|
In this prologue St. Thomas shows the place assigned to this
treatise in his Theological Summa, according to the division made by
him at the beginning of this work, in which he had said: "Because
the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not
only as He is in Himself, but also as He is in the beginning of
things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures...
we shall treat:
|
(1) "Of God (one in nature and triune in persons, and inasmuch
as He is the principle of creatures); (2) of the rational advance
of creatures toward God (or of God as He is the end of the rational
creature); (3) of Christ, who as man is our way to God."[2]
|
|
In the present treatise he says: "Because our Savior the Lord
Jesus Christ in order to save His people from their sins, as the
angel announced, showed unto us in His own person the way of truth,
whereby we may attain to the bliss of eternal life by rising again, it
is necessary... that, after consideration of the last end of human
life, and the virtues and vices, there should follow a consideration
of the Savior of all and of the benefits bestowed by Him on the human
race."[3]
Some theologians prefer another division to that made by St Thomas,
in which the distinction between dogmatic theology and moral theology is
more in evidence, so that moral theology is not placed between the
treatises on the One God and the Word incarnate. Furthermore, they
remark that the treatise on the Word incarnate because of its dignity
justly comes immediately after the treatise on the one and triune God.
To this the Thomists reply that, according to St. Thomas,
dogmatic theology and moral theology are not two distinct sciences, but
two parts of the same science, similar to the science of God of which
it is a participation.[4] The unity of this science results from
the unity of its formal object both quod and quo.[5] Its formal
object quod, or the subject of this science, is God Himself
considered in Himself, or as He is the principle and end of
creatures. The formal object quo is virtual revelation by the light of
which are deduced both in dogmatic theology and moral theology the
conclusions that are virtually contained in the revealed principles.
Therefore dogmatic and moral theology are not two sciences, but two
parts of the same science.
They also remark that, although this treatise on the Savior, because
of its dignity, precedes the moral part of theology, nevertheless, in
the orderly arrangement of knowledge, it is justly placed after the
other parts of theology, and this especially for three reasons: (1)
because the simpler things come before the composite. In the preceding
parts of the Summa, however, what pertains to God and to man are
discussed separately, whereas the present treatise is concerned with
Him who is both God and man.[6] (2) The work of redemption
presupposes also that man lived for a long period of time under the law
of the Old Testament, as well as it presupposes acts of faith and
other virtues necessary in the various states of life. Hence St.
Thomas appropriately places this treatise on the Savior at the end of
his Summa. (3) Moreover, it must be noticed that what is
necessary precedes what is contingent. But in the two preceding parts
of the Theological Summa, what forms the subject of special
discussion is the nature of God, and the nature of both angels and man
with reference to God; whereas the Third Part of the Summa
considers the great contingent fact which did not have to be realized,
namely, that the Word was made flesh. This fact, although it is the
greatest of all historical facts in the universe, is a contingent
fact; for it is not something absolutely necessary, such as the divine
nature for God and also the human nature for man. For this reason,
certain philosophers, even certain mystics, desired to reach union
with God, not by way of Christ the universal mediator, although He
had said: "I am the way and the truth and the life."[7] These
persons did not grasp the practical import of the statement that
Christ, or the Word of God incarnate, is the exemplar and source of
all virtues, without whom nobody can acquire salvation and sanctity.
This deviation from the common method of approach to God is in itself
manifestly in opposition to the great truth, namely, that these
persons somehow overlooked the fact of the Incarnation, inasmuch as it
is not an absolutely necessary fact, and they failed to see that
precisely because it is contingent, it becomes, in some aspect, a
fact of the greatest importance, inasmuch as it is a transcendent
manifestation of God's most free and absolutely gratuitous love for
the human race. St. John testifies that: "God so loved the world
as to give His only-begotten Son."[8] He also says: "He hath
first loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our
sins."[9] In fact, these texts express the fundamental truth of
Christianity, which is that God, by a most free act of His love,
sent His divine Son to us. Hence the entire third part of the
Theological Summa of St. Thomas is a detailed narrative of God's
gratuitous love for us confirmed by the text: "God so loved the
world, as to give His only-begotten Son."[10] It is truly a
complete description of this gratuitous love as being the motive of
God's mercy, and of the efficacy of this love. It is a canticle of
God's gratuitous love for the human race. Thus the contingency of
this most prominent fact in the history of the human race does not
lessen its importance, but it manifests, on the contrary, the supreme
gratuitousness of God's most free love for us.
