|
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not
passible. For nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger;
since "the agent is greater than the patient," as is clear from
Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher
(De Anima iii, 5). Now no creature was stronger than Christ's
soul. Therefore Christ's soul could not suffer at the hands of any
creature; and hence it was not passible; for its capability of
suffering would have been to no purpose if it could not have suffered at
the hands of anything.
Objection 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that
the soul's passions are ailments [FS, Question 24, Article
2]. But Christ's soul had no ailment; for the soul's ailment
results from sin, as is plain from Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul,
for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore in Christ's soul there
were no passions.
Objection 3: Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the
same as the "fomes" of sin, hence the Apostle (Rm. 7:5) calls
them the "passions of sins." Now the "fomes" of sin was not in
Christ, as was said Article 2. Therefore it seems that there were
no passions in His soul; and hence His soul was not passible.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 87:4) in the person of
Christ: "My soul is filled with evils"---not sins, indeed, but
human evils, i.e. "pains," as a gloss expounds it. Hence the
soul of Christ was passible.
I answer that, A soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways: first
with a bodily passion; secondly, with an animal passion. It suffers
with a bodily passion through bodily hurt; for since the soul is the
form of the body, soul and body have but one being; and hence, when
the body is disturbed by any bodily passion, the soul, too, must be
disturbed, i.e. in the being which it has in the body. Therefore,
since Christ's body was passible and mortal, as was said above
(Question 14, Article 2), His soul also was of necessity
passible in like manner. But the soul suffers with an animal passion,
in its operations---either in such as are proper to the soul, or in
such as are of the soul more than of the body. And although the soul
is said to suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence, as
was said in the FS, Question 22, Article 3; FS, Question
41, Article 1; nevertheless the affections of the sensitive
appetite are most properly called passions of the soul. Now these were
in Christ, even as all else pertaining to man's nature. Hence
Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9): "Our Lord having
deigned to live in the form of a servant, took these upon Himself
whenever He judged they ought to be assumed; for there was no false
human affection in Him Who had a true body and a true human soul."
Nevertheless we must know that the passions were in Christ otherwise
than in us, in three ways. First, as regards the object, since in
us these passions very often tend towards what is unlawful, but not so
in Christ. Secondly, as regards the principle, since these passions
in us frequently forestall the judgment of reason; but in Christ all
movements of the sensitive appetite sprang from the disposition of the
reason. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9), that
"Christ assumed these movements, in His human soul, by an unfailing
dispensation, when He willed; even as He became man when He
willed." Thirdly, as regards the effect, because in us these
movements, at times, do not remain in the sensitive appetite, but
deflect the reason; but not so in Christ, since by His disposition
the movements that are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained in
the sensitive appetite that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what
was right. Hence Jerome says (on Mt. 26:37) that "Our
Lord, in order to prove the reality of the assumed manhood, 'was
sorrowful' in very deed; yet lest a passion should hold sway over His
soul, it is by a propassion that He is said to have 'begun to grow
sorrowful and to be sad'"; so that it is a perfect "passion" when
it dominates the soul, i.e. the reason; and a "propassion" when it
has its beginning in the sensitive appetite, but goes no further.
Reply to Objection 1: The soul of Christ could have prevented
these passions from coming upon it, and especially by the Divine
power; yet of His own will He subjected Himself to these corporeal
and animal passions.
Reply to Objection 2: Tully is speaking there according to the
opinions of the Stoics, who did not give the name of passions to all,
but only to the disorderly movements of the sensitive appetite. Now,
it is manifest that passions like these were not in Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: The "passions of sins" are movements of the
sensitive appetite that tend to unlawful things; and these were not in
Christ, as neither was the "fomes" of sin.
|
|