Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. It is outside controversy that Christ is Head of the Church by reason of Divinity, as also the two other divine persons; but it is doubtful whether precisely qua man he vindicates this dignity to himself; indeed not by usurping that particle qua reduplicatively, but only specificatively. For truly if it were taken reduplicatively, the sense would be that Christ would be called Head of the Church on account of his humanity, as if humanity were the formal reason why he should be called Head of the Church, which is openly false; otherwise by this very reason any man having true humanity would have to be deemed Head of the Church. But taking that particle, qua man, specificatively, the sense is that that character of Head of the Church befits Christ in such wise that through the humanity he fulfills the office and executes the function of Head toward the whole Church, not only militant on earth and triumphant in heaven, but also languishing and suffering in purgatory.

Note 2. Toward the character of moral and mystical head four conditions are chiefly desired, according to proportion and analogy to the natural head, to which in order to its members these four above all belong: The first is its highest conjunction with the members and whole body, which makes of both one thing. The second is its principality and eminence, whereby surpassing all, looking out upon them as from a certain citadel, it consults and moderates them. The third is vivifying power by reason of the internal senses and origin of spirits and nerves, through which mediately it grants life and motion to the other members. Finally the fourth is natural conformity which it has with the other members, with whom it is joined and associated in so great and so tight a compact that it receives as quasi-its-own the pleasure or pain of them all. But it is asked whether these four befit Christ through metaphor and analogy in such wise that he truly be deemed Head of the Church.

Note 3. That although all Theologians agree that Christ is truly Head of the Church, they nevertheless do not agree concerning the formal reason whereby this dignity befits him — whether namely through grace only of union, or habitual, or actual; or whether for constituting him formally in the character of head something else is needed, namely some dignity and power, which may be the formal reason of constituting him in the character of such head, just as e. g. beyond knowledge of laws and notice of constitutions, likewise good morals, there is need of authority of a judge, of committed power, in order that he be constituted formally in the character of judge.

Two things therefore must be determined in the present Question: First, whether Christ truly is called Head of the Church properly speaking. Second, whereby formally this dignity befits him — whether only through grace of union, or through sanctifying grace, or truly through some authority distinguished from either grace.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST TRULY AND PROPERLY IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH QUA MAN.

This truth stands from the texts of Scripture prefaced, whereby the Apostle most constantly calls Christ Head of the Church; which he surely would not do if he did not think Christ truly and properly to be called Head of the Church. It is proved further from the same teaching Rom. chapter 1. and 1. Cor. 12., that the Church is the mystical body of Christ; For as in one body we have many members, but all members have not the same act; so we being many are one body in Christ: but every body ought to consist not only of other members but also of a head; otherwise it would be monstrous and empty: therefore the Church necessarily ought to have some head: but it can have none other than Christ: therefore Christ is properly Head of the Church. — That however the Apostle speaks of Christ as man in all those texts whereby he predicates him Head of the Church, is gathered from the antecedent and consequent words; for in those texts always something precedes or follows that savors of Christ as man. Thus in first chapter to Ephesians the Apostle first says raising him from the dead etc. With which words, as appears, when he adds that Christ was constituted by the Father Head of the Church, he speaks of Christ as man. Reason also favors it; for he truly is the moral and mystical Head of the Church to whom the four conditions requisite for a mystical head belong: but those befit Christ qua man wonderfully. First indeed so close is the conjunction of Christ the Head with his own members that he makes one thing with them, as the Apostle teaches Rom. chapter 12. saying: For as the body is one, and hath many members; but all the members of the body whereas they are many are one body, so also is Christ. By which words he signifies so great conjunction of Christ with the Church that he does not doubt to call Christ truthfully the body of Christ himself, says St. Fulgentius book 2. to Monimus, chapter 9. Which St. Augustine also everywhere confirms with his testimony; as at

Psalm 127. etc. Many men are, he says, and one man. For many Christians, and one Christ. Not he alone one, and we many: but we also many in that One are one. Therefore one man is Christ Head, and body: which is his body, his Church, the Apostle saying, since we are members of his body: and, you also are the body of Christ, and members: let us understand therefore the voice of this man, in whose body we are one man.

— Secondly, Christ as placed as head in an eminent place and a certain citadel rules his body with peculiar providence, and governs the Church, and through prosperous and adverse things, with admirable wisdom, brings the faithful to the appointed end of eternal felicity: For he is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful, as the Apostle writes: who moreover adds this full of solace and confidence: But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. But what is more domestic and proper to the head than its own body; nay what is itself to itself? And it is, as has been demonstrated immediately before from Augustine, that one man is Christ head, and body. These are the faithful enrolled in the Church, who are domestics of God. But to linger longer in this argument is not of present institution. — The third mark of the head is that into the whole body and its members it diffuse a certain vivifying power and aids necessary for its conservation; for which cause indeed in the head as in fountain and treasure there ought to reside ample copiousness and a certain opulence of all things necessary for guarding, strengthening, and animating the body. Thus in the spiritual Head of the Church, Christ, dwells all plenitude; and in him are hidden all treasures of wisdom and science. Thence into the whole body and each member the juice of vital grace, and inexhaustible force and abundance of heavenly gifts and auxiliaries is poured forth. For no grace however tenuous and meager is sprinkled except through Christ, and from Christ, as unique and general principle: which elsewhere we approved more fully especially from the authority of Augustine. Hence Christ the Lord is wont to be called second Adam: because, as the former was head, that is author and sower of human propagation according to the flesh, so this latter succeeded as bestower and parent of another and far more excellent origin, that is of spiritual life. — Finally in Christ there is conformity of nature with the very members of the Church: for he has human nature of the same species with ours, and he willed in all things to be like the Fathers, in those things which are natural, that he might have closer commerce with men; whence it happens that by reason of this condition he is said above all to be Head of the Church qua man, and truly not qua God: although qua God he may be primary head, infusing life of grace and glory into the members of the Church.

Thence our Angelic notes above all q. 12. art. 1. that Head of the Church is said commonly and properly; commonly indeed the whole Trinity is deemed Head of the Church; for the whole Trinity, he says, moves and rules the Church, and infuses into her grace whereby she may sense through faith, and be moved through charity, whence he stands related to it in character of ruler and infuser. But according to humanity Christ is properly called head, because in this manner he stands related to the Church according to character of conformity with her through grace and nature: whence the Gloss on that text, he gave him head, etc., says: Therefore he is called head according to humanity, according to which the Church is joined to him, by nature and grace. He observes secondly,

that although the Holy Spirit be called principle and fountain inflowing and deriving into us all fullness of grace, and through him every motion and sense of spiritual life is had; nevertheless he cannot properly be called head of the Church, because, he says, someone can be called head of the Church either through character of influx only, or through character of influx and conformity of nature. In the first manner the Trinity is called Head of the Church; namely according to character of influx of sense of faith and motion of charity. In the second manner Christ is called Head of the Church according to humanity, because the Church is joined to him through nature and grace. In the first manner, qua God, he is called head less properly. In the second manner, namely with respect to humanity, he is called head more properly. Therefore to Christ alone belongs properly to be Head of the Church; that is, according to character of influx and conformity of nature, and this according to his humanity: but to the Trinity and to Christ according to Divinity it befits to be Head of the Church less properly: that is according to character of influx only: but to Father and Holy Spirit commonly, and also less properly.

These are Alexander's words. Whence the influx of the Holy Spirit is rather assimilated to the influx of the heart than of the head: because influx of the heart is invisible and hidden; but influx of the head visible and apparent by reason of the exterior senses existing in it and there performing their chief functions; and therefore Christ, inflowing into the members sensibly and apparently through death and sacraments, must be called Head of the Church; but the Holy Spirit, since he inflows invisibly and secretly, namely through interior inspirations, is more rightly compared to the heart than to the head.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST IS NOT CONSTITUTED FORMALITER HEAD OF THE CHURCH THROUGH GRACE OF UNION, OR PERSONAL, NOR THROUGH HABITUAL AND SANCTIFYING GRACE DIVISIM OR CONIUNCTIM: BUT THROUGH THE DIGNITY OR POWER WHICH GOD BESTOWED UPON HIM OVER ALL ANGELS AND MEN. This Conclusion consists of two parts, whereof

The first is proved, namely that he is not head of the Church formaliter through personal or sanctifying grace: That whereby he obtains prefecture and dominion over all the members of the Church constitutes one formaliter head of the Church: but through neither grace does he obtain that: therefore, etc. The major stands, because to be formaliter head is to have power over others, both as to influx of grace and supernatural gifts, and as to direction, command, and governance. But the minor is proved: first of habitual grace, because habitual grace of Christ is of the same species with ours: therefore as our sanctifying has no other effect in us than to make us just and grateful to God and accepted by him for eternal inheritance — indeed it confers upon us no dominion or prefecture over others; so neither could Christ have prefecture over the other members of the Church by this reason. — The same appears also of grace of union, because this of itself confers only two things upon the assumed humanity, namely termination of its communicability and substantial sanctity: but neither that sanctity nor termination confer per se any dominion over the members of the Church: therefore, etc. — That those two graces coniunctim do not confer this stands evident: because even if the divine Word were separated from the humanity of Christ, and the hypostatic union dissolved, nevertheless Christ could remain head of the Church if, with habitual grace persevering within him, he had authority conceded to him by God over the other members of the Church.

