St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 14 [ << | >> ]


Deinde considerandum est de defectibus quos Christus in humana natura assumpsit.
  • Et primo, de defectibus corporis;
  • secundo, de defectibus animae.
We must now consider the defects Christ assumed in the human nature;
  • and first, of the defects of body;
  • secondly, of the defects of soul.
Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum filius Dei assumere debuerit in humana natura corporis defectus. (1) Whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature defects of body?
Secundo, utrum assumpserit necessitatem his defectibus subiacendi. (2) Whether He assumed the obligation of being subject to these defects?
Tertio, utrum hos defectus contraxerit. (3) Whether He contracted these defects?
Quarto, utrum omnes huiusmodi defectus assumpserit. (4) Whether He assumed all these defects?

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 14 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1  [ << | >> ]

Whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of body?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod filius Dei non debuit assumere naturam humanam cum corporis defectibus. Sicut enim anima unita est verbo Dei personaliter, ita et corpus. Sed anima Christi habuit omnimodam perfectionem, et quantum ad gratiam et quantum ad scientiam, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam corpus eius debuit esse omnibus modis perfectum, nullum in se habens defectum. Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought not to have assumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is personally united to the Word of God, so also is His body. But the soul of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was said above (Question [7], Article [9]; Question [9], seqq.). Hence, His body also ought to have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it.
Praeterea, anima Christi videbat verbum Dei ea visione qua beati vident, ut supra dictum est, et sic anima Christi erat beata. Sed ex beatitudine animae glorificatur corpus, dicit enim Augustinus, in epistola ad Dioscorum, tam potenti natura Deus fecit animam ut ex eius plenissima beatitudine redundet etiam in inferiorem naturam, quae est corpus, non beatitudo, quae fruentis et intelligentis est propria, sed plenitudo sanitatis, idest incorruptionis vigor. Corpus igitur Christi fuit incorruptibile, et absque omni defectu. Objection 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above (Question [9], Article [2]), and thus the soul of Christ was blessed. Now by the beatification of the soul the body is glorified; since, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios. cxviii), "God made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness of its blessedness there pours over even into the lower nature" (i.e. the body), "not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and vision, but the fulness of health" (i.e. the vigor of incorruptibility). Therefore the body of Christ was incorruptible and without any defect.
Praeterea, poena consequitur culpam. Sed in Christo non fuit aliqua culpa, secundum illud I Pet. II, qui peccatum non fecit. Ergo nec defectus corporales, qui sunt poenales, in eo esse debuerunt. Objection 3: Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was no fault in Christ, according to 1 Pt. 2:22: "Who did no guile." Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have been in Him.
Praeterea, nullus sapiens assumit id quod impedit illum a proprio fine. Sed per huiusmodi defectus corporales multipliciter videtur impediri finis incarnationis. Primo quidem, quia propter huiusmodi infirmitates homines ab eius cognitione impediebantur, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, desideravimus eum; despectum et novissimum virorum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem, et quasi absconditus est vultus eius et despectus; unde nec reputavimus eum. Secundo, quia sanctorum patrum desiderium non videtur impleri, ex quorum persona dicitur Isaiae li, consurge, consurge, induere fortitudinem, brachium domini. Tertio, quia congruentius per fortitudinem quam per infirmitatem videbatur potestas Diaboli posse superari, et humana infirmitas posse sanari. Non ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod filius Dei humanam naturam assumpserit cum corporalibus infirmitatibus sive defectibus. Objection 4: Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his proper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of the Incarnation seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing Him, according to Is. 53:2,3: "[There was no sightliness] that we should be desirous of Him. Despised and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity, and His look was, as it were, hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed Him not." Secondly, because the de. sire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person it is written (Is. 51:9): "Arise, arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou Arm of the Lord." Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the devil's power to be overcome and man's weakness healed, by strength than by weakness. Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting that the Son of God assumed human nature with infirmities or defects of body.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. II, in eo in quo passus est ipse et tentatus, potens est et eis qui tentantur auxiliari. Sed ad hoc venit ut nos adiuvaret, unde et David dicebat, levavi oculos meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi. Ergo conveniens fuit quod filius Dei carnem assumpserit humanis infirmitatibus subiacentem, ut in ea posset pati et tentari, et sic auxilium nobis ferre. On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 2:18): "For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Ps. 120:1): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me." Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.
