Hence this way a man
may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His
different parts.
may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His
different parts.
Summa Theologica
Hence it does not seem to be the principle of merit,
since merit and reward are not the same. Therefore Christ before His
passion did not merit, even as He does not merit now.
Objection 2: Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because
Christ is the Son of God by nature, the eternal inheritance is due to
Him, which other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from
the beginning, was the Word of God, could not merit anything for
Himself.
Objection 3: Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit
what flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the soul,
whence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as
Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation it was
brought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow
to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the glory of the body.
Objection 4: Further, the manifestation of Christ's excellence is a
good, not of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is
promised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be manifested
to them, according to Jn. 14:21: "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of
My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him. "
Therefore Christ did not merit the manifestation of His greatness.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8,9): "Becoming obedient
unto death . . . For which cause God also hath exalted Him. " Therefore
by obeying He merited His exaltation and thus He merited something for
Himself.
I answer that, To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than
to have it from another, for "what is of itself a cause is always more
excellent than what is a cause through another," as is said Phys. viii,
5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that of which it is to some
extent the cause. But of whatever good we possess the first cause by
authority is God; and in this way no creature has any good of itself,
according to 1 Cor. 4:7: "What hast thou that thou hast not received? "
Nevertheless, in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause, to himself,
of having certain good things, inasmuch as he cooperates with God in
the matter, and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a
manner, of himself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than
without merit.
Now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ,
consequently He must have by merit what others have by merit; 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 merit. Hence He merited
neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of His soul, nor the
Godhead, because, since merit regards only what is not yet possessed,
it would be necessary that Christ should have been without these at
some time; and to be without them would have diminished Christ's
dignity more than His merit would have increased it. But the glory of
the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of meriting, which
pertains to the virtue of charity. Hence we must say that Christ had,
by merit, the glory of His body and whatever pertained to His outward
excellence, as His Ascension, veneration, and the rest. And thus it is
clear that He could merit for Himself.
Reply to Objection 1: Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to
the glory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited
by charity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the
same. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a
comprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was at
once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as was said above ([4093]Q[15],
A[10]). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in
the state of meriting.
Reply to Objection 2: Because by nature Christ is God and the Son of
God, the Divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as
to the first and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a
beatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and partly with
merit, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply to Objection 3: It is by Divine appointment that there is an
overflow of glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human
merit; so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs
in the body, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing
to the body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the
glory of the body falls under merit, according to Rom. 8:11: "He . . .
shall quicken also our [Vulg. : 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His
Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg. : 'you']. " And thus it could fall
under Christ's merit.
Reply to Objection 4: The manifestation of Christ's excellence is His
good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others;
although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it
chiefly belongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is
referred to Christ inasmuch as they are His members.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ could merit for others?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others. For
it is written (Ezech. 18:4): "The soul that sinneth, the same shall
die. " Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the same shall
be recompensed. Therefore it is not possible that Christ merited for
others.
Objection 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive,
as is written Jn. 1:16. Now other men having Christ's grace cannot
merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) that if "Noe and
Daniel and Job be in the city [Vulg. : 'the midst thereof'] . . . they
shall deliver neither son nor daughter; but they shall only deliver
their own souls by their justice. " Hence Christ could not merit
anything for us.
Objection 3: Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to
justice [Vulg. : 'debt'] and not according to grace," as is clear from
Rom. 4:4. Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that our
salvation is not by God's grace but by justice, and that He acts
unjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ's merit extends
to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one,
unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all
men to justification of life. " But Adam's demerits reached to the
condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit of Christ
reach others.
I answer that, As stated above ([4094]Q[8], AA[1],5), grace was in
Christ not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the
whole Church, to Whom all are united, as members to a head, who
constitute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ's merit
extends to others inasmuch as they are His members; even as in a man
the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since it
perceives not merely for itself alone, but for all the members.
Reply to Objection 1: The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but
the sin of Adam, who was appointed by God to be the principle of the
whole nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So, too,
the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by God to be the head of
all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members.
Reply to Objection 2: Others receive of Christ's fulness not indeed the
fount of grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be
that men merit for others, as Christ did.
Reply to Objection 3: As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal
generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by
spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are
incorporated with Christ, according to Gal. 3:27, "As many of you as
have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ"; and it is by grace
that it is granted to man to be incorporated with Christ. And thus
man's salvation is from grace.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider such things as belong to Christ in relation to the
Father. Some of these things are predicated of Him because of His
relation to the Father, e. g. that He was subject to Him, that He prayed
to Him, that He ministered, to Him by priesthood. And some are
predicated, or may be predicated, of Him because of the Father's
relation to Him, e. g. that the Father adopted Him and that He
predestined Him.
