Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum Deus possit virginem corruptam reparare Whether God can repair a corrupted virgin Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus possit virginem reparare. To the first we proceed thus. It seems that God can repair a virgin. Ad omnipotentiam enim Dei pertinet quod non sit impossibile apud eum omne verbum, ut dicitur Lucae I; sed hoc est quoddam verbum, virginem reparare post lapsum; ergo Deus potest virginem reparare post lapsum. Obj. 1: For to the omnipotence of God it pertains that every word should not be impossible before him (Luke 1:37). But this is a certain word: to repair a virgin after a lapse. Therefore, God can repair a virgin after a lapse. Sed contra est quod Ieronimus dicit: cum Deus cetera possit, non potest reparare virginem post ruinam; et habetur in Decretis, XXXII, q. V. On the contrary: Jerome says: although God otherwise is able, he is not able to repair a virgin after ruin; and this is contained in the Decretum (C. 32, q. 5). Responsio. Dicendum quod in virginitate duo possumus considerare. Quorum unum est ipsa integritas mentis et corporis; et sic Deus virginem potest reparare post ruinam: potest enim et mentem reintegrare per gratiam et corpus consolidate per miraculum. Aliud autem est causa integritatis praedictae, quia scilicet mulier virgo non fuit cognita <a> viro; et quantum ad hoc, Deus non potest virginem post ruinam reparare; non enim potest facere ut ea quae iam est cognita a viro non fuerit cognita, sicut nec de aliquo quod factum est, potest facere quod factum non fuerit. Potentia enim Dei se extendit ad totum ens, unde solum id a Dei potentia excluditur quod repugnat rationi entis; et hoc est simul esse et non esse, et eiusdem rationis est quod fuit non fuisse. Unde Augustinus dicit XXVI Contra Faustum: quisque dicit: si omnipotens est Deus, faciat ut ea quae facta sunt, facta non fuerint, non videt se hoc dicere: . . . faciat ut ea quae vera sunt, eo ipso quo vera sunt, falsa sint. I answer that in virginity we can consider two things. One is the integrity itself of mind and body; and thus, God can repair a virgin after ruin: for he can both reintegrate the mind through grace and consolidate the body through a miracle. Yet the cause of the aforesaid integrity is another thing, namely, because a virgin woman has not been known by a man. Regarding this, God cannot repair a virgin after ruin, for he cannot make it that she who already has been known by a man was not known, just as neither concerning anything done can he make it that it was not done. For the power of God extends itself unto the whole of being. Hence there is excluded from the power of God only that which is repugnant to the character of being: and this is to be and not to be simultaneously. And that something which was and was not, is of this same character. Hence Augustine says in the twenty-sixth book of Against Faustus: someone says: if God is omnipotent, let him make it that those things which have been done, should not have been done, and he does not see that he says this: . . . let him make it that those things which are true, by this very thing by which they are true, should be false. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum verbum sit conceptus mentis, nihil quod contradictionem implicat verbum dici potest, quia non cadit in conceptu mentis, ut probatur in IV Metaphysicae. Reply Obj. 1: It must be said, therefore, that since a word is a concept of the mind, nothing which involves a contradiction can be called a word because it does not fall in a concept of the mind, as is proven in the fourth book of the Metaphysics. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum Deus possit peccare, si vult Whether God can sin, if he wills Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa: Deus potest peccare, si vult. To the second we proceed thus. It seems that this is false: God can sin, if he wills. De quocumque enim possum dicere quod homo potest facere illud si vult, potest etiam dici simpliciter quod homo potest facere illud; si igitur haec propositio est vera: Deus potest peccare, si vult, sequitur quod haec sit vera: Deus potest peccare; sed hoc est erroneum; ergo et primum. Obj. 1: For about anything that I can say a man can do if he wills, it can also be said absolutely that a man can do that thing. If, therefore, this proposition is true: God can sin, if he wills, it follows that this is true: God can sin. But this is erroneous; therefore, the first is also erroneous. Sed contra. Quicumque vult peccare, peccat; sed sequitur: si Deus peccat, potest peccare; ergo sequitur: si vult, potest peccare. On the contrary: Whoever wills to sin, sins. But it follows: if God sins, he can sin. Therefore, it follows: if he wills, he can sin. Responsio. Dicendum quod haec coniunctio “si” ordinem quemdam importat. Potest autem in proposito duplicem ordinem importare. I answer that this conjunction “if” implies a certain order. And for the question at hand, it can imply a twofold order. Uno quidem modo ordinem causae sive principii; et hoc modo propositio falsa est. Voluntas enim Dei est principium et causa respectu creaturarum, non autem respectu eorum quae pertinent ad divinam naturam; unde non dicimus quod Pater genuerit Filium voluntate, sed naturaliter, ut patet per Hilarium in libro De synodis. Potentia autem Dei ad ipsam naturam divinam pertinet; unde hoc ipsum quod est posse peccare, non est subiectum divinae voluntati, alioquin voluntas Dei esset principium immutationis divinae naturae, quod est impossibile. In one way, indeed, it