Utrum Christus sit caput omnium hominum
Whether Christ is the head of all men?
Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non sit caput omnium hominum. Caput enim non habet relationem nisi ad membra sui corporis. Infideles autem nullo modo sunt membra Ecclesiae, quae est corpus Christi, ut dicitur Ephes. I. Ergo Christus non est caput omnium hominum.
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of all men. For the head has no relation except to the members of its body. Now the unbaptized are nowise members of the Church which is the body of Christ, as it is written (Eph 1:23). Therefore Christ is not the Head of all men.
Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Ephes. V, quod Christus tradidit semetipsum pro Ecclesia, ut ipse sibi exhiberet Ecclesiam gloriosam, non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid huiusmodi. Sed multi sunt, etiam fideles, in quibus invenitur macula aut ruga peccati. Ergo nec erit omnium fidelium Christus caput.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25, 27): Christ delivered Himself up for the Church that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. But there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the faithful.
Praeterea, sacramenta veteris legis comparantur ad Christum sicut umbra ad corpus, ut dicitur Coloss. II. Sed patres veteris testamenti sacramentis illis suo tempore serviebant, secundum illud Heb. VIII, exemplari et umbrae deserviunt caelestium. Non ergo pertinebant ad corpus Christi. Et ita Christus non est caput omnium hominum.
Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to Christ as the shadow to the body, as is written (Col 2:17). But the fathers of the Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments, according to Heb. 8:5: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Hence they did not pertain to Christ’s body, and therefore Christ is not the Head of all men.
Sed contra est quod dicitur I Tim. IV, salvator omnium est, et maxime fidelium. Et I Ioan. II, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non autem pro nostris tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi. Salvare autem homines, aut propitiatorem esse pro peccatis eorum, competit Christo secundum quod est caput. Ergo Christus est caput omnium hominum.
On the contrary, It is written: Who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful (1 Tim 4:10), and, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is the Head of all men.
Respondeo dicendum quod haec est differentia inter corpus hominis naturale et corpus Ecclesiae mysticum, quod membra corporis naturalis sunt omnia simul, membra autem corporis mystici non sunt omnia simul, neque quantum ad esse naturae, quia corpus Ecclesiae constituitur ex hominibus qui fuerunt a principio mundi usque ad finem ipsius; neque etiam quantum ad esse gratiae, quia eorum etiam qui sunt in uno tempore, quidam gratia carent postmodum habituri, aliis eam iam habentibus. Sic igitur membra corporis mystici non solum accipiuntur secundum quod sunt in actu, sed etiam secundum quod sunt in potentia. Quaedam tamen sunt in potentia quae nunquam reducuntur ad actum, quaedam vero quae quandoque reducuntur ad actum, secundum hunc triplicem gradum, quorum unus est per fidem, secundus per caritatem viae, tertius per fruitionem patriae. Sic ergo dicendum est quod, accipiendo generaliter secundum totum tempus mundi, Christus est caput omnium hominum, sed secundum diversos gradus. Primo enim et principaliter est caput eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per gloriam. Secundo, eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per caritatem. Tertio, eorum qui actu uniuntur sibi per fidem. Quarto vero, eorum qui sibi uniuntur solum potentia nondum ad actum reducta, quae tamen est ad actum reducenda, secundum divinam praedestinationem. Quinto vero, eorum qui in potentia sibi sunt uniti quae nunquam reducetur ad actum, sicut homines in hoc mundo viventes qui non sunt praedestinati. Qui tamen, ex hoc mundo recedentes, totaliter desinunt esse membra Christi, quia iam nec sunt in potentia ut Christo uniantur.
I answer that, This is the difference between the natural body of man and the Church’s mystical body, that the members of the natural body are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all together—neither as regards their natural being, since the body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end—nor as regards their supernatural being, since, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act; and this according to the triple class, of which the first is by faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; second, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; third, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourth, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifth, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illi qui sunt infideles, etsi actu non sint de Ecclesia, sunt tamen in potentia. Quae quidem potentia in duobus fundatur, primo quidem et principaliter, in virtute Christi, quae sufficiens est ad salutem totius humani generis; secundario, in arbitrii libertate.
