Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part III/Q44

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q43 Q45



Latin English
IIIª q. 44 pr. Deinde considerandum est de singulis miraculorum speciebus. Et primo, de miraculis quae fecit circa spirituales substantias. Secundo, de miraculis quae fecit circa caelestia corpora. Tertio, de miraculis quae fecit circa homines. Quarto, de miraculis quae fecit circa creaturas irrationales. Question 44. Christ's miracles considered specifically 1. The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances 2. The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies 3. The miracles which He worked in man 4. The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod miracula quae Christus fecit circa spirituales substantias, non fuerint convenientia. Inter spirituales enim substantias, sancti Angeli praepollent Daemonibus, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in III de Trin., spiritus vitae rationalis desertor atque peccator regitur per spiritum vitae rationalem pium et iustum. Sed Christus non legitur aliqua miracula fecisse circa Angelos bonos. Ergo neque etiam circa Daemones aliqua miracula facere debuit. Objection 1. It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which Christ worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances the holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.): "The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is ruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life." But we read of no miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither should He have worked miracles in the demons.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, miracula Christi ordinabantur ad manifestandum divinitatem ipsius. Sed divinitas Christi non erat Daemonibus manifestanda, quia per hoc impeditum fuisset mysterium passionis eius, secundum illud I Cor. II, si cognovissent, nunquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Ergo non debuit circa Daemones aliqua miracula fecisse. Objection 2. Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons: since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to 1 Corinthians 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles in the demons.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, miracula Christi ad gloriam Dei ordinabantur, unde dicitur Matth. IX, quod videntes turbae paralyticum sanatum a Christo, timuerunt et glorificaverunt Deum, qui dedit potestatem talem hominibus. Sed ad Daemones non pertinet glorificare Deum, quia non est speciosa laus in ore peccatoris, ut dicitur Eccli. XV. Unde et, sicut dicitur Marci I et Luc. IV, non sinebat Daemonia loqui ea quae ad gloriam ipsius pertinebant. Ergo videtur non fuisse conveniens quod circa Daemones aliqua miracula faceret. Objection 3. Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God: hence it is written (Matthew 9:8) that "the multitudes seeing" that the man sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men." But the demons have no part in glorifying God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" (Sirach 15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not to speak" (Mark 1:34; Luke 4:41) those things which reflected glory on Him. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in the demons.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, miracula a Christo facta ad salutem hominum ordinantur. Sed quaedam Daemonia ab hominibus eiecta fuerunt cum hominum detrimento. Quandoque quidem corporali, sicut dicitur Marci IX, quod Daemon, ad praeceptum Christi, exclamans et multum discerpens hominem exiit ab homine, et factus est sicut mortuus, ita ut multi dicerent, quia mortuus est. Quandoque etiam cum damno rerum, sicut quando Daemones, ad eorum preces, misit in porcos, quos praecipitaverunt in mare; unde cives illius regionis rogaverunt eum ut transiret a finibus eorum, sicut legitur Matth. VIII. Ergo videtur inconvenienter fecisse huiusmodi miracula. Objection 4. Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was detrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related (Mark 9:24-25) that a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly tearing" the man, "went out of him; and he became as dead, so that many said: He is dead"; sometimes also to things: as when He sent the demons, at their own request, into the swine, which they cast headlong into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him that He would depart from their coasts" (Matthew 8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should have worked such like miracles.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Zach. XIII hoc praenuntiatum fuerat, ubi dicitur, spiritum immundum auferam de terra. On the contrary, this was foretold (Zechariah 13:2), where it is written: "I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth."
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod miracula quae Christus fecit, argumenta quaedam fuerunt fidei quam ipse docebat. Futurum autem erat ut per virtutem divinitatis eius excluderet Daemonum potestatem ab hominibus credituris in eum, secundum illud Ioan. XII, nunc princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut, inter alia miracula, etiam obsessos a Daemonibus liberaret. I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to rescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons; according to John 12:31: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should also deliver those who were obsessed by demons.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homines, sicut per Christum erant a potestate Daemonum liberandi, ita per eum erant Angelis consociandi, secundum illud Coloss. I, pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt. Et ideo circa Angelos alia miracula hominibus demonstrare non conveniebat, nisi ut Angeli hominibus apparerent, quod quidem factum est in nativitate ipsius, et in resurrectione et in ascensione. Reply to Objection 1. Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the power of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the companionship of the angels, according to Colossians 1:20: "Making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and the things that are in heaven." Therefore it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels appearing to men: as happened in His Nativity, His Resurrection, and His Ascension.