Indeed, this manifestation of love is of such excellence that, in
these days, even the more obnoxious enemies of the Church, such as
several idealists, disciples of Hegel and Renan, who deny the
existence of a true God really and essentially distinct from the
world, say that Christ was the noblest of all men and that nobody was
a better type of the evolution of the human race. So wrote
Renan.[11] In fact, several communists in these days say the
same, and they furthermore remark that this evolution of the human race
predicted by Christ can be realized only by communism. Thus,
presenting Christ in an entirely false light, whether they wish it or
not, they confess that the greatest event in the history of the human
race was the coming of Christ. But before this statement about
Christ can be understood, one must have a correct notion of both God
and man. Hence this treatise on the Incarnation is logically placed
in the third part of the Theological Summa.
From the prologue we see that St. Thomas divides the third part of
his Summa by considering: (1) the Savior Himself; (2) the
sacraments by which we attain to our salvation; (3) the end of
immortal life to which we attain by the resurrection.
Thus it is evident that the third part of the Summa is a treatise on
the Savior, and the benefits He bestowed on us by instituting the
sacraments and enabling us to get to heaven, which is our last end.
The treatise on the Savior is divided into two parts.
|
Part I discusses the mystery itself of the Incarnation (q.
1-26).
Part II discusses the actions and sufferings of our Savior or the
mysteries of the life of Christ (q. 27-59).
|
|
The first part is often called, in our days, Christology, and the
second part is known as soteriology. The mystery of the Incarnation
is the principal topic of discussion in the first part, and in the
second part St. Thomas considers the mystery of Redemption, in
which he discusses especially the passion of Christ (q.
46-52).
The first part of the mystery of the Incarnation contains three
sections:
|
1) The fitness of the Incarnation, in which it is discussed as a
historical fact (q. 1).
2) The mode of union of the Word incarnate is considered (q.
2-15). The union itself (q. 2), the union in its relation to
the person assuming (q. 3), and then on the part of the nature
assumed and its perfections, the grace, knowledge, and powers of
Christ are discussed (q. 4-15).
3) The consequences of the union with reference to what belongs to
Christ are here discussed: (1) in themselves (q. 16-19);
(2) in their relation to the Father, in which the predestination of
Christ is considered; (3) with reference to us, in which our
adoration of Christ and His office of Mediator are discussed (q.
25-26).
|
|
The second part is concerned with the mysteries of the life of
Christ, and is divided into four sections: (1) the coming of
Christ into the world, which includes Mariology; (2) His life on
earth in its gradual development; (3) the end of His life, or His
passion and death; (4) His exaltation, or His resurrection and
ascension.
This second part which is entitled, The Mystery of Redemption,
will be a brief treatise on the Passion, as it is the cause of our
salvation, the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, its infinite value,
Christ's victory, and also Christ as king, judge, and head of the
blessed. Finally there will be a compendium on Mariology.
It must be noticed that among the commentators of the Summa John of
St. Thomas discusses the satisfaction of Christ at the beginning of
His commentary, by considering the fittingness of the Incarnation,
inasmuch as the Son of God came down from heaven for our salvation,
namely, to redeem the human race. This arrangement is, indeed,
appropriate for a complete understanding of the thesis on the motive of
the Incarnation. However, in the doctrinal order, so far as
operation follows being, St. Thomas is justified in discussing the
Incarnation before the Redemption, or before the theandric act of the
love of Christ suffering for us. Probably the reason why John of
St. Thomas discussed at length the satisfaction of Christ at the
beginning of his commentary, is that it ends with the twenty-fourth
question in the Summa of St. Thomas.
Billuart, however, developed his thesis on the satisfaction of
Christ in connection with the merit of Christ, which is question
nineteen in the Summa of St. Thomas, at the same time discussing
the infinite value of the merits of Christ.
Following the arrangement of questions as given by St. Thomas, we
shall consider: (1) the mystery of the Incarnation; (2) the
mystery of Redemption. This is the method commonly adopted by
theologians.
|
|