Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Tertia Pars·Q42. Christ's doctrine
Source context
- Theme
- Christ's act of teaching as authoritative doctrinal transmission
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Rabbinic Judaism — concept of Torah teaching authorityThe distinction between teaching with authority (as one who possesses the teaching intrinsically) and teaching by derivation parallels the rabbinic contrast between a prophet who speaks as bearer of divine word and a sage who transmits received tradition.
- Vedanta — guru as direct transmitter versus textual commentatorAquinas's framing of Christ as primary teacher whose authority precedes all doctrinal mediation shows cross-tradition congruence with the Vedantic distinction between the sat-guru, who transmits from direct realization, and the acharya, who transmits through inherited commentary.
Q42. Christ's doctrine
Article 1
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Isaiah 49:6): "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the tribes of Israel [Vulgate: 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob [Vulgate: 'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part of the earth." But Christ gave light and salvation through His doctrine. Therefore it seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews alone, and not to the Gentiles.
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod matrimonium non sit sacramentum. Omne enim sacramentum novæ legis habet aliquam formam, quæ est de essentia sacramenti. Sed benedictio, quæ fit per sacerdotes in nuptiis, non est de essentia matrimoni. Ergo non est sacramentum.
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.2] Further, as it is written (Matthew 7:29): "He was teaching them as one having power." Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have received no tidings whatever; hence the Apostle says (Romans 15:20): "I have so preached the [Vulgate: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." Therefore much rather should Christ have preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews.
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sacramentum, secundum Hugonem, lib. I De sacram., part. ix, cap. ii, col. 317, t. 2, est materiale elementum. Sed matrimonium non habet pro materia aliquod materiale elementum. Ergo non est sacramentum.
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.3] Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But Christ instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4) and the Chananaean woman (Matthew 15). Much more reason, therefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.
[III.q.42.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sacramenta habent efficaciam ex passione Christi. Sed per matrimonium non conformatur homo passioni Christi, quæ fuit pœnalis, cum habeat delectationem adjunctam. Ergo non est sacramentum.
[III.q.42.a.1.sc] our Lord said (Matthew 15:24): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And (Romans 10:15) it is written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore Christ should not have preached to the Gentiles.
[III.q.42.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Ephes., v, 32: Sacramentum hoc est magnum. Ergo, etc. Præterea, sacramentum est sacræ rei signum. Sed matrimonium est hujusmodi. Ergo, etc.
[III.q.42.a.1.co] It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and not to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Romans 15:8): "I say that Christ . . . was minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews, "for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."
Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is written Romans 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered [Vulgate: 'those that are, are ordained of God']" [See Scriptural Index on this passage]. Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of Christ should be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing in and worshiping one God, were nearer to God, and that it should be transmitted through them to the Gentiles: just as in the heavenly hierarchy the Divine enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher. Hence on Matthew 15:24, "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of Israel," Jerome says: "He does not mean by this that He was not sent to the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the Jews first." And so we read (Isaiah 66:19): "I will send of them that shall be saved," i.e. of the Jews, "to the Gentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles."
Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on Matthew 10:5, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles." Jerome says: "It behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest they should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans."
Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 2:26-28): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power over the nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that because He became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath exalted Him . . . that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." and that "every tongue should confess Him" (Philippians 2:8-11). Consequently He did not wish His doctrine to be preached to the Gentiles before His Passion: it was after His Passion that He said to His disciples (Matthew 28:19): "Going, teach ye all nations." For this reason it was that when, shortly before His Passion, certain Gentiles wished to see Jesus, He said: "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:20-25); and as Augustine says, commenting on this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat that must be mortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the faith of the nations."
[III.q.42.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod sacramentum importat aliquod remedium sanctitatis homini contra peccatum exhibitum per sensibilia signa. Unde cum hoc inveniatur in matrimonio, inter sacramenta computatur.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.1] Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verba quibus consensus exprimitur matrimonialis sunt forma hujus sacramenti, non autem benedictio sacerdotis, quæ est quoddam sacramentale.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.2] It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the Divine power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on the teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the Gentiles to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.
Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His persuasion, and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above the Law when He said: "But I say to you" (Matthew 5:22-44); and, again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of life.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sacramentum matrimonii perficitur per actum ejus qui sacramento illo utitur, sicut pœnitentia. Et ideo sicut pœnitentia non habet aliam materiam nisi ipso actus sensui subjectos, qui sunt loco materialis elementi, ita est de matrimonio.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.3] Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the outset make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews, in order that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the first-born people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the Gentiles altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation. For this reason certain individual Gentiles were admitted, on account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness.
[III.q.42.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis matrimonium non conformetur passioni Christi quantum ab pœnam, conformatur tamen ei quantum ad charitatem, per Duo sunt tenenda de matrimonio, nec opposita eorum possunt asseri sine periculo hæresis. Primum est quod matrimonium est licitum, et ideo Tatiani, Martiani, et cæteri qui nuptiis detrahunt hæretici censentur. Secundum est quod quam pro Ecclesia sibi in sponsam conjungenda passus est.
Article 2
[III.q.42.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "In the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son of God." But we should avoid offending not only the faithful, but even unbelievers, according to 1 Corinthians 10:32: "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God." Therefore it seems that, in His teaching, Christ should also have avoided giving offense to the Jews.
[III.q.42.a.2.arg.2] Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder the result of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching occasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is written (Luke 11:53-54) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees and Scribes, they "began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His mouth about many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch something from His mouth, that they might accuse Him." It seems therefore unfitting that He should have given them offense by His teaching.
[III.q.42.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sacramenta sunt quædam medicinæ contra morbum peccati. Sed medicina non præparatur nisi morbo. Ergo ante peccatum non debuit institui.
[III.q.42.a.2.arg.3] Further, the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not; but entreat him as a father." But the priests and princes of the Jews were the elders of that people. Therefore it seems that they should not have been rebuked with severity.
[III.q.42.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ad idem institutio una sufficit. Sed matrimonium fuit institutum etiam post peccatum, ut in Littera dicitur. Ergo ante peccatum non fuit institutum.
[III.q.42.a.2.sc] It was foretold (Isaiah 8:14) that Christ would be "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel."
[III.q.42.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth., xix, 4: Non legistis quia qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos? Præterea, matrimonium est institutum ad procreationem prolis. Sed ante peccatum erat necessaria homini procreatio prolis. Ergo ante peccatum debuit matrimonium institui.
[III.q.42.a.2.co] The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and Pharisees and the princes of the Jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both because they opposed themselves to Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and because their evil ways corrupted the morals of the people. For which reason our Lord, undeterred by their taking offense, publicly taught the truth which they hated, and condemned their vices. Hence we read (Matthew 15:12,14) that when the disciples of our Lord said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?" He answered: "Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit."
[III.q.42.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod natura inclinat ad matrimonium, intendens aliquod bonum, ad quod quidem variatur secundum diversos hominum status, et ideo oportet quod secundum illud bonum diversimode in diversis statibus hominum instituatur. Et ideo matrimonium, secundum quod ordinatur ad procreationem prolis, quæ erat necessaria etiam peccato non existente, institutum fuit ante peccatum; secundum autem quod remedium præbet contra vulnus peccati, institutum fuit post peccatum tempore legis naturæ; secundum autem determinationem personarum institutionem habuit in lege Moysi; sed secundum quod repræsentat mysterium conjunctionis Christi et Ecclesiæ, institutionem habuit in nova lege; et secundum hoc est sacramentum novæ legis. Quantum vero ad alias utilitates quæ ex matrimonio consequuntur, sicut est amicitia, et mutuum obsequium sibi a conjugibus impensum, habet institutionem in lege civili. Sed quia de ratione sacramenti est quod sit signum et remedium, ideo quantum ad medias institutiones, competit ei ratio sacramenti; sed quantum ad primam institutionem, competit ei quod sit in officium naturæ, quantum vero ad ultimam, quod sit in officium civilitatis.