Reply Obj. 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things—first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; second, in free-will.
Ad secundum dicendum quod esse Ecclesiam gloriosam, non habentem maculam neque rugam, est ultimus finis, ad quem perducimur per passionem Christi. Unde hoc erit in statu patriae, non autem in statu viae, in quo, si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, ut dicitur I Ioan. I. Sunt tamen quaedam, scilicet mortalia, quibus carent illi qui sunt membra Christi per actualem unionem caritatis. Qui vero his peccatis subduntur, non sunt membra Christi actualiter, sed potentialiter, nisi forte imperfecte, per fidem informem, quae unit Christo secundum quid et non simpliciter ut scilicet per Christum homo assequatur vitam gratiae; fides enim sine operibus mortua est, ut dicitur Iac. II. Percipiunt tamen tales a Christo quendam actum vitae, qui est credere, sicut si membrum mortificatum moveatur aliqualiter ab homine.
Reply Obj. 2: To be a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle is the ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ. Hence this will be in heaven, and not on earth, in which if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, as is written (1 John 1:8). Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that through Christ man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (Jas 2:20): Faith without works is dead. Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e., to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent.
Ad tertium dicendum quod sancti patres non insistebant sacramentis legalibus tanquam quibusdam rebus, sed sicut imaginibus et umbris futurorum. Idem autem est motus in imaginem, inquantum est imago, et in rem, ut patet per philosophum, in libro de memoria et reminiscentia. Et ideo antiqui patres, servando legalia sacramenta, ferebantur in Christum per fidem et dilectionem eandem qua et nos in ipsum ferimur. Et ita patres antiqui pertinebant ad idem corpus Ecclesiae ad quod nos pertinemus.
Reply Obj. 3: The holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments, not as realities, but as images and shadows of what was to come. Now it is the same motion to an image as image, and to the reality, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Memor. et Remin. ii). Hence the ancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were borne to Christ by the same faith and love whereby we also are borne to Him, and hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we.
Utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit caput angelorum
Whether Christ, as man, is the head of the angels?
Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, non sit caput Angelorum. Caput enim et membra sunt unius naturae. Sed Christus, secundum quod homo, non est conformis in natura cum Angelis, sed solum cum hominibus, quia, ut dicitur Heb. II, nusquam Angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, non est caput Angelorum.
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the angels. For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as man is not of the same nature with the angels, but only with men, since, as is written (Heb 2:16): For nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold. Therefore Christ as man is not the head of the angels.
Praeterea, illorum Christus est caput qui pertinent ad Ecclesiam, quae est corpus eius, ut dicitur Ephes. I. Sed Angeli non pertinent ad Ecclesiam, nam Ecclesia est congregatio fidelium; fides autem non est in Angelis; non enim ambulant per fidem, sed per speciem, alioquin peregrinarentur a domino, secundum quod apostolus argumentatur, II Cor. V. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, non est caput Angelorum.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the Church, which is His Body, as is written (Eph 1:23). But the angels do not belong to the Church. For the Church is the congregation of the faithful: and in the angels there is no faith, for they do not walk by faith but by sight, otherwise they would be absent from the Lord, as the Apostle argues (2 Cor 5:6, 7). Therefore Christ as man is not head of the angels.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., quod sicut verbum quod erat a principio apud patrem, vivificat animas, ita verbum caro factum vivificat corpora, quibus Angeli carent. Sed verbum caro factum est Christus secundum quod homo. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, non influit vitam Angelis. Et ita, secundum quod homo, non est caput Angelorum.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix; xxiii in Joan.), that as the Word which was in the beginning with the Father quickens souls, so the Word made flesh quickens bodies, which angels lack. But the Word made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ as man does not give life to angels, and hence as man He is not the head of the angels.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Coloss. II, qui est caput omnis principatus et potestatis. Et eadem ratio est de Angelis aliorum ordinum. Ergo Christus est caput Angelorum.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col 2:10), Who is the head of all Principality and Power, and the same reason holds good with the other orders of angels. Therefore Christ is the Head of the angels.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ubi est unum corpus, necesse est ponere unum caput. Unum autem corpus similitudinarie dicitur una multitudo ordinata in unum secundum distinctos actus sive officia. Manifestum est autem quod ad unum finem, qui est gloria divinae fruitionis, ordinantur et homines et Angeli. Unde corpus Ecclesiae mysticum non solum consistit ex hominibus, sed etiam ex Angelis. Totius autem huius multitudinis Christus est caput, quia propinquius se habet ad Deum, et perfectius participat dona ipsius, non solum quam homines, sed etiam quam Angeli; et de eius influentia non solum homines recipiunt, sed etiam Angeli. Dicitur enim Ephes. I, quod constituit eum, scilicet Christum Deus pater, ad dexteram suam in caelestibus, supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo, sed etiam in futuro, et omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius. Et ideo Christus non solum est caput hominum, sed etiam Angelorum. Unde Matth. IV legitur quod accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei.
