|
Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray
according to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in
the person of Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the
Living God." Now sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh.
Hence Christ's sensuality could ascend to the Living God by
rejoicing; and with equal reason by praying.
Objection 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which
desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His
sensuality desired when He said (Mt. 26:39): "Let this
chalice pass from Me." Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.
Objection 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in
person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed
by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human
nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of
God in the nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of
men." But the rest of men do not pray with their sensuality.
Therefore, neither did Christ pray according to His sensuality.
I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in
two ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality;
and in this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His
sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now
in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the
movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,
consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;
secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we
desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of
reason alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in
the SS, Question 83, Article 1.
Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our
prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in
this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer
expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of
the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things.
First, to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its
natural affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his
natural desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man
should subject his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says
in the Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a
man, shows the proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice
pass from Me'; for this was the human will desiring something proper
to itself and, so to say, private. But because He wishes man to be
righteous and to be directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as
I will but as Thou wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for
thou canst desire something proper to thee, even though God wishes
something else.'"
Reply to Objection 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not
by the act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the
heart into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the
movement of the rational appetite.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the sensuality wished what the
reason besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by
praying, but to the reason, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: The union in person is according to the
personal being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but
the uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason,
as stated above. Hence there is no parity.
|
|