Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 19 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de unitate operationis Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum in Christo sit una operatio divinitatis et humanitatis, vel plures. | (1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the Godhead and Manhood? |
| Secundo, utrum in Christo sint plures operationes secundum humanam naturam. | (2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human nature? |
| Tertio, utrum Christus secundum humanam operationem aliquid sibi meruerit. | (3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for Himself? |
| Quarto, utrum per eam aliquid meruerit nobis. | (4) Whether He merited anything for us by it? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 19 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo sit tantum una operatio divinitatis et humanitatis. Dicit enim Dionysius, II cap. de Div. Nom., discreta autem est benignissima circa nos Dei operatio per hoc quod, secundum nos, ex nobis, integre vereque humanatum est verbum quod est supra substantiam, et operari et pati quaecumque humanae eius divinaeque operationi congruunt, ubi unam operationem nominat humanam et divinam, quae in Graeco dicitur theandrica, idest deivirilis. Videtur igitur esse una operatio composita in Christo. | 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. |
| Praeterea, principalis agentis et instrumenti est una sola operatio. Sed humana natura in Christo fuit instrumentum divinae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo eadem operatio est divinae et humanae naturae in Christo. | 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 (Question [7], Article [1], ad 3; Question [8], Article [1], ad 1; Question [18], Article [1], ad 2). Hence the operations of the Divine and human natures in Christ are the same. |
| Praeterea, cum in Christo duae naturae in una hypostasi vel persona sint, necesse est unum et idem esse quod pertinet ad hypostasim vel personam. Sed operatio pertinet ad hypostasim vel personam, nihil enim operatur nisi suppositum subsistens; unde et, secundum philosophum, actus sunt singularium. Ergo in Christo est una et eadem operatio divinitatis et humanitatis. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicuti esse est hypostasis subsistentis, ita etiam et operari. Sed propter unitatem hypostasis est in Christo unum esse, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et propter eandem unitatem est in Christo una operatio. | 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 (Question [17], Article [2]). Hence, on account of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ. |
| Praeterea, ubi est unum operatum, ibi est una operatio. Sed idem operatum erat divinitatis et humanitatis, sicut sanatio leprosi, vel suscitatio mortui. Ergo videtur quod in Christo sit una tantum operatio divinitatis et humanitatis. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius, in II libro ad Gratianum imperatorem, dicit, quem ad modum eadem operatio diversae est potestatis? Nunquid sic potest minor quemadmodum maior operari? Aut una operatio potest esse ubi diversa est substantia? | 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?" |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, haeretici qui posuerunt in Christo unam voluntatem, posuerunt etiam in ipso unam operationem. Et ut eorum opinio erronea melius intelligatur, considerandum est quod, ubicumque sunt plura agentia ordinata, inferius movetur a superiori, sicut in homine corpus movetur ab anima, et inferiores vires a ratione. Sic igitur actiones et motus inferioris principii sunt magis operata quaedam quam operationes, id autem quod pertinet ad supremum principium, est proprie operatio. Puta si dicamus in homine quod ambulare, quod est pedum, et palpare, quod est manuum, sunt quaedam hominis operata, quorum unum operatur anima per pedes, aliud per manus, et quia est eadem anima operans per utrumque, ex parte ipsius operantis, quod est primum principium movens, est una et indifferens operatio; ex parte autem ipsorum operatorum differentia invenitur. Sicut autem in homine puro corpus movetur ab anima, et appetitus sensitivus a rationali, ita in domino Iesu Christo humana natura movebatur et regebatur a divina. Et ideo dicebant quod eadem est operatio et indifferens ex parte ipsius divinitatis operantis sunt tamen diversa operata, inquantum scilicet divinitas Christi aliud agebat per seipsam, sicut quod portabat omnia verbo virtutis suae; aliud autem per naturam humanam, sicut quod corporaliter ambulabat. Unde in sexta synodo inducuntur verba Severi haeretici sic dicentis, ea quae agebantur et operabantur ab uno Christo, multum differunt. Quaedam enim sunt Deo decibilia, quaedam humana. Veluti, corporaliter vadere super terram profecto humanum est, cruribus vero vexatis, et ambulare super terram penitus non valentibus, sanum gressum donare Deo decibile est. Sed unum, scilicet incarnatum verbum, hoc et illud operatum est et nequaquam hoc quidem huius, hoc vero huius est naturae. Neque, eo quod diversa sunt operamenta, ideo duas operatrices naturas atque formas iuste definiemus. | I answer that, As was said above (Question [18], Article [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." |