Hence we must consider (1) Christ's subjection to the Father; (2) His
prayer; (3) His priesthood; (4) Adoption---whether it is becoming to
Him; (5) His predestination.
Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father?
(2) Whether He is subject to Himself?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether we may say that Christ is subject to the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was subject
to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a creature,
since, as is said in De Eccles. Dogm. iv, "in the Trinity there is no
dependence or subjection. " But we cannot say simply that Christ is a
creature, as was stated above ([4095]Q[16], A[8]). Therefore we cannot
say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father.
Objection 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it is
subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience to
the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21):
"We must bear in mind that we may not call it" (i. e. Christ's human
nature) "a servant; for the words 'subservience' and 'domination' are
not names of the nature, but of relations, as the words 'paternity' and
'filiation. '" Hence Christ in His human nature is not subject to God
the Father.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): "And when all
things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be
subject unto Him that put all things under Him. " But, as is written
(Heb. 2:8): "We see not as yet all things subject to Him. " Hence He is
not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 14:28), "The Father is greater than
I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "It is not without reason that
the Scripture mentions both, that the Son is equal to the Father and
the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on account of
the form of God, and the second on account of the form of a servant,
without any confusion. " Now the less is subject to the greater.
Therefore in the form of a servant Christ is subject to the Father.
I answer that, Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper
to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a threefold
subjection to God. The first regards the degree of goodness, inasmuch
as the Divine Nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from
Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created nature has a participation of
the Divine goodness, being subject, so to say, to the rays of this
goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God, as regards God's
power, inasmuch as human nature, even as every creature, is subject to
the operation of the Divine ordinance. Thirdly, human nature is
especially subject to God through its proper act, inasmuch as by its
own will it obeys His command. This triple subjection to God Christ
professes of Himself. The first (Mat. 19:17): "Why askest thou Me
concerning good? One is good, God. " And on this Jerome remarks: "He who
had called Him a good master, and had not confessed Him to be God or
the Son of God, learns that no man, however holy, is good in comparison
with God. " And hereby He gave us to understand that He Himself, in His
human nature, did not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And
because "in such things as are great, but not in bulk, to be great is
the same as to be good," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this
reason the Father is said to be greater than Christ in His human
nature. The second subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all
that befell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment;
hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is subject to the
ordinance of God the Father. " And this is the subjection of
subservience, whereby "every creature serves God" (Judith 16:17), being
subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The creature
serving Thee the Creator. " And in this way the Son of God (Phil. 2:7)
is said to have taken "the form of a servant. " The third subjection He
attributes to Himself, saying (Jn. 8:29): "I do always the things that
please Him. " And this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience
unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that he became "obedient"
to the Father "unto death. "
Reply to Objection 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a
creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this
qualification be added or not, as stated above ([4096]Q[16], A[8]), so
also we are to understand that Christ is subject to the Father not
simply but in His human nature, even if this qualification be not
added; and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid
the error of Arius, who held the Son to be less than the Father.
Reply to Objection 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is
based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to
be moved by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the
nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to supposita and
to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1).
Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the
person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not properly
said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly
said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. And in this way
nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human
nature.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): "Christ will
give the kingdom to God and the Father, when He has brought the
faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision," i. e. to see
the essence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will be
totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His
members by the full participation of the Godhead. And then all things
will be fully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will
concerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as
regards His power, according to Mat. 28:18: "All power is given to Me
in heaven and in earth. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ is subject to Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not subject to Himself. For
Cyril says in a synodal letter which the Council of Ephesus (Part I,
ch. xxvi) received: "Christ is neither servant nor master of Himself.
It is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say this. " And Damascene
says the same (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "The one Being, Christ, cannot
be the servant or master of Himself. " Now Christ is said to be the
servant of the Father inasmuch as He is subject to Him. Hence Christ is
not subject to Himself.
Objection 2: Further, servant has reference to master. Now nothing has
a relation to itself, hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that nothing is
like or equal to itself. Hence Christ cannot be said to be the servant
of Himself, and consequently to be subject to Himself.