Respondeo dicendum conveniens fuisse corpus assumptum a filio Dei humanis infirmitatibus et defectibus subiacere, et praecipue propter tria. Primo quidem, quia ad hoc filius Dei, carne assumpta, venit in mundum, ut pro peccato humani generis satisfaceret. Unus autem pro peccato alterius satisfacit dum poenam peccato alterius debitam in seipsum suscipit. Huiusmodi autem defectus corporales, scilicet mors, fames et sitis, et huiusmodi, sunt poena peccati, quod est in mundum per Adam introductum, secundum illud Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors. Unde conveniens fuit, quantum ad finem incarnationis, quod huiusmodi poenalitates in nostra carne susciperet, vice nostra, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, vere languores nostros ipse tulit. Secundo, propter fidem incarnationis adstruendam. Cum enim natura humana non aliter esset nota hominibus nisi prout huiusmodi corporalibus defectibus subiacet, si sine his defectibus filius Dei naturam humanam assumpsisset, videretur non fuisse verus homo, nec veram carnem habuisse, sed phantasticam, ut Manichaei dixerunt. Et ideo, ut dicitur Philipp. II, exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo. Unde et Thomas per aspectum vulnerum ad fidem est revocatus, ut dicitur Ioan. XX. Tertio, propter exemplum patientiae, quod nobis exhibet passiones et defectus humanos fortiter tolerando. Unde dicitur Heb. XII, sustinuit a peccatoribus adversus semetipsum contradictionem, ut non fatigemini, animis vestris deficientes. I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Rm. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of the Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Is. 53:4, "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in the Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Phil. 2:7: "He... emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related Jn. 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod satisfactio pro peccato alterius habet quidem quasi materiam poenas quas aliquis pro peccato alterius sustinet, sed pro principio habet habitum animae ex quo inclinatur ad volendum satisfacere pro alio, et ex quo satisfactio efficaciam habet; non enim esset satisfactio efficax nisi ex caritate procederet, ut infra dicetur. Et ideo oportuit animam Christi perfectam esse quantum ad habitus scientiarum et virtutum, ut haberet facultatem satisfaciendi, et quod corpus eius subiectum esset infirmitatibus, ut ei satisfactionis materia non deesset. Reply to Objection 1: The penalties one suffers for another's sin are the matter, as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin; but the principle is the habit of soul, whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy, for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity, as will be explained (XP, Question [14], Article [2]). Hence, it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards the habit of knowledge and virtue, in order to have the power of satisfying; but His body was subject to infirmities, that the matter of satisfaction should not be wanting.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum naturalem habitudinem quae est inter animam et corpus, ex gloria animae redundat gloria ad corpus, sed haec naturalis habitudo in Christo subiacebat voluntati divinitatis ipsius, ex qua factum est ut beatitudo remaneret in anima et non derivaretur ad corpus, sed caro pateretur quae conveniunt naturae passibili; secundum illud quod dicit Damascenus, quod beneplacito divinae voluntatis permittebatur carni pati et operari quae propria. Reply to Objection 2: From the natural relationship which is between the soul and the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory. Yet this natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of His Godhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what belongs to a passible nature; thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15) that, "it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it."
Ad tertium dicendum quod poena semper sequitur culpam, actualem vel originalem, quandoque quidem eius qui punitur; quandoque autem alterius, pro quo ille qui patitur poenas satisfacit. Et sic accidit in Christo, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, ipse vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras; attritus est propter scelera nostra. Reply to Objection 3: Punishment always follows sin actual or original, sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ, according to Is. 53:5: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins."