| Sed in hoc decipiebantur. Quia actio eius quod movetur ab altero, est duplex, una quidem quam habet secundum propriam formam; alia autem quam habet secundum quod movetur ab alio. Sicut securis operatio secundum propriam formam est incisio, secundum autem quod movetur ab artifice, operatio eius est facere scamnum. Operatio igitur quae est alicuius rei secundum suam formam, est propria eius; nec pertinet ad moventem, nisi secundum quod utitur huiusmodi re ad suam operationem, sicut calefacere est propria operatio ignis; non autem fabri, nisi quatenus utitur igne ad calefaciendum ferrum. Sed illa operatio quae est rei solum secundum quod movetur ab alio, non est alia praeter operationem moventis ipsum, sicut facere scamnum non est seorsum operatio securis ab operatione artificis. Et ideo, ubicumque movens et motum habent diversas formas seu virtutes operativas, ibi oportet quod sit alia propria operatio moventis, et alia propria operatio moti, licet motum participet operationem moventis, et movens utatur operatione moti, et sic utrumque agit cum communione alterius. | 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. |
| Sic igitur in Christo humana natura habet propriam formam et virtutem per quam operatur et similiter divina. Unde et humana natura habet propriam operationem distinctam ab operatione divina, et e converso. Et tamen divina natura utitur operatione naturae humanae sicut operatione sui instrumenti, et similiter humana natura participat operationem divinae naturae, sicut instrumentum participat operationem principalis agentis. Et hoc est quod dicit Leo Papa, in epistola ad Flavianum agit utraque forma, scilicet tam natura divina quam humana in Christo, cum alterius communione, quod proprium est, verbo scilicet operante quod verbi est, et carne exequente quod carnis est. | 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." |
| Si vero esset una tantum operatio divinitatis et humanitatis in Christo, oporteret dicere vel quod humana natura non haberet propriam formam et virtutem (de divina enim hoc dici est impossibile), ex quo sequeretur quod in Christo esset tantum divina operatio, vel oporteret dicere quod ex virtute divina et humana esset conflata in Christo una virtus. Quorum utrumque est impossibile, nam per primum horum ponitur natura humana in Christo esse imperfecta; per secundum vero ponitur confusio naturarum. Et ideo rationabiliter in sexta synodo haec opinio est condemnata, in cuius determinatione dicitur, duas naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inconfuse, inseparabiliter, in eodem domino Iesu Christo, vero Deo nostro, glorificamus, hoc est, divinam operationem et humanam. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius ponit in Christo operationem theandricam, idest divinamvirilem, vel divinamhumanam, non per aliquam confusionem operationum seu virtutum utriusque naturae, sed per hoc quod divina operatio eius utitur humana eius operatione, et humana operatio participat virtutem divinae operationis. Unde, sicut ipse dicit in quadam epistola, super hominem operabatur ea quae sunt hominis, quod monstrat virgo supernaturaliter concipiens, et aqua terrenorum pedum sustinens gravitatem. Manifestum est enim quod concipi est humanae naturae, similiter et ambulare, sed utrumque fuit in Christo supernaturaliter. Et similiter divina operabatur humanitus, sicut cum sanavit leprosum tangendo. Unde in eadem epistola subdit, sed, Deo homine facto, nova quadam Dei et hominis operatione. | 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." |
| Quod autem intelligat duas esse operationes in Christo, unam divinae naturae, aliam autem humanae, patet ex his quae dicit in II cap. de Div. Nom., ubi dicit quod his, quae pertinent ad humanam eius operationem, pater et spiritus sanctus nulla ratione communicant, nisi quis dixerit secundum benignissimam et misericordem voluntatem, inquantum scilicet pater et spiritus sanctus ex sua misericordia voluerunt Christum agere et pati humana. Addit autem, et omnem sublimissimam et ineffabilem Dei operationem quam operatus est secundum nos factus incommutabilis eo quod Deus et Dei verbum. Sic igitur patet quod alia est eius operatio humana, in qua pater et spiritus sanctus non communicant nisi secundum acceptationem misericordiae suae, et alia est eius operatio inquantum est Dei verbum, in qua communicant pater et spiritus sanctus. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod instrumentum dicitur aliquid ex eo quod movetur a principali agente, quod tamen, praeter hoc, potest habere propriam operationem secundum suam formam, ut de igne dictum est. Sic igitur actio instrumenti inquantum est instrumentum, non est alia ab actione principalis agentis, potest tamen habere aliam operationem prout est res quaedam. Sic igitur operatio quae est humanae naturae in Christo, inquantum est instrumentum divinitatis, non est alia ab operatione divinitatis, non enim est alia salvatio qua salvat humanitas Christi, et divinitas eius. Habet tamen humana natura in Christo, inquantum est natura quaedam, quandam propriam operationem praeter divinam, ut dictum est. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod operari est hypostasis subsistentis, sed secundum formam et naturam, a qua operatio speciem recipit. Et ideo a diversitate formarum seu naturarum est diversa species operationum, sed ab unitate hypostasis est unitas secundum numerum quantum ad operationem speciei. Sicut ignis habet duas operationes specie differentes, scilicet illuminare et calefacere, secundum differentiam lucis et caloris, et tamen est una numero illuminatio ignis semel illuminantis. Et similiter in Christo oportet quod sint duae operationes specie differentes, secundum eius duas naturas, quaelibet tamen operationum est una numero in Christo, semel facta, sicut una ambulatio et una sanatio. | 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. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod esse et operari est personae a natura, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam esse pertinet ad ipsam constitutionem personae, et sic quantum ad hoc se habet in ratione termini. Et ideo unitas personae requirit unitatem ipsius esse completi et personalis. Sed operatio est quidam effectus personae secundum aliquam formam vel naturam. Unde pluralitas operationum non praeiudicat unitati personali. | 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. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod aliud est proprium operatum operationis divinae, et operationis humanae in Christo, sicut operatum proprium divinae operationis est sanatio leprosi, operatum autem proprium humanae naturae est eius contactus. Concurrunt tamen ambae operationes ad unum operatum secundum quod una natura agit cum communione alterius, ut dictum est. | 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. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 19 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo sint plures humanae operationes. Christus enim, inquantum homo, communicat cum plantis in natura nutritiva, cum animalibus autem in natura sensitiva, cum Angelis vero in natura intellectiva, sicut et ceteri homines. Sed alia est operatio plantae inquantum est planta, et alia animalis inquantum est animal. Ergo Christus, inquantum est homo, habet plures operationes. | 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. |
| Praeterea, potentiae et habitus distinguuntur secundum actus. Sed in anima Christi fuerunt diversae potentiae et diversi habitus. Ergo diversae operationes. | 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. |
| Praeterea, instrumenta debent esse proportionata operationibus. Corpus autem humanum habet diversa membra differentia secundum formam. Ergo diversis operationibus accommodata. Sunt igitur in Christo diversae operationes secundum humanam naturam. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, operatio sequitur naturam. Sed in Christo est tantum una humana natura. Ergo in Christo fuit tantum una operatio humana. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, quia homo est id quod est secundum rationem, illa operatio dicitur esse simpliciter humana quae a ratione procedit per voluntatem, quae est rationis appetitus. Si qua autem operatio est in homine quae non procedit a ratione et voluntate, non est simpliciter operatio humana, sed convenit homini secundum aliquam partem humanae naturae, quandoque quidem secundum ipsam naturam elementi corporalis, sicut ferri deorsum; quandoque vero secundum virtutem animae vegetabilis, sicut nutriri et augeri; quandoque vero secundum partem sensitivam, sicut videre et audire, imaginari et memorari, concupiscere et irasci. Inter quas operationes est differentia. Nam operationes animae sensitivae sunt aliqualiter obedientes rationi, et ideo sunt aliqualiter rationales et humanae, inquantum scilicet obediunt rationi, ut patet per philosophum, in I Ethic. Operationes vero quae sequuntur animam vegetabilem, vel etiam naturam elementalis corporis, non subiiciuntur rationi, unde nullo modo sunt rationales, nec humanae simpliciter, sed solum secundum partem humanae naturae. Dictum est autem supra quod quando agens inferius agit per propriam formam, tunc est alia operatio inferioris agentis et superioris, quando vero agens inferius non agit nisi secundum quod est motum a superiori agente, tunc est eadem operatio superioris agentis et inferioris. | 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 (Article [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. |
| Sic igitur in quocumque homine puro alia est operatio elementalis et animae vegetabilis ab operatione voluntatis, quae est proprie humana. Similiter etiam operatio animae sensitivae quantum ad id quod non movetur a ratione, sed quantum ad id quod movetur a ratione, est eadem operatio partis sensitivae et rationalis. Ipsius autem animae rationalis est una operatio, si attendamus ad ipsum principium operationis, quod est ratio vel voluntas, diversificatur autem secundum respectum ad diversa obiecta; quam quidem diversitatem aliqui appellaverunt diversitatem operatorum, magis quam operationum, iudicantes de unitate operationis solum ex parte operativi principii; sic enim nunc quaeritur de unitate vel pluralitate operationum in Christo. | 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. |