Objection 3: Further, "as the rational soul and flesh are one man; so
God and man are one Christ," as Athanasius says (Symb. Fid. ). 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 soul. Therefore, Christ
is not said to be subject to Himself because His Manhood is subject to
His Godhead.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "Truth shows in this
way" (i. e. whereby the Father is greater than Christ in human nature)
"that the Son is less than Himself. "
Further, as he argues (De Trin. i, 7), the form of a servant was so
taken by the Son of God that the form of God was not lost. But because
of the form of God, which is common to the Father and the Son, the
Father is greater than the Son in human nature. Therefore the Son is
greater than Himself in human nature.
Further, Christ in His human nature is the servant of God the Father,
according to Jn. 20:17: "I ascend to My Father and to your Father to My
God and your God. " Now whoever is the servant of the Father is the
servant of the Son; otherwise not everything that belongs to the Father
would belong to the Son. Therefore Christ is His own servant and is
subject to Himself.
I answer that, As was said above (A[1], ad 2), to be master or servant
is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a nature. Hence
when it is said that Christ is the master or servant of Himself, or
that the Word of God is the Master of the Man Christ, this may be
understood in two ways. First, so that this is understood to be said by
reason of another hypostasis or person, as if there was the person of
the Word of God ruling and the person of the man serving; and this is
the heresy of Nestorius. Hence in the condemnation of Nestorius it is
said in the Council of Ephesus (Part III, ch. i, anath. 6): "If anyone
say that the Word begotten of God the Father is the God or Lord of
Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be at once God and man
as the Word made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be
anathema. " And in this sense it is denied by Cyril and Damascene
(OBJ[1]); and in the same sense must it be denied that Christ is less
than Himself or subject to Himself. Secondly, it may be understood of
the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis. And thus we
may say that in one of them, in which He agrees with the Father, He
presides and rules together with the Father; and in the other nature,
in which He agrees with us, He is subject and serves, and in this sense
Augustine says that "the Son is less than Himself. "
Yet it must be borne in mind that since this name "Christ" is the name
of a Person, even as the name "Son," those things can be predicated
essentially and absolutely of Christ which belong to Him by reason of
the Person, Which is eternal; and especially those relations which seem
more properly to pertain to the Person or the hypostasis. But whatever
pertains to Him in His human nature is rather to be attributed to Him
with a qualification; so that we say that Christ is simply greatest,
Lord, Ruler, whereas to be subject or servant or less is to be
attributed to Him with the qualification, in His human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Cyril and Damascene deny that Christ is the head
of Himself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita, which is
required in order that anyone may be the master of another.
Reply to Objection 2: Simply speaking it is necessary that the master
and the servant should be distinct; yet a certain notion of mastership
and subservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of
Himself in different respects.
Reply to Objection 3: On account of the divers parts of man, one of
which is superior and the other inferior, the Philosopher says (Ethic.
v, 11) that there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the
irascible and concupiscible powers obey reason.
Hence this way a man
may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His
different parts.
To the other arguments, the reply is clear from what has been said. For
Augustine asserts that the Son is less than, or subject to, Himself in
His human nature, and not by a diversity of supposita.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S PRAYER (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are
four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?
(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?
(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for
others?
(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is becoming of Christ to pray?
Objection 1: It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "prayer is the asking for
becoming things from God. " But since Christ could do all things, it
does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore it
does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.
Objection 2: Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for
certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise
tomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what
he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would
happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in
prayer.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that
"prayer is the raising up of the mind to God. " Now Christ's mind needed
no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only
by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 6:12): "And it came to pass in
those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God. "
I answer that, As was said in the [4097]SS, Q[83], AA[1],2, prayer is
the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If,
therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it
would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is
effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6:
"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done. " But because the Divine and
the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is
not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power,
hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry
out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above
([4098]Q[13], A[1] ). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to
offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for
our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the
Father; hence He says (Jn. 11:42): "Because of the people who stand
about I have said it" (i. e. the words of the prayer) "that they may
believe that Thou hast sent Me. " Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He
did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be
unknown. " Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says
(on Lk. 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as
a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author
of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of
virtue by His example. " Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan. ):
"Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if
need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in
such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher. "
Reply to Objection 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would
happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for
these He not unbecomingly besought God.
Reply to Objection 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what
is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii,
7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from
potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect,
and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually
above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24),
"the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was
ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision. "
Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i. e.
something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called
movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to
God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality?
Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according
to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the person of
Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God. " Now
sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence Christ's
sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal
reason by praying.
Objection 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which
desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His
sensuality desired when He said (Mat. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass
from Me. " Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in
person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed
by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human
nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in the
nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men. " But the rest
of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ
pray according to His sensuality.