implies an order of cause or of principle; and in this way, the proposition is false. For the will of God is principle and cause in regard to creatures, yet not in regard to those things which pertain to the divine nature. Hence we do not say that the Father generated the Son by will, but naturally, as is clear through Hilary in the book On Synods. Yet the power of God pertains to the divine nature itself. Hence the very ability to sin is not subject to the divine will. Otherwise, the will of God would be the principle of a change of the divine nature, which is impossible. Alio modo potest importare ordinem consequentiae; et sic haec locutio est vera: si Deus vult peccare, potest peccare. Sequitur enim sine conditione, si argumentamur ex impossibili posito: Deus vult peccare, ergo potest peccare; omnia enim quae vult, potest, sed non e converso. In another way, it can imply an order of consequence; and thus this speech is true: if God wills to sin, he can sin. For it follows without condition if we argue from an impossible thing posited: God wills to sin, therefore he can sin. For all things which he wills, he can do, but not conversely. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur: si homo vult currere, potest currere, antecedens est possibile, et ideo consequens est simpliciter possibile; <sed> cum dicitur sic: si Deus vult peccare, potest peccare, antecedens est impossibile, unde nihil prohibet conditionalem esse veram, consequente existente impossibili. Reply Obj. 1: It must be said, therefore, that, when it is said: if a man wills to run, he can run, the antecedent is possible, and for this reason, the consequent is possible absolutely. But when it is said thus: if God wills to sin, he can sin, the antecedent is impossible, hence nothing prohibits that the conditional should be true, with the consequent existing as impossible. Regarding the assumed nature Quaestio 3 Question 3 Quantum ad naturam assumptam Regarding the assumed nature Deinde quantum ad naturam assumptam quaesita sunt duo: Then there were two questions regarding the assumed nature: primo, utrum totus sanguis quem Christus in sua passione effudit, in resurrectione ad corpus eius redierit; first, whether all the blood Christ poured out in his Passion returned to his body in the Resurrection; secundo, in quo Christus nobis magis signum dilectionis exhibuerit, utrum in hoc quod passus est pro nobis vel in hoc quod corpus suum dedit nobis sub sacramento in cibum. second, whether Christ exhibited a sign of love for us more in that he suffered for us, or in that he gave his body as food for us in the sacrament. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum totus sanguis quem Christus in sua passione effudit, in resurrectione ad corpus eius redierit Whether all the blood which Christ poured out in his Passion returned to his body in the Resurrection Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod totus sanguis Christi qui est in passione eius effusus, ad corpus eius in resurrectione redierit. To the first we proceed thus. It seems that all the blood of Christ poured out in his Passion returned to his body in the Resurrection. Resurrectio enim nostra conformis erit resurrectioni Christi, secundum illud Philippensium III: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis suae; sed ad corpus nostrum in resurrectione redibit totum quod fuit de veritate humanae naturae; sanguis autem Christi in passione effusus fuit de veritate humanae naturae, et sacer dicitur secundum illud: quem sacer cruor perunxit fusus agni corpore; ergo videtur quod ille sanguis Christi in passione effusus, in resurrectione ad corpus eius redierit. Obj. 1: For our resurrection shall be conformed to the Resurrection of Christ, according to Philippians 3:21: he shall re-form the body of our humility configured to the body of his clarity, but to our body there shall return in the resurrection the whole which was truly human nature. Yet the blood of Christ poured out in his Passion was truly human nature, and it is called sacred according to that line: whom the sacred blood has anointed, fused to the body of the lamb. Therefore, it seems that the blood of Christ poured out in the Passion returned to his body in the Resurrection. Praeterea. Verbum Dei nunquam deposuit quod in nostra natura assumpsit, partibus humanae naturae ab invicem in passione separatis; sed Verbum Dei assumpsit in natura nostra non solum corpus, sed etiam sanguinem; ergo sanguis ille nunquam fuit a Verbo depositus; rediit ergo ad ipsum in resurrectione. Obj. 2: The Word of God never laid aside that which he assumed in our nature, with the parts of human nature separated from one another in the Passion. But the Word of God assumed in our nature not only a body, but also blood. Therefore, that blood never was laid aside by the Word. Therefore, it returned unto him in the Resurrection. Sed contra est quod in aliquibus ecclesiis sanguis Christi usque hodie dicitur servari. On the contrary: In some churches the blood of Christ even unto today is said to be preserved. Responsio. Dicendum quod in resurrectione tam Christi quam nostra, totum quod fuit de veritate humanae naturae reparabitur, non autem illa quae de veritate humanae naturae non fuerunt. Et quamvis circa ea quae sunt de veritate humanae naturae sit diversa diversorum opinio, secundum quamlibet opinionem non totus sanguis nutrimentalis, id est qui ex cibis generatur, pertinet ad veritatem humanae naturae. Cum ergo Christus ante passionem comederit et biberit, nihil prohibet in eo fuisse aliquem sanguinem nutrimentalem, qui ad