No More Learning

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence
as regards the execution of His own will. For it is written (Mk. 7:24)
that "entering into a house, He would that no man should know it, and
He could not be hid. " Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of
His will in all things.

Objection 2: Further, a command is a sign of will, as was said in the
[4015]FP, Q[19], A[12]. But our Lord commanded certain things to be
done, and the contrary came to pass, for it is written (Mat. 9:30, 31)
that Jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been opened, saying:
"See that no man know this. But they going out spread His fame abroad
in all that country. " Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of
His will in everything.

Objection 3: Further, a man does not ask from another for what he can
do himself. But our Lord besought the Father, praying for what He
wished to be done, for it is written (Lk. 6:12): "He went out into a
mountain to pray, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God. "
Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in all things.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. , qu. 77): "It
is impossible for the will of the Saviour not to be fulfilled: nor is
it possible for Him to will what He knows ought not to come to pass. "

I answer that, Christ's soul willed things in two ways. First, what was
to be brought about by Himself; and it must be said that He was capable
of whatever He willed thus, since it would not befit His wisdom if He
willed to do anything of Himself that was not subject to His will.
Secondly, He wished things to be brought about by the Divine power, as
the resurrection of His own body and such like miraculous deeds, which
He could not effect by His own power, except as the instrument of the
Godhead, as was said above [4016](A[2]).

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. , qu.
77): "What came to pass, this Christ must be said to have willed. For
it must be remarked that this happened in the country of the Gentiles,
to whom it was not yet time to preach. Yet it would have been invidious
not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith. Hence He did
not wish to be heralded by His own, and yet He wished to be sought; and
so it came to pass. " Or it may be said that this will of Christ was not
with regard to what was to be carried out by it, but with regard to
what was to be done by others, which did not come under His human will.
Hence in the letter of Pope Agatho, which was approved in the Sixth
Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. iv], we read: "When He,
the Creator and Redeemer of all, wished to be hid and could not, must
not this be referred only to His human will which He deigned to assume
in time? "

Reply to Objection 2: As Gregory says (Moral. xix), by the fact that
"Our Lord charged His mighty works to be kept secret, He gave an
example to His servants coming after Him that they should wish their
miracles to be hidden; and yet, that others may profit by their
example, they are made public against their will. " And thus this
command signified His will to fly from human glory, according to Jn.
8:50, "I seek not My own glory. " Yet He wished absolutely, and
especially by His Divine will, that the miracle wrought should be
published for the good of others.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ prayed both for things that were to be
brought about by the Divine power, and for what He Himself was to do by
His human will, since the power and operation of Christ's soul depended
on God, "Who works in all [Vulg. : 'you'], both to will and to
accomplish" (Phil. 2:13).
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE DEFECTS OF BODY ASSUMED BY THE SON OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must now consider the defects Christ assumed in the human nature;
and first, of the defects of body; secondly, of the defects of soul.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature defects
of body?

(2) Whether He assumed the obligation of being subject to these
defects?

(3) Whether He contracted these defects?

(4) Whether He assumed all these defects?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of
body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought not to have
assumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is
personally united to the Word of God, so also is His body. But the soul
of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was said
above ([4017]Q[7], A[9]; Q[9], seqq. ). Hence, His body also ought to
have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it.

Objection 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the
vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above ([4018]Q[9], A[2]),
and thus the soul of Christ was blessed. Now by the beatification of
the soul the body is glorified; since, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios.
cxviii), "God made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness
of its blessedness there pours over even into the lower nature" (i. e.
the body), "not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and
vision, but the fulness of health" (i. e. the vigor of
incorruptibility). Therefore the body of Christ was incorruptible and
without any defect.

Objection 3: Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there
was no fault in Christ, according to 1 Pet. 2:22: "Who did no guile. "
Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have been
in Him.