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, IX de Civit. Dei, Christus tantum innotuit Daemonibus quantum voluit, tantum autem voluit quantum oportuit. Sed innotuit eis, non sicut Angelis sanctis, per id quod est vita aeterna, sed per quaedam temporalia suae virtutis effecta. Et primo quidem, videntes Christum esurire post ieiunium, aestimaverunt eum non esse filium Dei. Unde, super illud Luc. IV, si filius Dei es etc., dicit Ambrosius, quid sibi vult talis sermonis exorsus, nisi quia cognoverat Dei filium esse venturum, sed venisse per infirmitatem corporis non putavit? Sed postmodum, visis miraculis, ex quadam suspicatione coniecturavit eum esse filium Dei. Unde super illud Marci I, scio quia sis sanctus Dei, dicit Chrysostomus quod non certam aut firmam adventus Dei habebat notitiam. Sciebat tamen ipsum esse Christum in lege promissum, unde dicitur Luc. IV, quia sciebant ipsum esse Christum. Quod autem ipsum confitebantur esse filium Dei, magis erat ex suspicione quam ex certitudine. Unde Beda dicit, super Luc., Daemonia filium Dei confitentur, et, sicut postea dicitur, sciebant eum esse Christum. Quia, cum ieiunio fatigatum eum Diabolus videret, verum hominem intellexit, sed, quia tentando non praevaluit utrum filius Dei esset, dubitabat. Nunc autem, per signorum potentiam, vel intellexit, vel potius suspicatus est esse filium Dei. Non ideo igitur Iudaeis eum crucifigere persuasit, quia Christum sive Dei filium non esse putavit, sed quia se morte illius non praevidit esse damnandum. De hoc enim mysterio a saeculis abscondito dicit apostolus quod nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit, si enim cognovissent, nunquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far as there was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels, by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects of His power." First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting they deemed Him not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Luke 4:3, "If Thou be the Son of God," etc., Ambrose says: "What means this way of addressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort of conjectural suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on Mark 1:24, "I know who Thou art, the Holy one of God," Chrysostom [Victor of Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had no certain or firm knowledge of God's coming." Yet he knew that He was "the Christ promised in the Law," wherefore it is said (Luke 4:41) that "they knew that He was Christ." But it was rather from suspicion than from certainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede says on Luke 4:41: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated farther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw Him weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of God. And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him not to be Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser by His death. For the Apostle says of this mystery" (1 Corinthians 2:7-8), "which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the princes of this world knew it,' for if they had known it they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod miracula in expulsione Daemonum non fecit Christus propter utilitatem Daemonum, sed propter utilitatem hominum, ut ipsi eum glorificarent. Et ideo prohibuit eos loqui ea quae ad laudem ipsius pertinebant, primo quidem, propter exemplum. Quia, ut dicit Athanasius, compescebat eius sermonem, quamvis vera fateretur, ut nos assuefaciat ne curemus de talibus, etiam si vera loqui videantur. Nefas est enim ut, cum adsit nobis Scriptura divina, instruamur a Diabolo, est enim hoc periculosum, quia veritati frequenter Daemones immiscent mendacia. Vel, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, non oportebat eos subripere officii apostolici gloriam. Nec decebat Christi mysterium lingua fetida publicari, quia non est speciosa laus in ore peccatoris. Tertio quia, ut Beda dicit, quia nolebat ex hoc invidiam accendere Iudaeorum. Unde etiam ipsi apostoli iubentur reticere de ipso, ne, divina maiestate praedicata, passionis dispensatio differatur. Reply to Objection 3. The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons were for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might glorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First, to give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He restrained his speech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care about such things, although it may seem that what is said is true. For it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the Divine Scripture": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom [Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: "It was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. Nor was it fitting that the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue" because "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" [Cf. Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, "He did not wish the envy of the Jews to be aroused thereby" [Bede, Expos. in Luc. iv, 41]. Hence "even the apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, lest, if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion should be deferred."
IIIª q. 44 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus specialiter venerat docere et miracula facere propter utilitatem hominum, principaliter quantum ad animae salutem. Et ideo permisit Daemones quos eiiciebat hominibus aliquod nocumentum inferre, vel in corpore vel in rebus, propter animae humanae salutem, ad hominum scilicet instructionem. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quod Christus permisit Daemonibus in porcos ire, non quasi a Daemonibus persuasus, sed primo quidem, ut instruat magnitudinem nocumenti Daemonum qui hominibus insidiantur; secundo, ut omnes discerent quoniam neque adversus porcos audent aliquid facere, nisi ipse concesserit; tertio, ut ostenderet quod graviora in illos homines operati essent quam in illos porcos, nisi essent divina providentia adiuti. Et propter easdem etiam causas permisit eum qui a Daemonibus liberabatur, ad horam gravius affligi, a qua tamen afflictione eum continuo liberavit. Per hoc etiam ostenditur, ut Beda dicit, quod saepe, dum converti ad Deum post peccata conamur, maioribus novisque antiqui hostis pulsamur insidiis. Quod facit vel ut odium virtutis incutiat, vel expulsionis suae vindicet iniuriam. Factus est etiam homo sanatus velut mortuus, ut Hieronymus dicit, quia sanatis dicitur, mortui estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo. Reply to Objection 4. Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul. Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of man's soul--namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on Matthew 8:32 that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as yielding to the demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the demons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons would not dare to hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly, that they would have treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine, unless they had been protected by God's providence." And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He release him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are taught, as Bede says on Mark 9:25, that "often, when after falling into sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more grievous attacks from the old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us with a distaste for virtue, or that he may avenge the shame of having been cast out." For the man who was healed "became as dead," says Jerome, "because to those who are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God'" (Colossians 3:3)
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter fuerint a Christo facta miracula circa caelestia corpora. Ut enim Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., divinae providentiae non est naturam corrumpere, sed salvare. Corpora autem caelestia secundum suam naturam sunt incorruptibilia et inalterabilia, ut probatur in I de caelo. Ergo non fuit conveniens ut per Christum fieret aliqua mutatio circa ordinem caelestium corporum. Objection 1. It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve, nature." Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible and unchangeable, as is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that Christ should cause any change in the order of the heavenly bodies.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum motum caelestium corporum temporum cursus designatur, secundum illud Gen. I, fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli, et sint in signa et tempora et dies et annos. Sic ergo, mutato cursu caelestium corporum, mutatur temporum distinctio et ordo. Sed non legitur hoc esse perceptum ab astrologis, qui contemplantur sidera et computant menses, ut dicitur Isaiae XLVII. Ergo videtur quod per Christum non fuerit aliqua mutatio facta circa cursum caelestium corporum. Objection 2. Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of the heavenly bodies, according to Genesis 1:14: "Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." Consequently if the movement of the heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and order of the seasons is changed. But there is no report of this having been perceived by astronomers, "who gaze at the stars and observe the months," as it is written (Isaiah 47:13). Therefore it seems that Christ did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly bodies.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, magis competebat Christo facere miracula vivens et docens quam moriens, tum quia, ut dicitur II ad Cor. ult., crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei, secundum quam miracula faciebat; tum etiam quia eius miracula confirmativa erant doctrinae ipsius. Sed in vita sua non legitur Christus aliquod miraculum circa caelestia corpora fecisse, quinimmo Pharisaeis petentibus ab eo signum de caelo, dare renuit, ut habetur Matth. XII et XVI. Ergo videtur quod nec in morte circa caelestia corpora aliquod miraculum facere debuit. Objection 3. Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it is written (2 Corinthians 13:4), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because His miracles were in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no record of Christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies during His lifetime: nay, more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give "a sign from heaven," He refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it seems that neither in His death should He have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. XXIII, tenebrae factae sunt in universa terra usque ad horam nonam, et obscuratus est sol. On the contrary, It is written (Luke 23:44-45): "There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened."
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, miracula Christi talia esse debebant ut sufficienter eum Deum esse ostenderent. Hoc autem non ita evidenter ostenditur per transmutationes corporum inferiorum, quae etiam ab aliis causis moveri possunt, sicut per transmutationem cursus caelestium corporum, quae a solo Deo sunt immobiliter ordinata. Et hoc est quod Dionysius dicit, in epistola ad Polycarpum, cognoscere oportet non aliter aliquando posse aliquid perverti caelestis ordinationis et motus, nisi causam haberet ad hoc moventem qui facit omnia et mutat secundum suum sermonem. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut Christus miracula faceret etiam circa caelestia corpora. I answer that, As stated above (Question 43, Article 4) it behooved Christ's miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which changes can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes wrought in the course of the heavenly bodies, which have been established by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what Dionysius says in his epistle to Polycarp: "We must recognize that no alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens that is not caused by Him who made all and changes all by His word." Therefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the heavenly bodies.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut corporibus inferioribus naturale est moveri a caelestibus corporibus, quae sunt superiora secundum naturae ordinem; ita etiam naturale est cuilibet creaturae ut transmutetur a Deo secundum eius voluntatem. Unde Augustinus dicit, XXVI contra Faustum, et habetur in Glossa Rom. XI, super illud, contra naturam insertus es etc., Deus, creator et conditor omnium naturarum, nihil contra naturam facit, quia id est cuique rei natura, quod facit. Et ita non corrumpitur natura caelestium corporum cum eorum cursus immutatur a Deo, corrumperetur autem si ab aliqua alia causa immutaretur. Reply to Objection 1. Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved by the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature, so is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God, according to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi; quoted by the gloss on Romans 11:24: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted," etc.): "God, the Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature: for whatsoever He does in each thing, that is its nature." Consequently the nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed when God changes its course: but it would be if the change were due to any other cause.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod per miraculum a Christo factum non est perversus ordo temporum. Nam secundum quosdam, illae tenebrae, vel solis obscuratio, quae in passione Christi accidit, fuit propter hoc quod sol suos radios retraxit, nulla immutatione facta circa motum caelestium corporum, secundum quem tempora mensurantur. Unde Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., videtur luminare maius retraxisse radios suos, ne aut pendentem videret dominum, aut impii blasphemantes sua luce fruerentur. Talis autem retractio radiorum non est sic intelligenda quasi sol in sua potestate habeat radios emittere vel retrahere, non enim ex electione, sed ex natura radios emittit, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed sol dicitur retrahere radios, inquantum divina virtute factum est ut solis radii ad terram non pervenirent. Origenes autem dicit hoc accidisse per interpositionem nubium. Unde, super Matth., dicit, consequens est intelligere quasdam tenebrosissimas nubes multas et magnas concurrisse super Ierusalem et terram Iudaeae; et ideo factae sunt tenebrae profundae a sexta hora usque ad nonam. Arbitror ergo, sicut et cetera signa quae facta sunt in passione, scilicet quod velum est scissum, quod terra tremuit, etc., in Ierusalem tantummodo facta sunt, ita et hoc, aut si latius voluerit quis extendere ad terram Iudaeae, propter hoc quod dicitur quod tenebrae factae sunt in universa terra; quod intelligitur de terra Iudaea, sicut in III libro regum dixit Abdias ad Eliam, vivit Deus tuus, si est gens aut regnum ubi non miserit dominus meus quaerere te, ostendens quod eum quaesiverunt in gentibus quae sunt circa Iudaeam. Sed circa hoc magis est credendum Dionysio, qui oculata fide inspexit hoc accidisse per interpositionem lunae inter nos et solem. Dicit enim, in epistola ad Polycarpum, inopinabiliter soli lunam incidentem videbamus, in Aegypto scilicet existentes, ut ibidem dicitur. Et designat ibi quatuor miracula. Quorum primum est quod naturalis eclipsis solis per interpositionem lunae nunquam accidit nisi tempore coniunctionis solis et lunae. Tunc autem erat luna in oppositione ad solem, quintadecima existens, quia erat Pascha Iudaeorum. Unde dicit, non enim erat conventus tempus. Secundum miraculum est quod, cum circa horam sextam luna visa fuisset simul cum sole in medio caeli, in vesperis apparuit in suo loco, idest in oriente, opposita soli. Unde dicit, et rursus ipsam vidimus, scilicet lunam, a nona hora, scilicet in qua recessit a sole, cessantibus tenebris, usque ad vesperam, supernaturaliter restitutam ad diametrum solis, id est ut diametraliter esset soli opposita. Et sic patet quod non est turbatus consuetus temporum cursus, quia divina virtute factum est et quod ad solem supernaturaliter accederet praeter debitum tempus, et quod, a sole recedens, in locum proprium restitueretur tempore debito. Tertium miraculum est quod naturaliter eclipsis solis semper incipit ab Occidentali parte et pervenit usque ad Orientalem, et hoc ideo quia luna secundum proprium motum, quo movetur ab occidente in orientem, est velocior sole in suo proprio motu; et ideo luna, ab occidente veniens, attingit solem et pertransit ipsum ad orientem tendens. Sed tunc luna iam pertransiverat solem, et distabat ab eo per medietatem circuli, in oppositione existens. Unde oportuit quod reverteretur ad orientem versus solem, et attingeret ipsum primo ex parte Orientali, procedens versus occidentem. Et hoc est quod dicit, eclipsim etiam ipsam ex oriente vidimus inchoatam et usque ad solarem terminum venientem, quia totum solem eclipsavit, postea hinc regredientem. Quartum miraculum fuit quod in naturali eclipsi ex eadem parte incipit sol prius reapparere ex qua parte incipit prius obscurari, quia scilicet luna, se soli subiiciens, naturali suo motu solem pertransit versus orientem, et ita partem Occidentalem solis, quam primo occupat, primo etiam derelinquit. Sed tunc luna, miraculose ab oriente versus occidentem rediens, non pertransivit solem, ut esset eo Occidentalior, sed, postquam pervenit ad terminum solis, reversa est versus orientem, et ita partem solis quam ultimo occupavit, primo etiam dereliquit. Et sic ex parte Orientali inchoata fuit eclipsis, sed in parte Occidentali prius incoepit claritas apparere. Et hoc est quod dicit, et rursus vidimus non ex eodem, idest, non ex eadem parte solis, et defectum et repurgationem, sed