Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 36 (1/2)
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): ”Truth shows in this way” (i.e. whereby the Father is greater than Christ in human nature) ”that the Son is less than Himself.”
Further, as he argues (De Trin. i, 7), the form of a servant was so taken by the Son of G.o.d that the form of G.o.d was not lost. But because of the form of G.o.d, which is common to the Father and the Son, the Father is greater than the Son in human nature. Therefore the Son is greater than Himself in human nature.
Further, Christ in His human nature is the servant of G.o.d the Father, according to John 20:17: ”I ascend to My Father and to your Father to My G.o.d and your G.o.d.” Now whoever is the servant of the Father is the servant of the Son; otherwise not everything that belongs to the Father would belong to the Son. Therefore Christ is His own servant and is subject to Himself.
_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1, ad 2), to be master or servant is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a nature. Hence when it is said that Christ is the master or servant of Himself, or that the Word of G.o.d is the Master of the Man Christ, this may be understood in two ways. First, so that this is understood to be said by reason of another hypostasis or person, as if there was the person of the Word of G.o.d ruling and the person of the man serving; and this is the heresy of Nestorius. Hence in the condemnation of Nestorius it is said in the Council of Ephesus (Part III, ch. i, anath. 6): ”If anyone say that the Word begotten of G.o.d the Father is the G.o.d or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be at once G.o.d and man as the Word made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.” And in this sense it is denied by Cyril and Damascene (Obj. 1); and in the same sense must it be denied that Christ is less than Himself or subject to Himself.
Secondly, it may be understood of the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis. And thus we may say that in one of them, in which He agrees with the Father, He presides and rules together with the Father; and in the other nature, in which He agrees with us, He is subject and serves, and in this sense Augustine says that ”the Son is less than Himself.”
Yet it must be borne in mind that since this name ”Christ” is the name of a Person, even as the name ”Son,” those things can be predicated essentially and absolutely of Christ which belong to Him by reason of the Person, Which is eternal; and especially those relations which seem more properly to pertain to the Person or the hypostasis. But whatever pertains to Him in His human nature is rather to be attributed to Him with a qualification; so that we say that Christ is simply greatest, Lord, Ruler, whereas to be subject or servant or less is to be attributed to Him with the qualification, in His human nature.
Reply Obj. 1: Cyril and Damascene deny that Christ is the head of Himself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita, which is required in order that anyone may be the master of another.
Reply Obj. 2: Simply speaking it is necessary that the master and the servant should be distinct; yet a certain notion of masters.h.i.+p and subservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of Himself in different respects.
Reply Obj. 3: On account of the divers parts of man, one of which is superior and the other inferior, the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11) that there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the irascible and concupiscible powers obey reason. Hence this way a man may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His different parts.
To the other arguments, the reply is clear from what has been said.
For Augustine a.s.serts that the Son is less than, or subject to, Himself in His human nature, and not by a diversity of supposita.
_______________________
QUESTION 21
OF CHRIST'S PRAYER (In Four Articles)
We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?
(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?
(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for others?
(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 1]
Whether It Is Becoming of Christ to Pray?
Objection 1: It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), ”prayer is the asking for becoming things from G.o.d.” But since Christ could do all things, it does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore it does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.
Obj. 2: Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in prayer.
Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that ”prayer is the raising up of the mind to G.o.d.” Now Christ's mind needed no uplifting to G.o.d, since His mind was always united to G.o.d, not only by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beat.i.tude.
Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 6:12): ”And it came to pa.s.s in those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He pa.s.sed the whole night in the prayer of G.o.d.”
_I answer that,_ As was said in the Second Part (Q. 83, AA. 1, 2), prayer is the unfolding of our will to G.o.d, that He may fulfill it.
If, therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps.