Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de ipsa conceptione salvatoris.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caro Christi non fuerit sumpta ex Adam. Dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. XV, primus homo de terra, terrenus, secundus homo de caelo, caelestis. Primus autem homo est Adam, secundus homo est Christus. Ergo Christus non est ex Adam, sed habet ab eo distinctam originem. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): "The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly." Now, the first man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him. |
| Praeterea, conceptio Christi debuit esse maxime miraculosa. Sed maius est miraculum formare corpus hominis ex limo terrae quam ex materia humana, quae de Adam trahitur. Ergo videtur quod non fuit conveniens Christum ab Adam carnem assumpsisse. Ergo videtur quod corpus Christi non debuit formari de massa humani generis derivata ab Adam, sed de aliqua alia materia. | Objection 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam. Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter. |
| Praeterea, peccatum in hunc mundum intravit per hominem unum, scilicet Adam, quia omnes in eo gentes originaliter peccaverunt, ut patet Rom. V. Sed si corpus Christi fuisset ab Adam sumptum, ipse etiam in Adam originaliter fuisset quando peccavit. Ergo peccatum originale contraxisset. Quod non decebat Christi puritatem. Non ergo corpus Christi est formatum de materia sumpta ab Adam. | Objection 3: Further, by "one man sin entered into this world," i.e. by Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from Rm. 5:12. But if Christ's body was derived from Adam, He would have been in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have contracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. II, nusquam Angelos apprehendit, scilicet filius Dei, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. Semen autem Abrahae sumptum est ab Adam. Ergo corpus Christi fuit formatum de materia ex Adam sumpta. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 2:16): "Nowhere doth He"---that is, the Son of God---"take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." But the seed of Abraham was derived from Adam. Therefore Christ's body was formed of matter derived from Adam. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus humanam naturam assumpsit ut eam a corruptione purgaret. Non autem purgatione indigebat humana natura nisi secundum quod infecta erat per originem vitiatam qua ex Adam descendebat. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut carnem sumeret ex materia ab Adam derivata, ut ipsa natura per assumptionem curaretur. | I answer that, Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should assume flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the assumption. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundus homo, idest Christus, dicitur esse de caelo non quidem quantum ad materiam corporis, sed vel quantum ad virtutem formativam corporis; vel etiam quantum ad ipsam eius divinitatem. Secundum autem materiam corpus Christi fuit terrenum, sicut et corpus Adae. | Reply to Objection 1: The second man, i.e. Christ, is said to be of heaven, not indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but either as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's body was. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, mysterium incarnationis Christi est quiddam miraculosum, non sicut ordinatum ad confirmationem fidei, sed sicut articulus fidei. Et ideo in mysterio incarnationis non requiritur quid sit maius miraculum, sicut in miraculis quae fiunt ad confirmationem fidei, sed quid sit divinae sapientiae convenientius, et magis expediens humanae saluti, quod requiritur in omnibus quae fidei sunt. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [29], Article [1], ad 2) the mystery of Christ's Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen faith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of the Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith' but what is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the salvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith. |
| Vel potest dici quod in mysterio incarnationis non solum attenditur miraculum ex materia conceptus, sed magis ex modo conceptionis et partus, quia scilicet virgo concepit et peperit Deum. | It may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch as a virgin conceived and gave birth to God. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, corpus Christi fuit in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam, quia scilicet ipsa materia corporalis corporis Christi derivata est ab Adam, non autem fuit ibi secundum seminalem rationem, quia non est concepta ex virili semine. Et ideo non contraxit originale peccatum sicut et ceteri, qui ab Adam per viam virilis seminis derivantur. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [15], Article [1], ad 2), Christ's body was in Adam in respect of a bodily substance---that is to say, that the corporeal matter of Christ's body was derived from Adam: but it was not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived from the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as others who are descended from Adam by man's seed. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non sumpserit carnem de semine David. Matthaeus enim, genealogiam Christi texens, eam ad Ioseph perduxit. Ioseph autem non fuit pater Christi, ut supra ostensum est. Non ergo videtur quod Christus de genere David descenderit. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ's father, as shown above (Question [28], Article [1], ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David. |
| Praeterea, Aaron fuit de tribu levi, ut patet Exod. VI, Maria autem, mater Christi, cognata dicitur Elisabeth, quae est filia Aaron, ut patet Luc. I. Cum ergo David de tribu Iuda fuerit, ut patet Matth. I, videtur quod Christus de semine David non descenderit. | Objection 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Lk. 1:5,36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Mt. 1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David. |
| Praeterea, Ierem. XXII dicitur de Iechonia, scribe virum istum sterilem, nec enim erit de semine eius vir qui sedeat super solium David. Sed de Christo dicitur Isaiae IX, super solium David sedebit. Ergo Christus non fuit de semine Iechoniae. Et per consequens nec de genere David, quia Matthaeus a David per Iechoniam seriem generationis perducit. | Objection 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer. 22:30): "Write this man barren . . . for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." Whereas of Christ it is written (Is. 9:7): "He shall sit upon the throne of David." Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Jechonias. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. I, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. | On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 1:3): "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod Christus specialiter duorum antiquorum patrum filius dicitur esse, Abrahae scilicet et David, ut patet Matth. I. Cuius est multiplex ratio. Prima quidem, quia ad hos specialiter de Christo repromissio facta est. Dictum est enim Abrahae, Gen. XXII, benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, quod apostolus de Christo exponit, dicens, Galat. III, Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini eius. Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multis, sed, quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus. Ad David autem dictum est, de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Unde et populi Iudaeorum, ut regem honorifice suscipientes, dicebant, Matth. XXI, hosanna filio David. | I answer that, Christ is said to have been the son especially of two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Mt. 1:1. There are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gn. 22:18): "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed": which words the Apostle expounds of Christ (Gal. 3:16): "To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'And to his seeds' as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ." And to David it was said (Ps. 131:11): "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." Wherefore the Jewish people, receiving Him with kingly honor, said (Mt. 21:9): "Hosanna to the Son of David." |
| Secunda ratio est quia Christus futurus erat rex, propheta et sacerdos. Abraham autem sacerdos fuit, ut patet ex hoc quod dominus dixit ad eum, Gen. XV, sume tibi vaccam triennem, et cetera. Fuit etiam propheta, secundum id quod dicitur Gen. XX, propheta est, et orabit pro te. David autem rex fuit et propheta. | A second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet, and priest. Now Abraham was a priest; which is clear from the Lord saying unto him (Gn. 15:9): "Take thee [Vulg.: 'Me'] a cow of three years old," etc. He was also a prophet, according to Gn. 20:7: "He is a prophet; and he shall pray for thee." Lastly David was both king and prophet. |
| Tertia ratio est quia in Abraham primo incoepit circumcisio, in David autem maxime manifestata est Dei electio, secundum illud quod dicitur I Reg. XIII, quaesivit sibi dominus virum iuxta cor suum. Et ideo utriusque filius Christus specialissime dicitur, ut ostendatur esse in salutem circumcisioni et electioni gentilium. | A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham: while in David God's election was most clearly made manifest, according to 1 Kgs. 13:14: "The Lord hath sought Him a man according to His own heart." And consequently Christ is called in a most special way the Son of both, in order to show that He came for the salvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio fuit Fausti Manichaei, volentis probare Christum non esse filium David, quia non est conceptus ex Ioseph, usque ad quem seriem generationis Matthaeus perducit. Contra quod Augustinus respondet, XXIII libro contra Faustum, quod, cum idem Evangelista dicat virum Mariae esse Ioseph, et Christi matrem virginem esse, et Christum ex semine David, quid restat nisi credere Mariam non fuisse extraneam a cognatione David; et eam Ioseph coniugem non frustra appellatam, propter animorum confoederationem, quamvis ei non fuerit carne commixtus; et quod potius propter dignitatem virilem ordo generationum ad Ioseph perducitur? Sic ergo nos credimus etiam Mariam fuisse in cognatione David, quia Scripturis credimus, quae utrumque dicunt, et Christum ex semine David secundum carnem, et eius matrem Mariam, non cum viro concumbendo, sed virginem. Ut enim dicit Hieronymus, super Matth., ex una tribu fuit Ioseph et Maria, unde et secundum legem eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam. Propter quod et simul censentur in Bethlehem, quasi de una stirpe generati. | Reply to Objection 1: Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew's genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): "Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary's husband and that Christ's mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on Mt. 1:18: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod huic obiectioni Gregorius Nazianzenus respondet dicens quod hoc nutu superno contigit, ut regium genus sacerdotali stirpi iungeretur, ut Christus, qui rex est et sacerdos, ab utrisque nasceretur secundum carnem. Unde et Aaron, qui fuit primus sacerdos secundum legem, duxit ex tribu Iudae coniugem Elisabeth, filiam Aminadab. Sic ergo potuit fieri ut pater Elisabeth aliquam uxorem habuerit de stirpe David, ratione cuius beata virgo Maria, quae fuit de stirpe David, esset Elisabeth cognata. Vel potius e converso quod pater beatae Mariae, de stirpe David existens, uxorem habuerit de stirpe Aaron. | Reply to Objection 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God's will, that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron. |
| Vel, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXIII contra Faustum, si Ioachim, pater Mariae, de stirpe Aaron fuit (ut Faustus haereticus per quasdam Scripturas apocryphas asserebat), credendum est quod mater Ioachim fuerit de stirpe David, vel etiam uxor eius, ita quod per aliquem modum dicamus Mariam fuisse de progenie David. | Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim's mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod per illam auctoritatem propheticam, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., non negatur ex semine Iechoniae posteros nascituros. Et ideo de semine eius Christus est. Et quod regnavit Christus, non contra prophetiam est, non enim saeculari honore regnavit; ipse enim dixit, regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. | Reply to Objection 3: As Ambrose says on Lk. 3:25, this prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias. And so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since He declared: "My kingdom is not of this world." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod genealogia Christi inconvenienter ab Evangelistis texatur. Dicitur enim Isaiae LIII de Christo, generationem eius quis enarrabit? Ergo non fuit Christi generatio enarranda. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably traced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Is. 53:8): "Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have been set down. |
| Praeterea, impossibile est unum hominem duos patres habere. Sed Matthaeus dicit quod Iacob genuit Ioseph, virum Mariae, Lucas autem dicit Ioseph fuisse filium Heli. Ergo contraria sibi invicem scribunt. | Objection 2: Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers. But Matthew says that "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary": whereas Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Therefore they contradict one another. |
| Praeterea, videntur in quibusdam a se invicem diversificari. Matthaeus enim, in principio libri incipiens ab Abraham, descendendo usque ad Ioseph, quadraginta duas generationes enumerat. Lucas autem post Baptismum Christi generationem Christi ponit, incipiens a Christo et perducens generationum numerum usque ad Deum, ponens generationes septuaginta septem, utroque extremo computato. Videtur ergo quod inconvenienter generationem Christi describant. | Objection 3: Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on several points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book, beginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates forty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy after His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of generations back to God, counting in all seventy-seven generations, the first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ's genealogy do not agree. |
| Praeterea, IV Reg. VIII legitur quod Ioram genuit Ochoziam; cui successit Ioas, filius eius; huic autem successit filius eius Amasias; postea regnavit filius eius Azarias, qui appellatur Ozias; cui successit Ioathan, filius eius. Matthaeus autem dicit quod Ioram genuit Oziam. Ergo videtur inconvenienter generationem Christi describere, tres reges in medio praetermittens. | Objection 4: Further, we read (4 Kgs. 8:24) that Joram begot Ochozias, who was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded by his son Amasius: after whom reigned his son Azarias, called Ozias; who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot Ozias. Therefore it seems that his account of Christ's genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle thereof. |
| Praeterea, omnes qui in Christi generatione describuntur patres habuerunt et matres, et plurimi etiam ex eis fratres habuerunt. Matthaeus autem in generatione Christi tres tantum matres nominat scilicet Thamar, Ruth et uxorem Uriae. Fratres autem nominat Iudae et Iechoniae, et iterum Phares et Zaram. Quorum nihil posuit Lucas. Ergo videntur Evangelistae inconvenienter genealogiam Christi descripsisse. | Objection 5: Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers also. Now in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three mothers---namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He also mentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner. |
| Sed contra est auctoritas Scripturae. | On the contrary, The authority of Scripture suffices. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicitur II Tim. III, omnis Scriptura sacra est divinitus inspirata. Quae autem divinitus fiunt ordinatissime fiunt, secundum illud Rom. XIII, quae a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. Unde convenienti ordine genealogia Christi est ab Evangelistis descripta. | I answer that, As is written (2 Tim. 3:16), "All Holy Scripture is inspired of God [Vulg.: 'All scripture inspired of God is profitable'], etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order, according to Rm. 13:1: "Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., Isaias loquitur de generatione divinitatis Christi. Matthaeus autem enarrat generationem Christi secundum humanitatem, non quidem explicans modum incarnationis, quia hoc etiam est ineffabile; sed enumerat patres ex quibus Christus secundum carnem processit | Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mt. 1, Isaias speaks of the generation of Christ's Godhead. Whereas Matthew relates the generation of Christ in His humanity; not indeed by explaining the manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by enumerating Christ's forefathers from whom He was descended according to the flesh. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ad hanc obiectionem, quam movit Iulianus apostata, diversimode ab aliquibus respondetur. Quidam enim, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, dicunt eosdem esse quos uterque Evangelista enumerat, sed sub diversis nominibus, quasi binomios. Sed hoc stare non potest, quia Matthaeus ponit unum filiorum David scilicet Salomonem, Lucas autem ponit alium, scilicet Nathan, quos secundum historiam libri regum constat fratres fuisse. | Reply to Objection 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as Gregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one of David's sons---namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions another---namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings (2 Kgs. 5:14) were clearly brothers. |
| Unde alii dixerunt quod Matthaeus veram genealogiam Christi tradidit, Lucas autem putativam, unde incoepit, ut putabatur, filius Ioseph. Erant enim aliqui ex Iudaeis qui, propter peccata regum Iuda, credebant Christum ex David non per reges, sed per aliam eius stirpem hominum privatorum, esse nasciturum. | Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ: while Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence he began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account of the crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private individuals. |
| Alii vero dixerunt quod Matthaeus posuit patres carnales, Lucas autem posuit patres spirituales, scilicet iustos viros, qui dicuntur patres propter similitudinem honestatis. | Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers by likeness of virtue. |
| In libro vero de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test., respondetur quod non est intelligendum quod Ioseph a Luca dicatur esse filius Heli, sed quia Heli et Ioseph fuerunt tempore Christi diversimode a David descendentes. Unde de Christo dicitur quod putabatur filius Ioseph, et quod ipse etiam Christus fuit Heli filius, quasi diceret quod Christus ea ratione qua dicitur filius Ioseph, potest dici filius Heli, et omnium eorum qui ex stirpe David descendunt; sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. IX, ex quibus, scilicet Iudaeis, Christus est secundum carnem. | But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [*Part i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says (Rm. 9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to the flesh." |
| Augustinus vero, in libro de quaest. Evang., tripliciter solvit, dicens, tres causae occurrunt, quarum aliquam Evangelista secutus est. Aut enim unus Evangelista patrem Ioseph a quo genitus est, nominavit, alter vero vel avum maternum, vel aliquem de cognatis maioribus posuit. Aut unus erat Ioseph naturalis pater, et alter eum adoptaverat. Aut, more Iudaeorum, cum sine filiis unus decessisset, eius uxorem propinquus accipiens, filium quem genuit propinquo mortuo deputavit, quod etiam quoddam genus adoptionis legalis est, ut ipse Augustinus dicit, in II de consensu Evang. | Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph's natural father: the other is father by adoption. Or, according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of his married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii). |
| Et haec ultima causa est verior, quam etiam Hieronymus, super Matth., ponit; et Eusebius Caesariensis, in ecclesiastica historia, ab Africano historiographo traditum asserit. Dicunt enim quod Mathan et Melchi diversis temporibus de una eademque uxore, Estha nomine, singulos filios procrearunt. Quia Mathan, qui per Salomonem descendit, uxorem eam primum ceperat, et, relicto filio uno, Iacob nomine, defunctus est; post cuius obitum, quoniam lex viduam alii viro non vetat nubere, Melchi, qui per Nathan genus ducit, cum esset ex eadem tribu sed non ex eodem genere, relictam Mathan accepit uxorem, ex qua et ipse suscepit filium, nomine Heli; et sic ex diverso patrum genere efficiuntur Iacob et Heli uterini fratres. Quorum alter, idest Iacob, fratris sui Heli, sine liberis defuncti, ex mandato legis accipiens uxorem, genuit Ioseph, natura quidem generis suum filium, secundum vero legis praeceptum, Heli efficitur filius. Et ideo Matthaeus dicit, Iacob genuit Ioseph, sed Lucas, quia legalem generationem describit, nullum nominat aliquem genuisse. | This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on Mt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers says that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting. |
| Et quamvis Damascenus dicat quod beata virgo Maria Ioseph attinebat secundum illam originem qua pater eius dicitur Heli, quia dicit eam ex Melchi descendisse, tamen credendum est quod etiam ex Salomone originem duxerit, secundum aliquem modum, per illos patres quos enumerat Matthaeus, qui carnalem Christi generationem dicitur enarrare; praesertim cum Ambrosius dicat Christum de semine Iechoniae descendisse. | And although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchi: yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended from Solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is said to have set down Christ's genealogy according to the flesh; and all the more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jechonias. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de consensu Evang., Matthaeus regiam in Christo instituerat insinuare personam, Lucas autem sacerdotalem. Unde in generationibus Matthaei significatur nostrorum susceptio peccatorum a domino Iesu Christo, inquantum scilicet per carnis originem similitudinem carnis peccati assumpsit. In generationibus autem Lucae significatur nostrorum ablutio peccatorum, quae est per sacrificium Christi. Et ideo generationes Matthaeus descendens enumerat, Lucas autem ascendens. Inde etiam est quod Matthaeus ab ipso David per Salomonem descendit, in cuius matre ille peccavit, Lucas vero ad ipsum David per Nathan ascendit per cuius nominis prophetam Deus peccatum illius expiavit. Et inde est etiam quod, quia Matthaeus ad mortalitatem nostram Christum descendentem voluit significare, ipsas generationes ab Abraham usque ad Ioseph, et usque ad ipsius Christi nativitatem, descendendo commemoravit ab initio Evangelii sui. Lucas autem non ab initio, sed a Baptismo Christi generationem narrat, nec descendendo, sed ascendendo, tanquam sacerdotem in expiandis peccatis magis assignans ubi testimonium Ioannes perhibuit, dicens, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Ascendendo autem, transit Abraham et pervenit ad Deum, cui mundati et expiati reconciliamur. Merito etiam adoptionis originem ipse suscepit, quia per adoptionem efficimur filii Dei; per carnalem vero generationem filius Dei filius hominis factus est. Satis autem demonstravit non se ideo dixisse Ioseph filium Heli quod de illo sit genitus, sed quod ab illo fuerat adoptatus, cum et ipsum Adam filium Dei dixit, cum sit factus a Deo. | Reply to Objection 3: According to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii) "Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ; Luke the priestly personality: so that in Matthew's genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as by his carnal origin "He assumed 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' But in Luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ's sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God expiated his sin." And hence it is also that, because "Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our mortal nature, he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his Gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and the birth of Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ's genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's Baptism, and not in the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins, to which John bore witness, saying: 'Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.' And in the ascending order, he passes Abraham and continues up to God, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating. With reason too he follows the origin of adoption; because by adoption we become children of God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of God became the Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently that he does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though begotten by him, but because he was adopted by him, since he says that Adam was the son of God, inasmuch as he was created by God." |
| Numerus etiam quadragenarius ad tempus praesentis vitae pertinet, propter quatuor partes mundi, in quo mortalem vitam ducimus sub Christo regnante. Quadraginta autem quater habent decem, et ipsa decem ab uno usque ad quatuor progrediente numero consummantur. Posset etiam denarius ad Decalogum referri, et quaternarius ad praesentem vitam; vel etiam ad quatuor Evangelia, secundum quod Christus regnat in nobis. Et ideo Matthaeus, regiam personam Christi commendans, quadraginta personas posuit excepto ipso. Sed hoc intelligendum est si sit idem Iechonias qui ponitur in fine secundi quaterdenarii et in principio tertii, ut Augustinus vult. Quod dicit factum esse ad significandum quod in Iechonia facta est quaedam deflexio ad extraneas gentes, quando in Babyloniam transmigratum est, quod etiam praefigurabat Christum a circumcisione ad praeputium migraturum. | Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life: because of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal life under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four multiplied by ten: while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number four to the present life; or again to the four Gospels, according to which Christ reigns in us. And thus "Matthew, putting forward the royal personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting Him" (cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be taken on the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of the second, and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen, as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to signify "that under Jechonias there was a certain defection to strange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also foreshadowed the fact that Christ would pass from the Jews to the Gentiles." |
| Hieronymus autem dicit duos fuisse Ioachim, idest Iechonias, patrem scilicet et filium, quorum uterque in generatione Christi assumitur, ut constet distinctio generationum, quas Evangelista per tres quaterdenarios distinguit. Quod ascendit ad quadraginta duas personas. Qui etiam numerus convenit sanctae Ecclesiae. Hic enim numerus consurgit ex senario, qui significat laborem praesentis vitae, et septenario, qui significat quietem vitae futurae, sexies enim septem sunt quadraginta duo. Ipse etiam quaterdenarius, qui ex denario et quaternario constituitur per aggregationem, ad eandem significationem pertinere potest quae attributa est quadragenario qui consurgit ex eisdem numeris secundum multiplicationem. | On the other hand, Jerome (on Mt. 1:12-15) says that there were two Joachims---that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of whom are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, so as to make clear the distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of fourteen; which amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which number may also be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product of six, which signifies the labor of the present life, and seven, which signifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are forty-two. The number fourteen, which is the sum of ten and four, can also be given the same signification as that given to the number forty, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication. |
| Numerus autem quo Lucas utitur in generationibus Christi, significat universitatem peccatorum. Denarius enim, tanquam iustitiae numerus, in decem praeceptis legis ostenditur. Peccatum autem est legis transgressio. Denarii vero numeri transgressio est undenarius. Septenarius autem significat universitatem, quia universum tempus septenario dierum numero volvitur. Septies autem undecim sunt septuaginta septem. Et ita per hoc significatur universitas peccatorum, quae per Christum tolluntur. | But the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the generality of sins. "For the number ten is shown in the ten precepts of the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven is the number beyond ten." And seven signifies universality: because "universal time is involved in seven days." Now seven times eleven are seventy-seven: so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken away by Christ. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus, super Matth., dicit, quia Ioram rex generi se miscuerat impiissimae Iezabel, idcirco usque ad tertiam generationem eius memoria tollitur, ne in sancto nativitatis ordine poneretur. Et ita, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quanta benedictio facta est super Iehu, qui vindictam fecerat super domum Achab et Iezabel, tanta est maledictio super domum Ioram, propter filiam iniqui Achab et Iezabel, ut usque ad quartam generationem praecidantur filii eius de numero regum, sicut scriptum est Exod. XX, reddam peccatum parentum in filios usque ad tertiam et quartam generationem. | Reply to Objection 4: As Jerome says on Mt. 1:8,11: "Because Joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked Jezabel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the Nativity." Hence as Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. i, falsely ascribed to Chrysostom] says: "Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu, who wrought vengeance on the house of Achab and Jezabel, so also great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter of Achab and Jezabel, so that until the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to Ex. 20:5: I shall visit [Vulg.: 'Visiting'] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." |
| Est etiam attendendum quod et alii reges fuerunt peccatores, qui in genealogia Christi ponuntur, sed non fuit eorum continua impietas. Nam, ut dicitur in libro quaest. novi et Vet. Test., Salomon merito patris sui remissus in regno est, Roboam merito Asae, filii Abiae, filii sui. Horum autem trium continua fuit impietas. | It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in Christ's genealogy: but their impiety was not continuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. lxxxv: "Solomon through his father's merits is included in the series of kings; and Roboam . . . through the merits of Asa," who was son of his (Roboam's) son, Abiam. "But the impiety of those three [*i.e. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, of whom St. Augustine asks in this question lxxxv, why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous." |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., in genealogia salvatoris nulla sanctarum mulierum assumitur, sed eas quas Scriptura reprehendit, ut qui propter peccatores venerat, de peccatoribus nascens, omnium peccata deleret. Unde ponitur Thamar, quae reprehenditur de socerino concubitu; et Rahab, quae fuit meretrix; et Ruth, quae fuit alienigena; et Bethsabee, uxor Uriae, quae fuit adultera. Quae tamen proprio nomine non ponitur, sed ex nomine viri designatur, tum propter peccatum ipsius, quia fuit adulterii et homicidii conscia; tum etiam ut, nominato viro, peccatum David ad memoriam revocetur. Et quia Lucas Christum designare intendit ut peccatorum expiatorem, talium mulierum mentionem non facit. Fratres autem Iudae commemorat, ut ostendat eos ad Dei populum pertinere, cum tamen Ismael, frater Isaac, et Esau, frater Iacob, a populo Dei fuerint separati; propter quod in generatione Christi non commemorantur. Et etiam ut superbiam de nobilitate excludat, multi enim fratrum Iudae ex ancillis nati fuerunt, sed omnes simul erant patriarchae et tribuum principes. Phares autem et Zaram simul nominantur, ut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., quia per eos gemina describitur vita populorum, una secundum legem, quae significatur per Zaram; altera per fidem, quae significatur per Phares. Fratres autem Iechoniae ponit, quia omnes regnaverunt diversis temporibus, quod in aliis regibus non acciderat. Vel quia eorum similis fuit et iniquitas et miseria. | Reply to Objection 5: As Jerome says on Mt. 1:3: "None of the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin." Thus Thamar is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people: whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23, "they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares is the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various times: which was not the case with other kings: or, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod materia corporis Christi non debuit esse assumpta de femina. Sexus enim masculinus est nobilior quam sexus femininus. Sed maxime decuit ut Christus assumeret id quod est perfectum in humana natura. Ergo non videtur quod debuerit de femina carnem assumere, sed magis de viro, sicut Heva de costa viri formata est. | Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man. |
| Praeterea, quicumque ex femina concipitur, utero feminae includitur. Sed Deo, qui caelum et terram implet, ut dicitur Ierem. XXIII, non competit ut parvo feminae utero includatur. Ergo videtur quod non debuit concipi de femina. | Objection 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is written Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a woman. |
| Praeterea, illi qui concipiuntur ex femina, quandam immunditiam patiuntur, ut dicitur Iob XXV, nunquid iustificari potest homo comparatus Deo? Aut apparere mundus natus de muliere? Sed in Christo nulla immunditia esse debuit, ipse enim est Dei sapientia, de qua dicitur, Sap. VII, quod nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit. Ergo non videtur quod debuerit carnem assumpsisse de femina. | Objection 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be justified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean?" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore it does not seem right that He should have taken flesh from a woman. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere. | On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His Son, made of a woman." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, licet filius Dei carnem humanam assumere potuerit de quacumque materia voluisset, convenientissimum tamen fuit ut de femina carnem acciperet. Primo quidem, quia per hoc tota humana natura nobilitata est. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro octogintatrium quaest., hominis liberatio in utroque sexu debuit apparere. Ergo, quia virum oportebat suscipere, qui sexus honorabilior est, conveniens erat ut feminei sexus liberatio hinc appareret quia ille vir de femina natus est. | I answer that, Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu. 11): "It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man, being of the nobler sex, to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman." |
| Secundo, quia per hoc veritas incarnationis adstruitur. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in libro de incarnatione, multa secundum naturam invenies, et ultra naturam. Secundum conditionem etenim naturae in utero, feminei scilicet corporis, fuit; sed supra conditionem virgo concepit, virgo generavit, ut crederes quia Deus erat qui innovabat naturam; et homo erat, qui secundum naturam nascebatur ex homine. Et Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Volusianum, si omnipotens Deus hominem, ubicumque formatum, non ex materno utero crearet, sed repentinum inferret aspectibus, nonne opinionem confirmaret erroris; nec hominem verum suscepisse ullo modo crederetur; et, dum omnia mirabiliter facit, auferret quod misericorditer fecit? Nunc vero ita inter Deum et hominem mediator apparuit ut, in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis, et insolita solitis temperaret. | Secondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "Thou shalt find in Christ many things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance with nature He was within the womb," viz. of a woman's body: "but it was above nature that a virgin should conceive and give birth: that thou mightest believe that He was God, who was renewing nature; and that He was man who, according to nature, was being born of a man." And Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "If Almighty God had created a man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly produced him to sight . . . would He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had become a true man? And whilst He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy? But now, He, the mediator between God and man, has so shown Himself, that, uniting both natures in the unity of one Person, He has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things, and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary." |
| Tertio, quia per hunc modum completur omnis diversitas generationis humanae. Nam primus homo productus est ex limo terrae sine viro et femina; Heva vero producta est ex viro sine femina; ceteri vero homines producuntur ex viro et femina. Unde hoc quartum quasi Christo proprium relinquebatur, ut produceretur ex femina sine viro. | Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the "slime of the earth," without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve was made of man but not of woman: and other men are made from both man and woman. So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that He should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sexus masculinus est nobilior quam femineus, ideo humanam naturam in masculino sexu assumpsit. Ne tamen sexus femininus contemneretur, congruum fuit ut carnem assumeret de femina. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de agone Christiano, nolite vos ipsos contemnere, viri, filius Dei virum suscepit. Nolite vos ipsas contemnere, feminae, filius Dei natus est ex femina. | Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a woman." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXIII libro contra Faustum, qui hac obiectione utebatur, non plane, inquit, Catholica fides, quae Christum, Dei filium, natum secundum carnem credit ex virgine ullo modo eundem Dei filium sic in utero mulieris includit quasi extra non sit, quasi caeli et terrae administrationem deseruerit, quasi a patre recesserit. Sed vos, Manichaei, corde illo quo nihil potestis nisi corporalia phantasmata cogitare, ista omnino non capitis. Ut enim dicit in epistola ad Volusianum, hominum iste sensus est nihil nisi corpora valentium cogitare, quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum, quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est. Longe aliud est natura animae quam corporis. Quanto magis Dei, qui creator est animae et corporis. Novit ubique totus esse, et nullo contineri loco; novit venire, non recedendo ubi erat; novit abire, non deserendo quo venerat. | Reply to Objection 2: Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii) replies to Faustus, who urged this objection; "By no means," says he, "does the Catholic Faith, which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of a virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of God was so shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease to be elsewhere, as though He no longer continued to govern heaven and earth, and as though He had withdrawn Himself from the Father. But you, Manicheans, being of a mind that admits of nought but material images, are utterly unable to grasp these things." For, as he again says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii), "it belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible bodies, none of which can be entire everywhere, because they must of necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places . . . Far otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body: how much more the nature of God, the Creator of soul and body! . . . He is able to be entire everywhere, and to be contained in no place. He is able to come without moving from the place where He was; and to go without leaving the spot whence He came." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in conceptione viri ex femina non est aliquid immundum inquantum est opus Dei, unde dicitur Act. X, quod Deus creavit, tu ne commune dixeris, idest immundum. Est tamen aliqua ibi immunditia ex peccato proveniens, prout cum libidine aliquis concipitur ex commixtione maris et feminae. Quod tamen in Christo non fuit, ut supra ostensum est. Si tamen aliqua ibi esset immunditia, ex ea non inquinaretur Dei verbum, quod nullo modo est mutabile. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro contra quinque haereses, dicit Deus, creator hominis, quid est quod te permovet in mea nativitate? Non sum libidinis conceptus cupiditate. Ego matrem de qua nascerer, feci. Si solis radius cloacarum sordes siccare novit, eis inquinari non novit multo magis splendor lucis aeternae quocumque radiaverit mundare potest, ipse pollui non potest. | Reply to Objection 3: There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is written (Acts 10:15): "That which God hath cleansed do not thou call common," i.e. unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness therein, resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ, as shown above (Question [28], Article [1]). But if there were any uncleanness therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caro Christi non fuerit concepta ex purissimis sanguinibus virginis. Dicitur enim in collecta quod Deus verbum suum de virgine carnem sumere voluit. Sed caro differt a sanguine. Ergo corpus Christi non est sumptum de sanguine virginis. | Objection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived of the Virgin's purest blood: For it is said in the collect (Feast of the Annunciation) that God "willed that His Word should take flesh from a Virgin." But flesh differs from blood. Therefore Christ's body was not taken from the Virgin's blood. |
| Praeterea, sicut mulier formata est miraculose de viro, ita corpus Christi miraculose formatum est de virgine. Sed mulier non dicitur esse formata de sanguine viri, sed magis de carne et ossibus eius, secundum illud quod dicitur Gen. II, hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam corpus Christi formari debuerit de sanguine virginis, sed de carnibus et ossibus eius. | Objection 2: Further, as the woman was miraculously formed from the man, so Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But the woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but rather from his flesh and bones, according to Gn. 2:23: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." It seems therefore that neither should Christ's body have been formed from the Virgin's blood, but from her flesh and bones. |
| Praeterea, corpus Christi fuit eiusdem speciei cum corporibus aliorum hominum. Sed corpora aliorum hominum non formantur ex purissimo sanguine, sed ex semine et sanguine menstruo. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam corpus Christi fuerit conceptum ex purissimis sanguinibus virginis. | Objection 3: Further, Christ's body was of the same species as other men's bodies. But other men's bodies are not formed from the purest blood but from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore it seems that neither was Christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the Virgin. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod filius Dei construxit sibi ipsi ex castis et purissimis sanguinibus virginis carnem animatam anima rationali. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Son of God, from the Virgin's purest blood, formed Himself flesh, animated with a rational soul." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in conceptione Christi fuit secundum conditionem naturae quod est natus ex femina, sed supra conditionem naturae quod est natus ex virgine. Habet autem hoc naturalis conditio, quod in generatione animalis femina materiam ministret, ex parte autem maris sit activum principium in generatione, sicut probat philosophus, in libro de Generat. Animal. Femina autem quae ex mare concipit, non est virgo. Et ideo ad supernaturalem modum generationis Christi pertinet quod activum principium in generatione illa fuerit virtus supernaturalis divina, sed ad naturalem modum generationis eius pertinet quod materia de qua corpus eius conceptum est, sit conformis materiae quam aliae feminae subministrant ad conceptionem prolis. Haec autem materia, secundum philosophum, in libro de Generat. Animal., est sanguis mulieris, non quicumque, sed perductus ad quandam ampliorem digestionem per virtutem generativam matris, ut sit materia apta ad conceptum. Et ideo ex tali materia fuit corpus Christi conceptum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [4]), in Christ's conception His being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but that He was born of a virgin was above the laws of nature. Now, such is the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female supplies the matter, while the male is the active principle of generation; as the Philosopher proves (De Gener. Animal. i). But a woman who conceives of a man is not a virgin. And consequently it belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring. Now, this matter, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.), is the woman's blood, not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect stage of secretion by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt for conception. And therefore of such matter was Christ's body conceived. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum beata virgo fuerit eiusdem naturae cum aliis feminis, consequens est quod habuerit carnem et ossa eiusdem naturae. Carnes autem et ossa in aliis feminis sunt actuales corporis partes, ex quibus constituitur integritas corporis, et ideo subtrahi non possunt sine corruptione corporis vel deminutione. Christus autem, qui venerat corrupta reparare, nullam corruptionem aut deminutionem integritati matris eius inferre debuit. Et ideo non debuit corpus Christi formari de carne vel ossibus virginis, sed de sanguine, qui nondum est actu pars, sed est potentia totum, ut dicitur in libro de Generat. Animal. Et ideo dicitur carnem de virgine sumpsisse, non quod materia corporis fuerit actu caro, sed sanguis, qui est potentia caro. | Reply to Objection 1: Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature as other women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same nature as theirs. Now, flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom: and consequently they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or diminished. But as Christ came to heal what was corrupt, it was not fitting that He should bring corruption or diminution to the integrity of His Mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's body should be formed not from the flesh or bones of the Virgin, but from her blood, which as yet is not actually a part, but is potentially the whole, as stated in De Gener. Animal. i. Hence He is said to have taken flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter from which His body was formed was actual flesh, but blood, which is flesh potentially. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in prima parte dictum est, Adam, quia institutus erat ut principium quoddam humanae naturae, habebat in suo corpore aliquid carnis et ossis quod non pertinebat ad integritatem personalem ipsius, sed solum inquantum erat naturae humanae principium. Et de tali formata est mulier, absque viri detrimento. Sed nihil tale fuit in corpore virginis, ex quo corpus Christi posset formari sine corruptione materni corporis. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the FP, Question [92], Article [3], ad 2, Adam, through being established as a kind of principle of human nature, had in his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone, which belonged to him, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to his state as a principle of human nature. And from this was the woman formed, without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there was nothing of this sort, from which Christ's body could be formed without detriment to His Mother's body. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod semen feminae non est generationi aptum, sed est quiddam imperfectum in genere seminis, quod non potuit produci ad perfectum seminis complementum, propter imperfectionem virtutis femineae. Et ideo tale semen non est materia quae de necessitate requiratur ad conceptum, sicut philosophus dicit, in libro de Generat. Animal. Et ideo in conceptione Christi non fuit, praesertim quia, licet sit imperfectum in genere seminis, tamen cum quadam concupiscentia resolvitur, sicut et semen maris; in illo autem conceptu virginali concupiscentia locum habere non potuit. Et ideo Damascenus dicit quod corpus Christi non seminaliter conceptum est. Sanguis autem menstruus, quem feminae per singulos menses emittunt, impuritatem quandam naturalem habet corruptionis, sicut et ceterae superfluitates, quibus natura non indiget, sed eas expellit. Ex tali autem menstruo corruptionem habente, quod natura repudiat, non formatur conceptus, sed hoc est purgamentum quoddam illius puri sanguinis qui digestione quadam est praeparatus ad conceptum, quasi purior et perfectior alio sanguine. Habet tamen impuritatem libidinis in conceptione aliorum hominum, inquantum ex ipsa commixtione maris et feminae talis sanguis ad locum generationi congruum attrahitur. Sed hoc in conceptione Christi non fuit, quia operatione spiritus sancti talis sanguis in utero virginis adunatus est et formatus in prolem. Et ideo dicitur corpus Christi ex castissimis et purissimis sanguinibus virginis formatum. | Reply to Objection 3: Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is something imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the imperfection of the female power, it has not been possible to bring to complete seminal perfection. Consequently this semen is not the necessary matter of conception; as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. i): wherefore there was none such in Christ's conception: all the more since, though it is imperfect in the seminal order, a certain concupiscence accompanies its emission, as also that of the male semen: whereas in that virginal conception there could be no concupiscence. Wherefore Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ's body was not conceived "seminally." But the menstrual blood, the flow of which is subject to monthly periods, has a certain natural impurity of corruption: like other superfluities, which nature does not heed, and therefore expels. Of such menstrual blood infected with corruption and repudiated by nature, the conception is not formed; but from a certain secretion of the pure blood which by a process of elimination is prepared for conception, being, as it were, more pure and more perfect than the rest of the blood. Nevertheless, it is tainted with the impurity of lust in the conception of other men: inasmuch as by sexual intercourse this blood is drawn to a place apt for conception. This, however, did not take place in Christ's conception: because this blood was brought together in the Virgin's womb and fashioned into a child by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore is Christ's body said to be "formed of the most chaste and purest blood of the Virgin." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi fuerit secundum aliquid signatum in Adam et in aliis patribus. Dicit enim Augustinus, X super Gen. ad Litt., quod caro Christi fuit in Adam et Abraham secundum corpulentam substantiam. Sed corpulenta substantia est quiddam signatum. Ergo caro Christi fuit in Adam et Abraham et in aliis patribus secundum aliquid signatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was in Adam and the patriarchs as to something signate. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham "by way of a bodily substance." But bodily substance is something signate. Therefore Christ's flesh was in Adam, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, according to something signate. |
| Praeterea, Rom. I dicitur quod Christus factus est ex semine David secundum carnem. Sed semen David fuit aliquid signatum in ipso. Ergo Christus fuit in David secundum aliquid signatum, et eadem ratione in aliis patribus. | Objection 2: Further, it is said (Rm. 1:3) that Christ "was made . . . of the seed of David according to the flesh." But the seed of David was something signate in him. Therefore Christ was in David, according to something signate, and for the same reason in the other patriarchs. |
| Praeterea, Christus ad humanum genus affinitatem habet inquantum ex humano genere carnem assumpsit. Sed si caro illa non fuit secundum aliquid signatum in Adam, nullam videtur habere affinitatem ad humanum genus, quod ex Adam derivatur, sed magis ad alias res, unde materia carnis eius assumpta est. Videtur ergo quod caro Christi fuerit in Adam et aliis patribus secundum aliquid signatum. | Objection 3: Further, the human race is Christ's kindred, inasmuch as He took flesh therefrom. But if that flesh were not something signate in Adam, the human race, which is descended from Adam, would seem to have no kindred with Christ: but rather with those other things from which the matter of His flesh was taken. Therefore it seems that Christ's flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs according to something signate. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt., quocumque modo Christus fuit in Adam et Abraham, alii homines ibi fuerunt, sed non convertitur. Alii autem homines non fuerunt in Adam et Abraham secundum aliquam materiam signatam, sed solum secundum originem, ut in prima parte habitum est. Ergo neque Christus fuit in Adam et Abraham secundum aliquid signatum, et, eadem ratione, nec in aliis patribus. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that in whatever way Christ was in Adam and Abraham, other men were there also; but not conversely. But other men were not in Adam and Abraham by way of some signate matter, but only according to origin, as stated in the FP, Question [119] , Article [1], Article [2], ad 4. Therefore neither was Christ in Adam and Abraham according to something signate; and, for the same reason, neither was He in the other patriarchs. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, materia corporis Christi non fuit caro et os beatae virginis, nec aliquid quod fuerit actu pars corporis eius, sed sanguis, qui est potentia caro. Quidquid autem fuit in beata virgine a parentibus acceptum, fuit actu pars corporis beatae virginis. Unde illud quod fuit in beata virgine a parentibus acceptum, non fuit materia corporis Christi. Et ideo dicendum est quod corpus Christi non fuit in Adam et aliis patribus secundum aliquid signatum, ita scilicet quod aliqua pars corporis Adae, vel alicuius alterius, posset designari determinate, ut diceretur quod ex hac materia formabitur corpus Christi, sed fuit ibi secundum originem, sicut et caro aliorum hominum. Corpus enim Christi habet relationem ad Adam et alios patres mediante corpore matris eius. Unde nullo alio modo fuit in patribus corpus Christi quam corpus matris eius, quod non fuit in patribus secundum materiam signatam, sicut nec corpora aliorum hominum, ut in prima parte dictum est. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [5], ad 1), the matter of Christ's body was not the flesh and bones of the Blessed Virgin, nor anything that was actually a part of her body, but her blood which was her flesh potentially. Now, whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, as received from her parents, was actually a part of her body. Consequently that which the Blessed Virgin received from her parents was not the matter of Christ's body. Therefore we must say that Christ's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs according to something signate, in the sense that some part of Adam's or of anyone else's body could be singled out and designated as the very matter from which Christ's body was to be formed: but it was there according to origin, just as was the flesh of other men. For Christ's body is related to Adam and the other patriarchs through the medium of His Mother's body. Consequently Christ's body was in the patriarchs, in no other way than was His Mother's body, which was not in the patriarchs according to signate matter: as neither were the bodies of other men, as stated in the FP, Question [119], Article [1], Article [2], ad 4. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur Christus fuisse in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam, non est intelligendum hoc modo, quod corpus Christi in Adam fuerit quaedam corpulenta substantia, sed quia corpulenta substantia corporis Christi, idest materia quam sumpsit ex virgine, fuit in Adam sicut in principio activo, non autem sicut in principio materiali; quia scilicet per virtutem generativam Adae, et aliorum ab Adam descendentium usque ad beatam virginem, factum est ut illa materia taliter praepararetur ad conceptum corporis Christi. Non autem fuit materia illa formata in corpus Christi per virtutem seminis ab Adam derivatam. Et ideo Christus dicitur fuisse in Adam originaliter secundum corpulentam substantiam, non autem secundum seminalem rationem. | Reply to Objection 1: The expression "Christ was in Adam according to bodily substance," does not mean that Christ's body was a bodily substance in Adam: but that the bodily substance of Christ's body, i.e. the matter which He took from the Virgin, was in Adam as in its active principle, but not as in its material principle: in other words, by the generative power of Adam and his descendants down to the Blessed Virgin, this matter was prepared for Christ's conception. But this matter was not fashioned into Christ's body by the seminal power derived from Adam. Therefore Christ is said to have been in Adam by way of origin, according to bodily substance: but not according to seminal virtue. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis corpus Christi non fuerit in Adam et in aliis patribus secundum seminalem rationem, corpus tamen beatae virginis, quod ex semine maris est conceptum, fuit in Adam et in aliis patribus secundum rationem seminalem. Et ideo, mediante beata virgine, Christus secundum carnem dicitur esse ex semine David per modum originis. | Reply to Objection 2: Although Christ's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs, according to seminal virtue, yet the Blessed Virgin's body was thus in them, through her being conceived from the seed of a man. For this reason, through the medium of the Blessed Virgin, Christ is said to be of the seed of David, according to the flesh, by way of origin. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus habet affinitatem ad humanum genus secundum similitudinem speciei. Similitudo autem speciei attenditur, non secundum materiam remotam, sed secundum materiam proximam, et secundum principium activum, quod generat sibi simile in specie. Sic igitur affinitas Christi ad humanum genus sufficienter conservatur per hoc quod corpus Christi formatum est ex sanguinibus virginis, derivatis secundum originem ab Adam et aliis patribus. Nec refert ad hanc affinitatem undecumque materia illorum sanguinum sumpta fuerit, sicut nec hoc refert in generatione aliorum hominum, sicut in prima parte dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ and the human race are kindred, through the likeness of species. Now, specific likeness results not from remote but from proximate matter, and from the active principle which begets its like in species. Thus, then, the kinship of Christ and the human race is sufficiently preserved by His body being formed from the Virgin's blood, derived in its origin from Adam and the other patriarchs. Nor is this kinship affected by the matter whence this blood is taken, as neither is it in the generation of other men, as stated in the FP, Question [119], Article [2], ad 3. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caro Christi in antiquis patribus peccato infecta non fuerit. Dicitur enim Sap. VII quod in divinam sapientiam nihil inquinatum incurrit. Christus autem est Dei sapientia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. I. Ergo caro Christi nunquam peccato inquinata fuit. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not infected by sin in the patriarchs. For it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into" Divine Wisdom. But Christ is the Wisdom of God according to 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore Christ's flesh was never defiled by sin. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod Christus primitias nostrae naturae assumpsit. Sed in primo statu caro humana non erat peccato infecta. Ergo caro Christi non fuit infecta nec in Adam nec in aliis patribus. | Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ "assumed the first-fruits of our nature." But in the primitive state human flesh was not infected by sin. Therefore Christ's flesh was not infected either in Adam or in the other patriarchs. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt., quod natura humana semper habuit, cum vulnere, vulneris medicinam. Sed id quod est infectum, non potest esse vulneris medicina, sed magis ipsum indiget medicina. Ergo semper in natura humana fuit aliquid non infectum, ex quo postmodum est corpus Christi formatum. | Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "human nature ever had, together with the wound, the balm with which to heal it." But that which is infected cannot heal a wound; rather does it need to be healed itself. Therefore in human nature there was ever something preserved from infection, from which afterwards Christ's body was formed. |
| Sed contra est quod corpus Christi non refertur ad Adam et ad alios patres nisi mediante corpore beatae virginis, de qua carnem assumpsit. Sed corpus beatae virginis totum fuit in originali conceptum, ut supra dictum est, et ita etiam, secundum quod fuit in patribus, fuit peccato obnoxium. Ergo caro Christi, secundum quod fuit in patribus, fuit peccato obnoxia. | On the contrary, Christ's body is not related to Adam and the other patriarchs, save through the medium of the Blessed Virgin's body, of whom He took flesh. But the body of the Blessed Virgin was wholly conceived in original sin, as stated above (Question [14], Article [3], ad 1), and thus, as far as it was in the patriarchs, it was subject to sin. Therefore the flesh of Christ, as far as it was in the patriarchs, was subject to sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, cum dicimus Christum, vel eius carnem, fuisse in Adam et in aliis patribus, comparamus ipsum, vel carnem eius, ad Adam et ad alios patres. Manifestum est autem quod alia fuit conditio patrum, et alia Christi, nam patres fuerunt subiecti peccato, Christus autem fuit omnino a peccato immunis. Dupliciter ergo in hac comparatione errare contingit. Uno modo, ut attribuamus Christo, vel carni eius, conditionem quae fuit in patribus, puta si dicamus quod Christus in Adam peccavit quia in eo aliquo modo fuit. Quod falsum est, quia non eo modo in eo fuit ut ad Christum peccatum Adae pertineret; quia non derivatur ab eo secundum concupiscentiae legem, sive secundum rationem seminalem, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, When we say that Christ or His flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs, we compare Him, or His flesh, to Adam and the other patriarchs. Now, it is manifest that the condition of the patriarchs differed from that of Christ: for the patriarchs were subject to sin, whereas Christ was absolutely free from sin. Consequently a twofold error may occur on this point. First, by attributing to Christ, or to His flesh, that condition which was in the patriarchs; by saying, for instance, that Christ sinned in Adam, since after some fashion He was in him. But this is false; because Christ was not in Adam in such a way that Adam's sin belonged to Christ: forasmuch as He is not descended from him according to the law of concupiscence, or according to seminal virtue; as stated above (Article [1], ad 3, Article [6], ad 1; Question [15], Article [1], ad 2). |
| Alio modo contingit errare, si attribuamus ei quod actu fuit in patribus, conditionem Christi, vel carnis eius, ut scilicet, quia caro Christi, secundum quod in Christo fuit, non fuit peccato obnoxia, ita etiam in Adam et in aliis patribus fuit aliqua pars corporis eius quae non fuit peccato obnoxia, ex qua postmodum corpus Christi formaretur; sicut quidam posuerunt. Quod quidem esse non potest. Primo, quia caro Christi non fuit secundum aliquid signatum in Adam et in aliis patribus, quod posset distingui a reliqua eius carne sicut purum ab impuro, sicut iam supra dictum est. Secundo quia, cum caro humana peccato inficiatur ex hoc quod est per concupiscentiam concepta, sicut tota caro alicuius hominis per concupiscentiam concipitur, ita etiam tota peccato inquinatur. Et ideo dicendum est quod tota caro antiquorum patrum fuit peccato obnoxia, nec fuit in eis aliquid a peccato immune, de quo postmodum corpus Christi formaretur. | Secondly, error may occur by attributing the condition of Christ or of His flesh to that which was actually in the patriarchs: by saying, for instance, that, because Christ's flesh, as existing in Christ, was not subject to sin, therefore in Adam also and in the patriarchs there was some part of his body that was not subject to sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body was formed; as some indeed held. For this is quite impossible. First, because Christ's flesh was not in Adam and in the other patriarchs, according to something signate, distinguishable from the rest of his flesh, as pure from impure; as already stated (Article [6]). Secondly, because since human flesh is infected by sin, through being conceived in lust, just as the entire flesh of a man is conceived through lust, so also is it entirely defiled by sin. Consequently we must say that the entire flesh of the patriarchs was subjected to sin, nor was there anything in them that was free from sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body could be formed. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus non assumpsit carnem humani generis subditam peccato, sed ab omni infectione peccati mundatam. Et ideo in Dei sapientiam nihil inquinatum incurrit. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ did not assume the flesh of the human race subject to sin, but cleansed from all infection of sin. Thus it is that "no defiled thing cometh into the Wisdom of God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus dicitur primitias nostrae naturae assumpsisse, quantum ad similitudinem conditionis, quia scilicet assumpsit carnem peccato non infectam, sicut fuerat caro hominis ante peccatum. Non autem hoc intelligitur secundum continuationem puritatis, ita scilicet quod illa caro puri hominis servaretur a peccato immunis usque ad formationem corporis Christi. | Reply to Objection 2: Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our nature, as to the likeness of condition; forasmuch as He assumed flesh not infected by sin, like unto the flesh of man before sin. But this is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that primitive purity, as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved in its freedom from sin until the formation of Christ's body. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in humana natura, ante Christum, erat vulnus, idest infectio originalis peccati, in actu. Medicina autem vulneris non erat ibi actu, sed solum secundum virtutem originis, prout ab illis patribus propaganda erat caro Christi. | Reply to Objection 3: Before Christ, there was actually in human nature a wound, i.e. the infection of original sin. But the balm to heal the wound was not there actually, but only by a certain virtue of origin, forasmuch as from those patriarchs the flesh of Christ was to be propagated. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 31 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus fuerit in lumbis Abrahae decimatus. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Heb. VII, quod levi, pronepos Abrahae, decimatus fuit in Abraham, quia, eo decimas dante Melchisedech, adhuc levi erat in lumbis eius. Similiter Christus erat in lumbis Abrahae quando decimas dedit. Ergo ipse etiam Christus decimatus fuit in Abraham. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ "paid tithes" in Abraham's loins. For the Apostle says (Heb. 7:6-9) that Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, "paid tithes in Abraham," because, when the latter paid tithes to Melchisedech, "he was yet in his loins." In like manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the latter paid tithes. Therefore Christ Himself also paid tithes in Abraham. |
| Praeterea, Christus est ex semine Abrahae secundum carnem quam de matre accepit. Sed mater eius fuit decimata in Abraham. Ergo, pari ratione, Christus. | Objection 2: Further, Christ is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh which He received from His Mother. But His Mother paid tithes in Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ. |
| Praeterea, illud in Abraham decimabatur quod indigebat curatione, ut Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt. Curatione autem indigebat omnis caro peccato obnoxia. Cum ergo caro Christi fuerit peccato obnoxia, sicut dictum est, videtur quod caro Christi in Abraham fuerit decimata. | Objection 3: Further, "in Abraham tithe was levied on that which needed healing," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x). But all flesh subject to sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh was the subject of sin, as stated above (Article [7]), it seems that Christ's flesh paid tithes in Abraham. |
| Praeterea, hoc non videtur aliquo modo derogare dignitati Christi. Nihil enim prohibet, patre alicuius pontificis decimas dante alicui sacerdoti, filium eius pontificem maiorem esse simplici sacerdote. Licet ergo dicatur Christus decimatus, Abraham decimas dante Melchisedech, non tamen propter hoc excluditur quin Christus sit maior quam Melchisedech. | Objection 4: Further, this does not seem to be at all derogatory to Christ's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop pays tithes to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of higher rank than an ordinary priest. Consequently, although we may say that Christ paid tithes when Abraham paid them to Melchisedech, it does not follow that Christ was not greater than Melchisedech. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt. quod Christus ibi, scilicet in Abraham, decimatus non est, cuius caro inde non fervorem vulneris, sed materiam medicaminis traxit. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "Christ did not pay tithes there," i.e. in Abraham, "for His flesh derived from him, not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the antidote." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum intentionem apostoli, oportet dicere quod Christus in lumbis Abrahae non fuerit decimatus. Probat enim apostolus maius esse sacerdotium quod est secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sacerdotio levitico, per hoc quod Abraham decimas dedit Melchisedech, adhuc levi existente in lumbis eius, ad quem pertinet legale sacerdotium. Si autem Christus etiam in Abraham decimatus esset, eius sacerdotium non esset secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sed minus sacerdotio Melchisedech. Et ideo dicendum est quod Christus non est decimatus in lumbis Abrahae, sicut levi. | I answer that, It behooves us to say that the sense of the passage quoted from the Apostle is that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham. For the Apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech is greater than the Levitical priesthood, from the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech, while Levi, from whom the legal priesthood was derived, was yet in his loins. Now, if Christ had also paid tithes in Abraham, His priesthood would not have been according to the order of Melchisedech, but of a lower order. Consequently we must say that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham's loins, as Levi did. |
| Quia enim ille qui decimas dat, novem sibi retinet et decimum alii attribuit, quod est perfectionis signum, inquantum est quodammodo terminus omnium numerorum, qui procedunt usque ad decem; inde est quod ille qui decimas dat, protestatur se imperfectum et perfectionem alii attribuere. Imperfectio autem humani generis est propter peccatum, quod indiget perfectione eius qui a peccato curat. Curare autem a peccato est solius Christi, ipse enim est agnus qui tollit peccatum mundi, ut dicitur Ioan. I. Figuram autem eius gerebat Melchisedech, ut apostolus probat, Heb. VII. Per hoc ergo quod Abraham Melchisedech decimas dedit, praefiguravit se, velut in peccato conceptum, et omnes qui ab eo descensuri erant ea ratione ut peccatum originale contraherent, indigere curatione quae est per Christum. Isaac autem et Iacob et levi, et omnes alii, sic fuerunt in Abraham ut ex eo derivarentur non solum secundum corpulentam substantiam, sed etiam secundum rationem seminalem, per quam originale contrahitur. Et ideo omnes in Abraham sunt decimati, idest praefigurati indigere curatione quae est per Christum. Solus autem Christus sic fuit in Abraham ut ab eo derivaretur non secundum rationem seminalem, sed secundum corpulentam substantiam. Et ideo non fuit in Abraham sicut curatione indigens, sed magis sicut vulneris medicina. Et ideo non fuit in lumbis Abrahae decimatus. | For since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself, and surrenders the tenth to another, inasmuch as the number ten is the sign of perfection, as being, in a sort, the terminus of all numbers which mount from one to ten, it follows that he who pays a tithe bears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another. Now, to sin is due the imperfection of the human race, which needs to be perfected by Him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from sin belongs to Christ alone, for He is the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29), whose figure was Melchisedech, as the Apostle proves (Heb. 7). Therefore by giving tithes to Melchisedech, Abraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in sin, and all who were to be his descendants in contracting original sin, needed that healing which is through Christ. And Isaac, Jacob, and Levi, and all the others were in Abraham in such a way so as to be descended from him, not only as to bodily substance, but also as to seminal virtue, by which original sin is transmitted. Consequently, they all paid tithes in Abraham, i.e. foreshadowed as needing to be healed by Christ. And Christ alone was in Abraham in such a manner as to descend from him, not by seminal virtue, but according to bodily substance. Therefore He was not in Abraham so as to need to be healed, but rather "as the balm with which the wound was to be healed." Therefore He did not pay tithes in Abraham's loins. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. | Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, quia beata virgo fuit in originali concepta, fuit in Abraham sicut curatione indigens. Et ideo fuit ibi decimata, velut inde descendens secundum seminalem rationem. De corpore autem Christi non est sic, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore she paid tithes in him, as descending from him according to seminal virtue. But this is not true of Christ's body, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod caro Christi dicitur fuisse in antiquis patribus peccato obnoxia, secundum qualitatem quam habuit in ipsis parentibus, qui fuerunt decimati. Non autem secundum qualitatem quam habet prout est actu in Christo, qui non est decimatus. | Reply to Objection 3: Christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin, according as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the condition in which it was in His forefathers, who paid the tithes: but not by reason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not pay the tithes. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod sacerdotium leviticum secundum carnis originem derivabatur. Unde non minus fuit in Abraham quam in levi. Unde per hoc quod Abraham decimas dedit Melchisedec tanquam maiori, ostenditur sacerdotium Melchisedec, inquantum gerit figuram Christi, esse maius sacerdotio levitico. Sacerdotium autem Christi non sequitur carnis originem, sed gratiam spiritualem. Et ideo potest esse quod pater dedit decimas alicui sacerdoti tanquam minor maiori, et tamen filius eius, si sit pontifex, est maior illo sacerdote, non propter carnis originem, sed propter gratiam spiritualem, quam habet a Christo. | Reply to Objection 4: The levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin: wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi. Consequently, since Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech as to one greater than he, it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedech, inasmuch as he was a figure of Christ, was greater than that of Levi. But the priesthood of Christ does not result from carnal origin, but from spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible that a father pay tithes to a priest, as the less to the greater, and yet his son, if he be a bishop, is greater than that priest, not through carnal origin, but through the spiritual grace which he has received from Christ. |