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 (AA. 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 fullness 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 Spirit, 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 2: The fullness 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 fullness 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 Obj. 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. Quaestio 15 Question 15 De defectibus pertinentibus ad animam Christi The Defects of Soul Assumed by Christ Deinde considerandum est de defectibus pertinentibus ad animam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur decem. We must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under this head there are ten points of inquiry: Primo, utrum in Christo fuerit peccatum. (1) Whether there was sin in Christ? Secundo, utrum in eo fuerit fomes peccati. (2) Whether there was the fomes of sin in Him? Tertio, utrum in eo fuerit ignorantia. (3) Whether there was ignorance? Quarto, utrum anima eius fuerit passibilis. (4) Whether His soul was passible? Quinto, utrum in eo fuerit dolor sensibilis. (5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain? Sexto, utrum in eo fuerit tristitia. (6) Whether there was sorrow? Septimo, utrum in eo fuerit timor. (7) Whether there was fear? Octavo, utrum in eo fuerit admiratio. (8) Whether there was wonder? Nono, utrum in eo fuerit ira. (9) Whether there was anger? Decimo, utrum simul fuerit viator et comprehensor. (10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum in Christo fuerit peccatum Whether there was sin in Christ? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo fuerit peccatum. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, Deus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti? Longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum. Haec autem verba dicuntur ex persona ipsius Christi, ut patet ex hoc quod ipse ea in cruce protulit. Ergo videtur quod in Christo fuerint delicta. Objection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is written (Ps 21:2): O God, My God . . . why hast Thou forsaken Me? Far from My salvation are the words of My sins. Now these words are said in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having uttered them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were sins. Praeterea, Rom. V dicit apostolus quod in Adam omnes peccaverunt, scilicet quia in eo originaliter fuerunt. Sed etiam Christus originaliter fuit in Adam. Ergo in eo peccavit. Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom 5:12) that in Adam all have sinned—namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ also was in Adam by origin. Therefore He sinned in him. Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Heb. II, quod in eo in quo Christus passus est et tentatus, potens est et his qui tentantur auxiliari. Sed maxime indigebamus auxilio eius contra peccatum. Ergo videtur quod in eo fuerit peccatum. Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb 2:18) that in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted. Now above all do we require His help against sin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him. Praeterea, II Cor. V dicitur quod Deus eum qui non noverat peccatum, scilicet Christum, pro nobis fecit peccatum. Sed illud vere est quod a Deo factum est. Ergo in Christo vere fuit peccatum. Obj. 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor 5:21) that Him that knew no sin (i.e., Christ), for us God hath made sin. But that really is, which has been made by God. Therefore there was really sin in Christ. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de agone Christiano, in homine Christo se nobis ad exemplum praebuit filius Dei. Sed homo indiget exemplo non solum ad recte vivendum, sed etiam ad hoc quod poeniteat de peccatis. Ergo videtur quod in Christo debuit esse peccatum, ut, de peccatis poenitendo, poenitentiae nobis daret exemplum. Obj. 5: Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), in the man Christ the Son of God gave Himself to us as a pattern of living. Now man needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of repentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there ought to have been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a pattern of repentance. Sed contra est quod ipse dicit, Ioan. VIII, quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? On the contrary, He Himself says (John 8:46): Which of you shall convince Me of sin? Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus suscepit defectus nostros ut pro nobis satisfaceret; et veritatem humanae naturae comprobaret; et ut nobis exemplum virtutis fieret. Secundum quae tria manifestum est quod defectum peccati assumere non debuit. Primo enim, peccatum nihil operatur ad satisfactionem, quinimmo virtutem satisfactionis impedit; quia, ut dicitur Eccli. XXXIV, dona iniquorum non probat altissimus. Similiter etiam ex peccato non demonstratur veritas humanae naturae, quia peccatum non pertinet ad humanam naturam, cuius Deus est causa; sed magis est contra naturam per seminationem Diaboli introductum, ut Damascenus dicit. Tertio, peccando exempla virtutum praebere non potuit, cum peccatum contrarietur virtuti. Et ideo Christus nullo modo assumpsit defectum peccati, nec originalis nec actualis, secundum illud quod dicitur I Pet. II, qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. I answer that, As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1), Christ assumed our defects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth of His human nature, and that He might become an example of virtue to us. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not to have assumed the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works our satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since, as it is written (Sir 34:23), The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked. Second, the truth of His human nature is not proved by sin, since sin does not belong to human nature, whereof God is the cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Third, because by sinning He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is opposed to virtue. Hence Christ nowise assumed the defect of sin—either original or actual—according to what is written (1 Pet 2:22): Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Damascenus dicit, in III libro, dicitur aliquid de Christo, uno modo, secundum proprietatem naturalem et hypostaticam, sicut dicitur quod factus est homo, et quod pro nobis passus est; alio modo, secundum proprietatem personalem et habitudinalem, prout scilicet aliqua dicuntur de ipso in persona nostra quae sibi secundum se nullo modo conveniunt. Unde et inter septem regulas Tichonii, quas ponit Augustinus in III de Doct. Christ., prima ponitur de domino et eius corpore, cum scilicet Christi et Ecclesiae una persona aestimatur. Et secundum hoc, Christus ex persona membrorum suorum loquens dicit, verba delictorum meorum, non quod in ipso capite delicta fuerint. Reply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things are said of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic property, as when it is said that God became man, and that He suffered for us; second, with reference to His personal and relative property, when things are said of Him in our person which nowise belong to Him of Himself. Hence, in the seven rules of Tichonius which Augustine quotes in De Doctr. Christ. iii, 31, the first regards Our Lord and His Body, since Christ and His Church are taken as one person. And thus Christ, speaking in the person of His members, says (Ps 21:2): The words of My sins—not that there were any sins in the Head. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt., non omni modo Christus fuit in Adam, et in aliis patribus, quo nos ibi fuimus. Nos enim fuimus in Adam secundum rationem seminalem, et secundum corpulentam substantiam, quia scilicet, ut ipse ibidem dicit, cum sit in semine et visibilis corpulentia et invisibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Adam. Sed Christus visibilem carnis substantiam de carne virginis sumpsit, ratio vero conceptionis eius non a semine virili, sed longe aliter, ac desuper venit. Unde non fuit in Adam secundum seminalem rationem, sed solum secundum corpulentam substantiam. Et ideo Christus non accepit active ab Adam naturam humanam, sed solum materialiter, active vero a spiritu sancto, sicut et ipse Adam materialiter sumpsit corpus ex limo terrae, active autem a Deo. Et propter hoc Christus non peccavit in Adam, in quo fuit solum secundum materiam. Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin’s flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise—from on high. Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially—and from the Holy Spirit actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth—actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus sua tentatione et passione nobis auxilium tulit pro nobis satisfaciendo. Sed peccatum non cooperatur ad satisfactionem, sed magis ipsam impedit, ut dictum est. Et ideo non oportuit ut peccatum in se haberet, sed quod omnino esset purus a peccato, alioquin, poena quam sustinuit fuisset sibi debita pro peccato proprio. Reply Obj. 3: In His temptation and passion Christ has succored us by satisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but hinders it, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin, but to be wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He bore would have been due to Him for His own sin. Ad quartum dicendum quod Deus fecit Christum peccatum, non quidem ut in se peccatum haberet, sed quia fecit eum hostiam pro peccato, sicut Osee IV dicitur, peccata populi mei comedent, scilicet sacerdotes, qui secundum legem comedebant hostias pro peccato oblatas. Et secundum hunc modum dicitur Isaiae LIII, quod dominus posuit in eo iniquitates omnium nostrum, quia scilicet eum tradidit ut esset hostia pro peccatis omnium hominum. Vel, fecit eum peccatum, idest, habentem similitudinem carnis peccati, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Et hoc propter corpus passibile et mortale quod assumpsit. Reply Obj. 4: God made Christ sin—not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is written (Hos 4:8): They shall eat the sins of My people—they, i.e., the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin. And in that way it is written (Isa 53:6) that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (i.e., He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all men); or He made Him sin (i.e., made Him to have the likeness of sinful flesh), as is written (Rom 8:3), and this on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed. Ad quintum dicendum quod poenitens laudabile exemplum dare potest, non ex eo quod peccavit, sed in hoc quod voluntarie poenam sustinet pro peccato. Unde Christus dedit maximum exemplum poenitentibus, dum non pro peccato proprio, sed pro peccatis aliorum voluit poenam subire. Reply Obj. 5: A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not by having sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And hence Christ set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly bore the punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of others. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum in Christo fuerit fomes peccati Whether there was the fomes of sin in Christ? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo fuerit fomes peccati. Ab eodem enim principio derivatur fomes peccati, et passibilitas corporis sive mortalitas, scilicet ex subtractione originalis iustitiae, per quam simul inferiores vires animae subdebantur rationi, et corpus animae. Sed in Christo fuit passibilitas corporis et mortalitas. Ergo etiam in eo fuit fomes peccati. Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was the fomes of sin. For the fomes of sin, and the passibility and mortality of the body spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of original justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul were subject to the reason, and the body to the soul. Now passibility and mortality of body were in Christ. Therefore there was also the fomes of sin. Praeterea, sicut Damascenus dicit, in III libro, beneplacito divinae voluntatis permittebatur caro Christi pati et operari quae propria. Sed proprium est carni ut concupiscat delectabilia sibi. Cum ergo nihil aliud sit fomes quam concupiscentia, ut dicitur in Glossa, Rom. VII, videtur quod in Christo fuerit fomes peccati. Obj. 2: Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19), it was by consent of the Divine will that the flesh of Christ was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it. But it is proper to the flesh to lust after its pleasures. Now since the fomes of sin is nothing more than concupiscence, as the gloss says on Rom. 7:8, it seems that in Christ there was the fomes of sin. Praeterea, ratione fomitis caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, ut dicitur Galat. V. Sed tanto spiritus ostenditur esse fortior et magis dignus corona, quanto magis super hostem, scilicet concupiscentiam carnis, dominatur, secundum illud II Tim. II, non coronabitur nisi qui legitime certaverit. Christus autem habuit fortissimum et victoriosissimum spiritum, et maxime dignum corona, secundum illud Apoc. VI, data est ei corona, et exivit vincens, ut vinceret. Videtur ergo quod in Christo debuerit esse maxime fomes peccati. Obj. 3: Further, it is by reason of the fomes of sin that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, as is written (Gal 5:17). But the spirit is shown to be so much the stronger and worthier to be crowned according as the more completely it overcomes its enemy—to wit, the concupiscence of the flesh, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, he is not crowned except he strive lawfully. Now Christ had a most valiant and conquering spirit, and one most worthy of a crown, according to Apoc. 6:2: There was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that He might conquer. Therefore it would especially seem that the fomes of sin ought to have been in Christ.