I answer that, As was said above (A. 1, ad 2), where there is one body we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained to one end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically called one body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition. Hence the mystical body of the Church consists not only of men but of angels. Now of all this multitude Christ is the Head, since He is nearer God, and shares His gifts more fully, not only than man, but even than angels; and of His influence not only men but even angels partake, since it is written (Eph 1:20–22): that God the Father set Him, namely Christ, on His right hand in the heavenly places, above all Principality and Power and Virtue and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And He hath subjected all things under His feet. Therefore Christ is not only the Head of men, but of angels. Hence we read (Matt 4:11) that angels came and ministered to Him.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod influentia Christi super omnes homines principaliter quidem est quantum ad animas, secundum quas homines conveniunt cum Angelis in natura generis, licet non in natura speciei. Et huius conformitatis ratione Christus potest dici caput Angelorum, licet deficiat conformitas quantum ad corpora.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ’s influence over men is chiefly with regard to their souls; wherein men agree with angels in generic nature, though not in specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can be said to be the Head of the angels, although the agreement falls short as regards the body.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Ecclesia secundum statum viae est congregatio fidelium, sed secundum statum patriae est congregatio comprehendentium. Christus autem non solum fuit viator, sed etiam comprehensor. Et ideo non solum fidelium, sed etiam comprehendentium est caput, utpote plenissime habens gratiam et gloriam.
Reply Obj. 2: The Church, on earth, is the congregation of the faithful; but, in heaven, it is the congregation of comprehensors. Now Christ was not merely a wayfarer, but a comprehensor. And therefore He is the Head not merely of the faithful, but of comprehensors, as having grace and glory most fully.
Ad tertium dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur secundum quandam assimilationem causae ad effectum, prout scilicet res corporalis agit in corpora, et res spiritualis in res spirituales. Tamen humanitas Christi, ex virtute spiritualis naturae, scilicet divinae, potest aliquid causare non solum in spiritibus hominum, sed etiam in spiritibus Angelorum, propter maximam coniunctionem eius ad Deum, scilicet secundum unionem personalem.
Reply Obj. 3: Augustine here uses the similitude of cause and effect, i.e., inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies, and spiritual things on spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by virtue of the spiritual nature, i.e., the Divine, can cause something not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on account of its most close conjunction with God, i.e., by personal union.
Utrum sit eadem gratia qua Christus est caput ecclesiae, cum gratia singulari illius hominis
Whether the grace of Christ, as head of the Church, is the same as his habitual grace, inasmuch as he is man?
Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit eadem gratia qua Christus est caput Ecclesiae, cum gratia singulari illius hominis. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. V, si unius delicto multi mortui sunt, multo magis gratia Dei et donum in gratia unius hominis Iesu Christi in plures abundavit. Sed aliud est peccatum actuale ipsius Adae, et aliud peccatum originale, quod traduxit in posteros. Ergo alia est gratia personalis, quae est propria ipsius Christi, et alia est gratia eius inquantum est caput Ecclesiae, quae ab ipso ad alios derivatur.
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is Head of the Church and the individual grace of the Man are not the same. For the Apostle says (Rom 5:15): If by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. But the actual sin of Adam is distinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity. Hence the personal grace which is proper to Christ is distinct from His grace, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, which flows to others from Him.