Ad quartum dicendum quod infirmitas assumpta a Christo non impedivit finem incarnationis, sed maxime promovit, ut dictum est. Et quamvis per huiusmodi infirmitates absconderetur eius divinitas, manifestabatur tamen humanitas, quae est via ad divinitatem perveniendi, secundum illud Rom. V, accessum habemus ad Deum per Iesum Christum. Desiderabant autem antiqui patres in Christo, non quidem fortitudinem corporalem, sed spiritualem, per quam et Diabolum vicit et humanam infirmitatem sanavit. Reply to Objection 4: The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede, but greatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And although these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known His Manhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according to Rm. 5:1,2: "By Jesus Christ we have access to God." Moreover, the ancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but spiritual strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil and healed human weakness.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 14 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2  [ << | >> ]

Whether Christ was of necessity subject to these defects?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non ex necessitate his defectibus subiacuerit. Dicitur enim Isaiae LIII, oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et loquitur de oblatione ad passionem. Sed voluntas opponitur necessitati. Ergo Christus non ex necessitate subiacuit corporis defectibus. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not of necessity subject to these defects. For it is written (Is. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will"; and the prophet is speaking of the offering of the Passion. But will is opposed to necessity. Therefore Christ was not of necessity subject to bodily defects.
Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in III libro, nihil coactum in Christo consideratur, sed omnia voluntaria. Sed quod est voluntarium, non est necessarium. Ergo huiusmodi defectus non fuerunt ex necessitate in Christo. Objection 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20): "Nothing obligatory is seen in Christ: all is voluntary." Now what is voluntary is not necessary. Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ.
Praeterea, necessitas infertur ab aliquo potentiori. Sed nulla creatura est potentior quam anima Christi, ad quam pertinebat proprium corpus conservare. Ergo huiusmodi defectus seu infirmitates non fuerunt in Christo ex necessitate. Objection 3: Further, necessity is induced by something more powerful. But no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which it pertained to preserve its own body. Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII, misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Sed conditio carnis peccati est quod habeat necessitatem moriendi, et sustinendi alias huiusmodi passiones. Ergo talis necessitas sustinendi hos defectus fuit in carne Christi. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 8:3) that "God" sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Now it is a condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying, and suffering other like passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in Christ's flesh.
Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est necessitas. Una quidem coactionis, quae fit ab agente extrinseco. Et haec quidem necessitas contrariatur et naturae et voluntati, quorum utrumque est principium intrinsecum. Alia autem est necessitas naturalis, quae consequitur principia naturalia, puta formam, sicut necessarium est ignem calefacere; vel materiam, sicut necessarium est corpus ex contrariis compositum dissolvi. Secundum igitur hanc necessitatem quae consequitur materiam, corpus Christi subiectum fuit necessitati mortis, et aliorum huiusmodi defectuum. Quia, sicut dictum est, beneplacito divinae voluntatis Christi carni permittebatur agere et pati quae propria, haec autem necessitas causatur ex principiis humanae carnis, ut dictum est. Si autem loquamur de necessitate coactionis secundum quod repugnat naturae corporali, sic iterum corpus Christi, secundum conditionem propriae naturae, necessitati subiacuit et clavi perforantis et flagelli percutientis. Secundum vero quod necessitas talis repugnat voluntati, manifestum est quod in Christo non fuit necessitas horum defectuum, nec per respectum ad voluntatem divinam; nec per respectum ad voluntatem humanam Christi absolute, prout sequitur rationem deliberativam; sed solum secundum naturalem motum voluntatis, prout scilicet naturaliter refugit mortem et corporis nocumenta. I answer that, Necessity is twofold. one is a necessity of "constraint," brought about by an external agent; and this necessity is contrary to both nature and will, since these flow from an internal principle. The other is "natural" necessity, resulting from the natural principles---either the form (as it is necessary for fire to heat), or the matter (as it is necessary for a body composed of contraries to be dissolved). Hence, with this necessity, which results from the matter, Christ's body was subject to the necessity of death and other like defects, since, as was said (Article [1], ad 2), "it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to do and suffer what belonged to it." And this necessity results from the principles of human nature, as was said above in this article. But if we speak of necessity of constraint, as repugnant to the bodily nature, thus again was Christ's body in its own natural condition subject to necessity in regard to the nail that pierced and the scourge that struck. Yet inasmuch as such necessity is repugnant to the will, it is clear that in Christ these defects were not of necessity as regards either the Divine will, or the human will of Christ considered absolutely, as following the deliberation of reason; but only as regards the natural movement of the will, inasmuch as it naturally shrinks from death and bodily hurt.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus dicitur oblatus quia voluit, et voluntate divina, et voluntate humana deliberata, licet mors esset contra naturalem motum voluntatis humanae, ut dicit Damascenus. Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be "offered because it was His own will," i.e. Divine will and deliberate human will; although death was contrary to the natural movement of His human will, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23,24).