I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two
ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and in
this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His
sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now
in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the
movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,
consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;
secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we
desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of reason
alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the
[4099]SS, Q[83], A[1].
Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our
prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in
this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer
expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of
the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things. First,
to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural
affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural
desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject
his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the
Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a man, shows the
proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for
this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to
say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be
directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou
wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire
something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the
act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart
into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement
of the rational appetite.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sensuality wished what the reason
besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying,
but to the reason, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The union in person is according to the personal
being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the
uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as
stated above. Hence there is no parity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should pray for Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should
pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word of
beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our
faith. " Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for us.
Objection 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as
was said [4100](A[1]), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that
He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often
angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though
unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i. e. Christ) "did all these
things, because He wished. " Therefore it was not fitting that He should
pray for Himself.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom. ): "The Doctor of
Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered
individually and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for
ourselves alone. " Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach. " Therefore Christ never prayed for
Himself alone.
On the contrary, our Lord Himself said while praying (Jn. 17:1):
"Glorify Thy Son. "
I answer that, Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by
expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above [4101](A[2]);
or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed
that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Mat. 26:39).
Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is
considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His
Resurrection (Jn. 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said
above (A[1], ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give
us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the
author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and of all
the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His
human nature He had already received certain gifts from His Father. so
there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He
expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for
gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the
author thereof, as we read (Mat. 26:27; Jn. 11:41): so also, in
recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts
still due to Him in His human nature, such as the glory of His body,
and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give
thanks for benefits received, and ask in prayer for those we have not
as yet.
Reply to Objection 1: Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not
necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. Whence he says
pointedly that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself. " For if
"the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the Ps. 9:38,
much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the
Father: wherefore He said (Jn. 11:42): "I know that Thou hearest Me
always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that
they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered,
at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His
passion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He
expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and
therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.
Reply to Objection 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying,
besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to
Rom. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification. " Consequently the
prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for
others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for
the good of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's prayer was always heard?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard.
For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from
Him, as we read (Mat. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him.
Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him
might be forgiven, as is related (Lk. 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned
this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it
seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in
Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one in
Him," and that they might attain to being with Him (Jn. 17:20, 21, 24).
But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was
heard.
Objection 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I
shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear. " Not every prayer of His,
therefore, was heard.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry and
tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence. "
I answer that, As stated above [4102](A[1]), prayer is a certain
manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one
who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking
the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that
which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we
will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the
simple will, which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but
conditionally [secundum quid]---that is, provided no obstacle be
discovered by reason's deliberation. Wherefore such a will should
rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would
will [vellet] if there were no obstacle.
But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He
knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human,
was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently
His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that
other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity
with God, according to Rom. 8:27: "And He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the Spirit desireth," that is,
what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the
saints according to God," that is, in conformity with the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is
variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says:
"When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may
pass by Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him
to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the
passion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with
unflinching anguish, without fear of death. "
Or according to Jerome (on Mat. 26:39): "He says pointedly, 'This
chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as
an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the
Prophets, who foretold concerning Me. "
Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7):
"When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let it
not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that
which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the Saviour
beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed. "
Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as
man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will.
Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He
thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or
that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble
Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was entirely
fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink
the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not drink it at
the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled,
because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its
fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make known to
us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His
as man.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified
Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for
those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.
Reply to Objection 4: When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not
hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality,
which shunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
(2) Of the victim offered by this priest;
(3) Of the effect of this priesthood;
(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only
to others?
(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;
(6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of
Melchisedech"?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1):
"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the
Lord. " But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4:
"Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more
excellent name than they. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should
be a priest.
Objection 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were
figures of Christ, according to Col. 2:17: "Which are a shadow of
things to come, but the body is Christ's. " But Christ was not descended
from the priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:14): "It
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priests. " Therefore it is not fitting that
Christ should be a priest.
Objection 3: Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the
lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said to
Moses the lawgiver (Ex. 28:1): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . .
that he [Vulg. : 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office. " But
Christ is the giver of the New Law, according to Jer. 31:33: "I will
give My law in their bowels. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ
should be a priest.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 4:14): "We have [Vulg. : 'Having']
therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus,
the Son of God. "
I answer that, The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator
between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine
things on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of
sacred things [sacra dans], according to Malachi 2:7: "They shall seek
the law at his," i. e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he
offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a manner, makes
satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the Apostle says (Heb.
since merit and reward are not the same. Therefore Christ before His
passion did not merit, even as He does not merit now.
