Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 53

Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said to have a.s.sumed the first-fruits of our nature, as to the likeness of condition; forasmuch as He a.s.sumed flesh not infected by sin, like unto the flesh of man before sin. But this is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that primitive purity, as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved in its freedom from sin until the formation of Christ's body.

Reply Obj. 3: Before Christ, there was actually in human nature a wound, i.e. the infection of original sin. But the balm to heal the wound was not there actually, but only by a certain virtue of origin, forasmuch as from those patriarchs the flesh of Christ was to be propagated.

_______________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 8]

Whether Christ Paid t.i.thes in Abraham's Loins?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ "paid t.i.thes" in Abraham's loins. For the Apostle says (Heb. 7:6-9) that Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, "paid t.i.thes in Abraham," because, when the latter paid t.i.thes to Melchisedech, "he was yet in his loins." In like manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the latter paid t.i.thes. Therefore Christ Himself also paid t.i.thes in Abraham.

Obj. 2: Further, Christ is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh which He received from His Mother. But His Mother paid t.i.thes in Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ.

Obj. 3: Further, "in Abraham t.i.the was levied on that which needed healing," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x). But all flesh subject to sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh was the subject of sin, as stated above (A. 7), it seems that Christ's flesh paid t.i.thes in Abraham.

Obj. 4: Further, this does not seem to be at all derogatory to Christ's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop pays t.i.thes to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of higher rank than an ordinary priest. Consequently, although we may say that Christ paid t.i.thes when Abraham paid them to Melchisedech, it does not follow that Christ was not greater than Melchisedech.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "Christ did not pay t.i.thes there," i.e. in Abraham, "for His flesh derived from him, not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the antidote."

_I answer that,_ It behooves us to say that the sense of the pa.s.sage quoted from the Apostle is that Christ did not pay t.i.thes in Abraham.

For the Apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech is greater than the Levitical priesthood, from the fact that Abraham paid t.i.thes to Melchisedech, while Levi, from whom the legal priesthood was derived, was yet in his loins. Now, if Christ had also paid t.i.thes in Abraham, His priesthood would not have been according to the order of Melchisedech, but of a lower order.

Consequently we must say that Christ did not pay t.i.thes in Abraham's loins, as Levi did.

For since he who pays a t.i.the keeps nine parts to himself, and surrenders the tenth to another, inasmuch as the number ten is the sign of perfection, as being, in a sort, the terminus of all numbers which mount from one to ten, it follows that he who pays a t.i.the bears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another. Now, to sin is due the imperfection of the human race, which needs to be perfected by Him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from sin belongs to Christ alone, for He is the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), whose figure was Melchisedech, as the Apostle proves (Heb. 7). Therefore by giving t.i.thes to Melchisedech, Abraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in sin, and all who were to be his descendants in contracting original sin, needed that healing which is through Christ. And Isaac, Jacob, and Levi, and all the others were in Abraham in such a way so as to be descended from him, not only as to bodily substance, but also as to seminal virtue, by which original sin is transmitted. Consequently, they all paid t.i.thes in Abraham, i.e. foreshadowed as needing to be healed by Christ. And Christ alone was in Abraham in such a manner as to descend from him, not by seminal virtue, but according to bodily substance. Therefore He was not in Abraham so as to need to be healed, but rather "as the balm with which the wound was to be healed." Therefore He did not pay t.i.thes in Abraham's loins.

Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest.

Reply Obj. 2: Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore she paid t.i.thes in him, as descending from him according to seminal virtue.

But this is not true of Christ's body, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 3: Christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin, according as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the condition in which it was in His forefathers, who paid the t.i.thes: but not by reason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not pay the t.i.thes.

Reply Obj. 4: The levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin: wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi.

Consequently, since Abraham paid t.i.thes to Melchisedech as to one greater than he, it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedech, inasmuch as he was a figure of Christ, was greater than that of Levi.

But the priesthood of Christ does not result from carnal origin, but from spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible that a father pay t.i.thes to a priest, as the less to the greater, and yet his son, if he be a bishop, is greater than that priest, not through carnal origin, but through the spiritual grace which he has received from Christ.

_______________________

QUESTION 32

OF THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST'S CONCEPTION (In Four Articles)

We shall now consider the active principle in Christ's conception: concerning which there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Holy Ghost was the active principle of Christ's conception?

(2) Whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost?

(3) Whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's father according to the flesh?

(4) Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 1]

Whether the Accomplishment of Christ's Conception Should Be Attributed to the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost, because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i), "The works of the Trinity are indivisible, just as the Essence of the Trinity is indivisible." But the accomplishment of Christ's conception was the work of G.o.d.

Therefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost any more than to the Father or the Son.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of time was come, G.o.d sent His Son, made of a woman"; which words Augustine expounds by saying (De Trin. iv): "Sent, in so far as made of a woman." But the sending of the Son is especially attributed to the Father, as stated in the First Part (Q. 43, A. 8). Therefore His conception also, by reason of which He was "made of a woman," should be attributed princ.i.p.ally to the Father.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 9:1): "Wisdom hath built herself a house." Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of G.o.d; according to 1 Cor. 1:24: "Christ the Power of G.o.d and the Wisdom of G.o.d." And the house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called His temple, according to John 2:21: "But He spoke of the temple of His body." Therefore it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should be attributed princ.i.p.ally to the Son, and not, therefore, to the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): "The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee."