| Sic igitur in quolibet puro homine est tantum una operatio quae proprie humana dicitur, praeter quam tamen sunt in homine puro quaedam aliae operationes, quae non sunt proprie humanae, sicut dictum est. Sed in homine Iesu Christo nullus erat motus sensitivae partis qui non esset ordinatus a ratione. Ipsae etiam operationes naturales et corporales aliqualiter ad eius voluntatem pertinebant, inquantum voluntatis eius erat ut caro eius ageret et pateretur quae sunt sibi propria, ut dictum est supra. Et ideo multo magis est una operatio in Christo quam in quocumque alio homine. | 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 (Question [18], Article [5]). Much more, therefore, is there one operation in Christ, than in any other man whatsoever. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod operatio partis sensitivae et nutritivae non est proprie humana, sicut dictum est. Et tamen in Christo huiusmodi operationes fuerunt magis humanae quam in aliis. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod potentiae et habitus diversificantur per comparationem ad obiecta, et ideo diversitas operationum hoc modo respondet diversis potentiis et habitibus sicut etiam respondet diversis obiectis. Talem autem diversitatem operationum non intendimus excludere ab humanitate Christi, sicut nec eam quae est secundum aliud tempus, sed solum illam quae est secundum primum principium activum, ut dictum est. | 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 Objection [3]; some codices add: Hence may be gathered the reply to the third objection.) |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 19 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod actio humana Christi non potuit ei esse meritoria. Christus enim ante mortem fuit comprehensor, sicut et modo est. Sed comprehensoris non est mereri, caritas enim comprehensoris pertinet ad praemium beatitudinis, cum secundum eam attendatur fruitio; unde non videtur esse principium merendi, cum non sit idem meritum et praemium. Ergo Christus ante passionem non merebatur, sicut nec modo meretur. | 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. |
| Praeterea, nullus meretur id quod est sibi debitum. Sed ex hoc quod Christus est filius Dei per naturam, debetur sibi hereditas aeterna, quam alii homines per bona opera merentur. Non ergo Christus aliquid sibi mereri potuit, qui a principio fuit filius Dei. | Objection 2: Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because Christ is the Son of God by nature, the eternal inheritance is due to Him, which other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from the beginning, was the Word of God, could not merit anything for Himself. |
| Praeterea, quicumque habet id quod est principale, non proprie meretur id quod ex illo habito sequitur. Sed Christus habuit gloriam animae, ex qua secundum communem ordinem sequitur gloria corporis, ut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Dioscorum, in Christo tamen dispensative factum est quod gloria animae non derivaretur ad corpus. Non ergo Christus meruit gloriam corporis. | Objection 3: Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit what flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the soul, whence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation it was brought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the glory of the body. |
| Praeterea, manifestatio excellentiae Christi non est bonum ipsius Christi, sed eorum qui eum cognoscunt, unde et pro praemio promittitur dilectoribus Christi ut eis manifestetur, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, si quis diligit me, diligetur a patre meo, et ego diligam eum, et manifestabo ei meipsum. Ergo Christus non meruit manifestationem suae altitudinis. | Objection 4: Further, the manifestation of Christ's excellence is a good, not of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is promised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be manifested to them, according to Jn. 14:21: "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." Therefore Christ did not merit the manifestation of His greatness. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Philipp. II, factus est obediens usque ad mortem, propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum. Meruit ergo obediendo suam exaltationem, et ita aliquid sibi meruit. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8,9): "Becoming obedient unto death . . . For which cause God also hath exalted Him." Therefore by obeying He merited His exaltation and thus He merited something for Himself. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod habere aliquod bonum per se est nobilius quam habere illud per aliud, semper enim causa quae est per se, potior est ea quae est per aliud, ut dicitur in VIII Physic. Hoc autem dicitur aliquis habere per seipsum, cuius est sibi aliquo modo causa. Prima autem causa omnium bonorum nostrorum per auctoritatem est Deus, et per hunc modum nulla creatura habet aliquid boni per seipsam, secundum illud I Cor. IV, quid habes quod non accepisti? Potest tamen secundario aliquis esse causa sibi alicuius boni habendi, inquantum scilicet in hoc ipso Deo cooperatur. Et sic ille qui habet aliquid per meritum proprium, habet quodammodo illud per seipsum. Unde nobilius habetur id quod habetur per meritum quam id quod habetur sine merito. | I answer that, To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it from another, for "what is of itself a cause is always more excellent than what is a cause through another," as is said Phys. viii, 5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that of which it is to some extent the cause. But of whatever good we possess the first cause by authority is God; and in this way no creature has any good of itself, according to 1 Cor. 4:7: "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" Nevertheless, in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause, to himself, of having certain good things, inasmuch as he cooperates with God in the matter, and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a manner, of himself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without merit. |