The other part is also proved, namely that Christ is head of the Church through power divinely conceded to him over men as well as Angels. It is proved, I say, from that Ephes. 1. where the Apostle after saying of Christ that God subjected all things under his feet, immediately adds: And he gave him head over all the Church, etc.; likewise from that Heb. 5.: Neither doth any man take honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron: so Christ did not glorify himself that he might become Pontiff, but he that spoke unto him: Thou art my Son, etc. From which places it may be gathered that the Apostle signifies that Christ had dignity and power of head and Pontiff peculiar to himself granted by the eternal Father, as something distinct from personal and sanctifying grace. — Nevertheless both these graces are required toward fulfilling the office of head no less than perfect knowledge of law and customs, probity of morals, and supreme erudition are desired in a judge; for as all those conditions and perfections render a man suitable that he be instituted Judge by a King, and duly fulfill the office of judge; so sanctifying and personal grace made Christ worthy that he be instituted by God head of men and Angels. And as those excellencies of a judge confer no authority of judge per se; so neither did personal and sanctifying grace confer dignity of head upon Christ. But as it is necessary that to a judge beyond eminent knowledge and probity of morals there be conferred by the King authority of judging: so it is necessary that also to Christ, beyond personal and sanctifying grace, there accrue to him authority of head granted by the eternal Father, whereby both men and Angels are themselves subjected, and from God, Ocean of all goods, every sense and motion of spiritual life be derived into men and Angels through Christ. Finally, as dignity of judge imports nothing physical, but only something moral, namely mere deputation by the King toward fulfilling that office; so neither does dignity of head imprint anything physical upon Christ, but signifies mere deputation of Christ by God; which he can exercise in act and formaliter toward Angels and men, into whom de facto he inflows, or can inflow, life and motion of grace.

You will ask: Can Christ equally properly be called heart of the Church, as he is called head? — Alexander answers in the place praised above, from the author of book On Soul and Spirit, among St. Augustine,

that triple is the power of soul toward body: namely natural power, which operates in liver: vital power, which operates in heart: animal power, which operates in brain. Natural power is called that which is nutritive: such as digestive, retentive, expulsive, and augmentative. Vital power, which operates in heart, is that whence motion of heart is continuous. Animal power is that which operates in brain, whence motion and sense are in members. And according to this motions and spirits, which are vehicles of virtues, are divided — namely into spirit vital, natural, and animal. But operations of natural virtue are altogether involuntary, nor subject to reason: operations animal are altogether subject to reason, and therefore receive command from it: operations vital are partly subject to reason, partly not; and therefore partly voluntary, partly natural. According to this therefore it must be said, that motion which is from Christ the head into the body of the Church is altogether according to voluntary motion, which simply is not natural or vital: therefore Christ ought rather be called head of the Church metaphorically according to that motion than heart or liver.

Note 1. Men universally can be viewed in a fourfold state: namely of beatitude, damnation, pilgrimage, and purgation. The first state comprehends all the Blessed, who enjoy intuitive vision of God and most eminent love, and delight in his eternal delectation and felicity. The second state involves all those who are addicted to eternal torments and have no hope of attaining beatitude. The third embraces all men wayfarers whether just or sinners, whether faithful in act or in potency, that is who have faith de facto, or will sometime receive it; whether infidels in act, who are at some time to be illuminated with faith, or infidels in potency, that is all those dwelling in unbelief who shall never be illuminated with light of truth. Finally the fourth state signifies all souls abiding in Purgatory, having indeed faith, hope, and charity, who nevertheless have not yet paid every debt of divine justice for faults committed. But it is asked whether with respect to all men universally beheld in this fourfold state Christ is called head properly.

Note 2. From Alexander of Hales, in the place praised, that although Christ the Lord can be called head of men; either because he has principality, by which reason a King is called head of the Kingdom; or because he surpasses all creatures in dignity and nobility, by which reason he could be deemed head of men and Angels, as the lion is called head of animals, because he is most noble; or because he provides for individual men; in like manner as the Father of a family is called head of his household, because he provides for and administers to each what is necessary; or because he himself receives from the Holy Spirit all fullness of grace, as the head receives from the soul fullness of life:

Nevertheless, he says, by its proper reason a thing is called head through the character of influx, just as from the very head there is influx of sense and motion according to its diverse parts; because from the forepart of the head flow nerves through which sense flows to the members; but from the hinder part flow nerves through which motions flow from the soul to each member. Similarly Christ inflows sense and motion into the Church spiritually: sense indeed he inflows through faith: motion truly through love (for he inflows sense of faith and motion of love); and on that account he is properly called Head of the Church. Whence as we see that the head in a certain manner plays the part of soul in moving the body and consulting it through sense: so it is with Christ with respect to the Church; because he stands related to it in the character of mover and consulter through sense of grace, which he inflows into it. Whence he himself is head of the body of the Church. Gloss. To the head all things are subject so as to act: but that thing, namely the head, spoken of above acts so as to consult; because the head in a certain manner plays the part of soul. In this that it says so as to act, it shows how motion comes about from the head into the members. In this that it says so as to consult, it shows that sense is from it in the members.

Note 3. Acts which Christ exercised, or even now exercises, in the character of head of men and Angels can be considered in twofold difference: for either those are such whereby he merited for Angels and men sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts; or those are such whereby sanctifying grace and those gifts de facto and really are given to Angels and men from merit of Christ, and through his influx; between which, as Isambertus learnedly notes disp. 2. art. 5., this is the difference, that the former acts require actual existence of their cause while they are elicited de facto, and that habitual grace concur physically and efficiently to their elicition — namely in that manner in which supernatural habits concur in acts proportionate to themselves: but the latter by no means require actual existence of their cause; but suffices alone prevision of their futurition and moral motion exciting the principal agent itself; by which reason the merits of Christ foreseen moved God to bestow grace not only upon Angels, but also upon the first parents and fathers of the Old Testament. These things thus premised, let there be

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD TRULY IS ACTUALLY HEAD OF THE BLESSED: BUT NOT OF THE DAMNED, BOTH IN ACT AND IN POTENCY.

The first part is evident: since the Blessed have not attained their beatitude and happy lot except through grace granted them in view of merits of Christ, as we shall prove elsewhere, especially in the Treatise On grace, where we shall demonstrate that grace was granted to all and each men in view of the merits of Christ.

The second part also is clear; for the damned are incapable of grace and glory: therefore with respect to them Christ is neither in act nor in potency head. The consequence appears; since Christ does not have the character of head except on account of actual or potential influx of grace and glory and supernatural gifts. The antecedent also is certain; for the damned are in a term altogether unvariable, and outside the state and hope of obtaining grace and attaining beatitude: therefore they are altogether incapable of receiving influx of grace or glory.

You will say 1. It is probable that some damned have some solace: for we judged more probable that children without baptism departing this life before use of reason and liberty are not tormented with pain of sense. Similarly very many Theologians deem probable with the Doctor, that the damned are not to be tormented eternally for lighter and venial faults, which demand only temporal satisfaction and punishment: but they do not obtain that solace except from merits of Christ: therefore Christ has some influx into them; and forthwith he is their head, because the head inflows only into members conjoined to itself: — I answer, permitting the major, denying the minor; for that solace is not conceded them in view of merits of Christ, but only from the general providence and justice of God, which renders to each one according to his works, nor punishes anyone beyond demerit.