e contra secundum diametrum factam. Quintum miraculum addit Chrysostomus, super Matth., dicens quod tribus horis tunc tenebrae permanserunt, cum eclipsis solis in momento pertranseat, non enim habet moram, ut sciunt illi qui consideraverunt. Unde datur intelligi quod luna quieverit sub sole. Nisi forte velimus dicere quod tempus tenebrarum computatur ab instanti quo incoepit sol obscurari, usque ad instans in quo sol totaliter fuit repurgatus. Sed, sicut Origenes dicit, super Matth., adversus hoc filii saeculi huius dicunt, quomodo hoc factum tam mirabile nemo Graecorum aut barbarorum scripsit? Et dicit quod quidam nomine Phlegon in chronicis suis scripsit hoc in principatu Tiberii Caesaris factum, sed non significavit quod fuerit in luna plena. Potuit ergo hoc contingere quia astrologi ubique terrarum tunc temporis existentes, non sollicitabantur de observanda eclipsi, quia tempus non erat, sed illam obscuritatem ex aliqua passione aeris putaverunt accidere. Sed in Aegypto, ubi raro nubes apparent propter aeris serenitatem, permotus est Dionysius, et socii eius, ut praedicta circa illam obscuritatem observarent. Reply to Objection 2. The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the miracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or darkening of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion, was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the movement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the seasons. Hence Jerome says on Matthew 27:45: "It seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it should look on its Lord hanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy on the impious blasphemers." And this withdrawal of the rays is not to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by nature, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw its rays in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach the earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds coming between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Matthew 27:45 he says: "We must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of opinion that, just as the other signs which occurred at the time of the Passion"--namely, "the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth," etc.--"took place in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone prefer, it may be extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said that "'there was darkness over the whole earth,' which expression refers to the land of Judea, as may be gathered from 1 Kings 18:10, where Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee': which shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of Judea." On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius, who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing the sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the moon encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the time, as he says in the same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is that the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the moon never takes place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. But then the sun and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since it was the Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time of conjunction."--The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour the moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the heavens, in the evening it was seen to be in its place, i.e. in the east, opposite the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i.e. the moon, "return supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be diametrically opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth hour," when the darkness ceased, "until evening." From this it is clear that the wonted course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused the moon both to approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season, and to withdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according to the season. The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally always begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and spreads towards the east: and this is because the moon's proper movement from west to east is more rapid than that of the sun, and consequently the moon, coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and passes it on its eastward course. But in this case the moon had already passed the sun, and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly circle, being opposite to it: consequently it had to return eastwards towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact with it from the east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is what he refers to when he says: "Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun," for it was a total eclipse, "and afterwards pass away." The fourth miracle consisted in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first eclipsed is the first to reappear (because the moon, coming in front of the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the east, so as to come away first from the western portion of the sun, which was the first part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the moon, while returning miraculously from the east to the west, did not pass the sun so as to be to the west of it: but having reached the western edge of the sun returned towards the east: so that the last portion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear. Consequently the eclipse began towards the east, whereas the sun began to reappear towards the west. And to this he refers by saying: "Again we observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point," i.e. on the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides." Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.), saying that "the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an eclipse of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know who have seen one." Hence we are given to understand that the moon was stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of the darkness was measured from the first moment of occultation of the sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from the eclipse. But, as Origen says (on Matthew 27:45), "against this the children of this world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by any writer, whether Greek or barbarian?" And he says that someone of the name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it occurred at the full moon." It may be, therefore, that because it was not the time for an eclipse, the various astronomers living then throughout the world were not on the look-out for one, and that they ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of the atmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the tranquillity of the air, Dionysius and his companions were considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about this darkness.
