Summa de Ecclesia

Since this truth of the faith will shine forth more clearly if some objections which are commonly raised against it are brought into the midst, we shall bring them into the midst, to which we shall at length respond.

¹

First, objection is raised thus. Christ before the incarnation was not man; therefore he should not be said before the incarnation to have been the head of the Church according as he is man. The consequence is manifest, because since such consequent conditions follow upon the being of the thing, when the humanity did not exist, it does not seem that Christ could have been called the head according to the humanity.

²

Second, thus. Christ is properly called the head of the Church through conformity of nature which he has with the body of the Church, but before the incarnation he was not conformed in nature to the Church; therefore with respect to the faithful who preceded the incarnation Christ cannot be called the head of the Church according to the humanity. If it be said that, although Christ was not in the nature of things according to the humanity, he was nevertheless in the faith of the fathers. On the contrary.

³

Christ according as he is the head of the Church infuses grace into the members; if therefore, for the character of the head, it suffices that Christ be in the faith of believers, it seems that there was an equal abundance of grace in the Old Testament as in the New, which is false.

⁴

Third, thus. The sacraments of the old law are compared to Christ as shadow to body, as is said in Col. 2, but the fathers of the Old Testament in their time served those sacraments, according to Heb. 8: They serve the exemplar and shadow of heavenly things. They did not therefore pertain to the body of Christ, and thus Christ is not their head.

⁵

Fourth. The head, since it is the principle of the members, does not follow the members, but many saints preceded the incarnation of Christ; therefore Christ according as he is man is not their head.

⁶

Fifth. The head, since it is the principle of the other members, naturally precedes the members, for it first comes forth and afterwards the body. Hence Solinus says: It is contrary to nature for those being born to come forth feet first. If therefore the mystical body is after the likeness of the natural body, as has been said above, it follows that first there is the head and afterwards the members; therefore with respect to those who preceded the humanity of Christ, Christ cannot be called the head according as he is man.

⁷

Also, confirming that reasoning, sixth it is argued thus. The head is so called because it flows sensation and motion into the members, but Christ according as he is man did not flow into the Church before the incarnation, since he was not yet man, and what is not cannot act, and consequently he could not have been called its head; the process is known. If it be said that, although he was not yet in the nature of things, he was nevertheless in the faith of the fathers.

⁸

On the contrary, confirming the reasoning made, seventh it is argued thus. Every proposition whose subject is a being of reason and whose predicate is a being of nature is false, as if it were said: The genus runs and the species walks; but Christ according as he is in faith is signified as a thing of reason. Since therefore to be the head or to flow says a thing of nature, it seems that this proposition is false: Christ according as he is in the faith of the fathers is the head of the Church or flows into the members of the Church.

⁹

Eighth, thus. The head is the principle of its members, but Christ according as he is man cannot be called the principle of the Church from the beginning, but only according to the Godhead, as seems to be gathered from the Gloss on Luke 3 on the words: The word of the Lord was made, where it is said that the Church is not from man but from the word; therefore Christ according as he is man should not be called the head of the Church from the beginning.

¹⁰

Ninth, thus. Augustine says on Ps. cxlviii: The Word was made flesh that he might become the head of the Church. For the Word itself is not the head of the Church, but that he might also be the head of the Church, he assumed flesh; therefore as before.

¹¹

Tenth, the same is proved by a likeness thus. On 1 Tim. 1: To the King of ages, the Gloss says thus: The man assumed by the Word is king of future ages from the time he was assumed by the Word, for of past ages that man is not extant as king, because he did not exist, thus far the Gloss. By equal reason therefore Christ according as he is man should not be called the head of the Church with respect to past time, since then he was not man.

¹²

Eleventh, the Church would have existed even if man had not sinned, but then the Word of God would not have assumed human nature, whence the Gloss on 1 Tim. 1: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, the Gloss of Aug. says: There is no cause for the coming of Christ the Lord except to save sinners; take away the wounds, take away the diseases, and there is no cause for medicine. The Church, however, cannot be without a head; therefore Christ is not the head of the Church according to the human nature.

¹³

And it is confirmed because of one body there is one head, but Christ is the head of the Church according to the Godhead; therefore not according to the humanity; therefore etc.