ix, 4) that one mark of
friendship
is "to will and choose the
same.
same.
Summa Theologica
e.
inasmuch as he would be said to be, not only with reference to what he
had previously, but also with reference to what accrued to him
afterwards. And thus, since the human nature is united to the Son of
God, hypostatically or personally as was said above ([4067]Q[2],
AA[5],6), and not accidentally, it follows that by the human nature
there accrued to Him no new personal being, but only a new relation of
the pre-existing personal being to the human nature, in such a way that
the Person is said to subsist not merely in the Divine, but also in the
human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Being is consequent upon nature, not as upon that
which has being, but as upon that whereby a thing is: whereas it is
consequent upon person or hypostasis, as upon that which has being.
Hence it has unity from the unity of hypostasis, rather than duality
from the duality of the nature.
Reply to Objection 2: The eternal being of the Son of God, which is the
Divine Nature, becomes the being of man, inasmuch as the human nature
is assumed by the Son of God to unity of Person.
Reply to Objection 3: As was said in the [4068]FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3;
[4069]FP, Q[75], A[5], ad 4, since the Divine Person is the same as the
Nature, there is no distinction in the Divine Persons between the being
of the Person and the being of the Nature, and, consequently, the three
Persons have only one being. But they would have a triple being if the
being of the Person were distinct in them from the being of the Nature.
Reply to Objection 4: In Christ the soul gives being to the body,
inasmuch as it makes it actually animated, which is to give it the
complement of its nature and species. But if we consider the body
perfected by the soul, without the hypostasis having both---this whole,
composed of soul and body, as signified by the word "humanity," does
not signify "what is," but "whereby it is. " Hence being belongs to the
subsisting person, inasmuch as it has a relation to such a nature, and
of this relation the soul is the cause, inasmuch as it perfects human
nature by informing the body.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF WILL (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider unity as regards the will; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the Divine will and the human are distinct in Christ?
(2) Whether in Christ's human nature the will of sensuality is distinct
from the will of reason?
(3) Whether as regards the reason there were several wills in Christ?
(4) Whether there was free-will in Christ?
(5) Whether Christ's human will was always conformed to the Divine will
in the thing willed?
(6) Whether there was any contrariety of wills in Christ?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are two wills in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are not two wills, one
Divine, the other human. For the will is the first mover and first
commander in whoever wills. But in Christ the first mover and commander
was the Divine will, since in Christ everything human was moved by the
Divine will. Hence it seems that in Christ there was only one will,
viz. the Divine.
Objection 2: Further, an instrument is not moved by its own will but by
the will of its mover. Now the human nature of Christ was the
instrument of His Godhead. Hence the human nature of Christ was not
moved by its own will, but by the Divine will.
Objection 3: Further, that alone is multiplied in Christ which belongs
to the nature. But the will does not seem to pertain to nature: for
natural things are of necessity; whereas what is voluntary is not of
necessity. Therefore there is but one will in Christ.
Objection 4: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that "to
will in this or that way belongs not to our nature but to our
intellect," i. e. our personal intellect. But every will is this or that
will, since there is nothing in a genus which is not at the same time
in some one of its species. Therefore all will belongs to the person.
But in Christ there was and is but one person. Therefore in Christ
there is only one will.
On the contrary, our Lord says (Lk. 22:42): "Father, if Thou wilt,
remove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done. "
And Ambrose, quoting this to the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7) says:
"As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;" and on Lk. 22:42 he
says: "His will, He refers to the Man---the Father's, to the Godhead.
For the will of man is temporal, and the will of the Godhead eternal. "
I answer that, Some placed only one will in Christ; but they seem to
have had different motives for holding this. For Apollinaris did not
hold an intellectual soul in Christ, but maintained that the Word was
in place of the soul, or even in place of the intellect. Hence since
"the will is in the reason," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 9),
it followed that in Christ there was no human will; and thus there was
only one will in Him. So, too, Eutyches and all who held one composite
nature in Christ were forced to place one will in Him. Nestorius, too,
who maintained that the union of God and man was one of affection and
will, held only one will in Christ. But later on, Macarius, Patriarch
of Antioch, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius of Constantinople and some
of their followers, held that there is one will in Christ, although
they held that in Christ there are two natures united in a hypostasis;
because they believed that Christ's human nature never moved with its
own motion, but only inasmuch as it was moved by the Godhead, as is
plain from the synodical letter of Pope Agatho [*Third Council of
Constantinople, Act. 4].
And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [*Act. 18] it was
decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, in the
following passage: "In accordance with what the Prophets of old taught
us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the Symbol of
the Holy Fathers has handed down to us, we confess two natural wills in
Him and two natural operations. " And this much it was necessary to say.
For it is manifest that the Son of God assumed a perfect human nature,
as was shown above (Q[5]; Q[9], A[1]). Now the will pertains to the
perfection of human nature, being one of its natural powers, even as
the intellect, as was stated in the FP, QQ[79],80. Hence we must say
that the Son of God assumed a human will, together with human nature.
Now by the assumption of human nature the Son of God suffered no
diminution of what pertains to His Divine Nature, to which it belongs
to have a will, as was said in the [4070]FP, Q[19], A[1]. Hence it must
be said that there are two wills in Christ, i. e. one human, the other
Divine.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatever was in the human nature of Christ was
moved at the bidding of the Divine will; yet it does not follow that in
Christ there was no movement of the will proper to human nature, for
the good wills of other saints are moved by God's will, "Who worketh"
in them "both to will and to accomplish," as is written Phil. 2:13. For
although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it can
be moved inwardly by God, as was said in the [4071]FP, Q[105], A[4].
And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine will
according to Ps. 39:9; "That I should do Thy will, O my God, I have
desired it. " Hence Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "Where the
Son says to the Father, 'Not what I will, but what Thou willest,' what
do you gain by adding your own words and saying 'He shows that His will
was truly subject to His Father,' as if we denied that man's will ought
to be subject to God's will? "
Reply to Objection 2: It is proper to an instrument to be moved by the
principal agent, yet diversely, according to the property of its
nature. For an inanimate instrument, as an axe or a saw, is moved by
the craftsman with only a corporeal movement; but an instrument
animated by a sensitive soul is moved by the sensitive appetite, as a
horse by its rider; and an instrument animated with a rational soul is
moved by its will, as by the command of his lord the servant is moved
to act, the servant being like an animate instrument, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2,4; Ethic. viii, 11). And hence it was in
this manner that the human nature of Christ was the instrument of the
Godhead, and was moved by its own will.
Reply to Objection 3: The power of the will is natural, and necessarily
follows upon the nature; but the movement or act of this power---which
is also called will---is sometimes natural and necessary, e. g. with
respect to beatitude; and sometimes springs from free-will and is
neither necessary nor natural, as is plain from what has been stated in
the [4072]FS, Q[10], AA[1],[2] [*Cf. [4073]FP, Q[82], A[2]]. And yet
even reason itself, which is the principle of this movement, is
natural. Hence besides the Divine will it is necessary to place in
Christ a human will, not merely as a natural power, or a natural
movement, but even as a rational movement.
Reply to Objection 4: When we say "to will in a certain way," we
signify a determinate mode of willing. Now a determinate mode regards
the thing of which it is the mode. Hence since the will pertains to the
nature, "to will in a certain way" belongs to the nature, not indeed
considered absolutely, but as it is in the hypostasis. Hence the human
will of Christ had a determinate mode from the fact of being in a
Divine hypostasis, i. e. it was always moved in accordance with the
bidding of the Divine will.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was a will of sensuality besides the will of reason?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no will of
sensuality besides the will of reason. For the Philosopher says (De
Anima iii, text. 42) that "the will is in the reason, and in the
sensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts. " Now
sensuality signifies the sensitive appetite. Hence in Christ there was
no will of sensuality.
Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12,13) the
sensuality is signified by the serpent. But there was nothing
serpent-like in Christ; for He had the likeness of a venomous animal
without the venom, as Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i,
32). Hence in Christ there was no will of sensuality.
Objection 3: Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said
[4074](A[1]). But in Christ there was only one nature besides the
Divine. Hence in Christ there was only one human will.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 7): "Mine is the will which
He calls His own; because as Man He assumed my sorrow. " From this we
are given to understand that sorrow pertains to the human will of
Christ. Now sorrow pertains to the sensuality, as was said in the
[4075]FS, Q[23], A[1]; [4076]FS, Q[25], A[1]. Therefore, seemingly, in
Christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will of reason.
I answer that, As was said ([4077]Q[9], A[1]), the Son of God assumed
human nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of
human nature. Now in human nature is included animal nature, as the
genus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have assumed together
with the human nature whatever belongs to animal nature; one of which
things is the sensitive appetite, which is called the sensuality.
Consequently it must be allowed that in Christ there was a sensual
appetite, or sensuality. But it must be borne in mind that sensuality
or the sensual appetite, inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason, is said
to be "rational by participation," as is clear from the Philosopher
(Ethic. i, 13). And because "the will is in the reason," as stated
above, it may equally be said that the sensuality is "a will by
participation. "
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the will, essentially
so called, which is only in the intellectual part; but the will by
participation can be in the sensitive part, inasmuch as it obeys
reason.
Reply to Objection 2: The sensuality is signified by the serpent---not
as regards the nature of the sensuality, which Christ assumed, but as
regards the corruption of the "fomes," which was not in Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: "Where there is one thing on account of another,
there seems to be only one" (Aristotle, Topic. iii); thus a surface
which is visible by color is one visible thing with the color. So, too,
because the sensuality is called the will, only because it partakes of
the rational will, there is said to be but one human will in Christ,
even as there is but one human nature.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were two wills as regards the reason?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were two wills as
regards the reason. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that
there is a double will in man, viz. the natural will which is called
{thelesis}, and the rational will which is called {boulesis}. Now
Christ in His human nature had whatever belongs to the perfection of
human nature. Hence both the foregoing wills were in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, the appetitive power is diversified in man by the
difference of the apprehensive power, and hence according to the
difference of sense and intellect is the difference of sensitive and
intellective appetite in man. But in the same way as regards man's
apprehension, we hold the difference of reason and intellect; both of
which were in Christ. Therefore there was a double will in Him, one
intellectual and the other rational.
Objection 3: Further, some [*Hugh of St. Victor, De Quat. Volunt.
Christ. ] ascribe to Christ "a will of piety," which can only be on the
part of reason. Therefore in Christ on the part of reason there are
several wills.
On the contrary, In every order there is one first mover. But the will
is the first mover in the genus of human acts. Therefore in one man
there is only one will, properly speaking, which is the will of reason.
But Christ is one man. Therefore in Christ there is only one human
will.
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3), the will is sometimes
taken for the power, and sometimes for the act. Hence if the will is
taken for the act, it is necessary to place two wills, i. e. two species
of acts of the will in Christ on the part of the reason. For the will,
as was said in the [4078]FS, Q[8], AA[2],3, regards both the end and
the means; and is affected differently towards both. For towards the
end it is borne simply and absolutely, as towards what is good in
itself; but towards the means it is borne under a certain relation, as
the goodness of the means depends on something else. Hence the act of
the will, inasmuch as it is drawn to anything desired of itself, as
health, which act is called by Damascene {thelesis}---i. e. simple will,
and by the masters "will as nature," is different from the act of the
will as it is drawn to anything that is desired only in order to
something else, as to take medicine; and this act of the will Damascene
calls {boulesis}---i. e. counseling will, and the masters, "will as
reason. " But this diversity of acts does not diversify the power, since
both acts regard the one common ratio of the object, which is goodness.
Hence we must say that if we are speaking of the power of the will, in
Christ there is but one human will, essentially so called and not by
participation; but if we are speaking of the will as an act, we thus
distinguish in Christ a will as nature, which is called {thelesis}, and
a will as reason, which is called {boulesis}.
Reply to Objection 1: These two wills do not diversify the power but
only the act, as we have said.
Reply to Objection 2: The intellect and the reason are not distinct
powers, as was said in the [4079]FP, Q[79], A[8].
Reply to Objection 3: The "will of piety" would not seem to be distinct
from the will considered as nature, inasmuch as it shrinks from
another's evil, absolutely considered.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was free-will in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no free-will. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that {gnome}, i. e. opinion,
thinking or cogitation, and {proairesis}, i. e. choice, "cannot possibly
be attributed to our Lord, if we wish to speak with propriety. " But in
the things of faith especially we must speak with propriety. Therefore
there was no choice in Christ and consequently no free-will, of which
choice is the act.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice
is "a desire of something after taking counsel. " Now counsel does not
appear to be in Christ, because we do not take counsel concerning such
things as we are certain of. But Christ was certain of everything.
Hence there was no counsel and consequently no free-will in Christ.
Objection 3: Further, free-will is indifferent. But Christ's will was
determined to good, since He could not sin; as stated above
([4080]Q[15], AA[1] ,2). Hence there was no free-will in Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 7:15): "He shall eat butter and
honey, that He may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good,"
which is an act of the free-will. Therefore there was free-will in
Christ.
I answer that, As was said above [4081](A[3]), there was a twofold act
of the will in Christ; one whereby He was drawn to anything willed in
itself, which implies the nature of an end; the other whereby His will
was drawn to anything willed on account of its being ordained to
another---which pertains to the nature of means. Now, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) choice differs from will in this, that
will of itself regards the end, while choice regards the means. And
thus simple will is the same as the "will as nature"; but choice is the
same as the "will as reason," and is the proper act of free-will, as
was said in the [4082]FP, Q[83], A[3]. Hence, since "will as reason" is
placed in Christ, we must also place choice, and consequently
free-will, whose act is choice, as was said in the [4083]FP, Q[83],
A[3]; [4084]FS, Q[13], A[1].
Reply to Objection 1: Damascene excludes choice from Christ, in so far
as he considers that doubt is implied in the word choice. Nevertheless
doubt is not necessary to choice, since it belongs even to God Himself
to choose, according to Eph. 1:4: "He chose us in Him before the
foundation of the world," although in God there is no doubt. Yet doubt
is accidental to choice when it is in an ignorant nature. We may also
say the same of whatever else is mentioned in the passage quoted.
Reply to Objection 2: Choice presupposes counsel; yet it follows
counsel only as determined by judgment. For what we judge to be done,
we choose, after the inquiry of counsel, as is stated (Ethic. iii,
2,3). Hence if anything is judged necessary to be done, without any
preceding doubt or inquiry, this suffices for choice. Therefore it is
plain that doubt or inquiry belong to choice not essentially, but only
when it is in an ignorant nature.
Reply to Objection 3: The will of Christ, though determined to good, is
not determined to this or that good. Hence it pertains to Christ, even
as to the blessed, to choose with a free-will confirmed in good.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human will of Christ was altogether conformed to the Divine will
in the thing willed?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human will in Christ did not will
anything except what God willed. For it is written (Ps. 39:9) in the
person of Christ: "That I should do Thy will: O my God, I have desired
it. " Now he who desires to do another's will, wills what the other
wills. Hence it seems that Christ's human will willed nothing but what
was willed by His Divine will.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's soul had most perfect charity, which,
indeed, surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge, according to
Eph. 3:19, "the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge. " Now
charity makes men will what God wills; hence the Philosopher says
(Ethic.
ix, 4) that one mark of friendship is "to will and choose the
same. " Therefore the human will in Christ willed nothing else than was
willed by His Divine will.
Objection 3: Further, Christ was a true comprehensor. But the Saints
who are comprehensors in heaven will only what God wills, otherwise
they would not be happy, because they would not obtain whatever they
will, for "blessed is he who has what he wills, and wills nothing
amiss," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5). Hence in His human will
Christ wills nothing else than does the Divine will.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "When Christ
says 'Not what I will, but what Thou wilt' He shows Himself to have
willed something else than did His Father; and this could only have
been by His human heart, since He did not transfigure our weakness into
His Divine but into His human will. "
I answer that, As was said ([4085]AA[2],3), in Christ according to His
human nature there is a twofold will, viz. the will of sensuality,
which is called will by participation, and the rational will, whether
considered after the manner of nature, or after the manner of reason.