Objection 4: Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his
proper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of the Incarnation
seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by these infirmities
men were kept back from knowing Him, according to Is. 53:2,3: "[There
was no sightliness] that we should be desirous of Him. Despised and the
most abject of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity, and
His look was, as it were, hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed
Him not. " Secondly, because the de. sire of the Fathers would not seem
to be fulfilled, in whose person it is written (Is. 51:9): "Arise,
arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou Arm of the Lord. " Thirdly, because
it would seem more fitting for the devil's power to be overcome and
man's weakness healed, by strength than by weakness. Therefore it does
not seem to have been fitting that the Son of God assumed human nature
with infirmities or defects of body.

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 2:18): "For in that, wherein He
Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also
that are tempted. " Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him
(Ps. 120:1): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence
help shall come to me. " Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to
assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be
tempted in it and so bring succor to us.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to
be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three
reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the
human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the
world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the
punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to
wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin,
which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Rom. 5:12: "By
one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death. " Hence it was
useful for the end of the Incarnation that He should assume these
penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Is. 53:4, "Surely
He hath borne our infirmities. " Secondly, in order to cause belief in
the Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is
subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature
without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to
have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is
said, Phil. 2:7: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a
man. " Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the
faith, as related Jn. 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of
patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects.
Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from
sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your
minds. "

Reply to Objection 1: The penalties one suffers for another's sin are
the matter, as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin; but the
principle is the habit of soul, whereby one is inclined to wish to
satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy,
for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from
charity, as will be explained ([4019]XP, Q[14], A[2]). Hence, it
behooved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards the habit of
knowledge and virtue, in order to have the power of satisfying; but His
body was subject to infirmities, that the matter of satisfaction should
not be wanting.

Reply to Objection 2: From the natural relationship which is between
the soul and the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory.
Yet this natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of His
Godhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the
soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what
belongs to a passible nature; thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,
15) that, "it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was
allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it. "

Reply to Objection 3: Punishment always follows sin actual or original,
sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who
suffers the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ, according
to Is. 53:5: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our
sins. "

Reply to Objection 4: The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede,
but greatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And
although these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known His
Manhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according to Rom.
5:1,2: "By Jesus Christ we have access to God. " Moreover, the ancient
Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but spiritual
strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil and healed human weakness.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ was of necessity subject to these defects?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not of necessity subject to
these defects. For it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was offered because it
was His own will"; and the prophet is speaking of the offering of the
Passion. But will is opposed to necessity. Therefore Christ was not of
necessity subject to bodily defects.

Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20): "Nothing
obligatory is seen in Christ: all is voluntary. " Now what is voluntary
is not necessary. Therefore these defects were not of necessity in
Christ.

Objection 3: Further, necessity is induced by something more powerful.
But no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which it
pertained to preserve its own body. Therefore these defects were not of
necessity in Christ.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 8:3) that "God" sent "His own
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. " Now it is a condition of sinful
flesh to be under the necessity of dying, and suffering other like
passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in
Christ's flesh.

I answer that, Necessity is twofold. one is a necessity of
"constraint," brought about by an external agent; and this necessity is
contrary to both nature and will, since these flow from an internal
principle. The other is "natural" necessity, resulting from the natural
principles---either the form (as it is necessary for fire to heat), or
the matter (as it is necessary for a body composed of contraries to be
dissolved). Hence, with this necessity, which results from the matter,
Christ's body was subject to the necessity of death and other like
defects, since, as was said (A[1], ad 2), "it was by the consent of the
Divine will that the flesh was allowed to do and suffer what belonged
to it. " And this necessity results from the principles of human nature,
as was said above in this article. But if we speak of necessity of
constraint, as repugnant to the bodily nature, thus again was Christ's
body in its own natural condition subject to necessity in regard to the
nail that pierced and the scourge that struck. Yet inasmuch as such
necessity is repugnant to the will, it is clear that in Christ these
defects were not of necessity as regards either the Divine will, or the
human will of Christ considered absolutely, as following the
deliberation of reason; but only as regards the natural movement of the
will, inasmuch as it naturally shrinks from death and bodily hurt.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be "offered because it was His
own will," i. e. Divine will and deliberate human will; although death
was contrary to the natural movement of His human will, as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23,24).

Reply to Objection 2: This is plain from what has been said.