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.1] A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as neither by wrong deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall. "But if scandal arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather than the truth be set aside," as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech.).
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illa quæ in communi sunt de jure uaturali, indigent institutione quantum ad eorum determinationem quæ diversimode competit secundum diversos status: sicut de jure naturali est quod maleficia puniantur; sed quod talis pœna tali culpæ apponatur, per determinationem juris positivi fit.
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.2] By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ promoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching. Because when the people came to know the vices of those men, they were less inclined to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what was said of Him by the Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His doctrine.
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod matrimonium non est tantum in remedium contra peccatum, sed principaliter est in officium naturæ; et sic institutum fuit ante peccatum, non autem prout est in remedium.
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.3] This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority, but also in probity; according to Numbers 11:16: "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . . of the people." But if by sinning openly they turn the authority of their years into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked openly and severely, as also Daniel says (Daniel 13:52): "O thou that art grown old in evil days," etc.
[III.q.42.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod secundum diversa quæ oportet in matrimonio determinari, non est inconveniens quod habuerit diversas institutiones. Et sic illa diversa institutio non est ejusdem secundum idem.
Article 3
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that Christ should not have taught all things openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples apart: as is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He said: "That which you heard in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops" [St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory, combines Matthew 10:27 with Luke 12:3]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly.
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod matrimonium non conferat gratiam, quia secundum Hugonem, lib. I De sacram., part. ix, cap. ii, col. 317, t. 2, « sacramenta ex sanctificatione invisibilem gratiam conferunt. » Sed matrimonium non habet aliquam sanctificationem quæ sit de essentia ejus. Ergo non conferur gratia in ipso.
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.2] Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the perfect, according to 1 Corinthians 2:6: "We speak wisdom among the perfect." Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom. Therefore it should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omne sacramentum conferens gratiam confert ipsam ex materia et forma sua. Sed actus qui sunt materia in hoc sacramento, non sunt causa gratiae, quia hoc esset pelagiana hæresis, scilicet quod actus nostri sint causa gratiae: verba etiam exprimentia consensum non sunt causa gratiae, nam ex eis non fit aliqua sanctificatio. Ergo in matrimonio nullo modo gratia datur.
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.3] Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they would not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since "without parables He did not speak to them" (Matthew 13:34). In the same way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all.
[III.q.42.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, gratia ordinata contra vulnus peccati est necessaria omnibus habentibus vulnus illud. Sed in omnibus inventur coucupiscentiæ vulnus. Si ergo in matrimonio daretur gratia contra vulnus concupiscentiæ, deberent omnes homines matrimonium contrahere; essetque stultum valde a matrimonio abstinere.
[III.q.42.a.3.sc] He says Himself (John 18:20): "In secret I have spoken nothing."
[III.q.42.a.3.sc] Sed contra, definitio et definitum debent converti. Sed in definitione sacramenti ponitur causalitas gratiae. Ergo cum matrimonium sit sacramentum erit gratiae causa. Præterea, Augustinus dicit lib. De bono viduitatis, et lib. IX Sup. Gen. ad lit., cap. VII, col. 397, t. 3, quod « matrimonium est aegrotis remedium. » Sed non est in remedium, nisi inquantum aliquam efficaciam habet. Ergo habet aliquid efficaciae ad reprimendam concupiscentiam Sed concupiscentia non reprimitur nisi per gratiam. Ergo in ipso conferur gratia.
[III.q.42.a.3.co] Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make his doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in two ways--sometimes through envy on the part of the teacher, who desires to excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to others. But this was not the case with Christ, in whose person the following words are spoken (Wisdom 7:13): "Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not." But sometimes this happens through the vileness of the things taught; thus Augustine says on John 16:12: "There are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written (Proverbs 9:17): "Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine is "not of error nor of uncleanness" (1 Thessalonians 2:3). Wherefore our Lord says (Mark 4:21): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in to be put under a bushel?"
Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus, again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His entire doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered together. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: "How can it be said that He speaks in secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially if what He says to few He wishes through them to be made known to many?"
Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is propounded. And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the crowds, by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was better for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things, albeit hidden under the garb of parables, than to be deprived of it altogether. Nevertheless our Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these parables to His disciples, so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it; according to 2 Timothy 2:2: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others." This is foreshadowed, Numbers 4, where the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the Levites.
[III.q.42.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hoc fuit triplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod matrimonium nullo modo est causa gratiae, sed est tantum signum. Sed hoc non potest stare: quia secundum hoc in nullo abundaret a sacramentis veteris legis. Unde non esset aliqua ratio quare sacramentis novæ legis annumeraretur: quod enim remedium præbeat satisfaciendo concupiscentia, ne in præceps ruat, dum nimis arctatur, habuit etiam in veteri lege ex ipsa natura actus. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod conferur illi gratia in ordine ad recessum a malo, quia excusatur actus a peccato, qui sine matrimonio peccatum esset. Sed hoc esset nimis parum, quia hoc etiam in veteri lege habuit. Et ideo dicunt quod facit recedere a malo, inquantum constringit concupiscentiam, ne extra bona matrimonii feratur, non autem per gratiam illam fit aliquod auxilium ab bene operandum. Sed hoc non potest stare, quia eadem gratia est quæ impedit pec- 1 Vide III part., quæst. Lxii, art. 4, et concilium Tridentinum, sess. xxiv, can. II. Aliter juristæ, aliter theologi de collatione gratiae per matrimonium opinantur. Juristæ qui noverunt textum Decretorum et Decretalium in quibus mens Romanæ Ecclesiae exprimitur, et fuerunt expositores et glossatores Canonum et Decretalium, et aliqui eorum fuerunt de collegio cardinalium sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiae, tenent quod in sacramento matrimonii non conferur catum, et quæ ad bonum inclinat; sicut idem calor, qui aufert frigus, et qui calefacit. Unde alii dicunt quod matrimonium, inquantum in fide Christi contrahitur, habet ut conferat gratiam adjuvantem ad illa operanda quæ in matrimonio requiruntur: et hoc probabilius est, quia ubicumque datur divinitus aliqua facultas, dantur etiam auxilia quibus homo convenienter uti possit facultate illa: sicut patet quod omnibus potentiis animæ respondent aliqua membra corporis, quibus in actum exire possint. Unde cum in matrimonio detur homini ex divina institutione facultas utendi uxore sua ad procreationem prolis, datur etiam gratia, sine qua id convenienter facere non posset, sicut etiam de potestate ordinis supra dictum est. Et sic ista gratia data, est ultima res contenta in hoc sacramento.
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.1] As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, "we do not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound His doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is darkness to the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the unbeliever. His meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also should say in the midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and professing it."
Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively--that is to say, because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be published by the preaching of the apostles.
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod sicut habet aqua baptismi quod « corpus tangat, et cor abluat » extactu carnis Christi, ita matrimonium hoc habet ex hoc quod Christus sua passione illud repræsentavit, et non principaliter ex aliqua sanctificatione sacerdotis.
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.2] By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the depths of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His disciples, to whom He said (John 16:12): "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Yet whatever things out of His wisdom He judged it right to make known to others, He expounded, not in secret, but openly; although He was not understood by all. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,' as though our Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, again, it was not 'openly,' because they did not understand."
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sicut aqua baptismi cum forma verborum non operatur immediate ad gratiam, sed ad characterem; ita actus exteriores, et verba exprimentia consensum directe faciunt nexum quemdam qui est sacramentum matrimonii, et hujusmodi nexus ex virtute divinæ institutionis dispositive operatur ad gratiam.
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.3] As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked truth, which He revealed to His disciples.
And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them," according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand this of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang., qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He scarcely ever spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke some things in the literal sense."
[III.q.42.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ratio illa procederet, nisi contra concupiscentia morbum posset aliquod efficacius remedium adhiberi: adhibetur autem majus remedium per opera spiritualia et carnis mortificationem, ab illis qui matrimonio non utuntur.
Article 4
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever, according to Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing.
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod carnalis commixtio sit de integritate matrimonii. In ipsa enim institutione matrimonii dictum est, Gen., ii, 24: Erunt duo in carne una. Sed hoc non fit nisi per carnalem commixtionem. Ergo est de integritate matrimonii.
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.2] Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to Hebrews 10:1: "The Law has [Vulgate: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according to Exodus 24:12: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that Christ also should have put His doctrine into writing.
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, illud quod pertinet ad sacramenti significationem, est de necessitate sacramenti, ut prædictum est. Sed carnalis commixtio pertinet ad significationem matrimonii, ut in Littera dicitur, IV, dist. xxvi. Ergo est de integritate sacramenti.
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.3] Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in darkness (Luke 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that "some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that we have to believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the disciples made out the Master to be more than He really was when they said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all things were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever He might have written of Himself, but not what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems that Christ should have Himself committed His doctrine to writing.
[III.q.42.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, hoc sacramentum ordinatur ad conservationem speciei. Sed conservatio speciei non potest fieri sine carnali commixtione. Ergo est de integritate sacramenti.
[III.q.42.a.4.sc] No books written by Him were to be found in the canon of Scripture.
[III.q.42.a.4.sc] Sed contra, in paradiso fuit matrimonium. Sed ibi non fuit carnalis copula. Ergo commixtio carnalis non est de integritate matrimonii. Præterea, sacramentum ex suo nomine sanctificationem importat. Sed sine carnali commixtione est matrimonium sanctius, ut in Littera dicitur, IV, dist. xxvi. Ergo carnalis commixtio non est de necessitate sacramenti.
[III.q.42.a.4.co] It was fitting that Christ should not commit His doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Matthew 7:29) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers.
Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which cannot be expressed in writing; according to John 21:25: "There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to believe that in respect of space the world could not contain them . . . but that by the capacity of the readers they could not be comprehended." And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had no deeper thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the writing.
Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently teaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His doctrine would have reached all immediately.
Hence it is said of Wisdom (Proverbs 9:3) that "she hath sent her maids to invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles: which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim to have read those books of Christ do none of those things which they marvel at His doing according to those same books. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were, as it were, entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder that the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul was no disciple of His."
[III.q.42.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod duplex est integritas: una, quæ attenditur secundum perfectionem primam, quæ consistit in ipso esse rei; alia, quæ attenditur secundum perfectionem secundam, quæ consistit in operatione. Quia ergo carnalis commixtio est quædam operatio, sive usus matrimonii, per quod facultas ad hoc datur; ideo erit carnalis commixtio de secunda integritate matrimonii, et non de prima.
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.1] As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when they put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth that which they knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it were, wrote whatever He wished us to read concerning His deeds and words."
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Adam exposuit integritatem matrimonii quantum ad utramque perfectionem, quia res ex suo actu innotescit.
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.2] Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs. But Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" (Romans 8:2), had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 3:3).
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod significatio rei contentæ est de necessitate sacramenti, et ad hanc significationem non pertinet carnalis commixtio, sed ad rem non contentam, ut ex dictis patet.
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.3] Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[III.q.42.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod res non pervenit ad finem suum nisi per actum proprium. Unde ex hoc quod finis matrimonii non habetur sine carnali commixtione, oportet quod sit de integritate secunda, et non de prima.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/tertia-pars/q042.json