Objection 2: Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because
Christ is the Son of God by nature, the eternal inheritance is due to
Him, which other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from
the beginning, was the Word of God, could not merit anything for
Himself.
Objection 3: Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit
what flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the soul,
whence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as
Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation it was
brought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow
to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the glory of the body.
Objection 4: Further, the manifestation of Christ's excellence is a
good, not of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is
promised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be manifested
to them, according to Jn. 14:21: "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of
My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him. "
Therefore Christ did not merit the manifestation of His greatness.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8,9): "Becoming obedient
unto death . . . For which cause God also hath exalted Him. " Therefore
by obeying He merited His exaltation and thus He merited something for
Himself.
I answer that, To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than
to have it from another, for "what is of itself a cause is always more
excellent than what is a cause through another," as is said Phys. viii,
5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that of which it is to some
extent the cause. But of whatever good we possess the first cause by
authority is God; and in this way no creature has any good of itself,
according to 1 Cor. 4:7: "What hast thou that thou hast not received? "
Nevertheless, in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause, to himself,
of having certain good things, inasmuch as he cooperates with God in
the matter, and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a
manner, of himself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than
without merit.
Now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ,
consequently He must have by merit what others have by merit; 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 merit. Hence He merited
neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of His soul, nor the
Godhead, because, since merit regards only what is not yet possessed,
it would be necessary that Christ should have been without these at
some time; and to be without them would have diminished Christ's
dignity more than His merit would have increased it. But the glory of
the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of meriting, which
pertains to the virtue of charity. Hence we must say that Christ had,
by merit, the glory of His body and whatever pertained to His outward
excellence, as His Ascension, veneration, and the rest. And thus it is
clear that He could merit for Himself.
Reply to Objection 1: Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to
the glory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited
by charity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the
same. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a
comprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was at
once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as was said above ([4093]Q[15],
A[10]). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in
the state of meriting.
Reply to Objection 2: Because by nature Christ is God and the Son of
God, the Divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as
to the first and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a
beatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and partly with
merit, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply to Objection 3: It is by Divine appointment that there is an
overflow of glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human
merit; so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs
in the body, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing
to the body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the
glory of the body falls under merit, according to Rom. 8:11: "He . . .
shall quicken also our [Vulg. : 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His
Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg. : 'you']. " And thus it could fall
under Christ's merit.
Reply to Objection 4: The manifestation of Christ's excellence is His
good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others;
although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it
chiefly belongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is
referred to Christ inasmuch as they are His members.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ could merit for others?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others. For
it is written (Ezech. 18:4): "The soul that sinneth, the same shall
die. " Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the same shall
be recompensed. Therefore it is not possible that Christ merited for
others.
Objection 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive,
as is written Jn. 1:16. Now other men having Christ's grace cannot
merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) that if "Noe and
Daniel and Job be in the city [Vulg. : 'the midst thereof'] . . . they
shall deliver neither son nor daughter; but they shall only deliver
their own souls by their justice. " Hence Christ could not merit
anything for us.
Objection 3: Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to
justice [Vulg. : 'debt'] and not according to grace," as is clear from
Rom. 4:4. Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that our
salvation is not by God's grace but by justice, and that He acts
unjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ's merit extends
to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one,
unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all
men to justification of life. " But Adam's demerits reached to the
condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit of Christ
reach others.
I answer that, As stated above ([4094]Q[8], AA[1],5), grace was in
Christ not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the
whole Church, to Whom all are united, as members to a head, who
constitute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ's merit
extends to others inasmuch as they are His members; even as in a man
the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since it
perceives not merely for itself alone, but for all the members.
Reply to Objection 1: The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but
the sin of Adam, who was appointed by God to be the principle of the
whole nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So, too,
the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by God to be the head of
all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members.
Reply to Objection 2: Others receive of Christ's fulness not indeed the
fount of grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be
that men merit for others, as Christ did.
Reply to Objection 3: As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal
generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by
spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are
incorporated with Christ, according to Gal. 3:27, "As many of you as
have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ"; and it is by grace
that it is granted to man to be incorporated with Christ. And thus
man's salvation is from grace.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider such things as belong to Christ in relation to the
Father. Some of these things are predicated of Him because of His
relation to the Father, e. g. that He was subject to Him, that He prayed
to Him, that He ministered, to Him by priesthood. And some are
predicated, or may be predicated, of Him because of the Father's
relation to Him, e. g. that the Father adopted Him and that He
predestined Him.
Hence we must consider (1) Christ's subjection to the Father; (2) His
prayer; (3) His priesthood; (4) Adoption---whether it is becoming to
Him; (5) His predestination.
Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father?
(2) Whether He is subject to Himself?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether we may say that Christ is subject to the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was subject
to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a creature,
since, as is said in De Eccles. Dogm. iv, "in the Trinity there is no
dependence or subjection. " But we cannot say simply that Christ is a
creature, as was stated above ([4095]Q[16], A[8]). Therefore we cannot
say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father.
Objection 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it is
subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience to
the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21):
"We must bear in mind that we may not call it" (i. e. Christ's human
nature) "a servant; for the words 'subservience' and 'domination' are
not names of the nature, but of relations, as the words 'paternity' and
'filiation. '" Hence Christ in His human nature is not subject to God
the Father.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): "And when all
things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be
subject unto Him that put all things under Him. " But, as is written
(Heb. 2:8): "We see not as yet all things subject to Him. " Hence He is
not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.
On the contrary, Our Lord says (Jn. 14:28), "The Father is greater than
I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "It is not without reason that
the Scripture mentions both, that the Son is equal to the Father and
the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on account of
the form of God, and the second on account of the form of a servant,
without any confusion. " Now the less is subject to the greater.
Therefore in the form of a servant Christ is subject to the Father.
I answer that, Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper
to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a threefold
subjection to God. The first regards the degree of goodness, inasmuch
as the Divine Nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from
Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created nature has a participation of
the Divine goodness, being subject, so to say, to the rays of this
goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God, as regards God's
power, inasmuch as human nature, even as every creature, is subject to
the operation of the Divine ordinance. Thirdly, human nature is
especially subject to God through its proper act, inasmuch as by its
own will it obeys His command. This triple subjection to God Christ
professes of Himself. The first (Mat. 19:17): "Why askest thou Me
concerning good? One is good, God. " And on this Jerome remarks: "He who
had called Him a good master, and had not confessed Him to be God or
the Son of God, learns that no man, however holy, is good in comparison
with God. " And hereby He gave us to understand that He Himself, in His
human nature, did not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And
because "in such things as are great, but not in bulk, to be great is
the same as to be good," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this
reason the Father is said to be greater than Christ in His human
nature. The second subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all
that befell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment;
hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is subject to the
ordinance of God the Father. " And this is the subjection of
subservience, whereby "every creature serves God" (Judith 16:17), being
subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The creature
serving Thee the Creator. " And in this way the Son of God (Phil. 2:7)
is said to have taken "the form of a servant. " The third subjection He
attributes to Himself, saying (Jn. 8:29): "I do always the things that
please Him. " And this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience
unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that he became "obedient"
to the Father "unto death. "
Reply to Objection 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a
creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this
qualification be added or not, as stated above ([4096]Q[16], A[8]), so
also we are to understand that Christ is subject to the Father not
simply but in His human nature, even if this qualification be not
added; and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid
the error of Arius, who held the Son to be less than the Father.
Reply to Objection 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is
based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to
be moved by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the
nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to supposita and
to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1).
Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the
person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not properly
said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly
said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. And in this way
nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human
nature.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): "Christ will
give the kingdom to God and the Father, when He has brought the
faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision," i. e. to see
the essence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will be
totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His
members by the full participation of the Godhead. And then all things
will be fully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will
concerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as
regards His power, according to Mat. 28:18: "All power is given to Me
in heaven and in earth. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ is subject to Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not subject to Himself. For
Cyril says in a synodal letter which the Council of Ephesus (Part I,
ch. xxvi) received: "Christ is neither servant nor master of Himself.
It is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say this. " And Damascene
says the same (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "The one Being, Christ, cannot
be the servant or master of Himself. " Now Christ is said to be the
servant of the Father inasmuch as He is subject to Him. Hence Christ is
not subject to Himself.
Objection 2: Further, servant has reference to master. Now nothing has
a relation to itself, hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that nothing is
like or equal to itself. Hence Christ cannot be said to be the servant
of Himself, and consequently to be subject to Himself.
Objection 3: Further, "as the rational soul and flesh are one man; so
God and man are one Christ," as Athanasius says (Symb. Fid. ). 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 soul. Therefore, Christ
is not said to be subject to Himself because His Manhood is subject to
His Godhead.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "Truth shows in this
way" (i. e. whereby the Father is greater than Christ in human nature)
"that the Son is less than Himself. "
Further, as he argues (De Trin. i, 7), the form of a servant was so
taken by the Son of God that the form of God was not lost. But because
of the form of God, which is common to the Father and the Son, the
Father is greater than the Son in human nature. Therefore the Son is
greater than Himself in human nature.