_I answer that,_ The whole Trinity effected the conception of Christ's body: nevertheless, this is attributed to the Holy Ghost, for three reasons. First, because this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, considered on the part of G.o.d. For the Holy Ghost is the love of Father and Son, as stated in the First Part (Q. 37, A.

1). Now, that the Son of G.o.d took to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of G.o.d: wherefore it is said (John 3:16): "G.o.d so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son."

Secondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the part of the nature a.s.sumed. Because we are thus given to understand that human nature was a.s.sumed by the Son of G.o.d into the unity of Person, not by reason of its merits, but through grace alone; which is attributed to the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:4: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Wherefore Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "The manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Ghost ... suggests to us the grace of G.o.d, whereby man, without any merits going before, in the very beginning of his nature when he began to exist was joined to G.o.d the Word, into so great unity of Person, that He Himself should be the Son of G.o.d."

Thirdly, because this is befitting the term of the Incarnation. For the term of the Incarnation was that that man, who was being conceived, should be the Holy one and the Son of G.o.d. Now, both of these are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by Him men are made to be sons of G.o.d, according to Gal. 4:6: "Because you are sons, G.o.d hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your [Vulg.: 'our'] hearts, crying: Abba, Father." Again, He is the "Spirit of sanctification," according to Rom. 1:4. Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the Holy Ghost; so as to be the adopted sons of G.o.d, so was Christ conceived in sanct.i.ty by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son of G.o.d. Hence, according to a gloss on Rom. 1:4, the words, "Who was predestinated the Son of G.o.d, in power," are explained by what immediately follows: "According to the Spirit of sanctification, i.e.

through being conceived of the Holy Ghost." And the Angel of the Annunciation himself, after saying, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," draws the conclusion: "Therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of G.o.d."

Reply Obj. 1: The work of the conception is indeed common to the whole Trinity; yet in some way it is attributed to each of the Persons. For to the Father is attributed authority in regard to the Person of the Son, who by this conception took to Himself (human nature). The taking itself (of human nature) is attributed to the Son: but the formation of the body taken by the Son is attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, according to Gal. 4:6: "G.o.d sent the Spirit of His Son." For just as the power of the soul which is in the s.e.m.e.n, through the spirit enclosed therein, fas.h.i.+ons the body in the generation of other men, so the Power of G.o.d, which is the Son Himself, according to 1 Cor.

1:24: "Christ, the Power of G.o.d," through the Holy Ghost formed the body which He a.s.sumed. This is also shown by the words of the angel: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," as it were, in order to prepare and fas.h.i.+on the matter of Christ's body; "and the Power of the Most High," i.e. Christ, "shall overshadow thee--that is to say, the incorporeal Light of the G.o.dhead shall in thee take the corporeal substance of human nature: for a shadow is formed by light and body,"

as Gregory says (Moral. xviii). The "Most High" is the Father, whose Power is the Son.

Reply Obj. 2: The mission refers to the Person a.s.suming, who is sent by the Father; but the conception refers to the body a.s.sumed, which is formed by the operation of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though mission and conception are in the same subject; since they differ in our consideration of them, mission is attributed to the Father, but the accomplishment of the conception to the Holy Ghost; whereas the a.s.sumption of flesh is attributed to the Son.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 52): "This may be understood in two ways. For, first, Christ's house is the Church, which He built with His blood. Secondly, His body may be called His house, just as it is called His temple ... and what is done by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of G.o.d, because Theirs is one Nature and one Will."

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 2]

Whether It Should Be Said That Christ Was Conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost. Because on Rom. 11:36: "For of Him (_ex ipso_) and by Him, and in Him, are all things," the gloss of Augustine says: "Notice that he does not say, 'of Him' (_de ipso_), but 'of Him' (_ex ipso_). For of Him (_ex ipso_), are heaven and earth, since He made them: but not of Him [de ipso, since they are not made of His substance." But the Holy Ghost did not form Christ's body of (_de_) His own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 2: Further, the active principle of (_de_) which something is conceived is as the seed in generation. But the Holy Ghost did not take the place of seed in Christ's conception. For Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fidei) [*Written by Pelagius]: "We do not say, as some wicked wretches hold, that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed: but we say that Christ's body was wrought," i.e. formed, "by the power and might of the Creator." Therefore we should not say that Christ's body was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.

Obj. 3: Further, no one thing is made of two, except they be in some way mingled. But Christ's body was formed of (_de_) the Virgin Mary.

If therefore we say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy Ghost with the matter supplied by the Virgin: and this is clearly false. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): "Before they came together, she was found with child, of (_de_) the Holy Ghost."

_I answer that,_ Conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone, but also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now, in the Holy Ghost we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of G.o.d Himself, who is said to have been conceived, He has a habitude of consubstantiality: while to His body He has the habitude of efficient cause. And this preposition of (_de_) signifies both habitudes: thus we say that a certain man is "of (_de_) his father." And therefore we can fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost in such a way that the efficiency of the Holy Ghost be referred to the body a.s.sumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person a.s.suming.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived "of" (_de_) the Holy Ghost, but rather "from (_ex_) the Holy Ghost," as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): "What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things are from G.o.d, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost."

Reply Obj. 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who a.s.sert that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposit.i.tious writings]): "When G.o.d's Only-Begotten was about to enter into the Virgin, the Holy Ghost preceded Him; that by the previous entrance of the Holy Ghost, Christ might be born unto sanctification according to His body, the G.o.dhead entering instead of the seed." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "G.o.d's wisdom and power overshadowed her, like unto a Divine seed."