veritatem humanae naturae non pertineret et quem non oporteret ad corpus eius in resurrectione redire. I answer that in the Resurrection, both Christ’s and ours, the whole which was truly human nature will be repaired, yet not those things which were not truly human nature. And although there are diverse opinions of diverse men about those things which are truly human nature, according to any opinion it is not the whole nourishing blood, that is, that which is generated out of food, that pertains to true human nature. Therefore, since Christ ate and drank before the Passion, nothing prohibits that in him there was some nourishing blood, which would not pertain to true human nature and which it is not necessary would return to his body in the Resurrection. Sed quia specialiter fit quaestio de sanguine in passione effuso pro redemptione humani generis, de hoc magis dicendum videtur quod totus in resurrectione ad corpus Christi redierit, triplici ratione. Quarum prima accipi potest ex aetate Christi patientis: passus est enim in perfectissima aetate, in qua maxime ea quae in homine inveniuntur, ad veritatem humanae naturae pertinere videntur, tamquam ad maximam perfectionem adducta. Secunda sumitur ex merito passionis: si enim sanctorum martyrum illae partes in quibus passionem pro Christo sustinuerunt quemdam privilegiatum fulgorem in resurrectione habebunt, ut Augustinus dicit XXI De civitate Dei, multo magis sanguis Christi, quem pro salute humani generis effudit, ad gloriosam resurrectionem reparatus est. Tertia ratio potest sumi ex ipsa virtute passionis: sanguis enim ille in passione effusus humanum genus sanctificavit, secundum illud ad Hebraeos, ultimo: Iesus, ut sanctificaret per sanguinem suum populum, extra portam passus est; humanitas autem Christi salutiferam virtutem habuit ex virtute Verbi sibi uniti, ut Damascenus dicit in III libro; unde manifestum est quod sanguis in passione effusus, qui maxime fuit saluber, fuit divinitati unitus, et ideo oportuit quod in resurrectione iungeretur aliis humanitatis partibus. But because the question is made specially about the blood poured out in the Passion for the redemption of the human race, concerning this it seems that it must rather be said that in the Resurrection the whole returned to the body of Christ for a threefold reason. The first of which can be taken from the age of the suffering Christ: for he suffered at the most perfect age, at which most of all those things which are found in man seem to pertain to true human nature, as led unto maximum perfection. The second is taken from the merit of the Passion: for if those parts of the holy martyrs in which they endured passion for Christ will have a certain privileged brilliance in the resurrection, as Augustine says in the twenty-first book of On the City of God, much more was the blood of Christ, which he poured out for the salvation of the human race, repaired unto a glorious Resurrection. The third reason can be taken from the power itself of the Passion: for that blood poured out in the Passion sanctified the human race, according to Hebrews 13:12: Jesus, in order that he would sanctify his people through blood, suffered outside the gate. Yet the humanity of Christ had salvific virtue from the power of the Word united to it, as Damascene says in the third book. Hence it is clear that the blood poured out in the Passion, which most of all was salvific, was united to the divinity, and for this reason, it was necessary that in the Resurrection it would be joined to the other parts of his humanity. Sanguis autem Christi qui in quibusdam ecclesiis ostenditur, dicitur ex quadam imagine Christi percussa miraculose fluxisse, vel etiam alias ex corpore Christi. Yet the blood of Christ which is shown in certain churches is said miraculously to have flown out of a certain image of Christ struck, or otherwise out of the body of Christ. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Reply Obj. 1–2: And through this the response to the objections is clear. Articulus 2 Article 2 In quo Christus nobis magis signum dilectionis exhibuerit, utrum in hoc quod Christus passus est pro nobis, vel in hoc quod corpus suum dedit nobis sub sacramento in cibo Whether Christ exhibited a sign of love for us more in that he suffered for us or in that he gave his body as food for us in the sacrament Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus maius dilectionis signum nobis ostendit tradendo corpus suum in cibum quam patiendo pro nobis. To the second we proceed thus. It seems that Christ showed for us a sign of greater love by handing over his body as food than by suffering for us. Caritas enim patriae perfectior est quam caritas viae; sed beneficium illud quod nobis Christus contulit corpus suum dans nobis in cibum, magis assimulatur patriae caritati, in qua plene fruemur Deo; passio autem quam pro nobis subiit, magis assimilatur caritati viae, in qua nobis pro Christo imminet patiendum; ergo maius est dilectionis signum quod Christus corpus suum tradidit nobis in cibum quam quod passus est pro nobis. Obj. 1: For the charity of the fatherland is more perfect than the charity of the journey. But the benefit which Christ conferred upon us by giving his body to us as food is better compared to the charity of the fatherland, in which we will enjoy God fully. Yet the Passion which he underwent for us is better compared to the charity of the journey, during which we are warned that we must suffer for Christ. Therefore, it is a greater sign of love that Christ handed over his body to us as food than that he suffered for us.