Now it was said above (Q[13], A[3], ad 1; Q[14], A[1], ad 2) that by a
certain dispensation the Son of God before His Passion "allowed His
flesh to do and suffer what belonged to it. " And in like manner He
allowed all the powers of His soul to do what belonged to them. Now it
is clear that the will of sensuality naturally shrinks from sensible
pains and bodily hurt. In like manner, the will as nature turns from
what is against nature and what is evil in itself, as death and the
like; yet the will as reason may at time choose these things in
relation to an end, as in a mere man the sensuality and the will
absolutely considered shrink from burning, which, nevertheless, the
will as reason may choose for the sake of health. Now it was the will
of God that Christ should undergo pain, suffering, and death, not that
these of themselves were willed by God, but for the sake of man's
salvation. Hence it is plain that in His will of sensuality and in His
rational will considered as nature, Christ could will what God did not;
but in His will as reason He always willed the same as God, which
appears from what He says (Mat. 26:39): "Not as I will, but as Thou
wilt. " For He willed in His reason that the Divine will should be
fulfilled although He said that He willed something else by another
will.
Reply to Objection 1: By His rational will Christ willed the Divine
will to be fulfilled; but not by His will of sensuality, the movement
of which does not extend to the will of God---nor by His will
considered as nature which regards things absolutely considered and not
in relation to the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 2: The conformity of the human will to the Divine
regards the will of reason: according to which the wills even of
friends agree, inasmuch as reason considers something willed in its
relation to the will of a friend.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ was at once comprehensor and wayfarer,
inasmuch as He was enjoying God in His mind and had a passible body.
Hence things repugnant to His natural will and to His sensitive
appetite could happen to Him in His passible flesh.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was contrariety of wills in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was contrariety of wills in
Christ. For contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects, as
contrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini, as is
plain from the Philosopher (Phys. v, text. 49, seq. ). Now Christ in His
different wills wished contrary things. For in His Divine will He
wished for death, from which He shrank in His human will, hence
Athanasius says [*De Incarnat. et Cont. Arianos, written against
Apollinarius]: "When Christ says 'Father, if it be possible, let this
chalice pass from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done,' and again,
'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak,' He denotes two
wills---the human, which through the weakness of the flesh shrank from
the passion---and His Divine will eager for the passion. " Hence there
was contrariety of wills in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Gal. 5:17) that "the flesh lusteth
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. " Now when the
spirit desires one thing, and the flesh another, there is contrariety
of wills. But this was in Christ; for by the will of charity which the
Holy Spirit was causing in His mind, He willed the passion, according
to Is. 53:7: "He was offered because it was His own will," yet in His
flesh He shrank from the passion. Therefore there was contrariety of
wills in Him.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Lk. 22:43) that "being in an
agony, He prayed the longer. " Now agony seems to imply a certain
struggle [*Greek, {agonia}] in a soul drawn to contrary things. Hence
it seems that there was contrariety of will in Christ.
On the contrary, In the decisions of the Sixth Council [*Third Council
of Constantinople, Act. 18] it is said: "We confess two natural wills,
not in opposition, as evil-minded heretics assert, but following His
human will, and neither withstanding nor striving against, but rather
being subject to, His Divine and omnipotent will. "
I answer that, Contrariety can exist only where there is opposition in
the same and as regards the same. For if the diversity exists as
regards diverse things, and in diverse subjects, this would not suffice
for the nature of contrariety, nor even for the nature of
contradiction, e. g. if a man were well formed or healthy as regards his
hand, but not as regards his foot. Hence for there to be contrariety of
wills in anyone it is necessary, first, that the diversity of wills
should regard the same. For if the will of one regards the doing of
something with reference to some universal reason, and the will of
another regards the not doing the same with reference to some
particular reason, there is not complete contrariety of will, e. g. when
a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged for the good of the commonwealth,
and one of the latter's kindred wishes him not to be hanged on account
of a private love, there is no contrariety of wills; unless, indeed,
the desire of the private good went so far as to wish to hinder the
public good for the private good---in that case the opposition of wills
would regard the same.
Secondly, for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be in
the same will. For if a man wishes one thing with his rational
appetite, and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite, there
is no contrariety, unless the sensitive appetite so far prevailed as to
change or at least keep back the rational appetite; for in this case
something of the contrary movement of the sensitive appetite would
reach the rational will.
And hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive
will in Christ wished what the Divine will did not wish, yet there was
no contrariety of wills in Him. First, because neither the natural will
nor the will of sensuality rejected the reason for which the Divine
will and the will of the human reason in Christ wished the passion. For
the absolute will of Christ wished the salvation of the human race,
although it did not pertain to it to will this for the sake of
something further; but the movement of sensuality could nowise extend
so far. Secondly, because neither the Divine will nor the will of
reason in Christ was impeded or retarded by the natural will or the
appetite of sensuality. So, too, on the other hand, neither the Divine
will nor the will of reason in Christ shrank from or retarded the
movement of the natural human will and the movement of the sensuality
in Christ. For it pleased Christ, in His Divine will, and in His will
of reason, that His natural will and will of sensuality should be moved
according to the order of their nature. Hence it is clear that in
Christ there was no opposition or contrariety of wills.
Reply to Objection 1: The fact of any will in Christ willing something
else than did the Divine will, proceeded from the Divine will, by whose
permission the human nature in Christ was moved by its proper
movements, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15,18,19).
Reply to Objection 2: In us the desires of the spirit are impeded or
retarded by the desires of the flesh: this did not occur in Christ.
Hence in Christ there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit, as in us.
Reply to Objection 3: The agony in Christ was not in the rational soul,
in as far as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity
of motives, as when anyone, on his reason considering one, wishes one
thing, and on its considering another, wishes the contrary. For this
springs from the weakness of the reason, which is unable to judge which
is the best simply. Now this did not occur in Christ, since by His
reason He judged it best that the Divine will regarding the salvation
of the human race should be fulfilled by His passion. Nevertheless,
there was an agony in Christ as regards the sensitive part, inasmuch as
it implied a dread of coming trial, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth.
ii, 15; iii, 18,23).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S OPERATION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this
head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the
Godhead and Manhood?
(2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human
nature?
(3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for Himself?
(4) Whether He merited anything for us by it?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and Manhood?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there is but one operation of
the Godhead and the Manhood. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "The
most loving operation of God is made manifest to us by the
supersubstantial Word having taken flesh integrally and truly, and
having operated and suffered whatsoever befits His human and Divine
operation. " But he here mentions only one human and Divine operation,
which is written in Greek {theandrike}, i. e. God-manlike. Hence it
seems that there is but one composite operation in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, there is but one operation of the principal and
instrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the instrument
of the Divine, as was said above ([4086]Q[7], A[1], ad 3;[4087] Q[8],
A[1], ad 1;[4088] Q[18], A[1], ad 2). Hence the operations of the
Divine and human natures in Christ are the same.
Objection 3: Further, since in Christ there are two natures in one
hypostasis or person, whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person is
one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypostasis or person,
for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates; hence, according
to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to singulars. Hence in
Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and the Manhood.
Objection 4: Further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis, so
also does operation. But on account of the unity of hypostasis there is
only one operation of the Godhead and the ([4089]Q[17], A[2]). Hence,
on account of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ.
Objection 5: Further, as being belongs to a sub-operated there is one
operation. But the same thing was operated by the Godhead and the
Manhood, as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead. Hence
it seems that in Christ there is but one operation of the Godhead and
the Manhood.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 8): "How can the same
operation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate as
the greater? And can there be one operation where there are different
substances? "
I answer that, As was said above ([4090]Q[18], A[1]), the aforesaid
heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in Christ.
Now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion, we must bear
in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents, the
inferior is moved by the superior, as in man the body is moved by the
soul and the lower powers by the reason. And thus the actions and
movements of the inferior principle are things operated rather than
operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the
operation; thus we say of man that to walk, which belongs to the feet,
and to touch, which belongs to the hand, are things operated by the
man---one of which is operated by the soul through the feet, the other
through the hands. And because it is the same soul that operates in
both cases, there is only one indifferent operation, on the part of the
thing operating, which is the first moving principle; but difference is
found on the part of what is operated. Now, as in a mere man the body
is moved by the soul, and the sensitive by the rational appetite, so in
the Lord Jesus Christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the
Divine. Hence they said that there is one indifferent operation on the
part of the Godhead operating, but divers things operated, inasmuch as
the Godhead of Christ did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things
by the word of His power---and another thing by His human nature, as to
walk in body. Hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of
Constantinople, Act. 10] quotes the words of Severus the heretic, who
said: "What things were done and wrought by the one Christ, differ
greatly; for some are becoming to God, and some are human, as to walk
bodily on the earth is indeed human, but to give hale steps to sickly
limbs, wholly unable to walk on the ground, is becoming to God. Yet
one, i. e. the Incarnate Word, wrought one and the other---neither was
this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm
that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two
operating natures and forms. "
But herein they were deceived, for what is moved by another has a
twofold action---one which it has from its own form---the other, which
it has inasmuch as it is moved by another; thus the operation of an axe
of itself is to cleave; but inasmuch as it is moved by the craftsman,
its operation is to make benches. Hence the operation which belongs to
a thing by its form is proper to it, nor does it belong to the mover,
except in so far as he makes use of this kind of thing for his work:
thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but not of a smith,
except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating iron. But the
operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by another, is not
distinct from the operation of the mover; thus to make a bench is not
the work of the axe independently of the workman. Hence, wheresoever
the mover and the moved have different forms or operative faculties,
there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the
moved be distinct; although the moved shares in the operation of the
mover, and the mover makes use of the operation of the moved, and,
consequently, each acts in communion with the other.
Therefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power
whereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human nature has its
proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely.
Nevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the operation of the human
nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same way the
human nature shares in the operation of the Divine Nature, as an
instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent. And this is
what Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flavian. xxviii): "Both forms" (i. e. both
the Divine and the human nature in Christ) "do what is proper to each
in union with the other, i. e. the Word operates what belongs to the
Word, and the flesh carries out what belongs to flesh. "
But if there were only one operation of the Godhead and manhood in
Christ, it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had
not its proper form and power (for this could not possibly be said of
the Divine), whence it would follow that in Christ there was only the
Divine operation; or it would be necessary to say that from the Divine
and human power there was made up one power. Now both of these are
impossible. For by the first the human nature in Christ is supposed to
be imperfect; and by the second a confusion of the natures is supposed.
Hence it is with reason that the Sixth Council (Act. 18) condemned this
opinion, and decreed as follows: "We confess two natural, indivisible,
unconvertible, unconfused, and inseparable operations in the same Lord
Jesus Christ our true God"; i. e. the Divine operation and the human
operation.
Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius places in Christ a theandric, i. e. a
God-manlike or Divino-human, operation not by any confusion of the
operations or powers of both natures, but inasmuch as His Divine
operation employs the human, and His human operation shares in the
power of the Divine. Hence, as he says in a certain epistle (Ad Caium
iv), "what is of man He works beyond man; and this is shown by the
Virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing up
the weight of bodily feet. " Now it is clear that to be begotten belongs
to human nature, and likewise to walk; yet both were in Christ
supernaturally. So, too, He wrought Divine things humanly, as when He
healed the leper with a touch. Hence in the same epistle he adds: "He
performed Divine works not as God does, and human works not as man
does, but, God having been made man, by a new operation of God and
man. "
Now, that he understood two operations in Christ, one of the Divine and
the other of the human nature, is clear from what he says, Div. Nom.
ii: "Whatever pertains to His human operation the Father and the Holy
Ghost no-wise share in, except, as one might say, by their most
gracious and merciful will," i. e. inasmuch as the Father and the Holy
Ghost in their mercy wished Christ to do and to suffer human things.
And he adds: "He is truly the unchangeable God, and God's Word by the
sublime and unspeakable operation of God, which, being made man for us,
He wrought. " Hence it is clear that the human operation, in which the
Father and the Holy Ghost do not share, except by Their merciful
consent, is distinct from His operation, as the Word of God, wherein
the Father and the Holy Ghost share.
Reply to Objection 2: The instrument is said to act through being moved
by the principal agent; and yet, besides this, it can have its proper
operation through its own form, as stated above of fire. And hence the
action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the action
of the principal agent; yet it may have another operation, inasmuch as
it is a thing. Hence the operation of Christ's human nature, as the
instrument of the Godhead, is not distinct from the operation of the
Godhead; for the salvation wherewith the manhood of Christ saves us and
that wherewith His Godhead saves us are not distinct; nevertheless, the
human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it is a certain nature, has a
proper operation distinct from the Divine, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: To operate belongs to a subsisting hypostasis; in
accordance, however, with the form and nature from which the operation
receives its species. Hence from the diversity of forms or natures
spring the divers species of operations, but from the unity of
hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of the
species: thus fire has two operations specifically different, namely,
to illuminate and to heat, from the difference of light and heat, and
yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one and the same
time is numerically one. So, likewise, in Christ there are necessarily
two specifically different operations by reason of His two natures;
nevertheless, each of the operations at one and the same time is
numerically one, as one walking and one healing.
Reply to Objection 4: Being and operation belong to the person by
reason of the nature; yet in a different manner. For being belongs to
the very constitution of the person, and in this respect it has the
nature of a term; consequently, unity of person requires unity of the
complete and personal being. But operation is an effect of the person
by reason of a form or nature. Hence plurality of operations is not
incompatible with personal unity.
Reply to Objection 5: The proper work of the Divine operation is
different from the proper work of the human operation. Thus to heal a
leper is a proper work of the Divine operation, but to touch him is the
proper work of the human operation. Now both these operations concur in
one work, inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there are several human operations?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are several human
operations. For Christ as man communicates with plants by His nutritive
soul, with the brutes by His sensitive soul, and with the angels by His
intellective soul, even as other men do. Now the operations of a plant
as plant and of an animal as animal are different. Therefore Christ as
man has several operations.
Objection 2: Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their
acts. Now in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits;
therefore also divers operations.
Objection 3: Further, instruments ought to be proportioned to their
operations. Now the human body has divers members of different form,
and consequently fitted to divers operations. Therefore in Christ there
are divers operations in the human nature.
On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), "operation
is consequent upon the nature. " But in Christ there is only one human
nature. Therefore in Christ there is only one human operation.
I answer that, Since it is by his reason that man is what he is; that
operation is called human simply, which proceeds from the reason
through the will, which is the rational appetite. Now if there is any
operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will,
it is not simply a human operation, but belongs to man by reason of
some part of human nature---sometimes by reason of the nature of
elementary bodies, as to be borne downwards---sometimes by reason of
the force of the vegetative soul, as to be nourished, and to
grow---sometimes by reason of the sensitive part, as to see and hear,
to imagine and remember, to desire and to be angry. Now between these
operations there is a difference. For the operations of the sensitive
soul are to some extent obedient to reason, and consequently they are
somewhat rational and human inasmuch as they obey reason, as is clear
from the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). But the operations that spring
from the vegetative soul, or from the nature of elemental bodies, are
not subject to reason; consequently they are nowise rational; nor
simply human, but only as regards a part of human nature. Now it was
said [4091](A[1]) that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form,
the operations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct;
but when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent,
then the operation of the superior and the inferior agent is one.
And hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of
the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation, which is
properly human; so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul
inasmuch as it is not moved by reason; but inasmuch as it is moved by
reason, the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the
same. Now there is but one operation of the rational part if we
consider the principle of the operation, which is the reason and the
will; but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to
various objects. And there were some who called this a diversity of
things operated rather than of operations, judging the unity of the
operation solely from the operative principle. And it is in this
respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of
operations in Christ.
Hence in every mere man there is but one operation, which is properly
called human; but besides this there are in a mere man certain other
operations, which are not strictly human, as was said above. But in the
Man Jesus Christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which was
not ordered by reason. Even the natural and bodily operations pertained
in some respects to His will, inasmuch as it was His will "that His
flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it," as stated above
([4092]Q[18], A[5]). Much more, therefore, is there one operation in
Christ, than in any other man whatsoever.
Reply to Objection 1: The operations of the sensitive and nutritive
parts are not strictly human, as stated above; yet in Christ these
operations were more human than in others.
Reply to Objection 2: Powers and habits are diversified by comparison
with their objects. Hence in this way the diversity of operations
corresponds to the divers powers and habits, as likewise to the divers
objects. Now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations
from Christ's humanity, nor that which springs from a diversity of
time, but only that which regards the first active principle, as was
said above.
(St. Thomas gives no reply to OBJ[3]; some codices add: Hence may be
gathered the reply to the third objection. )
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human action of Christ could be meritorious to Him?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human action of Christ could not be
meritorious to Him. For before His death Christ was a comprehensor even
as He is now. But comprehensors do not merit: because the charity of
the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beatitude, since fruition
depends upon it. 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.
inasmuch as he would be said to be, not only with reference to what he
had previously, but also with reference to what accrued to him
afterwards. And thus, since the human nature is united to the Son of
God, hypostatically or personally as was said above ([4067]Q[2],
AA[5],6), and not accidentally, it follows that by the human nature
there accrued to Him no new personal being, but only a new relation of
the pre-existing personal being to the human nature, in such a way that
the Person is said to subsist not merely in the Divine, but also in the
human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: Being is consequent upon nature, not as upon that
which has being, but as upon that whereby a thing is: whereas it is
consequent upon person or hypostasis, as upon that which has being.
Hence it has unity from the unity of hypostasis, rather than duality
from the duality of the nature.
Reply to Objection 2: The eternal being of the Son of God, which is the
Divine Nature, becomes the being of man, inasmuch as the human nature
is assumed by the Son of God to unity of Person.
Reply to Objection 3: As was said in the [4068]FP, Q[50], A[2], ad 3;
[4069]FP, Q[75], A[5], ad 4, since the Divine Person is the same as the
Nature, there is no distinction in the Divine Persons between the being
of the Person and the being of the Nature, and, consequently, the three
Persons have only one being. But they would have a triple being if the
being of the Person were distinct in them from the being of the Nature.
Reply to Objection 4: In Christ the soul gives being to the body,
inasmuch as it makes it actually animated, which is to give it the
complement of its nature and species. But if we consider the body
perfected by the soul, without the hypostasis having both---this whole,
composed of soul and body, as signified by the word "humanity," does
not signify "what is," but "whereby it is. " Hence being belongs to the
subsisting person, inasmuch as it has a relation to such a nature, and
of this relation the soul is the cause, inasmuch as it perfects human
nature by informing the body.
__________________________________________________________________
OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF WILL (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider unity as regards the will; and under this head
there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the Divine will and the human are distinct in Christ?
(2) Whether in Christ's human nature the will of sensuality is distinct
from the will of reason?
(3) Whether as regards the reason there were several wills in Christ?
(4) Whether there was free-will in Christ?
(5) Whether Christ's human will was always conformed to the Divine will
in the thing willed?
(6) Whether there was any contrariety of wills in Christ?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are two wills in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are not two wills, one
Divine, the other human. For the will is the first mover and first
commander in whoever wills. But in Christ the first mover and commander
was the Divine will, since in Christ everything human was moved by the
Divine will. Hence it seems that in Christ there was only one will,
viz. the Divine.
Objection 2: Further, an instrument is not moved by its own will but by
the will of its mover. Now the human nature of Christ was the
instrument of His Godhead. Hence the human nature of Christ was not
moved by its own will, but by the Divine will.
Objection 3: Further, that alone is multiplied in Christ which belongs
to the nature. But the will does not seem to pertain to nature: for
natural things are of necessity; whereas what is voluntary is not of
necessity. Therefore there is but one will in Christ.
Objection 4: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that "to
will in this or that way belongs not to our nature but to our
intellect," i. e. our personal intellect. But every will is this or that
will, since there is nothing in a genus which is not at the same time
in some one of its species. Therefore all will belongs to the person.
But in Christ there was and is but one person. Therefore in Christ
there is only one will.
On the contrary, our Lord says (Lk. 22:42): "Father, if Thou wilt,
remove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done. "
And Ambrose, quoting this to the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7) says:
"As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;" and on Lk. 22:42 he
says: "His will, He refers to the Man---the Father's, to the Godhead.
For the will of man is temporal, and the will of the Godhead eternal. "
I answer that, Some placed only one will in Christ; but they seem to
have had different motives for holding this. For Apollinaris did not
hold an intellectual soul in Christ, but maintained that the Word was
in place of the soul, or even in place of the intellect. Hence since
"the will is in the reason," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 9),
it followed that in Christ there was no human will; and thus there was
only one will in Him. So, too, Eutyches and all who held one composite
nature in Christ were forced to place one will in Him. Nestorius, too,
who maintained that the union of God and man was one of affection and
will, held only one will in Christ. But later on, Macarius, Patriarch
of Antioch, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius of Constantinople and some
of their followers, held that there is one will in Christ, although
they held that in Christ there are two natures united in a hypostasis;
because they believed that Christ's human nature never moved with its
own motion, but only inasmuch as it was moved by the Godhead, as is
plain from the synodical letter of Pope Agatho [*Third Council of
Constantinople, Act. 4].
And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [*Act. 18] it was
decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, in the
following passage: "In accordance with what the Prophets of old taught
us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the Symbol of
the Holy Fathers has handed down to us, we confess two natural wills in
Him and two natural operations. " And this much it was necessary to say.
For it is manifest that the Son of God assumed a perfect human nature,
as was shown above (Q[5]; Q[9], A[1]). Now the will pertains to the
perfection of human nature, being one of its natural powers, even as
the intellect, as was stated in the FP, QQ[79],80. Hence we must say
that the Son of God assumed a human will, together with human nature.
Now by the assumption of human nature the Son of God suffered no
diminution of what pertains to His Divine Nature, to which it belongs
to have a will, as was said in the [4070]FP, Q[19], A[1]. Hence it must
be said that there are two wills in Christ, i. e. one human, the other
Divine.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatever was in the human nature of Christ was
moved at the bidding of the Divine will; yet it does not follow that in
Christ there was no movement of the will proper to human nature, for
the good wills of other saints are moved by God's will, "Who worketh"
in them "both to will and to accomplish," as is written Phil. 2:13. For
although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it can
be moved inwardly by God, as was said in the [4071]FP, Q[105], A[4].
And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine will
according to Ps. 39:9; "That I should do Thy will, O my God, I have
desired it. " Hence Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "Where the
Son says to the Father, 'Not what I will, but what Thou willest,' what
do you gain by adding your own words and saying 'He shows that His will
was truly subject to His Father,' as if we denied that man's will ought
to be subject to God's will? "
Reply to Objection 2: It is proper to an instrument to be moved by the
principal agent, yet diversely, according to the property of its
nature. For an inanimate instrument, as an axe or a saw, is moved by
the craftsman with only a corporeal movement; but an instrument
animated by a sensitive soul is moved by the sensitive appetite, as a
horse by its rider; and an instrument animated with a rational soul is
moved by its will, as by the command of his lord the servant is moved
to act, the servant being like an animate instrument, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2,4; Ethic. viii, 11). And hence it was in
this manner that the human nature of Christ was the instrument of the
Godhead, and was moved by its own will.
Reply to Objection 3: The power of the will is natural, and necessarily
follows upon the nature; but the movement or act of this power---which
is also called will---is sometimes natural and necessary, e. g. with
respect to beatitude; and sometimes springs from free-will and is
neither necessary nor natural, as is plain from what has been stated in
the [4072]FS, Q[10], AA[1],[2] [*Cf. [4073]FP, Q[82], A[2]]. And yet
even reason itself, which is the principle of this movement, is
natural. Hence besides the Divine will it is necessary to place in
Christ a human will, not merely as a natural power, or a natural
movement, but even as a rational movement.
Reply to Objection 4: When we say "to will in a certain way," we
signify a determinate mode of willing. Now a determinate mode regards
the thing of which it is the mode. Hence since the will pertains to the
nature, "to will in a certain way" belongs to the nature, not indeed
considered absolutely, but as it is in the hypostasis. Hence the human
will of Christ had a determinate mode from the fact of being in a
Divine hypostasis, i. e. it was always moved in accordance with the
bidding of the Divine will.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was a will of sensuality besides the will of reason?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no will of
sensuality besides the will of reason. For the Philosopher says (De
Anima iii, text. 42) that "the will is in the reason, and in the
sensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts. " Now
sensuality signifies the sensitive appetite. Hence in Christ there was
no will of sensuality.
Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12,13) the
sensuality is signified by the serpent. But there was nothing
serpent-like in Christ; for He had the likeness of a venomous animal
without the venom, as Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i,
32). Hence in Christ there was no will of sensuality.
Objection 3: Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said
[4074](A[1]). But in Christ there was only one nature besides the
Divine. Hence in Christ there was only one human will.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 7): "Mine is the will which
He calls His own; because as Man He assumed my sorrow. " From this we
are given to understand that sorrow pertains to the human will of
Christ. Now sorrow pertains to the sensuality, as was said in the
[4075]FS, Q[23], A[1]; [4076]FS, Q[25], A[1]. Therefore, seemingly, in
Christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will of reason.
I answer that, As was said ([4077]Q[9], A[1]), the Son of God assumed
human nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of
human nature. Now in human nature is included animal nature, as the
genus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have assumed together
with the human nature whatever belongs to animal nature; one of which
things is the sensitive appetite, which is called the sensuality.
Consequently it must be allowed that in Christ there was a sensual
appetite, or sensuality. But it must be borne in mind that sensuality
or the sensual appetite, inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason, is said
to be "rational by participation," as is clear from the Philosopher
(Ethic. i, 13). And because "the will is in the reason," as stated
above, it may equally be said that the sensuality is "a will by
participation. "
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the will, essentially
so called, which is only in the intellectual part; but the will by
participation can be in the sensitive part, inasmuch as it obeys
reason.
Reply to Objection 2: The sensuality is signified by the serpent---not
as regards the nature of the sensuality, which Christ assumed, but as
regards the corruption of the "fomes," which was not in Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: "Where there is one thing on account of another,
there seems to be only one" (Aristotle, Topic. iii); thus a surface
which is visible by color is one visible thing with the color. So, too,
because the sensuality is called the will, only because it partakes of
the rational will, there is said to be but one human will in Christ,
even as there is but one human nature.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were two wills as regards the reason?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were two wills as
regards the reason. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that
there is a double will in man, viz. the natural will which is called
{thelesis}, and the rational will which is called {boulesis}. Now
Christ in His human nature had whatever belongs to the perfection of
human nature. Hence both the foregoing wills were in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, the appetitive power is diversified in man by the
difference of the apprehensive power, and hence according to the
difference of sense and intellect is the difference of sensitive and
intellective appetite in man. But in the same way as regards man's
apprehension, we hold the difference of reason and intellect; both of
which were in Christ. Therefore there was a double will in Him, one
intellectual and the other rational.
Objection 3: Further, some [*Hugh of St. Victor, De Quat. Volunt.
Christ. ] ascribe to Christ "a will of piety," which can only be on the
part of reason. Therefore in Christ on the part of reason there are
several wills.
On the contrary, In every order there is one first mover. But the will
is the first mover in the genus of human acts. Therefore in one man
there is only one will, properly speaking, which is the will of reason.
But Christ is one man. Therefore in Christ there is only one human
will.
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3), the will is sometimes
taken for the power, and sometimes for the act. Hence if the will is
taken for the act, it is necessary to place two wills, i. e. two species
of acts of the will in Christ on the part of the reason. For the will,
as was said in the [4078]FS, Q[8], AA[2],3, regards both the end and
the means; and is affected differently towards both. For towards the
end it is borne simply and absolutely, as towards what is good in
itself; but towards the means it is borne under a certain relation, as
the goodness of the means depends on something else. Hence the act of
the will, inasmuch as it is drawn to anything desired of itself, as
health, which act is called by Damascene {thelesis}---i. e. simple will,
and by the masters "will as nature," is different from the act of the
will as it is drawn to anything that is desired only in order to
something else, as to take medicine; and this act of the will Damascene
calls {boulesis}---i. e. counseling will, and the masters, "will as
reason. " But this diversity of acts does not diversify the power, since
both acts regard the one common ratio of the object, which is goodness.
Hence we must say that if we are speaking of the power of the will, in
Christ there is but one human will, essentially so called and not by
participation; but if we are speaking of the will as an act, we thus
distinguish in Christ a will as nature, which is called {thelesis}, and
a will as reason, which is called {boulesis}.
Reply to Objection 1: These two wills do not diversify the power but
only the act, as we have said.
Reply to Objection 2: The intellect and the reason are not distinct
powers, as was said in the [4079]FP, Q[79], A[8].
Reply to Objection 3: The "will of piety" would not seem to be distinct
from the will considered as nature, inasmuch as it shrinks from
another's evil, absolutely considered.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was free-will in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no free-will. For
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that {gnome}, i. e. opinion,
thinking or cogitation, and {proairesis}, i. e. choice, "cannot possibly
be attributed to our Lord, if we wish to speak with propriety. " But in
the things of faith especially we must speak with propriety. Therefore
there was no choice in Christ and consequently no free-will, of which
choice is the act.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice
is "a desire of something after taking counsel. " Now counsel does not
appear to be in Christ, because we do not take counsel concerning such
things as we are certain of. But Christ was certain of everything.
Hence there was no counsel and consequently no free-will in Christ.
Objection 3: Further, free-will is indifferent. But Christ's will was
determined to good, since He could not sin; as stated above
([4080]Q[15], AA[1] ,2). Hence there was no free-will in Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 7:15): "He shall eat butter and
honey, that He may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good,"
which is an act of the free-will. Therefore there was free-will in
Christ.
I answer that, As was said above [4081](A[3]), there was a twofold act
of the will in Christ; one whereby He was drawn to anything willed in
itself, which implies the nature of an end; the other whereby His will
was drawn to anything willed on account of its being ordained to
another---which pertains to the nature of means. Now, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) choice differs from will in this, that
will of itself regards the end, while choice regards the means. And
thus simple will is the same as the "will as nature"; but choice is the
same as the "will as reason," and is the proper act of free-will, as
was said in the [4082]FP, Q[83], A[3]. Hence, since "will as reason" is
placed in Christ, we must also place choice, and consequently
free-will, whose act is choice, as was said in the [4083]FP, Q[83],
A[3]; [4084]FS, Q[13], A[1].
Reply to Objection 1: Damascene excludes choice from Christ, in so far
as he considers that doubt is implied in the word choice. Nevertheless
doubt is not necessary to choice, since it belongs even to God Himself
to choose, according to Eph. 1:4: "He chose us in Him before the
foundation of the world," although in God there is no doubt. Yet doubt
is accidental to choice when it is in an ignorant nature. We may also
say the same of whatever else is mentioned in the passage quoted.
Reply to Objection 2: Choice presupposes counsel; yet it follows
counsel only as determined by judgment. For what we judge to be done,
we choose, after the inquiry of counsel, as is stated (Ethic. iii,
2,3). Hence if anything is judged necessary to be done, without any
preceding doubt or inquiry, this suffices for choice. Therefore it is
plain that doubt or inquiry belong to choice not essentially, but only
when it is in an ignorant nature.
Reply to Objection 3: The will of Christ, though determined to good, is
not determined to this or that good. Hence it pertains to Christ, even
as to the blessed, to choose with a free-will confirmed in good.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human will of Christ was altogether conformed to the Divine will
in the thing willed?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human will in Christ did not will
anything except what God willed. For it is written (Ps. 39:9) in the
person of Christ: "That I should do Thy will: O my God, I have desired
it. " Now he who desires to do another's will, wills what the other
wills. Hence it seems that Christ's human will willed nothing but what
was willed by His Divine will.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's soul had most perfect charity, which,
indeed, surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge, according to
Eph. 3:19, "the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge. " Now
charity makes men will what God wills; hence the Philosopher says
(Ethic.
ix, 4) that one mark of friendship is "to will and choose the
same. " Therefore the human will in Christ willed nothing else than was
willed by His Divine will.
Objection 3: Further, Christ was a true comprehensor. But the Saints
who are comprehensors in heaven will only what God wills, otherwise
they would not be happy, because they would not obtain whatever they
will, for "blessed is he who has what he wills, and wills nothing
amiss," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5). Hence in His human will
Christ wills nothing else than does the Divine will.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "When Christ
says 'Not what I will, but what Thou wilt' He shows Himself to have
willed something else than did His Father; and this could only have
been by His human heart, since He did not transfigure our weakness into
His Divine but into His human will. "
I answer that, As was said ([4085]AA[2],3), in Christ according to His
human nature there is a twofold will, viz. the will of sensuality,
which is called will by participation, and the rational will, whether
considered after the manner of nature, or after the manner of reason.
Now it was said above (Q[13], A[3], ad 1; Q[14], A[1], ad 2) that by a
certain dispensation the Son of God before His Passion "allowed His
flesh to do and suffer what belonged to it. " And in like manner He
allowed all the powers of His soul to do what belonged to them. Now it
is clear that the will of sensuality naturally shrinks from sensible
pains and bodily hurt. In like manner, the will as nature turns from
what is against nature and what is evil in itself, as death and the
like; yet the will as reason may at time choose these things in
relation to an end, as in a mere man the sensuality and the will
absolutely considered shrink from burning, which, nevertheless, the
will as reason may choose for the sake of health. Now it was the will
of God that Christ should undergo pain, suffering, and death, not that
these of themselves were willed by God, but for the sake of man's
salvation. Hence it is plain that in His will of sensuality and in His
rational will considered as nature, Christ could will what God did not;
but in His will as reason He always willed the same as God, which
appears from what He says (Mat. 26:39): "Not as I will, but as Thou
wilt. " For He willed in His reason that the Divine will should be
fulfilled although He said that He willed something else by another
will.
Reply to Objection 1: By His rational will Christ willed the Divine
will to be fulfilled; but not by His will of sensuality, the movement
of which does not extend to the will of God---nor by His will
considered as nature which regards things absolutely considered and not
in relation to the Divine will.
Reply to Objection 2: The conformity of the human will to the Divine
regards the will of reason: according to which the wills even of
friends agree, inasmuch as reason considers something willed in its
relation to the will of a friend.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ was at once comprehensor and wayfarer,
inasmuch as He was enjoying God in His mind and had a passible body.
Hence things repugnant to His natural will and to His sensitive
appetite could happen to Him in His passible flesh.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was contrariety of wills in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was contrariety of wills in
Christ. For contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects, as
contrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini, as is
plain from the Philosopher (Phys. v, text. 49, seq. ). Now Christ in His
different wills wished contrary things. For in His Divine will He
wished for death, from which He shrank in His human will, hence
Athanasius says [*De Incarnat. et Cont. Arianos, written against
Apollinarius]: "When Christ says 'Father, if it be possible, let this
chalice pass from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done,' and again,
'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak,' He denotes two
wills---the human, which through the weakness of the flesh shrank from
the passion---and His Divine will eager for the passion. " Hence there
was contrariety of wills in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Gal. 5:17) that "the flesh lusteth
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. " Now when the
spirit desires one thing, and the flesh another, there is contrariety
of wills. But this was in Christ; for by the will of charity which the
Holy Spirit was causing in His mind, He willed the passion, according
to Is. 53:7: "He was offered because it was His own will," yet in His
flesh He shrank from the passion. Therefore there was contrariety of
wills in Him.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Lk. 22:43) that "being in an
agony, He prayed the longer. " Now agony seems to imply a certain
struggle [*Greek, {agonia}] in a soul drawn to contrary things. Hence
it seems that there was contrariety of will in Christ.
On the contrary, In the decisions of the Sixth Council [*Third Council
of Constantinople, Act. 18] it is said: "We confess two natural wills,
not in opposition, as evil-minded heretics assert, but following His
human will, and neither withstanding nor striving against, but rather
being subject to, His Divine and omnipotent will. "
I answer that, Contrariety can exist only where there is opposition in
the same and as regards the same. For if the diversity exists as
regards diverse things, and in diverse subjects, this would not suffice
for the nature of contrariety, nor even for the nature of
contradiction, e. g. if a man were well formed or healthy as regards his
hand, but not as regards his foot. Hence for there to be contrariety of
wills in anyone it is necessary, first, that the diversity of wills
should regard the same. For if the will of one regards the doing of
something with reference to some universal reason, and the will of
another regards the not doing the same with reference to some
particular reason, there is not complete contrariety of will, e. g. when
a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged for the good of the commonwealth,
and one of the latter's kindred wishes him not to be hanged on account
of a private love, there is no contrariety of wills; unless, indeed,
the desire of the private good went so far as to wish to hinder the
public good for the private good---in that case the opposition of wills
would regard the same.
Secondly, for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be in
the same will. For if a man wishes one thing with his rational
appetite, and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite, there
is no contrariety, unless the sensitive appetite so far prevailed as to
change or at least keep back the rational appetite; for in this case
something of the contrary movement of the sensitive appetite would
reach the rational will.
And hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive
will in Christ wished what the Divine will did not wish, yet there was
no contrariety of wills in Him. First, because neither the natural will
nor the will of sensuality rejected the reason for which the Divine
will and the will of the human reason in Christ wished the passion. For
the absolute will of Christ wished the salvation of the human race,
although it did not pertain to it to will this for the sake of
something further; but the movement of sensuality could nowise extend
so far. Secondly, because neither the Divine will nor the will of
reason in Christ was impeded or retarded by the natural will or the
appetite of sensuality. So, too, on the other hand, neither the Divine
will nor the will of reason in Christ shrank from or retarded the
movement of the natural human will and the movement of the sensuality
in Christ. For it pleased Christ, in His Divine will, and in His will
of reason, that His natural will and will of sensuality should be moved
according to the order of their nature. Hence it is clear that in
Christ there was no opposition or contrariety of wills.
Reply to Objection 1: The fact of any will in Christ willing something
else than did the Divine will, proceeded from the Divine will, by whose
permission the human nature in Christ was moved by its proper
movements, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15,18,19).
Reply to Objection 2: In us the desires of the spirit are impeded or
retarded by the desires of the flesh: this did not occur in Christ.
Hence in Christ there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit, as in us.
Reply to Objection 3: The agony in Christ was not in the rational soul,
in as far as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity
of motives, as when anyone, on his reason considering one, wishes one
thing, and on its considering another, wishes the contrary. For this
springs from the weakness of the reason, which is unable to judge which
is the best simply. Now this did not occur in Christ, since by His
reason He judged it best that the Divine will regarding the salvation
of the human race should be fulfilled by His passion. Nevertheless,
there was an agony in Christ as regards the sensitive part, inasmuch as
it implied a dread of coming trial, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth.
ii, 15; iii, 18,23).
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S OPERATION (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this
head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the
Godhead and Manhood?
(2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human
nature?
(3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for Himself?
(4) Whether He merited anything for us by it?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and Manhood?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there is but one operation of
the Godhead and the Manhood. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "The
most loving operation of God is made manifest to us by the
supersubstantial Word having taken flesh integrally and truly, and
having operated and suffered whatsoever befits His human and Divine
operation. " But he here mentions only one human and Divine operation,
which is written in Greek {theandrike}, i. e. God-manlike. Hence it
seems that there is but one composite operation in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, there is but one operation of the principal and
instrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the instrument
of the Divine, as was said above ([4086]Q[7], A[1], ad 3;[4087] Q[8],
A[1], ad 1;[4088] Q[18], A[1], ad 2). Hence the operations of the
Divine and human natures in Christ are the same.
Objection 3: Further, since in Christ there are two natures in one
hypostasis or person, whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person is
one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypostasis or person,
for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates; hence, according
to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to singulars. Hence in
Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and the Manhood.
Objection 4: Further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis, so
also does operation. But on account of the unity of hypostasis there is
only one operation of the Godhead and the ([4089]Q[17], A[2]). Hence,
on account of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ.
Objection 5: Further, as being belongs to a sub-operated there is one
operation. But the same thing was operated by the Godhead and the
Manhood, as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead. Hence
it seems that in Christ there is but one operation of the Godhead and
the Manhood.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 8): "How can the same
operation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate as
the greater? And can there be one operation where there are different
substances? "
I answer that, As was said above ([4090]Q[18], A[1]), the aforesaid
heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in Christ.
Now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion, we must bear
in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents, the
inferior is moved by the superior, as in man the body is moved by the
soul and the lower powers by the reason. And thus the actions and
movements of the inferior principle are things operated rather than
operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the
operation; thus we say of man that to walk, which belongs to the feet,
and to touch, which belongs to the hand, are things operated by the
man---one of which is operated by the soul through the feet, the other
through the hands. And because it is the same soul that operates in
both cases, there is only one indifferent operation, on the part of the
thing operating, which is the first moving principle; but difference is
found on the part of what is operated. Now, as in a mere man the body
is moved by the soul, and the sensitive by the rational appetite, so in
the Lord Jesus Christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the
Divine. Hence they said that there is one indifferent operation on the
part of the Godhead operating, but divers things operated, inasmuch as
the Godhead of Christ did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things
by the word of His power---and another thing by His human nature, as to
walk in body. Hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of
Constantinople, Act. 10] quotes the words of Severus the heretic, who
said: "What things were done and wrought by the one Christ, differ
greatly; for some are becoming to God, and some are human, as to walk
bodily on the earth is indeed human, but to give hale steps to sickly
limbs, wholly unable to walk on the ground, is becoming to God. Yet
one, i. e. the Incarnate Word, wrought one and the other---neither was
this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm
that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two
operating natures and forms. "
But herein they were deceived, for what is moved by another has a
twofold action---one which it has from its own form---the other, which
it has inasmuch as it is moved by another; thus the operation of an axe
of itself is to cleave; but inasmuch as it is moved by the craftsman,
its operation is to make benches. Hence the operation which belongs to
a thing by its form is proper to it, nor does it belong to the mover,
except in so far as he makes use of this kind of thing for his work:
thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but not of a smith,
except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating iron. But the
operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by another, is not
distinct from the operation of the mover; thus to make a bench is not
the work of the axe independently of the workman. Hence, wheresoever
the mover and the moved have different forms or operative faculties,
there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the
moved be distinct; although the moved shares in the operation of the
mover, and the mover makes use of the operation of the moved, and,
consequently, each acts in communion with the other.
Therefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power
whereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human nature has its
proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely.
Nevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the operation of the human
nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same way the
human nature shares in the operation of the Divine Nature, as an
instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent. And this is
what Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flavian. xxviii): "Both forms" (i. e. both
the Divine and the human nature in Christ) "do what is proper to each
in union with the other, i. e. the Word operates what belongs to the
Word, and the flesh carries out what belongs to flesh. "
But if there were only one operation of the Godhead and manhood in
Christ, it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had
not its proper form and power (for this could not possibly be said of
the Divine), whence it would follow that in Christ there was only the
Divine operation; or it would be necessary to say that from the Divine
and human power there was made up one power. Now both of these are
impossible. For by the first the human nature in Christ is supposed to
be imperfect; and by the second a confusion of the natures is supposed.
Hence it is with reason that the Sixth Council (Act. 18) condemned this
opinion, and decreed as follows: "We confess two natural, indivisible,
unconvertible, unconfused, and inseparable operations in the same Lord
Jesus Christ our true God"; i. e. the Divine operation and the human
operation.
Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius places in Christ a theandric, i. e. a
God-manlike or Divino-human, operation not by any confusion of the
operations or powers of both natures, but inasmuch as His Divine
operation employs the human, and His human operation shares in the
power of the Divine. Hence, as he says in a certain epistle (Ad Caium
iv), "what is of man He works beyond man; and this is shown by the
Virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing up
the weight of bodily feet. " Now it is clear that to be begotten belongs
to human nature, and likewise to walk; yet both were in Christ
supernaturally. So, too, He wrought Divine things humanly, as when He
healed the leper with a touch. Hence in the same epistle he adds: "He
performed Divine works not as God does, and human works not as man
does, but, God having been made man, by a new operation of God and
man. "
Now, that he understood two operations in Christ, one of the Divine and
the other of the human nature, is clear from what he says, Div. Nom.
ii: "Whatever pertains to His human operation the Father and the Holy
Ghost no-wise share in, except, as one might say, by their most
gracious and merciful will," i. e. inasmuch as the Father and the Holy
Ghost in their mercy wished Christ to do and to suffer human things.
And he adds: "He is truly the unchangeable God, and God's Word by the
sublime and unspeakable operation of God, which, being made man for us,
He wrought. " Hence it is clear that the human operation, in which the
Father and the Holy Ghost do not share, except by Their merciful
consent, is distinct from His operation, as the Word of God, wherein
the Father and the Holy Ghost share.
Reply to Objection 2: The instrument is said to act through being moved
by the principal agent; and yet, besides this, it can have its proper
operation through its own form, as stated above of fire. And hence the
action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the action
of the principal agent; yet it may have another operation, inasmuch as
it is a thing. Hence the operation of Christ's human nature, as the
instrument of the Godhead, is not distinct from the operation of the
Godhead; for the salvation wherewith the manhood of Christ saves us and
that wherewith His Godhead saves us are not distinct; nevertheless, the
human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it is a certain nature, has a
proper operation distinct from the Divine, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: To operate belongs to a subsisting hypostasis; in
accordance, however, with the form and nature from which the operation
receives its species. Hence from the diversity of forms or natures
spring the divers species of operations, but from the unity of
hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of the
species: thus fire has two operations specifically different, namely,
to illuminate and to heat, from the difference of light and heat, and
yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one and the same
time is numerically one. So, likewise, in Christ there are necessarily
two specifically different operations by reason of His two natures;
nevertheless, each of the operations at one and the same time is
numerically one, as one walking and one healing.
Reply to Objection 4: Being and operation belong to the person by
reason of the nature; yet in a different manner. For being belongs to
the very constitution of the person, and in this respect it has the
nature of a term; consequently, unity of person requires unity of the
complete and personal being. But operation is an effect of the person
by reason of a form or nature. Hence plurality of operations is not
incompatible with personal unity.
Reply to Objection 5: The proper work of the Divine operation is
different from the proper work of the human operation. Thus to heal a
leper is a proper work of the Divine operation, but to touch him is the
proper work of the human operation. Now both these operations concur in
one work, inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there are several human operations?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are several human
operations. For Christ as man communicates with plants by His nutritive
soul, with the brutes by His sensitive soul, and with the angels by His
intellective soul, even as other men do. Now the operations of a plant
as plant and of an animal as animal are different. Therefore Christ as
man has several operations.
Objection 2: Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their
acts. Now in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits;
therefore also divers operations.
Objection 3: Further, instruments ought to be proportioned to their
operations. Now the human body has divers members of different form,
and consequently fitted to divers operations. Therefore in Christ there
are divers operations in the human nature.
On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), "operation
is consequent upon the nature. " But in Christ there is only one human
nature. Therefore in Christ there is only one human operation.
I answer that, Since it is by his reason that man is what he is; that
operation is called human simply, which proceeds from the reason
through the will, which is the rational appetite. Now if there is any
operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will,
it is not simply a human operation, but belongs to man by reason of
some part of human nature---sometimes by reason of the nature of
elementary bodies, as to be borne downwards---sometimes by reason of
the force of the vegetative soul, as to be nourished, and to
grow---sometimes by reason of the sensitive part, as to see and hear,
to imagine and remember, to desire and to be angry. Now between these
operations there is a difference. For the operations of the sensitive
soul are to some extent obedient to reason, and consequently they are
somewhat rational and human inasmuch as they obey reason, as is clear
from the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). But the operations that spring
from the vegetative soul, or from the nature of elemental bodies, are
not subject to reason; consequently they are nowise rational; nor
simply human, but only as regards a part of human nature. Now it was
said [4091](A[1]) that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form,
the operations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct;
but when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent,
then the operation of the superior and the inferior agent is one.
And hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of
the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation, which is
properly human; so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul
inasmuch as it is not moved by reason; but inasmuch as it is moved by
reason, the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the
same. Now there is but one operation of the rational part if we
consider the principle of the operation, which is the reason and the
will; but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to
various objects. And there were some who called this a diversity of
things operated rather than of operations, judging the unity of the
operation solely from the operative principle. And it is in this
respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of
operations in Christ.
Hence in every mere man there is but one operation, which is properly
called human; but besides this there are in a mere man certain other
operations, which are not strictly human, as was said above. But in the
Man Jesus Christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which was
not ordered by reason. Even the natural and bodily operations pertained
in some respects to His will, inasmuch as it was His will "that His
flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it," as stated above
([4092]Q[18], A[5]). Much more, therefore, is there one operation in
Christ, than in any other man whatsoever.
Reply to Objection 1: The operations of the sensitive and nutritive
parts are not strictly human, as stated above; yet in Christ these
operations were more human than in others.
Reply to Objection 2: Powers and habits are diversified by comparison
with their objects. Hence in this way the diversity of operations
corresponds to the divers powers and habits, as likewise to the divers
objects. Now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations
from Christ's humanity, nor that which springs from a diversity of
time, but only that which regards the first active principle, as was
said above.
(St. Thomas gives no reply to OBJ[3]; some codices add: Hence may be
gathered the reply to the third objection. )
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human action of Christ could be meritorious to Him?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human action of Christ could not be
meritorious to Him. For before His death Christ was a comprehensor even
as He is now. But comprehensors do not merit: because the charity of
the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beatitude, since fruition
depends upon it. 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.
