Objection 2: Further, Christ's
miracles
were ordained to make known His
Godhead.
Godhead.
Summa Theologica
.
in the
lesser things, indeed, He looks up to heaven"---for instance, in
multiplying the loaves---"but in the greater, which belong to God
alone, He acts with authority; for example, when He forgave sins and
raised the dead. "
When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (Jn.
11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished
to teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the people who
stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent
Me. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are
cast out by the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by
the power of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power
over the soul: since the devil does not work against his own kingdom.
On the other hand, Christ cast out demons, not only from the body, but
still more from the soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the
blasphemy of the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by the power of
the demons: first, by saying that Satan is not divided against himself;
secondly, by quoting the instance of others who cast out demons by the
Spirit of God; thirdly, because He could not have cast out a demon
unless He had overcome Him by Divine power; fourthly, because there was
nothing in common between His works and their effects and those of
Satan; since Satan's purpose was to "scatter" those whom Christ
"gathered" together [*Cf. Mat. 12:24-30; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15-32].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ began to work miracles when He changed water into wine at the
marriage feast?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles
when He changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read in
the book De Infantia Salvatoris that Christ worked many miracles in His
childhood. But the miracle of changing water into wine at the marriage
feast took place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of His age.
Therefore it seems that it was not then that He began to work miracles.
Objection 2: Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He
was possessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception;
for from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems that
He worked miracles from the very first.
Objection 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His
baptism and temptation, as related Mat. 4:18 and Jn. 1:35. But the
disciples gathered around Him, principally on account of His miracles:
thus it is written (Lk. 5:4) that He called Peter when "he was
astonished at" the miracle which He had worked in "the draught of
fishes. " Therefore it seems that He worked other miracles before that
of the marriage feast.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 2:11): "This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. "
I answer that, Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His doctrine,
and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as to the
first, it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He began to
teach. And it was unfitting that He should begin to teach until He
reached the perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of His baptism
([4216]Q[39], A[3] ). But as to the second, it was right that He should
so manifest His Godhead by working miracles that men should believe in
the reality of His manhood. And, consequently, as Chrysostom says (Hom.
xxi in Joan. ), "it was fitting that He should not begin to work wonders
from His early years: for men would have deemed the Incarnation to be
imaginary and would have crucified Him before the proper time. "
Reply to Objection 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan. ), in
regard to the saying of John the Baptist, "'That He may be made
manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is
clear that the wonders which some pretend to have been worked by Christ
in His childhood are untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked
miracles from His early years, John would by no means have been
unacquainted with Him, nor would the rest of the people have stood in
need of a teacher to point Him out to them. "
Reply to Objection 2: What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in
proportion to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement of
which was the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so worked
miracles by the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief in the
reality of His flesh.
Reply to Objection 3: The disciples were to be commended precisely
because they followed Christ "without having seen Him work any
miracles," as Gregory says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang. ). And, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii in Joan. ), "the need for working miracles
arose then, especially when the disciples were already gathered around
and attached to Him, and attentive to what was going on around them.
Hence it is added: 'And His disciples believed in Him,'" not because
they then believed in Him for the first time, but because then "they
believed with greater discernment and perfection. " Or they are called
"disciples" because "they were to be disciples later on," as Augustine
observes (De Consensu Evang. ii).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His
Godhead?
Objection 1: It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were
not a sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ to be
both God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been done
by others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient proof of His
Godhead.
Objection 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some
have worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (Jn.
14:12): "He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall
do, and greater than these shall he do. " Therefore it seems that the
miracles which Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead.
Objection 3: Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the
universal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work.
Therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by reason
of which He had universal power over all things.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father
hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony of Me. "
I answer that, The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof
of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the very nature of the
works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power, and
therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For this reason the
blind man, after his sight had been restored, said (Jn. 9:32,33): "From
the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any man hath
opened the eyes of one born blind. Unless this man were of God, he
could not do anything. "
Secondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles---namely, because
He worked miracles as though of His own power, and not by praying, as
others do. Wherefore it is written (Lk. 6:19) that "virtue went out
from Him and healed all. " Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says (Comment.
in Lucam) that "He did not receive power from another, but, being God
by nature, He showed His own power over the sick. And this is how He
worked countless miracles. " Hence on Mat. 8:16: "He cast out spirits
with His word, and all that were sick He healed," Chrysostom says:
"Mark how great a multitude of persons healed, the Evangelists pass
quickly over, not mentioning one by one . . . but in one word
traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles. " And thus it was shown that
His power was co-equal with that of God the Father, according to Jn.
