to be partaken of by them4 ,accordingly1 as the consecration of ,christ's body belongs to the priest1 so likewise does the dispensing belong to him4 ,secondly1 because the priest is the appointed intermediary between ,god and the people2 hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to ,god1 so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people4 ,thirdly1 because out of reverence towards this sacrament1 nothing touches it1 but what is consecrated2 hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated1 and likewise the priest's hands1 for touching this sacrament4 ,hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity1 for instance1 if it were to fall upon the ground1 or else in some other case of urgency4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the deacon1 as being nigh to the priestly order1 has a certain share in the latter's duties1 so that he may dispense the blood2 but not the body1 except in case of necessity1 at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest4 ,first of all1 because ,christ's blood is contained in a vessel1 hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser1 as ,christ's body is touched4 ,secondly1 because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from ,christ2 hence it is that water is mixed with the blood1 which water denotes the people4 ,and because deacons are between priest and people1 the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons1 rather than the dispensing of the body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,for the reason given above1 it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the deacon1 in a measure1 shares in the priest's power of enlightening 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v71 inasmuch as he dispenses the blood1 so the priest shares in the perfective dispensing 7,eccl4 ,hier4 v7 of the bishop1 inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with ,christ4 ,but other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others1 are reserved to the bishop4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,priest ,who ,consecrates ,is ,bound to ,receive ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to receive this sacrament4 ,because1 in the other consecrations1 he who consecrates the matter does not use it1 just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith4 ,but this sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter4 ,therefore1 the priest performing this sacrament need not use the same1 but may lawfully refrain from receiving it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the other sacraments the minister does not give the sacrament to himself3 for no one can baptize himself1 as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #e1 ad #d74 ,but as ,baptism is dispensed in due order1 so also is this sacrament4 ,therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it sometimes happens that ,christ's body appears upon the altar under the guise of flesh1 and the blood under the guise of blood2 which are unsuited for food and drink3 hence1 as was said above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #e71 it is on that account that they are given under another species1 lest they beget revulsion in the communicants4 ,therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read in the acts of the 7,twelfth7 ,council of ,toledo 7,can4 v71 and again 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #b73 ,it must be strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ upon the altar1 he must himself be a partaker of ,christ's body and blood4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #gi1 ,,aa4 #e1 #g71 the ,eucharist is not only a sacrament1 but also a sacrifice4 ,now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice1 because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he offers himself to ,god1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,civ4 ,dei x74 ,hence by partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise his4 ,in the same way also1 by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows that he is the dispenser of ,divine gifts1 of which he ought himself to be the first to partake1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,consequently1 he ought to receive before dispensing it to the people4 ,accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above 7,twelfth ,council of ,toledo1 ,can4 v73 ,what kind of sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share8 ,but it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it1 as the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #aj3ah73 ,are not they that eat of the sacrifices1 partakers of the altar8 ,therefore it is necessary for the priest1 as often as he consecrates1 to receive this sacrament in its integrity4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a sacrifice1 as the consecration of the ,eucharist is3 consequently there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sacrament of ,baptism is accomplished in the use of the matter1 and consequently no one can baptize himself1 because the same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament4 ,hence neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself1 but he consecrates the bread and wine1 in which consecration the sacrament is completed4 ,but the use thereof follows the sacrament1 and therefore there is no parallel4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if ,christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar under the guise of flesh1 or the blood under the guise of blood1 it is not to be received4 ,for ,jerome says upon ,leviticus 7cf4 ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #b73 ,it is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is wonderfully performed in memory of ,christ3 but it is not lawful for anyone to eat of that one which ,christ offered on the altar of the cross4 ,nor does the priest transgress on that account1 because miraculous events are not subject to human laws4 ,nevertheless the priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the ,lord's body and blood4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #e ,whether a ,wicked ,priest ,can ,consecrate the ,eucharist8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,for ,jerome1 commenting on ,sophon4 iii1 #d1 says3 ,the priests who perform the ,eucharist1 and who distribute our ,lord's blood to the people1 act wickedly against ,christ's law1 in deeming that the ,eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life2 and that only the solemn prayer is requisite1 and not the priest's merits3 of whom it is said3 ',let not the priest1 in whatever defilement he may be1 approach to offer oblations to the ,lord' 7,lev4 #ba3ba1 ,septuagint74 ,but the sinful priest1 being defiled1 has neither the life nor the merits befitting this sacrament4 ,therefore a sinful priest cannot consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,damascene says 7,de ,fide ,orth4 iv7 that the bread and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our ,lord1 by the coming of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but ,pope ,gelasius ,i says 7,ep4 ad ,elphid41 cf4 ,decret4 i1 q4 #a73 ,how shall the ,holy ,spirit1 when invoked1 come for the consecration of the ,divine ,mystery1 if the priest invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds8 ,consequently1 the ,eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's blessing4 ,but a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for consecrating this sacrament1 since it is written 7,malachi #b3b73 ,i will curse your blessings4 ,again1 ,dionysius says in his ,epistle 7viii7 to the monk ,demophilus3 ,he who is not enlightened has completely fallen away from the priestly order2 and ,i wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions1 and in the person of ,christ to utter1 over the ,divine symbols1 his unclean infamies1 for ,i will not call them prayers4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,paschasius7 says 7,de ,corp4 ,dom4 xii73 ,within the ,catholic ,church1 in the mystery of the ,lord's body and blood1 nothing greater is done by a good priest1 nothing less by an evil priest1 because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is accomplished1 but by the ,creator's word1 and by the power of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,,aa4 #a1 #c71 the priest consecrates this sacrament not by his own power1 but as the minister of ,christ1 in ,whose person he consecrates this sacrament4 ,but from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be ,christ's minister2 because our ,lord has good and wicked ministers or servants4 ,hence 7,matt4 #bd3de7 our ,lord says3 ,who1 thinkest thou1 is a faithful and wise servant8 and afterwards ,he adds3 ,but if that evil servant shall say in his heart1 etc4 ,and the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #d3a7 says3 ,let a man so account of us as of the ministers of ,christ2 and afterwards he adds3 ,i am not conscious to myself of anything2 yet am ,i not hereby justified4 ,he was therefore certain that he was ,christ's minister2 yet he was not certain that he was a just man4 ,consequently1 a man can be ,christ's minister even though he be not one of the just4 ,and this belongs to ,christ's excellence1 ,whom1 as the true ,god1 things both good and evil serve1 since they are ordained by ,his providence for ,his glory4 ,hence it is evident that priests1 even though they be not godly1 but sinners1 can consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in those words ,jerome is condemning the error of priests who believed they could consecrate the ,eucharist worthily1 from the mere fact of being priests1 even though they were sinners2 and ,jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden to approach the altar2 but this does not prevent the sacrifice1 which they offer1 from being a true sacrifice1 if they do approach4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,previous to the words quoted1 ,pope ,gelasius expresses himself as follows3 ,that most holy rite1 which contains the ,catholic discipline1 claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to approach it except with clean conscience4 ,from this it is evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacrament4 ,hence when he resumes1 ,how shall the ,holy ,spirit come when summoned1 it must be understood that ,he comes1 not through the priest's merits1 but through the power of ,christ1 ,whose words the priest utters4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as the same action can be evil1 inasmuch as it is done with a bad intention of the servant2 and good from the good intention of the master2 so the blessing of a sinful priest1 inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse1 and is reputed an infamy and a blasphemy1 and not a prayer2 whereas1 inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of ,christ1 it is holy and efficacious4 ,hence it is said with significance3 ,i will curse your blessings4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,mass of a ,sinful ,priest ,is of ,less ,worth ,than the ,mass of a ,good ,priest8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less worth than that of a good priest4 ,for ,pope ,gregory says in the ,register3 ,alas1 into what a great snare they fall who believe that the ,divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than by others2 since it is the one and the same ,holy ,ghost ,who hallows those mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner4 ,but these hidden mysteries are celebrated in the mass4 ,therefore the mass of a sinful priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 as ,baptism is conferred by a minister through the power of ,christ ,who baptizes1 so likewise this sacrament is consecrated in the person of ,christ4 ,but ,baptism is no better when conferred by a better priest1 as was said above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b74 ,therefore neither is a mass the better1 which is celebrated by a better priest4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as the merits of priests differ in the point of being good and better1 so they likewise differ in the point of being good and bad4 ,consequently1 if the mass of a better priest be itself better1 it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad4 ,now this is unreasonable1 because the malice of the ministers cannot affect ,christ's mysteries1 as ,augustine says in his work on ,baptism 7,contra ,donat4 xii74 ,therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the better4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is stated in ,decretal i1 q4 #a3 ,the worthier the priest1 the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two things to be considered in the mass4 namely1 the sacrament itself1 which is the chief thing2 and the prayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead4 ,so far as the mass itself is concerned1 the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value than that of a good priest1 because the same sacrifice is offered by both4 ,again1 the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects3 first of all1 in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding1 and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful4 ,in another respect1 inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire ,church1 of which the priest is the minister2 and this ministry remains even in sinful men1 as was said above 7,a4 #e7 in regard to ,christ's ministry4 ,hence1 in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful1 not only that which he utters in the mass1 but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices1 wherein he takes the place of the ,church4 on the other hand1 his private prayers are not fruitful1 according to ,prov4 #bh3i3 ,he that turneth away his ears from hearing the law1 his prayer shall be an abomination4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the ,divine sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in the sacrament of ,baptism solemn prayers are not made for all the faithful1 as in the mass2 therefore there is no parallel in this respect4 ,there is1 however1 a resemblance as to the effect of the sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by reason of the power of the ,holy ,ghost1 ,who communicates to each one the blessings of ,christ's members on account of their being united in charity1 the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is fruitful to others4 ,but the private evil of one man cannot hurt another1 except the latter1 in some way1 consent1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii74 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,heretics1 ,schismatics1 and ,excommunicated ,persons ,can ,consecrate8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that heretics1 schismatics1 and excommunicated persons are not able to consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,for ,augustine says 7,liber sentent4 ,prosperi xv7 that there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the ,catholic ,church3 and ,pope ,leo ,i says 7,ep4 lxxx2 cf4 ,decretal i1 q4 #a73 ,elsewhere 7i4e4 than in the ,church which is ,christ's body7 there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice4 ,but heretics1 schismatics1 and excommunicated persons are severed from the ,church4 ,therefore they are unable to offer a true sacrifice4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further 7,decretal1 caus4 i1 q4 #a71 ,innocent ,i is quoted as saying3 ,because we receive the laity of the ,arians and other pestilential persons1 if they seem to repent1 it does not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other ministerial office1 for we allow them to confer nothing save ,baptism4 ,but none can consecrate the ,eucharist1 unless he have the dignity of the priesthood4 ,therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it does not seem feasible for one outside the ,church to act on behalf of the ,church4 ,but when the priest consecrates the ,eucharist1 he does so in the person of the entire ,church1 as is evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of the ,church4 ,therefore1 it seems that those who are outside the ,church1 such as those who are heretics1 schismatics1 and excommunicate1 are not able to consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii73 ,just as ,baptism remains in them1 i4e4 in heretics1 schismatics1 and those who are excommunicate1 so do their orders remain intact4 ,now1 by the power of his ordination1 a priest can consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,therefore1 it seems that heretics1 schismatics1 and those who are excommunicate1 can consecrate the ,eucharist1 since their orders remain entire4 ,i answer that1 ,some have contended that heretics1 schismatics1 and the excommunicate1 who are outside the pale of the ,church1 cannot perform this sacrament4 ,but herein they are deceived1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii71 it is one thing to lack something utterly1 and another to have it improperly2 and in like fashion1 it is one thing not to bestow1 and quite another to bestow1 but not rightly4 ,accordingly1 such as1 being within the ,church1 received the power of consecrating the ,eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood1 have such power rightly indeed2 but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the ,church by heresy1 schism1 or excommunication4 ,but such as are ordained while separated from the ,church1 have neither the power rightly1 nor do they use it rightly4 ,but that in both cases they have the power1 is clear from what ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii71 that when they return to the unity of the ,church1 they are not re-ordained1 but are received in their orders4 ,and since the consecration of the ,eucharist is an act which follows the power of order1 such persons as are separated from the ,church by heresy1 schism1 or excommunication1 can indeed consecrate the ,eucharist1 which on being consecrated by them contains ,christ's true body and blood2 but they act wrongly1 and sin by doing so2 and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice1 which is a spiritual sacrifice4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense1 that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the ,church4 ,hence outside the ,church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit1 although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament2 thus it was stated above 7,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #c71 that the sinner receives ,christ's body sacramentally1 but not spiritually4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics1 and schismatics1 because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity2 but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the ,eucharist1 or confer the other sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the priest1 in reciting the prayers of the mass1 speaks instead of the ,church1 in whose unity he remains2 but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of ,christ1 ,whose place he holds by the power of his orders4 ,consequently1 if a priest severed from the unity of the ,church celebrates mass1 not having lost the power of order1 he consecrates ,christ's true body and blood2 but because he is severed from the unity of the ,church1 his prayers have no efficacy4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #h ,whether a ,degraded ,priest ,can ,consecrate ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this sacrament4 ,for no one can perform this sacrament except he have the power of consecrating4 ,but the priest who has been degraded has no power of consecrating1 although he has the power of baptizing 7,app4 ,gratiani74 ,therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate the ,eucharist4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 he who gives can take away4 ,but the bishop in ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating4 ,therefore he can take it away by degrading him4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the priest1 by degradation1 loses either the power of consecrating1 or the use of such power4 ,but he does not lose merely the use1 for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one excommunicated1 who also lacks the use4 ,therefore it seems that he loses the power to consecrate1 and in consequence that he cannot perform this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine 7,contra ,parmen4 ii7 proves that apostates from the faith are not deprived of their ,baptism1 from the fact that it is not restored to them when they return repentant2 and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost4 ,but in like fashion1 if the degraded man be restored1 he has not to be ordained over again4 ,consequently1 he has not lost the power of consecrating1 and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the power of consecrating the ,eucharist belongs to the character of the priestly order4 ,but every character is indelible1 because it is given with a kind of consecration1 as was said above 7,q4 #fc1 ,a4 #e71 just as the consecrations of all other things are perpetual1 and cannot be lost or repeated4 ,hence it is clear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation4 ,for1 again1 ,augustine says 7,contra ,parmen4 ii73 ,both are sacraments1 namely ,baptism and order1 and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration2 the former1 when he is baptized2 the latter when he is ordained2 and therefore it is not lawful for ,catholics to repeat either of them4 ,and thus it is evident that the degraded priest can perform this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that ,canon is speaking1 not as by way of assertion1 but by way of inquiry1 as can be gleaned from the context4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the bishop gives the priestly power of order1 not as though coming from himself1 but instrumentally1 as ,god's minister1 and its effect cannot be taken away by man1 according to ,matt4 #ai3f3 ,what ,god hath joined together1 let no man put asunder4 ,and therefore the bishop cannot take this power away1 just as neither can he who baptizes take away the baptismal character4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,excommunication is medicinal4 ,and therefore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the excommunicate1 as it were1 perpetually1 but only for a time1 that they may mend2 but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded1 as though condemned perpetually4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,it ,is ,permissible to ,receive ,communion from ,heretical1 ,excommunicate1 or ,sinful ,priests1 and to ,hear ,mass ,said by ,them8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that one may lawfully receive ,communion from heretical1 excommunicate1 or even sinful priests1 and to hear mass said by them4 ,because1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,petilian4 iii71 we should not avoid ,god's sacraments1 whether they be given by a good man or by a wicked one4 ,but priests1 even if they be sinful1 or heretics1 or excommunicate1 perform a valid sacrament4 ,therefore it seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving ,communion at their hands1 or from hearing their mass4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's true body is figurative of ,his mystical body1 as was said above 7,q4 #fg1 ,a4 #b74 ,but ,christ's true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned above4 ,therefore it seems that whoever belongs to ,his mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there are many sins graver than fornication4 ,but it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise4 ,therefore1 it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,canon says 7,dist4 #cb73 ,let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine4 ,moreover1 ,gregory says 7,dial4 iii7 that the faithless father sent an ,arian bishop to his son1 for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated ,communion at his hands4 ,but1 when the ,arian bishop arrived1 ,god's devoted servant rebuked him1 as was right for him to do4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,,aa4 #e1 #g71 heretical1 schismatical1 excommunicate1 or even sinful priests1 although they have the power to consecrate the ,eucharist1 yet they do not make a proper use of it2 on the contrary1 they sin by using it4 ,but whoever communicates with another who is in sin1 becomes a sharer in his sin4 ,hence we read in ,john's ,second ,canonical ,epistle 7#aa7 that ,he that saith unto him1 ,god speed you1 communicateth with his wicked works4 ,consequently1 it is not lawful to receive ,communion from them1 or to assist at their mass4 ,still there is a difference among the above1 because heretics1 schismatics1 and excommunicates1 have been forbidden1 by the ,church's sentence1 to perform the ,eucharistic rite4 ,and therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them1 commits sin4 ,but not all who are sinners are debarred by the ,church's sentence from using this power3 and so1 although suspended by the ,divine sentence1 yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence3 consequently1 until the ,church's sentence is pronounced1 it is lawful to receive ,communion at their hands1 and to hear their mass4 ,hence on #a ,cor4 #e3aa1 with such a one not so much as to eat1 ,augustine's gloss runs thus3 ,in saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion1 or even by usurped extraordinary judgment1 but rather by ,god's law1 according to the ,church's ordering1 whether he confess of his own accord1 or whether he be accused and convicted4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by refusing to hear the masses of such priests1 or to receive ,communion from them1 we are not shunning ,god's sacraments2 on the contrary1 by so doing we are giving them honor 7hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored1 and if it be reserved1 it can be consumed by a lawful priest73 but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true body received4 ,but those who receive or minister unworthily1 are deprived of the fruit1 as was said above 7,a4 #g2 ,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #d74 ,and therefore1 those who belong to the unity of the ,faith are not to receive the sacrament from their dispensing4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although fornication is not graver than other sins1 yet men are more prone to it1 owing to fleshly concupiscence4 ,consequently1 this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the ,church1 lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage4 ,however1 this is to be understood of one who is notorious1 either from being convicted and sentenced1 or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal form1 or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any subterfuge4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,art4 #aj ,whether ,it ,is ,lawful for a ,priest to ,refrain ,entirely from ,consecrating the ,eucharist8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely from consecrating the ,eucharist4 ,because1 as it is the priest's office to consecrate the ,eucharist1 so it is likewise to baptize and administer the other sacraments4 ,but the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the other sacraments1 unless he has undertaken the care of souls4 ,therefore1 it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the ,eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to do2 otherwise he would be in two minds4 ,but it is not lawful for the priest who is in a state of sin1 or excommunicate1 to consecrate the ,eucharist1 as was said above 7,a4 #g74 ,therefore it seems that such men are not bound to celebrate1 and so neither are the others2 otherwise they would be gainers by their fault4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent weakness3 because ,pope ,gelasius ,i says 7cf4 ,decretal1 ,dist4 #ee73 ,as the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood1 so if anyone be disabled when once in that state1 he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well4 ,but it sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating1 such as leprosy or epilepsy1 or the like4 ,consequently1 it does not appear that priests are bound to celebrate4 ,on the contrary1 ,ambrose says in one of his ,orations 7xxxiii73 ,it is a grave matter if we do not approach ,thy altar with clean heart and pure hands2 but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice4 ,i answer that1 ,some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from consecrating1 except he be bound to do so1 and to give the sacraments to the people1 by reason of his being entrusted with the care of souls4 ,but this is said quite unreasonably1 because everyone is bound to use the grace entrusted to him1 when opportunity serves1 according to #b ,cor4 #f3a3 ,we exhort you that you receive not the grace of ,god in vain4 ,but the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not merely in relation to the faithful of ,christ to whom the sacraments must be administered1 but chiefly with regard to ,god to ,whom the sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating4 ,hence1 it is not lawful for the priest1 even though he has not the care of souls1 to refrain altogether from celebrating2 and he seems to be bound to celebrate at least on the chief festivals1 and especially on those days on which the faithful usually communicate4 ,and hence it is that 7#b ,macc4 #d3ad7 it is said against some priests that they were not now occupied about the offices of the altar 4 4 4 despising the temple and neglecting the sacrifices4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the other sacraments are accomplished in being used by the faithful1 and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who has undertaken the care of souls4 ,but this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the ,eucharist1 whereby a sacrifice is offered to ,god1 to which the priest is bound from the order he has received4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the sinful priest1 if deprived by the ,church's sentence from exercising his order1 simply or for a time1 is rendered incapable of offering sacrifice2 consequently1 the obligation lapses4 ,but if not deprived of the power of celebrating1 the obligation is not removed2 nor is he in two minds1 because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his ordination does not deprive him of his orders2 but hinders him from exercising them1 as to the consecration of the ,eucharist3 sometimes by making it impossible to exercise them1 as1 for example1 if he lose his sight1 or his fingers1 or the use of speech2 and sometimes on account of danger1 as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy1 or indeed any disease of the mind2 and sometimes1 on account of loathsomeness1 as is evident in the case of a leper1 who ought not to celebrate in public3 he can1 however1 say mass privately1 unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs4 ,,question #hc ,,of ,,the ,,rite ,,of ,,this ,,sacrament 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we have now to consider the ,rite of this sacrament1 under which head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery8 7#b7 ,of the time of celebrating2 7#c7 ,of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this celebration2 7#d7 ,of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery2 7#e7 ,of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery4 7#f7 ,of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,christ ,is ,sacrificed in ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that ,christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,for it is written 7,heb4 #aj3ad7 that ,christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified4 ,but that oblation was ,his oblation4 ,therefore ,christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's sacrifice was made upon the cross1 whereon ,he delivered ,himself for us1 an oblation and a sacrifice to ,god for an odor of sweetness1 as is said in ,eph4 #e3b4 ,but ,christ is not crucified in the celebration of this mystery4 ,therefore1 neither is ,he sacrificed4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 as ,augustine says 7,de ,trin4 iv71 in ,christ's sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same4 ,but in the celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the same4 ,therefore1 the celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice of ,christ4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in the ,liber ,sentent4 ,prosp4 7cf4 ,ep4 xcviii73 ,christ was sacrificed once in ,himself1 and yet ,he is sacrificed daily in the ,sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,the celebration of this sacrament is called a sacrifice for two reasons4 ,first1 because1 as ,augustine says 7,ad ,simplician4 ii71 the images of things are called by the names of the things whereof they are the images2 as when we look upon a picture or a fresco1 we say1 ',this is ,cicero and that is ,sallust4' ,but1 as was said above 7,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #a71 the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing ,christ's ,passion1 which is ,his true sacrifice4 ,accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called ,christ's sacrifice4 ,hence it is that ,ambrose1 in commenting on ,heb4 #aj3a1 says3 ,in ,christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal salvation2 what then do we do8 ,do we not offer it up every day in memory of ,his death8 ,secondly it is called a sacrifice1 in respect of the effect of ,his ,passion3 because1 to wit1 by this sacrament1 we are made partakers of the fruit of our ,lord's ,passion4 ,hence in one of the ,sunday ,secrets 7,ninth ,sunday after ,pentecost7 we say3 ,whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated1 the work of our redemption is enacted4 ,consequently1 according to the first reason1 it is true to say that ,christ was sacrificed1 even in the figures of the ,old ,testament3 hence it is stated in the ,apocalypse 7#ac3h73 ,whose names are not written in the ,book of ,life of the ,lamb1 which was slain from the beginning of the world4 ,but according to the second reason1 it is proper to this sacrament for ,christ to be sacrificed in its celebration4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as ,ambrose says 7commenting on ,heb4 #aj3a71 there is but one victim1 namely that which ,christ offered1 and which we offer1 and not many victims1 because ,christ was offered but once3 and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former4 ,for1 just as what is offered everywhere is one body1 and not many bodies1 so also is it but one sacrifice4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing ,christ's ,passion1 so the altar is representative of the cross itself1 upon which ,christ was sacrificed in ,his proper species4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,for the same reason 7cf4 ,reply ,obj4 #b7 the priest also bears ,christ's image1 in ,whose person and by ,whose power he pronounces the words of consecration1 as is evident from what was said above 7,q4 #hb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,and so1 in a measure1 the priest and victim are one and the same4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #b ,whether the ,time for ,celebrating ,this ,mystery ,has ,been ,properly ,determined8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has not been properly determined4 ,for as was observed above 7,a4 #a71 this sacrament is representative of our ,lord's ,passion4 ,but the commemoration of our ,lord's ,passion takes place in the ,church once in the year3 because ,augustine says 7,enarr4 ii in ,ps4 #ba73 ,is not ,christ slain as often as the ,pasch is celebrated8 ,nevertheless1 the anniversary remembrance represents what took place in by-gone days2 and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw our ,lord hanging upon the cross4 ,therefore this sacrament ought to be celebrated but once a year4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's ,passion is commemorated in the ,church on the ,friday before ,easter1 and not on ,christmas ,day4 ,consequently1 since this sacrament is commemorative of our ,lord's ,passion1 it seems unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on ,christmas ,day1 and to be entirely omitted on ,good ,friday4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the celebration of this sacrament the ,church ought to imitate ,christ's institution4 ,but it was in the evening that ,christ consecrated this sacrament4 ,therefore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 as is set down in the ,decretals 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 i71 ,pope ,leo ,i wrote to ,dioscorus1 ,bishop of ,alexandria1 that it is permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day4 ,but the day begins at midnight1 as was said above 7,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #h1 ad #e74 ,therefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 in one of the ,sunday ,secrets 7,ninth ,sunday after ,pentecost7 we say3 ,grant us1 ,lord1 we beseech ,thee1 to frequent these mysteries4 ,but there will be greater frequency if the priest celebrates several times a day4 ,therefore it seems that the priest ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily4 ,on the contrary is the custom which the ,church observes according to the statutes of the ,canons4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 in the celebration of this mystery1 we must take into consideration the representation of our ,lord's ,passion1 and the participation of its fruits2 and the time suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined by each of these considerations4 ,now since1 owing to our daily defects1 we stand in daily need of the fruits of our ,lord's ,passion1 this sacrament is offered regularly every day in the ,church4 ,hence our ,lord teaches us to pray 7,luke #aa3c73 ,give us this day our daily bread3 in explanation of which words ,augustine says 7,de ,verb4 ,dom4 xxviii73 ,if it be a daily bread1 why do you take it once a year1 as the ,greeks have the custom in the east8 ,receive it daily that it may benefit you every day4 ,but since our ,lord's ,passion was celebrated from the third to the ninth hour1 therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the ,church in that part of the day4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,christ's ,passion is recalled in this sacrament1 inasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful2 but at ,passion-tide ,christ's ,passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in ,him ,who is our ,head4 ,this took place but once2 whereas the faithful receive daily the fruits of ,his ,passion3 consequently1 the former is commemorated but once in the year1 whereas the latter takes place every day1 both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we may have a perpetual memorial4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the figure ceases on the advent of the reality4 ,but this sacrament is a figure and a representation of our ,lord's ,passion1 as stated above4 ,and therefore on the day on which our ,lord's ,passion is recalled as it was really accomplished1 this sacrament is not consecrated4 ,nevertheless1 lest the ,church be deprived on that day of the fruit of the ,passion offered to us by this sacrament1 the body of ,christ consecrated the day before is reserved to be consumed on that day2 but the blood is not reserved1 on account of danger1 and because the blood is more specially the image of our ,lord's ,passion1 as stated above 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b74 ,nor is it true1 as some affirm1 that the wine is changed into blood when the particle of ,christ's body is dropped into it4 ,because this cannot be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words4 ,on ,christmas ,day1 however1 several masses are said on account of ,christ's threefold nativity4 ,of these the first is ,his eternal birth1 which is hidden in our regard1 and therefore one mass is sung in the night1 in the ,introit of which we say3 ,the ,lord said unto ,me3 ,thou art ,my ,son1 this day have ,i begotten ,thee4 ,the second is ,his nativity in time1 and the spiritual birth1 whereby ,christ rises as the day-star in our ,vulg43 'your' hearts 7#b ,pet4 #a3ai71 and on this account the mass is sung at dawn1 and in the ,introit we say3 ,the light will shine on us today4 ,the third is ,christ's temporal and bodily birth1 according as ,he went forth from the virginal womb1 becoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh3 and on that account the third mass is sung in broad daylight1 in the ,introit of which we say3 ,a child is born to us4 ,nevertheless1 on the other hand1 it can be said that ,his eternal generation1 of itself1 is in the full light1 and on this account in the gospel of the third mass mention is made of ,his eternal birth4 ,but regarding ,his birth in the body1 ,he was literally born during the night1 as a sign that ,he came to the darknesses of our infirmity2 hence also in the midnight mass we say the gospel of ,christ's nativity in the flesh4 ,likewise on other days upon which many of ,god's benefits have to be recalled or besought1 several masses are celebrated on one day1 as for instance1 one for the feast1 and another for a fast or for the dead4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as already observed 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #e71 ,christ wished to give this sacrament last of all1 in order that it might make a deeper impression on the hearts of the disciples2 and therefore it was after supper1 at the close of day1 that ,he consecrated this sacrament and gave it to ,his disciples4 ,but we celebrate at the hour when our ,lord suffered1 i4e4 either1 as on feast-days1 at the hour of ,terce1 when ,he was crucified by the tongues of the ,jews 7,mk4 #ae3be71 and when the ,holy ,ghost descended upon the disciples 7,acts #b3ae72 or1 as when no feast is kept1 at the hour of ,sext1 when ,he was crucified at the hands of the soldiers 7,john #ai3ad71 or1 as on fasting days1 at ,none1 when crying out with a loud voice ,he gave up the ghost 7,matt4 #bg3df1 #ej74 ,nevertheless the mass can be postponed1 especially when ,holy orders have to be conferred1 and still more on ,holy ,saturday2 both on account of the length of the office1 and also because orders belong to the ,sunday1 as is set forth in the ,decretals 7dist4 #ge74 ,masses1 however1 can be celebrated in the first part of the day1 owing to any necessity2 as is stated ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,as a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in the night1 because ,christ is present in this sacrament1 ,who says 7,john #i3d1 #e73 ,i must work the works of ,him that sent ,me1 whilst it is day3 because the night cometh when no man can work2 as long as ,i am in the world1 ,i am the light of the world4 ,yet this should be done in such a manner that the beginning of the day is not to be taken from midnight2 nor from sunrise1 that is1 when the substance of the sun appears above the earth2 but when the dawn begins to show3 because then the sun is said to be risen when the brightness of his beams appears4 ,accordingly it is written 7,mk4 #af3a7 that the women came to the tomb1 the sun being now risen2 though1 as ,john relates 7,john #bj3a71 while it was yet dark they came to the tomb4 ,it is in this way that ,augustine explains this difference 7,de ,consens4 ,evang4 iii74 ,exception is made on the night of ,christmas eve1 when mass is celebrated1 because our ,lord was born in the night 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a74 ,and in like manner it is celebrated on ,holy ,saturday towards the beginning of the night1 since our ,lord rose in the night1 that is1 when it was yet dark1 before the sun's rising was manifest4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as is set down in the decree 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a71 in virtue of a decree of ,pope ,alexander ,,ii1 it is enough for a priest to celebrate one mass each day1 because ,christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world2 and very happy is he who can worthily celebrate one mass4 ,but there are some who say one mass for the dead1 and another of the day1 if need be4 ,but ,i do not deem that those escape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily1 either for the sake of money1 or to gain flattery from the laity4 ,and ,pope ,innocent ,,iii says 7,extra1 ,de ,celebr4 ,miss41 chap4 ,consuluisti7 that except on the day of our ,lord's birth1 unless necessity urges1 it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one mass each day4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,ought to ,be ,celebrated in a ,house and with ,sacred ,vessels8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels4 ,for this sacrament is a representation of our ,lord's ,passion4 ,but ,christ did not suffer in a house1 but outside the city gate1 according to ,heb4 #a3ab3 ,jesus1 that ,he might sanctify the people by ,his own blood1 suffered without the gate4 ,therefore1 it seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated in a house1 but rather in the open air4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in the celebration of this sacrament the ,church ought to imitate the custom of ,christ and the apostles4 ,but the house wherein ,christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated1 but merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the master of the house1 as related in ,luke #bb3aa1 #ab4 ,moreover1 we read 7,acts #b3df7 that the apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple2 and1 breaking bread from house to house1 they took their meat with gladness4 ,consequently1 there is no need for houses1 in which this sacrament is celebrated1 to be consecrated4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in the ,church1 which is governed by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but it seems useless to consecrate a church1 or an altar1 or such like inanimate things1 since they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual virtue4 ,therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in the ,church4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 only ,divine works ought to be recalled with solemnity1 according to ,ps4 #ia3e3 ,i shall rejoice in the works of ,thy hands4 ,now the consecration of a church or altar1 is the work of a man2 as is also the consecration of the chalice1 and of the ministers1 and of other such things4 ,but these latter consecrations are not commemorated in the ,church4 ,therefore neither ought the consecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated with solemnity4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 the truth ought to correspond with the figure4 ,but in the ,old ,testament1 which was a figure of the ,new1 the altar was not made of hewn stones3 for1 it is written 7,ex4 #bj3bd73 ,you shall make an altar of earth unto ,me 4 4 4 and if thou make an altar of stone unto ,me1 thou shalt not build it of hewn stones4 ,again1 the altar is commanded to be made of setim-wood1 covered with brass 7,ex4 #bg3a1 #b71 or with gold 7,ex4 #be74 ,consequently1 it seems unfitting for the ,church to make exclusive use of altars made of stone4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 the chalice with the paten represents ,christ's tomb1 which was hewn in a rock1 as is narrated in the ,gospels4 ,consequently1 the chalice ought to be of stone1 and not of gold or of silver or tin4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 just as gold is the most precious among the materials of the altar vessels1 so are cloths of silk the most precious among other cloths4 ,consequently1 since the chalice is of gold1 the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen4 ,obj4 #h3 ,further1 the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong to the ,church's ministers1 just as the ordering of temporal affairs is subject to the ruling of secular princes2 hence the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #d3a73 ,let a man so esteem us as the ministers of ,christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of ,god4 ,but if anything be done against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void4 ,therefore1 if the various items mentioned above are suitably commanded by the ,church's prelates1 it seems that the body of ,christ could not be consecrated unless they be observed2 and so it appears to follow that ,christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this sacrament3 which is contrary to the fact4 ,consequently1 it does not seem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,church's ordinances are ,christ's own ordinances2 since ,he said 7,matt4 #ah3bj73 ,wherever two or three are gathered together in ,my name1 there am ,i in the midst of them4 ,i answer that1 ,there are two things to be considered regarding the equipment of this sacrament3 one of these belongs to the representation of the events connected with our ,lord's ,passion2 while the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament1 in which ,christ is contained verily1 and not in figure only4 ,hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this sacrament2 both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament1 and in order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the ,passion of ,christ1 according to ,heb4 #ac3ab3 ,jesus1 that ,he might sanctify the people by ,his own blood1 etc4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a house1 whereby the ,church is signified1 according to #a ,tim4 #c3ae3 ,that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of ,god1 which is the ,church of the living ,god4 ,because outside the ,church there is no place for the true sacrifice1 as ,augustine says 7,liber ,sentent4 ,prosp4 xv74 ,and because the ,church was not to be confined within the territories of the ,jewish people1 but was to be established throughout the whole world1 therefore ,christ's ,passion was not celebrated within the city of the ,jews1 but in the open country1 that so the whole world might serve as a house for ,christ's ,passion4 ,nevertheless1 as is said in ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a1 if a church be not to hand1 we permit travelers to celebrate mass in the open air1 or in a tent1 if there be a consecrated altar-table to hand1 and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes the ,church1 and is termed a church2 and so it is fittingly consecrated1 both to represent the holiness which the ,church acquired from the ,passion1 as well as to denote the holiness required of them who have to receive this sacrament4 ,by the altar ,christ ,himself is signified1 of ,whom the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #ac3ae73 ,through ,him we offer a sacrifice of praise to ,god4 ,hence the consecration of the altar signifies ,christ's holiness1 of which it was said 7,luke #a3ce73 ,the ,holy one born of thee shall be called the ,son of ,god4 ,hence we read in ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a3 ,it has seemed pleasing for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism1 but likewise with the priestly blessing4 ,and therefore1 as a rule1 it is not lawful to celebrate this sacrament except in a consecrated house4 ,hence it is enacted 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a73 ,let no priest presume to say mass except in places consecrated by the bishop4 ,and furthermore because pagans and other unbelievers are not members of the ,church1 therefore we read 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a73 ,it is not lawful to bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are buried1 but if it seem suitable for consecration1 then1 after removing the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams1 let it be rebuilt4 ,if1 however1 it has been already consecrated1 and the faithful lie in it1 it is lawful to celebrate mass therein4 ,nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can be performed in houses which have not been consecrated1 or which have been profaned2 but with the bishop's consent4 ,hence we read in the same distinction3 ,we deem that masses are not to be celebrated everywhere1 but in places consecrated by the bishop1 or where he gives permission4 ,but not without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop3 hence in the same distinction we read3 ,we permit that1 if the churches be devastated or burned1 masses may be celebrated in chapels1 with a consecrated altar4 ,for because ,christ's holiness is the fount of all the ,church's holiness1 therefore in necessity a consecrated altar suffices for performing this sacrament4 ,and on this account a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar4 ,yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church1 with the relics of the saints1 whose lives are hidden with ,christ in ,god 7,col4 #c3c74 ,accordingly under the same distinction we read3 ,it is our pleasure that altars1 in which no relics of saints are found enclosed1 be thrown down1 if possible1 by the bishops presiding over such places4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the church1 altar1 and other like inanimate things are consecrated1 not because they are capable of receiving grace1 but because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration1 whereby they are rendered fit for the ,divine worship1 so that man derives devotion therefrom1 making him more fitted for ,divine functions1 unless this be hindered by want of reverence4 ,hence it is written 7#b ,macc4 #c3ch73 ,there is undoubtedly in that place a certain power of ,god2 for ,he that hath ,his dwelling in the heavens is the visitor1 and the protector of that place4 ,hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being consecrated1 that the enemy's power may be driven forth4 ,and for the same reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are reconciled3 because some machination of the enemy is apparent on account of the sin committed there4 ,and for this reason we read in the same distinction3 ,wherever you find churches of the ,arians1 consecrate them as ,catholic churches without delay by means of devout prayers and rites4 ,hence1 too1 it is that some say with probability1 that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of venial sins1 just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water2 alleging the words of ,ps4 #hd3b1 #c3 ,lord1 ,thou hast blessed ,thy land 4 4 4 ,thou hast forgiven the iniquity of ,thy people4 ,and therefore1 in consequence of the virtue acquired by a church's consecration1 the consecration is never repeated4 ,accordingly we find in the same distinction the following words quoted from the ,council of ,nicaea3 ,churches which have once been consecrated1 must not be consecrated again1 except they be devastated by fire1 or defiled by shedding of blood or of anyone's seed2 because1 just as a child once baptized in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 ought not to be baptized again1 so neither ought a place1 once dedicated to ,god1 to be consecrated again1 except owing to the causes mentioned above2 provided that the consecrators held faith in the ,holy ,trinity3 in fact1 those outside the ,church cannot consecrate4 ,but1 as we read in the same distinction3 ,churches or altars of doubtful consecration are to be consecrated anew4 ,and since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their consecration1 we find it laid down in the same distinction that the beams of a dedicated church ought not to be used for any other purpose1 except it be for some other church1 or else they are to be burned1 or put to the use of brethren in some monastery3 but on no account are they to be discarded for works of the laity4 ,we read there1 too1 that the altar covering1 chair1 candlesticks1 and veil1 are to be burned when warn out2 and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery1 or in the walls1 or else cast into the trenches beneath the flag-stones1 so as not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,since the consecration of the altar signifies ,christ's holiness1 and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire ,church1 therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated4 ,and on this account the solemnity of a church dedication is observed for eight days1 in order to signify the happy resurrection of ,christ and of the ,church's members4 ,nor is the consecration of a church or altar man's doing only1 since it has a spiritual virtue4 ,hence in the same distinction 7,de ,consecr47 it is said3 ,the solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be solemnly celebrated each year3 and that dedications are to be kept up for eight days1 you will find in the third book of ,kings 7#h3ff74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,as we read in ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a1 altars1 if not of stone1 are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism4 ,and this is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament2 both because the altar signifies ,christ1 for in #a ,cor4 #aj3c1 it is written1 ,but the rock was ,christ3 and because ,christ's body was laid in a stone sepulchre4 ,this is also in keeping with the use of the sacrament4 ,because stone is solid1 and may be found everywhere1 which was not necessary in the old ,law1 when the altar was made in one place4 ,as to the commandment to make the altar of earth1 or of unhewn stones1 this was given in order to remove idolatry4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,as is laid down in the same distinction1 formerly the priests did not use golden but wooden chalices2 but ,pope ,zephyrinus ordered the mass to be said with glass patens2 and subsequently ,pope ,urban had everything made of silver4 ,afterwards it was decided that the ,lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold1 or of silver or at least of tin4 ,but it is not to be made of brass1 or copper1 because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris1 and provokes vomiting4 ,but no one is to presume to sing mass with a chalice of wood or of glass1 because as the wood is porous1 the consecrated blood would remain in it2 while glass is brittle and there might arise danger of breakage2 and the same applies to stone4 ,consequently1 out of reverence for the sacrament1 it was enacted that the chalice should be made of the aforesaid materials4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,where it could be done without danger1 the ,church gave order for that thing to be used which more expressively represents ,christ's ,passion4 ,but there was not so much danger regarding the body which is placed on the corporal1 as there is with the blood contained in the chalice4 ,and consequently1 although the chalice is not made of stone1 yet the corporal is made of linen1 since ,christ's body was wrapped therein4 ,hence we read in an ,epistle of ,pope ,silvester1 quoted in the same distinction3 ,by a unanimous decree we command that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar upon a cloth of silk1 or dyed material1 but upon linen consecrated by the bishop2 as ,christ's body was buried in a clean linen winding-sheet4 ,moreover1 linen material is becoming1 owing to its cleanness1 to denote purity of conscience1 and1 owing to the manifold labor with which it is prepared1 to denote ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #h3 ,the dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the ,church's ministers2 but their consecration is from ,god ,himself4 ,consequently1 the ,church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration1 and the manner of celebrating4 ,and therefore1 if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating1 then1 without every one of the things mentioned above--namely1 without house1 and altar1 consecrated chalice and corporal1 and the other things instituted by the ,church--he consecrates ,christ's body in very truth2 yet he is guilty of grave sin1 in not following the rite of the ,church4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,words ,spoken in ,this ,sacrament ,are ,properly ,framed8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not properly framed4 ,for1 as ,ambrose says 7,de ,sacram4 iv71 this sacrament is consecrated with ,christ's own words4 ,therefore no other words besides ,christ's should be spoken in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,christ's words and deeds are made known to us through the ,gospel4 ,but in consecrating this sacrament words are used which are not set down in the ,gospels3 for we do not read in the ,gospel1 of ,christ lifting up ,his eyes to heaven while consecrating this sacrament3 and similarly it is said in the ,gospel3 ,take ye and eat 7comedite7 without the addition of the word all1 whereas in celebrating this sacrament we say3 ,lifting up ,his eyes to heaven1 and again1 ,take ye and eat 7manducate7 of this4 ,therefore such words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 all the other sacraments are ordained for the salvation of all the faithful4 ,but in the celebration of the other sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed4 ,consequently it is unbecoming in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith4 ,consequently1 the truths which belong to instruction in the faith ought rather to be given regarding ,baptism than regarding this sacrament1 such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the ,gospels4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 devotion on the part of the faithful is required in every sacrament4 ,consequently1 the devotion of the faithful ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by ,divine praises and by admonitions1 such as1 ,lift up your hearts4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 the minister of this sacrament is the priest1 as stated above 7,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #a74 ,consequently1 all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest1 and not some by the ministers1 and some by the choir4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 the ,divine power works this sacrament unfailingly4 ,therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting of this sacrament1 saying3 ,which oblation do thou1 ,o ,god1 in all1 etc4 ,obj4 #h3 ,further1 the sacrifice of the ,new ,law is much more excellent than the sacrifice of the fathers of old4 ,therefore1 it is unfitting for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of ,abel1 ,abraham1 and ,melchisedech4 ,objection #i3 ,further1 just as ,christ's body does not begin to be in this sacrament by change of place1 as stated above 7,q4 #ge1 ,a4 #b71 so likewise neither does it cease to be there4 ,consequently1 it is improper for the priest to ask3 ,bid these things be borne by the hands of thy holy angel unto ,thine altar on high4 ,on the contrary1 ,we find it stated in ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a1 that ,james1 the brother of the ,lord according to the flesh1 and ,basil1 bishop of ,caesarea1 edited the rite of celebrating the mass3 and from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed in this matter1 are chosen becomingly4 ,i answer that1 ,since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament1 therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments4 ,and since it is written 7,eccles4 #d3ag73 ,keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of ,god2 and 7,ecclus4 #ah3bc73 ,before prayer prepare thy soul1 therefore the celebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in order that we may perform worthily that which follows after4 ,the first part of this preparation is ,divine praise1 and consists in the ,introit3 according to ,ps4 #di3bc3 ,the sacrifice of praise shall glorify me2 and there is the way by which ,i will show him the salvation of ,god3 and this is taken for the most part from the ,psalms1 or1 at least1 is sung with a ,psalm1 because1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii73 ,the ,psalms comprise by way of praise whatever is contained in ,sacred ,scripture4 ,the second part contains a reference to our present misery1 by reason of which we pray for mercy1 saying3 ,lord1 have mercy on us1 thrice for the ,person of the ,father1 and ,christ1 have mercy on us1 thrice for the ,person of the ,son1 and ,lord1 have mercy on us1 thrice for the ,person of the ,holy ,ghost2 against the threefold misery of ignorance1 sin1 and punishment2 or else to express the circuminsession of all the ,divine ,persons4 ,the third part commemorates the heavenly glory1 to the possession of which1 after this life of misery1 we are tending1 in the words1 ,glory be to ,god on high1 which are sung on festival days1 on which the heavenly glory is commemorated1 but are omitted in those sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state4 ,the fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the people1 that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries4 ,there precedes1 in the second place1 the instruction of the faithful1 because this sacrament is a mystery of faith1 as stated above 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #c1 ad #e74 ,now this instruction is given dispositively1 when the ,lectors and ,sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the prophets and apostles3 after this lesson1 the choir sing the ,gradual1 which signifies progress in life2 then the ,alleluia is intoned1 and this denotes spiritual joy2 or in mournful offices the ,tract1 expressive of spiritual sighing2 for all these things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching4 ,but the people are instructed perfectly by ,christ's teaching contained in the ,gospel1 which is read by the higher ministers1 that is1 by the ,deacons4 ,and because we believe ,christ as the ,divine truth1 according to ,john #h3df1 ,if ,i tell you the truth1 why do you not believe ,me8 after the ,gospel has been read1 the ,creed is sung in which the people show that they assent by faith to ,christ's doctrine4 ,and it is sung on those festivals of which mention is made therein1 as on the festivals of ,christ1 of the ,blessed ,virgin1 and of the apostles1 who laid the foundations of this faith1 and on other such days4 ,so then1 after the people have been prepared and instructed1 the next step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery1 which is both offered as a sacrifice1 and consecrated and received as a sacrament3 since first we have the oblation2 then the consecration of the matter offered2 and thirdly1 its reception4 ,in regard to the oblation1 two things are done1 namely1 the people's praise in singing the offertory1 expressing the joy of the offerers1 and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be made acceptable to ,god4 ,hence ,david said 7#a ,para #bi3ag73 ,in the simplicity of my heart1 ,i have 4 4 4 offered all these things3 and ,i have seen with great joy ,thy people which are here present1 offer ,thee their offerings3 and then he makes the following prayer3 ,o ,lord ,god 4 4 4 keep 4 4 4 this will4 ,then1 regarding the consecration1 performed by supernatural power1 the people are first of all excited to devotion in the ,preface1 hence they are admonished to lift up their hearts to the ,lord1 and therefore when the ,preface is ended the people devoutly praise ,christ's ,godhead1 saying with the angels3 ,holy1 ,holy1 ,holy2 and ,his humanity1 saying with the children3 ,blessed is he that cometh4 ,in the next place the priest makes a commemoration1 first of those for whom this sacrifice is offered1 namely1 for the whole ,church1 and for those set in high places 7#a ,tim4 #b3b71 and1 in a special manner1 of them who offer1 or for whom the mass is offered4 ,secondly1 he commemorates the saints1 invoking their patronage for those mentioned above1 when he says3 ,communicating with1 and honoring the memory1 etc4 ,thirdly1 he concludes the petition when he says3 ,wherefore that this oblation1 etc41 in order that the oblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered4 ,then he comes to the consecration itself4 ,here he asks first of all for the effect of the consecration1 when he says3 ,which oblation do ,thou1 ,o ,god1 etc4 ,secondly1 he performs the consecration using our ,saviour's words1 when he says3 ,who the day before1 etc4 ,thirdly1 he makes excuse for his presumption in obeying ,christ's command1 saying3 ,wherefore1 calling to mind1 etc4 ,fourthly1 he asks that the sacrifice accomplished may find favor with ,god1 when he says3 ,look down upon them with a propitious1 etc4 ,fifthly1 he begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament1 first for the partakers1 saying3 ,we humbly beseech ,thee2 then for the dead1 who can no longer receive it1 saying3 ,be mindful also1 ,o ,lord1 etc42 thirdly1 for the priests themselves who offer1 saying3 ,and to us sinners1 etc4 ,then follows the act of receiving the sacrament4 ,first of all1 the people are prepared for ,communion2 first1 by the common prayer of the congregation1 which is the ,lord's ,prayer1 in which we ask for our daily bread to be given us2 and also by private prayer1 which the priest puts up specially for the people1 when he says3 ,deliver us1 we beseech ,thee1 ,o ,lord1 etc4 ,secondly1 the people are prepared by the ,pax which is given with the words1 ,lamb of ,god1 etc41 because this is the sacrament of unity and peace1 as stated above 7,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #d2 ,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #a74 ,but in masses for the dead1 in which the sacrifice is offered not for present peace1 but for the repose of the dead1 the ,pax is omitted4 ,then follows the reception of the sacrament1 the priest receiving first1 and afterwards giving it to others1 because1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii71 he who gives ,divine things to others1 ought first to partake thereof himself4 ,finally1 the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving1 the people rejoicing for having received the mystery 7and this is the meaning of the singing after the ,communion72 and the priest returning thanks by prayer1 as ,christ1 at the close of the supper with ,his disciples1 said a hymn 7,matt4 #bf3cj74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the consecration is accomplished by ,christ's words only2 but the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it1 as stated above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as is stated in the last chapter of ,john 7verse #be71 our ,lord said and did many things which are not written down by the ,evangelists2 and among them is the uplifting of ,his eyes to heaven at the supper2 nevertheless the ,roman ,church had it by tradition from the apostles4 ,for it seems reasonable that ,he ,who lifted up ,his eyes to the ,father in raising ,lazarus to life1 as related in ,john #aa3da1 and in the prayer which ,he made for the disciples 7,john #ag3a71 had more reason to do so in instituting this sacrament1 as being of greater import4 ,the use of the word manducate instead of comedite makes no difference in the meaning1 nor does the expression signify1 especially since those words are no part of the form1 as stated above 7,q4 #gh1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b1 #d74 ,the additional word all is understood in the ,gospels1 although not expressed1 because ,he had said 7,john #f3ed73 ,except you eat the flesh of the ,son of ,man 4 4 4 you shall not have life in you4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the ,eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the whole ,church3 and therefore in this sacrament1 more than in the others1 mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation of the entire ,church4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,there is a twofold instruction in the ,faith3 the first is for those receiving it for the first time1 that is to say1 for catechumens1 and such instruction is given in connection with ,baptism4 ,the other is the instruction of the faithful who take part in this sacrament2 and such instruction is given in connection with this sacrament4 ,nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not excluded therefrom4 ,hence in ,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a1 it is laid down3 ,let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church1 and hearing the word of ,god1 be they ,gentiles1 heretics1 or ,jews1 until the mass of the ,catechumens begins1 in which the instruction regarding the ,faith is contained4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in the others1 for the reason that the entire ,christ is contained therein4 ,moreover1 this sacrament requires a more general devotion1 i4e4 on the part of the whole people1 since for them it is offered2 and not merely on the part of the recipients1 as in the other sacraments4 ,hence ,cyprian observes 7,de ,orat4 ,domin4 #ca71 ,the priest1 in saying the ,preface1 disposes the souls of the brethren by saying1 ',lift up your hearts1' and when the people answer--',we have lifted them up to the ,lord1' let them remember that they are to think of nothing else but ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,as was said above 7ad #c71 those things are mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire ,church2 and consequently some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir1 and same of these words are all sung by the choir1 as though inspiring the entire people with them2 and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up1 the priest then acting as in the person of ,god2 to show that the things they denote have come to the people through ,divine revelation1 such as faith and heavenly glory2 and therefore the priest intones the ,creed and the ,gloria in excelsis ,deo4 ,other words are uttered by the ministers1 such as the doctrine of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 as a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by ,god4 ,and there are other words which the priest alone recites1 namely1 such as belong to his personal office1 that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people 7,heb4 #e3a74 ,some of these1 however1 he says aloud1 namely1 such as are common to priest and people alike1 such as the common prayers2 other words1 however1 belong to the priest alone1 such as the oblation and the consecration2 consequently1 the prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret4 ,nevertheless1 in both he calls the people to attention by saying3 ,the ,lord be with you1 and he waits for them to assent by saying ,amen4 ,and therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud1 ,the ,lord be with you1 and he concludes1 ,for ever and ever4 ,or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding ,christ's ,passion the disciples acknowledged ,him only in secret4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,the efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered by the priest's intention4 ,nor is there anything unbecoming in our asking of ,god for what we know ,he will do1 just as ,christ 7,john #ag3a1 #e7 asked for ,his glorification4 ,but the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be fulfilled1 but that it may be fruitful in our regard1 hence he says expressively3 ,that it may become to us the body and the blood4 ,again1 the words