Ad secundum patet responsio ex dictis. Reply to Objection 2: This is plain from what has been said.
Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil fuit potentius quam anima Christi absolute, nihil tamen prohibet aliquid fuisse potentius quantum ad hunc effectum; sicut clavus ad perforandum. Et hoc dico secundum quod anima Christi consideratur secundum propriam naturam et virtutem. Reply to Objection 3: Nothing was more powerful than Christ's soul, absolutely; yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more powerful in regard to this or that effect, as a nail for piercing. And this I say, in so far as Christ's soul is considered in its own proper nature and power.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 14 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3  [ << | >> ]

Whether Christ contracted these defects?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus defectus corporales contraxit. Illud enim contrahere dicimur quod simul cum natura ex origine trahimus. Sed Christus simul cum natura humana defectus et infirmitates corporales per suam originem traxit a matre, cuius caro huiusmodi defectibus subiacebat. Ergo videtur quod hos defectus contraxit. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects. For we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth. But Christ, together with human nature, derived His bodily defects and infirmities through His birth from His mother, whose flesh was subject to these defects. Therefore it seems that He contracted these defects.
Praeterea, illud quod ex principiis naturae causatur, simul cum natura trahitur, et ita contrahitur. Sed huiusmodi poenalitates causantur ex principiis naturae humanae. Ergo eas Christus contraxit. Objection 2: Further, what is caused by the principles of nature is derived together with nature, and hence is contracted. Now these penalties are caused by the principles of human nature. Therefore Christ contracted them.
Praeterea, secundum huiusmodi defectus Christus aliis hominibus similatur ut dicitur Heb. II. Sed alii homines huiusmodi defectus contraxerunt. Ergo videtur quod etiam Christus huiusmodi defectus contraxit. Objection 3: Further, Christ is likened to other men in these defects, as is written Heb. 2:17. But other men contract these defects. Therefore it seems that Christ contracted these defects.
Sed contra est quod huiusmodi defectus contrahuntur ex peccato, secundum illud Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum intravit in hunc mundum, et per peccatum mors. Sed in Christo non habuit locum peccatum. Ergo huiusmodi defectus Christus non contraxit. On the contrary, These defects are contracted through sin, according to Rm. 5:12: "By one man sin entered into this world and by sin, death." Now sin had no place in Christ. Therefore Christ did not contract these defects.
