Summa de Ecclesia

It now remains for us to explain how the many predicates are to be understood which, by reason of the aforesaid mystical unity by which the faithful are united to Christ, are attributed to Christ in sacred Scripture and predicated of him — both those implying penal sufferings and those implying culpable defects, which in no way befit him in himself. Concerning the predicates implying bodily sufferings, first is that of Matt. 25, which Christ is recorded as going to say at the judgment to those who exercised works of mercy toward the poor: I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink — where Christ declares both that he suffered the sufferings of his members and that he received the benefits conferred on them. Hence Aug., going through this passage on Ps. 86, says thus: Christ still suffers need here, Christ is a pilgrim here, Christ is sick here, Christ is shut up in prison here. We do him an injury if he does not himself say: I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, and I was sick and you visited me. And they: When did we see you suffering these things, and minister to you? And he: When you did it to one of my least, you did it to me — thus Augustine. A similar attribution is found in Acts 9, where Christ says: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Behold: while his members suffer and labor here, Christ, who in himself is impassible, is said to labor and suffer in them. Hence Bede says in the ordinary Gloss: He does not say "my members" but "you persecute me," because he declares that what was done was done to him when he says: I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, Matt. 15 — thus the Gloss. Concerning the predicates and attributes implying culpable defects, many testimonies are also found in holy Scripture, of which two will suffice for the present. The first is that of Ps. 21: My God, why have you forsaken me; far from my salvation are the words of my offenses. In this psalm, as Aug. says, and the Master in the Gloss, Christ speaks. Hence the Master says thus in the Gloss: Why have you forsaken me, that is, exposed me to punishment and guilt. And it follows in the Gloss of the Master: It is marvelous how he says "you have forsaken me," since he was also God; for God had not forsaken him, since he, being the Word of God, was God; but he says this for us who are one in him as members, and are his body. For the body of Christ is the Church, for which also the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And Aug. in the same place: Why does he say "you have forsaken me," unless because we were there, unless because the body of Christ is the Church? There follows: Far from my salvation are the words of my offenses. Whose offenses? Of him of whom it was said, who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth: how did he say "my offenses," unless because he both prays for our offenses and made our offenses his own offenses, so as to make his righteousness our righteousness? Likewise Nicholas of Lyra, expounding this passage, says thus: Christ calls the offenses of the people his own, both on account of the affinity of members and head, and because he made them his own by bearing the punishment for them. The second testimony is that of Ps. 40: I said, Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against you — which is said to be the voice of Christ. Hence Augustine says thus on the same: Did Christ say this? Did our head without sin say this? Did he therefore say it? Yes, he himself says it from his members, because the voice of his members is his voice, because the voice of our head is also our voice. And nearly the same things are set down in the Gloss of the Master.

¹

For the true and catholic understanding of these things, it must first be noted that just as a twofold personal unity is considered in Christ, of one rationale and of another, so a twofold manner of predicating is sometimes found concerning Christ in sacred Scripture: one according to the one unity, and the other according to the other.

The first unity is indeed real, and according to the word of Damascene substantial or hypostatic: that by which the humanity assumed by the Word is personally united to him, since it was assumed to the same real hypostatic or personal being — concerning which John 1: The Word was made flesh. The other personal unity is that mystical one of which we have spoken above, by which the mystical body of the Church together with Christ the man is called one person, one man, and one Christ — concerning which it is said, Gal. 3: You are all one in Christ. These two unities are expressly touched on by Aug. in his book on the baptism of infants, and it is adduced by St. Thomas in the continuous Gloss in these words: For if the divine substance, though at a far greater distance, could for our sake so take up human substance that one person was made — behold the first unity — it follows: how much more credibly do the other saints become one Christ with the man Christ — behold the second. Likewise Damascene expressly sets down these two unities, and the two modes of predicating anything of Christ, in book 3, ch. 23, where he says thus: One must know that there are two Kyrioles, that is, proprieties or familiarities: one natural and substantial, the other personal and habitual. The natural and substantial is indeed that according to which, by philotropiam, that is, by divine love, the Lord in his mercy assumed both nature and all natural things, and became man in nature and in truth, and was made in the experience of natural things. The personal, however, is when he puts on the person of another on account of relation, propitiation, mercy, or love, and makes speeches in him on his behalf pertaining nothing to him — according to which he also makes our curse and dereliction, and such things that are not natural beings, Kyriata, that is, his own: not that he himself is or was made this, but taking up our person and being ranked with us; and of this sort is that he was made a curse for us — thus Damascene. According to these two unities, as we have foretold, a twofold mode of predicating anything of Christ is distinguished. By reason of the first unity, namely the hypostatic, by which the assumed human nature is united to the Word of God in unity of person, the properties of each nature are predicated of Christ — whether they are named by the name of the same nature which is predicated, as when it is said God Christ is true God, or named by the name of the other nature, as when it is said this man is God or God is man — and so with the other properties of the natures, as when it is said this man created the heavens and is eternal, is the immense creator of all, and the like; and conversely, predicating of the Son of God the properties of the nature, as that the Son of God died and was buried, etc. According to the second mode of unity, however, which is between the head and the members of his body, many things are predicated of Christ in the person of his members which in no way befit him in himself, as was clear in the examples given, and will be shown more fully below. Augustine hints at each of the aforesaid modes of predication on Ps. 101, which is: Lord, hear my prayer — where, after saying that Christ is the poor one of this kind who prayed, he establishes the twofold rationale by which Christ is called poor according to the aforesaid twofold unity, saying: For there he took up our poverty, where, having put on the form of a servant, emptying himself, lest you should dread his riches and not dare to approach him with your beggary. And below: Let our head add poverty to poverty, and transfigure into himself the body of our humility; let us be his members, as two in one flesh. And afterwards he adds: Therefore one voice, because one flesh — thus Augustine. St. Thomas also touches on this twofold mode of predicating anything of Christ, in the third part, q. 15, art. 1, taking it from Damascene, book 3, in the place alleged above, and book 4, ch. 10, where he sets down many modes of predicating anything of Christ — whose words St. Thomas, reciting them in summary, renders thus: As Damascene says in book 3, something is said of Christ in one way according to natural and hypostatic propriety, as when it is said that he was made man and that he suffered for us; in another way according to personal and habitual propriety, namely insofar as some things are said of him in our person which in no way befit him in himself — whence also among the rules of Ticonius which Augustine sets down in book 3 on Christian doctrine, the first is set down concerning the Lord and his body, namely when Christ and the Church are reckoned one person; according to this, Christ, speaking from the person of his members, says the words of my offenses — not that offenses were in the head itself — thus St. Thomas. And moreover for these...

²

For a full understanding it must be noted that, just as on account of the natural unity of the natural body and the head in a man, the head not only speaks for itself but also assumes in speaking the person of the members, so in the present case, on account of the aforesaid mystical or spiritual unity of Christ the head and his members, Christ is found to speak not only in his own person but in the person of his members. Hence the Gloss of the Master on Ps. 140, Lord, I have cried to you, says thus: This charity compacts us to Christ, for by charity head and body are as it were one man. It is proper to the head to speak for the members, just as our tongue takes up the person of all the members. For it performs the office of speech for them all, saying for the foot you tread on me, and for the hand you have wounded me; so also Christ, who is the head, speaks for many, with whom he is one. For charity makes us one with Christ: whether the head speaks or the members, whether what is said befits the head or the members, it is Christ who speaks — but in his voice let each recognize his own, as inhering in the body of Christ. For sometimes he says what befits him alone, yet he does not separate himself from our words, but from his own returns to ours, and from ours passes at times to his own — thus there. This is also the opinion, indeed for the most part the very wording, of Augustine in many places, both on the Psalms and on John. Moreover blessed Gregory, in book 26 of the Morals, ch. 2, treating that passage of Job 29, when I laughed at them they did not believe, says thus: That Christ and the Church are one person we have now often said, and often the voice of the head passes to the voice of the body; for since they are one in flesh, nothing prevents them from agreeing in one voice — thus Gregory. Of this swift transition of speech from the voice of the head to the voice of the members, and conversely, we have a most evident example in that verse of Ps. 30: Into your hands I commend my spirit; you have redeemed me, Lord God of truth. The first part of it is the voice of the head, as Aug. says, and the Master in the Gloss; the second part is the voice of the members, or of the people who was redeemed. Note third.

Furthermore, as a most necessary rule for avoiding many errors, it must be noted that although, in so great a variety both of members and of attributes, the speaking voice seems to be one and the person speaking one, yet it must be most carefully observed to whom — whether to the head or to the members — what is said or predicated of Christ befits; for not all things befit all, but some befit the head alone, some the members alone, although head and members use one voice. This rule is expressly set down by the Master in the Gloss on Ps. 17, taking it from Aug., saying thus: Mark the rule of the unity of head and members, that is, of Christ and the Church. For since head and body are one person, the head therefore uses one voice with the members, although the things said are referred to different subjects: for some befit the head alone, and yet in so great a diversity there is one voice, and one person as it were seems to speak — so that, just as two are in one flesh, namely bridegroom and bride, so they are also in one voice — in the Gloss. Likewise on Ps. 3, taking the aforesaid rule from Aug., he recalls it, saying: It must be known that of the words of a psalm of this kind, some befit the head, some the members, some the prophet. For in this variety the voice does not lie; rather head and members use the same voice, saying I, me, to me — which comes about on account of that unity of the head and the body of Christ, that is, of Christ and the Church, bridegroom and bride, which charity makes. For just as the tongue takes up the voice of all the members, saying for the foot you tread on me — it does not say you tread on the foot — and for the hand you wound me — it does not say you wound my hand — so Christ not incongruously uses the words of his members, not dividing himself from our words: for he who deigned to be made man for us and to be clothed with the form of a servant does not disdain to transfigure us into himself. And below: He therefore who thus transfigures us into himself does not disdain to speak to us in our words, so that we too may speak in his; this is the divine communication, and these divine exchanges were celebrated in this world by the heavenly merchant — thus the Gloss. The same opinion is set down by Augustine on Ps. 56 and 58 in extended discourse. Hence concerning the necessity of that advertence, and of the consideration to be had in predications of this kind concerning Christ, blessed Augustine says on Ps. 101: Nor err there when you hear something that cannot be fitted to the head: I have spoken beforehand precisely so that, when you hear such a thing, you may perceive from the weakness of the head that the voice of the members is sounding; recognize in the head — thus Aug.