| Quia autem omnis perfectio et nobilitas Christo est attribuenda, consequens est quod ipse per meritum habuit illud quod alii per meritum habent, nisi sit tale quid cuius carentia magis dignitati Christi et perfectioni praeiudicet quam per meritum accrescat. Unde nec gratiam, nec scientiam, nec beatitudinem animae, nec divinitatem meruit, quia, cum meritum non sit nisi eius quod nondum habetur, oportet quod Christus aliquando istis caruisset; quibus carere magis diminuit dignitatem Christi quam augeat meritum. Sed gloria corporis, vel si quid aliud huiusmodi est, minus est quam dignitas merendi, quae pertinet ad virtutem caritatis. Et ideo dicendum est quod Christus gloriam corporis, et ea quae pertinent ad exteriorem eius excellentiam, sicut est ascensio, veneratio, et alia huiusmodi, habuit per meritum. Et sic patet quod aliquid sibi mereri potuit. | Now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ, consequently He must have by merit what others have by merit; unless it be of such a nature that its want would detract from Christ's dignity and perfection more than would accrue to Him by merit. Hence He merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of His soul, nor the Godhead, because, since merit regards only what is not yet possessed, it would be necessary that Christ should have been without these at some time; and to be without them would have diminished Christ's dignity more than His merit would have increased it. But the glory of the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of meriting, which pertains to the virtue of charity. Hence we must say that Christ had, by merit, the glory of His body and whatever pertained to His outward excellence, as His Ascension, veneration, and the rest. And thus it is clear that He could merit for Himself. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fruitio, quae est actus caritatis, pertinet ad gloriam animae, quam Christus non meruit. Et ideo, si per caritatem aliquid meruit, non sequitur quod idem sit meritum et praemium. Nec tamen per caritatem meruit inquantum erat caritas comprehensoris, sed inquantum erat viatoris, nam ipse fuit simul viator et comprehensor, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo, quia nunc non est viator, non est in statu merendi. | Reply to Objection 1: Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to the glory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited by charity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the same. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a comprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as was said above (Question [15], Article [10]). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in the state of meriting. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christo, secundum quod est Deus et Dei filius per naturam, debetur gloria divina et dominium omnium sicut primo et supremo domino. Nihilominus tamen debetur ei gloria sicut homini beato, quam quantum ad aliquid debuit habere sine merito, et quantum ad aliquid cum merito, ut ex supra dictis patet. | Reply to Objection 2: Because by nature Christ is God and the Son of God, the Divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as to the first and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a beatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and partly with merit, as is clear from what has been said. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod redundantia gloriae ex anima ad corpus est ex divina ordinatione secundum congruentiam humanorum meritorum, ut scilicet, sicut homo meretur per actum animae quem exercet in corpore, ita etiam remuneretur per gloriam animae redundantem ad corpus. Et propter hoc non solum gloria animae, sed etiam gloria corporis cadit sub merito, secundum illud Rom. VIII, vivificabit mortalia corpora nostra, propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in nobis. Et ita potuit cadere sub merito Christi. | Reply to Objection 3: It is by Divine appointment that there is an overflow of glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human merit; so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the body, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing to the body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the glory of the body falls under merit, according to Rm. 8:11: "He . . . shall quicken also our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']." And thus it could fall under Christ's merit. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod manifestatio excellentiae Christi pertinet ad bonum eius secundum esse quod habet in notitia aliorum, quamvis principalius pertineat ad bonum eorum qui eum cognoscunt secundum esse quod habent in seipsis. Sed hoc ipsum refertur ad Christum, inquantum sunt eius membra. | Reply to Objection 4: The manifestation of Christ's excellence is His good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others; although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly belongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is referred to Christ inasmuch as they are His members. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 19 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus aliis mereri non potuit. Dicitur enim Ezech. XVIII, anima quae peccaverit ipsa morietur. Ergo, pari ratione, anima quae meretur ipsa remunerabitur. Non est ergo possibile quod Christus aliis meruerit. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 18:4): "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die." Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the same shall be recompensed. Therefore it is not possible that Christ merited for others. |