Reply to Objection 3: Nothing was more powerful than Christ's soul,
absolutely; yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more powerful
in regard to this or that effect, as a nail for piercing. And this I
say, in so far as Christ's soul is considered in its own proper nature
and power.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ contracted these defects?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects. For
we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth. But
Christ, together with human nature, derived His bodily defects and
infirmities through His birth from His mother, whose flesh was subject
to these defects. Therefore it seems that He contracted these defects.

Objection 2: Further, what is caused by the principles of nature is
derived together with nature, and hence is contracted. Now these
penalties are caused by the principles of human nature. Therefore
Christ contracted them.

Objection 3: Further, Christ is likened to other men in these defects,
as is written Heb. 2:17. But other men contract these defects.
Therefore it seems that Christ contracted these defects.

On the contrary, These defects are contracted through sin, according to
Rom. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world and by sin, death. "
Now sin had no place in Christ. Therefore Christ did not contract these
defects.

I answer that, In the verb "to contract" is understood the relation of
effect to cause, i. e. that is said to be contracted which is derived of
necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like
defects in human nature is sin, since "by sin death entered into this
world," according to Rom. 5:12. And hence they who incur these defects,
as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not
these defects, as due to sin, since, as Augustine [*Alcuin in the
Gloss, Ord. ], expounding Jn. 3:31, "He that cometh from above, is above
all," says: "Christ came from above, i. e. from the height of human
nature, which it had before the fall of the first man. " For He received
human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of
innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without
defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as
if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.

Reply to Objection 1: The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original
sin, [*See introductory note to Q[27]] and therefore contracted these
defects. But from the Virgin, Christ's flesh assumed the nature without
sin, and He might likewise have assumed the nature without its
penalties. But He wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out
the work of our redemption, as stated above [4020](A[1]). Therefore He
had these defects---not that He contracted them, but that He assumed
them.

Reply to Objection 2: The cause of death and other corporeal defects of
human nature is twofold: the first is remote, and results from the
material principles of the human body, inasmuch as it is made up of
contraries. But this cause was held in check by original justice. Hence
the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin, whereby original
justice is withdrawn. And thus, because Christ was without sin, He is
said not to have contracted these defects, but to have assumed them.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ was made like to other men in the quality
and not in the cause of these defects; and hence, unlike others, He did
not contract them.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have assumed all the
bodily defects of men. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,18):
"What is unassumable is incurable. " But Christ came to cure all our
defects. Therefore He ought to have assumed all our defects.

Objection 2: Further it was said [4021](A[1]), that in order to satisfy
for us, Christ ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects
of body. Now as regards the soul, He assumed the fulness of all grace.
Therefore as regards the body, He ought to have assumed all defects.

Objection 3: Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief
place. Now Christ assumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He to have
assumed other defects.

On the contrary, Contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the
same. Now some infirmities are contrary to each other, being caused by
contrary principles. Hence it could not be that Christ assumed all
human infirmities.

I answer that, As stated above ([4022]AA[1],2), Christ assumed human
defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this
it was necessary for Him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace in
His soul.
Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow
from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with
the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it was not fitting for
Him to assume all human defects or infirmities. For there are some
defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and
grace, as ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in
well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human
nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent, but are
caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy,
and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the
fault of the man, e. g. from inordinate eating; sometimes by a defect in
the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His
flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost, Who has infinite wisdom and
power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the
order of His life. But there are some third defects, to be found
amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as
death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ
assumed, which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls "natural
and indetractible passions" ---natural, as following all human nature
in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace.

Reply to Objection 1: All particular defects of men are caused by the
corruptibility and passibility of the body, some particular causes
being added; and hence, since Christ healed the passibility and
corruptibility of our body by assuming it, He consequently healed all
other defects.

Reply to Objection 2: The fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to
Christ's soul of itself, from the fact of its being assumed by the Word
of God; and hence Christ assumed all the fulness of knowledge and
wisdom absolutely. But He assumed our defects economically, in order to
satisfy for our sin, and not that they belonged to Him of Himself.
Hence it was not necessary for Him to assume them all, but only such as
sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature.

