Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

Having excluded the error concerning Christ's divinity, St. Thomas intends to exclude the errors concerning His body¹. And he excludes a threefold error: one in this chapter; the second in the following chapter; the third in chapter xxxi.

I. The first error, then, was that of the Manichees, who said that the Son of God did not assume a true body, but a phantasmal one. Whence He could not be a true man, but an apparent one; nor does it follow that the things which He did according to man were in truth, but in a kind of assimilation².

Against this error, however, St. Thomas argues first, because this position renders void the authority of Scripture. For since the likeness of flesh is not flesh, and so of the rest, Scripture would lie in saying that the Word was made flesh, that He walked, that He ate, etc. If, however, the authority of Scripture were degraded even in the slightest degree, nothing in our faith, which rests upon the Sacred Scriptures, could now be fixed: according to that of John 20: These, however, etc.

II. If it be said that on this account it does not follow that the truth of Sacred Scripture is lacking, because the likenesses of things are named equivocally and figuratively by the names of the things themselves; and Sacred Scripture itself was accustomed to use that mode of speaking, as is that of 1 Cor. 10: And the rock was Christ, and the like: — against this it is urged first, because it is not suitable for Sacred Scripture to set forth the whole narrative of an event under such an equivocation in such a way that the manifest truth could not be had from other places of Scripture: because from this not the instruction of men, but rather deception would follow, contrary to that of Rom. 15: Whatever things were written, etc.; and 2 Tim. 3: All Scripture, etc.

Secondly, because the whole evangelical narrative would be poetic and fabulous: contrary to what is said in 2 Pet. 1: Not unlearned, etc.

2. To the reason for this opinion, however, it is said that, if anywhere Scripture narrates things that had appearance and not the existence of things, it makes this understood from the very mode of narration: as is clear in Gen. 18, when it is said: And when he had lifted up, etc.

It is said secondly, that the fact that Isaiah and Ezekiel and other prophets described some other things which were seen imaginatively does not generate error: because they put things of this kind not in a narrative, but in the description of a prophecy. And yet they always add something by which an apparition is designated: as in Isaiah 6: I saw the Lord, etc.; and Ezek. 8: The likeness being put forth, etc.

It is said thirdly, that the fact that some things are said in the Scriptures about divine realities through a likeness cannot generate error. Both from the lowliness of the things from which the likenesses are taken. — And because there are found some things properly said in the Scriptures through which the truth is expressly manifested, which is hidden under likenesses in other places. Which indeed does not happen in the present case: since no authority of Scripture excludes the truth of those things which are said concerning the humanity of Christ.

3. If it be said that on the contrary this is found: because in Rom. 8 it is said, God sent, etc.; and Phil. 2, in the likeness, etc. — it is answered first, that the Apostle does not say only in the likeness of flesh, but adds of sin: because Christ indeed had true flesh, but not the flesh of sin, but similar to it, namely passible, such as the flesh of man was made from sin.

It is said secondly, that in that authority of Philippians the understanding of fiction is excluded by the fact that it is said, taking the form of a servant: where it is manifest that form is used for nature, not for likeness, from the fact that he had said, who when He was in the form of God, where form is used for nature. — Fiction is also excluded by the fact that it is said, He was made obedient unto death. — Likeness, therefore, in that authority is taken for nature and the likeness of species: just as all men are said to be similar in species.

III. Secondly, it is argued principally, because, when the disciples saw Christ walking upon the sea and thought that He was a phantom, the Lord removed this suspicion from them when He said, Have confidence, etc. For it does not seem reasonable either that it was hidden from the disciples that He had assumed a phantasmal body, since they were chosen for a testimony of the truth; or, if it was not hidden from them, that the estimation of a phantom did not then strike fear into them.

Thirdly, because after the Resurrection, as is said in the last chapter of Luke, when the disciples thought that they saw a spirit, the Lord said to them: Touch and see, etc. For in vain would He have offered Himself to be touched, if He had had nothing but a phantasmal body.

Fourthly. If the body of Christ was phantasmal, and He did not truly eat and drink, nor was He truly seen and touched, it follows that the testimony of the Apostles concerning Christ is not true. This is false. Therefore etc. — The consequence is proved. Because an efficacious testimony of truth cannot be taken through those things which were done not in the existence of the thing, but only in appearance. — The falsity of the consequent is proved. Both because the Apostles show themselves to be suitable witnesses of Christ: as is clear in Acts 10, and in the beginning of the Epistle of John. And because their preaching would have been in vain, and our faith in vain: as is said in 1 Cor. 15.

Fifthly. It follows that Christ did not truly die; and consequently that He did not truly rise again. Therefore the Apostles preaching this are false witnesses: as is argued in the same place, namely 1 Cor. 15.

Sixthly. There would have been some falsity in Christ, if the things which are said of Him had been only in appearance: because that is false which is not as it seems. But in Christ there was not any falsity: because His coming into the world was for the manifestation of the truth, as is said in John 18; falsity, however, is not a suitable way to truth, according to that of Sirach 34: From a liar, etc. Therefore etc.

It must be noted, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the First Part, q. 17, a. 1, that, since truth and falsity are found in things in relation to the intellect, in comparison with our intellect a thing is called false which is naturally apt to produce of itself a false estimation. And therefore those things which have the likeness of other things in exterior accidents are called false according to that thing: by the fact that it is inborn in us to judge of things through those which appear outwardly. Therefore it is well said here, and is in accordance with the mind of Aristotle in Metaphysics V³, that that is false, namely on the part of the thing, which is not as it seems, that is, which has the likeness of another thing.

Seventhly. Since we are said, in Rom. 5, to be justified in the blood of Christ, and in Apoc. 5, to be redeemed, if Christ did not have true blood, He did not truly shed it for us. Therefore we are neither truly justified nor truly redeemed. Therefore to be in Christ is useful for nothing.

Eighthly. It follows that nothing new occurred in Christ's coming: because in the Old Testament as well God appeared to Moses and the prophets according to manifold figures. But this renders void the whole doctrine of the New Testament. Therefore etc.