preceding these have that meaning1 when he says3 ,vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed1 i4e4 according to ,augustine 7,paschasius1 ,de ,corp4 et ,sang4 ,dom4 xii71 that we may receive a blessing1 namely1 through grace2 'enrolled1' i4e4 that we may be enrolled in heaven2 'ratified1' i4e4 that we may be incorporated in ,christ2 'reasonable1' i4e4 that we may be stripped of our animal sense2 'acceptable1' i4e4 that we who in ourselves are displeasing1 may1 by its means1 be made acceptable to ,his only ,son4 ,reply ,obj4 #h3 ,although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all ancient sacrifices1 yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most acceptable to ,god on account of their devotion4 ,consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by ,god through the devotion of the offerers1 just as the former sacrifices were accepted by ,him4 ,reply ,obj4 #i3 ,the priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven2 nor that ,christ's true body may be borne thither1 for it does not cease to be there2 but he offers this prayer for ,christ's mystical body1 which is signified in this sacrament1 that the angel standing by at the ,divine mysteries may present to ,god the prayers of both priest and people1 according to ,apoc4 #h3d3 ,and the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before ,god1 from the hand of the angel4 ,but ,god's altar on high means either the ,church triumphant1 unto which we pray to be translated1 or else ,god ,himself1 in ,whom we ask to share2 because it is said of this altar 7,ex4 #bj3bf73 ,thou shalt not go up by steps unto ,my altar1 i4e4 thou shalt make no steps towards the ,trinity4 ,or else by the angel we are to understand ,christ ,himself1 ,who is the ,angel of great counsel 7,isa4 #i3f3 ,septuagint71 ,who unites ,his mystical body with ,god the ,father and the ,church triumphant4 ,and from this the mass derives its name 7missa72 because the priest sends 7mittit7 his prayers up to ,god through the angel1 as the people do through the priest1 or else because ,christ is the victim sent 7missa7 to us3 accordingly the deacon on festival days dismisses the people at the end of the mass1 by saying3 ,ite1 missa est1 that is1 the victim has been sent 7missa est7 to ,god through the angel1 so that it may be accepted by ,god4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,actions ,performed in ,celebrating ,this ,sacrament ,are ,becoming8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the actions performed in celebrating this mystery are not becoming4 ,for1 as is evident from its form1 this sacrament belongs to the ,new ,testament4 ,but under the ,new ,testament the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed1 such as that the priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up the sacrifice3 for we read 7,ex4 #cj3ai1 #bj73 ,aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet 4 4 4 when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony 4 4 4 and when they are to come to the altar4 ,therefore it is not fitting that the priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 7,ex4 #cj3g71 the ,lord commanded ,aaron to burn sweet-smelling incense upon the altar which was before the propitiatory3 and the same action was part of the ceremonies of the ,old ,law4 ,therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense during mass4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the ,church ought not to be repeated4 ,consequently it is not proper for the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this sacrament4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #g3g73 ,and without all contradiction1 that which is less1 is blessed by the better4 ,but ,christ1 ,who is in this sacrament after the consecration1 is much greater than the priest4 ,therefore quite unseemingly the priest1 after the consecration1 blesses this sacrament1 by signing it with the cross4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in one of the ,church's sacraments4 ,but it seems ridiculous to perform gestures1 e4g4 for the priest to stretch out his arms at times1 to join his hands1 to join together his fingers1 and to bow down4 ,consequently1 such things ought not to be done in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round frequently towards the people1 and often to greet the people4 ,consequently1 such things ought not to be done in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 the ,apostle 7#a ,cor4 #ac7 deems it improper for ,christ to be divided4 ,but ,christ is in this sacrament after the consecration4 ,therefore it is not proper for the priest to divide the host4 ,obj4 #h3 ,further1 the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent ,christ's ,passion4 ,but during the ,passion ,christ's body was divided in the places of the five wounds4 ,therefore ,christ's body ought to be broken into five parts rather than into three4 ,objection #i3 ,further1 ,christ's entire body is consecrated in this sacrament apart from the blood4 ,consequently1 it is not proper for a particle of the body to be mixed with the blood4 ,objection #aj3 ,further1 just as1 in this sacrament1 ,christ's body is set before us as food1 so is ,his blood1 as drink4 ,but in receiving ,christ's body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the mass4 ,therefore1 it is out of place for the priest1 after taking ,christ's blood1 to receive other wine which is not consecrated4 ,objection #aa3 ,further1 the truth ought to be conformable with the figure4 ,but regarding the ,paschal ,lamb1 which was a figure of this sacrament1 it was commanded that nothing of it should remain until the morning4 ,it is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be reserved1 and not consumed at once4 ,objection #ab3 ,further1 the priest addresses in the plural number those who are hearing mass1 when he says1 ,the ,lord be with you3 and1 ,let us return thanks4 ,but it is out of keeping to address one individual in the plural number1 especially an inferior4 ,consequently it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server present4 ,therefore in the celebration of this sacrament it seems that some of the things done are out of place4 ,on the contrary1 ,the custom of the ,church stands for these things3 and the ,church cannot err1 since she is taught by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,i answer that1 ,as was said above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #f71 there is a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments1 by words1 and by actions1 in order that the signification may thus be more perfect4 ,now1 in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things pertaining to ,christ's ,passion1 which is represented in this sacrament2 or again1 pertaining to ,christ's mystical body1 which is signified therein2 and again1 things pertaining to the use of this sacrament1 which use ought to be devout and reverent4 ,consequently1 in the celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to represent ,christ's ,passion1 or the disposing of ,his mystical body1 and some others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence due to this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the washing of the hands is done in the celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament2 and this for two reasons3 first1 because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the hands be washed2 hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so great a sacrament with hands that are1 even literally1 unclean4 ,secondly1 on account of its signification1 because1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii71 the washing of the extremities of the limbs denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins1 according to ,john #ac3aj3 ,he that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet4 ,and such cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament2 and this is denoted by the confession which is made before the ,introit of the mass4 ,moreover1 this was signified by the washing of the priests under the ,old ,law1 as ,dionysius says 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,however1 the ,church observes this ceremony1 not because it was prescribed under the ,old ,law1 but because it is becoming in itself1 and therefore instituted by the ,church4 ,hence it is not observed in the same way as it was then3 because the washing of the feet is omitted1 and the washing of the hands is observed2 for this can be done more readily1 and suffices for denoting perfect cleansing4 ,for1 since the hand is the organ of organs 7,de ,anima iii71 all works are attributed to the hands3 hence it is said in ,ps4 #be3f3 ,i will wash my hands among the innocent4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,we use incense1 not as commanded by a ceremonial precept of the ,law1 but as prescribed by the ,church2 accordingly we do not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the ,old ,law4 ,it has reference to two things3 first1 to the reverence due to this sacrament1 i4e4 in order by its good odor1 to remove any disagreeable smell that may be about the place2 secondly1 it serves to show the effect of grace1 wherewith ,christ was filled as with a good odor1 according to ,gen4 #bg3bg3 ,behold1 the odor of my son is like the odor of a ripe field2 and from ,christ it spreads to the faithful by the work of ,his ministers1 according to #b ,cor4 #b3ad3 ,he manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place2 and therefore when the altar which represents ,christ1 has been incensed on every side1 then all are incensed in their proper order4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the priest1 in celebrating the mass1 makes use of the sign of the cross to signify ,christ's ,passion which was ended upon the cross4 ,now1 ,christ's ,passion was accomplished in certain stages4 ,first of all there was ,christ's betrayal1 which was the work of ,god1 of ,judas1 and of the ,jews2 and this is signified by the triple sign of the cross at the words1 ,these gifts1 these presents1 these holy unspotted sacrifices4 ,secondly1 there was the selling of ,christ4 ,now he was sold to the ,priests1 to the ,scribes1 and to the ,pharisees3 and to signify this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated1 at the words1 blessed1 enrolled1 ratified4 ,or again1 to signify the price for which ,he was sold1 viz4 thirty pence4 ,and a double cross is added at the words--that it may become to us the ,body and the ,blood1 etc41 to signify the person of ,judas the seller1 and of ,christ ,who was sold4 ,thirdly1 there was the foreshadowing of the ,passion at the last supper4 ,to denote this1 in the third place1 two crosses are made1 one in consecrating the body1 the other in consecrating the blood2 each time while saying1 ,he blessed4 ,fourthly1 there was ,christ's ,passion itself4 ,and so in order to represent ,his five wounds1 in the fourth place1 there is a fivefold signing of the cross at the words1 a pure ,victim1 a holy ,victim1 a spotless ,victim1 the holy bread of eternal life1 and the cup of everlasting salvation4 ,fifthly1 the outstretching of ,christ's body1 and the shedding of the blood1 and the fruits of the ,passion1 are signified by the triple signing of the cross at the words1 as many as shall receive the body and blood1 may be filled with every blessing1 etc4 ,sixthly1 ,christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented2 one for ,his persecutors when ,he said1 ,father1 forgive them2 the second for deliverance from death1 when ,he cried1 ,my ,god1 ,my ,god1 why hast ,thou forsaken ,me8 the third referring to ,his entrance into glory1 when ,he said1 ,father1 into ,thy hands ,i commend ,my spirit2 and in order to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made at the words1 ,thou dost sanctify1 quicken1 bless4 ,seventhly1 the three hours during which ,he hung upon the cross1 that is1 from the sixth to the ninth hour1 are represented2 in signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words1 ,through ,him1 and with ,him1 and in ,him4 ,eighthly1 the separation of ,his soul from the body is signified by the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice4 ,ninthly1 the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three crosses made at the words--,may the peace of the ,lord be ever with you4 ,in short1 we may say that the consecration of this sacrament1 and the acceptance of this sacrifice1 and its fruits1 proceed from the virtue of the cross of ,christ1 and therefore wherever mention is made of these1 the priest makes use of the sign of the cross4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,after the consecration1 the priest makes the sign of the cross1 not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating1 but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross1 and the manner of ,christ's suffering1 as is evident from what has been said 7ad #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the actions performed by the priest in mass are not ridiculous gestures1 since they are done so as to represent something else4 ,the priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of ,christ's arms upon the cross4 ,he also lifts up his hands as he prays1 to point out that his prayer is directed to ,god for the people1 according to ,lam4 #c3da3 ,let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the ,lord in the heavens3 and ,ex4 #ag3aa3 ,and when ,moses lifted up his hands ,israel overcame4 ,that at times he joins his hands1 and bows down1 praying earnestly and humbly1 denotes the humility and obedience of ,christ1 out of which ,he suffered4 ,he closes his fingers1 i4e4 the thumb and first finger1 after the consecration1 because1 with them1 he had touched the consecrated body of ,christ2 so that if any particle cling to the fingers1 it may not be scattered3 and this belongs to the reverence for this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,five times does the priest turn round towards the people1 to denote that our ,lord manifested ,himself five times on the day of ,his ,resurrection1 as stated above in the treatise on ,christ's ,resurrection 7,q4 #ee1 ,a4 #c1 ,obj4 #c74 ,but the priest greets the people seven times1 namely1 five times1 by turning round to the people1 and twice without turning round1 namely1 when he says1 ,the ,lord be with you before the ,preface1 and again when he says1 ,may the peace of the ,lord be ever with you3 and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but a bishop1 when he celebrates on festival days1 in his first greeting says1 ,peace be to you1 which was our ,lord's greeting after ,resurrection1 ,whose person the bishop chiefly represents4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,the breaking of the host denotes three things3 first1 the rending of ,christ's body1 which took place in the ,passion2 secondly1 the distinction of ,his mystical body according to its various states2 and thirdly1 the distribution of the graces which flow from ,christ's ,passion1 as ,dionysius observes 7,eccl4 ,hier4 iii74 ,hence this breaking does not imply severance in ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #h3 ,as ,pope ,sergius says1 and it is to be found in the ,decretals 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 ii71 the ,lord's body is threefold2 the part offered and put into the chalice signifies ,christ's risen body1 namely1 ,christ ,himself1 and the ,blessed ,virgin1 and the other saints1 if there be any1 who are already in glory with their bodies4 ,the part consumed denotes those still walking upon earth1 because while living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament2 and are bruised by the passions1 just as the bread eaten is bruised by the teeth4 ,the part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass1 is ,his body hidden in the sepulchre1 because the bodies of the saints will be in their graves until the end of the world3 though their souls are either in purgatory1 or in heaven4 ,however1 this rite of reserving one part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed1 on account of the danger2 nevertheless1 the same meaning of the parts continues1 which some persons have expressed in verse1 thus3 ,the host being rent-- ,what is dipped1 means the blest2 ,what is dry1 means the living2 ,what is kept1 those at rest4 ,others1 however1 say that the part put into the chalice denotes those still living in this world1 while the part kept outside the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body2 while the part consumed means the others4 ,reply ,obj4 #i3 ,two things can be signified by the chalice3 first1 the ,passion itself1 which is represented in this sacrament1 and according to this1 by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are still sharers of ,christ's sufferings2 secondly1 the enjoyment of the ,blessed can be signified1 which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament2 and therefore those whose bodies are already in full beatitude1 are denoted by the part put into the chalice4 ,and it is to be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to the people to supplement the communion1 because ,christ gave dipped bread only to ,judas the betrayer4 ,reply ,obj4 #aj3 ,wine1 by reason of its humidity1 is capable of washing1 consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after receiving this sacrament1 lest any particles remain3 and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament4 ,hence 7,extra1 ,de ,celebratione missae1 chap4 ,ex parte71 it is said3 ,the priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of ,eucharist3 except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day1 lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again2 and it is for the same reason that wine is poured over the fingers with which he had touched the body of ,christ4 ,reply ,obj4 #aa3 ,the truth ought to be conformable with the figure1 in some respect3 namely1 because a part of the host consecrated1 of which the priest and ministers or even the people communicate1 ought not to be reserved until the day following4 ,hence1 as is laid down 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 ii71 ,pope ,clement ,i ordered that as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the people2 should any be left over1 they are not to be reserved until the morrow1 but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and trembling4 ,nevertheless1 since this sacrament is to be received daily1 whereas the ,paschal ,lamb was not1 it is therefore necessary for other hosts to be reserved for the sick4 ,hence we read in the same distinction3 ,let the priest always have the ,eucharist ready1 so that1 when anyone fall sick1 he may take ,communion to him at once1 lest he die without it4 ,reply ,obj4 #ab3 ,several persons ought to be present at the solemn celebration of the mass4 ,hence ,pope ,soter says 7,de ,consecr41 dist4 #a73 ,it has also been ordained1 that no priest is to presume to celebrate solemn mass1 unless two others be present answering him1 while he himself makes the third2 because when he says in the plural1 ',the ,lord be with you1' and again in the ,secrets1 ',pray ye for me1' it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting4 ,hence it is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed 7,de ,consecr4 dist4 #a7 that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants4 ,nevertheless1 in private masses it suffices to have one server1 who takes the place of the whole ,catholic people1 on whose behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hc1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,defects ,occurring ,during the ,celebration of ,this ,sacrament ,can ,be ,sufficiently ,met by ,observing the ,church's ,statutes8 ,objection #a3 ,it seems that the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the statutes of the ,church4 ,for it sometimes happens that before or after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad1 or is hindered by some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass4 ,consequently it seems impossible to observe the ,church's statute1 whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own sacrifice4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it sometimes happens that1 before the consecration1 the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something1 or that he is in mortal sin1 or under excommunication1 which he did not remember previously4 ,therefore1 in such a dilemma a man must necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the ,church's statute1 whether he receives or not4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider1 or some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the consecration4 ,or even that the priest comes to know that poison has been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him4 ,now in this instance1 if he takes it1 he appears to sin by killing himself1 or by tempting ,god3 also in like manner if he does not take it1 he sins by acting against the ,church's statute4 ,consequently1 he seems to be perplexed1 and under necessity of sinning1 which is not becoming4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 it sometimes happens from the server's want of heed that water is not added to the chalice1 or even the wine overlooked1 and that the priest discovers this4 ,therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise in this case1 whether he receives the body without the blood1 thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete1 or whether he receives neither the body nor the blood4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember having said the words of consecration1 or other words which are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament4 ,in this case he seems to sin1 whether he repeats the words over the same matter1 which words possibly he has said before1 or whether he uses bread and wine which are not consecrated1 as if they were consecrated4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that the host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice1 either before or after the breaking4 ,in this case then the priest will not be able to comply with the ,church's rite1 either as to the breaking1 or else as to this1 that only a third part is put into the chalice4 ,obj4 #g3 ,further1 sometimes1 too1 it happens1 owing to the priest's want of care1 that ,christ's blood is spilled1 or that he vomits the sacrament received1 or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that they become corrupt1 or that they are nibbled by mice1 or lost in any manner whatsoever2 in which cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to be shown towards this sacrament1 as the ,church's ordinances require4 ,it does not seem then that such defects or dangers can be met by keeping to the ,church's statutes4 ,on the contrary1 ,just as ,god does not command an impossibility1 so neither does the ,church4 ,i answer that1 ,dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be met in two ways3 first1 by preventing any such mishaps from occurring3 secondly1 by dealing with them in such a way1 that what may have happened amiss is put right1 either by employing a remedy1 or at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,if the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our ,lord's body and blood1 there is no need for it to be completed by another4 ,but if this happens after the consecration is begun1 for instance1 when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood1 or even after both have been consecrated1 then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else4 ,hence1 as is laid down 7,decretal vii1 q4 #a71 we read the following decree of the 7,seventh7 ,council of ,toledo3 ,we consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass1 if any sickness supervenes1 in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery begun1 let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun4 ,for nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced1 unless the consecration be completed either by the priest who began it1 or by the one who follows him3 because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order4 ,for since we are all one in ,christ1 the change of persons makes no difference1 since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the mystery4 ,yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility1 be presumptuously abused3 and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave the ,divine offices unfinished1 unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing4 ,if anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so1 he will incur sentence of excommunication4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,where difficulty arises1 the less dangerous course should always be followed4 ,but the greatest danger regarding this sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion1 because this is a heinous sacrilege2 while that danger is of less account which regards the condition of the receiver4 ,consequently1 if after the consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk anything1 he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and receive the sacrament4 ,likewise1 if he recalls a sin committed1 he ought to make an act of contrition1 with the firm purpose of confessing and making satisfaction for it3 and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily1 but with profit4 ,the same applies if he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication2 for he ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking absolution2 and so he will receive absolution from the invisible ,high ,priest ,jesus ,christ for his act of completing the ,divine mysteries4 ,but if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the consecration1 ,i should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass begun1 especially if he has broken his fast1 or is under excommunication1 unless grave scandal were to be feared4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if a fly or a spider falls into the chalice before consecration1 or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned1 it ought to be poured out1 and after purifying the chalice1 fresh wine should be served for consecration4 ,but if anything of the sort happen after the consecration1 the insect should be caught carefully and washed thoroughly1 then burned1 and the ablution1 together with the ashes1 thrown into the sacrarium4 ,if it be discovered that the wine has been poisoned1 the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account1 lest the life-giving chalice become one of death1 but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics3 and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete1 he ought to put other wine into the chalice1 resume the mass from the consecration of the blood1 and complete the sacrifice4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,if before the consecration of the blood1 and after the consecration of the body the priest detect that either the wine or the water is absent1 then he ought at once to add them and consecrate4 ,but if after the words of consecration he discover that the water is absent1 he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on1 because the addition of the water is not necessary for the sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #g73 nevertheless the person responsible for the neglect ought to be punished4 ,and on no account should water be mixed with the consecrated wine1 because corruption of the sacrament would ensue in part1 as was said above 7,q4 #gg1 ,a4 #h74 ,but if after the words of consecration the priest perceive that no wine has been put in the chalice1 and if he detect it before receiving the body1 then rejecting the water1 he ought to pour in wine with water1 and begin over again the consecrating words of the blood4 ,but if he notice it after receiving the body1 he ought to procure another host which must be consecrated together with the blood2 and ,i say so for this reason1 because if he were to say only the words of consecration of the blood1 the proper order of consecrating would not be observed2 and1 as is laid down by the ,council of ,toledo1 quoted above 7ad #a71 sacrifices cannot be perfect1 except they be performed in perfect order4 ,but if he were to begin from the consecration of the blood1 and were to repeat all the words which follow1 it would not suffice1 unless there was a consecrated host present1 since in those words there are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood1 but also regarding the body2 and at the close he ought once more to receive the consecrated host and blood1 even if he had already taken the water which was in the chalice1 because the precept of the completing this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of receiving the sacrament while fasting1 as stated above 7,q4 #hj1 ,a4 #h74 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,although the priest may not recollect having said some of the words he ought to say1 he ought not to be disturbed mentally on that account2 for a man who utters many words cannot recall to mind all that he has said2 unless perchance in uttering them he adverts to something connected with the consecration2 for so it is impressed on the memory4 ,hence1 if a man pays attention to what he is saying1 but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these particular words1 he remembers soon after that he has said them2 for1 a thing is presented to the memory under the formality of the past 7,de ,mem4 et ,remin4 i74 ,but if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the words that are not necessary for the sacrament1 ,i think that he ought not to repeat them on that account1 changing the order of the sacrifice1 but that he ought to proceed3 but if he is certain that he has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament1 namely1 the form of the consecration1 since the form of the consecration is necessary for the sacrament1 just as the matter is1 it seems that the same thing ought to be done as was stated above 7ad #d7 with regard to defect in the matter1 namely1 that he should begin again with the form of the consecration1 and repeat the other things in order1 lest the order of the sacrifice be altered4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,the breaking of the consecrated host1 and the putting of only one part into the chalice1 regards the mystical body1 just as the mixing with water signifies the people1 and therefore the omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in the sacrifice1 as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #g3 ,according to the decree1 ,de ,consecr41 dist4 ii1 quoting a decree of ,pope ,pius ,i1 ,if from neglect any of the blood falls upon a board which is fixed to the ground1 let it be taken up with the tongue1 and let the board be scraped4 ,but if it be not a board1 let the ground be scraped1 and the scrapings burned1 and the ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest do penance for forty days4 ,but if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar1 let the minister suck up the drop1 and do penance during three days2 if it falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second altar cloth1 let him do four days' penance2 if it penetrates to the third1 let him do nine days' penance2 if to the fourth1 let him do twenty days' penance2 and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed three times by the priest1 holding the chalice below1 then let the water be taken and put away nigh to the altar4 ,it might even be drunk by the minister1 unless it might be rejected from nausea4 ,some persons go further1 and cut out that part of the linen1 which they burn1 putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium4 ,and the ,decretal continues with a quotation from the ,penitential of ,bede the ,priest3 ,if1 owing to drunkenness or gluttony1 anyone vomits up the ,eucharist1 let him do forty days' penance1 if he be a layman2 but let clerics or monks1 deacons and priests1 do seventy days' penance2 and let a bishop do ninety days'4 ,but if they vomit from sickness1 let them do penance for seven days4 ,and in the same distinction1 we read a decree of the 7,fourth7 ,council of ,arles3 ,they who do not keep proper custody over the sacrament1 if a mouse or other animal consume it1 must do forty days' penance3 he who loses it in a church1 or if a part fall and be not found1 shall do thirty days' penance4 ,and the priest seems to deserve the same penance1 who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy4 ,and on those days the one doing penance ought to fast1 and abstain from ,communion4 ,however1 after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of the person1 the said penances may be lessened or increased4 ,but it must be observed that wherever the species are found to be entire1 they must be preserved reverently1 or consumed2 because ,christ's body is there so long as the species last1 as stated above 7,q4 #gg1 ,,aa4 #d1 #e74 ,but if it can be done conveniently1 the things in which they are found are to be burned1 and the ashes put in the sacrarium1 as was said of the scrapings of the altar-table1 here above4 ,,question #hd ,,of ,,the ,,sacrament ,,of ,,penance 7,in ,ten ,articles7 ,we must now consider the ,sacrament of ,penance4 ,we shall consider 7#a7,penance itself2 7#b7 ,its effect2 7#c7 ,its ,parts2 7#d7 ,the recipients of this sacrament2 7#e7 ,the power of the ministers1 which pertains to the keys2 7#f7 ,the solemnization of this sacrament4 ,the first of these considerations will be twofold3 7#a7 ,penance as a sacrament2 7#b7 ,penance as a virtue4 ,under the first head there are ten points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,penance is a sacrament8 7#b7 ,of its proper matter2 7#c7 ,of its form2 7#d7 ,whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament8 7#e7 ,whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation8 7#f7 ,of its relation to the other sacraments2 7#g7 ,of its institution2 7#h7 ,of its duration2 7#i7 ,of its continuance2 7#aj7 ,whether it can be repeated8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,penance ,is a ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,penance is not a sacrament4 ,for ,gregory 99,cf4 ,isidore1 ,etym4 vi1 ch4 #ai says3 ,the sacraments are ,baptism1 ,chrism1 and the ,body and ,blood of ,christ2 which are called sacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the ,divine power works out salvation in a hidden manner4 ,but this does not happen in ,penance1 because therein corporeal things are not employed that1 under them1 the power of ,god may work our salvation4 ,therefore ,penance is not a sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,church are shown forth by the ministers of ,christ1 according to #a ,cor4 #d3a3 ,let a man so account of us as of the ministers of ,christ1 and the dispensers of the mysteries of ,god4 ,but ,penance is not conferred by the ministers of ,christ1 but is inspired inwardly into man by ,god1 according to ,jer4 #ca3ai3 ,after ,thou didst convert me1 ,i did penance4 ,therefore it seems that ,penance is not a sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 in the sacraments of which we have already spoken above1 there is something that is sacrament only1 something that is both reality and sacrament1 and something that is reality only1 as is clear from what has been stated 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a74 ,but this does not apply to ,penance4 ,therefore ,penance is not a sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,as ,baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed from sin1 so also is ,penance3 wherefore ,peter said to ,simon ,magus 7,acts #h3bb73 ,do penance 4 4 4 from this thy wickedness4 ,but ,baptism is a sacrament as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a74 ,therefore for the same reason ,penance is also a sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,as ,gregory says 99,isidore1 ,etym4 vi1 ch4 #ai1 a sacrament consists in a solemn act1 whereby something is so done that we understand it to signify the holiness which it confers4 ,now it is evident that in ,penance something is done so that something holy is signified both on the part of the penitent sinner1 and on the part of the priest absolving1 because the penitent sinner1 by deed and word1 shows his heart to have renounced sin1 and in like manner the priest1 by his deed and word with regard to the penitent1 signifies the work of ,god ,who forgives his sins4 ,therefore it is evident that ,penance1 as practiced in the ,church1 is a sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,by corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may understand also external sensible actions1 which are to this sacrament what water is to ,baptism1 or chrism to ,confirmation4 ,but it is to be observed that in those sacraments1 whereby an exceptional grace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act1 is conferred1 some corporeal matter is employed externally1 e4g4 in ,baptism1 which confers full remission of all sins1 both as to guilt and as to punishment1 and in ,confirmation1 wherein the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost is bestowed1 and in ,extreme ,unction1 which confers perfect spiritual health derived from the virtue of ,christ as from an extrinsic principle4 ,wherefore1 such human acts as are in these sacraments1 are not the essential matter of the sacrament1 but are dispositions thereto4 ,on the other hand1 in those sacraments whose effect corresponds to that of some human act1 the sensible human act itself takes the place of matter1 as in the case of ,penance and ,matrimony1 even as in bodily medicines1 some are applied externally1 such as plasters and drugs1 while others are acts of the person who seeks to be cured1 such as certain exercises4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in those sacraments which have a corporeal matter1 this matter needs to be applied by a minister of the ,church1 who stands in the place of ,christ1 which denotes that the excellence of the power which operates in the sacraments is from ,christ4 ,but in the sacrament of ,penance1 as stated above 7ad #a71 human actions take the place of matter1 and these actions proceed from internal inspiration1 wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister1 but by ,god working inwardly2 while the minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament1 when he absolves the penitent4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in ,penance also1 there is something which is sacrament only1 viz4 the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner1 and by the priest in giving absolution2 that which is reality and sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance2 while that which is reality1 and not sacrament1 is the forgiveness of sin4 ,the first of these taken altogether is the cause of the second2 and the first and second together are the cause of the third4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,sins ,are the ,proper ,matter of ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,because1 in the other sacraments1 the matter is hallowed by the utterance of certain words1 and being thus hallowed produces the sacramental effect4 ,now sins cannot be hallowed1 for they are opposed to the effect of the sacrament1 viz4 grace which blots out sin4 ,therefore sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says in his book ,de ,poenitentia ,cf4 ,serm4 cccli3 ,no one can begin a new life1 unless he repent of the old4 ,now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life belong to the old life4 ,therefore sins are not the proper matter of ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 sin is either original1 mortal or venial4 ,now the sacrament of ,penance is not ordained against original sin1 for this is taken away by ,baptism1 nor against mortal sin1 for this is taken away by the sinner's confession991 nor against venial sin1 which is taken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and the like4 ,therefore sins are not the proper matter of ,penance4 99,the words in brackets are omitted in the ,leonine edition4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #ab3ba73 7,who7 have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness1 that they have committed4 ,i answer that1 ,matter is twofold1 viz4 proximate and remote3 thus the proximate matter of a statue is a metal1 while the remote matter is water4 ,now it has been stated 7,a4 #a1 ad #a1 ad #b71 that the proximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent1 the matter of which acts are the sins over which he grieves1 which he confesses1 and for which he satisfies4 ,hence it follows that sins are the remote matter of ,penance1 as a matter1 not for approval1 but for detestation1 and destruction4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the old life that was subject to death is the object of ,penance1 not as regards the punishment1 but as regards the guilt connected with it4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,penance regards every kind of sin in a way1 but not each in the same way4 ,because ,penance regards actual mortal sin properly and chiefly2 properly1 since1 properly speaking1 we are said to repent of what we have done of our own will2 chiefly1 since this sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin4 ,penance regards venial sins1 properly speaking indeed1 in so far as they are committed of our own will1 but this was not the chief purpose of its institution4 ,but as to original sin1 ,penance regards it neither chiefly1 since ,baptism1 and not ,penance1 is ordained against original sin1 nor properly1 because original sin is not done of our own will1 except in so far as ,adam's will is looked upon as ours1 in which sense the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #e3ab73 ,in whom all have sinned4 ,nevertheless1 ,penance may be said to regard original sin1 if we take it in a wide sense for any detestation of something past3 in which sense ,augustine uses the term in his book ,de ,poenitentia 7,serm4 cccli74 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,form of ,this ,sacrament ,is3 ,i ,absolve ,thee8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the form of this sacrament is not3 ,i absolve thee4 ,because the forms of the sacraments are received from ,christ's institution and the ,church's custom4 ,but we do not read that ,christ instituted this form4 ,nor is it in common use2 in fact in certain absolutions which are given publicly in church 7e4g4 at ,prime and ,compline and on ,maundy ,thursday71 absolution is given not in the indicative form by saying3 ,i absolve thee1 but in the deprecatory form1 by saying3 ,may ,almighty ,god have mercy on you1 or3 ,may ,almighty ,god grant you absolution and forgiveness4 ,therefore the form of this sacrament is not3 ,i absolve thee4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,pope ,leo says 7,ep4 cviii7 that ,god's forgiveness cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications3 and he is speaking there of ,god's forgiveness granted to the penitent4 ,therefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin4 ,but ,god alone remits sin1 for ,he alone cleanses man inwardly from sin1 as ,augustine says 7,contra ,donatist4 v1 #ba74 ,therefore it seems that ,god alone absolves from sin4 ,therefore the priest should say not3 ,i absolve thee1 as neither does he say3 ,i remit thy sins4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 just as our ,lord gave ,his disciples the power to absolve from sins1 so also did ,he give them the power to heal infirmities1 to cast out devils1 and to cure diseases 7,matt4 #aj3a2 ,luke #i3a74 ,now the apostles1 in healing the sick1 did not use the words3 ,i heal thee1 but3 ,the ,lord ,jesus ,christ heal ,vulg43 'heals' thee1 as ,peter said to the palsied man 7,acts #i3cd74 ,therefore since priests have the power which ,christ gave ,his apostles1 it seems that they should not use the form3 ,i absolve thee1 but3 ,may ,christ absolve thee4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 some explain this form by stating that when they say3 ,i absolve thee1 they mean ,i declare you to be absolved4 ,but neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by ,god1 wherefore1 as we read in ,matt4 #af3ai before it was said to ,peter3 ,whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth1 etc41 it was said to him 7,matt4 #af3ag73 ,blessed art thou ,simon ,bar-,jona3 because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee1 but ,my ,father ,who is in heaven4 ,therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest1 who has received no revelation on the matter1 to say3 ,i absolve thee1 even if this be explained to mean3 ,i declare thee absolved4 ,on the contrary1 ,as our ,lord said to ,his disciples 7,matt4 #bh3ai73 ,going 4 4 4 teach ye all nations1 baptizing them1 etc41 so did ,he say to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ai73 ,whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth1 etc4 ,now the priest1 relying on the authority of those words of ,christ1 says3 ,i baptize thee4 ,therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament3 ,i absolve thee4 ,i answer that1 ,the perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form4 ,now it has been stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b7 that this sacrament is perfected by that which is done by the priest4 ,wherefore the part taken by the penitent1 whether it consist of words or deeds1 must needs be the matter of this sacrament1 while the part taken by the priest1 takes the place of the form4 ,now since the sacraments of the ,new ,law accomplish what they signify1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a71 it behooves the sacramental form to signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with the matter4 ,hence the form of ,baptism is3 ,i baptize thee1 and the form of ,confirmation is3 ,i sign thee with the sign of the cross1 and ,i confirm thee with the chrism of salvation1 because these sacraments are perfected in the use of their matter3 while in the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 which consists in the very consecration of the matter1 the reality of the consecration is expressed in the words3 ,this is ,my ,body4 ,now this sacrament1 namely the sacrament of ,penance1 consists not in the consecration of a matter1 nor in the use of a hallowed matter1 but rather in the removal of a certain matter1 viz4 sin1 in so far as sins are said to be the matter of ,penance1 as explained above 7,a4 #b74 ,this removal is expressed by the priest saying3 ,i absolve thee3 because sins are fetters1 according to ,prov4 #e3bb4 ,his own iniquities catch the wicked1 and he is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins4 ,wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament3 ,i absolve thee4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this form is taken from ,christ's very words which ,he addressed to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ai73 ,whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth1 etc41 and such is the form employed by the ,church in sacramental absolution4 ,but such absolutions as are given in public are not sacramental1 but are prayers for the remission of venial sins4 ,wherefore in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say3 ,may ,almighty ,god have mercy on thee1 or3 ,may ,god grant thee absolution and forgiveness1 because by such words the priest does not signify the giving of absolution1 but prays that it may be given4 ,nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution is given1 lest the sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the penitent1 whose acts are as matter in this sacrament1 but not in ,baptism or ,confirmation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the words of ,leo are to be understood of the prayer that precedes the absolution1 and do not exclude the fact that the priest pronounces absolution4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,god alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively2 yet priests do both ministerially1 because the words of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the ,divine power1 as in the other sacraments3 because it is the ,divine power that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs1 be they things or words1 as shown above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #d2 ,q4 #fd1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,wherefore our ,lord expressed both3 for ,he said to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ai73 ,whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth1 etc41 and to ,his disciples 7,john #bj3bc73 ,whose sins you shall forgive1 they are forgiven them4 ,yet the priest says3 ,i absolve thee1 rather than3 ,i forgive thee thy sins1 because it is more in keeping with the words of our ,lord1 by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve4 ,nevertheless1 since the priest absolves ministerially1 something is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of ,god1 by the priest saying3 ,i absolve thee in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 or by the power of ,christ's ,passion1 or by the authority of ,god4 ,however1 as this is not defined by the words of ,christ1 as it is for ,baptism1 this addition is left to the discretion of the priest4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,power was given to the apostles1 not that they themselves might heal the sick1 but that the sick might be healed at the prayer of the apostles3 whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments2 wherefore they could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of infirmities4 ,nevertheless in the latter case they did not always use the deprecatory form1 but sometimes employed the indicative or imperative3 thus we read 7,acts #c3f7 that ,peter said to the lame man3 ,what ,i have1 ,i give thee3 ,in the name of ,jesus ,christ of ,nazareth1 arise and walk4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,it is true in a sense that the words1 ,i absolve thee mean ,i declare thee absolved1 but this explanation is incomplete4 ,because the sacraments of the ,new ,law not only signify1 but effect what they signify4 ,wherefore1 just as the priest in baptizing anyone1 declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly1 and this not only significatively but also effectively1 so also when he says3 ,i absolve thee1 he declares the man to be absolved not only significatively but also effectively4 ,and yet he does not speak as of something uncertain1 because just as the other sacraments of the ,new ,law have1 of themselves1 a sure effect through the power of ,christ's ,passion1 which effect1 nevertheless1 may be impeded on the part of the recipient1 so is it with this sacrament4 ,hence ,augustine says 7,de ,adult4 ,conjug4 ii73 ,there is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife1 when adultery committed has been washed away1 since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven4 ,consequently there is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest1 but the general revelation of faith suffices1 through which sins are forgiven4 ,hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to ,peter4 ,it would be a more complete explanation to say that the words1 ,i absolve thee mean3 ,i grant thee the sacrament of absolution4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,imposition of the ,priest's ,hands ,is ,necessary for ,this ,sacrament8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament4 ,for it is written 7,mk4 #af3ah73 ,they shall lay hands upon the sick1 and they shall recover4 ,now sinners are sick spiritually1 and obtain recovery through this sacrament4 ,therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in this sacrament man regains the ,holy ,ghost ,whom he had lost1 wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent 7,ps4 #a3ad73 ,restore unto me the joy of ,thy salvation1 and strengthen me with a perfect spirit4 ,now the ,holy ,ghost is given by the imposition of hands2 for we read 7,acts #h3ag7 that the apostles laid their hands upon them1 and they received the ,holy ,ghost2 and 7,matt4 #ai3ac7 that little children were presented to our ,lord1 that ,he should impose hands upon them4 ,therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the priest's words are not more efficacious in this than in the other sacraments4 ,but in the other sacraments the words of the minister do not suffice1 unless he perform some action3 thus1 in ,baptism1 the priest while saying3 ,i baptize thee1 has to perform a bodily washing4 ,therefore1 also while saying3 ,i absolve thee1 the priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent1 by laying hands on him4 ,on the contrary1 ,when our ,lord said to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ai73 ,whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth1 etc41 ,he made no mention of an imposition of hands2 nor did ,he when ,he said to all the apostles 7,john #bj3ac73 ,whose sins you shall forgive1 they are forgiven them4 ,therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament4 ,i answer that1 ,in the sacraments of the ,church the imposition of hands is made1 to signify some abundant effect of grace1 through those on whom the hands are laid being1 as it were1 united to the ministers in whom grace should be plentiful4 ,wherefore an imposition of hands is made in the sacrament of ,confirmation1 wherein the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost is conferred2 and in the sacrament of order1 wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the ,divine mysteries2 hence it is written 7#b ,tim4 #a3f73 ,stir up the grace of ,god which is in thee1 by the imposition of my hands4 ,now the sacrament of ,penance is ordained1 not that man may receive some abundance of grace1 but that his sins may be taken away2 and therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament1 as neither is there for ,baptism1 wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is bestowed4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,that imposition of hands is not sacramental1 but is intended for the working of miracles1 namely1 that by the contact of a sanctified man's hand1 even bodily infirmity might be removed2 even as we read of our ,lord 7,mk4 #f3e7 that ,he cured the sick1 laying ,his hands upon them1 and 7,matt4 #h3c7 that ,he cleansed a leper by touching him4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,it is not every reception of the ,holy ,ghost that requires an imposition of hands1 since even in ,baptism man receives the ,holy ,ghost1 without any imposition of hands3 it is at the reception of the fulness of the ,holy ,ghost which belongs to ,confirmation that an imposition of hands is required4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,in those sacraments which are perfected in the use of the matter1 the minister has to perform some bodily action on the recipient of the sacrament1 e4g4 in ,baptism1 ,confirmation1 and ,extreme ,unction2 whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of matter employed outwardly1 the matter being supplied by the part taken by the penitent3 wherefore1 just as in the ,eucharist the priest perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the matter1 so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution4 ,if1 indeed1 any bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest1 the sign of the cross1 which is employed in the ,eucharist1 would not be less becoming than the imposition of hands1 in token that sins are forgiven through the blood of ,christ crucified2 and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the ,eucharist4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,is ,necessary for ,salvation8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for salvation4 ,because on ,ps4 #abe3e1 ,they that sow in tears1 etc41 the gloss says3 ,be not sorrowful1 if thou hast a good will1 of which peace is the meed4 ,but sorrow is essential to ,penance1 according to #b ,cor4 #g3aj3 ,the sorrow that is according to ,god worketh penance steadfast unto salvation4 ,therefore a good will without ,penance suffices for salvation4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is written 7,prov4 #aj3ab73 ,charity covereth all sins1 and further on 7,prov4 #ae3bg73 ,by mercy and faith sins are purged away4 ,but this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of sins4 ,therefore if one has charity1 faith1 and mercy1 one can obtain salvation1 without the sacrament of ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,church take their origin from the institution of ,christ4 ,but according to ,john #h ,christ absolved the adulterous woman without ,penance4 ,therefore it seems that ,penance is not necessary for salvation4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,luke #ac3c73 ,unless you shall do penance1 you shall all likewise perish4 ,i answer that1 ,a thing is necessary for salvation in two ways3 first1 absolutely2 secondly1 on a supposition4 ,a thing is absolutely necessary for salvation1 if no one can obtain salvation without it1 as1 for example1 the grace of ,christ1 and the sacrament of ,baptism1 whereby a man is born again in ,christ4 ,the sacrament of ,penance is necessary on a supposition1 for it is necessary1 not for all1 but for those who are in sin4 ,for it is written 7#b ,paral4 #cg 99,the prayer of ,manasses1 among the ,apocrypha71 ,thou1 ,lord1 ,god of the righteous1 hast not appointed repentance to the righteous1 to ,abraham1 ,isaac and ,jacob1 nor to those who sinned not against ,thee4 ,but sin1 when it is completed1 begetteth death 7,james #a3ae74 ,consequently it is necessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him2 which cannot be done without the sacrament of ,penance1 wherein the power of ,christ's ,passion operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent1 who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin4 ,for as ,augustine says 7,tract4 lxxii in ,joan4 99,implicitly in the passage referred to1 but explicitly ,serm4 xv de verb4 ,apost471 ,he ,who created thee without thee1 will not justify thee without thee4 ,therefore it is evident that after sin the sacrament of ,penance is necessary for salvation1 even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this gloss should apparently be understood as referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin1 for such a man has no cause for sorrow3 but as soon as the good will is forfeited through sin1 it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man sorrows for his past sin1 and which belongs to ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as soon as a man falls into sin1 charity1 faith1 and mercy do not deliver him from sin1 without ,penance4 ,because charity demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend1 and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his friend2 faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the power of ,christ's ,passion which operates in the sacraments of the ,church2 and well-ordered pity necessitates that man should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him1 according to ,prov4 #ad3cd3 ,sin maketh nations miserable2 wherefore it is written 7,ecclus4 #cj3bd73 ,have pity on thy own soul1 pleasing ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it was due to ,his power of excellence1 which ,he alone had1 as stated above 7,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #c71 that ,christ bestowed on the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of ,penance1 viz4 the forgiveness of sins1 without the sacrament of ,penance1 although not without internal repentance1 which ,he operated in her by grace4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,penance ,is a ,second ,plank ,after ,shipwreck8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,penance is not a second plank after shipwreck4 ,because on ,isa4 #c3i1 ,they have proclaimed abroad their sin as ,sodom1 a gloss says3 ,the second plank after shipwreck is to hide one's sins4 ,now ,penance does not hide sins1 but reveals them4 ,therefore ,penance is not a second plank4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 in a building the foundation takes the first1 not the second place4 ,now in the spiritual edifice1 ,penance is the foundation1 according to ,heb4 #f3a3 ,not laying again the foundation of ,penance from dead works2 wherefore it precedes even ,baptism1 according to ,acts #b3ch3 ,do penance1 and be baptized every one of you4 ,therefore ,penance should not be called a second plank4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 all the sacraments are planks1 i4e4 helps against sin4 ,now ,penance holds1 not the second but the fourth1 place among the sacraments1 as is clear from what has been said above 7,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,therefore ,penance should not be called a second plank after shipwreck4 ,on the contrary1 ,jerome says 7,ep4 cxxx7 that ,penance is a second plank after shipwreck4 ,i answer that1 ,that which is of itself precedes naturally that which is accidental1 as substance precedes accident4 ,now some sacraments are1 of themselves1 ordained to man's salvation1 e4g4 ,baptism1 which is the spiritual birth1 ,confirmation which is the spiritual growth1 the ,eucharist which is the spiritual food2 whereas ,penance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were1 and on something being supposed1 viz4 sin3 for unless man were to sin actually1 he would not stand in need of ,penance and yet he would need ,baptism1 ,confirmation1 and the ,eucharist2 even as in the life of the body1 man would need no medical treatment1 unless he were ill1 and yet life1 birth1 growth1 and food are1 of themselves1 necessary to man4 ,consequently ,penance holds the second place with regard to the state of integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid sacraments1 so that it is called metaphorically a second plank after shipwreck4 ,for just as the first help for those who cross the sea is to be safeguarded in a whole ship1 while the second help when the ship is wrecked1 is to cling to a plank2 so too the first help in this life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity1 while the second help is1 if he lose his integrity through sin1 that he regain it by means of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,to hide one's sins may happen in two ways3 first1 in the very act of sinning4 ,now it is worse to sin in public than in private1 both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt1 and because by sinning he gives scandal to others4 ,consequently in sin it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly1 and it is in this sense that the gloss says that to hide one's sins is a second plank after shipwreck2 not that it takes away sin1 as ,penance does1 but because it makes the sin less grievous4 ,secondly1 one hides one's sin previously committed1 by neglecting to confess it3 this is opposed to ,penance1 and to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank1 but is the reverse1 since it is written 7,prov4 #bh3ac73 ,he that hideth his sins shall not prosper4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,penance cannot be called the foundation of the spiritual edifice simply1 i4e4 in the first building thereof2 but it is the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by destroying sin1 because man1 on his return to ,god1 needs ,penance first4 ,however1 the ,apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual doctrine4 ,moreover1 the penance which precedes ,baptism is not the sacrament of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the three sacraments which precede ,penance refer to the ship in its integrity1 i4e4 to man's state of integrity1 with regard to which ,penance is called a second plank4 ,,seventh ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #g ,whether ,this ,sacrament ,was ,suitably ,instituted in the ,new ,law8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,because those things which belong to the natural law need not to be instituted4 ,now it belongs to the natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done3 for it is impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary4 ,therefore ,penance was unsuitably instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which existed in the ,old ,law had not to be instituted in the ,new4 ,now there was ,penance in the old ,law wherefore the ,lord complains 7,jer4 #h3f7 saying3 ,there is none that doth penance for his sin1 saying3 ,what have ,i done8 ,therefore ,penance should not have been instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,penance comes after ,baptism1 since it is a second plank1 as stated above 7,a4 #f74 ,now it seems that our ,lord instituted ,penance before ,baptism1 because we read that at the beginning of ,his preaching ,he said 7,matt4 #d3ag73 ,do penance1 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand4 ,therefore this sacrament was not suitably instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 the sacraments of the ,new ,law were instituted by ,christ1 by ,whose power they work1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #e2 ,q4 #fd1 ,a4 #a74 ,but ,christ does not seem to have instituted this sacrament1 since ,he made no use of it1 as of the other sacraments which ,he instituted4 ,therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord said 7,luke #bd3df1 #dg73 ,it behooved ,christ to suffer1 and to rise again from the dead the third day3 and that penance and remission of sins should be preached in ,his name unto all nations4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #a1 ad #b71 in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are as matter1 while the part taken by the priest1 who works as ,christ's minister1 is the formal and completive element of the sacrament4 ,now in the other sacraments the matter pre-exists1 being provided by nature1 as water1 or by art1 as bread3 but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament requires to be decided by the institution2 while the sacrament derives its form and power entirely from the institution of ,christ1 from ,whose ,passion the power of the sacraments proceeds4 ,accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists1 being provided by nature2 since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is moved to repent of the evil he has done3 yet it is due to ,divine institution that man does penance in this or that way4 ,wherefore at the outset of ,his preaching1 our ,lord admonished men1 not only to repent1 but also to do penance1 thus pointing to the particular manner of actions required for this sacrament4 ,as to the part to be taken by the ministers1 this was fixed by our ,lord when ,he said to ,peter 7,matt4 #af3ai73 ,to thee will ,i give the keys of the kingdom of heaven1 etc42 but it was after ,his resurrection that ,he made known the efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power1 when ,he said 7,luke #bd3dg7 that penance and remission of sins should be preached in ,his name unto all nations1 after speaking of ,his ,passion and resurrection4 ,because it is from the power of the name of ,jesus ,christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins4 ,it is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in the ,new ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,it is a natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done1 by grieving for having done it1 and by seeking a remedy for one's grief in some way or other1 and also that one should show some signs of grief1 even as the ,ninevites did1 as we read in ,john #c4 ,and yet even in their case there was also something of faith which they had received through ,jonas' preaching1 inasmuch as they did these things in the hope that they would receive pardon from ,god1 according as we read 7,john #c3i73 ,who can tell if ,god will turn and forgive1 and will turn away from ,his fierce anger1 and we shall not perish8 ,but just as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail by the institution of the ,divine law1 as we have stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ia1 ,a4 #d2 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ie1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #ii71 so was it with ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,things which are of the natural law were determined in various ways in the ,old and in the ,new ,law1 in keeping with the imperfection of the ,old1 and the perfection of the ,new4 ,wherefore ,penance was fixed in a certain way in the ,old ,law--with regard to sorrow1 that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs1 according to ,joel #b3ac3 ,rend your hearts and not your garments2 and with regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow1 that they should in some way confess their sins1 at least in general1 to ,god's ministers4 ,wherefore the ,lord said 7,lev4 #e3ag1 #ah73 ,if anyone sin through ignorance 4 4 4 he shall offer of the flocks a ram without blemish to the priest1 according to the measure and estimation of the sin1 and the priest shall pray for him1 because he did it ignorantly1 and it shall be forgiven him2 since by the very fact of making an offering for his sin1 a man1 in a fashion1 confessed his sin to the priest4 ,and accordingly it is written 7,prov4 #bh3ac73 ,he that hideth his sins1 shall not prosper3 but he that shall confess1 and forsake them1 shall obtain mercy4 ,not yet1 however1 was the power of the keys instituted1 which is derived from ,christ's ,passion1 and consequently it was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin1 with the purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the keys of the ,church1 in the hope of receiving forgiveness through the power of ,christ's ,passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,if we note carefully what our ,lord said about the necessity of ,baptism 7,john #c3c1 seqq471 we shall see that this was said before ,his words about the necessity of ,penance 7,matt4 #d3ag72 because ,he spoke to ,nicodemus about ,baptism before the imprisonment of ,john1 of whom it is related afterwards 7,john #c3bc1 #bd7 that he baptized1 whereas ,his words about ,penance were said after ,john was cast into prison4 ,if1 however1 ,he had admonished men to do penance before admonishing them to be baptized1 this would be because also before ,baptism some kind of penance is required1 according to the words of ,peter 7,acts #b3ch73 ,do penance1 and be baptized1 every one of you4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,christ did not use the ,baptism which ,he instituted1 but was baptized with the baptism of ,john1 as stated above 7,q4 #ci1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,nor did ,he use it actively by administering it ,himself1 because ,he did not baptize as a rule1 but ,his disciples did1 as related in ,john #d3b1 although it is to be believed that ,he baptized ,his disciples1 as ,augustine asserts 7,ep4 cclxv1 ad ,seleuc474 ,but with regard to ,his institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that ,he should use it1 neither by repenting ,himself1 in ,whom there was no sin1 nor by administering the sacrament to others1 since1 in order to show ,his mercy and power1 ,he was wont to confer the effect of this sacrament without the sacrament itself1 as stated above 7,a4 #e1 ad #c74 ,on the other hand1 ,he both received and gave to others the sacrament of the ,eucharist1 both in order to commend the excellence of that sacrament1 and because that sacrament is a memorial of ,his ,passion1 in which ,christ is both priest and victim4 ,,eighth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #h ,whether ,penance ,should ,last ,till the ,end of ,life8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that ,penance should not last till the end of life4 ,because ,penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin4 ,now the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once1 according to ,ezech4 #ah3ba3 ,if the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed 4 4 4 he shall live and shall not die4 ,therefore there is no need for ,penance to be further prolonged4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,penance belongs to the state of beginners4 ,but man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient1 and1 from this1 on to the state of the perfect4 ,therefore man need not do ,penance till the end of his life4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 man is bound to observe the laws of the ,church in this as in the other sacraments4 ,but the duration of repentance is fixed by the canons1 so that1 to wit1 for such and such a sin one is bound to do penance for so many years4 ,therefore it seems that ,penance should not be prolonged till the end of life4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in his book1 ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,what remains for us to do1 save to sorrow ever in this life8 ,for when sorrow ceases1 repentance fails2 and if repentance fails1 what becomes of pardon8 ,i answer that1 ,penance is twofold1 internal and external4 ,internal penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed1 and this penance should last until the end of life4 ,because man should always be displeased at having sinned1 for if he were to be pleased thereat1 he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon4 ,now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to sorrow1 as man is in this life2 but after this life the saints are not susceptible to sorrow1 wherefore they will be displeased at1 without sorrowing for1 their past sins1 according to ,isa4 #fe3af4 ,the former distresses are forgotten4 ,external penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow1 confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him1 and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest4 ,such penance need not last until the end of life1 but only for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,true penance not only removes past sins1 but also preserves man from future sins4 ,consequently1 although a man receives forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance1 nevertheless he must persevere in his penance1 lest he fall again into sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to do penance both internal and external belongs to the state of beginners1 of those1 to wit1 who are making a fresh start from the state of sin4 ,but there is room for internal penance even in the proficient and the perfect1 according to ,ps4 #hc3g3 ,in his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps1 in the vale of tears4 ,wherefore ,paul says 7#a ,cor4 #ae3i73 ,i 4 4 4 am not worthy to be called an apostle because ,i persecuted the ,church of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,these durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards the exercise of external penance4 ,,ninth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #i ,whether ,penance ,can ,be ,continuous8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance cannot be continuous4 ,for it is written 7,jer4 #ca3af73 ,let thy voice cease from weeping1 and thy eyes from tears4 ,but this would be impossible if penance were continuous1 for it consists in weeping and tears4 ,therefore penance cannot be continuous4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 man ought to rejoice at every