Respondeo dicendum quod in verbo contrahendi intelligitur ordo effectus ad causam, ut scilicet illud dicatur contrahi quod simul cum sua causa ex necessitate trahitur. Causa autem mortis et horum defectuum in humana natura est peccatum, quia per peccatum mors intravit in mundum, ut dicitur Rom. V. Et ideo illi proprie dicuntur hos defectus contrahere qui ex debito peccati hos defectus incurrunt. Christus autem hos defectus non habuit ex debito peccati, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, exponens illud Ioan. III, qui de sursum venit, super omnes est, de sursum venit Christus, idest de altitudine humanae naturae, quam habuit ante peccatum primi hominis. Accepit enim naturam humanam absque peccato in illa puritate in qua erat in statu innocentiae. Et simili modo potuisset assumere humanam naturam absque defectibus. Sic igitur patet quod Christus non contraxit hos defectus, quasi ex debito peccati eos suscipiens, sed ex propria voluntate. I answer that, In the verb "to contract" is understood the relation of effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin, since "by sin death entered into this world," according to Rm. 5:12. And hence they who incur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not these defects, as due to sin, since, as Augustine [*Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord.], expounding Jn. 3:31, "He that cometh from above, is above all," says: "Christ came from above, i.e. from the height of human nature, which it had before the fall of the first man." For He received human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caro virginis concepta fuit in originali peccato, et ideo hos defectus contraxit. Sed caro Christi ex virgine assumpsit naturam absque culpa. Et similiter potuisset naturam assumere absque poena, sed voluit suscipere poenam propter opus nostrae redemptionis implendum, sicut dictum est. Et ideo habuit huiusmodi defectus, non contrahendo, sed voluntarie assumendo. Reply to Objection 1: The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, [*See introductory note to Question [27]] and therefore contracted these defects. But from the Virgin, Christ's flesh assumed the nature without sin, and He might likewise have assumed the nature without its penalties. But He wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out the work of our redemption, as stated above (Article [1]). Therefore He had these defects---not that He contracted them, but that He assumed them.
Ad secundum dicendum quod causa mortis et aliorum corporalium defectuum in humana natura est duplex. Una quidem remota, quae accipitur ex parte principiorum materialium humani corporis, inquantum est ex contrariis compositum. Sed haec causa impediebatur per originalem iustitiam. Et ideo proxima causa mortis et aliorum defectuum est peccatum, per quod est subtracta originalis iustitia. Et propter hoc, quia Christus fuit sine peccato, dicitur non contraxisse huiusmodi defectus, sed voluntarie assumpsisse. Reply to Objection 2: The cause of death and other corporeal defects of human nature is twofold: the first is remote, and results from the material principles of the human body, inasmuch as it is made up of contraries. But this cause was held in check by original justice. Hence the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin, whereby original justice is withdrawn. And thus, because Christ was without sin, He is said not to have contracted these defects, but to have assumed them.
Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus in huiusmodi defectibus assimilatus est aliis hominibus quantum ad qualitatem defectuum, non autem quantum ad causam. Et ideo non contraxit huiusmodi defectus, sicut et alii. Reply to Objection 3: Christ was made like to other men in the quality and not in the cause of these defects; and hence, unlike others, He did not contract them.

Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 14 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4  [ << | >> ]

Whether Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus omnes defectus corporales hominum assumere debuit. Dicit enim Damascenus, quod est inassumptibile, est incurabile. Sed Christus venerat omnes defectus nostros curare. Ergo omnes defectus nostros assumere debuit. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,18): "What is unassumable is incurable." But Christ came to cure all our defects. Therefore He ought to have assumed all our defects.
Praeterea, dictum est quod ad hoc quod Christus pro nobis satisfaceret, debuit habere habitus perfectivos in anima et defectus in corpore. Sed ipse ex parte animae assumpsit plenitudinem omnis gratiae. Ergo ex parte corporis debuit assumere omnes defectus. Objection 2: Further it was said (Article [1]), that in order to satisfy for us, Christ ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of body. Now as regards the soul, He assumed the fulness of all grace. Therefore as regards the body, He ought to have assumed all defects.
Praeterea, inter omnes defectus corporales praecipuum locum tenet mors. Sed Christus mortem assumpsit. Ergo multo magis omnes defectus alios assumere debuit. Objection 3: Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief place. Now Christ assumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He to have assumed other defects.