IIIª q. 44 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tunc praecipue oportebat per miracula divinitatem Christi ostendere, quando in eo maxime apparebat infirmitas secundum humanam naturam. Et ideo in Christi nativitate stella nova in caelo apparuit. Unde maximus dicit, in sermone nativitatis, si praesepe despicis, erige paulisper oculos, et novam in caelo stellam, protestantem mundo nativitatem dominicam, contuere. In passione autem adhuc maior infirmitas circa humanitatem Christi apparuit. Et ideo oportuit ut maiora miracula ostenderentur circa principalia mundi luminaria. Et, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., hoc est signum quod petentibus promittebat dare, dicens, generatio prava et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae, crucem significans et resurrectionem. Etenim multo mirabilius est in eo qui crucifixus erat hoc fieri, quam ambulante eo super terram. Reply to Objection 3. Then, above all, was there need for miraculous proof of Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most apparent in Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in the heavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): "If thou disdain the manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star in the heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord." But in His Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the world. And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.): "This is the sign which He promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and Resurrection . . . For it was much more wonderful that this should happen when He was crucified than when He was walking on earth."
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter circa homines Christus miracula fecit. In homine enim potior est anima quam corpus. Sed circa corpora multa miracula fecit Christus, circa animas vero nulla miracula legitur fecisse, nam neque aliquos incredulos ad fidem virtuose convertit, sed admonendo et exteriora miracula ostendendo; neque etiam aliquos fatuos legitur sapientes fecisse. Ergo videtur quod non convenienter sit circa homines miracula operatus. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner.
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, Christus faciebat miracula virtute divina, cuius proprium est subito operari, et perfecte, et absque adminiculo alicuius. Sed Christus non semper subito curavit homines quantum ad corpus, dicitur enim Marci VIII quod, apprehensa manu caeci, eduxit eum extra vicum, et exspuens in oculos eius, impositis manibus suis, interrogavit eum si aliquid videret. Et aspiciens ait, video homines velut arbores ambulantes. Deinde iterum imposuit manus super oculos eius, et coepit videre, et restitutus est ita ut videret clare omnia. Et sic patet quod non subito eum curavit, sed primo quidem imperfecte, et per sputum. Ergo videtur non convenienter circa homines miracula fecisse. Objection 2. Further, as stated above (Question 43, Article 2), Christ worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mark 8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly.
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, quae se invicem non consequuntur, non oportet quod simul tollantur. Sed aegritudo corporalis non semper ex peccato causatur, ut patet per illud quod dominus dicit, Ioan. IX, neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur. Non ergo oportuit ut hominibus corporum curationem quaerentibus peccata dimitteret, sicut legitur fecisse circa paralyticum, Matth. IX, praesertim quia sanatio corporalis, cum sit minus quam remissio peccatorum, non videtur esse sufficiens argumentum quod possit peccata dimittere. Objection 3. Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (John 9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Matthew 9:2): the more that the healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving sins.
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, miracula Christi facta sunt ad confirmationem doctrinae ipsius, et testimonium divinitatis eius, ut supra dictum est. Sed nullus debet impedire finem sui operis. Ergo videtur inconvenienter Christus quibusdam miraculose curatis praecepisse ut nemini dicerent, ut patet Matth. IX et Marci VIII, praesertim quia quibusdam aliis mandavit ut miracula circa se facta publicarent, sicut Marci V legitur quod dixit ei quem a Daemonibus liberaverat, vade in domum tuam ad tuos, et nuntia eis quanta dominus tibi fecerit. Objection 4. Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Question 43, Article 4). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed miraculously to tell no one, as appears from Matthew 9:30 and Mark 8:26: the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them; thus it is related (Mark 5:19) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee."
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Marci VII, bene omnia fecit, et surdos fecit audire, et mutos loqui. On the contrary, It is written (Mark 7:37): "He hath done all things well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak."