5:19: "What things soever" the Father "doth, these the Son doth also in
like manner"; and, again (Jn. 5:21): "As the Father raiseth up the dead
and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will. "
Thirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for unless
this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by Divine
power. Hence it was said (Mk. 1:27): "What is this new doctrine? For
with power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they obey Him. "
Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore
Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "No suitable wonders; say
they, show forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly
cleansing" whereby He cast out demons, "the cure of the sick, the
raising of the dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account,
are small things before God. " To this Augustine answers thus: "We own
that the prophets did as much . . . But even Moses himself and the
other prophets made Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and
gave Him great glory . . . He, therefore, chose to do similar things to
avoid the inconsistency of failing to do what He had done through
others. Yet still He was bound to do something which no other had done:
to be born of a virgin, to rise from the dead, and to ascend into
heaven. If anyone deem this a slight thing for God to do, I know not
what more he can expect. Having become man, ought He to have made
another world, that we might believe Him to be Him by whom the world
was made? But in this world neither a greater world could be made nor
one equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in comparison with
this, that too would have been deemed a small thing. "
As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence on
Jn. 15:24: "If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works that
no other men hath done," etc. , Augustine says: "None of the works of
Christ seem to be greater than the raising of the dead: which thing we
know the ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ did some works
'which no other man hath done. ' But we are told in answer that others
did works which He did not, and which none other did . . . But to heal
with so great a power so many defects and ailments and grievances of
mortal men, this we read concerning none soever of the men of old. To
say nothing of those, each of whom by His bidding, as they came in His
way, He made whole . . . Mark saith (6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered,
into towns or into villages or into cities, they laid the sick in the
streets, and besought Him that they might touch but the hem of His
garment: and as many as touched Him were made whole. ' These things none
other did in them; for when He saith 'In them,' it is not to be
understood to mean 'Among them,' or 'In their presence,' but wholly 'In
them,' because He healed them . . . Therefore whatever works He did in
them are works that none ever did; since if ever any other man did any
one of them, by His doing he did it; whereas these works He did, not by
their doing, but by Himself. "
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine explains this passage of John as
follows (Tract. lxxi): "What are these 'greater works' which believers
in Him would do? That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the
sick? For it is greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a
garment . . . When, however, He said these words, it was the deeds and
works of His words that He spoke of: for when He said . . . 'The Father
who abideth in Me, He doth the works,' what works did He mean, then,
but the words He was speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words
was the faith of those (who believed): but when the disciples preached
the Gospel, not some few like those, but the very nations believed . .
. (Tract. lxxii). Did not that rich man go away from His presence
sorrowful? . . . and yet afterwards, what one individual, having heard
from Him, did not, that many did when He spake by the mouth of His
disciples . . . Behold, He did greater works when spoken of by men
believing than when speaking to men hearing. But there is yet this
difficulty: that He did these 'greater works' by the apostles: whereas
He saith as meaning not only them: . . . 'He that believeth in Me' . .
. Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also
shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also shall do,' because I do that he
may do. What works---but that from ungodly he should be made righteous?
. . . Which thing Christ worketh in him, truly, but not without him.
Yes, I may affirm this to be altogether greater than to create" [*The
words 'to create' are not in the text of St. Augustine] "heaven and
earth . . . for 'heaven and earth shall pass away'; but the salvation
and justification of the predestinate shall remain . . . But also in
the heavens . . . the angels are the works of Christ: and does that man
do greater works than these, who co-operates with Christ in the work of
his justification? . . . let him, who can, judge whether it be greater
to create a righteous being than to justify an ungodly one. Certainly
if both are works of equal power, the latter is a work of greater
mercy. "
"But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ,
where He saith 'Greater than these shall he do. ' For by 'these' He
meant, perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour: now at that time
He was speaking words of faith: . . . and certainly it is less to
preach words of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than to
justify the ungodly, which thing He so doth in us that we also do it
ourselves. "
Reply to Objection 3: When some particular work is proper to some
agent, then that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole
power of that agent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man,
the mere fact that someone reasons about any particular proposition
proves him to be a man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to
work miracles by His own power, any single miracle worked by Christ by
His own power is a sufficient proof that He is God.
__________________________________________________________________
OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider each kind of miracle:
(1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;
(2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;
(3) The miracles which He worked in man;
(4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those miracles were fitting which Christ worked in spiritual
substances?
Objection 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which
Christ worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances
the holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin.
iii): "The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by
the rational, pious, and just spirit of life. " But we read of no
miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should
He have worked miracles in the demons.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His
Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons:
since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to
1 Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the
Lord of glory. " Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the
demons.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of
God: hence it is written (Mat. 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that
the man sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and
glorified God that gave such power to men. " But the demons have no part
in glorifying God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a
sinner" (Ecclus. 15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to
speak" (Mk. 1:34; Lk. 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him.
Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in
the demons.
Objection 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation
of mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was
detrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related (Mk.
9:24,25) that a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly
tearing" the man, "went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many
said: He is dead"; sometimes also to things: as when He sent the
demons, at their own request, into the swine, which they cast headlong
into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him
that He would depart from their coasts" (Mat. 8:31-34). Therefore it
seems unfitting that He should have worked such like miracles.
On the contrary, this was foretold (Zech. 13:2), where it is written:
"I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth. "
I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the
faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to
rescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons;
according to Jn. 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast
out. " Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should
also deliver those who were obsessed by demons.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from
the power of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the
companionship of the angels, according to Col. 1:20: "Making peace
through the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and the
things that are in heaven. " Therefore it was not fitting to show forth
to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels appearing
to men: as happened in His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His
Ascension.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was
known to the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as
far as there was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy
angels, by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects
of His power. " First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after
fasting they deemed Him not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Lk. 4:3,
"If Thou be the Son of God," etc. , Ambrose says: "What means this way
of addressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to
come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the
flesh? " But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort of
conjectural suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on Mk. 1:24, "I
know who Thou art, the Holy one of God," Chrysostom [*Victor of
Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had no certain or firm
knowledge of God's coming. " Yet he knew that He was "the Christ
promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Lk. 4:41) that "they knew
that He was Christ. " But it was rather from suspicion than from
certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede says
on Lk. 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated farther
on, 'they knew that He was Christ. ' For when the devil saw Him weakened
by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to
overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of
God. And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather
suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for
persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be
Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would
be the loser by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1
Cor. 2:7,8), "which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the
princes of this world knew it,' for if they had known it they would
never have crucified the Lord of glory. "
Reply to Objection 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling
demons were for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they
might glorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise.
First, to give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained
his speech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to
care about such things, although it may seem that what is said is true.
For it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the Divine
Scripture": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix
falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment.
in Luc. ] says: "It was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of
the apostolic office. Nor was it fitting that the mystery of Christ
should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue" because "praise is not seemly
in the mouth of a sinner" [*Cf. Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc. ]. Thirdly,
because, as Bede says, "He did not wish the envy of the Jews to be
aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc. iv, 41]. Hence "even the
apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, lest, if His Divine
majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion should be deferred. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work
miracles for the good of man, and principally as to the salvation of
his soul. Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do
man some harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of
man's soul---namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on
Mat. 8:32 that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as
yielding to the demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the
demons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons
would not dare to hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly,
that they would have treated those men more grievously than they
treated the swine, unless they had been protected by God's providence. "
And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered
from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He
release him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are
taught, as Bede says on Mk. 9:25, that "often, when after falling into
sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more grievous
attacks from the old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us
with a distaste for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having
been cast out. " For the man who was healed "became as dead," says
Jerome, "because to those who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and
your life is hid with Christ in God'" (Col. 3:3)
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly
bodies?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should
work miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv), "it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve,
nature. " Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and
unchangeable, as is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that
Christ should cause any change in the order of the heavenly bodies.
Objection 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement
of the heavenly bodies, according to Gn. 1:14: "Let there be lights
made in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days and years. " Consequently if the movement of
the heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and order of the
seasons is changed. But there is no report of this having been
perceived by astronomers, "who gaze at the stars and observe the
months," as it is written (Is. 47:13). Therefore it seems that Christ
did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly bodies.
Objection 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work
miracles in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it
is written (2 Cor. 13:4), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He
liveth by the power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because
His miracles were in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no
record of Christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies
during His lifetime: nay, more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give "a
sign from heaven," He refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it
seems that neither in His death should He have worked any miracles in
the heavenly bodies.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 23:44,45): "There was darkness over
all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4217]Q[43], A[4]) it behooved Christ's
miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so
sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which
changes can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes
wrought in the course of the heavenly bodies, which have been
established by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what
Dionysius says in his epistle to Polycarp: "We must recognize that no
alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens that
is not caused by Him who made all and changes all by His word. "
Therefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the
heavenly bodies.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be
moved by the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature,
so is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God,
according to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi; quoted
by the gloss on Rom. 11:24: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted,"
etc. ): "God, the Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing
contrary to nature: for whatsoever He does in each thing, that is its
nature. " Consequently the nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed
when God changes its course: but it would be if the change were due to
any other cause.