You will say 2. In the damned baptized and initiated into sacred orders remain the characters of baptism and order: but those characters were impressed through these sacraments only from the merits of Christ, because they are effects of the sacraments, which have no effect except through Christ: therefore not only in potency but also in act Christ is head of such damned. — I answer, that those characters were impressed indeed first through influx from Christ the head: therefore by their nature and proper institution they are ordained toward supernatural good of grace and glory, and therefore as long as they are ordained toward, or can be ordained toward, that good they must be called effects of that influx which is from Christ the head: but in the damned they are neither further ordained, nor can be ordained, toward such supernatural good, but rather remain in them for torment and ignominy; whence on account of characters of that sort Christ is not deemed de facto head of the damned who are signed with them.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD IS ACTUALLY HEAD OF ALL WAYFARING FAITHFUL, BOTH OF THE JUST AND OF SINNERS: BUT HE IS ONLY IN POTENCY HEAD OF INFIDELS. This Conclusion as to both parts is common among Theologians; of which

The first stands as to the just faithful: for Christ is deemed head of those into whom he has influx of spiritual life: but he has such influx into faithful sinners; since they, however much offended with God through sin and held in hatred by him, are nevertheless united to Christ by the bond of faith, which is the principle and seedbed of spiritual life: seeing that in faith as in root and foundation the whole spiritual structure is fixed: therefore he is deemed their head. Next, Christ is head of all those who are truly of the body of the Church: but all the faithful, even if they exist in mortal sin, are members of the true Church, at least secundum quid, because although they do not have perfect and complete union with Christ through charity and sanctifying grace: nevertheless they are united through faith and hope, and likewise through other supernatural gifts, which they receive from God only in view of merits of Christ: therefore Christ is their head. The major stands, since Christ is head of the Church, he is also head of all who pertain to the Church. But the minor appears from the Treatise On the Church, where it is declared that sinners who have not abjured nor extinguished faith are members of the Church.

The second part also is admitted by all; for all infidels, as long as they live, can receive influx of spiritual life from Christ; since to them the Gospel can be preached, and they can attain grace of baptism: and forthwith become faithful and members of the Church. Moreover Christ poured out his blood for them, and offered his merits to the eternal Father for each man. Whence that most precious blood of itself is most sufficient for obtaining grace of conversion, whereby each man, for whom it was shed, may receive himself toward faith and be made members of the Church in act. Finally, infidels have free will, which by God can be bent from evil into good. Whence although they are not in act of the Church, they are nevertheless of it in potency — which potency indeed of their incorporation among the members of the Church rests on this threefold foundation; namely preaching of the Gospel, which can be announced to them: blood of Christ shed for them: finally thirdly liberty of will. There can be added also actual help of grace granted by God to each man, whereby they can be made of the Church in act as faithful, if they would rightly use that aid.

You will say. Christ is not actually head of those who are not actually parts and members of the Church: but sinners, even if they are faithful, do not pertain to the Church, nor are parts or member of it: therefore neither is Christ actually their head. The major stands from what was said. But the minor is proved: first indeed from the Apostle saying to the Ephesians 5. that Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her with the laver of water in the word of life, that he might present to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she may be holy and immaculate: secondly from the Holy Fathers, Cyprian epistle to Magnum, Jerome in exposition of the prefaced text of the Apostle, Augustine in many places, especially book On the Unity of the Church, chapter 21. And their reason is, because sinners are members of the Babylonian city, whose head is the devil: therefore they cannot be members of the city Jerusalem, that is of the Church. St. Augustine proves the antecedent lib. 14. De Civit. Dei, c. 28. where he teaches that as love of God even unto contempt of self builds the city Jerusalem, so love of self even unto contempt of God builds the city Babylon: but the faithful existing in mortal do not love God even unto contempt of self — nay rather they love themselves even unto contempt of God. Thirdly, the Council of Trent, session 6. chapter 7., says charity is that whereby man becomes a living member of Christ. Finally, from the Symbol of the Apostles the Church is called holy: but if evil men were of the Church, since their number far exceeds the just, she would rather have to be called sinful than holy: therefore sinners are neither to be called of the Church, nor consequently Christ is their head. — I answer, granting the major, denying the minor; and to the text of the Apostle I say that it is not to be understood of the Church as she now is militant on earth; but as she will be in the future, as St. Augustine expounds book 2. of Retractations, chapter 14.: Wheresoever, he says, mention is made of a Church having no spot, nor wrinkle, it is not thus to be understood... — but that they are truly members of the Church because they are united in act to Christ and the other members through faith, which is supposed to be in them. — To the Holy Fathers I say, that they judged the wicked not to be members of the Church as to final being, although they are its members as to formal being, that is as to end and fruits, for the sake of which the Church was instituted, because for this the Church was instituted, that men might sometime be endowed with eternal beatitude. Whence Augustine everywhere says: To be in the Church is to adhere to the just, as chaff is on the threshingfloor and adheres to wheat until either by judgment of the Church they be separated through excommunication, or they themselves of their own accord leap forth outside the Church persecuting or contemning the same, or finally they be exterminated by God through death into eternal damnation and be assigned as chaff to fire. — To that which says the wicked to be members of the devil: I answer they merit to be members of the devil, and by faith members of Christ — To that which is subjoined that we profess in the Symbol the Church to be holy, I answer she is called holy, first, because the whole is denominated from the principal part: but the just are the principal part of the Church. Secondly, because she contains within herself all instruments and all means of sanctification of men instituted by Christ, namely word of God, sacraments, order of justice to be kept, and the whole treasure of merits of Christ the Lord. Thirdly, because she sanctifies ministerially through those things which she received from Christ, in the manner medicine is said to be sound because it heals. Fourthly, holy is she called, because outside her there is no true holiness. Fifthly, because with blood of Christ she is consecrated. In that manner temples are called holy after consecration. Finally sixthly, holy is she named, because stable, firm, inviolable, she perseveres forever.

You will say 2. Members of some body cannot be contrary to each other: but the just and sinners are mutually opposed among themselves; seeing that Ecclesiasticus 33.: Against evil good is set, and against the just man the sinner: therefore a sinner cannot be a member of the Church. — I distinguish the major: members of a natural body cannot be contrary to one another, I concede: members of a mystical body, I deny: for it suffices that these agree together in certain things although they dissent in others: whence for sinful faithful to be deemed members of the Church, it suffices that with the just they agree in faith and hope, and likewise in supernatural gifts, and in characters of Baptism, Confirmation, or Order.'

You ask. Whether Christ is deemed head of men also, not only as to soul, but even as to body? — Our Alexander of Hales affirms in the praised place § 1., and proves first from that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? therefore he himself is head of our bodies, as also of our souls. He proves secondly, because

our bodies have a double conjunction with the body of Christ; because they are of the same species: conjunction truly which is on account of perfection can be twofold: because it is perfection of nature, and so soul is perfection: and it is perfection of our sanctification, and this is the Holy Spirit. It must be said therefore, that attending to perfection of nature, which is soul, thus our bodies, and body of Christ have not one perfection; because other is the soul of Christ, which perfects body according to number, and not our bodies; but our bodies have one perfection, taking perfection of sanctification, which is the Holy Spirit: for perfection of body is not only soul, but also Holy Spirit, of whom our bodies are temple, as we read: know you not that your members are temple of the Holy Spirit? but soul perfects as to being of sanctification.

But the same Holy Spirit, who sanctifies the body of Christ, sanctifies also our bodies; when we are in faith and charity: from this special sanctification disposition is impressed, and pertains to glory of resurrection. Whence the Apostle proves by this glorious resurrection of bodies saying: If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in us, he shall quicken also our mortal bodies, because of the Holy Spirit inhabiting in us.

1. From our Alexander there ibidem 2. § 1., Christ can be called head of some members in four manners: namely according to dignity and external governance and denomination; or according to influx of a certain illuminating grace and accidental glory; or according to influx of justifying grace and essential glory; or finally according to conformity of body with head. It is certain however, he says, art. 2. § 1., that Christ qua man is not head of Angels simply by reason of conformity; but only secundum quid; because he is not conformable to Angels in nature simply, but inasmuch as the rational soul, as to the superior intellective part, has conformity with the Angels; for although Angelic nature and soul of Christ like ours are not of the same species, they are nevertheless of the same character, at least generically, because they concur in substantial spiritual nature. It is likewise certain that Christ is inferior to the Angels according to humanity; seeing that humanity taken in itself is of far lower dignity than Angelic nature. Whence the Apostle to Heb. 2. adapts to Christ that Psal. 8.: Thou hast made him a little less than the Angels. And subjoins: But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels, crowned with glory and honour because of his passion of death; whence remains difficulty whether Christ be head of Angels by reason of denomination and influx.

Note 2. From the same Alexander art. 3. § 4., that Christ inflows grace into body of Church and its members in three manners:

In one manner through mode of merit: in another through exemplary mode: in third manner through mode of head. Through merit-mode grace is in us from Christ himself man; because it is he who merited for us grace whereby our sins would be remitted, and grace whereby we would know and love him, and this he merited for all believing in him and loving him; according as is had: as through disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, so through obedience of one man Christ many are constituted just. In second manner he inflows into us grace through exemplary mode: for as we see that exemplar stands toward example, and in some manner example is drawn out from exemplar, so in Christ man himself there is exemplar proposed of grace, unto which we ought to fit and conform ourselves. Whence he is book of life, according to which our own, that is sciences which are books, must be written, as is had in Apocal. 20. And that drawing-out is signified: first man from earth earthy, second man from Heaven heavenly: therefore as we have borne image of earthly, let us bear image of heavenly. Third manner of influx from him is through mode of head; but there is a certain love and natural appetite of head toward members: for head itself loves members with certain natural love: whence animal spirits, which are in head, from this love run down from head into members; whence if some member ache, spirits run together from head toward that aching part, and there collect. Influx therefore of head into members, that they may sense and move, is through natural love; and this appetite animal spirit flowing from head into members or in members fulfills. According to this it must be said, that uncreated spirit, through whom communion of whole Trinity is ours — namely Holy Spirit, abounds in our head namely Christ, and desire belongs to Christ himself and his blessed soul that we share his Spirit. But Spirit himself fulfills desire which Christ has toward us; on account of love which he has toward us. And in this manner is influx of grace from Christ head into body of Church. Whence Hugh: as spirit of man descends through mediation of head into members to vivify them; so Holy Spirit through Christ comes unto Christians: whose plenitude indeed is in head: participation truly in members.

Note 3. That Christ the Lord truly merited grace and glory for Angels: partly because he is final and exemplary cause of their beatitude; partly because he is meritorious efficient cause of predestination of the same through future and foreseen merits: partly because Christ was proposed to them from instant of their creation as object toward which they were bound to tend and earn; for they also were wayfarers, and had those supernatural gifts whereby one commonly arrives at beatitude through merits of Christ foreseen, as below will appear treating of merit of Christ.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD, QUA MAN, IS HEAD OF ANGELS ACCORDING TO DIGNITY AND INFLUX.

It is proved from the very oracle of Christ the Lord; for he himself roused from the dead said Matthaei 28.: All power is given me in heaven and on earth. And Apostle Peter 3.: Being gone forth into heaven, he said, Angels and Powers and Virtues being subjected to him. And Paul in Epistle to Ephesians honors that principality of Christ the Lord with signal and luculent proclamation, preaching operation of divine power and virtue, which he wrought in Christ: Raising him up from the dead, and setting him at his right hand in the heavens 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 all things he subjected under his feet. Of all therefore, not only men but also Angels both good and evil, Christ is Lord, and holds all subjected, and shall hold especially after judgment, when all his enemies shall lie under his feet. — This truth is gathered also from 2. Coloss., where the Apostle calls Christ head of every principality: In Christ, he says, dwells all fullness of Divinity corporally, and you are filled in him, who is head of all principality and power. But manifestly fullness of divinity does not dwell in Christ according to divine nature, but according to human. Whence subjoins the Apostle: In whom also you rose again through faith of operation of God, who raised him from the dead; for resurrection befits only Christ qua man. Similarly the Apostle to Heb. chapter 2. adapts to Christ, as we said, that Psal. 8.: Thou hast made him a little less than Angels: with glory and honor thou hast crowned him, and hast set him over works of thy hands, all things thou hast subjected under his feet. And immediately subjoins: For in that he subjected all things to him nothing left him unsubdued.

He proves secondly from the Holy Fathers. For Jerome expounding the aforesaid words of Epistle to Ephesians says: Not only of men but also of Angels, of all virtues whatsoever and rational creatures, the Church can be understood. Similarly St. Ambrose epist. affirms Christ to be head of Angels even as of men, and that force inflowing into body from head to permeate them too:

In whom (Christ) not only of holy men, he says, but of all believers, all rationables too, virtues and powers, I judge connection of faith and spirit must be received: so that through a certain harmony of virtues and ministries one body of all spirits of rational nature adhere to its head Christ, joined thus in framework of building that not even touch of juncture of individuals adhering seem discordant.

St. Cyril subscribes, book 5. on Isaiah, explicating those words of chapter 54. rejoice barren, where he says: Through Christ himself every spiritual fruit-bearing both in holy Angels and in ourselves is implanted: whence book 9. On adoration in spirit, he thinks this consociation of Angels into the same body of Church wrought through Christ mystically adumbrated in description of Tabernacle, wherein hangings are said to have been, upon which figures of Cherubim were interwoven: Whereby, he says, the thing signified highest and lowest to be conjoined, and the Church which dwells on lands to be linked with celestial ones. The same St. Augustine teaches in Psal. 36. concio 3., where he says: Christ is head, whose members are all who from beginning were just, conjoined even to legions of Angels and armies.

By reason also this truth is confirmed: Christ is head of all those who concur to integrity of the same mystical body of the Church: but the Church is integrated of Angels as well as men as one mystical body, and one spiritual city: therefore Christ is head of all these. The major stands from what was said. But the minor is proved from parable about Shepherd and sheep, Luke 15., in which one sheepfold is asserted, to which pertain 99. sheep left in desert, whereby multitude of Angels is signified, and that lost and wandering sheep which most zealous Shepherd seeks, namely human kind. — It is confirmed by that Heb. 12.: You are not come to a mountain that might be touched, and accessible fire, but you are come to mount Sion, and city of living God Jerusalem heavenly, and company of many thousands of Angels, and Church of firstborn, who are enrolled in heavens: with which words St. Apostle extols the Church above Synagogue, from this that Synagogue came to touchable mountain: but Church to celestial mountain Sion, or to union and company with Angels. — It is confirmed moreover from this, that conditions of head befit Christ qua man with respect to Angels. For first, he surpasses them in order of dignity, as Apostle proves Heb. 1.: Made so much better than Angels, he says, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. Secondly, he is more eminent and perfect than they in spiritual goods, and nearer God: Unto which of Angels said he at any time: Sit at my right hand? says the Apostle. Thirdly, he inflows into them grace and glory, as will appear in following Conclusion.

You will say 1. There ought to be some conformity of nature between head and members: but there is none between Christ and Angels: therefore, etc. — I distinguish the minor: there ought to be omnimodal and simple conformity, I deny: secundum quid, I concede. Since Christ, as man, concurs with Angels at least generically by reason of soul, which since it is spiritual substance concurs with purely spiritual Angels at least generically. Add that Christ as man, and Angels appear to be of same species, at least moral — namely inasmuch as they have same species of charity, sanctifying grace, and beatitude.

You will say 2. Christ is head of those whose spouse he is: but Christ, as man, is not spouse of Angels: therefore not their head. — I answer first, major can be denied, because closer congruence is desired between bridegroom and bride than between mystical head and members. I answer secondly, that although Christ as man be not so properly called head of Angels as of men: nevertheless somewhat he is even spouse of Angels, as St. Bernard teaches sermon 27. on Canticles with these words: When he had bride adhering to him from beginning, it pleased him to continue Church from multitude of Angels and of men, and unite her who is of heaven, that there be one bride and one bridegroom.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD INFLOWS INTO ANGELS NOT ONLY ILLUMINATIONS AND ACCIDENTAL BEATITUDE, BUT ALSO SANCTIFYING GRACE AND ESSENTIAL GLORY.

This is gathered, and proved by same authorities of Holy Fathers whereby first Conclusion was confirmed: First part St. Dionysius luculently expounds book On celestial hierarchy, chapter 7., where he teaches Angels instructed by Jesus as supreme Pontiff, and thoroughly taught arcane mysteries:

Inferior orders of heavenly substances, reason consistent demands, by higher ones are more scientifically taught deifying operations: but those above all eminent, by principal deity itself, as far as lawful, initiated with illuminations. For some things of those they report learning from prior ones — that Lord of celestial virtues and law of glory is he who, as befitted man, assumed into heaven; others truly questioning Jesus himself, desiring to learn science of divine operation for us, which Jesus himself through himself with much interposed imbued with sacred names, and imparts knowledge through primal communication of his benign efficacy toward men.

Christ therefore first teaches Angels per se, and opens to them arcana of holier mysteries, not only qua God he is, but even as man: therefore truly he has influx into Angels.

Our Alexander proves same truth in place praised above, saying Angels receive from Christ cognition of truth, and honor, and sweetness, and delight.

Cognition of truth, because they are taught by himself; nay through Church too, which is his body, mystery of Incarnation became known to them, nor do they blush being taught through it: whence Apostle: That manifold grace of God might become known to principalities and powers in celestials through Church according to praefinition of ages, which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord. Likewise, as Gloss there says: may become known through Church, which receives gifts of God; that is, through Apostles preaching in Church principalities and powers, that is diverse orders of Angels, who are in celestials, that is in heaven, where we also shall be. For blessed Jerome says Angelic dignities did not fully understand aforementioned mystery until passion of Christ was completed and preaching of Apostles dilated among nations. — Likewise they receive honor, which is attended to as toward reparation or restoration of ruin of Angelic: for no small thing had been detracted from them; through Incarnation and Passion reparation or restoration of ruin of Angelic is wrought through men filling number of those Angels themselves, according as is had: He shall judge among nations, he shall fill ruins, etc. Blessed God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Who proposed in him dispensation of fullness of times to restore all things in Christ, which in heaven and which on earth are in him, etc. Gloss says: proposed to restore, that is reduce to first state all destroyed through sin; Angels and men: because through restoration of man ruin of Angels is repaired, what things are in heavens are renewed — namely that fell in Angels is restored in men. — Likewise they receive sweetness and delight from humanity itself of Christ: for they have great delight and sweetness in contemplation of divinity, but when they see divinity in humanity, another mode of sweetness is theirs. Wherefore Peter says: into whom Angels desire to look. And on this account it is said: hills flowing milk and honey. Hills are Angels, who before incarnation flowed honey in sweetness of contemplation of divinity in themselves: but from incarnation flow with sweetness of contemplation of divinity in humanity, which is signified through milk.

The same truth holds of accidental beatitude; for all Angels, according to the Apostle to the Hebrews 1, are ministering spirits sent in ministry for the sake of those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation; for all salvation of men is from Christ the Lord, and hence the Angels have joys at the salvation of men, according to that of Luke 15: There shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance; which joys, since they pertain to their accidental glory, it follows that Christ pours into them accidental glory.

The same truth the Seraphic Doctor proves in article 2, question 3, where, in order to show that Christ truly has the influx of a head both in the Angels and in men, whether in those who preceded his incarnation or in those who followed it, and that according to more and less; he first notes that

sense in spiritual things is considered with respect to cognition; but motion with respect to affection and love, which is the weight inclining each spirit and drawing it to the place due to it: to pour in, therefore, motion and sense, is to cause in us faith and love, whether faith working through love, or knowledge and love.

But attention must be given, that knowledge and love are found in threefold difference: one kind, which regards the state of merit, and this is called gratuitous: another, in which consists the substance of the reward, and this is called glorious: a third, annexed to both, which is neither a difference of merit nor of reward, but of well-being. According to this threefold difference of knowledge and love, it must be said that the grace of the head flows into the members; uncreated grace effectively, but created grace meritoriously and dispositively: for on account of the merit of Christ's Passion promised to the Fathers who went before, God gave the grace of reconciliation: and on account of its exhibition he gives us the grace of reconciliation more abundantly: in which grace there is indeed the sense of knowledge and the motion of affection: and again on account of that Passion the door was opened, that glorious love and knowledge be given to all the members of Christ, in which consists the perfection of motion and sense. From the same source many mysteries are revealed to the Angels, that they may report many joys about their restoration, which is found to have been wrought through Christ; and therefore they too receive motion and sense.

There is proved also the third part, namely that Christ pours into the Angels sanctifying grace and essential glory; because a member as member ought to be constituted by the intrinsic and essential form of the body of which it is a member, and which gives being to the body and to each of its members, and not merely by something accidental and extrinsic: but the essential form of the Church triumphant is not mere illumination, or accidental glory, but sanctifying grace and essential glory, since God could confer such illuminations upon someone outside the Church triumphant, nay even upon someone in the Church militant: therefore the Angels are constituted members of the Church triumphant not only through accidental illuminations, but through the influx of sanctifying grace.

You ask. Since it is prior that Angels and men be united to Christ the head than that they receive his influx, just as it is prior that a scion be grafted into a tree than that it receive from it the vivifying influx by which branches and leaves receive nourishment?

I answer. The Angels were united first to Christ as to their head through those acts of faith and love by which they disposed themselves to justifying grace, and through the habits themselves of faith and grace; but men through sacraments received in reality or in desire. Nor does it stand in the way that this supernatural good, by which the Angels and men are antecedently united to Christ so as to receive his influx, is itself also from the merit of Christ; it is truly the office of the head, whereby he pours into members already ingrafted and united to him spiritual motion through grace, and other gifts of this kind. By reason of the prior influx he is generating and Father: by reason of the latter he is head. — From these things it follows that Christ is also the head of those who lived in the state of innocence, namely by reason of the faith which they had, and had they persevered longer therein they would straightway have had him coming in Christ; for the first parent knew through revelation the mystery of the Incarnation, as the Fathers note on Genesis 2: They shall be two in one flesh; which the Apostle also expounds concerning the marriage of Christ, Ephesians 5: This is a great sacrament, I say in Christ, and in the Church.

They ask. To these things moreover the Theologians ask, whether Christ is the head of every creature?

They answer. That it is so, especially Galatinus, book 7, On the Catholic Secrets of Truth, chapter 2; and the Apostle to the Colossians 1 confirms the same, calling Christ the First-born of every creature; not because he pours grace and glory into all creatures, since not every creature is capable of those gifts, but either by reason of empire and dominion, according to that of the Psalmist: Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, etc.; in which sense St. Jerome on chapter 1 to the Ephesians teaches that Christ is even the head of demons, because he is their victor and Lord; or because every creature through the Incarnation of Christ received a certain dignity; or because Christ uses all creatures for the salvation of the good; or because after judgment every creature will be renewed, according to Romans 8: The expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. Wherefore Theodoret on Hebrews 2, That he might taste death for us, says that the death of Christ brought profit to all creatures.

1. Royal dignity I call that by which one supreme Prince and Monarch has supreme right in a commonwealth, and the power of commanding and of enacting laws in those things which pertain to its governance, administration, peace, and tranquillity. This dignity, however, can be distinguished as twofold: temporal, and spiritual: of which the former regards the government of the commonwealth itself especially in things that are temporal: the latter, however, prescribes and ordains those things which concern either the worship of God, or the honour of religion, or the salvation of souls. Now concerning this twofold royal power and dignity there is question at present, whether Christ the Lord was truly a spiritual or a temporal king. Moreover, royal spiritual dignity, considered in Christ the Lord, is a certain power and jurisdiction which he has over the whole Church, whether militant on earth or triumphant in heaven; but especially over the militant; according to which power and dignity Christ the Lord could constitute a certain new commonwealth, namely the Church, appoint superiors in it, and also prescribe the means by which the salvation of souls and eternal life might be obtained with ease. That this power and dignity was in Christ no Catholic doubts, as we abundantly proved in the Treatise On Laws, showing that Christ enacted various Evangelical laws, and likewise instituted various grades of orders in the Church, and most efficacious means for working the salvation of men: nevertheless, since very many heretics of this age clamour against this manifest truth, especially the Socinians, therefore it will not be useless to demonstrate this truth in the present Question.

Note 2. That it can be understood in two ways that Christ was a Temporal King, namely either by reason of his Divinity, or by reason of his humanity. That he was so de facto under the former title, no one doubts; for God is King and Lord of all. It is disputed, therefore, whether he was a spiritual King by reason of his humanity. Further, that he was King under this latter title can still be understood in two ways, namely either de facto, or de iure. That he was not so de facto is clear, because during the times of his life there were other Kings in Jerusalem, though perhaps not by right. Add that when the crowd wished to make him King, he fled into the wilderness. There remains therefore the difficulty, whether by right he was a temporal King by reason of his humanity. Finally, that he was a temporal King by right could be understood in three ways: namely either by right of succession, or by right of election, or by right of union with the divine Word. And first indeed, that he was not a temporal King by right of election is clear, because thus he was never elected, nay he was repudiated by the Jews saying to Pilate: We have no king but Caesar. There remains therefore the doubt, whether he was a temporal King either by right of succession, or by reason of union with the Word.

Note 3. As regards the temporal kingdom and wholly political regimen of Christ, that it is, as we said, a matter of the greatest controversy among some Catholic Doctors: for some, as Marsilius of Padua, and John of Jandun, have said that Christ not only did not have the right of a King over other Kings and Princes of this world, but even was subject to them by right, and paid tributes due by law, not spontaneously, but constrained by necessity and obligation of law: yet this opinion John XXII justly condemned as heretical in a certain Extravagant, as Cardinal Torquemada relates in book four of his Summary, part 2, chapter 37. For it is openly contrary to Matthew 17, where, when tribute was demanded from Christ, he asked Peter and said:

The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or customs? of their own children, or of strangers? And Peter answered: Of strangers. Jesus said to him: Then the children are free. But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook, and take the fish that first cometh up; and opening his mouth thou shalt find a stater, etc.

This Christ the Lord performed, that he might show himself free from the exaction of tributes; but on account of scandal he willed to pay. — There are also those who, with Armacanus, book 4 of the Questions of the Armenians, chapter 16, and Abulensis on chapter 21 of Matthew, question 30, explaining that text, Behold thy King, etc., concede to Christ a peculiar right of kingship over Judaea by reason of succession and inheritance; yet that he did not have the same right over other Kings and the other kingdoms. Thirdly, there are those who teach with St. Antoninus, part 3, title 3, chapter 2, Almainus in his Treatise On the Power of the Church, and very many other Theologians of no lesser name, that Christ truly had the right of King and temporal Emperor over all other Kings; although he would not use it temporally, but only spiritually. Fourthly, finally, there is the opinion that Christ not only did not reign in a temporal kingdom, but also did not have any right of temporal kingship, neither in Judaea, nor in the kingdoms of the universe, nor in any one of them; but that his kingdom and right of reigning was only spiritual; by which right he could establish rights and laws throughout the whole universe, as he judged expedient for the spiritual end in the salvation of souls; which opinion, as more probable with the others we embrace.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD, AS MAN, WAS TRULY A SPIRITUAL KING, AND AS SUCH HAD A POWER OF EXCELLENCE OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, BY WHICH HE COULD ENACT LAWS. This Conclusion consists of three parts: of which the First and second are proved by all those texts of Scripture in which that adorable Saviour King is pronounced and affirmed; especially Psalm 2, in which the Psalmist speaks in the person of Christ: But I am appointed King by him over Sion, his holy mountain. And that such a kingdom be known to be spiritual, he adds: Preaching his commandment. And shortly after: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron. And immediately he explains this kingdom to be spiritual, saying: Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling: embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry. And Isaiah 9: His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it in judgment and justice. By which last words he declared this kingdom would be spiritual, as the sacred Expositors have noted. And Ezekiel 21 contains the best testimony to the same kingdom, from those words: Take away the mitre, remove the crown, etc., down to that, until he come whose is judgment, and I will give it him. And chapter 34: I will raise up one Pastor over them who shall feed them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their pastor: and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince in the midst of them. By which words he signifies that Christ is King because he is Priest and Pastor of souls: which St. Augustine indeed luminously teaches on Psalm 149. The Son of God, who made us, he says, was made among us, and our King rules us, because our Creator made us. He it is nevertheless through whom we were made, through whom we are ruled: and therefore Christians, because he is Christ — Christ named from chrism, that is, from anointing: for Kings were anointed, and Priests. But he was anointed both king and priest. He fought for us; in his priesthood he offered himself for us. Facundus Hermianensis also, book 12, chapter 3, says that the kingdom together with the priesthood belongs to Christ alone:

Since although certain Kings exercised priesthood in figure of him who was to come, nevertheless when manifest light went forth into the world, removing the shadows of things to come, he gave to none other what he reserved to himself alone, but distributing his gifts variously, he thus forbade the proper laws of the priesthood.

— At length the thief acknowledged this spiritual kingdom, when hanging on the cross he said, Luke 23: Remember me, Lord, when thou comest into thy kingdom: for he desires not a temporal commodity, but a spiritual kingdom: and therefore Christ said to Pilate, John 18: My kingdom is not of this world. Which passage St. Augustine, tractate 115 on John, weighs thus:

Hear therefore, O Jews and Gentiles: hear circumcision, hear prepuce: hear all earthly kingdoms: I do not impede your dominion in this world: my kingdom is not of this world. Fear not the vainest fear, wherewith that Herod the greater trembled when the birth of Christ was announced: and slew so many infants, that death might reach him, being more cruel in fearing than in raging. My kingdom, he says, is not of this world. Come believing, and do not serve by fearing.

And straightway he expounds that passage of the second Psalm, in which Christ after the resurrection declares himself constituted King: But I am appointed King by him over Sion, his holy mountain, thus: But that Sion and that mountain is not of this world; for what is his kingdom except those believing in him? — Moreover this spiritual royal dignity excels the temporal in many respects: First indeed in the end, which is supernatural and heavenly. Second, in amplitude, since it extends to heaven and earth. Third, in duration, since it is eternal. Finally, since it extends directly not only to bodies but also to souls: I say directly, because the temporal power of kings extends to souls indirectly; for they can enact laws binding under pain of sin, as we taught in the Treatise On Laws.

There is proved the third part, namely that by that power Christ could enact laws, nay did in fact enact them. I say it is proved from Isaiah 33: The Lord is our king, the Lord is our Lawgiver. Likewise from Jeremiah 31: I will give my law in their hearts; which law in Matthew 11 is called his sweet yoke, as St. Cyril explains in book 2 to the Queens; and in John 13 it is clear Christ enacted a law, when he said: A new commandment I give you: for the reason is, that since he had the power of instituting a certain new commonwealth, he ought rightly to have had the power of enacting laws by which it should be governed.

You will say. From John 1: The law was given by Moses; grace and truth were made by Christ: therefore as Moses gave the law in such wise that he conferred not grace and truth, so Christ gave grace and truth in such wise that he enacted no law. — I answer, this is not the sense of those words, but there each thing is denominated from what is ⟦…⟧ to enact a law was the chief truth of his coming. Yet from this it does not follow that he did not also enact certain laws. Add that, as St. Augustine says in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, the law of Moses commanded and did not help; but the law of Christ commands and helps; nay it helps more than it commands, because if he imposed any precepts upon us, he prescribed them not to burden but to relieve us, as is clear from the precept concerning receiving the sacraments: for all sacraments confer grace upon us, and are rather for our succour than for any burden, as St. Augustine learnedly and elegantly pursues throughout the whole book On the Spirit and the Letter.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST AS MAN WAS NOT KING OF THE JEWS TEMPORALLY BY RIGHT OF SUCCESSION.

It is proved first: If Christ had had any hereditary right to the kingdom, especially since he was sprung from the seed of David: but this reason is of no weight; both because not all sprung from David had right to the kingdom, but only the first-born; and that in the direct line through Solomon: yet it is not established that Christ was son of David through the line of Solomon, neither on the part of his Mother, since it is uncertain whether the blessed Virgin was sprung from David through the line of Solomon or through Nathan; nor on the part of his putative father, namely St. Joseph, seeing that St. Luke and St. Matthew wove his genealogy differently, Luke proceeding to David through Nathan; but Matthew descending from David through Solomon. Add that it would be uncertain whether St. Joseph then was first-born, and head of the whole family of David. Moreover, Christ was only the putative, or at least adoptive son of St. Joseph, upon whom therefore the royal right could not devolve to the prejudice of those who were first-born.

Secondly: The royal dignity and power had long before been transferred from the family of David. For indeed after the Babylonian captivity Priests of the race of the Machabees presided over the Jewish people even until Christ: therefore however truly Christ on his mother's side were of the family of David, he was not on that account held to have right to royal dignity, which had already been conveyed to another family.

You will object. Various texts of Scripture by which it seems signified that Christ the Lord was truly King by right of succession, or because he was the son of David. Thus Isaiah 9: He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom. And Jer. 23: I will raise up a just branch to David, and a King shall reign. And Luke 1: The Lord will give him the seat of David his father, etc. Whence, John 12, the Hebrew people going forth to meet Christ cried out: Hosanna, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel: therefore Christ was truly acknowledged and hailed as King by the Israelites: but he was King neither by election nor by usurpation: therefore he was hailed King by the Israelites by right of succession. — I answer, all those authorities are to be understood of the spiritual kingdom, not of the temporal, as the Holy Fathers explain, especially Cyril, book 12 on John, chapter 10, where he says:

Christ answering Pilate does not deny himself to be king: for he could not lie: but he shows that he is not an enemy of Caesar's kingdom, because his principality is not worldly, but of heaven and earth and of all other things: by which last words Cyril shows the majesty of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, to which all things are subject.

You will object 2. Other texts of Scripture by which it is signified that Christ is King of the whole universe. Thus Apocalypse 1: Christ is called Prince of the Kings of the earth. And chapter 19 he is said to have written on his thigh: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: likewise in Hebrews 2 St. Paul attributes to Christ the Lord that Psalm 8: Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. And at the end of Matthew Christ himself testifies: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth: therefore he has also temporal power over all kingdoms. — I deny the consequence, and to the antecedent I say Christ is not called Prince and King of Kings by reason of temporal power, but spiritual: nor are all things subject to him according to that temporal dominion; because Christ neither ever reigned in any earthly kingdom, nor will reign in this manner. Add that very many nations never heard anything of Christ; therefore all these things cannot rightly be understood except of the spiritual kingdom: which is especially clear from this, that the Apostle uses a beautiful antithesis between Christ and mere man; for God subjected this earthly globe and all the animals in it to man at his creation; but now after sin he lost this full power over all things, nor did all things remain subject to him, on account of sin: but Christ was so appointed head of the whole Church, which is the future and spiritual world (saeculum futuri et spirituale), that he died for all without exception, and thus by the merit of his death subjected to himself all who are in the world to come.

You will object 3. Certain Holy Fathers, some of whom teach Christ to have been King by hereditary right of succession: thus St. Athanasius, in a sermon

On the Mother of God, explaining Psalm 109: The Lord said to my Lord, says: But by these words he received the throne of David corporally by reason of lineage, whereby David was his father. To him also St. Epiphanius consents, as we said in the prelude of the Section. Others, however, pronounce absolutely that Christ is King of this world: thus St. Augustine, tractate 116 on John; Gregory in Homily 8 on the Gospels; and Hilary on Psalm 2, expounding these words: But I am appointed king, where with many texts of Scripture he confirms that Christ truly was king. — I answer to the authorities of the first kind, that the Holy Fathers wish nothing else than that the kingdom of David persevered until Christ, not indeed through Kings, but through Priests and judges of the people; but that when Christ was born all that royal and judicial authority was transferred to him, not because the right of temporal kingdom was devolved upon him, but because the temporal kingdom of David was extinguished, and translated into the spiritual one which Christ possessed. Whereas when St. Athanasius says that by reason of lineage Christ received the kingdom, he understands him not to have received it by right of blood and kinship, but since Christ was truly of the stock of David, he says he received the throne of David his father, because he alone was he ⟦…⟧ it may be gathered that they speak only of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as appears from the first Conclusion. Hence St. Hilary, when he had proved with many texts of Scripture that Christ is King, concludes at length: This King therefore was appointed over Sion, the holy mountain of God, announcing the commandment of the Lord, not certainly over that mountain of the city of the earth, namely of bewailed, murderous, parricidal Jerusalem: but his Jerusalem, which is in heaven: which plainly must be understood of spiritual royal power. Whence St. Augustine, tractate 51 on John, weighing that text: Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh, says: What that the Lord should be king of Israel! what great thing that the King of ages should become king of men? For Christ is not King of Israel to exact tribute, or to arm an army with iron, or to vanquish enemies visibly: but King of Israel, that he may rule minds, that he may provide for eternity, that he may lead believers, hopers, and lovers into the kingdom of heaven.

You will object 4. Melchisedech had this peculiar above those Priests, that being simultaneously King and Priest he bore the figure of our Saviour, as the Apostle teaches to the Hebrews 3 and 7: but the priestly dignity, which was purely spiritual in Melchisedech, was distinct from the royal dignity, by which he was temporal: therefore in like manner both dignity and authority in Christ ought to have been distinct; and consequently Christ has not only spiritual royal dignity but also temporal. — I answer to the major, that Melchisedech by his priesthood and kingdom prefigured in it the priestly and royal authority of Christ, in that Melchisedech besides his priesthood was also King of Salem, that is, King of peace, or justice; whence by his kingdom he figured the kingdom of Christ, in that Christ also, inasmuch as he was spiritual king, would be King of peace and justice. Wherefore although Christ alone was spiritual King of the kingdom, nevertheless Melchisedech perfectly prefigured his royal authority and dignity. — Yet it is not thence to be understood that royal and priestly dignity in Christ was the same according to every manner of identity. For St. Augustine, book 83 Questions, question 61, distinguishes them; not indeed in reality, but by reason only, from their different genera and offices; for he says:

Our King is Jesus Christ, who furnished us an example both of fighting and of conquering in our mortal flesh, taking upon himself our sins, yielding neither to the darksome nor terrible temptations of the enemy, finally stripping off the flesh of our mortality, despoiling principalities and powers confidently, triumphing over them in himself.

And a little further on: Under that same leader we presume we can be introduced into the heavenly Jerusalem, as into the land of promise, and there be preserved while he reigns in eternity and keeps guard. By which words he shows the royal dignity of Christ prefigured in Melchisedech, in that Christ was equally King of Salem, King of peace and justice: but shortly after he explains the priestly dignity thus: He is also, he says, our priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, who offered himself as a holocaust, and commended the celebration of the likeness of his sacrifice in memory of his Passion. — Rightly therefore is the royal dignity of Christ distinguished from the priestly, in this respect, that the office of him as priest was to offer sacrifice to God for us; but the dignity of spiritual King, that he might save us, and make us able to reign with him in the heavens, as we shall know. Add that Christ, inasmuch as spiritual King, had the right of enacting laws and instituting sacraments; and likewise that as judge he is to judge the world in equity, assigning rewards to the good and punishments to the evil.

From these gather, that Christ the Lord, inasmuch as man, did not have royal right by reason of hypostatic union, as Vasquez contends; for from this it would follow that he had that right only by reason of the Divinity, to which his humanity was joined, and thus he would truly not be accounted King as man, but only as God; which is certainly denied by all Theologians, as openly repugnant to Sacred Scripture itself; consequently it follows that he obtained that royal dignity by right of donation and institution, whereby the eternal Father constituted him King over the whole world; that he might have the right of instituting, ruling, and governing a spiritual commonwealth in those things which pertain to the worship of God and the salvation of souls, according to Psalm 2: But I am appointed King by him. And shortly after: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession: thou shalt rule them, etc.

1. For the institution of a good and upright judge, various conditions, but especially four, are required: First indeed supreme piety and religion, lest perhaps that saying of the Apostle be turned into reproach against himself: Inexcusable art thou, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest: whence an incorrupt judge exercises a certain sacred and as it were priestly office, as Theodoricus admirably observes, quoted in Cassiodorus, book 1 of the Varieties, chapter 12. Be a temple of innocence, he says, addressing the judge, a sanctuary of temperance, an altar of justice. Far from judicial minds be anything profane: that service may be rendered to the prince with a kind of priesthood. Whence Probus the prefect, when he delegated to Ambrose the government of Liguria and Aemilia, said to him: Go, act, not as judge, but as Bishop. — The second condition for instituting a perfect and upright judge is that he be free from all perturbation of mind; for, as Philo argues excellently in his book On the Judge:

Just as the force of fire, warming whatever it touches, is itself first hot by its own nature established in itself; and contrariwise the force of snow, precisely because it is cold, chills another; so ought a judge to be full of justice, that those who come to him may be sprinkled with things just, and may, as it were from a fountain of sweet drinkable water, have a stream flowing to them who thirst for equity.

Whence a judge ought not to have a mind defiled and troubled with the mire of passions and cupidity; but like living water, ever and sweetly springing up, limpid, quiet, and tranquil. — The third condition is that he have accurate and clear knowledge of that matter about which he is about to pronounce judgment. Whence Albinus Flaccus, book On Virtues and Vices, chapter 20, admonished excellently: No Prince should appoint foolish or wicked judges, for the fool through ignorance knows not justice: but the wicked through cupidity subverts the very truth which he has learned. Wherefore Christ our Saviour divinely admonished, John 7: Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment. — The fourth condition finally is eminent fortitude of soul, and a mind free from every vice of fear and cupidity. Hence Ecclesiasticus 7 admonished the man aspiring to judicial dignity: Seek not to be made a judge, unless thou hast strength enough to extirpate iniquities; lest perhaps thou fear the person of the powerful, and lay a stumbling-block in thy equity. Whence the aforesaid Albinus, chapter 21: In four ways, he says, is justice subverted in judgments; through fear, cupidity, hatred, love. Through fear, when anyone through dread of some power spares to judge truth. Through cupidity, when the judge is corrupted by reward of some gift. Through hatred, when on account of enmity with someone he desires to harm another. Through love, when he defends friends or kinsmen against justice more powerfully.

These things being premised, two points are here to be determined: First, whether all these four conditions of the most equitable and absolute judgment befit Christ. Second, whether judicial power belongs to him qua God or qua man.

First Conclusion. — JUDICIAL DIGNITY BEFITS CHRIST.

This is of faith, plainly determined in Sacred Scripture by very many testimonies both of the Old and New Testament. Of the Old indeed, for the coming Messias is foretold to be not only King but also future judge, as was said in the prelude of the Section, and moreover it appears from that celebrated prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 23: I will raise up a just branch to David, and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: whence Psalm 71 foretells the exact justice of Christ the Lord in giving judgment, in these words: Judge the people in justice, and thy poor in judgment. And Psalm 97: He shall judge the world in justice, and the peoples in equity. But far more clearly this judicial dignity of Christ appears from the New Testament, especially Matthew 25 and Luke 13, where Christ himself plainly declares the pomp, apparatus, and form of the last and general judgment, over which he must preside. Hence John 5, the adorable Saviour himself said: For neither does the Father judge any one, but hath given all judgment to the Son. And Acts chapter 10, St. Peter declares that Christ was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead.