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae sunt ad finem, debent fini esse proportionata. Christus autem ad hoc in mundum venerat et docebat, ut homines salvos faceret, secundum illud Ioan. III, non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut Christus, particulariter homines miraculose curando, ostenderet se esse universalem et spiritualem omnium salvatorem. I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to John 3:17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting that Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt ad finem, distinguuntur ab ipso fine. Miracula autem a Christo facta ordinabantur, sicut ad finem, ad rationalis partis salutem, quae consistit in sapientiae illustratione et hominum iustificatione. Quorum primum praesupponit secundum, quia, ut dicitur Sap. I, in malevolam animam non intrabit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. Iustificare autem homines non conveniebat nisi eis volentibus, hoc enim esset et contra rationem iustitiae, quae rectitudinem voluntatis importat; et etiam contra rationem humanae naturae, quae libero arbitrio ad bonum ducenda est, non autem per coactionem. Christus ergo virtute divina interius hominem iustificavit, non tamen eis invitis. Nec hoc ad miracula pertinet, sed ad miraculorum finem. Similiter etiam virtute divina simplicibus discipulis sapientiam infudit, unde dicit eis, Luc. XXI ego dabo vobis os et sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri. Quod quidem, quantum ad interiorem illuminationem, inter visibilia miracula non numeratur, sed solum quantum ad exteriorem actum, inquantum scilicet videbant homines eos qui fuerant illiterati et simplices, tam sapienter et constanter loqui. Unde dicitur Act. IV, videntes Iudaei Petri constantiam et Ioannis, comperto quod homines essent sine litteris et idiotae, admirabantur. Et tamen huiusmodi spirituales effectus, etsi a miraculis visibilibus distinguantur, sunt tamen quaedam testimonia doctrinae et virtutis Christi, secundum illud Heb. II, contestante Deo signis et portentis et variis virtutibus, et spiritus sancti distributionibus. Sed tamen circa animas hominum, maxime quantum ad immutandas inferiores vires, Christus aliqua miracula fecit. Unde Hieronymus, super illud Matth. IX, surgens secutus est eum, dicit, fulgor ipse et maiestas divinitatis occultae, quae etiam in facie relucebat humana, videntes ad se trahere poterat ex primo aspectu. Et super illud Matth. XXI, eiiciebat omnes vendentes et ementes, dicit idem Hieronymus, mihi inter omnia signa quae fecit dominus hoc videtur esse mirabilius, quod unus homo, et illo tempore contemptibilis, potuerit ad unius flagelli verbera, tantam eiicere multitudinem. Igneum enim quiddam atque sidereum radiabat ex oculis eius, et divinitatis maiestas lucebat in facie. Et Origenes dicit, super Ioan., hoc esse maius miraculum eo quo aqua conversa est in vinum, eo quod illic subsistit inanimata materia, hic vero tot millium hominum domantur ingenia. Et super illud Ioan. XVIII, abierunt retrorsum et ceciderunt in terram, dicit Augustinus, una vox turbam odiis ferocem armisque terribilem, sine telo ullo, percussit, repulit, stravit, Deus enim latebat in carne. Et ad idem pertinet quod dicitur Luc. IV, quod Iesus transiens per medium illorum ibat, ubi dicit Chrysostomus quod stare in medio insidiantium et non apprehendi, divinitatis eminentiam ostendebat. Et quod dicitur Ioan. VIII, Iesus abscondit se et exivit de templo, ubi Augustinus dicit, non abscondit se in angulo templi quasi timens, vel post murum aut columnam divertens, sed, caelica potestate se invisibilem insidiantibus constituens, per medium illorum exivit. Ex quibus omnibus patet quod Christus, quando voluit, virtute divina animas hominum immutavit, non solum iustificando et sapientiam infundendo, quod pertinet ad miraculorum finem, sed etiam exterius alliciendo vel terrendo vel stupefaciendo, quod pertinet ad ipsa miracula. Reply to Objection 1. The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, which is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the former of which presupposes the latter, since, as it is written (Wisdom 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous unless he willed: for this would be both against the nature of righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the very nature of man, which requires to be led to good by the free-will, not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine power, but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine power He infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to them (Luke 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but only as regards the outward action--namely, in so far as men saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the Jews, "seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men . . . wondered."--And though such like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles, yet do they testify to Christ's doctrine and power, according to Hebrews 2:4: "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost." Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on Matthew 9:9, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in His human countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first sight." And on Matthew 21:12, "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs worked by our Lord, this seems to me the most wondrous--that one man, at that time despised, could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a multitude. For a fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His Godhead shone in His countenance." And Origen says on John 2:15 that "this was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He shows His power over inanimate matter, whereas here He tames the minds of thousands of men." Again, on John 18:6, "They went backward and fell to the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms, yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) -- namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst of them, went His way," on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, that which is written John 8:59, "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, as if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to those who were threatening Him, He passed through the midst of them." From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed, changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the bestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself.
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus venerat salvare mundum non solum virtute divina, sed per mysterium incarnationis ipsius. Et ideo frequenter in sanatione infirmorum non sola potestate divina utebatur, curando per modum imperii, sed etiam aliquid ad humanitatem ipsius pertinens apponendo. Unde super illud Luc. IV, singulis manus imponens curabat omnes, dicit Cyrillus, quamvis, ut Deus, potuisset omnes verbo pellere morbos, tangit tamen eos, ostendens propriam carnem efficacem ad praestanda remedia. Et super illud Marci VIII, exspuens in oculos eius impositis manibus etc., dicit Chrysostomus, spuit quidem et manus imponit caeco, volens ostendere quod verbum divinum, operationi adiunctum, mirabilia perficit, manus enim operationis est ostensiva, sputum sermonis ex ore prolati. Et super illud Ioan. IX, fecit lutum ex sputo et linivit lutum super oculos caeci, dicit Augustinus, de saliva sua lutum fecit, quia verbum caro factum est. Vel etiam ad significandum quod ipse erat qui ex limo terrae hominem formaverat, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Est etiam circa miracula Christi considerandum quod communiter perfectissima opera faciebat. Unde super illud Ioan. II, omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, dicit Chrysostomus, talia sunt Christi miracula ut multo his quae per naturam fiunt, speciosiora et utiliora fiant. Et similiter in instanti infirmis perfectam sanitatem conferebat. Unde super illud Matth. VIII, surrexit et ministrabat illis, dicit Hieronymus, sanitas quae confertur a domino, tota simul redit. Specialiter autem in illo caeco contrarium fuit propter infidelitatem ipsius, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Vel, sicut Beda dicit, quem uno verbo totum simul curare poterat, paulatim curat, ut magnitudinem humanae caecitatis ostendat, quae vix, et quasi per gradus ad lucem redeat, et gratiam suam nobis indicet, per quam singula perfectionis incrementa adiuvat. Reply to Objection 2. Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human nature. Hence on Luke 4:40, "He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue." And on Mark 8:23, "Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom [Victor of Antioch] says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth." Again, on John 9:6, "He made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine says: "Of His spittle He made clay--because 'the Word was made flesh.'" Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of "the slime of the earth." It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on John 2:10, "Every man at first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness." Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on Matthew 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly." There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom [Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on Mark 8:23: "Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace."