Reply to Objection 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the
miracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or
darkening of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion,
was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the
movement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the
seasons. Hence Jerome says on Mat. 27:45: "It seems as though the
'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it should look on its Lord
hanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy on the impious
blasphemers. " And this withdrawal of the rays is not to be understood
as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its
rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by nature, as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw its rays
in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach the
earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds coming
between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Mat. 27:45 he says: "We must
therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed
together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was
exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of
opinion that, just as the other signs which occurred at the time of the
Passion"---namely, "the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth,"
etc. ---"took place in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone
prefer, it may be extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said
that "'there was darkness over the whole earth,' which expression
refers to the land of Judea, as may be gathered from 3 Kings 18:10,
where Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no
nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee': which
shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of
Judea. "
On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius,
who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing
the sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the
moon encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the time, as he says in
the same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is
that the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never
takes place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. But then
the sun and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since
it was the Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time
of conjunction. "---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour
the moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the heavens,
in the evening it was seen to be in its place, i. e. in the east,
opposite the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i. e. the moon,
"return supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be
diametrically opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth
hour," when the darkness ceased, "until evening. " From this it is clear
that the wonted course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the
Divine power caused the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at
an unwonted season, and to withdraw from the sun and return to its
proper place according to the season. The third miracle was that the
eclipse of the sun naturally always begins in that part of the sun
which is to the west and spreads towards the east: and this is because
the moon's proper movement from west to east is more rapid than that of
the sun, and consequently the moon, coming up from the west, overtakes
the sun and passes it on its eastward course. But in this case the moon
had already passed the sun, and was distant from it by the length of
half the heavenly circle, being opposite to it: consequently it had to
return eastwards towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact
with it from the east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is
what he refers to when he says: "Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to
the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun," for it was a
total eclipse, "and afterwards pass away. " The fourth miracle consisted
in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first
eclipsed is the first to reappear (because the moon, coming in front of
the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the east, so as to come
away first from the western portion of the sun, which was the first
part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the moon, while returning
miraculously from the east to the west, did not pass the sun so as to
be to the west of it: but having reached the western edge of the sun
returned towards the east: so that the last portion of the sun to be
eclipsed was the first to reappear. Consequently the eclipse began
towards the east, whereas the sun began to reappear towards the west.
And to this he refers by saying: "Again we observed that the
occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point," i. e. on
the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides. "
Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth. ), saying that
"the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an eclipse
of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know
who have seen one. " Hence we are given to understand that the moon was
stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of
the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the
sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse.
But, as Origen says (on Mat. 27:45), "against this the children of this
world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by
any writer, whether Greek or barbarian? " And he says that someone of
the name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it
occurred at the full moon. " It may be, therefore, that because it was
not the time for an eclipse, the various astronomers living then
throughout the world were not on the look-out for one, and that they
ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of the atmosphere. But in
Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the tranquillity of the air,
Dionysius and his companions were considerably astonished so as to make
the aforesaid observations about this darkness.
Reply to Objection 3: Then, above all, was there need for miraculous
proof of Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most
apparent in Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in
the heavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): "If thou
disdain the manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star
in the heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord. " But in
His Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore
there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the
world. And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth. ): "This is the
sign which He promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it,
but the sign of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and
Resurrection . . . For it was much more wonderful that this should
happen when He was crucified than when He was walking on earth. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on men?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on
men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ
worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any
miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the
faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward
miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of fools.
Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting
manner.
Objection 2: Further, as stated above ([4218]Q[43], A[2]), Christ
worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work
suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not
always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mk.
8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the
town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked
him if he saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were
trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he
began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly. " It
is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first
imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He
worked miracles on men unfittingly.
Objection 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time
things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are
not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (Jn.
9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be
born blind. " It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of
those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done
in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Mat. 9:2): the more that the
healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of
sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving
sins.
Objection 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm
His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above ([4219]Q[43],
A[4]). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore
it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed
miraculously to tell no one, as appears from Mat. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26:
the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked
on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man
from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and
tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee. "
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things
well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak. "
I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end.
lesser things, indeed, He looks up to heaven"---for instance, in
multiplying the loaves---"but in the greater, which belong to God
alone, He acts with authority; for example, when He forgave sins and
raised the dead. "
When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (Jn.
11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished
to teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the people who
stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent
Me. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are
cast out by the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by
the power of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power
over the soul: since the devil does not work against his own kingdom.
On the other hand, Christ cast out demons, not only from the body, but
still more from the soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the
blasphemy of the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by the power of
the demons: first, by saying that Satan is not divided against himself;
secondly, by quoting the instance of others who cast out demons by the
Spirit of God; thirdly, because He could not have cast out a demon
unless He had overcome Him by Divine power; fourthly, because there was
nothing in common between His works and their effects and those of
Satan; since Satan's purpose was to "scatter" those whom Christ
"gathered" together [*Cf. Mat. 12:24-30; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15-32].
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ began to work miracles when He changed water into wine at the
marriage feast?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles
when He changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read in
the book De Infantia Salvatoris that Christ worked many miracles in His
childhood. But the miracle of changing water into wine at the marriage
feast took place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of His age.
Therefore it seems that it was not then that He began to work miracles.
Objection 2: Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He
was possessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception;
for from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems that
He worked miracles from the very first.
Objection 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His
baptism and temptation, as related Mat. 4:18 and Jn. 1:35. But the
disciples gathered around Him, principally on account of His miracles:
thus it is written (Lk. 5:4) that He called Peter when "he was
astonished at" the miracle which He had worked in "the draught of
fishes. " Therefore it seems that He worked other miracles before that
of the marriage feast.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 2:11): "This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. "
I answer that, Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His doctrine,
and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as to the
first, it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He began to
teach. And it was unfitting that He should begin to teach until He
reached the perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of His baptism
([4216]Q[39], A[3] ). But as to the second, it was right that He should
so manifest His Godhead by working miracles that men should believe in
the reality of His manhood. And, consequently, as Chrysostom says (Hom.
xxi in Joan. ), "it was fitting that He should not begin to work wonders
from His early years: for men would have deemed the Incarnation to be
imaginary and would have crucified Him before the proper time. "
Reply to Objection 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan. ), in
regard to the saying of John the Baptist, "'That He may be made
manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is
clear that the wonders which some pretend to have been worked by Christ
in His childhood are untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked
miracles from His early years, John would by no means have been
unacquainted with Him, nor would the rest of the people have stood in
need of a teacher to point Him out to them. "
Reply to Objection 2: What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in
proportion to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement of
which was the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so worked
miracles by the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief in the
reality of His flesh.
Reply to Objection 3: The disciples were to be commended precisely
because they followed Christ "without having seen Him work any
miracles," as Gregory says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang. ). And, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii in Joan. ), "the need for working miracles
arose then, especially when the disciples were already gathered around
and attached to Him, and attentive to what was going on around them.
Hence it is added: 'And His disciples believed in Him,'" not because
they then believed in Him for the first time, but because then "they
believed with greater discernment and perfection. " Or they are called
"disciples" because "they were to be disciples later on," as Augustine
observes (De Consensu Evang. ii).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His
Godhead?
Objection 1: It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were
not a sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ to be
both God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been done
by others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient proof of His
Godhead.
Objection 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some
have worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (Jn.
14:12): "He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall
do, and greater than these shall he do. " Therefore it seems that the
miracles which Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead.
Objection 3: Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the
universal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work.
Therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by reason
of which He had universal power over all things.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 5:36): "The works which the Father
hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony of Me. "
I answer that, The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof
of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the very nature of the
works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power, and
therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For this reason the
blind man, after his sight had been restored, said (Jn. 9:32,33): "From
the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any man hath
opened the eyes of one born blind. Unless this man were of God, he
could not do anything. "
Secondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles---namely, because
He worked miracles as though of His own power, and not by praying, as
others do. Wherefore it is written (Lk. 6:19) that "virtue went out
from Him and healed all. " Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says (Comment.
in Lucam) that "He did not receive power from another, but, being God
by nature, He showed His own power over the sick. And this is how He
worked countless miracles. " Hence on Mat. 8:16: "He cast out spirits
with His word, and all that were sick He healed," Chrysostom says:
"Mark how great a multitude of persons healed, the Evangelists pass
quickly over, not mentioning one by one . . . but in one word
traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles. " And thus it was shown that
His power was co-equal with that of God the Father, according to Jn.