Sed contra est quod contraria non possunt simul fieri in eodem. Sed quaedam infirmitates sunt sibi ipsis contrariae, utpote ex contrariis principiis causatae. Ergo non potuit esse quod Christus omnes infirmitates humanas assumeret. On the contrary, Contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the same. Now some infirmities are contrary to each other, being caused by contrary principles. Hence it could not be that Christ assumed all human infirmities.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Christus humanos defectus assumpsit ad satisfaciendum pro peccato humanae naturae, ad quod requirebatur quod perfectionem scientiae et gratiae haberet in anima. Illos igitur defectus Christus assumere debuit qui consequuntur ex peccato communi totius naturae, nec tamen repugnant perfectioni scientiae et gratiae. Sic igitur non fuit conveniens ut omnes defectus seu infirmitates humanas assumeret. Sunt enim quidam defectus qui repugnant perfectioni scientiae et gratiae, sicut ignorantia, pronitas ad malum, et difficultas ad bonum. Quidam autem defectus sunt qui non consequuntur communiter totam humanam naturam propter peccatum primi parentis, sed causantur in aliquibus hominibus ex quibusdam particularibus causis, sicut lepra et morbus caducus et alia huiusmodi. Qui quidem defectus quandoque causantur ex culpa hominis, puta ex inordinatione victus, quandoque autem ex defectu virtutis formativae. Quorum neutrum convenit Christo, quia caro eius de spiritu sancto concepta est, qui est infinitae sapientiae et virtutis, errare et deficere non valens; et ipse nihil inordinatum in regimine suae vitae exercuit. Sunt autem tertii defectus qui in omnibus hominibus communiter inveniuntur ex peccato primi parentis, sicut mors, fames, sitis, et alia huiusmodi. Et hos defectus omnes Christus suscepit. Quos Damascenus vocat naturales et indetractibiles passiones, naturales quidem, quia consequuntur communiter totam humanam naturam; indetractibiles quidem, quia defectum scientiae et gratiae non important. I answer that, As stated above (Articles [1],2), Christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this it was necessary for Him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace in His soul. Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it was not fitting for Him to assume all human defects or infirmities. For there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy, and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man, e.g. from inordinate eating; sometimes by a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost, Who has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the order of His life. But there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ assumed, which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls "natural and indetractible passions" ---natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes particulares defectus hominum causantur ex corruptibilitate et passibilitate corporis, superadditis quibusdam particularibus causis. Et ideo, dum Christus curavit passibilitatem et corruptibilitatem corporis nostri per hoc quod eam assumpsit, ex consequenti omnes alios defectus curavit. Reply to Objection 1: All particular defects of men are caused by the corruptibility and passibility of the body, some particular causes being added; and hence, since Christ healed the passibility and corruptibility of our body by assuming it, He consequently healed all other defects.
Ad secundum dicendum quod plenitudo omnis gratiae et scientiae animae Christi secundum se debebatur, ex hoc ipso quod erat a verbo Dei assumpta. Et ideo absolute omnem plenitudinem sapientiae et gratiae Christus assumpsit. Sed defectus nostros dispensative assumpsit, ut pro peccato nostro satisfaceret, non quia ei secundum se competerent. Et ideo non oportuit quod omnes assumeret, sed solum illos qui sufficiebant ad satisfaciendum pro peccato totius humanae naturae. Reply to Objection 2: The fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to Christ's soul of itself, from the fact of its being assumed by the Word of God; and hence Christ assumed all the fulness of knowledge and wisdom absolutely. But He assumed our defects economically, in order to satisfy for our sin, and not that they belonged to Him of Himself. Hence it was not necessary for Him to assume them all, but only such as sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature.
Ad tertium dicendum quod mors in omnes homines devenit ex peccato primi parentis, non autem quidam alii defectus, licet sint morte minores. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 3: Death comes to all men from the sin of our first parent; but not other defects, although they are less than death. Hence there is no parity.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:40 1998.