Further, Christ in His human nature is the servant of God the Father,
according to Jn. 20:17: "I ascend to My Father and to your Father to My
God and your God. " Now whoever is the servant of the Father is the
servant of the Son; otherwise not everything that belongs to the Father
would belong to the Son. Therefore Christ is His own servant and is
subject to Himself.
I answer that, As was said above (A[1], ad 2), to be master or servant
is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a nature. Hence
when it is said that Christ is the master or servant of Himself, or
that the Word of God is the Master of the Man Christ, this may be
understood in two ways. First, so that this is understood to be said by
reason of another hypostasis or person, as if there was the person of
the Word of God ruling and the person of the man serving; and this is
the heresy of Nestorius. Hence in the condemnation of Nestorius it is
said in the Council of Ephesus (Part III, ch. i, anath. 6): "If anyone
say that the Word begotten of God the Father is the God or Lord of
Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be at once God and man
as the Word made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be
anathema. " And in this sense it is denied by Cyril and Damascene
(OBJ[1]); and in the same sense must it be denied that Christ is less
than Himself or subject to Himself. Secondly, it may be understood of
the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis. And thus we
may say that in one of them, in which He agrees with the Father, He
presides and rules together with the Father; and in the other nature,
in which He agrees with us, He is subject and serves, and in this sense
Augustine says that "the Son is less than Himself. "
Yet it must be borne in mind that since this name "Christ" is the name
of a Person, even as the name "Son," those things can be predicated
essentially and absolutely of Christ which belong to Him by reason of
the Person, Which is eternal; and especially those relations which seem
more properly to pertain to the Person or the hypostasis. But whatever
pertains to Him in His human nature is rather to be attributed to Him
with a qualification; so that we say that Christ is simply greatest,
Lord, Ruler, whereas to be subject or servant or less is to be
attributed to Him with the qualification, in His human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Cyril and Damascene deny that Christ is the head
of Himself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita, which is
required in order that anyone may be the master of another.
Reply to Objection 2: Simply speaking it is necessary that the master
and the servant should be distinct; yet a certain notion of mastership
and subservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of
Himself in different respects.
Reply to Objection 3: On account of the divers parts of man, one of
which is superior and the other inferior, the Philosopher says (Ethic.
v, 11) that there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the
irascible and concupiscible powers obey reason.
Hence this way a man
may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His
different parts.
To the other arguments, the reply is clear from what has been said. For
Augustine asserts that the Son is less than, or subject to, Himself in
His human nature, and not by a diversity of supposita.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S PRAYER (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are
four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?
(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?
(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for
others?
(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is becoming of Christ to pray?
Objection 1: It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "prayer is the asking for
becoming things from God. " But since Christ could do all things, it
does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore it
does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.
Objection 2: Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for
certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise
tomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what
he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would
happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in
prayer.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that
"prayer is the raising up of the mind to God. " Now Christ's mind needed
no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only
by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 6:12): "And it came to pass in
those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole
night in the prayer of God. "
I answer that, As was said in the [4097]SS, Q[83], AA[1],2, prayer is
the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If,
therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it
would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is
effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6:
"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done. " But because the Divine and
the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is
not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power,
hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.
Reply to Objection 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry
out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above
([4098]Q[13], A[1] ). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to
offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for
our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the
Father; hence He says (Jn. 11:42): "Because of the people who stand
about I have said it" (i. e. the words of the prayer) "that they may
believe that Thou hast sent Me. " Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He
did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be
unknown. " Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says
(on Lk. 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as
a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author
of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of
virtue by His example. " Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan. ):
"Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if
need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in
such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher. "
Reply to Objection 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would
happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for
these He not unbecomingly besought God.
Reply to Objection 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what
is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii,
7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from
potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect,
and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually
above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24),
"the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was
ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision. "
Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i. e.
something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called
movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to
God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality?
Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according
to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the person of
Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God. " Now
sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence Christ's
sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal
reason by praying.
Objection 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which
desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His
sensuality desired when He said (Mat. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass
from Me. " Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in
person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed
by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human
nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in the
nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men. " But the rest
of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ
pray according to His sensuality.
I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two
ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and in
this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His
sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now
in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the
movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,
consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;
secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we
desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of reason
alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the
[4099]SS, Q[83], A[1].
Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our
prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in
this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer
expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of
the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things. First,
to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural
affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural
desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject
his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the
Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a man, shows the
proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for
this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to
say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be
directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou
wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire
something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else. '"
Reply to Objection 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the
act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart
into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement
of the rational appetite.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sensuality wished what the reason
besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying,
but to the reason, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The union in person is according to the personal
being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the
uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as
stated above. Hence there is no parity.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was fitting that Christ should pray for Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should
pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word of
beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our
faith. " Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for us.
Objection 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as
was said [4100](A[1]), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that
He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For
Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often
angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though
unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i. e. Christ) "did all these
things, because He wished. " Therefore it was not fitting that He should
pray for Himself.
Objection 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom. ): "The Doctor of
Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered
individually and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for
ourselves alone. " Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1:
"Jesus began to do and to teach. " Therefore Christ never prayed for
Himself alone.
On the contrary, our Lord Himself said while praying (Jn. 17:1):
"Glorify Thy Son. "
I answer that, Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by
expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above [4101](A[2]);
or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed
that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Mat. 26:39).
Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is
considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His
Resurrection (Jn. 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said
above (A[1], ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give
us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the
author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and of all
the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His
human nature He had already received certain gifts from His Father. so
there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He
expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for
gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the
author thereof, as we read (Mat. 26:27; Jn. 11:41): so also, in
recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts
still due to Him in His human nature, such as the glory of His body,
and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give
thanks for benefits received, and ask in prayer for those we have not
as yet.
Reply to Objection 1: Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not
necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. Whence he says
pointedly that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself. " For if
"the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the Ps. 9:38,
much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the
Father: wherefore He said (Jn. 11:42): "I know that Thou hearest Me
always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that
they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. "
Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered,
at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His
passion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He
expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and
therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.
Reply to Objection 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying,
besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to
Rom. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification. " Consequently the
prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for
others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for
the good of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ's prayer was always heard?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard.
For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from
Him, as we read (Mat. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him.
Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him
might be forgiven, as is related (Lk. 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned
this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it
seems that not every prayer of His was heard.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in
Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one in
Him," and that they might attain to being with Him (Jn. 17:20, 21, 24).
But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was
heard.
Objection 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I
shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear. " Not every prayer of His,
therefore, was heard.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry and
tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence. "
I answer that, As stated above [4102](A[1]), prayer is a certain
manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one
who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking
the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that
which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we
will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the
simple will, which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but
conditionally [secundum quid]---that is, provided no obstacle be
discovered by reason's deliberation. Wherefore such a will should
rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would
will [vellet] if there were no obstacle.
But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He
knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human,
was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently
His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that
other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity
with God, according to Rom. 8:27: "And He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the Spirit desireth," that is,
what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the
saints according to God," that is, in conformity with the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is
variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says:
"When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may
pass by Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him
to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the
passion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with
unflinching anguish, without fear of death. "
Or according to Jerome (on Mat. 26:39): "He says pointedly, 'This
chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as
an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the
Prophets, who foretold concerning Me. "
Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7):
"When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let it
not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that
which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the Saviour
beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed. "
Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as
man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will.
Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He
thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or
that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble
Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was entirely
fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink
the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not drink it at
the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled,
because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its
fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make known to
us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His
as man.
Reply to Objection 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified
Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for
those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.
Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.
Reply to Objection 4: When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not
hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality,
which shunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)
We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
(2) Of the victim offered by this priest;
(3) Of the effect of this priesthood;
(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only
to others?
(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;
(6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of
Melchisedech"?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?
Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest.
For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1):
"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the
Lord. " But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4:
"Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more
excellent name than they. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should
be a priest.
Objection 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were
figures of Christ, according to Col. 2:17: "Which are a shadow of
things to come, but the body is Christ's. " But Christ was not descended
from the priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:14): "It
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses
spoke nothing concerning priests. " Therefore it is not fitting that
Christ should be a priest.
Objection 3: Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the
lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said to
Moses the lawgiver (Ex. 28:1): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . .
that he [Vulg. : 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office. " But
Christ is the giver of the New Law, according to Jer. 31:33: "I will
give My law in their bowels. " Therefore it is unfitting that Christ
should be a priest.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 4:14): "We have [Vulg. : 'Having']
therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus,
the Son of God. "
I answer that, The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator
between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine
things on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of
sacred things [sacra dans], according to Malachi 2:7: "They shall seek
the law at his," i. e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he
offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a manner, makes
satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the Apostle says (Heb.