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus miracula faciebat virtute divina. Dei autem perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deut. XXXII. Non est autem aliquid perfectum, si finem non consequatur. Finis autem exterioris curationis per Christum factae est curatio animae. Et ideo non conveniebat Christo ut alicuius corpus curaret, nisi eius curaret animam. Unde super illud Ioan. VII, totum hominem sanum feci in sabbato, dicit Augustinus, quia curatus est, ut sanus esset in corpore; et credidit, ut sanus esset in anima. Specialiter autem paralytico dicitur, dimittuntur tibi peccata, quia, ut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., datur ex hoc nobis intelligentia propter peccata plerasque evenire corporum debilitates, et ideo forsitan prius dimittuntur peccata, ut, causis debilitatis ablatis, sanitas restituatur. Unde et Ioan. V dicitur, iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat. Ubi, ut dicit Chrysostomus, discimus quod ex peccato nata erat ei aegritudo. Quamvis autem, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quanto anima est potior corpore, tanto peccatum dimittere maius sit quam corpus sanare, quia tamen illud non est manifestum, facit minus quod est manifestius, ut demonstraret maius et non manifestum. ??
IIIª q. 44 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, super illud Matth. IX, videte ne quis sciat, dicit Chrysostomus non esse hoc contrarium quod hic dicitur, ei quod alteri dicit, vade et annuntia gloriam Dei. Erudit enim nos prohibere eos qui volunt nos propter nos laudare. Si autem ad Deum gloria refertur, non debemus prohibere, sed magis iniungere ut hoc fiat. Reply to Objection 4. On Matthew 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says: "If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of God' (cf. Mark 5:19; Luke 8:39), that is not contrary to this. For He instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but if the glory be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command, that it be done."
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter fecerit Christus miracula circa creaturas irrationales. Bruta enim animalia sunt nobiliora plantis. Sed Christus fecit aliquod miraculum circa plantas, puta cum ad verbum eius est siccata ficulnea, ut dicitur Matth. XXI. Ergo videtur quod Christus etiam circa animalia bruta miracula facere debuisset. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on irrational creatures. For brute animals are more noble than plants. But Christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered away at His command (Matthew 21:19). Therefore Christ should have worked miracles also on brute animals.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, poena non iuste infertur nisi pro culpa. Sed non fuit culpa ficulneae quod in ea Christus fructum non invenit, quando non erat tempus fructuum. Ergo videtur quod inconvenienter eam siccaverit. Objection 2. Further, punishment is not justly inflicted save for fault. But it was not the fault of the fig-tree that Christ found no fruit on it, when fruit was not in season (Mark 11:13). Therefore it seems unfitting that He withered it up.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, aer et aqua sunt in medio caeli et terrae. Sed Christus aliqua miracula fecit in caelo, sicut supra dictum est. Similiter etiam in terra, quando in eius passione terra mota est. Ergo videtur quod etiam in aere et aqua aliqua miracula facere debuerit, ut mare dividere, sicut fecit Moyses; vel etiam flumen, sicut fecerunt Iosue et Elias; et ut fierent in aere tonitrua, sicut factum est in monte Sinai quando lex dabatur, et sicut Elias fecit, III Reg. XVIII. Objection 3. Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But Christ worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above (Article 2), and likewise in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion (Matthew 27:51). Therefore it seems that He should also have worked miracles in the air and water, such as to divide the sea, as did Moses (Exodus 14:21); or a river, as did Josue (Joshua 3:16) and Elias (2 Kings 2:8); and to cause thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred on Mount Sinai when the Law was given (Exodus 19:16), and like to what Elias did (1 Kings 18:45).
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, opera miraculosa pertinent ad opus gubernationis mundi per divinam providentiam. Hoc autem opus praesupponit creationem. Inconveniens ergo videtur quod Christus in suis miraculis usus est creatione, quando scilicet multiplicavit panes. Non ergo convenientia videntur fuisse eius miracula circa irrationales creaturas. Objection 4. Further, miraculous works pertain to the work of Divine providence in governing the world. But this work presupposes creation. It seems, therefore, unfitting that in His miracles Christ made use of creation: when, to wit, He multiplied the loaves. Therefore His miracles in regard to irrational creatures seem to have been unfitting.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Christus est Dei sapientia, de qua dicitur, Sap. VIII, quod disponit omnia suaviter. On the contrary, Christ is "the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), of whom it is said (Wisdom 8:1) that "she ordereth all things sweetly."
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, miracula Christi ad hoc ordinabantur quod virtus divinitatis cognosceretur in ipso ad hominum salutem. Pertinet autem ad virtutem divinitatis ut omnis creatura sit ei subiecta. Et ideo in omnibus creaturarum generibus miracula eum facere oportuit, et non solum in hominibus, sed etiam in irrationabilibus creaturis. I answer that, As stated above, Christ's miracles were ordained to the end that He should be recognized as having Divine power, unto the salvation of mankind. Now it belongs to the Divine power that every creature be subject thereto. Consequently it behooved Him to work miracles on every kind of creature, not only on man, but also on irrational creatures.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod animalia bruta propinque se habent secundum genus ad hominem, unde et in eodem die cum homine facta sunt. Et quia circa corpora humana multa miracula fecerat, non oportebat quod circa corpora brutorum animalium aliqua miracula faceret, praesertim quia, quantum ad naturam sensibilem et corporalem, eadem ratio est de hominibus et animalibus, praecipue terrestribus. Pisces autem, cum vivant in aqua, magis a natura hominum differunt, unde et alio die sunt facti. In quibus miraculum Christus fecit in copiosa piscium captura, ut legitur Luc. V et Ioan. ult., et etiam in pisce quem Petrus coepit et in eo invenit staterem. Quod autem porci in mare praecipitati sunt, non fuit operatio divini miraculi, sed operatio Daemonum ex permissione divina. Reply to Objection 1. Brute animals are akin generically to man, wherefore they were created on the same day as man. And since He had worked many miracles on the bodies of men, there was no need for Him to work miracles on the bodies of brute animals. and so much the less that, as to their sensible and corporeal nature, the same reason applies to both men and animals, especially terrestrial. But fish, from living in water, are more alien from human nature; wherefore they were made on another day. On them Christ worked a miracle in the plentiful draught of fishes, related Luke 5 and John 21; and, again, in the fish caught by Peter, who found a stater in it (Matthew 17:26). As to the swine who were cast headlong into the sea, this was not the effect of a Divine miracle, but of the action of the demons, God permitting.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., cum in plantis vel brutis aliquid tale dominus operatur, non quaeras qualiter iuste siccata est ficus, si tempus non erat, hoc enim quaerere est ultimae dementiae, quia scilicet in talibus non invenitur culpa et poena, sed miraculum inspice, et admirare miraculi factorem. Nec facit creator iniuriam possidenti, si creatura sua suo arbitrio utatur ad aliorum salutem, sed magis, ut Hilarius dicit, super Matth., in hoc bonitatis divinae argumentum reperimus. Nam ubi afferre voluit procuratae per se salutis exemplum, virtutis suae potestatem in humanis corporibus exercuit, ubi vero in contumaces formam severitatis constituebat, futuri speciem damno arboris indicavit. Et praecipue, ut Chrysostomus dicit, in ficulnea, quae est humidissima, ut miraculum maius appareat. Reply to Objection 2. As Chrysostom says on Matthew 21:19: "When our Lord does any such like thing" on plants or brute animals, "ask not how it was just to wither up the fig-tree, since it was not the fruit season; to ask such a question is foolish in the extreme," because such things cannot commit a fault or be punished: "but look at the miracle, and wonder at the worker." Nor does the Creator "inflict" any hurt on the owner, if He choose to make use of His own creature for the salvation of others; rather, as Hilary says on Matthew 21:19, "we should see in this a proof of God's goodness, for when He wished to afford an example of salvation as being procured by Him, He exercised His mighty power on the human body: but when He wished to picture to them His severity towards those who wilfully disobey Him, He foreshadows their doom by His sentence on the tree." This is the more noteworthy in a fig-tree which, as Chrysostom observes (on Matthew 21:19), "being full of moisture, makes the miracle all the more remarkable."
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus etiam in aqua et in aere fecit miracula quae sibi conveniebant, quando scilicet, ut legitur Matth. VIII, imperavit ventis et mari, et facta est tranquillitas magna. Non autem conveniebat ei qui omnia in statum pacis et tranquillitatis revocare venerat, ut vel turbationem aeris, vel divisionem aquarum faceret. Unde apostolus dicit, Heb. XII, non accessistis ad tractabilem et accessibilem ignem, et turbinem et caliginem et procellam. Circa passionem tamen, divisum est velum, ad ostendendum reserationem mysteriorum legis; aperta sunt monumenta, ad ostendendum quod per eius mortem mortuis vita daretur; terra mota est et petrae scissae, ad ostendendum quod lapidea hominum corda per eius passionem emollirentur, et quod totus mundus virtute passionis eius erat in melius commutandus. Reply to Objection 3. Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the air and water: when, to wit, as related Matthew 8:26, "He commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm." But it was not befitting that He who came to restore all things to a state of peace and calm should cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a division of waters. Hence the Apostle says (Hebrews 12:18): "You are not come to a fire that may be touched and approached [Vulgate: 'a mountain that might be touched, and a burning fire', and a whirlwind, and darkness, and storm." At the time of His Passion, however, the "veil was rent," to signify the unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; "the graves were opened," to signify that His death gave life to the dead; "the earth quaked and the rocks were rent," to signify that man's stony heart would be softened, and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of His Passion.
IIIª q. 44 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod multiplicatio panum non est facta per modum creationis, sed per additionem extraneae materiae in panes conversae. Unde Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., unde multiplicat de paucis granis segetes, inde in manibus suis multiplicavit quinque panes. Manifestum est autem quod per conversionem grana multiplicantur in segetes. Reply to Objection 4. The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into loaves; hence Augustine says on John 6:1-14: "Whence He multiplieth a few grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves": and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are multiplied into harvests.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools