Summa de Ecclesia

¹

To the aforesaid reasons by which it is proved that Christ was not the head of all the faithful from the beginning of the nascent Church according as he is man, the answer is easy. For we say that the body of the Church was never headless, but always had Christ as head according to the Godhead and the humanity, as we have fully set forth. For although Christ according to the humanity did not exist from the beginning of the world, nevertheless faith concerning his Godhead and humanity, according to which there was a knitting together of all the members to him and among themselves, always existed from the beginning. Hence Augustine to Optatus: Our faith and that of the ancients is the same; therefore since all the just, whether before the incarnation or after, neither lived nor live except from faith in the incarnation of Christ. Surely what is written, Acts 4: There is no other name under heaven in which we must be saved, was from that time able to save the human race from when it was vitiated in Adam, thus far Augustine.

Hence, although Christ according as he is man followed many saints in time, nevertheless he must be called the head of all. Augustine in the book on Catechizing the Uninstructed sets down an example of this, which example is had in Gen. xxxviii concerning the sons of Judah, in whose birth Zara first put forth the hand on which the midwife bound the scarlet thread, saying: This one shall come forth first; but when he drew back the hand, the other came forth. And Augustine says that just as Zara, being born, first emitted the hand, afterwards the head followed, then the other members, but nevertheless the head excels in dignity and power although it followed in time, so Christ the mediator of God and men in the patriarchs and prophets sent forth the hand before he appeared in the flesh, binding the proud people with the bonds of the law, or pressing them down. In the time of being born, however, the head followed for the whole Church, to which all the faithful adhered. It remains therefore that he was the head of the present and the ancient faithful.

²

To the first objection on the contrary it must be said, as Alexander of Hales says in the third book, that Christ is not called the head because he is man in reality, but because he is man in faith, in which he was believed to be man; therefore he is the head; for in this way he stands alike to the ancients and to the present, because the faith of these and of those is the same, as has been said. Or it must be said, and more briefly, as Saint Thomas says, that although the man Christ before the incarnation was not in the nature of things, he was nevertheless in the faith of the fathers, and this sufficed for the character of the head, as will appear more from what is to be said.

In proof, when it is said that conditions follow upon the being of the thing, and thus to be the head follows upon the being of the humanity in Christ, the answer is twofold. First, that just as the believed being that the Son of God would assume humanity does not make the Son of God to be man when it is believed, but to be so at some future time, so neither does the condition by which he is called head. Hence it is not alike with the head of the natural body and the head of the mystical body. Second, the answer is that the character of the head can befit Christ according to the humanity in two ways. In one way by his action upon us, in meriting for us and satisfying for us, and in this way the condition of the head follows upon the being of the thing. In another way the character of the head can befit him through our action toward him, inasmuch as by believing in him we are justified, and in this way the condition of the head does not follow upon the being of the thing in nature, but upon the being of the thing in faith, and thus in the case proposed, as will be had more clearly from what is to be said.

³

To the second, where objection is raised concerning conformity of nature, the answer is clear from what has been said; for although Christ before the incarnation was not actually conformed in nature to men, there was nevertheless infallible faith that through the assumption of humanity he would be such in the future.

⁴

To the reply which is made, that it would follow from the solution that there would have been an equal abundance of grace in the Old Testament and in the New, the consequence is denied, because, as Saint Thomas says in the question on Truth: Since before the incarnation the merit of Christ was not in act, nor satisfaction, therefore there was not so great a fullness of grace as there is afterwards. Moreover Saint Thomas says: So great an influx of grace was not before the incarnation as there is now, because then the obstacle had not yet been removed, nor were the sacraments of grace exhibited as they now are.

⁵

To the third, in which it is objected that the fathers of the Old Testament served the legal sacraments, it must be said, as Saint Thomas says in the third part, that the holy fathers did not cling to the legal sacraments as to certain things, but as to images and shadows of future things. The motion into the image inasmuch as it is an image and into the thing is the same, as is clear through the Philosopher in the book on Memory and Recollection, and therefore the ancient fathers, by keeping the legal sacraments, were borne into Christ by the same faith and love by which we too are borne into Christ; and thus the ancient fathers pertained to the same body of the Church to which we pertain, and thus with respect to all the faithful Christ is the head.

⁶

To the fourth, where it is objected that the head does not follow the members but precedes them, the answer is that, although Christ was not incarnate in the time of the fathers of the Old Testament, the incarnation itself was nevertheless in the ordination of God and in the faith of the fathers themselves, through which faith they were justified, because the times have been changed and not the faith, as Aug. says.

⁷

To the fifth, which was brought in for confirmation of the preceding, that the head naturally precedes the members, the answer is that it is not alike with the head of the natural body and the head of the mystical body in this respect, since the head of the natural body precedes or is before the other exterior members, which is said on account of the heart, which is simply the first member. The head of the mystical body, however, does not precede in time all the members of its body. Hence the Gloss of Aug. on Ps. lxi: How long do you rush upon a man, says thus: To the head belong the members which came forth before the head; but did any come forth before the head? Certainly, because the head says in Ps. lxx: Mother Sion. Whence would he say Mother Sion unless some had preceded from whom he had been born; yet he precedes his members in dignity and perfection of power. Hence in Col. 1 the Apostle says of him: He is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he may be in all things, the Gloss: holding primacy both over the former and the following. And in Rom. 1 the same Apostle says: Who was predestined Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification, the Gloss: without merits elected by grace alone, that he might be our head. Since, however, the character of the head is taken from dignity and not from priority of time, it is openly given to be understood that all the reasons made from priority of time, by which many times preceded the incarnation of Christ, do not proceed.

⁸

To the sixth, where it is objected that Christ before the incarnation according as he is man did not flow into the members, the answer is, as Saint Thomas says in the question on Truth, that Christ according as he is man is the mediator between God and men, as is said in 1 Tim. 2. Hence, just as God is said to justify us twofoldly: through his action inasmuch as he is the efficient cause of our salvation, and through our operation inasmuch as he is the end believed and loved by us, so also Christ according as he is man is said to justify us twofoldly. In one way according to his action inasmuch as he merited for us and satisfied for us, and as to this he could not be said to flow into the members, and thus neither to be the head, before the incarnation. In another way through our operation toward him according as we are said to be justified through faith in him, and in this way he could be the head of the Church before the incarnation according to the humanity; in each way, however, he is the head of the Church according to the Godhead, before and after. The argument, however, does not proceed, because the character of the head befits Christ not only through his action, for which the real existence of the humanity of Christ was required, as the reason proves, but also through our action toward him, for which the existence of faith in the hearts of the faithful concerning his future incarnation suffices.

⁹

To what is objected, that to be the head says a thing of nature, etc., the answer is by denying the minor; since, as Saint Thomas says in the question on Truth, to be the head or to flow through our action toward Christ himself, inasmuch as we believe in him, is not a predication which is a thing of nature, but which is a thing of reason; hence the reason does not proceed.

¹⁰

To what is objected, that Christ cannot be called the principle of the Church according as he is man, the answer is that the assumption is false, since, as was had above from the Gloss on Col. 1, Christ even according as he is man can be called the principle of the Church, inasmuch as it is founded in faith in his humanity. To the Gloss on Luke it must be said that it does not speak of the man Christ who was God and man, but of another man who was man only, as John the Baptist.

¹¹

The answer is that Aug. does not deny simply that Christ was the head of the Church before the incarnation according to some conditions of the head, since the opposite has been deduced above from the sayings of Aug., but denies that he was the head before the incarnation as to the property or condition of conformity of nature which is between head and members, for before the incarnation there was no such conformity between the Word and men.

¹²

To what is objected, that Christ was not king of past ages according as he is man, etc. It must be said that it is not alike with the character of king and the character of head, because, since a king is so called from ruling, the power of ruling cannot befit one not existing in the nature of things. The character of the head, however, since it is attributed to Christ not only through his action upon us but also through our action toward him, inasmuch as we believe in him, as has often been said, Christ is called the head not only of the present and future faithful but also of the past who, believing in him, were justified.

¹³

In which it is argued that the Church would have existed even if man had not sinned, etc. It must be said, with Saint Thomas in the question on Truth, that on that supposition, had man not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate; Christ before sin would have been the head of the Church according to the divine nature alone, but after sin it was necessary that he be the head of the Church according to the human nature; human nature was so wounded and sunk toward sensible things that it is not sufficiently fit for the invisible governance of the Word, whence medicine had to be applied to the wound through the humanity of Christ, through which Christ satisfied. It was necessary therefore that he assume a visible nature, so that through visible governance man might be recalled to invisible things. And to the confirmation the answer is by denying the consequence, because God and man is one Christ. Hence, through Christ being the head of the Church according to the humanity and according to the Godhead, it does not follow that the Church has two heads.