5:19: "What things soever" the Father "doth, these the Son doth also in
like manner"; and, again (Jn. 5:21): "As the Father raiseth up the dead
and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will. "
Thirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for unless
this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by Divine
power. Hence it was said (Mk. 1:27): "What is this new doctrine? For
with power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they obey Him. "
Reply to Objection 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore
Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "No suitable wonders; say
they, show forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly
cleansing" whereby He cast out demons, "the cure of the sick, the
raising of the dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account,
are small things before God. " To this Augustine answers thus: "We own
that the prophets did as much . . . But even Moses himself and the
other prophets made Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and
gave Him great glory . . . He, therefore, chose to do similar things to
avoid the inconsistency of failing to do what He had done through
others. Yet still He was bound to do something which no other had done:
to be born of a virgin, to rise from the dead, and to ascend into
heaven. If anyone deem this a slight thing for God to do, I know not
what more he can expect. Having become man, ought He to have made
another world, that we might believe Him to be Him by whom the world
was made? But in this world neither a greater world could be made nor
one equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in comparison with
this, that too would have been deemed a small thing. "
As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence on
Jn. 15:24: "If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works that
no other men hath done," etc. , Augustine says: "None of the works of
Christ seem to be greater than the raising of the dead: which thing we
know the ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ did some works
'which no other man hath done. ' But we are told in answer that others
did works which He did not, and which none other did . . . But to heal
with so great a power so many defects and ailments and grievances of
mortal men, this we read concerning none soever of the men of old. To
say nothing of those, each of whom by His bidding, as they came in His
way, He made whole . . . Mark saith (6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered,
into towns or into villages or into cities, they laid the sick in the
streets, and besought Him that they might touch but the hem of His
garment: and as many as touched Him were made whole. ' These things none
other did in them; for when He saith 'In them,' it is not to be
understood to mean 'Among them,' or 'In their presence,' but wholly 'In
them,' because He healed them . . . Therefore whatever works He did in
them are works that none ever did; since if ever any other man did any
one of them, by His doing he did it; whereas these works He did, not by
their doing, but by Himself. "
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine explains this passage of John as
follows (Tract. lxxi): "What are these 'greater works' which believers
in Him would do? That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the
sick? For it is greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a
garment . . . When, however, He said these words, it was the deeds and
works of His words that He spoke of: for when He said . . . 'The Father
who abideth in Me, He doth the works,' what works did He mean, then,
but the words He was speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words
was the faith of those (who believed): but when the disciples preached
the Gospel, not some few like those, but the very nations believed . .
. (Tract. lxxii). Did not that rich man go away from His presence
sorrowful? . . . and yet afterwards, what one individual, having heard
from Him, did not, that many did when He spake by the mouth of His
disciples . . . Behold, He did greater works when spoken of by men
believing than when speaking to men hearing. But there is yet this
difficulty: that He did these 'greater works' by the apostles: whereas
He saith as meaning not only them: . . . 'He that believeth in Me' . .
. Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also
shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also shall do,' because I do that he
may do. What works---but that from ungodly he should be made righteous?
. . . Which thing Christ worketh in him, truly, but not without him.
Yes, I may affirm this to be altogether greater than to create" [*The
words 'to create' are not in the text of St. Augustine] "heaven and
earth . . . for 'heaven and earth shall pass away'; but the salvation
and justification of the predestinate shall remain . . . But also in
the heavens . . . the angels are the works of Christ: and does that man
do greater works than these, who co-operates with Christ in the work of
his justification? . . . let him, who can, judge whether it be greater
to create a righteous being than to justify an ungodly one. Certainly
if both are works of equal power, the latter is a work of greater
mercy. "
"But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ,
where He saith 'Greater than these shall he do. ' For by 'these' He
meant, perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour: now at that time
He was speaking words of faith: . . . and certainly it is less to
preach words of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than to
justify the ungodly, which thing He so doth in us that we also do it
ourselves. "
Reply to Objection 3: When some particular work is proper to some
agent, then that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole
power of that agent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man,
the mere fact that someone reasons about any particular proposition
proves him to be a man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to
work miracles by His own power, any single miracle worked by Christ by
His own power is a sufficient proof that He is God.
__________________________________________________________________
OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY (FOUR ARTICLES)
We have now to consider each kind of miracle:
(1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;
(2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;
(3) The miracles which He worked in man;
(4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those miracles were fitting which Christ worked in spiritual
substances?
Objection 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which
Christ worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances
the holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin.
iii): "The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by
the rational, pious, and just spirit of life. " But we read of no
miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should
He have worked miracles in the demons.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His
Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons:
since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to
1 Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the
Lord of glory. " Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the
demons.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of
God: hence it is written (Mat. 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that
the man sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and
glorified God that gave such power to men. " But the demons have no part
in glorifying God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a
sinner" (Ecclus. 15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to
speak" (Mk. 1:34; Lk. 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him.
Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in
the demons.
Objection 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation
of mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was
detrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related (Mk.
9:24,25) that a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly
tearing" the man, "went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many
said: He is dead"; sometimes also to things: as when He sent the
demons, at their own request, into the swine, which they cast headlong
into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him
that He would depart from their coasts" (Mat. 8:31-34). Therefore it
seems unfitting that He should have worked such like miracles.
On the contrary, this was foretold (Zech. 13:2), where it is written:
"I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth. "
I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the
faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to
rescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons;
according to Jn. 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast
out. " Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should
also deliver those who were obsessed by demons.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from
the power of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the
companionship of the angels, according to Col. 1:20: "Making peace
through the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and the
things that are in heaven. " Therefore it was not fitting to show forth
to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels appearing
to men: as happened in His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His
Ascension.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was
known to the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as
far as there was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy
angels, by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects
of His power. " First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after
fasting they deemed Him not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Lk. 4:3,
"If Thou be the Son of God," etc. , Ambrose says: "What means this way
of addressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to
come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the
flesh? " But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort of
conjectural suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on Mk. 1:24, "I
know who Thou art, the Holy one of God," Chrysostom [*Victor of
Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had no certain or firm
knowledge of God's coming. " Yet he knew that He was "the Christ
promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Lk. 4:41) that "they knew
that He was Christ. " But it was rather from suspicion than from
certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede says
on Lk. 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated farther
on, 'they knew that He was Christ. ' For when the devil saw Him weakened
by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to
overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of
God. And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather
suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for
persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be
Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would
be the loser by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1
Cor. 2:7,8), "which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the
princes of this world knew it,' for if they had known it they would
never have crucified the Lord of glory. "
Reply to Objection 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling
demons were for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they
might glorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise.
First, to give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained
his speech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to
care about such things, although it may seem that what is said is true.
For it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the Divine
Scripture": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix
falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment.
in Luc. ] says: "It was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of
the apostolic office. Nor was it fitting that the mystery of Christ
should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue" because "praise is not seemly
in the mouth of a sinner" [*Cf. Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc. ]. Thirdly,
because, as Bede says, "He did not wish the envy of the Jews to be
aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc. iv, 41]. Hence "even the
apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, lest, if His Divine
majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion should be deferred. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work
miracles for the good of man, and principally as to the salvation of
his soul. Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do
man some harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of
man's soul---namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on
Mat. 8:32 that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as
yielding to the demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the
demons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons
would not dare to hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly,
that they would have treated those men more grievously than they
treated the swine, unless they had been protected by God's providence. "
And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered
from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He
release him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are
taught, as Bede says on Mk. 9:25, that "often, when after falling into
sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more grievous
attacks from the old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us
with a distaste for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having
been cast out. " For the man who was healed "became as dead," says
Jerome, "because to those who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and
your life is hid with Christ in God'" (Col. 3:3)
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly
bodies?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should
work miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom.
iv), "it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve,
nature. " Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and
unchangeable, as is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that
Christ should cause any change in the order of the heavenly bodies.
Objection 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement
of the heavenly bodies, according to Gn. 1:14: "Let there be lights
made in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and
for seasons, and for days and years. " Consequently if the movement of
the heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and order of the
seasons is changed. But there is no report of this having been
perceived by astronomers, "who gaze at the stars and observe the
months," as it is written (Is. 47:13). Therefore it seems that Christ
did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly bodies.
Objection 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work
miracles in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it
is written (2 Cor. 13:4), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He
liveth by the power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because
His miracles were in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no
record of Christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies
during His lifetime: nay, more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give "a
sign from heaven," He refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it
seems that neither in His death should He have worked any miracles in
the heavenly bodies.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 23:44,45): "There was darkness over
all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened. "
I answer that, As stated above ([4217]Q[43], A[4]) it behooved Christ's
miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so
sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which
changes can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes
wrought in the course of the heavenly bodies, which have been
established by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what
Dionysius says in his epistle to Polycarp: "We must recognize that no
alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens that
is not caused by Him who made all and changes all by His word. "
Therefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the
heavenly bodies.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be
moved by the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature,
so is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God,
according to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi; quoted
by the gloss on Rom. 11:24: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted,"
etc. ): "God, the Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing
contrary to nature: for whatsoever He does in each thing, that is its
nature. " Consequently the nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed
when God changes its course: but it would be if the change were due to
any other cause.