This truth is proved moreover by the fact that Christ the Lord contains most eminently everything desirable in a judge: for this is he who did no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth: and straightway shines with highest probity and eminent sanctity: whence deservedly Clement of Alexandria, book of the Pedagogue, chapter 2: The only-begotten Son of God alone is judge, since he cannot sin, and is wholly free from human perturbations of mind. This is he whom nothing escapes, for he is God, whose eyes are brighter than the sun. Whence St. Ambrose, book On the Calling of All Nations (De Interpellatione), chapter 2: Whoever thinks himself unseen by him who sees all things, and believes his deeds can be hidden by darkness, puts forth a shadow: but in vain does he think himself hidden, since the eye of the Lord, brighter than the sun, detects all hidden things, illuminates dark ones, penetrates the conscience of the inner heart, and descends into high and deep things: this at length is he of whom Isaiah prophesies chapter 11: He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears: but he shall judge the poor in justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. Wherefore the eternal Father, speaking through the same Isaiah chapter 42 concerning the Incarnate Son, says: I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor take away his voice, nor shall his voice be heard abroad. The bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: in truth he shall bring forth judgment.

From all these things it is most firmly established that judicial dignity befits Christ the Lord; but whether it is attributed to him as he is man, or as he is God, must now be determined.

Second Conclusion. — JUDICIAL DIGNITY AND POWER BELONGS TO CHRIST THE LORD PRINCIPALLY AS HE IS GOD: BUT SECONDARILY AS HE IS MAN.

The Doctor in book 4, distinction 48, question 1, number 7 proves that he must judge principally inasmuch as he is God, from the fact that principal judgment is the perfect and first determination of what is to be rendered to someone according to merits; which perfect determination includes the complete dictation of the intellect that this is to be rendered, and the complete determination of the will efficacious by willing, sufficient of itself for execution of that determined thing: but Christ, according to human nature, cannot have such willing with respect to the first object of judgment itself, because he cannot have a principal efficacious empire of joining any soul to the beatific object, because according to St. Augustine in the book On Seeing God: It is in his power to be seen: if he wills, he is seen, etc.

— He confirms it: If Christ, as man, could judge principally, especially since as Redeemer he has dominion over men, and also because as Redeemer he admits them to the kingdom: yet this twofold reason does not convince. Not indeed the first, because, he says, by the act of redemption he did not merit principal dominion over man. It is proved: for inasmuch as Redeemer he had the character of meritorious cause for us: but a cause which is only meritorious cannot be principal; for it causes nothing unless it is accepted by some more principal cause, which on account of that acceptance causes principally: therefore even granted that we were bound to the Trinity on account of redemption, as to a supreme Lord with a certain new right beyond the right of dominion which he has from creation (which would be true if redemption accepted by the Trinity were as great a good to us as creation): still it does not follow that we are bound to Christ according to human nature by reason of Redemption as to a supreme Lord. Nor even the second, because, the Doctor says, Christ leads the blessed into the kingdom of heaven not as principal inducer, but only as meritorious cause.

Whence some of the ancient Theologians said that Christ would be judge, not qua man, but qua God, as Cyril in the Epistle to Valerianus: God, he says, the Word made man, and reckoned among men, namely thus named with us: nevertheless he will judge qua God, and Lord, and only Son, in whom also then God and Father is present. Hence in book 2 on John, chapter 1, he proves Christ to be God from the fact that to no other than God does it belong to judge the world: and afterwards says that God the Father exercises the function of judging through the Son: For indeed, he says, since he has in himself the power to create all things, he creates through the Son, as through his power and strength: so having, that he may be able to judge, he effects this through the Son, as through his proper justice: just as if fire were said to grant to the efficiency which is from it according to nature, that it should burn. Which indeed is true, if you regard the principal and authoritative power of judging.

The second part also is established, namely that Christ, as man, has the power of judging divinely committed to himself:

For the will of Christ, the Doctor says at number 9, determines sub-authentically or commissively with such commission, that although that will does not command principally, just as it does not rule principally; yet it commands well as having empire with respect to what is commanded: but it commands commissively, because it commands as having an empire subordinated to the supreme dominion of God; and still thus it commands, that its empire has complete efficacy from the same person.

Whence he concludes that if anyone attributes another authority of judging to the soul of Christ, it seems blasphemy, attributing to created nature what is proper to the Creator.

Hence all the authorities of Sacred Scripture by which it seems proved that Christ as man has supreme authority for judging the living and the dead; as John 5: For neither does the Father judge any one, but hath given all judgment to the Son: and shortly after: He hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man: and Romans 14: To this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living; and Acts 10: He it is, says Peter the Apostle, who was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead; and chapter 17: St. Paul speaking among the Areopagites: Because he hath appointed a day, he says, wherein he will judge the world in equity by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, raising him up from the dead; these, I say, and similar texts of Scripture, the Doctor says are to be understood of a judicial authority or power, not indeed principal, but subordinate: yet most eminent, such as can be under the principal.

The same truth the Seraphic Doctor proves by almost the same reasoning in book 4, distinction 48, article 1, question 1, where having said that two things are required for complete judicial power, namely authority in pronouncing sentence, and power in bestowing reward according to merits, and having said that both belong principally to God, he adds:

These two things God the Trinity communicated to the man Christ, giving him authority and dominion, as it is said: God hath made this same Jesus Lord: he gave him also power by subjecting other things to him: All power is given to me. And therefore he is he who was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead, as is said. Since therefore judicial power regards those two things already mentioned, and those are in God by nature, and in Christ man by grace: therefore judicial power is Christ's according to Divinity by nature, according to humanity conferred by grace. Whence according to both natures he has authority, but according to Divinity principal and natural, according to humanity committed, whence he was appointed.

Therefore since there is primary power in God, but committed power in the man Christ, the issuing of sentence must take place by Christ the man according to his humanity, because if it took place according to primary power, since the second gives nothing to the first, he would not truly be judge according to his humanity: but when the second operates, since it receives from the first, the reason of judging resides in both; for the second receives from the first. Therefore the issuing of sentence will take place through Christ according to his humanity: but because Christ is God and man, his sentence will not be as that of a delegated judge, but as principal, and therefore on account of both powers no one can appeal from him.

Thus far the Seraphic Doctor.

You will say. Christ himself dismisses from himself judicial dignity and power: therefore it ought not to be attributed peculiarly to him. The antecedent appears from John 12, where Christ says: If any one hear my words, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world: he that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him.

I deny the consequence. And to the antecedent I say, Christ is to be understood to mean that in his first coming into the world he indeed came not to judge, but to be judged. Whence so long as he lived among mortals he willed not to arrogate to himself the dignity of judge, as appears from Luke chapter 12, where when a certain man of the crowd had said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me, Christ answered: Man, who hath appointed me judge or divider over you? But he does not speak of his second advent to judge men at the last day of all: of this advent he speaks Matthew 27 and Luke 13. Then he is to be understood to mean that he will not judge qua Son of God as visible judge and in sensible form, which form he will have only qua man. Thus St. Augustine interprets it, book 1 On the Trinity, chapter 13, where he admirably reconciles all the texts of Scripture concerning the future judgment of men which seem mutually to conflict:

We say, he says, that he judges according to that whereby he is God: that is, by divine power, not human: and yet the man himself is about to judge, just as the Lord of glory was crucified, etc. Wherefore the Son of man is about to judge, yet not by human power, but by that whereby he is Son of God. And again: The Son of God is about to judge, yet not appearing in that form in which he is God equal to the Father. Therefore both things can be said, and the Son of man shall judge, and not the Son of man shall judge: because the Son of man shall judge, that what he says may be true, Matthew 25: When the Son of man shall come, then shall all nations be gathered together before him. And not the Son of man shall judge, that again what he says may hold, John 12: I judge not, and John 5: I seek not my own glory, there is one that seeketh and judgeth. For according to that, that in judgment not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear, neither will he himself judge as judge: for according to this it was said, John 5: The Father judgeth not any one, but hath given all judgment to his Son.

So likewise in Tractate 21 on John he expounds this passage thus: that the Father be said not to be about to judge anyone, as a judge visible and exercising jurisdiction with judicial apparatus, such as session upon tribunal, examination of the cause, citation of the accused, and the like: as if it were said, no one will see the Father in the judgment of the living and the dead, but all will see the Son: because he is also Son of man, that he may be seen by the impious; with Zechariah 12: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.