Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod in corpore naturali invenitur quadruplex unio membrorum ad invicem. Prima est secundum conformitatem naturae, quia omnia membra constant ex eisdem similibus partibus, et sunt unius rationis, sicut manus et pes ex carne et osse; et sic dicuntur membra unum genere vel specie. Secunda est per colligationem eorum ad invicem per nervos et juncturas, et sic dicuntur unum continuatione. Tertia est, secundum quod diffunditur vitalis spiritus et vires animae per totum corpus. Quarta est, secundum quod omnia membra perficiuntur per animam, quae est una numero in omnibus membris.
To the second question, it should be said that in a natural body we find a fourfold union of its members with each other. The first is with respect to their conformity in nature, since all the members are put together from the same like parts, and are of one notion, as a hand and a foot from flesh and bone; in this way the members are said to be one in genus or species. The second is through their connection with each other through nerves and joints; in this way they are said to be one by continuity. The third is insofar as the vital spirit and powers of the soul are diffused through the whole body. The fourth is insofar as all the members are perfected by the soul, which is one in number in all the members.
Et hae quatuor uniones inveniuntur in corpore mystico. Prima est, inquantum omnia membra ejus sunt unius naturae vel specie vel genere. Secunda est, inquantum colligata sunt ad invicem per fidem, quia sic continuantur in uno credito. Tertia est, secundum quod vivificantur per gratiam et caritatem. Quarta est, secundum quod in eis est Spiritus Sanctus, qui est ultima perfectio et principalis totius corporis mystici, quasi anima in corpore naturali.
And these four unions are found in the mystical body. The first, insofar as all its members are of one nature (either in species or genus). The second, insofar as they are connected to each other through the faith, since thereby they are connected in one object of belief. The third, insofar as they are vivified through grace and charity. The fourth, insofar as the Holy Spirit is in them, who is the ultimate and principal perfection of the entire mystical body, as the soul is in the natural body.
Prima autem dictarum unionum non est unio simpliciter: quia illud in quo est unio haec, non est unum numero, sicut est in tribus sequentibus: quia per fidem et caritatem in uno credito et amato secundum numerum uniuntur: similiter Spiritus Sanctus unus numero omnes replet.
However, the first of the stated unions is not a union without qualification, for that in which such a union exists is not one in number, as it is in the three later unions. For they are united through faith and charity in numerically one object of belief and love; likewise, numerically one Holy Spirit fills all men.
Homines igitur infideles non pertinent ad unionem corporis Ecclesiae, secundum quod est unum simpliciter; et ideo respectu horum Christus caput non est nisi in potentia, secundum scilicet quod sunt unibiles corpori. Homines autem fideles peccatores pertinent quidem aliquo modo ad unitatem Ecclesiae inquantum continuantur ei per fidem, quae est unitas materialis; non tamen possunt dici membra proprie, nisi sicut membrum mortuum, scilicet aequivoce.
Therefore men without faith do not pertain to the union of the body of the Church insofar as it is one without qualification, and therefore in reference to these, Christ is head only in potency—namely, insofar as they are able to be united to the body. However, believers who are sinners pertain to the unity of the Church in a certain way, insofar as they are connected to it through faith, which is a material unity. Yet they can be called members properly speaking only the way dead members are so called—that is, equivocally.
Et quia unitas corporis ex membris consistit, ideo quidam dicunt, quod non pertinent ad unitatem corporis Ecclesiae, quamvis pertineant ad unitatem Ecclesiae; et sicut operationes quae sunt ad alterum, possunt aliquo modo fieri per membra arida, ut percutere, vel aliquid hujusmodi, non tamen operationes quae sunt animae in membris; ita nec mali recipiunt spiritualis vitae operationes a spiritu sancto; sed tamen Spiritus Sanctus per eos operatur spiritualem vitam in aliis, secundum quod aliis sacramenta ministrant, vel alios docent.
And because the unity of the body consists in that of its members, therefore some say that they do not pertain to the unity of the Church's body, even though they pertain to the unity of the Church. And just as activities that are toward another can in a certain way happen through dried-out members (such as striking something or the like), yet they are not the activities that belong to the soul in those members, so too evil men do not receive the operations of spiritual life from the Holy Spirit; yet the Holy Spirit through them might activate the spiritual life in others, insofar as they administer the sacraments to others, or teach others.
