Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 26 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 1: The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive appet.i.te 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 pa.s.sibility of body; yet it excludes the _fomes_ of sin, the nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appet.i.te to reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appet.i.te; 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 appet.i.te 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 l.u.s.t after pleasurable things against the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The spirit gives evidence of fort.i.tude to some extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to it; yet a greater fort.i.tude of spirit is shown, if by its strength the flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of l.u.s.ting against the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fort.i.tude. And although He suffered no internal a.s.sault on the part of the _fomes_ of sin, He sustained an external a.s.sault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 3]

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 a.s.sumed an ignorant and enslaved nature.” Therefore ignorance was truly in Christ.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Isa. 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” (Luke 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 (Q. 7, A. 9; 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 Obj. 1: The nature a.s.sumed 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. G.o.d) ”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 John 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 3: The prophet is speaking in this pa.s.sage 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 a.s.syrians”--or spiritually, ”before His birth He will save His people solely by invocation,” as a gloss expounds it. Augustine however (Serm. x.x.xii 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 wors.h.i.+p 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.”

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 4]

Whether Christ's Soul Was Pa.s.sible?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not pa.s.sible.

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 pa.s.sible; for its capability of suffering would have been to no purpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything.

Obj. 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's pa.s.sions are ailments [*Cf. I-II, 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 pa.s.sions.

Obj. 3: Further, the soul's pa.s.sions would seem to be the same as the _fomes_ of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) calls them the ”pa.s.sions of sins.” Now the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ, as was said (A.

2). Therefore it seems that there were no pa.s.sions in His soul; and hence His soul was not pa.s.sible.