Reply to Objection 3: Death comes to all men from the sin of our first
parent; but not other defects, although they are less than death. Hence
there is no parity.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE DEFECTS OF SOUL ASSUMED BY CHRIST (TEN ARTICLES)

We must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under this
head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there was sin in Christ?

(2) Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Him?

(3) Whether there was ignorance?

(4) Whether His soul was passible?

(5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain?

(6) Whether there was sorrow?

(7) Whether there was fear?

(8) Whether there was wonder?

(9) Whether there was anger?

(10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there was sin in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is
written (Ps. 21:2): "O God, My God . . . why hast Thou forsaken Me? Far
from My salvation are the words of My sins. " Now these words are said
in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having uttered
them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were
sins.

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12) that "in Adam all
have sinned"---namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ
also was in Adam by origin. Therefore He sinned in him.

Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 2:18) that "in that,
wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor
them also that are tempted. " Now above all do we require His help
against sin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him.

Objection 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 5:21) that "Him that knew
no sin" (i. e. Christ), "for us" God "hath made sin. " But that really
is, which has been made by God. Therefore there was really sin in
Christ.

Objection 5: Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), "in the
man Christ the Son of God gave Himself to us as a pattern of living. "
Now man needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of
repentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there ought to
have been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a
pattern of repentance.

On the contrary, He Himself says (Jn. 8:46): "Which of you shall
convince Me of sin? "

I answer that, As was said above ([4023]Q[14], A[1]), Christ assumed
our defects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth
of His human nature, and that He might become an example of virtue to
us. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not
to have assumed the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works our
satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since, as it
is written (Ecclus. 34:23), "The Most High approveth not the gifts of
the wicked. " Secondly, the truth of His human nature is not proved by
sin, since sin does not belong to human nature, whereof God is the
cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil,
as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Thirdly, because by sinning
He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is opposed to virtue.
Hence Christ nowise assumed the defect of sin---either original or
actual---according to what is written (1 Pet. 2:22): "Who did no sin,
neither was guile found in His mouth. "

Reply to Objection 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things
are said of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic
property, as when it is said that God became man, and that He suffered
for us; secondly, with reference to His personal and relative property,
when things are said of Him in our person which nowise belong to Him of
Himself. Hence, in the seven rules of Tichonius which Augustine quotes
in De Doctr. Christ. iii, 31, the first regards "Our Lord and His
Body," since "Christ and His Church are taken as one person. " And thus
Christ, speaking in the person of His members, says (Ps. 21:2): "The
words of My sins"---not that there were any sins in the Head.

Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ
was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we
were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance,
since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk
and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the
visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue
of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far
otherwise---from on high. " Hence He was not in Adam according to
seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore
Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only
materially---and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received
his body materially from the slime of the earth---actively from God.
And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His
matter.

Reply to Objection 3: In His temptation and passion Christ has succored
us by satisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but
hinders it, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin,
but to be wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He bore would
have been due to Him for His own sin.

Reply to Objection 4: God "made Christ sin"---not, indeed, in such sort
that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it
is written (Osee 4:8): "They shall eat the sins of My people"---they,
i. e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin.
And in that way it is written (Is. 53:6) that "the Lord hath laid on
Him the iniquity of us all" (i. e. He gave Him up to be a victim for the
sins of all men); or "He made Him sin" (i. e. made Him to have "the
likeness of sinful flesh"), as is written (Rom. 8:3), and this on
account of the passible and mortal body He assumed.

Reply to Objection 5: A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not
by having sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And
hence Christ set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly
bore the punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of others.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was the "fomes" of sin.
For the "fomes" of sin, and the passibility and mortality of the body
spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of original
justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul were subject to the
reason, and the body to the soul. Now passibility and mortality of body
were in Christ. Therefore there was also the "fomes" of sin.

Objection 2: Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19), "it
was by consent of the Divine will that the flesh of Christ was allowed
to suffer and do what belonged to it. " But it is proper to the flesh to
lust after its pleasures. Now since the "fomes" of sin is nothing more
than concupiscence, as the gloss says on Rom. 7:8, it seems that in
Christ there was the "fomes" of sin.

Objection 3: Further, it is by reason of the "fomes" of sin that "the
flesh lusteth against the spirit," as is written (Gal. 5:17). But the
spirit is shown to be so much the stronger and worthier to be crowned
according as the more completely it overcomes its enemy---to wit, the
concupiscence of the flesh, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, he "is not crowned
except he strive lawfully. " Now Christ had a most valiant and
conquering spirit, and one most worthy of a crown, according to Apoc.
6:2: "There was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that He
might conquer. " Therefore it would especially seem that the "fomes" of
sin ought to have been in Christ.

On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 1:20): "That which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Ghost. " Now the Holy Ghost drives out sin and the
inclination to sin, which is implied in the word "fomes. " Therefore in
Christ there ought not to have been the "fomes" of sin.

I answer that, As was said above (Q[7], AA[2],9), Christ had grace and
all the virtues most perfectly. Now moral virtues, which are in the
irrational part of the soul, make it subject to reason, and so much the
more as the virtue is more perfect; thus, temperance controls the
concupiscible appetite, fortitude and meekness the irascible appetite,
as was said in the [4024]FS, Q[56], A[4]. But there belongs to the very
nature of the "fomes" of sin an inclination of the sensual appetite to
what is contrary to reason. And hence it is plain that the more perfect
the virtues are in any man, the weaker the "fomes" of sin becomes in
him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree,
the "fomes" of sin was nowise in Him; inasmuch, also, as this defect
cannot be ordained to satisfaction, but rather inclined to what is
contrary to satisfaction.

Reply to Objection 1: The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive
appetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason; but not the
bodily powers, nor those of the bodily humors, nor those of the
vegetative soul, as is made plain Ethic. i, 13. And hence perfection of
virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does not exclude
passibility of body; yet it excludes the "fomes" of sin, the nature of
which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appetite to reason.

Reply to Objection 2: The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it
by the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite; but the flesh of man,
who is a rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of
reason. And thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite
Christ's flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else
that is sought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide
Orth. iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there
was the "fomes" of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable
things against the order of reason.

Reply to Objection 3: The spirit gives evidence of fortitude to some
extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to
it; yet a greater fortitude of spirit is shown, if by its strength the
flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of lusting against
the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the
highest degree of fortitude. And although He suffered no internal
assault on the part of the "fomes" of sin, He sustained an external
assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of
victory by overcoming them.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether in Christ there was ignorance?

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

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

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Is. 8:4): "For before the child
know to call his Father and his mother, the strength of Damascus . . .
shall be taken away. " Therefore in Christ there was ignorance of
certain things.

On the contrary, Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But Christ
came to take away our ignorance; for "He came to enlighten them that
sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk. 1:79). Therefore there
was no ignorance in Christ.

I answer that, As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ,
so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain from what
has been said above ([4025]Q[7], A[9];[4026] Q[9]). Now as the fulness
of grace and virtue in Christ excluded the "fomes" of sin, so the
fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, which is opposed to knowledge.
Hence, even as the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, neither was there
ignorance in Him.

Reply to Objection 1: The nature assumed by Christ may be viewed in two
ways. First, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it
"ignorant and enslaved"; hence he adds: "For man's nature is a slave of
Him" (i. e. God) "Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future
things. " Secondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from
its union with the Divine hypostasis, from which it has the fulness of
knowledge and grace, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His
glory'] as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and
truth"; and in this way the human nature in Christ was not affected
with ignorance.

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

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

Whether Christ's soul was passible?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not passible.
For nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger; since "the
agent is greater than the patient," as is clear from Augustine (Gen. ad
lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 5). Now no
creature was stronger than Christ's soul. Therefore Christ's soul could
not suffer at the hands of any creature; and hence it was not passible;
for its capability of suffering would have been to no purpose if it
could not have suffered at the hands of anything.

Objection 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's
passions are ailments [*Cf. [4027]FS, Q[24], A[2]]. But Christ's soul
had no ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain
from Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee. "
Therefore in Christ's soul there were no passions.

Objection 3: Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the same as
the "fomes" of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) calls them the
"passions of sins. " Now the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, as was
said A[2].