| Praeterea, de plenitudine gratiae Christi omnes accipiunt, ut dicitur Ioan. I. Sed alii homines, habentes gratiam Christi, non possunt aliis mereri, dicitur enim Ezech. XIV quod, si fuerint in civitate Noe, Daniel et Iob, filium et filiam non liberabunt, sed ipsi iustitia sua liberabunt animas suas. Ergo nec Christus potuit aliquid nobis mereri. | Objection 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive, as is written Jn. 1:16. Now other men having Christ's grace cannot merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) that if "Noe and Daniel and Job be in the city [Vulg.: 'the midst thereof'] . . . they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice." Hence Christ could not merit anything for us. |
| Praeterea, merces quam quis meretur, debetur secundum iustitiam, et non secundum gratiam, ut patet Rom. IV. Si ergo Christus meruit salutem nostram, sequitur quod salus nostra non sit ex gratia Dei, sed ex iustitia, et quod iniuste agat cum eis quos non salvat, cum meritum Christi ad omnes se extendat. | Objection 3: Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to justice [Vulg.: 'debt'] and not according to grace," as is clear from Rm. 4:4. Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that our salvation is not by God's grace but by justice, and that He acts unjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ's merit extends to all. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. V, sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae. Sed demeritum Adae derivatur ad condemnationem aliorum. Ergo multo magis meritum Christi ad alios derivatur. | On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 5:18): "As by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life." But Adam's demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit of Christ reach others. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in Christo non solum fuit gratia sicut in quodam homine singulari, sed sicut in capite totius Ecclesiae, cui omnes uniuntur sicut capiti membra, ex quibus constituitur mystice una persona. Et exinde est quod meritum Christi se extendit ad alios, inquantum sunt membra eius, sicut etiam in uno homine actio capitis aliqualiter pertinet ad omnia membra eius, quia non solum sibi sentit, sed omnibus membris. | I answer that, As stated above (Question [8], Articles [1],5), grace was in Christ not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the whole Church, to Whom all are united, as members to a head, who constitute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ's merit extends to others inasmuch as they are His members; even as in a man the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since it perceives not merely for itself alone, but for all the members. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum singularis personae non nocet nisi sibi ipsi. Sed peccatum Adae, qui constitutus est a Deo principium totius naturae, ad alios per carnis propagationem derivatur. Et similiter meritum Christi, qui est a Deo constitutus caput omnium hominum quantum ad gratiam, se extendit ad omnia eius membra. | Reply to Objection 1: The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but the sin of Adam, who was appointed by God to be the principle of the whole nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So, too, the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by God to be the head of all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod alii de plenitudine Christi accipiunt, non quidem fontem gratiae, sed quandam particularem gratiam. Et ideo non oportet quod alii homines possint aliis mereri, sicut Christus. | Reply to Objection 2: Others receive of Christ's fulness not indeed the fount of grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be that men merit for others, as Christ did. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut peccatum Adae non derivatur ad alios nisi per carnalem generationem, ita meritum Christi non derivatur ad alios nisi per regenerationem spiritualem, quae fit in Baptismo, per quam Christo incorporamur, secundum illud Galat. III, omnes quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Et hoc ipsum est gratiae, quod homini conceditur regenerari in Christo. Et sic salus hominis est ex gratia. | Reply to Objection 3: As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ, according to Gal. 3:27, "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ"; and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be incorporated with Christ. And thus man's salvation is from grace. |