Sed homines fideles in gratia existentes uniuntur secundum tertiam unionem, quae est formalis respectu hujus secundae; et iterum secundum quartam, quae est completiva totius. Et ideo horum proprie dicitur Christus caput.
But believers in a state of grace are united with respect to the third union (which is formal relative to the second), and with respect to the fourth (which completes the whole). And therefore Christ is said to be the head of these properly.
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut in corpore naturali vires diffusae per omnia membra, differunt numero secundum essentiam, sed conveniunt in radice una secundum numerum, et praeter hoc habent formam unam ultimam numero; ita etiam omnia membra corporis mystici habent pro ultimo complemento spiritum sanctum, qui est unus numero in omnibus: et ipsa caritas diffusa in eis per spiritum sanctum, quamvis differat in diversis secundum essentiam, convenit tamen in una radice secundum numerum. Radix autem operationis proprie est ipsum objectum, ex quo speciem trahit: et ideo, inquantum est idem numero amatum et creditum ab omnibus, secundum hoc unitur omnium fides et caritas in una radice secundum numerum, non solum prima, quae est Spiritus Sanctus, sed etiam proxima, quae est proprium objectum.
Reply Obj. 1: In a natural body, the powers diffused throughout its members differ numerically (in their essences), but they agree in numerically their one root, and beyond this, they have numerically one ultimate form. In the same way also all the members of the mystical body have for their ultimate completion the Holy Spirit, who is numerically one in all; and the very charity diffused in them by the Holy Spirit, although it differs in diverse men by its essence, yet they agree in one root numerically. However, the root of an activity is, properly speaking, its very object—from which it takes its species; and therefore, insofar as the one loved and believed by all is numerically one, in this way is united the faith and charity of all in that numerically one root—not only the first [root], who is the Holy Spirit, but also the proximate one, which is its proper object.
Ad secundum dicendum, quod per corpus Christi verum significantur ea quae sunt membra corporis mystici; non autem ea quae sunt membra aequivoce, idest secundum similitudinem tantum et situm.
Reply Obj. 2: Through Christ’s true body are signified those who are members of his mystical body, but not those who are members equivocally—that is, only according to a likeness and position.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod membrum non judicatur secundum id quod de eo fieri potest, sed secundum id quod est; unde manus, antequam abscindatur, membrum est, quamvis sit futura abscindi: et similiter qui est in gratia, membrum est, quamvis postea abscindatur.
Reply Obj. 3: Something is not judged to be a member in virtue of what can happen to it, but in virtue of what it is. Whence a hand, before it is severed, is a member even if in the future it will be severed. Likewise, one who is a state of grace is a member, even if later he will be severed.
Ad quartum dicendum, quod quamvis Christus nondum fuisset incarnatus tempore patrum veteris testamenti secundum rem, erat tamen jam incarnatio ipsa in Dei ordinatione, et in fide ipsorum, secundum quam fidem justificabantur: quia tempora mutata sunt, et non fides, ut dicit Augustinus. Sed tamen non fuit tanta influentia ante incarnationem, quanta est modo: quia tunc non erat remotum obstaculum, nec sacramenta gratiae exhibita erant, sicut modo sunt.
Reply Obj. 4: Although Christ was not yet incarnate in reality at the time of the fathers of the Old Testament, yet the Incarnation itself was already in God’s ordination, and in their faith (in virtue of which they were justified). For the times have changed, but the faith has not, as Augustine says. But nevertheless there was not as great an influence before the Incarnation as there is now, since then the obstacle had not yet been removed, nor had the sacraments of grace been offered, as they are now.
Ad quintum dicendum, quod Christus satisfecit pro tota humana natura sufficienter, non tamen efficienter: quia non omnes illius satisfactionis participes fiunt; quod ex eorum importunitate est, non ex ipsius insufficientia satisfactionis.
Reply Obj. 5: Christ made satisfaction for the whole human race sufficiently, yet not effectively, since not all men become participants in this satisfaction. This is due to their defiance, not due to an insufficiency in the satisfaction itself.
Ad sextum dicendum, quod resurrectio ad vitam naturalem erit omnibus communis, non autem ad vitam gloriae: quia mali in vita naturali tantum conformitatem habuerunt cum membris Ecclesiae, non autem in vita gratiae. Unde ex hoc non sequitur quod sint membra, proprie loquendo.
Reply Obj. 6: The resurrection to natural life will be common to all men, but not the resurrection to the life of glory. For evil men will have a conformity with the members of the Church only in natural life, but not in the life of glory. Whence, on account of this it does not follow that they are members, properly speaking.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod Christus est caput hominum quantum ad animas et quantum ad corpora; sed principaliter animarum et secundario corporum: tum ratione conformitatis ad membra, quae per assumptionem humanae naturae est; quia corpus assumpsit anima mediante: tum etiam ratione spiritualis influentiae, quae pervenit ad corpus mediante anima, inquantum corpus est instrumentum animae secundum gratiam operantis: et ex hoc relinquitur ordo in corpore ad gloriosam resurrectionem.
To the third question, it should be said that Christ is the head of men with respect to their souls and bodies, but principally of their souls, and secondarily of their bodies. This is by reason of the conformity to his members, which is through the assumption of human nature, since he assumed the body by the mediation of the soul. It is also so by reason of the spiritual influence, which reaches the body by the mediation of the soul, insofar as the body is the instrument of a soul acting according to grace. And due to this, an order is left within the body toward a glorious resurrection.
Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod corpora nostra aliquo modo habent continuationem cum corpore Christi, non quidem secundum quantitatem, aut secundum perfectionem naturalem, sed inquantum Spiritus Sanctus habitat in nobis, qui plenissime fuit in Christo, 1 Corinth. 6, 15: nescitis quoniam membra vestra templum sunt spiritus sancti.
Reply Obj. 1: Our bodies in a certain way do have a continuity with the body of Christ—not a continuity according to quantity, or one according to natural perfection, but insofar as the Holy Spirit dwells within us, who was most fully in Christ: do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you? (1 Cor 6:19).
Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis corpus non recipiat influentiam spiritualem immediate, recipit tamen mediante anima, ut dictum est.
Reply Obj. 2: Although the body does not immediately receive the spiritual influence, still it receives it by the mediation of the soul, as was said.
Ad tertium dicendum, quod etiam secundum corpora a brutis differimus, inquantum corpora nostra sunt perfecta anima rationali, non autem corpora brutorum.
Reply Obj. 3: We differ from the beasts even in virtue of our bodies, insofar as our bodies are perfected by the rational soul, unlike the bodies of the beasts.
The Grace of the Union
Deinde quaeritur de gratia unionis: et circa hoc quaeruntur duo:
Next, we ask about the grace of union, and regarding this two things are asked:
1 utrum gratia unionis sit aliqua gratia creata;
first, whether the grace of union is a certain created grace;
2 de comparatione istius gratiae ad alias Christi gratias.
second, how is this grace related to Christ’s other graces.
Utrum gratia unionis sit creata
Whether the grace of union is created
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod gratia unionis non sit creata. Gratia enim creata, est gratia habitualis. Sed habitus ordinatur ad operationem. Cum ergo unio in persona non sit secundum operationem, sed secundum esse, videtur quod gratia unionis non sit gratia creata.
Obj. 1: To the first we proceed as follows. It appears that the grace of union was not created. For created grace is a habitual grace. But habit is ordered to activity. Therefore since the union in the person was not according to an activity, but according to existence, it appears that the grace of union is not a created grace.
Praeterea, quilibet nostrum Deo unitur per gratiam creatam. Si igitur gratia unionis in Christo fuisset creata gratia, tunc non alio modo esset Deo unitus quam nos; et sic sequeretur error Nestorii.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, everyone of us is united to God through a created grace. Therefore if the grace of union in Christ were a created grace, then we would not be united to God in a different way than he is. And thus, the error of Nestorius would follow.
Praeterea, unio est humanitatis ad divinitatem secundum corpus et animam. Sed corpus non est susceptivum creatae gratiae. Ergo gratia unionis non est aliqua gratia creata.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the union of his humanity to the divinity is according to his body and soul. But the body is not receptive of a created grace. Therefore the grace of union is not some created grace.
Praeterea, in his quae fiunt per miraculum, non requiritur aliqua dispositio ex parte facti, sed totum est ex parte infinitae virtutis agentis: ita Deus potuit de lapide sicut de aqua vinum facere. Sed unio humanitatis ad divinitatem est maxime miraculosa. Ergo non requiritur aliqua gratia creata quae disponat ad hanc unionem.
Obj. 4: In things that happen through a miracle, no disposition on the side of the thing done is required—rather, the whole is due to the infinite power of the agent, in the way that God was able to make wine from a stone as much as from water. But the union of the humanity with the divinity was the most miraculous of all. Therefore no created grace is required that would dispose toward this union.