Praeterea, habitus distinguuntur secundum actus. Sed ad alium actum ordinatur in Christo gratia eius personalis, scilicet ad sanctificationem illius animae, et ad alium actum ordinatur gratia capitis, scilicet ad sanctificandum alios. Ergo alia est gratia personalis ipsius Christi, et alia est gratia eius inquantum est caput Ecclesiae.
Obj. 2: Further, habits are distinguished by acts. But the personal grace of Christ is ordained to one act, viz. the sanctification of His soul; and the capital grace is ordained to another, viz. to sanctifying others. Therefore the personal grace of Christ is distinct from His grace as He is the Head of the Church.
Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, in Christo distinguitur triplex gratia, scilicet gratia unionis, gratia capitis, et gratia singularis illius hominis. Sed gratia singularis Christi est alia a gratia unionis. Ergo est etiam alia a gratia capitis.
Obj. 3: Further, as was said above (Q. 6, A. 6), in Christ we distinguish a threefold grace, viz. the grace of union, capital grace, and the individual grace of the Man. Now the individual grace of Christ is distinct from the grace of union. Therefore it is also distinct from the capital grace.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus. Secundum hoc autem est caput nostrum, quod ab eo accipimus. Ergo secundum hoc quod habet plenitudinem gratiae, est caput nostrum. Plenitudinem autem gratiae habuit secundum quod perfecte fuit in illo gratia personalis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo secundum gratiam personalem est caput nostrum. Et ita non est alia gratia capitis, et alia gratia personalis.
On the contrary, It is written (John 1:16): Of His fullness we all have received. Now He is our Head, inasmuch as we receive from Him. Therefore He is our Head, inasmuch as He has the fullness of grace. Now He had the fullness of grace, inasmuch as personal grace was in Him in its perfection, as was said above (Q. 7, A. 9). Hence His capital and personal grace are not distinct.
Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque agit inquantum est ens actu. Oportet autem quod sit idem actu quo aliquid est actu, et quo agit, et sic idem est calor quo ignis est calidus, et quo calefacit. Non tamen omnis actus quo aliquid est actu, sufficit ad hoc quod sit principium agendi in alia, cum enim agens sit praestantius patiente, ut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., et philosophus, in III de anima, oportet quod agens in alia habeat actum secundum eminentiam quandam. Dictum est autem supra quod in anima Christi recepta est gratia secundum maximam eminentiam. Et ideo ex eminentia gratiae quam accepit, competit sibi quod gratia illa ad alios derivetur. Quod pertinet ad rationem capitis. Et ideo eadem est secundum essentiam gratia personalis qua anima Christi est iustificata, et gratia eius secundum quam est caput Ecclesiae iustificans alios, differt tamen secundum rationem.
I answer that, Since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act, it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts, as it is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats. Yet not every act whereby anything is in act suffices for its being the principle of acting upon others. For since the agent is nobler than the patient, as Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xii, 16) and the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 19), the agent must act on others by reason of a certain pre-eminence. Now it was said above (A. 1; Q. 7, A. 9) that grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which He received, it is from Him that this grace is bestowed on others—and this belongs to the nature of head. Hence the personal grace, whereby the soul of Christ is justified, is essentially the same as His grace, as He is the Head of the Church, and justifies others; but there is a distinction of reason between them.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum originale in Adam, quod est peccatum naturae, derivatum est a peccato actuali ipsius, quod est peccatum personale, quia in eo persona corrupit naturam; qua corruptione mediante, peccatum primi hominis derivatur ad posteros, secundum quod natura corrupta corrumpit personam. Sed gratia non derivatur a Christo in nos mediante natura humana, sed per solam personalem actionem ipsius Christi. Unde non oportet in Christo distinguere duplicem gratiam, quarum una respondeat naturae, alia personae, sicut in Adam distinguitur peccatum naturae et personae.