Reply to Objection 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the
miracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or
darkening of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion,
was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the
movement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the
seasons. Hence Jerome says on Mat. 27:45: "It seems as though the
'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it should look on its Lord
hanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy on the impious
blasphemers. " And this withdrawal of the rays is not to be understood
as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its
rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by nature, as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw its rays
in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach the
earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds coming
between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Mat. 27:45 he says: "We must
therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed
together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was
exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of
opinion that, just as the other signs which occurred at the time of the
Passion"---namely, "the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth,"
etc. ---"took place in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone
prefer, it may be extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said
that "'there was darkness over the whole earth,' which expression
refers to the land of Judea, as may be gathered from 3 Kings 18:10,
where Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no
nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee': which
shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of
Judea. "
On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius,
who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing
the sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the
moon encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the time, as he says in
the same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is
that the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never
takes place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. But then
the sun and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since
it was the Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time
of conjunction. "---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour
the moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the heavens,
in the evening it was seen to be in its place, i. e. in the east,
opposite the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i. e. the moon,
"return supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be
diametrically opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth
hour," when the darkness ceased, "until evening. " From this it is clear
that the wonted course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the
Divine power caused the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at
an unwonted season, and to withdraw from the sun and return to its
proper place according to the season. The third miracle was that the
eclipse of the sun naturally always begins in that part of the sun
which is to the west and spreads towards the east: and this is because
the moon's proper movement from west to east is more rapid than that of
the sun, and consequently the moon, coming up from the west, overtakes
the sun and passes it on its eastward course. But in this case the moon
had already passed the sun, and was distant from it by the length of
half the heavenly circle, being opposite to it: consequently it had to
return eastwards towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact
with it from the east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is
what he refers to when he says: "Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to
the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun," for it was a
total eclipse, "and afterwards pass away. " The fourth miracle consisted
in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first
eclipsed is the first to reappear (because the moon, coming in front of
the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the east, so as to come
away first from the western portion of the sun, which was the first
part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the moon, while returning
miraculously from the east to the west, did not pass the sun so as to
be to the west of it: but having reached the western edge of the sun
returned towards the east: so that the last portion of the sun to be
eclipsed was the first to reappear. Consequently the eclipse began
towards the east, whereas the sun began to reappear towards the west.
And to this he refers by saying: "Again we observed that the
occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point," i. e. on
the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides. "
Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth. ), saying that
"the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an eclipse
of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know
who have seen one. " Hence we are given to understand that the moon was
stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of
the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the
sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse.
But, as Origen says (on Mat. 27:45), "against this the children of this
world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by
any writer, whether Greek or barbarian? " And he says that someone of
the name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it
occurred at the full moon. " It may be, therefore, that because it was
not the time for an eclipse, the various astronomers living then
throughout the world were not on the look-out for one, and that they
ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of the atmosphere. But in
Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the tranquillity of the air,
Dionysius and his companions were considerably astonished so as to make
the aforesaid observations about this darkness.
Reply to Objection 3: Then, above all, was there need for miraculous
proof of Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most
apparent in Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in
the heavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): "If thou
disdain the manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star
in the heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord. " But in
His Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore
there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the
world. And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth. ): "This is the
sign which He promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it,
but the sign of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and
Resurrection . . . For it was much more wonderful that this should
happen when He was crucified than when He was walking on earth. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on men?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on
men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ
worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any
miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the
faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward
miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of fools.
Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting
manner.
Objection 2: Further, as stated above ([4218]Q[43], A[2]), Christ
worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work
suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not
always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mk.
8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the
town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked
him if he saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were
trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he
began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly. " It
is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first
imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He
worked miracles on men unfittingly.
Objection 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time
things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are
not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (Jn.
9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be
born blind. " It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of
those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done
in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Mat. 9:2): the more that the
healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of
sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving
sins.
Objection 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm
His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above ([4219]Q[43],
A[4]). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore
it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed
miraculously to tell no one, as appears from Mat. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26:
the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked
on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man
from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and
tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee. "
On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things
well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak. "
I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end.