Praeterea, inter personam et naturam non cadit aliquid accidens medium, sicut nec inter materiam et formam: quia secundum formam substantialem et materiam est esse substantiale, quo non est prius aliquid esse accidentale. Sed unio humanae naturae est ad Deum sicut naturae ad personam. Ergo non cadit aliquid medium. Sed gratia creata est accidens. Ergo gratia unionis non est gratia creata.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, no mediating accident falls between the person and the nature, just as none falls between form and matter; for substantial existence, to which there is no prior accidental existence, is in virtue of substantial form and matter. But the union of the human nature with God is as of a nature to a person. Therefore no medium falls there. But created grace is an accident. Therefore the grace of union is not a created grace.
Sed contra, Augustinus dicit, quod quidquid convenit filio Dei per naturam, convenit filio hominis per gratiam. Sed esse Deum convenit filio Dei per naturam. Ergo non convenit filio hominis per gratiam: et haec est gratia unionis, quae non semper fuit: ergo est gratia creata.
On the contrary, Augustine says that whatever belongs to the Son of God by nature also belongs to the Son of man by grace. But to be God belongs to the Son of God by nature. Therefore it belongs to the Son of man by grace. And this is the grace of union, which was not always. Therefore it is a created grace.
Praeterea, major est unio in persona quam per fruitionem. Sed humana natura non potest exaltari ad unionem fruitionis nisi per gratiam habitualem. Ergo multo minus ad unionem in persona.
Furthermore, union in the person is greater than union through fruition. But the human nature can be exalted to the union of fruition only through a habitual grace. Therefore much less [is this needed] for union in the person.
Praeterea, cum sit in qualibet creatura per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, et in animabus sanctis per gratiam; aut in anima Christi est alio modo, aut non. Si non, ergo non est magis assumpta a divina persona quam anima Petri. Si autem alio modo; sed Deus quantum in se est, habet se eodem modo ad omnia, sed res diversimode se habent ad ipsum, ut dicitur in libro de causis; et secundum hoc quod diversa diversimode se habent ad ipsum, secundum hoc diversis diversimode ipse comparatur: ergo oportet quod in anima Christi sit aliqua alia dispositio per quam Deus est in eo per unionem: ergo oportet ponere aliquam aliam gratiam creatam.
Furthermore, since [God] is in every created thing by his essence, presence, and power, and in holy souls by grace, he is in Christ’s soul either in a different way or not. If not, then [his soul] is no more assumed by the divine person than is Peter’s soul. But if in a different way, but God in and of himself is related to all things in the same way, whereas things are related to him in diverse ways (as is said in On Causes), and insofar as diverse things are related to him in diverse ways, so is he compared to diverse things in diverse ways—therefore it is necessary that in Christ’s soul there is some other disposition by which God is in him through the union. Therefore there must be some other created grace there.
Praeterea, cum Spiritus Sanctus datur hominibus, aliquis novus effectus in creatura intelligitur. Ergo et similiter secundum quod persona filii carni unitur, oportet aliquem effectum de novo intelligi; et ita videtur quod gratia unionis sit quid creatum.
Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit is given to men, some new effect is understood to be in the created thing. Therefore likewise, insofar as the person of the Son is united to flesh, some new effect must be understood, and thus it appears that the grace of union is something created.
Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut Magister dixit supra, 2 Lib., dist. 26, gratia dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo gratia gratis dans, quod est ipsa gratuita Dei voluntas aliquid sine meritis dans. Alio modo dicitur gratia donum aliquod gratis datum.
I answer that, as the Master said above (Book II), “grace” is said in two ways. In one way, meaning the grace of the one giving gratuitously, which is God’s gratuitous will itself giving something without merit. In the other way, “grace” is said to be a certain gift given gratuitously.
Secundum ergo primum modum, gratia unionis dicitur ipsa divina voluntas, sine aliquibus meritis naturam humanam filio Dei uniens in persona; et sic gratia unionis est gratia increata.
Therefore, according to the first way, the divine will itself uniting the human nature, without any [preceding] merits, in the person to the Son of God, is said to be the “grace of union.” And thus, the grace of union is an uncreated grace.
Si autem dicatur gratia donum aliquod gratis datum, sic gratia unionis potest intelligi dupliciter.
However, if “grace” is being said as a gift given gratuituously, then the “grace of union” can be understood in two ways.