good work1 according to ,ps4 #ii3a3 ,serve ye the ,lord with gladness4 ,now to do penance is a good work4 ,therefore man should rejoice at it4 ,but man cannot rejoice and grieve at the same time1 as the ,philosopher declares 7,ethic4 ix1 #d74 ,therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his past sins1 which is essential to penance4 ,therefore penance cannot be continuous4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,apostle says 7#b ,cor4 #b3g73 ,comfort him1 viz4 the penitent1 lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow4 ,but comfort dispels grief1 which is essential to penance4 ,therefore penance need not be continuous4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in his book on ,penance 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,in doing penance grief should be continual4 ,i answer that1 ,one is said to repent in two ways1 actually and habitually4 ,it is impossible for a man continually to repent actually1 for the acts1 whether internal or external1 of a penitent must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs4 ,secondly1 a man is said to repent habitually4 ,and thus he should repent continually1 both by never doing anything contrary to penance1 so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent1 and by being resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing to him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,weeping and tears belong to the act of external penance1 and this act needs neither to be continuous1 nor to last until the end of life1 as stated above 7,a4 #h73 wherefore it is significantly added3 ,for there is a reward for thy work4 ,now the reward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to guilt and as to punishment2 and after receiving this reward there is no need for man to proceed to acts of external penance4 ,this1 however1 does not prevent penance being continual1 as explained above4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways3 first1 as being passions of the sensitive appetite2 and thus they can nowise be together1 since they are altogether contrary to one another1 either on the part of the object 7as when they have the same object71 or at least on the part of the movement1 for joy is with expansion 99,cf4 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #cc1 ,a4 #a of the heart1 whereas sorrow is with contraction2 and it is in this sense that the ,philosopher speaks in ,ethic4 ix4 ,secondly1 we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will1 to which something is pleasing or displeasing4 ,accordingly1 they cannot be contrary to one another1 except on the part of the object1 as when they concern the same object in the same respect1 in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous1 because the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing4 ,if1 on the other hand1 joy and sorrow1 understood thus1 be not of the same object in the same respect1 but either of different objects1 or of the same object in different respects1 in that case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another1 so that nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same time--for instance1 if we see a good man suffer1 we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering4 ,in this way a man may be displeased at having sinned1 and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope for pardon1 so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy4 ,hence ,augustine says 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,the penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief4 ,if1 however1 sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy1 this would prevent the continuance1 not of habitual penance1 but only of actual penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 ii1 #c1 #f1 #g1 #i7 it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions4 ,now the sorrow which1 in the sensitive appetite of the penitent1 arises from the displeasure of his will1 is a passion2 wherefore it should be moderated according to virtue1 and if it be excessive it is sinful1 because it leads to despair1 as the ,apostle teaches 7#b ,cor4 #b3g71 saying3 ,lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow4 ,accordingly comfort1 of which the ,apostle speaks1 moderates sorrow but does not destroy it altogether4 ,,tenth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hd1 ,art4 #aj ,whether the ,sacrament of ,penance ,may ,be ,repeated8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the sacrament of ,penance should not be repeated4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #f3d1 seqq473 ,it is impossible for those1 who were once illuminated1 have tasted also the heavenly gift1 and were made partakers of the ,holy ,ghost 4 4 4 and are fallen away1 to be renewed again to penance4 ,now whosoever have done penance1 have been illuminated1 and have received the gift of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore whosoever sin after doing penance1 cannot do penance again4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,ambrose says 7,de ,poenit4 ii73 ,some are to be found who think they ought often to do penance1 who take liberties with ,christ3 for if they were truly penitent1 they would not think of doing penance over again1 since there is but one ,penance even as there is but one ,baptism4 ,now ,baptism is not repeated4 ,neither1 therefore1 is ,penance to be repeated4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the miracles whereby our ,lord healed bodily diseases1 signify the healing of spiritual diseases1 whereby men are delivered from sins4 ,now we do not read that our ,lord restored the sight to any blind man twice1 or that ,he cleansed any leper twice1 or twice raised any dead man to life4 ,therefore it seems that ,he does not twice grant pardon to any sinner4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,gregory says 7,hom4 xxxiv in ,evang473 ,penance consists in deploring past sins1 and in not committing again those we have deplored3 and ,isidore says 7,de ,summo ,bono ii73 ,he is a mocker and no penitent who still does what he has repented of4 ,if1 therefore1 a man is truly penitent1 he will not sin again4 ,therefore ,penance cannot be repeated4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 just as ,baptism derives its efficacy from the ,passion of ,christ1 so does ,penance4 ,now ,baptism is not repeated1 on account of the unity of ,christ's ,passion and death4 ,therefore in like manner ,penance is not repeated4 ,obj4 #f3 ,further1 ,ambrose says on ,ps4 #aah3eh1 ,i entreated ,thy face1 etc41 that facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin4 ,if1 therefore1 ,god frequently grants pardon through ,penance1 it seems that ,he affords man an incentive to sin1 and thus ,he seems to take pleasure in sin1 which is contrary to ,his goodness4 ,therefore ,penance cannot be repeated4 ,on the contrary1 ,man is induced to be merciful by the example of ,divine mercy1 according to ,luke #f3cf3 ,be ye 4 4 4 merciful1 as your ,father also is merciful4 ,now our ,lord commanded ,his disciples to be merciful by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them2 wherefore1 as related in ,matt4 #ah3ba1 when ,peter asked3 ,how often shall my brother off end against me1 and ,i forgive him8 till seven times8 ,jesus answered3 ,i say not to thee1 till seven times1 but till seventy times seven times4 ,therefore also ,god over and over again1 through ,penance1 grants pardon to sinners1 especially as ,he teaches us to pray 7,matt4 #f3ab73 ,forgive us our trespasses1 as we forgive them that trespass against us4 ,i answer that1 ,as regards ,penance1 some have erred1 saying that a man cannot obtain pardon of his sins through ,penance a second time4 ,some of these1 viz4 the ,novatians1 went so far as to say that he who sins after the first ,penance which is done in ,baptism1 cannot be restored again through ,penance4 ,there were also other heretics who1 as ,augustine relates in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown1 said that1 after ,baptism1 ,penance is useful1 not many times1 but only once4 ,these errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source3 first from not knowing the nature of true ,penance4 ,for since true ,penance requires charity1 without which sins are not taken away1 they thought that charity once possessed could not be lost1 and that1 consequently1 ,penance1 if true1 could never be removed by sin1 so that it should be necessary to repeat it4 ,but this was refuted in the ,second ,part 7,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aa71 where it was shown that on account of free-will charity1 once possessed1 can be lost1 and that1 consequently1 after true ,penance1 a man can sin mortally4--,secondly1 they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin4 ,for they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon1 to be so grave that it could not be forgiven4 ,in this they erred not only with regard to sin which1 even after a sin has been forgiven1 can be either more or less grievous than the first1 which was forgiven1 but much more did they err against the infinity of ,divine mercy1 which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins1 according to ,ps4 #ej3a1 #b3 ,have mercy on me1 ,o ,god1 according to ,thy great mercy3 and according to the multitude of ,thy tender mercies1 blot out my iniquity4 ,wherefore the words of ,cain were reprehensible1 when he said 7,gen4 #d3ac73 ,my iniquity is greater than that ,i may deserve pardon4 ,and so ,god's mercy1 through ,penance1 grants pardon to sinners without any end1 wherefore it is written 7#b ,paralip4 #cg 99,prayer of ,manasses1 among the ,apocrypha4 ,st4 ,thomas is evidently quoting from memory1 and omits the words in brackets473 ,thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable 4 4 4 7and ,thou repentest7 for the evil brought upon man4 ,it is therefore evident that ,penance can be repeated many times4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,some of the ,jews thought that a man could be washed several times in the laver of ,baptism1 because among them the ,law prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses4 ,in order to disprove this the ,apostle wrote to the ,hebrews that it is impossible for those who were once illuminated1 viz4 through ,baptism1 to be renewed again to penance1 viz4 through ,baptism1 which is the laver of regeneration1 and renovation of the ,holy ,ghost1 as stated in ,titus #c3e3 and he declares the reason to be that by ,baptism man dies with ,christ1 wherefore he adds 7,heb4 #f3f73 ,crucifying again to themselves the ,son of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,ambrose is speaking of solemn ,penance1 which is not repeated in the ,church1 as we shall state further on 7,suppl41 ,q4 #bh1 ,a4 #b74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as ,augustine says 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown1 ,our ,lord gave sight to many blind men at various times1 and strength to many infirm1 thereby showing1 in these different men1 that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven1 at one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness4 ,for this reason ,he healed so many stricken with fever1 so many feeble in body1 so many lame1 blind1 and withered1 that the sinner might not despair2 for this reason ,he is not described as healing anyone but once1 that every one might fear to link himself with sin2 for this reason ,he declares ,himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale1 but of the unhealthy4 ,what sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal a recurring disease8 ,for if a man ail a hundred times it is for the physician to heal him a hundred times3 and if he failed where others succeed1 he would be a poor physician in comparison with them4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,penance is to deplore past sins1 and1 while deploring them1 not to commit again1 either by act or by intention1 those which we have to deplore4 ,because a man is a mocker and not a penitent1 who1 while doing penance1 does what he repents having done1 or intends to do again what he did before1 or even commits actually the same or another kind of sin4 ,but if a man sin afterwards either by act or intention1 this does not destroy the fact that his former penance was real1 because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a subsequent contrary act3 for even as he truly ran who afterwards sits1 so he truly repented who subsequently sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,baptism derives its power from ,christ's ,passion1 as a spiritual regeneration1 with a spiritual death1 of a previous life4 ,now it is appointed unto man once to die 7,heb4 #i3bg71 and to be born once1 wherefore man should be baptized but once4 ,on the other hand1 ,penance derives its power from ,christ's ,passion1 as a spiritual medicine1 which can be repeated frequently4 ,reply ,obj4 #f3 ,according to ,augustine 7,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown71 it is evident that sins displease ,god exceedingly1 for ,he is always ready to destroy them1 lest what ,he created should perish1 and what ,he loved be lost1 viz4 by despair4 ,,question #he ,,of ,,penance ,,as ,a ,,virtue 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider penance as a virtue1 under which head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether penance is a virtue8 7#b7 ,whether it is a special virtue8 7#c7 ,to what species of virtue does it belong8 7#d7 ,of its subject2 7#e7 ,of its cause2 7#f7 ,of its relation to the other virtues4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,penance ,is a ,virtue8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance is not a virtue4 ,for penance is a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments1 as was shown above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #a2 ,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a74 ,now no other sacrament is a virtue4 ,therefore neither is penance a virtue4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 iv1 #i71 shame is not a virtue1 both because it is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration1 and because it is not the disposition of a perfect thing1 since it is about an evil act1 so that it has no place in a virtuous man4 ,now1 in like manner1 penance is a passion accompanied by a bodily alteration1 viz4 tears1 according to ,gregory1 who says 7,hom4 xxxiv in ,evang47 that penance consists in deploring past sins3 moreover it is about evil deeds1 viz4 sins1 which have no place in a virtuous man4 ,therefore penance is not a virtue4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 iv1 #c71 no virtuous man is foolish4 ,but it seems foolish to deplore what has been done in the past1 since it cannot be otherwise1 and yet this is what we understand by penance4 ,therefore penance is not a virtue4 ,on the contrary1 ,the precepts of the ,law are about acts of virtue1 because a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous 7,ethic4 ii1 #a74 ,but there is a precept about penance in the ,divine law1 according to ,matt4 #d3ag3 ,do penance1 etc4 ,therefore penance is a virtue4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,obj4 #b2 ,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #aj1 ad #d71 to repent is to deplore something one has done4 ,now it has been stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #i7 that sorrow or sadness is twofold4 ,first1 it denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite1 and in this sense penance is not a virtue1 but a passion4 ,secondly1 it denotes an act of the will1 and in this way it implies choice1 and if this be right1 it must1 of necessity1 be an act of virtue4 ,for it is stated in ,ethic4 ii1 #f that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason4 ,now it belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of grief as one ought to grieve1 and for an end for which one ought to grieve4 ,and this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking now2 since the penitent assumes a moderated grief for his past sins1 with the intention of removing them4 ,hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now1 is either a virtue or the act of a virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a2 ,,aa4 #b1 #c71 in the sacrament of ,penance1 human acts take the place of matter1 which is not the case in ,baptism and ,confirmation4 ,wherefore1 since virtue is a principle of an act1 penance is either a virtue or accompanies a virtue1 rather than ,baptism or ,confirmation4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,penance1 considered as a passion1 is not a virtue1 as stated above1 and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily alteration4 ,on the other hand1 it is a virtue1 according as it includes a right choice on the part of the will2 which1 however1 applies to penance rather than to shame4 ,because shame regards the evil deed as present1 whereas penance regards the evil deed as past4 ,now it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an evil deed actually present1 of which one ought to be ashamed2 whereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should have previously committed evil deeds1 of which it behooves us to repent1 since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has already been done1 with the intention of trying to make it not done4 ,but the penitent does not intend this3 for his sorrow is displeasure or disapproval with regard to the past deed1 with the intention of removing its result1 viz4 the anger of ,god and the debt of punishment3 and this is not foolish4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,penance ,is a ,special ,virtue8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance is not a special virtue4 ,for it seems that to rejoice at the good one has done1 and to grieve for the evil one has done are acts of the same nature4 ,but joy for the good one has done is not a special virtue1 but is a praiseworthy emotion proceeding from charity1 as ,augustine states 7,de ,civ4 ,dei xiv1 #g1 #h1 #i73 wherefore the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ac3f7 that charity rejoiceth not at iniquity1 but rejoiceth with the truth4 ,therefore1 in like manner1 neither is penance1 which is sorrow for past sins1 a special virtue1 but an emotion resulting from charity4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 every special virtue has its special matter1 because habits are distinguished by their acts1 and acts by their objects4 ,but penance has no special matter1 because its matter is past sins in any matter whatever4 ,therefore penance is not a special virtue4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 nothing is removed except by its contrary4 ,but penance removes all sins4 ,therefore it is contrary to all sins1 and consequently is not a special virtue4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,law has a special precept about penance1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,,aa4 #e1 #g74 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ed1 ,a4 #a1 ad #a1 ,a4 #b71 habits are specifically distinguished according to the species of their acts1 so that whenever an act has a special reason for being praiseworthy1 there must needs be a special habit4 ,now it is evident that there is a special reason for praising the act of penance1 because it aims at the destruction of past sin1 considered as an offense against ,god1 which does not apply to any other virtue4 ,we must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,an act springs from charity in two ways3 first as being elicited by charity1 and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue than charity1 e4g4 to love the good1 to rejoice therein1 and to grieve for what is opposed to it4 ,secondly1 an act springs from charity1 being1 so to speak1 commanded by charity2 and thus1 since charity commands all the virtues1 inasmuch as it directs them to its own end1 an act springing from charity may belong even to another special virtue4 ,accordingly1 if in the act of the penitent we consider the mere displeasure in the past sin1 it belongs to charity immediately1 in the same way as joy for past good acts2 but the intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special virtue subordinate to charity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in point of fact1 penance has indeed a general matter1 inasmuch as it regards all sins2 but it does so under a special aspect1 inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in co-operating with ,god for his justification4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,every special virtue removes formally the habit of the opposite vice1 just as whiteness removes blackness from the same subject3 but penance removes every sin effectively1 inasmuch as it works for the destruction of sins1 according as they are pardonable through the grace of ,god if man co-operate therewith4 ,wherefore it does not follow that it is a general virtue4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,virtue of ,penance ,is a ,species of ,justice8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species of justice4 ,for justice is not a theological but a moral virtue1 as was shown in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #fb1 ,a4 #c74 ,but penance seems to be a theological virtue1 since ,god is its object1 for it makes satisfaction to ,god1 to ,whom1 moreover1 it reconciles the sinner4 ,therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 since justice is a moral virtue it observes the mean4 ,now penance does not observe the mean1 but rather goes to the extreme1 according to ,jer4 #f3bf3 ,make thee mourning as for an only son1 a bitter lamentation4 ,therefore penance is not a species of justice4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there are two species of justice1 as stated in ,ethic4 v1 #d1 viz4 distributive and commutative4 ,but penance does not seem to be contained under either of them4 ,therefore it seems that penance is not a species of justice4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 a gloss on ,luke #f3ba1 ,blessed are ye that weep now1 says3 ,it is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of earthly things and the happiness of heavenly things4 ,but weeping is an act of penance4 ,therefore penance is a species of prudence rather than of justice4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,penance is the vengeance of the sorrowful1 ever punishing in them what they are sorry for having done4 ,but to take vengeance is an act of justice1 wherefore ,tully says 7,de ,inv4 ,rhet4 ii7 that one kind of justice is called vindictive4 ,therefore it seems that penance is a species of justice4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b7 penance is a special virtue not merely because it sorrows for evil done 7since charity would suffice for that71 but also because the penitent grieves for the sin he has committed1 inasmuch as it is an offense against ,god1 and purposes to amend4 ,now amendment for an offense committed against anyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend1 but it is necessary to make some kind of compensation1 which obtains in offenses committed against another1 just as retribution does1 only that compensation is on the part of the offender1 as when he makes satisfaction1 whereas retribution is on the part of the person offended against4 ,each of these belongs to the matter of justice1 because each is a kind of commutation4 ,wherefore it is evident that penance1 as a virtue1 is a part of justice4 ,it must be observed1 however1 that according to the ,philosopher 7,ethic4 v1 #f7 a thing is said to be just in two ways1 simply and relatively4 ,a thing is just simply when it is between equals1 since justice is a kind of equality1 and he calls this the politic or civil just1 because all citizens are equal1 in the point of being immediately under the ruler1 retaining their freedom4 ,but a thing is just relatively when it is between parties of whom one is subject to the other1 as a servant under his master1 a son under his father1 a wife under her husband4 ,it is this kind of just that we consider in penance4 ,wherefore the penitent has recourse to ,god with a purpose of amendment1 as a servant to his master1 according to ,ps4 #abb3b3 ,behold1 as the eyes of servants are on the hands of their masters 4 4 4 so are our eyes unto the ,lord our ,god1 until ,he have mercy on us2 and as a son to his father1 according to ,luke #ae3ba3 ,father1 ,i have sinned against heaven and before thee2 and as a wife to her husband1 according to ,jer4 #c3a3 ,thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers2 nevertheless return to ,me1 saith the ,lord4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,as stated in ,ethic4 v1 #a1 justice is a virtue towards another person1 and the matter of justice is not so much the person to whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of distribution or commutation4 ,hence the matter of penance is not ,god1 but human acts1 whereby ,god is offended or appeased2 whereas ,god is as one to whom justice is due4 ,wherefore it is evident that penance is not a theological virtue1 because ,god is not its matter or object4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the mean of justice is the equality that is established between those between whom justice is1 as stated in ,ethic4 v4 ,but in certain cases perfect equality cannot be established1 on account of the excellence of one1 as between father and son1 ,god and man1 as the ,philosopher states 7,ethic4 viii1 #ad71 wherefore in such cases1 he that falls short of the other must do whatever he can4 ,yet this will not be sufficient simply1 but only according to the acceptance of the higher one2 and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as there is a kind of commutation in favors1 when1 to wit1 a man gives thanks for a favor received1 so also is there commutation in the matter of offenses1 when1 on account of an offense committed against another1 a man is either punished against his will1 which pertains to vindictive justice1 or makes amends of his own accord1 which belongs to penance1 which regards the person of the sinner1 just as vindictive justice regards the person of the judge4 ,therefore it is evident that both are comprised under commutative justice4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,although penance is directly a species of justice1 yet1 in a fashion1 it comprises things pertaining to all the virtues2 for inasmuch as there is a justice of man towards ,god1 it must have a share in matter pertaining to the theological virtues1 the object of which is ,god4 ,consequently penance comprises faith in ,christ's ,passion1 whereby we are cleansed of our sins1 hope for pardon1 and hatred of vice1 which pertains to charity4 ,inasmuch as it is a moral virtue1 it has a share of prudence1 which directs all the moral virtues3 but from the very nature of justice1 it has not only something belonging to justice1 but also something belonging to temperance and fortitude1 inasmuch as those things which cause pleasure1 and which pertain to temperance1 and those which cause terror1 which fortitude moderates1 are objects of commutative justice4 ,accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from pleasure1 which belongs to temperance1 and to bear with hardships1 which belongs to fortitude4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,will ,is ,properly the ,subject of ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the subject of penance is not properly the will4 ,for penance is a species of sorrow4 ,but sorrow is in the concupiscible part1 even as joy is4 ,therefore penance is in the concupiscible faculty4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 penance is a kind of vengeance1 as ,augustine states in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown4 ,but vengeance seems to regard the irascible faculty1 since anger is the desire for vengeance4 ,therefore it seems that penance is in the irascible part4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the past is the proper object of the memory1 according to the ,philosopher 7,de ,memoria i74 ,now penance regards the past1 as stated above 7,a4 #a1 ad #b1 ad #c74 ,therefore penance is subjected in the memory4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 nothing acts where it is not4 ,now penance removes sin from all the powers of the soul4 ,therefore penance is in every power of the soul1 and not only in the will4 ,on the contrary1 ,penance is a kind of sacrifice1 according to ,ps4 #ej3ai3 ,a sacrifice to ,god is an afflicted spirit4 ,but to offer a sacrifice is an act of the will1 according to ,ps4 #ec3h3 ,i will freely sacrifice to ,thee4 ,therefore penance is in the will4 ,i answer that1 ,we can speak of penance in two ways3 first1 in so far as it is a passion1 and thus1 since it is a kind of sorrow1 it is in the concupiscible part as its subject2 secondly1 in so far as it is a virtue1 and thus1 as stated above 7,a4 #c71 it is a species of justice4 ,now justice1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ef1 ,a4 #f71 is subjected in the rational appetite which is the will4 ,therefore it is evident that penance1 in so far as it is a virtue1 is subjected in the will1 and its proper act is the purpose of amending what was committed against ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this argument considers penance as a passion4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,to desire vengeance on another1 through passion1 belongs to the irascible appetite1 but to desire or take vengeance on oneself or on another1 through reason1 belongs to the will4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the memory is a power that apprehends the past4 ,but penance belongs not to the apprehensive but to the appetitive power1 which presupposes an act of the apprehension4 ,wherefore penance is not in the memory1 but presupposes it4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,the will1 as stated above 7,i1 ,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #d2 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #i1 ,a4 #a71 moves all the other powers of the soul2 so that it is not unreasonable for penance to be subjected in the will1 and to produce an effect in each power of the soul4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,penance ,originates from ,fear8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance does not originate from fear4 ,for penance originates in displeasure at sin4 ,but this belongs to charity1 as stated above 7,a4 #c74 ,therefore penance originates from love rather than fear4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 men are induced to do penance1 through the expectation of the heavenly kingdom1 according to ,matt4 #c3b and ,matt4 #d3ag3 ,do penance1 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand4 ,now the kingdom of heaven is the object of hope4 ,therefore penance results from hope rather than from fear4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 fear is an internal act of man4 ,but penance does not seem to arise in us through any work of man1 but through the operation of ,god1 according to ,jer4 #ca3ai3 ,after ,thou didst convert me ,i did penance4 ,therefore penance does not result from fear4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,isa4 #bf3ag73 ,as a woman with child1 when she draweth near the time of her delivery1 is in pain1 and crieth out in her pangs1 so ere we become1 by penance1 to wit2 and according to another 99,the ,septuagint version the text continues3 ,through fear of ,thee1 ,o ,lord1 we have conceived1 and been as it were in labor1 and have brought forth the spirit of salvation1 i4e4 of salutary penance1 as is clear from what precedes4 ,therefore penance results from fear4 ,i answer that1 ,we may speak of penance in two ways3 first1 as to the habit1 and then it is infused by ,god immediately without our operating as principal agents1 but not without our co-operating dispositively by certain acts4 ,secondly1 we may speak of penance1 with regard to the acts whereby in penance we co-operate with ,god operating1 the first principle 99,cf4 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aac of which acts is the operation of ,god in turning the heart1 according to ,lam4 #e3ba3 ,convert us1 ,o ,lord1 to ,thee1 and we shall be converted2 the second1 an act of faith2 the third1 a movement of servile fear1 whereby a man is withdrawn from sin through fear of punishment2 the fourth1 a movement of hope1 whereby a man makes a purpose of amendment1 in the hope of obtaining pardon2 the fifth1 a movement of charity1 whereby sin is displeasing to man for its own sake and no longer for the sake of the punishment2 the sixth1 a movement of filial fear whereby a man1 of his own accord1 offers to make amends to ,god through fear of ,him4 ,accordingly it is evident that the act of penance results from servile fear as from the first movement of the appetite in this direction and from filial fear as from its immediate and proper principle4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sin begins to displease a man1 especially a sinner1 on account of the punishments which servile fear regards1 before it displeases him on account of its being an offense against ,god1 or on account of its wickedness1 which pertains to charity4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,when the kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand1 we are to understand that the king is on his way1 not only to reward but also to punish4 ,wherefore ,john the ,baptist said 7,matt4 #c3g73 ,ye brood of vipers1 who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come8 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,even the movement of fear proceeds from ,god's act in turning the heart2 wherefore it is written 7,deut4 #e3bi73 ,who shall give them to have such a mind1 to fear ,me8 ,and so the fact that penance results from fear does not hinder its resulting from the act of ,god in turning the heart4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #he1 ,art4 #f ,whether ,penance ,is the ,first of the ,virtues8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance is the first of the virtues4 ,because1 on ,matt4 #c3b1 ,do penance1 etc41 a gloss says3 ,the first virtue is to destroy the old man1 and hate sin by means of penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 withdrawal from one extreme seems to precede approach to the other4 ,now all the other virtues seem to regard approach to a term1 because they all direct man to do good2 whereas penance seems to direct him to withdraw from evil4 ,therefore it seems that penance precedes all the other virtues4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 before penance1 there is sin in the soul4 ,now no virtue is compatible with sin in the soul4 ,therefore no virtue precedes penance1 which is itself the first of all and opens the door to the others by expelling sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,penance results from faith1 hope1 and charity1 as already stated 7,,aa4 #b1 #e74 ,therefore penance is not the first of the virtues4 ,i answer that1 ,in speaking of the virtues1 we do not consider the order of time with regard to the habits1 because1 since the virtues are connected with one another1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,a4 #a71 they all begin at the same time to be in the soul2 but one is said to precede the other in the order of nature1 which order depends on the order of their acts1 in so far as the act of one virtue presupposes the act of another4 ,accordingly1 then1 one must say that1 even in the order of time1 certain praiseworthy acts can precede the act and the habit of penance1 e4g4 acts of dead faith and hope1 and an act of servile fear2 while the act and habit of charity are1 in point of time1 simultaneous with the act and habit of penance1 and with the habits of the other virtues4 ,for1 as was stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aac1 ,,aa4 #g1 #h71 in the justification of the ungodly1 the movement of the free-will towards ,god1 which is an act of faith quickened by charity1 and the movement of the free-will towards sin1 which is the act of penance1 are simultaneous4 ,yet of these two acts1 the former naturally precedes the latter1 because the act of the virtue of penance is directed against sin1 through love of ,god2 where the first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the second4 ,consequently penance is not simply the first of the virtues1 either in the order of time1 or in the order of nature1 because1 in the order of nature1 the theological virtues precede it simply4 ,nevertheless1 in a certain respect1 it is the first of the other virtues in the order of time1 as regards its act1 because this act is the first in the justification of the ungodly2 whereas in the order of nature1 the other virtues seem to precede1 as that which is natural precedes that which is accidental2 because the other virtues seem to be necessary for man's good1 by reason of their very nature1 whereas penance is only necessary if something1 viz4 sin1 be presupposed1 as stated above 7,q4 #ee1 ,a4 #b71 when we spoke of the relation of the sacrament of penance to the other sacraments aforesaid4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this gloss is to be taken as meaning that the act of penance is the first in point of time1 in comparison with the acts of the other virtues4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in successive movements withdrawal from one extreme precedes approach to the other1 in point of time2 and also in the order of nature1 if we consider the subject1 i4e4 the order of the material cause2 but if we consider