³

From these it is openly gathered with what understanding all those aforesaid predications of attributes are to be taken which in no way befit Christ in himself. These predicates are certainly not to be taken concerning Christ in such a way that the person of Christ himself is understood to be affected or made liable either according to the divine essence or according to the assumed human nature — for the impassible and immortal and most holy person of Christ cannot be understood to be liable to any such sufferings or defects — but they are to be taken as said of Christ in such a way that they are understood to be predicated not in his own person, which is subject to no such things, but in the person of his members, who are subjected to such sufferings or defects, are affected and shaped by them. For the head is accustomed, as we recalled from the sayings of the saints Augustine and Gregory, to ascribe to itself what befalls the members joined to it. Hence Origen, expounding that passage of Matthew, I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, says thus, as adduced by St. Thomas in the Gloss: It is written to the faithful, you are the body of Christ. Just therefore as the soul dwelling in the body, though it does not hunger as regards its own spiritual substance, yet hungers for the food of the body because it is coupled to its body, so the Savior suffers what his Church suffers, though he himself is impassible — thus there. Likewise blessed Augustine says to the same effect on Ps. 142: Christ still suffers tribulation, not in his flesh with which he ascended into heaven, but in my flesh which still labors on earth. This advertence, so that it may be known what is to be attributed to whom in locutions of this kind, is to be observed above all concerning the predicates of Christ which are discerned to imply culpable defects. Hence Augustine, treating on Ps. 37 that passage, There is no peace in my bones from the face of my sins, speaks thus: It is commonly asked whose voice this is, and some take it to be Christ's on account of certain things said here of the passion of Christ; but "there is no peace in my bones from the face of my sins" — how would he who had no sin say this? The necessity of understanding therefore compels us to recognize as it were the full and whole Christ, that is, head and body. For when Christ speaks, sometimes he speaks from the person of the head alone, which is the Savior himself born of the Virgin Mary; sometimes from the person of his body, which is the holy Church spread through the whole world. And below: There is no doubt that it is the voice of Christ; whence therefore the sins, unless from the body which is the Church? Since the body of Christ speaks — the head: why does it speak as it were one? Since there will be two in one flesh — "This is a great sacrament," says the Apostle, "but I speak in Christ and in the Church." If therefore he himself says they are not two but one flesh, what wonder that one flesh, one tongue, the same words? Let us hear them as of one head and body — as one — yet the head as head and the body as body: the persons are not divided, but dignity is divided: for the head is saved, the body is saved; the head shows mercy, the body bewails mercy; the head is for cleansing sins, the body for confessing sins; yet one voice — it is not written when the body speaks, when the head, but we in hearing distinguish, while he speaks as one — thus Augustine. All the aforesaid predications or propositions must therefore be expounded in the person of the members, in whose person Christ himself speaks, not in his own person. Hence the sense of that verse of Ps. 21, God, my God, why have you forsaken me? is this: me, that is, my Church — for which, as the Gloss says, Christ says this. And the words of my offenses, namely of the old man, in whose person Christ speaks, as the Gloss says. Likewise the sense of the verse of Ps. 37, There is no peace in my bones from the face of my sins, is: of my members — for, as Augustine says in the Gloss, the head here speaks the words of the body. Likewise the sense of that verse of Ps. 39, Evils without number have surrounded me; my iniquities have taken hold of me and I could not see, is this, as Cassiodorus expounds it of Christ: Evils, that is, sins, have surrounded me, that is, those to whom I proclaim who are to be mine; and my iniquities, that is, of those who were to be mine, have taken hold of me, that is, they who will be mine have led me to the act; and I could not see, that is, those iniquities so oppressed me, that is, them, that they could not have the use of reason — thus he. Likewise the sense of that verse of Ps. 40, Lord, have mercy on me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against you — which, as Augustine says in the Gloss, is the voice of Christ — is: have mercy on me, that is, on my members; heal my soul, that is, of my members; for I have sinned against you, that is, they who are or are to be mine, from whose person he speaks. Hence Augustine says thus on this verse: Does Christ say this? Does that head of ours without sin say this? Did he who stole nothing then pay it back? Did he alone in mor-⁴ in a mortal body? For he was without sin, since everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. Did he therefore say it? Yes, he himself says it from his members, because the voice of his members is his voice, because the voice of our head is also our voice — thus Augustine. And in this way all predications of this kind, or sayings concerning Christ, are to be taken.

⁵

From these it is manifestly shown how shamefully that master erred who in a certain work of his on the mystery of the unity of Christ and the Church presumed to dogmatize that proposition, reasonably already condemned in the council of Basel, that Christ sins daily, and that from the time he was Christ he sinned continuously. He was indeed deceived, first because from the unity of voice in the speaking of head and members he seemed to argue for the agreement and real identity of the predicates.

⁶

Not observing that although the voice of head and members is one, on account of the unity of the members which charity itself makes, yet there is a difference in the attributes or predicates. For some befit the head which do not befit the members, and some the members which do not befit the head, and some befit some members which do not befit others, although the voice and the speaking person seem to be one, as has often been repeated above. He seems to have been deceived, secondly, in this: that he did not distinguish between the predication by which something is predicated of someone from the transfiguration of their person into him, and the predication by which something is predicated in itself of someone by reason of his own person. For what is said of Christ in 1 Peter 2, Who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth, was said by reason of his own person, and so is most true. But that Christ said, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against you, or There is no peace in my bones from the face of my sins — this he said in the person of his members, or for his members, not for himself; which, understood for the members for whom he speaks, is true in the way expounded as stated; but understood of Christ it is impious and most grievous to religious ears to hear. Although therefore Christ said such things by transfiguring into himself the person of his members present, past, or future, yet on that account it is not to be said that Christ sins. Thirdly, the aforesaid master seems to have been deceived in this: that between head and members he seemed to suppose that communication of idioms, properties, or predicates to hold between head and members which the holy doctors expound by reason of the two natures, divine and human, joined together in Christ. But if it is so, as his words at times and the aforesaid conclusion pretend to say, we may rightly say that he vanished in his own thought — for by one unity the human nature in Christ is united to the divine nature, and by another the members of Christ are said to be united to Christ. For the assumed nature is united to the Godhead by hypostatic unity in one and the same eternal supposit, namely of the Word, with it supposited with Him; but the members of Christ are said to be united to Christ by a unity not hypostatic but of agreement of affection, of the bond of love, of the ties of charity — which unity the doctors call mystical, which the Holy Spirit, who is common to the whole mystical body, makes, as we have fully shown above. And in another thing besides that aforesaid master fails, who presumed to use with free and too unbridled license the propositions or sayings of sacred Scripture or of the holy fathers and ancients in the verbal form in which they are found expounded by them — which nevertheless is not permitted, since many things are found there which must be expounded, not extended, as St. Thomas shows by many examples, and as are known to learned masters — of which we shall bring a few examples forward. It is plain that in sacred Scripture is contained, Ps. 64: Blessed is the man whom you have chosen and taken up. Likewise there is also sung in the Te Deum: When you were to take man, etc. Yet the school of theologians has not received this proposition simply in use and practical speech. Hence St. Thomas in book 3, dist. 6, says that it is in no way to be conceded that man was assumed; he says below: All authorities of this kind saying that man was assumed are to be expounded so that the concrete is put for the abstract, namely man for humanity. Likewise blessed Anastasius, in his third exposition of the acts of the Nicene council, speaking in the person of the Son of God, says thus: From your essence which you begot in me I give them the Holy Spirit. And there are other authorities of blessed Augustine and blessed Hilary of this kind, which the Master of the Sentences adduces in book 1 of the Sentences, dist. 5. It is clear to every theologian that the school does not receive propositions of this kind saying that the essence is begotten; rather they are expounded, as is clear there: The Son, who is the divine essence, is begotten — or thus: The Father, in begetting the Son, gave him his essence or nature. Further, another example is in the sayings of the same Anastasius in his letter to Serapion, saying that the Godhead was made man — which proposition nevertheless is not accepted in the school of theologians. Hence the Master of the Sentences in book 3, dist. 5, says that it ought not to be said that the divine nature was made flesh, as it is said the Word was made flesh; rather it is to be expounded thus: the Godhead was made man, that is, assumed human nature in one person. Many other examples we could readily bring forward, which for brevity's sake, and because they are known to the learned, we omit. Hence it is manifest that it is not a sufficient reason nor a legitimate excuse if someone says: this is read in holy Scripture in such a verbal form, or was handed down by the holy fathers, therefore we can so say it, so speak, use such words — for we do not have as free a license of speech in matter of faith as the Holy Spirit held in sacred Scripture, or the holy doctors who spoke by the Holy Spirit held; nor are those rules of Ticonius, which are called the keys of the Scriptures, as Augustine says in his book on Christian doctrine, by which the hidden things of the divine Scriptures are opened — which were given not for use but for exposition, not for extending the manner of speech — which, we believe, the holy fathers held not without great mystery and the most profound disposition of divine wisdom — but for understanding the obscure and difficult passages of it with all integrity of faith and sincerity.