Reply Obj. 1: Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the nature, is derived from his actual sin, which is a personal sin, because in him the person corrupted the nature; and by means of this corruption the sin of the first man is transmitted to posterity, inasmuch as the corrupt nature corrupts the person. Now grace is not vouchsafed us by means of human nature, but solely by the personal action of Christ Himself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace in Christ, one corresponding to the nature, the other to the person as in Adam we distinguish the sin of the nature and of the person.
Ad secundum dicendum quod diversi actus quorum unus est ratio et causa alterius, non diversificant habitum. Actus autem personalis gratiae, qui est sanctum facere formaliter habentem, est ratio iustificationis aliorum, quae pertinet ad gratiam capitis. Et inde est quod per huiusmodi differentiam non diversificatur essentia habitus.
Reply Obj. 2: Different acts, one of which is the reason and the cause of the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the personal grace which is formally to sanctify its subject, is the reason of the justification of others, which pertains to capital grace. Hence it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this difference.
Ad tertium dicendum quod gratia personalis et gratia capitis ordinantur ad aliquem actum, gratia autem unionis non ordinatur ad actum, sed ad esse personale. Et ideo gratia personalis et gratia capitis conveniunt in essentia habitus, non autem gratia unionis. Quamvis gratia personalis possit quodammodo dici gratia unionis, prout facit congruitatem quandam ad unionem. Et secundum hoc, una per essentiam est gratia unionis et gratia capitis et gratia singularis personae, sed differens sola ratione.
Reply Obj. 3: Personal and capital grace are ordained to an act; but the grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the personal being. Hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the essence of the habit; but the grace of union does not, although the personal grace can be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch as it brings about a fitness for the union; and thus the grace of union, the capital, and the personal grace are one in essence, though there is a distinction of reason between them.
Utrum esse caput ecclesiae sit proprium Christo
Whether it is proper to Christ to be head of the Church?
Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse caput Ecclesiae non sit proprium Christo. Dicitur enim I Reg. XV, cum esses parvulus in oculis tuis, caput in tribubus Israel factus es. Sed una est Ecclesia in novo et in veteri testamento. Ergo videtur quod, eadem ratione, alius homo praeter Christum potest esse caput Ecclesiae.
Objection 1: It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of the Church. For it is written (1 Kgs 15:17): When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel? Now there is but one Church in the New and the Old Testament. Therefore it seems that with equal reason any other man than Christ might be head of the Church.
Praeterea, ex hoc Christus dicitur caput Ecclesiae quod gratiam influit Ecclesiae membris. Sed etiam ad alios pertinet gratiam aliis praebere, secundum illud Ephes. IV, omnis sermo malus ab ore vestro non procedat, sed si quis bonus est ad aedificationem fidei, ut det gratiam audientibus. Ergo videtur quod etiam alii quam Christo competat esse caput Ecclesiae.
Obj. 2: Further, Christ is called Head of the Church from His bestowing grace on the Church’s members. But it belongs to others also to grant grace to others, according to Eph. 4:29: Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. Therefore it seems to belong also to others than Christ to be head of the Church.
Praeterea, Christus, ex eo quod praeest Ecclesiae, non solum dicitur caput, sed etiam pastor et fundamentum Ecclesiae. Sed non soli sibi Christus retinuit nomen pastoris, secundum illud I Pet. V, cum apparuerit princeps pastorum, percipietis immarcescibilem gloriae coronam. Nec etiam nomen fundamenti, secundum illud Apoc. XXI, murus civitatis habens fundamenta duodecim. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam nomen capitis sibi soli retinuerit.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ by His ruling over the Church is not only called Head, but also Shepherd and Foundation. Now Christ did not retain for Himself alone the name of Shepherd, according to 1 Pet. 5:4, And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory; nor the name of Foundation, according to Apoc. 21:14: And the wall of the city had twelve foundations. Therefore it seems that He did not also retain the name of Head for Himself alone.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Coloss. II, caput Ecclesiae est ex quo corpus, per nexus et coniunctiones subministratum et constructum, crescit in augmentum Dei. Sed hoc soli Christo convenit. Ergo solus Christus est caput Ecclesiae.
On the contrary, It is written (Col 2:19): The head of the Church is that from which the whole body, by joints and bands being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. But this belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is Head of the Church.