the order of the efficient and final causes1 approach to the end is first1 for it is this that the efficient cause intends first of all3 and it is this order which we consider chiefly in the acts of the soul1 as stated in ,phys4 ii4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,penance opens the door to the other virtues1 because it expels sin by the virtues of faith1 hope and charity1 which precede it in the order of nature2 yet it so opens the door to them that they enter at the same time as it3 because1 in the justification of the ungodly1 at the same time as the free-will is moved towards ,god and against sin1 the sin is pardoned and grace infused1 and with grace all the virtues1 as stated in the ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #fe1 ,,aa4 #c1 #e4 ,,question #hf ,,of ,,the ,,effect ,,of ,,penance1 ,,as ,,regards ,,the ,,pardon ,,of ,,mortal ,,sin 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the effect of ,penance2 and 7#a7 as regards the pardon of mortal sins2 7#b7 as regards the pardon of venial sins2 7#c7 as regards the return of sins which have been pardoned2 7#d7 as regards the recovery of the virtues4 ,under the first head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether all mortal sins are taken away by ,penance8 7#b7 ,whether they can be taken away without ,penance8 7#c7 ,whether one can be taken away without the other8 7#d7 ,whether ,penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains8 7#e7 ,whether any remnants of sin remain8 7#f7 ,whether the removal of sin is the effect of ,penance as a virtue1 or as a sacrament8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,all ,sins ,are ,taken ,away by ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that not all sins are taken away by ,penance4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,heb4 #ab3ag7 that ,esau found no place of repentance1 although with tears he had sought it1 which a gloss explains as meaning that he found no place of pardon and blessing through ,penance3 and it is related 7#b ,macc4 #i3ac7 of ,antiochus1 that this wicked man prayed to the ,lord1 of ,whom he was not to obtain mercy4 ,therefore it does not seem that all sins are taken away by ,penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,augustine says 7,de ,serm4 ,dom4 in ,monte i7 that so great is the stain of that sin 7namely1 when a man1 after coming to the knowledge of ,god through the grace of ,christ1 resists fraternal charity1 and by the brands of envy combats grace itself7 that he is unable to humble himself in prayer1 although he is forced by his wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his sin4 ,therefore not every sin can be taken away by ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 our ,lord said 7,matt4 #ab3cb73 ,he that shall speak against the ,holy ,ghost1 it shall not be forgiven him1 neither in this world nor in the world to come4 ,therefore not every sin can be pardoned through ,penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ezech4 #ah3bb73 ,i will not remember any more all his iniquities that he hath done4 ,i answer that1 ,the fact that a sin cannot be taken away by ,penance may happen in two ways3 first1 because of the impossibility of repenting of sin2 secondly1 because of ,penance being unable to blot out a sin4 ,in the first way the sins of the demons and of men who are lost1 cannot be blotted out by ,penance1 because their will is confirmed in evil1 so that sin cannot displease them as to its guilt1 but only as to the punishment which they suffer1 by reason of which they have a kind of repentance1 which yet is fruitless1 according to ,wis4 #e3c3 ,repenting1 and groaning for anguish of spirit4 ,consequently such ,penance brings no hope of pardon1 but only despair4 ,nevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that1 because his will is flexible to good and evil4 ,wherefore to say that in this life there is any sin of which one cannot repent1 is erroneous1 first1 because this would destroy free-will1 secondly1 because this would be derogatory to the power of grace1 whereby the heart of any sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent1 according to ,prov4 #ba3a3 ,the heart of the king is in the hand of the ,lord3 whithersoever ,he will ,he shall turn it4 ,it is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through true ,penance4 ,first1 because this is contrary to ,divine mercy1 of which it is written 7,joel #b3ac7 that ,god is gracious and merciful1 patient1 and rich in mercy1 and ready to repent of the evil2 for1 in a manner1 ,god would be overcome by man1 if man wished a sin to be blotted out1 which ,god were unwilling to blot out4 ,secondly1 because this would be derogatory to the power of ,christ's ,passion1 through which ,penance produces its effect1 as do the other sacraments1 since it is written 7#a ,john #b3b73 ,he is the propitiation for our sins1 and not for ours only1 but also for those of the whole world4 ,therefore we must say simply that1 in this life1 every sin can be blotted out by true ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,esau did not truly repent4 ,this is evident from his saying 7,gen4 #bg3da73 ,the days will come of the mourning of my father1 and ,i will kill my brother ,jacob4 ,likewise neither did ,antiochus repent truly2 since he grieved for his past sin1 not because he had offended ,god thereby1 but on account of the sickness which he suffered in his body4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,these words of ,augustine should be understood thus3 ,so great is the stain of that sin1 that man is unable to humble himself in prayer1 i4e4 it is not easy for him to do so2 in which sense we say that a man cannot be healed1 when it is difficult to heal him4 ,yet this is possible by the power of ,god's grace1 which sometimes turns men even into the depths of the sea 7,ps4 #fg3bc74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the word or blasphemy spoken against the ,holy ,ghost is final impenitence1 as ,augustine states 7,de ,verb4 ,dom4 xi71 which is altogether unpardonable1 because after this life is ended1 there is no pardon of sins4 ,or1 if by the blasphemy against the ,holy ,ghost1 we understand sin committed through certain malice1 this means either that the blasphemy itself against the ,holy ,ghost is unpardonable1 i4e4 not easily pardonable1 or that such a sin does not contain in itself any motive for pardon1 or that for such a sin a man is punished both in this and in the next world1 as we explained in the ,second ,part 7,,iii1 ,q4 #ad1 ,a4 #c74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,sin ,can ,be ,pardoned ,without ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that sin can be pardoned without ,penance4 ,for the power of ,god is no less with regard to adults than with regard to children4 ,but ,he pardons the sins of children without ,penance4 ,therefore ,he also pardons adults without penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,god did not bind ,his power to the sacraments4 ,but ,penance is a sacrament4 ,therefore by ,god's power sin can be pardoned without ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god's mercy is greater than man's4 ,now man sometimes forgives another for offending him1 without his repenting3 wherefore our ,lord commanded us 7,matt4 #e3dd73 ,love your enemies1 do good to them that hate you4 ,much more1 therefore1 does ,god pardon men for offending him1 without their repenting4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,lord said 7,jer4 #ah3h73 ,if that nation 4 4 4 shall repent of their evil which they have done1 ,i also will repent of the evil that ,i have thought to do them1 so that1 on the other hand1 if man do not penance1 it seems that ,god will not pardon him his sin4 ,i answer that1 ,it is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned without penance1 if we speak of penance as a virtue4 ,for1 as sin is an offense against ,god1 ,he pardons sin in the same way as he pardons an offense committed against ,him4 ,now an offense is directly opposed to grace1 since one man is said to be offended with another1 because he excludes him from his grace4 ,now1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #a71 the difference between the grace of ,god and the grace of man1 is that the latter does not cause1 but presupposes true or apparent goodness in him who is graced1 whereas the grace of ,god causes goodness in the man who is graced1 because the good-will of ,god1 which is denoted by the word grace1 is the cause of all created good4 ,hence it is possible for a man to pardon an offense1 for which he is offended with someone1 without any change in the latter's will2 but it is impossible that ,god pardon a man for an offense1 without his will being changed4 ,now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned away from ,god1 through being turned to some mutable good4 ,consequently1 for the pardon of this offense against ,god1 it is necessary for man's will to be so changed as to turn to ,god and to renounce having turned to something else in the aforesaid manner1 together with a purpose of amendment2 all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue4 ,therefore it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without penance as a virtue4 ,but the sacrament of ,penance1 as stated above 7,q4 #hh1 ,a4 #c71 is perfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing1 without which ,god can forgive sins1 even as ,christ pardoned the adulterous woman1 as related in ,john #h1 and the woman that was a sinner1 as related in ,luke vii1 whose sins1 however1 ,he did not forgive without the virtue of penance3 for as ,gregory states 7,hom4 xxxiii in ,evang471 ,he drew inwardly by grace1 i4e4 by penance1 her whom ,he received outwardly by ,his mercy4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in children there is none but original sin1 which consists1 not in an actual disorder of the will1 but in a habitual disorder of nature1 as explained in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hb1 ,a4 #a71 and so in them the forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a habitual change resulting from the infusion of grace and virtues1 but not by an actual change4 ,on the other hand1 in the case of an adult1 in whom there are actual sins1 which consist in an actual disorder of the will1 there is no remission of sins1 even in ,baptism1 without an actual change of the will1 which is the effect of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,this argument takes ,penance as a sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,god's mercy is more powerful than man's1 in that it moves man's will to repent1 which man's mercy cannot do4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #c ,whether by ,penance ,one ,sin ,can ,be ,pardoned ,without ,another8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that by ,penance one sin can be pardoned without another4 ,for it is written 7,amos #d3g73 ,i caused it to rain upon one city1 and caused it not to rain upon another city2 one piece was rained upon3 and the piece whereupon ,i rained not1 withered4 ,these words are expounded by ,gregory1 who says 7,hom4 x super ,ezech473 ,when a man who hates his neighbor1 breaks himself of other vices1 rain falls on one part of the city1 leaving the other part withered1 for there are some men who1 when they prune some vices1 become much more rooted in others4 ,therefore one sin can be forgiven by ,penance1 without another4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,ambrose in commenting on ,ps4 #aah1 ,blessed are the undefiled in the way1 after expounding verse #acf 7,my eyes have sent forth springs of water71 says that the first consolation is that ,god is mindful to have mercy2 and the second1 that ,he punishes1 for although faith be wanting1 punishment makes satisfaction and raises us up4 ,therefore a man can be raised up from one sin1 while the sin of unbelief remains4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 when several things are not necessarily together1 one can be removed without the other4 ,now it was stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #gc1 ,a4 #a7 that sins are not connected together1 so that one sin can be without another4 ,therefore also one sin can be taken away by ,penance without another being taken away4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 sins are the debts1 for which we pray for pardon when we say in the ,lord's ,prayer3 ,forgive us our trespasses1 etc4 ,now man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another4 ,therefore ,god also1 by ,penance1 forgives one sin without another4 ,obj4 #e3 ,further1 man's sins are forgiven him through the love of ,god1 according to ,jer4 #ca3c3 ,i have loved thee with an everlasting love1 therefore have ,i drawn thee1 taking pity on thee4 ,now there is nothing to hinder ,god from loving a man in one respect1 while being offended with him in another1 even as ,he loves the sinner as regards his nature1 while hating him for his sin4 ,therefore it seems possible for ,god1 by ,penance1 to pardon one sin without another4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,there are many who repent having sinned1 but not completely2 for they except certain things which give them pleasure1 forgetting that our ,lord delivered from the devil the man who was both dumb and deaf1 whereby ,he shows us that we are never healed unless it be from all sins4 ,i answer that1 ,it is impossible for ,penance to take one sin away without another4 ,first because sin is taken away by grace removing the offense against ,god4 ,wherefore it was stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aji1 ,a4 #g2 ,q4 #aac1 ,a4 #b7 that without grace no sin can be forgiven4 ,now every mortal sin is opposed to grace and excludes it4 ,therefore it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned without another4 ,secondly1 because1 as shown above 7,a4 #b7 mortal sin cannot be forgiven without true ,penance1 to which it belongs to renounce sin1 by reason of its being against ,god1 which is common to all mortal sins3 and where the same reason applies1 the result will be the same4 ,consequently a man cannot be truly penitent1 if he repent of one sin and not of another4 ,for if one particular sin were displeasing to him1 because it is against the love of ,god above all things 7which motive is necessary for true repentance71 it follows that he would repent of all4 ,whence it follows that it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned through ,penance1 without another4 ,thirdly1 because this would be contrary to the perfection of ,god's mercy1 since ,his works are perfect1 as stated in ,deut4 #cb3d2 wherefore whomsoever ,he pardons1 ,he pardons altogether4 ,hence ,augustine says 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown1 that it is irreverent and heretical to expect half a pardon from ,him ,who is just and justice itself4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,these words of ,gregory do not refer to the forgiveness of the guilt1 but to the cessation from act1 because sometimes a man who has been wont to commit several kinds of sin1 renounces one and not the other2 which is indeed due to ,god's assistance1 but does not reach to the pardon of the sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in this saying of ,ambrose faith cannot denote the faith whereby we believe in ,christ1 because1 as ,augustine says on ,john #ae3bb1 ,if ,i had not come1 and spoken to them1 they would not have sin 7viz4 unbelief73 for this is the sin which contains all others3 but it stands for consciousness1 because sometimes a man receives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious1 through the punishment which he bears patiently4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,although sins are not connected in so far as they turn towards a mutable good1 yet they are connected in so far as they turn away from the immutable ,good1 which applies to all mortal sins in common2 and it is thus that they have the character of an offense which needs to be removed by ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,debt as regards external things1 e4g4 money1 is not opposed to friendship through which the debt is pardoned2 hence one debt can be condoned without another4 ,on the other hand1 the debt of sin is opposed to friendship1 and so one sin or offense is not pardoned without another2 for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask even a man to forgive him one offense and not another4 ,reply ,obj4 #e3 ,the love whereby ,god loves man's nature1 does not ordain man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any mortal sin2 but the love of grace1 whereby mortal sin is forgiven1 ordains man to eternal life1 according to ,rom4 #f3bc3 ,the grace of ,god 7is7 life everlasting4 ,hence there is no comparison4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,debt of ,punishment ,remains ,after the ,guilt ,has ,been ,forgiven ,through ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that no debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven through ,penance4 ,for when the cause is removed1 the effect is removed4 ,but the guilt is the cause of the debt of punishment3 since a man deserves to be punished because he has been guilty of a sin4 ,therefore when the sin has been forgiven1 no debt of punishment can remain4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to the ,apostle 7,rom4 #e7 the gift of ,christ is more effective than the sin of ,adam4 ,now1 by sinning1 man incurs at the same time guilt and the debt of punishment4 ,much more therefore1 by the gift of grace1 is the guilt forgiven and at the same time the debt of punishment remitted4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the forgiveness of sins is effected in ,penance through the power of ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,rom4 #c3be3 ,whom ,god hath proposed to be a propitiation1 through faith in ,his ,blood 4 4 4 for the remission of former sins4 ,now ,christ's ,passion made satisfaction sufficient for all sins1 as stated above 7,,qq4 #dh1 #di1 #gi1 ,a4 #e74 ,therefore after the guilt has been pardoned1 no debt of punishment remains4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is related 7#b ,kings #ab3ac7 that when ,david penitent had said to ,nathan3 ,i have sinned against the ,lord1 ,nathan said to him3 ,the ,lord also hath taken away thy sin1 thou shalt not die4 ,nevertheless 4 4 4 the child that is born to thee shall surely die1 which was to punish him for the sin he had committed1 as stated in the same place4 ,therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #d71 in mortal sin there are two things1 namely1 a turning from the immutable ,good1 and an inordinate turning to mutable good4 ,accordingly1 in so far as mortal sin turns away from the immutable ,good1 it induces a debt of eternal punishment1 so that whosoever sins against the eternal ,good should be punished eternally4 ,again1 in so far as mortal sin turns inordinately to a mutable good1 it gives rise to a debt of some punishment1 because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice1 except by punishment3 since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will1 should suffer something against his will1 for thus will equality be restored4 ,hence it is written 7,apoc4 #ah3g73 ,as much as she hath glorified herself1 and lived in delicacies1 so much torment and sorrow give ye to her4 ,since1 however1 the turning to mutable good is finite1 sin does not1 in this respect1 induce a debt of eternal punishment4 ,wherefore1 if man turns inordinately to a mutable good1 without turning from ,god1 as happens in venial sins1 he incurs a debt1 not of eternal but of temporal punishment4 ,consequently when guilt is pardoned through grace1 the soul ceases to be turned away from ,god1 through being united to ,god by grace3 so that at the same time1 the debt of punishment is taken away1 albeit a debt of some temporal punishment may yet remain4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,mortal sin both turns away from ,god and turns to a created good4 ,but1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #ga1 ,a4 #f71 the turning away from ,god is as its form while the turning to created good is as its matter4 ,now if the formal element of anything be removed1 the species is taken away3 thus1 if you take away rational1 you take away the human species4 ,consequently mortal sin is said to be pardoned from the very fact that1 by means of grace1 the aversion of the mind from ,god is taken away together with the debt of eternal punishment3 and yet the material element remains1 viz4 the inordinate turning to a created good1 for which a debt of temporal punishment is due4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aji1 ,,aa4 #g1 #h2 ,q4 #aaa1 ,a4 #b71 it belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying him from sin1 and to co-operate with man that his work may be rightly done4 ,consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace1 while the remission of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace1 in so far as man1 by bearing punishment patiently with the help of ,divine grace1 is released also from the debt of temporal punishment4 ,consequently just as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace1 so too1 the remission of guilt and of eternal punishment precedes the complete release from temporal punishment1 since both are from grace1 but the former1 from grace alone1 the latter1 from grace and free-will4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,christ's ,passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment1 not only eternal1 but also temporal2 and man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of ,christ's ,passion4 ,now in ,baptism man shares the ,power of ,christ's ,passion fully1 since by water and the ,spirit of ,christ1 he dies with ,him to sin1 and is born again in ,him to a new life1 so that1 in ,baptism1 man receives the remission of all debt of punishment4 ,in ,penance1 on the other hand1 man shares in the power of ,christ's ,passion according to the measure of his own acts1 which are the matter of ,penance1 as water is of ,baptism1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of ,penance1 by which act the guilt is remitted1 but only when all the acts of ,penance have been completed4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #e ,whether the ,remnants of ,sin ,are ,removed ,when a ,mortal ,sin ,is ,forgiven8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven4 ,for ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown3 ,our ,lord never healed anyone without delivering him wholly2 for ,he wholly healed the man on the ,sabbath1 since ,he delivered his body from all disease1 and his soul from all taint4 ,now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of sin4 ,therefore it does not seem possible for any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 according to ,dionysius 7,div4 ,nom4 iv71 good is more efficacious than evil1 since evil does not act save in virtue of some good4 ,now1 by sinning1 man incurs the taint of sin all at once4 ,much more1 therefore1 by repenting1 is he delivered also from all remnants of sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,god's work is more efficacious than man's4 ,now by the exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are removed4 ,much more1 therefore1 are they taken away by the remission of guilt1 which is a work of ,god4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read 7,mk4 #h7 that the blind man whom our ,lord enlightened1 was restored first of all to imperfect sight1 wherefore he said 7,mk4 #h3bd73 ,i see men1 as it were trees1 walking2 and afterwards he was restored perfectly1 so that he saw all things clearly4 ,now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner4 ,therefore after the first remission of sin1 whereby the sinner is restored to spiritual sight1 there still remain in him some remnants of his past sin4 ,i answer that1 ,mortal sin1 in so far as it turns inordinately to a mutable good1 produces in the soul a certain disposition1 or even a habit1 if the acts be repeated frequently4 ,now it has been said above 7,a4 #d7 that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace removing the aversion of the mind from ,god4 ,nevertheless when that which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace1 that which is on the part of the inordinate turning to a mutable good can remain1 since this may happen to be without the other1 as stated above 7,a4 #d74 ,consequently1 there is no reason why1 after the guilt has been forgiven1 the dispositions caused by preceding acts should not remain1 which are called the remnants of sin4 ,yet they remain weakened and diminished1 so as not to domineer over man1 and they are after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits1 like the fomes which remains after ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,god heals the whole man perfectly2 but sometimes suddenly1 as ,peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect health1 so that rising she ministered to them 7,luke #d3ci71 and sometimes by degrees1 as we said above 7,q4 #dd1 ,a4 #c1 ad #b7 about the blind man who was restored to sight 7,matt4 #h74 ,and so too1 ,he sometimes turns the heart of man with such power1 that it receives at once perfect spiritual health1 not only the guilt being pardoned1 but all remnants of sin being removed as was the case with ,magdalen 7,luke #g72 whereas at other times ,he sometimes first pardons the guilt by operating grace1 and afterwards1 by co-operating grace1 removes the remnants of sin by degrees4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,sin too1 sometimes induces at once a weak disposition1 such as is the result of one act1 and sometimes a stronger disposition1 the result of many acts4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,one human act does not remove all the remnants of sin1 because1 as stated in the ,predicaments 7,categor4 viii7 a vicious man by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any better1 but if he continue in good practice1 he will end in being good as to acquired virtue4 ,but ,god's grace does this much more effectively1 whether by one or by several acts4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,forgiveness of ,guilt ,is an ,effect of ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue4 ,for penance is said to be a virtue1 in so far as it is a principle of a human action4 ,but human action does nothing towards the remission of guilt1 since this is an effect of operating grace4 ,therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 certain other virtues are more excellent than penance4 ,but the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of any other virtue4 ,neither1 therefore1 is it the effect of penance as a virtue4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 there is no forgiveness of sin except through the power of ,christ's ,passion1 according to ,heb4 #i3bb3 ,without shedding of blood there is no remission4 ,now ,penance1 as a sacrament1 produces its effect through the power of ,christ's ,passion1 even as the other sacraments do1 as was shown above 7,q4 #fb1 ,,aa4 #d1 #e74 ,therefore the forgiveness of sin is the effect of ,penance1 not as a virtue1 but as a sacrament4 ,on the contrary1 ,properly speaking1 the cause of a thing is that without which it cannot be1 since every defect depends on its cause4 ,now forgiveness of sin can come from ,god without the sacrament of ,penance1 but not without the virtue of penance1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #e1 ad #c2 ,q4 #he1 ,a4 #b72 so that1 even before the sacraments of the ,new ,law were instituted1 ,god pardoned the sins of the penitent4 ,therefore the forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as a virtue4 ,i answer that1 ,penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle of certain human acts4 ,now the human acts1 which are performed by the sinner1 are the material element in the sacrament of ,penance4 ,moreover every sacrament produces its effect1 in virtue not only of its form1 but also of its matter2 because both these together make the one sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #fj1 ,a4 #f1 ad #b1 ,a4 #g74 ,hence in ,baptism forgiveness of sin is effected1 in virtue not only of the form 7but also of the matter1 viz4 water1 albeit chiefly in virtue of the form7 99,the words in brackets are omitted in the ,leonine edition from which the water receives its power--and1 similarly1 the forgiveness of sin is the effect of ,penance1 chiefly by the power of the keys1 which is vested in the ministers1 who furnish the formal part of the sacrament1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #c71 and secondarily by the instrumentality of those acts of the penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance1 but only in so far as such acts are1 in some way1 subordinate to the keys of the ,church4 ,accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue1 but still more of ,penance as a sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the effect of operating grace is the justification of the ungodly 7as stated in the ,second ,part1 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aac71 wherein there is1 as was there stated 7,,aa4 #a1 #b1 #c71 not only infusion of grace and forgiveness of sin1 but also a movement of the free-will towards ,god1 which is an act of faith quickened by charity1 and a movement of the free-will against sin1 which is the act of penance4 ,yet these human acts are there as the effects of operating grace1 and are produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin4 ,consequently the forgiveness of sin does not take place without an act of the virtue of penance1 although it is the effect of operating grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in the justification of the ungodly there is not only an act of penance1 but also an act of faith1 as stated above 7ad #a3 ,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aac1 ,a4 #d74 ,wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted the effect not only of the virtue of penance1 but also1 and that chiefly1 of faith and charity4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to ,christ's ,passion both by faith1 and by its relation to the keys of the ,church2 and so1 in both ways1 it causes the forgiveness of sin1 by the power of ,christ's ,passion4 ,to the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act of the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness of sin1 through being an inseparable effect of grace1 whereby chiefly is sin pardoned1 and which produces its effect in all the sacraments4 ,consequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the forgiveness of sin than the sacrament of ,penance4 ,moreover1 it must be observed that1 under the ,old ,law and the law of nature1 there was a sacrament of ,penance after a fashion1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #g1 ad #b74 ,,question #hg ,,of ,,the ,,remission ,,of ,,venial ,,sin 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins1 under which head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether venial sin can be forgiven without ,penance8 7#b7 ,whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace8 7#c7 ,whether venial sins are forgiven by the sprinkling of holy water1 a bishop's blessing1 the beating of the breast1 the ,lord's ,prayer1 and the like8 7#d7 ,whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,venial ,sin ,can ,be ,forgiven ,without ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without penance4 ,for1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #aj1 ad #d71 it is essential to true penance that man should not only sorrow for his past sins1 but also that he should purpose to avoid them for the future4 ,now venial sins are forgiven without any such purpose1 for it is certain that man cannot lead the present life without committing venial sins4 ,therefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 there is no penance without actual displeasure at one's sins4 ,but venial sins can be taken away without any actual displeasure at them1 as would be the case if a man were to be killed in his sleep1 for ,christ's sake1 since he would go to heaven at once1 which would not happen if his venial sins remained4 ,therefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,now one contrary is removed by another4 ,therefore forgiveness of venial sins is caused by the fervor of charity1 which may be without actual displeasure at venial sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,de vera et falsa ,poenitentia1 the authorship of which is unknown1 that there is a penance which is done for venial sins in the ,church every day which would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,forgiveness of sin1 as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #b71 is effected by man being united to ,god from ,whom sin separates him in some way4 ,now this separation is made complete by mortal sin1 and incomplete by venial sin3 because1 by mortal sin1 the mind through acting against charity is altogether turned away from ,god2 whereas by venial sin man's affections are clogged1 so that they are slow in tending towards ,god4 ,consequently both kinds of sin are taken away by penance1 because by both of them man's will is disordered through turning inordinately to a created good2 for just as mortal sin cannot be forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin1 so neither can venial sin1 because while the cause remains1 the effect remains4 ,yet a more perfect penance is requisite for the forgiveness of mortal sin1 namely that man should detest actually the mortal sin which he committed1 so far as lies in his power1 that is to say1 he should endeavor to remember each single mortal sin1 in order to detest each one4 ,but this is1 not required for the forgiveness of venial sins2 although it does not suffice to have habitual displeasure1 which is included in the habit of charity or of penance as a virtue1 since then venial sin would be incompatible with charity1 which is evidently untrue4 ,consequently it is necessary to have a certain virtual displeasure1 so that1 for instance1 a man's affections so tend to ,god and ,divine things1 that whatever might happen to him to hamper that tendency would be displeasing to him1 and would grieve him1 were he to commit it1 even though he were not to think of it actually3 and this is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin1 except as regards those sins which he fails to remember after a careful examination4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,when man is in a state of grace1 he can avoid all mortal sins1 and each single one2 and he can avoid each single venial sin1 but not all1 as was explained in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #gd1 ,a4 #h1 ad #b2 ,q4 #aji1 ,a4 #h74 ,consequently penance for mortal sins requires man to purpose abstaining from mortal sins1 all and each2 whereas penance for venial sins requires man to purpose abstaining from each1 but not from all1 because the weakness of this life does not allow of this4 ,nevertheless he needs to have the purpose of taking steps to commit fewer venial sins1 else he would be in danger of falling back1 if he gave up the desire of going forward1 or of removing the obstacles to spiritual progress1 such as venial sins are4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,death for ,christ's sake1 as stated above 7,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #aa71 obtains the power of ,baptism1 wherefore it washes away all sin1 both venial and mortal1 unless it find the will attached to sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at venial sins1 as stated above 7,q4 #gi1 ,a4 #d74 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,infusion of ,grace ,is ,necessary for the ,remission of ,venial ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for the remission of venial sins4 ,because an effect is not produced without its proper cause4 ,now the proper cause of the remission of sins is grace2 for man's sins are not forgiven through his own merits2 wherefore it is written 7,eph4 #b3d1 #e73 ,god1 ,who is rich in mercy1 for ,his exceeding charity1 wherewith ,he loved us1 even when we were dead in sins1 hath quickened us together in ,christ1 by ,whose grace you are saved4 ,therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 venial sins are not forgiven without ,penance4 ,now grace is infused1 in ,penance as in the other sacraments of the ,new ,law4 ,therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 venial sin produces a stain on the soul4 ,now a stain is not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty of the soul4 ,therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace4 ,on the contrary1 ,the advent of venial sin neither destroys nor diminishes grace1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,therefore1 in like manner1 an infusion of grace is not necessary in order to remove venial sin4 ,i answer that1 ,each thing is removed by its contrary4 ,but venial sin is not contrary to habitual grace or charity1 but hampers its act1 through man being too much attached to a created good1 albeit not in opposition to ,god1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,a4 #a2 ,,ii-,,ii1 ,q4 #bd1 ,a4 #aj74 ,therefore1 in order that venial sin be removed1 it is not necessary that habitual grace be infused1 but a movement of grace or charity suffices for its forgiveness4 ,nevertheless1 since in those who have the use of free-will 7in whom alone can there be venial sins71 there can be no infusion of grace without an actual movement of the free-will towards ,god