Reply Obj. 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 G.o.d, "Who works in all [Vulg.: "you"], both to will and to accomplish" (Phil. 2:13).
_______________________
QUESTION 14
OF THE DEFECTS OF BODY a.s.sUMED BY THE SON OF G.o.d (In Four Articles)
We must now consider the defects Christ a.s.sumed 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 G.o.d should have a.s.sumed in human nature defects of body?
(2) Whether He a.s.sumed the obligation of being subject to these defects?
(3) Whether He contracted these defects?
(4) Whether He a.s.sumed all these defects?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 1]
Whether the Son of G.o.d in Human Nature Ought to Have a.s.sumed Defects of Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d ought not to have a.s.sumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is personally united to the Word of G.o.d, so also is His body. But the soul of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was said above (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.
Obj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of G.o.d by the vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above (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), "G.o.d 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 4: Further, no reasonable man a.s.sumes 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 Isa. 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 desire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person it is written (Isa. 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 G.o.d a.s.sumed 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 G.o.d to a.s.sume 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 a.s.sumed by the Son of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isa. 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 G.o.d had a.s.sumed 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 John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human pa.s.sibility 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 Obj. 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 (Supp., 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 Obj. 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 G.o.dhead, and thereby it came to pa.s.s that the beat.i.tude remained in the soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what belongs to a pa.s.sible 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 Obj. 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 Isa. 53:5: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins."
Reply Obj. 4: The infirmity a.s.sumed by Christ did not impede, but greatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And although these infirmities concealed His G.o.dhead, they made known His Manhood, which is the way of coming to the G.o.dhead, according to Rom.
5:1, 2: "By Jesus Christ we have access to G.o.d." Moreover, the ancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but spiritual strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil and healed human weakness.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 2]
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 (Isa. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will"; and the prophet is speaking of the offering of the Pa.s.sion. But will is opposed to necessity. Therefore Christ was not of necessity subject to bodily defects.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 "G.o.d" 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 pa.s.sions. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 2: This is plain from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 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.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 3]
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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 John 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 a.s.sumed 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 Obj. 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 a.s.sumed the nature without sin, and He might likewise have a.s.sumed 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 (A. 1). Therefore He had these defects--not that He contracted them, but that He a.s.sumed them.
Reply Obj. 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 a.s.sumed them.
Reply Obj. 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.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 4]