and against sin1 consequently whenever grace is infused anew1 venial sins are forgiven4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of grace1 in virtue of the act which grace produces anew1 but not through any habit infused anew into the soul4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,venial sin is never forgiven without some act1 explicit or implicit1 of the virtue of penance1 as stated above 7,a4 #a73 it can1 however1 be forgiven without the sacrament of ,penance1 which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution1 as stated above 7,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #b74 ,hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin1 for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament1 it does not occur in every act of virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,just as there are two kinds of bodily stain1 one consisting in the privation of something required for beauty1 e4g4 the right color or the due proportion of members1 and another by the introduction of some hindrance to beauty1 e4g4 mud or dust2 so too1 a stain is put on the soul1 in one way1 by the privation of the beauty of grace through mortal sin1 in another1 by the inordinate inclination of the affections to some temporal thing1 and this is the result of venial sin4 ,consequently1 an infusion of grace is necessary for the removal of mortal sin1 but in order to remove venial sin1 it is necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace1 removing the inordinate attachment to the temporal thing4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,venial ,sins ,are ,removed by the ,sprinkling of ,holy ,water and the ,like8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that venial sins are not removed by the sprinkling of holy water1 a bishop's blessing1 and the like4 ,for venial sins are not forgiven without ,penance1 as stated above 7,a4 #a74 ,but ,penance suffices by itself for the remission of venial sins4 ,therefore the above have nothing to do with the remission of venial sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 each of the above bears the same relation to one venial sin as to all4 ,if therefore1 by means of one of them1 some venial sin is remitted1 it follows that in like manner all are remitted1 so that by beating his breast once1 or by being sprinkled once with holy water1 a man would be delivered from all his venial sins1 which seems unreasonable4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment1 albeit temporal2 for it is written 7#a ,cor4 #c3ab1 #ae7 of him that builds up wood1 hay1 stubble that he shall be saved1 yet so as by fire4 ,now the above things whereby venial sins are said to be taken away1 contain either no punishment at all1 or very little4 ,therefore they do not suffice for the full remission of venial sins4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,hom4 #cj inter #a2 ,ep4 cclxv that for our slight sins we strike our breasts1 and say3 ,forgive us our trespasses1 and so it seems that striking one's breast1 and the ,lord's ,prayer cause the remission of venial sins3 and the same seems to apply to the other things4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #b71 no infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin1 but it is enough to have an act proceeding from grace1 in detestation of that venial sin1 either explicit or at least implicit1 as when one is moved fervently to ,god4 ,hence1 for three reasons1 certain things cause the remission of venial sins3 first1 because they imply the infusion of grace1 since the infusion of grace removes venial sins1 as stated above 7,a4 #b72 and so1 by the ,eucharist1 ,extreme ,unction1 and by all the sacraments of the ,new ,law without exception1 wherein grace is conferred1 venial sins are remitted4 ,secondly1 because they imply a movement of detestation for sin1 and in this way the general confession 99i4e4 the recital of the ,confiteor or of an act of contrition1 the beating of one's breast1 and the ,lord's ,prayer conduce to the remission of venial sins1 for we ask in the ,lord's ,prayer3 ,forgive us our trespasses4 ,thirdly1 because they include a movement of reverence for ,god and ,divine things2 and in this way a bishop's blessing1 the sprinkling of holy water1 any sacramental anointing1 a prayer said in a dedicated church1 and anything else of the kind1 conduce to the remission of venial sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,all these things cause the remission of venial sins1 in so far as they incline the soul to the movement of penance1 viz41 the implicit or explicit detestation of one's sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,all these things1 so far as they are concerned1 conduce to the remission of all venial sins3 but the remission may be hindered as regards certain venial sins1 to which the mind is still actually attached1 even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect of ,baptism4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,by the above things1 venial sins are indeed taken away as regards the guilt1 both because those things are a kind of satisfaction1 and through the virtue of charity whose movement is aroused by such things4 ,yet it does not always happen that1 by means of each one1 the whole guilt of punishment is taken away1 because1 in that case1 whoever was entirely free from mortal sin1 would go straight to heaven if sprinkled with holy water3 but the debt of punishment is remitted by means of the above1 according to the movement of fervor towards ,god1 which fervor is aroused by such things1 sometimes more1 sometimes less4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hg1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,venial ,sin ,can ,be ,taken ,away ,without ,mortal ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin4 ,for1 on ,john #h3g3 ,he that is without sin among you1 let him first cast a stone at her1 a gloss says that all those men were in a state of mortal sin3 for venial offenses were forgiven them through the legal ceremonies4 ,therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no infusion of grace is required for the remission of venial sin1 but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal sin4 ,therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than from another venial sin4 ,but one venial sin can be pardoned without another1 as stated above 7,a4 #c1 ad #b2 ,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #c74 ,therefore a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,matt4 #e3bf73 ,amen ,i say to thee1 thou shalt not go out from thence1 viz41 from the prison1 into which a man is cast for mortal sin1 till thou repay the last farthing1 by which venial sin is denoted4 ,therefore a venial sin is not forgiven without mortal sin4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #c71 there is no remission of any sin whatever except by the power of grace1 because1 as the ,apostle declares 7,rom4 #d3h71 it is owing to ,god's grace that ,he does not impute sin to a man1 which a gloss on that passage expounds as referring to venial sin4 ,now he that is in a state of mortal sin is without the grace of ,god4 ,therefore no venial sin is forgiven him4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,venial offenses1 in the passage quoted1 denote the irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance with the ,law4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite for the remission of venial sin1 yet it is necessary to exercise some act of grace1 which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby all venial sins can be removed2 whereas mortal sin excludes altogether the habit of grace1 without which no sin1 either mortal or venial1 is remitted4 ,hence the comparison fails4 ,,question #hh ,,of ,,the ,,return ,,of ,,sins ,,which ,,have ,,been ,,taken ,,away ,,by ,,penance 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the return of sins which have been taken away by ,penance3 under which head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether sins which have been taken away by ,penance return simply through a subsequent sin8 7#b7 ,whether more specially as regards certain sins they return1 in a way1 on account of ingratitude8 7#c7 ,whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus returned8 7#d7 ,whether this ingratitude1 on account of which sins return1 is a special sin8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,sins ,once ,forgiven ,return ,through a ,subsequent ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that sins once forgiven return through a subsequent sin4 ,for ,augustine says 7,de ,bapt4 contra ,donat4 i1 #ab73 ,our ,lord teaches most explicitly in the ,gospel that sins which have been forgiven return1 when fraternal charity ceases1 in the example of the servant from whom his master exacted the payment of the debt already forgiven1 because he had refused to forgive the debt of his fellow-servant4 ,now fraternal charity is destroyed through each mortal sin4 ,therefore sins already taken away through ,penance1 return through each subsequent mortal sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 on ,luke #aa3bd1 ,i will return into my house1 whence ,i came out1 ,bede says3 ,this verse should make us tremble1 we should not endeavor to explain it away lest through carelessness we give place to the sin which we thought to have been taken away1 and become its slave once more4 ,now this would not be so unless it returned4 ,therefore a sin returns after once being taken away by ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the ,lord said 7,ezech4 #ah3bd73 ,if the just man turn himself away from his justice1 and do iniquity 4 4 4 all his justices which he hath done1 shall not be remembered4 ,now among the other justices which he had done1 is also his previous penance1 since it was said above 7,q4 #he1 ,a4 #c7 that penance is a part of justice4 ,therefore when one who has done penance1 sins1 his previous penance1 whereby he received forgiveness of his sins1 is not imputed to him4 ,therefore his sins return4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 past sins are covered by grace1 as the ,apostle declares 7,rom4 #d3g7 where he quotes ,ps4 #ca3a3 ,blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven1 and whose sins are covered4 ,but a subsequent mortal sin takes away grace4 ,therefore the sins committed previously1 become uncovered3 and so1 seemingly1 they return4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #aa3bi73 ,the gifts and the calling of ,god are without repentance4 ,now the penitent's sins are taken away by a gift of ,god4 ,therefore the sins which have been taken away do not return through a subsequent sin1 as though ,god repented ,his gift of forgiveness4 ,moreover1 ,augustine says 7,lib4 ,resp4 ,prosperi i 99,cf4 ,prosper1 ,responsiones ad ,capitula ,gallorum ii73 ,when he that turns away from ,christ1 comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace1 whither does he go1 except to perdition8 ,yet he does not fall back into that which had been forgiven1 nor will he be condemned for original sin4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #d71 mortal sin contains two things1 aversion from ,god and adherence to a created good4 ,now1 in mortal sin1 whatever attaches to the aversion1 is1 considered in itself1 common to all mortal sins1 since man turns away from ,god by every mortal sin1 so that1 in consequence1 the stain resulting from the privation of grace1 and the debt of everlasting punishment are common to all mortal sins4 ,this is what is meant by what is written 7,james #b3aj73 ,whosoever 4 4 4 shall offend in one point1 is become guilty of all4 ,on the other hand1 as regards their adherence they are different from1 and sometimes contrary to one another4 ,hence it is evident1 that on the part of the adherence1 a subsequent mortal sin does not cause the return of mortal sins previously dispelled1 else it would follow that by a sin of wastefulness a man would be brought back to the habit or disposition of avarice previously dispelled1 so that one contrary would be the cause of another1 which is impossible4 ,but if in mortal sins we consider that which attaches to the aversion absolutely1 then a subsequent mortal sin causes the return of that which was comprised in the mortal sins before they were pardoned1 in so far as the subsequent mortal sin 99,the words in brackets are omitted in the ,leonine edition4 deprives man of grace1 and makes him deserving of everlasting punishment1 just as he was before4 ,nevertheless1 since the aversion of mortal sin is in a way1 caused by the adherence1 those things which attach to the aversion are99 diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences1 as it were to various causes1 so that there will be a different aversion1 a different stain1 a different debt of punishment1 according to the different acts of mortal sin from which they arise2 hence the question is moved whether the stain and the debt of eternal punishment1 as caused by acts of sins previously pardoned1 return through a subsequent mortal sin4 ,accordingly some have maintained that they return simply even in this way4 ,but this is impossible1 because what ,god has done cannot be undone by the work of man4 ,now the pardon of the previous sins was a work of ,divine mercy1 so that it cannot be undone by man's subsequent sin1 according to ,rom4 #c3c3 ,shall their unbelief make the faith of ,god without effect8 ,wherefore others who maintained the possibility of sins returning1 said that ,god pardons the sins of a penitent who will afterwards sin again1 not according to ,his foreknowledge1 but only according to ,his present justice3 since ,he foresees that ,he will punish such a man eternally for his sins1 and yet1 by ,his grace1 ,he makes him righteous for the present4 ,but this cannot stand3 because if a cause be placed absolutely1 its effect is placed absolutely2 so that if the remission of sins were effected by grace and the sacraments of grace1 not absolutely but under some condition dependent on some future event1 it would follow that grace and the sacraments of grace are not the sufficient causes of the remission of sins1 which is erroneous1 as being derogatory to ,god's grace4 ,consequently it is in no way possible for the stain of past sins and the debt of punishment incurred thereby1 to return1 as caused by those acts4 ,yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually contains the debt of punishment due to the previous sin1 in so far as when a man sins a second time1 for this very reason he seems to sin more grievously than before1 as stated in ,rom4 #b3e3 ,according to thy hardness and impenitent heart1 thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath1 from the mere fact1 namely1 that ,god's goodness1 which waits for us to repent1 is despised4 ,and so much the more is ,god's goodness despised1 if the first sin is committed a second time after having been forgiven1 as it is a greater favor for the sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to be endured4 ,accordingly the sin which follows repentance brings back1 in a sense1 the debt of punishment due to the sins previously forgiven1 not as caused by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin being committed1 on account of its being aggravated in view of those previous sins4 ,this means that those sins return1 not simply1 but in a restricted sense1 viz41 in so far as they are virtually contained in the subsequent sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this saying of ,augustine seems to refer to the return of sins as to the debt of eternal punishment considered in itself1 namely1 that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal punishment1 just as before1 but not altogether for the same reason4 ,wherefore ,augustine1 after saying 7,lib4 ,resp4 ,prosperi i 99,cf4 ,prosper1 ,responsiones ad ,capitula ,gallorum ii7 that he does not fall back into that which was forgiven1 nor will he be condemned for original sin1 adds3 ,nevertheless1 for these last sins he will be condemned to the same death1 which he deserved to suffer for the former1 because he incurs the punishment of eternal death which he deserved for his previous sins4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,by these words ,bede means that the guilt already forgiven enslaves man1 not by the return of his former debt of punishment1 but by the repetition of his act4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,the effect of a subsequent sin is that the former justices are not remembered1 in so far as they were deserving of eternal life1 but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin4 ,consequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution1 he does not become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed2 and much less is penance previously done forgotten as to the pardon of the guilt1 since this is the work of ,god rather than of man4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,grace removes the stain and the debt of eternal punishment simply2 but it covers the past sinful acts1 lest1 on their account1 ,god deprive man of grace1 and judge him deserving of eternal punishment2 and what grace has once done1 endures for ever4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,sins ,that ,have ,been ,forgiven1 ,return ,through ,ingratitude ,which ,is ,shown ,especially in ,four ,kinds of ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that sins do not return through ingratitude1 which is shown especially in four kinds of sin1 viz41 hatred of one's neighbor1 apostasy from faith1 contempt of confession and regret for past repentance1 and which have been expressed in the following verse3 ,fratres odit1 apostata fit1 spernitque1 fateri1 ,poenituisse piget1 pristina culpa redit4 ,for the more grievous the sin committed against ,god after one has received the grace of pardon1 the greater the ingratitude4 ,but there are sins more grievous than these1 such as blasphemy against ,god1 and the sin against the ,holy ,ghost4 ,therefore it seems that sins already pardoned do not return through ingratitude as manifested in these sins1 any more than as shown in other sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,rabanus says3 ,god delivered the wicked servant to the torturers1 until he should pay the whole debt1 because a man will be deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after ,baptism1 but also for original sin which was taken away when he was baptized4 ,now venial sins are reckoned among our debts1 since we pray in their regard3 ,forgive us our trespasses 7debita74 ,therefore they too return through ingratitude2 and1 in like manner seemingly1 sins already pardoned return through venial sins1 and not only through those sins mentioned above4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ingratitude is all the greater1 according as one sins after receiving a greater favor4 ,now innocence whereby one avoids sin is a ,divine favor1 for ,augustine says 7,confess4 ii73 ,whatever sins ,i have avoided committing1 ,i owe it to ,thy grace4 ,now innocence is a greater gift1 than even the forgiveness of all sins4 ,therefore the first sin committed after innocence is no less an ingratitude to ,god1 than a sin committed after repentance1 so that seemingly ingratitude in respect of the aforesaid sins is not the chief cause of sins returning4 ,on the contrary1 ,gregory says 7,moral4 xviii 99,cf4 ,dial4 iv73 ,it is evident from the words of the ,gospel that if we do not forgive from our hearts the offenses committed against us1 we become once more accountable for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through ,penance3 so that ingratitude implied in the hatred of one's brother is a special cause of the return of sins already forgiven3 and the same seems to apply to the others4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,a4 #a71 sins pardoned through ,penance are said to return1 in so far as their debt of punishment1 by reason of ingratitude1 is virtually contained in the subsequent sin4 ,now one may be guilty of ingratitude in two ways3 first by doing something against the favor received1 and1 in this way1 man is ungrateful to ,god in every mortal sin whereby he offends ,god ,who forgave his sins1 so that by every subsequent mortal sin1 the sins previously pardoned return1 on account of the ingratitude4 ,secondly1 one is guilty of ingratitude1 by doing something not only against the favor itself1 but also against the form of the favor received4 ,if this form be considered on the part of the benefactor1 it is the remission of something due to him2 wherefore he who does not forgive his brother when he asks pardon1 and persists in his hatred1 acts against this form4 ,if1 however1 this form be taken in regard to the penitent who receives this favor1 we find on his part a twofold movement of the free-will4 ,the first is the movement of the free-will towards ,god1 and is an act of faith quickened by charity2 and against this a man acts by apostatizing from the faith4 ,the second is a movement of the free-will against sin1 and is the act of penance4 ,this act consists first1 as we have stated above 7,q4 #he1 ,,aa4 #b1 #e7 in man's detestation of his past sins2 and against this a man acts when he regrets having done penance4 ,secondly1 the act of penance consists in the penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the ,church by confession1 according to ,ps4 #ca3e3 ,i said3 ,i will confess against myself my injustice to the ,lord3 and ,thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin3 and against this a man acts when he scorns to confess as he had purposed to do4 ,accordingly it is said that the ingratitude of sinners is a special cause of the return of sins previously forgiven4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,this is not said of these sins as though they were more grievous than others1 but because they are more directly opposed to the favor of the forgiveness of sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,even venial sins and original sin return in the way explained above1 just as mortal sins do1 in so far as the favor conferred by ,god in forgiving those sins is despised4 ,a man does not1 however1 incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin1 because by sinning venially man does not act against ,god1 but apart from ,him1 wherefore venial sins nowise cause the return of sins already forgiven4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,a favor can be weighed in two ways4 ,first by the quantity of the favor itself1 and in this way innocence is a greater favor from ,god than penance1 which is called the second plank after shipwreck 7cf4 ,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #f74 ,secondly1 a favor may be weighed with regard to the recipient1 who is less worthy1 wherefore a greater favor is bestowed on him1 so that he is the more ungrateful if he scorns it4 ,in this way the favor of the pardon of sins is greater when bestowed on one who is altogether unworthy1 so that the ingratitude which follows is all the greater4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,art4 #c ,whether the ,debt of ,punishment ,that ,arises ,through ,ingratitude in ,respect of a ,subsequent ,sin ,is ,as ,great ,as ,that of the ,sins ,previously ,pardoned8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the debt of punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as that of the sins previously pardoned4 ,because the greatness of the favor of the pardon of sins is according to the greatness of the sin pardoned1 and so too1 in consequence1 is the greatness of the ingratitude whereby this favor is scorned4 ,but the greatness of the consequent debt of punishment is in accord with the greatness of the ingratitude4 ,therefore the debt of punishment arising through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as the debt of punishment due for all the previous sins4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 it is a greater sin to offend ,god than to offend man4 ,but a slave who is freed by his master returns to the same state of slavery from which he was freed1 or even to a worse state4 ,much more therefore he that sins against ,god after being freed from sin1 returns to the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred before4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 it is written 7,matt4 #ah3cd7 that his lord being angry1 delivered him 7whose sins returned to him on account of his ingratitude7 to the torturers1 until he paid all the debt4 ,but this would not be so unless the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude were as great as that incurred through all previous sins4 ,therefore an equal debt of punishment returns through ingratitude4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,deut4 #be3b73 ,according to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be1 whence it is evident that a great debt of punishment does not arise from a slight sin4 ,but sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less grievous than any one of those previously pardoned4 ,therefore the debt of punishment incurred through subsequent sins is not equal to that of sins previously forgiven4 ,i answer that1 ,some have maintained that the debt of punishment incurred through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is equal to that of the sins previously pardoned1 in addition to the debt proper to this subsequent sin4 ,but there is no need for this1 because1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 the debt of punishment incurred by previous sins does not return on account of a subsequent sin1 as resulting from the acts of the subsequent sin4 ,wherefore the amount of the debt that returns must be according to the gravity of the subsequent sin4 ,it is possible1 however1 for the gravity of the subsequent sin to equal the gravity of all previous sins4 ,but it need not always be so1 whether we speak of the gravity which a sin has from its species 7since the subsequent sin may be one of simple fornication1 while the previous sins were adulteries1 murders1 or sacrileges72 or of the gravity which it incurs through the ingratitude connected with it4 ,for it is not necessary that the measure of ingratitude should be exactly equal to the measure of the favor received1 which latter is measured according to the greatness of the sins previously pardoned4 ,because it may happen that in respect of the same favor1 one man is very ungrateful1 either on account of the intensity of his scorn for the favor received1 or on account of the gravity of the offense committed against the benefactor1 while another man is slightly ungrateful1 either because his scorn is less intense1 or because his offense against the benefactor is less grave4 ,but the measure of ingratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor received3 for supposing an equal contempt of the favor1 or an equal offense against the benefactor1 the ingratitude will be so much the greater1 as the favor received is greater4 ,hence it is evident that the debt of punishment incurred by a subsequent sin need not always be equal to that of previous sins2 but it must be in proportion thereto1 so that the more numerous or the greater the sins previously pardoned1 the greater must be the debt of punishment incurred by any subsequent mortal sin whatever4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the favor of the pardon of sins takes its absolute quantity from the quantity of the sins previously pardoned3 but the sin of ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the measure of the favor bestowed1 but from the measure of the contempt or of the offense1 as stated above3 and so the objection does not prove4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,a slave who has been given his freedom is not brought back to his previous state of slavery for any kind of ingratitude1 but only when this is grave4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,he whose forgiven sins return to him on account of subsequent ingratitude1 incurs the debt for all1 in so far as the measure of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his subsequent ingratitude1 but not absolutely1 as stated above4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hh1 ,art4 #d ,whether the ,ingratitude ,whereby a ,subsequent ,sin ,causes the ,return of ,previous ,sins1 ,is a ,special ,sin8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the ingratitude1 whereby a subsequent sin causes the return of sins previously forgiven1 is a special sin4 ,for the giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a necessary condition of justice1 as the ,philosopher shows 7,ethic4 v1 #e74 ,but justice is a special virtue4 ,therefore this ingratitude is a special sin4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,tully says 7,de ,inv4 ,rhet4 ii7 that thanksgiving is a special virtue4 ,but ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving4 ,therefore ingratitude is a special sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a special effect proceeds from a special cause4 ,now ingratitude has a special effect1 viz4 the return1 after a fashion1 of sins already forgiven4 ,therefore ingratitude is a special sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,that which is a sequel to every sin is not a special sin4 ,now by any mortal sin whatever1 a man becomes ungrateful to ,god1 as evidenced from what has been said 7,a4 #a74 ,therefore ingratitude is not a special sin4 ,i answer that1 ,the ingratitude of the sinner is sometimes a special sin2 and sometimes it is not1 but a circumstance arising from all mortal sins in common committed against ,god4 ,for a sin takes its species according to the sinner's intention1 wherefore the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 v1 #b7 that he who commits adultery in order to steal is a thief rather than an adulterer4 ,if1 therefore1 a sinner commits a sin in contempt of ,god and of the favor received from ,him1 that sin is drawn to the species of ingratitude1 and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin4 ,if1 however1 a man1 while intending to commit a sin1 e4g4 murder or adultery1 is not withheld from it on account of its implying contempt of ,god1 his ingratitude will not be a special sin1 but will be drawn to the species of the other sin1 as a circumstance thereof4 ,and1 as ,augustine observes 7,de ,nat4 et ,grat4 xxix71 not every sin implies contempt of ,god in ,his commandments4 ,therefore it is evident that the sinner's ingratitude is sometimes a special sin1 sometimes not4 ,this suffices for the ,replies to the ,objections3 for the first 7three7 objections prove that ingratitude is in itself a special sin2 while the last objection proves that ingratitude1 as included in every sin1 is not a special sin4 ,,question #hi ,,of ,,the ,,recovery ,,of ,,virtue ,,by ,,means ,,of ,,penance 7,in ,six ,articles7 ,we must now consider the recovery of virtues by means of ,penance1 under which head there are six points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether virtues are restored through ,penance8 7#b7 ,whether they are restored in equal measure8 7#c7 ,whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent8 7#d7 ,whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin8 7#e7 ,whether works deadened by sin revive through ,penance8 7#f7 ,whether dead works1 i4e4 works that are done without charity1 are quickened by ,penance8 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hi1 ,art4 #a ,whether the ,virtues ,are ,restored ,through ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the virtues are not restored through penance4 ,because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance1 unless penance be the cause of virtue4 ,but1 since penance is itself a virtue1 it cannot be the cause of all the virtues1 and all the more1 since some virtues naturally precede penance1 viz41 faith1 hope1 and charity1 as stated above 7,q4 #he1 ,a4 #f74 ,therefore the virtues are not restored through penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,penance consists in certain acts of the penitent4 ,but the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours3 for ,augustine says 7,de ,lib4 ,arb4 ii1 #ah3 ,in ,ps4 #aah7 that ,god forms the virtues in us without us4 ,therefore it seems that the virtues are not restored through ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 he that has virtue performs works of virtue with ease and pleasure3 wherefore the ,philosopher says 7,ethic4 i1 #h7 that a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds4 ,now many penitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue4 ,therefore the virtues are not restored through ,penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,we read 7,luke #ae3bb7 that the father commanded his penitent son to be clothed in the first robe1 which1 according to ,ambrose 7,expos4 in ,luc4 vii71 is the mantle of wisdom1 from which all the virtues flow together1 according to ,wis4 #h3g3 ,she teacheth temperance1 and prudence1 and justice1 and fortitude1 which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life4 ,therefore all the virtues are restored through ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,sins are pardoned through ,penance1 as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #a74 ,but there can be no remission of sins except through the infusion of grace4 ,wherefore it follows that grace is infused into man through ,penance4 ,now all the gratuitous virtues flow from grace1 even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul2 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aaj1 ,a4 #d1 ad #a74 ,therefore all the virtues are restored through ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,penance restores the virtues in the same way as it causes grace1 as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #a74 ,now it is a cause of grace1 in so far as it is a sacrament1 because1 in so far as it is a virtue1 it is rather an effect of grace4 ,consequently it does not follow that penance1 as a virtue1 needs to be the cause of all the other virtues1 but that the habit of penance together with the habits of the other virtues is caused through the sacrament of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in the sacrament of ,penance human acts stand as matter1 while the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power of the keys4 ,consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue effectively indeed1 but instrumentally2 and the first act of the penitent1 viz41 contrition1 stands as ultimate disposition to the reception of grace1 while the subsequent acts of ,penance proceed from the grace and virtues which are already there4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #e71 sometimes after the first act of ,penance1 which is contrition1 certain remnants of sin remain1 viz4 dispositions caused by previous acts1 the result being that the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue4 ,nevertheless1 so far as the inclination itself of charity and of the other virtues is concerned1 the penitent performs works of virtue with pleasure and ease1 even as a virtuous man may accidentally find it hard to do an act of virtue1 on account of sleepiness or some indisposition of the body4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hi1 ,art4 #b ,whether1 ,after ,penance1 ,man ,rises ,again to ,equal ,virtue8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that1 after ,penance1 man rises again to equal virtue4 ,for the ,apostle says 7,rom4 #h3bh73 ,to them that love ,god all things work together unto good1 whereupon a gloss of ,augustine says that this is so true that1 if any such man goes astray and wanders from the path1 ,god makes even this conduce to his good4 ,but this would not be true if he rose again to lesser virtue4 ,therefore it seems that a penitent never rises again to lesser virtue4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,ambrose says 99,cf4 ,hypognosticon iii1 an anonymous work falsely ascribed to ,st4 ,augustine that ,penance is a very good thing1 for it restores every defect to a state of perfection4 ,but this would not be true unless virtues were recovered in equal measure4 ,therefore equal virtue is always recovered through ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 on ,gen4 #a3e3 ,there was evening and morning1 one day1 a gloss says3 ,the evening light is that from which we fall2 the morning light is that to which we rise again4 ,now the morning light is greater than the evening light4 ,therefore a man rises to greater grace or charity than that which he had before2 which is confirmed by the ,apostle's words 7,rom4 #e3bj73 ,where sin abounded1 grace did more abound4 ,on the contrary1 ,charity whether proficient or perfect is greater than incipient charity4 ,but sometimes a man falls from proficient charity1 and rises again to incipient charity4 ,therefore man always rises again to less virtue4 ,i answer that1 ,as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #f1 ad #c2 ,q4 #hi1 ,a4 #a1 ad #b71 the movement of the free-will1 in the justification of the ungodly1 is the ultimate disposition to grace2 so that in the same instant there is infusion of grace together with the aforesaid movement of the free-will1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #aac1 ,,aa4 #e1 #g71 which movement includes an act of penance1 as stated above 7,q4 #hf1 ,a4 #b74 ,but it is evident that forms which admit of being more or less1 become intense or remiss1 according to the different dispositions of the subject1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #eb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b2 ,q4 #ff1 ,a4 #a74 ,hence it is that1 in ,penance1 according to the degree of intensity or remissness in the movement of the free-will1 the penitent receives greater or lesser grace4 ,now the intensity of the penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes to a greater grace than that from which man fell by sinning1 sometimes to an equal grace1 sometimes to a lesser4 ,wherefore the penitent sometimes arises to a greater grace than that which he had before1 sometimes to an equal1 sometimes to a lesser grace3 and the same applies to the virtues1 which flow from grace4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the very fact of falling away from the love of ,god by sin1 does not work unto the good of all those who love ,god1 which is evident in the case of those who fall and never rise again1 or who rise and fall yet again2 but only to the good of such as according to ,his purpose are called to be saints1 viz4 the predestined1 who1 however often they may fall1 yet rise again finally4 ,consequently good comes of their falling1 not that they always rise again to greater grace1 but that they rise to more abiding grace1 not indeed on the part of grace itself1 because the greater the grace1 the more abiding it is1 but on the part of man1 who1 the more careful and humble he is1 abides the more steadfastly in grace4 ,hence the same gloss adds that their fall conduces to their good1 because they rise more humble and more enlightened4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,penance1 considered in itself1 has the power to bring all defects back to perfection1 and even to advance man to a higher state2 but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man1 whose movement towards ,god and in detestation of sin is too remiss1 just as in ,baptism adults receive a greater or a lesser grace1 according to the various ways in which they prepare themselves4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this comparison of the two graces to the evening and morning light is made on account of a likeness of order1 since the darkness of night follows after the evening light1 and the light of day after the light of morning1 but not on account of a likeness of greater or lesser quantity4 ,again1 this saying of the ,apostle refers to the grace of ,christ1 which abounds more than any number of man's sins4 ,nor is it true of all1 that the more their sins abound1 the more abundant grace they receive1 if we measure habitual grace by the quantity4 ,grace is1 however1 more abundant1 as regards the very notion of grace1 because to him who sins more a more gratuitous favor is vouchsafed by his pardon2 although sometimes those whose sins abound1 abound also in sorrow1 so that they receive a more abundant habit of grace and virtue1 as was the case with ,magdalen4 ,to the argument advanced in the contrary sense it must be replied that in one and the same man proficient grace is greater than incipient grace1 but this is not necessarily the case in different men1 for one begins with a greater grace than another has in the state of proficiency3 thus ,gregory says 7,dial4 ii1 #a73 ,let all1 both now and hereafter1 acknowledge how perfectly the boy ,benedict turned to the life of grace from the very beginning4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hi1 ,art4 #c ,whether1 by ,penance1 ,man ,is ,restored to ,his ,former ,dignity8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that man is not restored by ,penance to his former dignity3 because a gloss on ,amos #e3b1 ,the virgin of ,israel is cast down1 observes3 ,it is not said that she cannot rise up1 but that the virgin of ,israel shall not rise2 because the sheep that has once strayed1 although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder1 has not the same glory as if it had never strayed4 ,therefore man does not1 through ,penance1 recover his former dignity4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,jerome says3 ,whoever fail to preserve the dignity of the sacred order1 must be content with saving their souls2 for it is a difficult thing to return to their former degree4 ,again1 ,pope ,innocent ,i says 7,ep4 vi ad ,agapit47 that the canons framed at the council of ,nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of clerics4 ,therefore man does not1 through ,penance1 recover his former dignity4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred order4 ,but this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin1 for it is written 7,ezech4 #dd3aj1 #ac73 ,the ,levites that went away 4 4 4 from ,me 4 4 4 shall never ,vulg43 'not' come near to ,me1 to do the office of priest3 and as laid down in the ,decretals 7,dist4 #a1 ch4 #eb71 and taken from the council of ,lerida3 ,if those who serve at the ,holy ,altar fall suddenly into some deplorable weakness of the flesh1 and by ,god's mercy do proper penance1 let them return to their duties1 yet so as not to receive further promotion4 ,therefore ,penance does not restore man to his former dignity4 ,on the contrary1 ,as we read in the same ,distinction1 ,gregory writing to ,secundinus 7,regist4 vii7 says3 ,we consider that when a man has made proper satisfaction1 he may return to his honorable position3 and moreover we read in the acts of the council of ,agde3 ,contumacious clerics1 so far as their position allows1 should be corrected by their bishops1 so that when ,penance has reformed them1 they may recover their degree and dignity4 ,i answer that1 ,by sin1 man loses a twofold dignity1 one in respect of ,god1 the other in respect of the ,church4 ,in respect of ,god he again loses a twofold dignity4 ,one is his principal dignity1 whereby he was counted among the children of ,god1 and this he recovers by ,penance1 which is signified 7,luke #ae7 in the prodigal son1 for when he repented1 his father commanded that the first garment should be restored to him1 together with a ring and shoes4 ,the other is his secondary dignity1 viz4 innocence1 of which1 as we read in the same chapter1 the elder son boasted saying 7,luke #ae3bi73 ,behold1 for so many years do ,i serve thee1 and ,i have never transgressed thy commandments3 and this dignity the penitent cannot recover4 ,nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes2 because as ,gregory says 7,hom4 de centum ,ovibus1 #cd in ,evang471 those who acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from ,god1 make up for their past losses1 by subsequent gains3 so that there is more joy in heaven on their account1 even as in battle1 the commanding officer thinks more of the soldier who1 after running away1 returns and bravely attacks the foe1 than of one who has never turned his back1 but has done nothing brave4 ,by sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity1 because thereby he becomes unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise of the ecclesiastical dignity4 ,this he is debarred from recovering3 first1 because he fails to repent2 wherefore ,isidore wrote to the bishop ,masso1 and as we read in the ,distinction quoted above 7,obj4 #c73 ,the canons order those to be restored to their former degree1 who by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins1 or have made worthy confession of them4 ,on the other hand1 those who do not mend their corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise their order1 nor received to the grace of communion4 ,secondly1 because he does penance negligently1 wherefore it is written in the same ,distinction 7,obj4 #c73 ,we can be sure that those who show no signs of humble compunction1 or of earnest prayer1 who avoid fasting or study1 would exercise their former duties with great negligence if they were restored to them4 ,thirdly1 if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is attached2 wherefore it is said in the same ,distinction 7,obj4 #c71 quoting the council of ,pope ,martin 99,martin1 bishop of ,braga3 ,if a man marry a widow or the relict of another1 he must not be admitted to the ranks of the clergy3 and if he has succeeded in creeping in1 he must be turned out4 ,in like manner1 if anyone after ,baptism be guilty of homicide1 whether by deed1 or by command1 or by counsel1 or in self-defense4 ,but this is in consequence not of sin1 but of irregularity4 ,fourthly1 on account of scandal1 wherefore it is said in the same ,distinction 7,obj4 #c73 ,those who have been publicly convicted or caught in the act of perjury1 robbery1 fornication1 and of such like crimes1 according to the prescription of the sacred canons must be deprived of the exercise of their respective orders1 because it is a scandal to ,god's people that such persons should be placed over them4 ,but those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to a priest1 may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders1 with the assurance of ,god's merciful forgiveness1 provided they be careful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms1 vigils and holy deeds4 ,the same is expressed 7,extra1 ,de ,qual4 ,ordinand473 ,if the aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process1 or in some other way made notorious1 those who are guilty of them must not be hindered1 after they have done penance1 from exercising the orders they have received1 or from receiving further orders1 except in cases of homicide4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as of the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity in the sight of ,god4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,in these words ,jerome does not say that it is impossible1 but that it is difficult1 for man to recover his former dignity after having sinned1 because this is allowed to none but those who repent perfectly1 as stated above4 ,to those canonical statutes1 which seem to forbid this1 ,augustine replies in his letter to ,boniface 7,ep4 clxxxv73 ,if the law of the ,church forbids anyone1 after doing penance for a crime1 to become a cleric1 or to return to his clerical duties1 or to retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon1 but to preserve the rigor of discipline2 else we should have to deny the keys given to the ,church1 of which it was said3 ',whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven4' ,and further on he adds3 ,for holy ,david did penance for his deadly crimes1 and yet he retained his dignity2 and ,blessed ,peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of having denied his ,lord1 and yet he remained an apostle4 ,nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive1 who without endangering a man's salvation1 exacted more from his humility1 having1 in my opinion1 found by experience1 that some assumed a pretended repentance through hankering after honors and power4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,this statute is to be understood as applying to those who do public penance1 for these cannot be promoted to a higher order4 ,for ,peter1 after his denial1 was made shepherd of ,christ's sheep1 as appears from ,john #ba3ba1 where ,chrysostom comments as follows3 ,after his denial and repentance ,peter gives proof of greater confidence in ,christ3 for whereas1 at the supper1 he durst not ask ,him1 but deputed ,john to ask in his stead1 afterwards he was placed at the head of his brethren1 and not only did not depute another to ask for him1 what concerned him1 but henceforth asks the ,master instead of ,john4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hi1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,virtuous ,deeds ,done in ,charity ,can ,be ,deadened8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot be deadened4 ,for that which is not cannot be changed4 ,but to be deadened is to be changed from life to death4 ,since therefore virtuous deeds1 after being done1 are no more1 it seems that they cannot afterwards be deadened4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 by virtuous deeds done in charity1 man merits eternal life4 ,but to take away the reward from one who has merited it is an injustice1 which cannot be ascribed to ,god4 ,therefore it is not possible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be deadened by a subsequent sin4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the strong is not corrupted by the weak4 ,now works of charity are stronger than any sins1 because1 as it is written 7,prov4 #aj3ab71 charity covereth all sins4 ,therefore it seems that deeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin4 ,on the contrary1 ,it is written 7,ezech4 #ah3bd73 ,if the just man turn himself away from his justice 4 4 4 all his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered4 ,i answer that1 ,a living thing1 by dying1 ceases to have vital operations3 for which reason1 by a kind of metaphor1 a thing is said to be deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect or operation4 ,now the effect of virtuous works1 which are done in charity1 is to bring man to eternal life2 and this is hindered by a subsequent mortal sin1 inasmuch as it takes away grace4 ,wherefore deeds done in charity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as to guilt1 so deeds done in charity1 after passing1 as to the act1 remain as to merit1 in so far as they are acceptable to ,god4 ,it is in this respect that they are deadened1 inasmuch as man is hindered from receiving his reward4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,there is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from him who has deserved it1 if he has made himself unworthy by his subsequent fault1 since at times a man justly forfeits through his own fault1 even that which he has already received4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,it is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds that deeds1 previously done in charity1 are deadened1 but on account of the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil4 ,,fifth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hf1 ,art4 #e ,whether ,deeds ,deadened by ,sin1 ,are ,revived by ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived by ,penance4 ,because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent ,penance1 so are deeds previously done in charity1 deadened by subsequent sin4 ,but sins remitted by ,penance do not return1 as stated above 7,q4 #hh1 ,,aa4 #a1 #b74 ,therefore it seems that neither are dead deeds revived by charity4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with animals who die1 as stated above 7,a4 #d74 ,but a dead animal cannot be revived4 ,therefore neither can dead works be revived by ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 deeds done in charity are deserving of glory according to the quantity of grace or charity4 ,but sometimes man arises through ,penance to lesser grace or charity4 ,therefore he does not receive glory according to the merit of his previous works2 so that it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived4 ,on the contrary1 on ,joel #b3be1 ,i will restore to you the years1 which the locust 4 4 4 hath eaten1 a gloss says3 ,i will not suffer to perish the fruit which you lost when your soul was disturbed4 ,but this fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin4 ,therefore meritorious deeds done before are revived by ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,some have said that meritorious works deadened by subsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing ,penance1 because they deemed such works to have passed away1 so that they could not be revived4 ,but that is no reason why they should not be revived3 because they are conducive to eternal life 7wherein their life consists7 not only as actually existing1 but also after they cease to exist actually1 and as abiding in the ,divine acceptance4 ,now1 they abide thus1 so far as they are concerned1 even after they have been deadened by sin1 because those works1 according as they were done1 will ever be acceptable to ,god and give joy to the saints1 according to ,apoc4 #c3aa3 ,hold fast that which thou hast1 that no man take thy crown4 ,that they fail in their efficacy to bring the man1 who did them1 to eternal life1 is due to the impediment of the supervening sin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life4 ,but this impediment is removed by ,penance1 inasmuch as sins are taken away thereby4 ,hence it follows that deeds previously deadened1 recover1 through ,penance1 their efficacy in bringing him1 who did them1 to eternal life1 and1 in other words1 they are revived4 ,it is therefore evident that deadened works are revived by ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the very works themselves of sin are removed by ,penance1 so that1 by ,god's mercy1 no further stain or debt of punishment is incurred on their account3 on the other hand1 works done in charity are not removed by ,god1 since they abide in ,his acceptance1 but they are hindered on the part of the man who does them2 wherefore if this hindrance1 on the part of the man who does those works1 be removed1 ,god on ,his side fulfills what those works deserved4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened1 as explained above1 but only with regard to a supervening impediment on the part of the man who does them4 ,on the other hand1 an animal dies in itself1 through being deprived of the principle of life3 so that the comparison fails4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,he who1 through ,penance1 arises to lesser charity1 will receive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in which he is found4 ,yet he will have greater joy for the works he had done in his former charity1 than for those which he did in his subsequent charity3 and this joy belongs to the accidental reward4 ,,sixth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #hi1 ,art4 #f ,whether the ,effect of ,subsequent ,penance ,is to ,quicken ,even ,dead ,works8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that the effect of subsequent ,penance is to quicken even dead works1 those1 namely1 that were not done in charity4 ,for it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has been deadened1 since this is never done naturally1 than to quicken that which never had life1 since certain living things are engendered naturally from things without life4 ,now deadened works are revived by ,penance1 as stated above 7,a4 #e74 ,much more1 therefore1 are dead works revived4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 if the cause be removed1 the effect is removed4 ,but the cause of the lack of life in works generically good done without charity1 was the lack of charity and grace1 which lack is removed by ,penance4 ,therefore dead works are quickened by charity4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 ,jerome in commenting on ,agg4 i1 #f3 ,you have sowed much1 says3 ,if at any time you find a sinner1 among his many evil deeds1 doing that which is right1 ,god is not so unjust as to forget the few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds4 ,now this seems to be the case chiefly when past evil deeds are removed by ,penance4 ,therefore it seems that through ,penance1 ,god rewards the former deeds done in the state of sin1 which implies that they are quickened4 ,on the contrary1 ,the ,apostle says 7#a ,cor4 #ac3c73 ,if ,i should distribute all my goods to feed the poor1 and if ,i should deliver my body to be burned1 and have not charity1 it profiteth me nothing4 ,but this would not be true1 if1 at least by subsequent ,penance1 they were quickened4 ,therefore ,penance does not quicken works which before were dead4 ,i answer that1 ,a work is said to be dead in two ways3 first1 effectively1 because1 to wit1 it is a cause of death1 in which sense sinful works are said to be dead1 according to ,heb4 #i3ad3 ,the blood of ,christ 4 4 4 shall cleanse our conscience from dead works4 ,these dead works are not quickened but removed by ,penance1 according to ,heb4 #f3a3 ,not laying again the foundation of ,penance from dead works4 ,secondly1 works are said to be dead privatively1 because1 to wit1 they lack spiritual life1 which is founded on charity1 whereby the soul is united to ,god1 the result being that it is quickened as the body by the soul3 in which sense too1 faith1 if it lack charity1 is said to be dead1 according to ,james #b3bj3 ,faith without works is dead4 ,in this way also1 all works that are generically good1 are said to be dead1 if they be done without charity1 inasmuch as they fail to proceed from the principle of life2 even as we might call the sound of a harp1 a dead voice4 ,accordingly1 the difference of life and death in works is in relation to the principle from which they proceed4 ,but works cannot proceed a second time from a principle1 because they are transitory1 and the same identical deed cannot be resumed4 ,therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,in the physical order things whether dead or deadened lack the principle of life4 ,but works are said to be deadened1 not in relation to the principle whence they proceeded1 but in relation to an extrinsic impediment2 while they are said to be dead in relation to a principle4 ,consequently there is no comparison4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,works generically good done without charity are said to be dead on account of the lack of grace and charity1 as principles4 ,now the subsequent ,penance does not supply that want1 so as to make them proceed from such a principle4 ,hence the argument does not prove4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,god remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state of sin1 not by rewarding them in eternal life1 which is due only to living works1 i4e4 those done from charity1 but by a temporal reward3 thus ,gregory declares 7,hom4 de ,divite et ,lazaro1 #da in ,evang47 that unless that rich man had done some good deed1 and had received his reward in this world1 ,abraham would certainly not have said to him3 ',thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime4' ,or again1 this may mean that he will be judged less severely3 wherefore ,augustine says 7,de ,patientia xxvi73 ,we cannot say that it would be better for the schismatic that by denying ,christ he should suffer none of those things which he suffered by confessing ,him2 but we must believe that he will be judged with less severity1 than if by denying ,christ1 he had suffered none of those things4 ,thus the words of the ,apostle1 ',if ,i should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity1 it profiteth me nothing1' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven1 and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with less severity at the last judgment4 ,,question #ij ,,of ,,the ,,parts ,,of ,,penance1 ,,in ,,general 7,in ,four ,articles7 ,we must now consider the parts of ,penance3 7#a7 in general2 7#b7 each one in particular4 ,under the first head there are four points of inquiry3 7#a7 ,whether ,penance has any parts8 7#b7 ,of the number of its parts2 7#c7 ,what kind of parts are they8 7#d7 ,of its division into subjective parts4 ,,first ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ij1 ,art4 #a ,whether ,penance ,should ,be ,assigned ,any ,parts8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that parts should not be assigned to ,penance4 ,for it is the ,divine power that works our salvation most secretly in the sacraments4 ,now the ,divine power is one and simple4 ,therefore ,penance1 being a sacrament1 should have no parts assigned to it4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 ,penance is both a virtue and a sacrament4 ,now no parts are assigned to it as a virtue1 since virtue is a habit1 which is a simple quality of the mind4 ,in like manner1 it seems that parts should not be assigned to ,penance as a sacrament1 because no parts are assigned to ,baptism and the other sacraments4 ,therefore no parts at all should be assigned to ,penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the matter of ,penance is sin1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #b74 ,but no parts are assigned to sin4 ,neither1 therefore1 should parts be assigned to ,penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,the parts of a thing are those out of which the whole is composed4 ,now the perfection of ,penance is composed of several things1 viz4 contrition1 confession1 and satisfaction4 ,therefore ,penance has parts4 ,i answer that1 ,the parts of a thing are those into which the whole is divided materially1 for the parts of a thing are to the whole1 what matter is to the form2 wherefore the parts are reckoned as a kind of material cause1 and the whole as a kind of formal cause 7,phys4 ii74 ,accordingly wherever1 on the part of matter1 we find a kind of plurality1 there we shall find a reason for assigning parts4 ,now it has been stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c71 that1 in the sacrament of ,penance1 human actions stand as matter3 and so1 since several actions are requisite for the perfection of ,penance1 viz41 contrition1 confession1 and satisfaction1 as we shall show further on 7,a4 #b71 it follows that the sacrament of ,penance has parts4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,every sacrament is something simple by reason of the ,divine power1 which operates therein3 but the ,divine power is so great that it can operate both through one and through many1 and by reason of these many1 parts may be assigned to a particular sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,parts are not assigned to penance as a virtue3 because the human acts of which there are several in penance1 are related to the habit of virtue1 not as its parts1 but as its effects4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that parts are assigned to ,penance as a sacrament1 to which the human acts are related as matter3 whereas in the other sacraments the matter does not consist of human acts1 but of some one external thing1 either simple1 as water or oil1 or compound1 as chrism1 and so parts are not assigned to the other sacraments4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,sins are the remote matter of ,penance1 inasmuch1 to wit1 as they are the matter or object of the human acts1 which are the proper matter of ,penance as a sacrament4 ,,second ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ij1 ,art4 #b ,whether ,contrition1 ,confession1 and ,satisfaction ,are ,fittingly ,assigned ,as ,parts of ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that contrition1 confession1 and satisfaction are not fittingly assigned as parts of ,penance4 ,for contrition is in the heart1 and so belongs to interior penance2 while confession consists of words1 and satisfaction in deeds2 so that the two latter belong to interior penance4 ,now interior penance is not a sacrament1 but only exterior penance which is perceptible by the senses4 ,therefore these three parts are not fittingly assigned to the sacrament of ,penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 grace is conferred in the sacraments of the ,new ,law1 as stated above 7,q4 #fb1 ,,aa4 #a1 #c74 ,but no grace is conferred in satisfaction4 ,therefore satisfaction is not part of a sacrament4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 the fruit of a thing is not the same as its part4 ,but satisfaction is a fruit of penance1 according to ,luke #c3h3 ,bring forth 4 4 4 fruits worthy of penance4 ,therefore it is not a part of ,penance4 ,obj4 #d3 ,further1 ,penance is ordained against sin4 ,but sin can be completed merely in the thought by consent1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #gb1 ,a4 #g73 therefore ,penance can also4 ,therefore confession in word and satisfaction in deed should not be reckoned as parts of ,penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,it seems that yet more parts should be assigned to ,penance4 ,for not only is the body assigned as a part of man1 as being the matter1 but also the soul1 which is his form4 ,but the aforesaid three1 being the acts of the penitent1 stand as matter1 while the priestly absolution stands as form4 ,therefore the priestly absolution should be assigned as a fourth part of ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,a part is twofold1 essential and quantitative4 ,the essential parts are naturally the form and the matter1 and logically the genus and the difference4 ,in this way1 each sacrament is divided into matter and form as its essential parts4 ,hence it has been said above 7,q4 #fj1 ,,aa4 #e1 #f7 that sacraments consist of things and words4 ,but since quantity is on the part of matter1 quantitative parts are parts of matter3 and1 in this way1 as stated above 7,a4 #a71 parts are assigned specially to the sacrament of ,penance1 as regards the acts of the penitent1 which are the matter of this sacrament4 ,now it has been said above 7,q4 #he1 ,a4 #c1 ad #c7 that an offense is atoned otherwise in ,penance than in vindictive justice4 ,because1 in vindictive justice the atonement is made according to the judge's decision1 and not according to the discretion of the offender or of the person offended2 whereas1 in ,penance1 the offense is atoned according to the will of the sinner1 and the judgment of ,god against ,whom the sin was committed1 because in the latter case we seek not only the restoration of the equality of justice1 as in vindictive justice1 but also and still more the reconciliation of friendship1 which is accomplished by the offender making atonement according to the will of the person offended4 ,accordingly the first requisite on the part of the penitent is the will to atone1 and this is done by contrition2 the second is that he submit to the judgment of the priest standing in ,god's place1 and this is done in confession2 and the third is that he atone according to the decision of ,god's minister1 and this is done in satisfaction3 and so contrition1 confession1 and satisfaction are assigned as parts of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,contrition1 as to its essence1 is in the heart1 and belongs to interior penance2 yet1 virtually1 it belongs to exterior penance1 inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making satisfaction4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,satisfaction confers grace1 in so far as it is in man's purpose1 and it increases grace1 according as it is accomplished1 just as ,baptism does in adults1 as stated above 7,q4 #fh1 ,a4 #b2 ,q4 #fi1 ,a4 #h74 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,satisfaction is a part of ,penance as a sacrament1 and a fruit of penance as a virtue4 ,reply ,obj4 #d3 ,more things are required for good1 which proceeds from a cause that is entire1 than for evil1 which results from each single defect1 as ,dionysius states 7,div4 ,nom4 iv74 ,and thus1 although sin is completed in the consent of the heart1 yet the perfection of ,penance requires contrition of the heart1 together with confession in word and satisfaction in deed4 ,the ,reply to the ,fifth ,objection is clear from what has been said4 ,,third ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ij1 ,art4 #c ,whether ,these ,three ,are ,integral ,parts of ,penance8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that these three are not integral parts of ,penance4 ,for1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #c71 ,penance is ordained against sin4 ,but sins of thought1 word1 and deed are the subjective and not integral parts of sin1 because sin is predicated of each one of them4 ,therefore in ,penance also1 contrition in thought1 confession in word1 and satisfaction in deed are not integral parts4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 no integral part includes within itself another that is condivided with it4 ,but contrition includes both confession and satisfaction in the purpose of amendment4 ,therefore they are not integral parts4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 a whole is composed of its integral parts1 taken at the same time and equally1 just as a line is made up of its parts4 ,but such is not the case here4 ,therefore these are not integral parts of ,penance4 ,on the contrary1 ,integral parts are those by which the perfection of the whole is integrated4 ,but the perfection of ,penance is integrated by these three4 ,therefore they are integral parts of ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,some have said that these three are subjective parts of ,penance4 ,but this is impossible1 because the entire power of the whole is present in each subjective part at the same time and equally1 just as the entire power of an animal1 as such1 is assured to each animal species1 all of which species divide the animal genus at the same time and equally3 which does not apply to the point in question4 ,wherefore others have said that these are potential parts3 yet neither can this be true1 since the whole is present1 as to the entire essence1 in each potential part1 just as the entire essence of the soul is present in each of its powers3 which does not apply to the case in point4 ,therefore it follows that these three are integral parts of ,penance1 the nature of which is that the whole is not present in each of the parts1 either as to its entire power1 or as to its entire essence1 but that it is present to all of them together at the same time4 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,sin forasmuch as it is an evil1 can be completed in one single point1 as stated above 7,a4 #b1 ad #d72 and so the sin which is completed in thought alone1 is a special kind of sin4 ,another species is the sin that is completed in thought and word3 and yet a third species is the sin that is completed in thought1 word1 and deed2 and the quasi-integral parts of this last sin1 are that which is in thought1 that which is in word1 and that which is in deed4 ,wherefore these three are the integral parts of ,penance1 which is completed in them4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,one integral part can include the whole1 though not as to its essence3 because the foundation1 in a way1 contains virtually the whole building4 ,in this way contrition includes virtually the whole of ,penance4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,all integral parts have a certain relation of order to one another3 but some are only related as to position1 whether in sequence as the parts of an army1 or by contact1 as the parts of a heap1 or by being fitted together1 as the parts of a house1 or by continuation1 as the parts of a line2 while some are related1 in addition1 as to power1 as the parts of an animal1 the first of which is the heart1 the others in a certain order being dependent on one another3 and thirdly some are related in the order of time3 as the parts of time and movement4 ,accordingly the parts of ,penance are related to one another in the order of power and time1 since they are actions1 but not in the order of position1 since they do not occupy a place4 ,,fourth ,,article ,,iii1 ,q4 #ij1 ,art4 #d ,whether ,penance ,is ,fittingly ,divided into ,penance ,before ,baptism1 ,penance for ,mortal ,sins1 and ,penance for ,venial ,sins8 ,objection #a3 ,it would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into penance before ,baptism1 penance for mortal1 and penance for venial sins4 ,for ,penance is the second plank after shipwreck1 as stated above 7,q4 #hd1 ,a4 #f71 while ,baptism is the first4 ,therefore that which precedes ,baptism should not be called a species of penance4 ,obj4 #b3 ,further1 that which can destroy the greater1 can destroy the lesser4 ,now mortal sin is greater than venial2 and penance which regards mortal sins regards also venial sins4 ,therefore they should not be considered as different species of penance4 ,obj4 #c3 ,further1 just as after ,baptism man commits venial and mortal sins1 so does he before ,baptism4 ,if therefore penance for venial sins is distinct from penance for mortal sins after ,baptism1 in like manner they should be distinguished before ,baptism4 ,therefore penance is not fittingly divided into these species4 ,on the contrary1 ,augustine says in ,de ,poenitentia 99,cf4 ,hom4 #cj inter #a that these three are species of ,penance4 ,i answer that1 ,this is a division of penance as a virtue4 ,now it must be observed that every virtue acts in accordance with the time being1 as also in keeping with other due circumstances1 wherefore the virtue of penance has its act at this time1 according to the requirements of the ,new ,law4 ,now it belongs to penance to detest one's past sins1 and to purpose1 at the same time1 to change one's life for the better1 which is the end1 so to speak1 of penance4 ,and since moral matters take their species from the end1 as stated in the ,second ,part 7,i-,,ii1 ,q4 #a1 ,a4 #c2 ,q4 #ah1 ,,aa4 #d1 #f71 it is reasonable to distinguish various species of penance1 according to the various changes intended by the penitent4 ,accordingly there is a threefold change intended by the penitent4 ,the first is by regeneration unto a new life1 and this belongs to that penance which precedes ,baptism4 ,the second is by reforming one's past life after it has been already destroyed1 and this belongs to penance for mortal sins committed after ,baptism4 ,the third is by changing to a more perfect operation of life1 and this belongs to penance for venial sins1 which are remitted through a fervent act of charity1 as stated above 7,q4 #hg1 ,,aa4 #b1 #c74 ,reply ,obj4 #a3 ,the penance which precedes ,baptism is not a sacrament1 but an act of virtue disposing one to that sacrament4 ,reply ,obj4 #b3 ,the penance which washes away mortal sins1 washes away venial sins also1 but the converse does not hold4 ,wherefore these two species of penance are related to one another as perfect and imperfect4 ,reply ,obj4 #c3 ,before ,baptism there are no venial sins without mortal sins4 ,and since a venial sin cannot be remitted without mortal sin1 as stated above 7,q4 #hg1 ,a4 #d71 before ,baptism1 penance for mortal sins is not distinct from penance for venial sins4