 Question 30 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 30 of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin in four articles. We have now to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning which there are four points of inquiry. First, whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of that which was to be begotten of her. Second, by whom should this announcement be made? Third, in what manner should this announcement be made? Fourth, of the order observed in the Annunciation. First article, whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. Objection one, it would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. Further seems to have been no need of the Annunciation, except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been unnecessary, because the virginal conception was foretold by a prophecy of predestination, which is fulfilled without our consent, as a gloss says on Matthew 1.22. There was no need, therefore, for this Annunciation. Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation, for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation, because, as the Apostle says in Romans 3.22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ, but one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her. Objection three further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her body, so every pious soul conceives him spiritually. Thus the Apostle says in Galatians 4.19, My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you. Not to those who conceive him spiritually, no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore, neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive the Son of God in her womb. On the contrary, it is related in Luke 1.31, that the angel said to her, Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son. I answer that it was reasonable that it should be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the Virgin, namely that she should be informed in mind concerning him before conceiving him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says on the Holiness of Virginity 3, Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. And further on he adds, Her nearness as a mother would have been of no profit to Mary had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh. Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery being instructed therein by God. Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience, which she proved herself right ready to do, saying, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of God and human nature, wherefore in the Annunciation the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature. Reply to Objection 1. The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will, not without its consent. Reply to Objection 2. The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future incarnation. But being humble, she did not think such high things of herself. Consequently, she required instruction in this matter. Reply to Objection 3. The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as faith is by hearing, as is stated in Romans 10, 17. Yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace, but he does know that the faith which he has received is true. Second article. Whether the Annunciation should have been made by an angel to the Blessed Virgin? Objection 1. You would seem that the Annunciation should not have been made by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest angels are made immediately by God, as Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 7. But the Mother of God is exalted above all the angels. Therefore it seems that the mystery of the incarnation should have been announced to her by God immediately, and not by an angel. Objection 2 further. If in this matter it behooved the common order to be observed, by which the divine things are announced to men by angels. In like manner divine things are announced to a woman by a man. Wherefore the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 14 verses 34 and 35, Let women keep silence in the churches if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Therefore it seems that the mystery of the incarnation should have been announced to the Blessed Virgin by some man, especially seeing that Joseph her husband was instructed there upon by an angel as is related in Matthew 1 verses 20 and 21. Objection 3 further. None can be comingly announced what he knows not. But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the incarnation. Wherefore Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 7, that the question, Who is this that cometh from Edom, Isaiah 63.1, is to be understood as made by them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of the incarnation could not be made be comingly by an angel. Objection 4. Here great things should be announced by messengers of greater dignity. But the mystery of the incarnation is the greatest of all things announced by angels to men. It seems therefore if it be hooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this should have been done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the highest order, but of the order of archangels, which is the last but one. For the church sings, We know that the archangel Gabriel brought thee a message from God. Therefore this announcement was not becomingly made by the archangel Gabriel. On the contrary, it is written in Luke 1.26, The angel Gabriel was sent by God, etc. I answer that it was fitting for the mystery of the incarnation to be announced to the mother of God by an angel for three reasons. First, that in this also might be maintained the order established by God, by which divine things are brought to men by means of the angels. Wherefore Dionysius says in On the Celestial Hierarchy 4 that, The angels were the first to be taught the divine mystery of the loving-kindness of Jesus. Afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through them. Thus then, the most God-like Gabriel made known to Zachary that a prophet's son would be born to him, and to Mary, how the divine mystery of the ineffable conception of God would be realized in her. Secondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature, which was to be affected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in Homily on the Annunciation, It was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel should be sent by God to the virgin, who was to be hallowed by the divine birth, since the first cause of man's ruin was through the serpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of pride. Thirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the mother of God. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption, It is well that an angel be sent to the virgin, because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature. Surely to live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly, but a heavenly life. Reply to Objection 1, The mother of God was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by God. But as regards the present state of life, she was beneath the angels, for even Christ himself by reason of his passable life was made a little lower than the angels according to Hebrews 2.9. But because Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor, he did not need to be instructed by angels as regards knowledge of divine things. The mother of God, however, was not yet in the state of comprehension, and therefore she had to be instructed by angels concerning the divine conception. Reply to Objection 2, As Augustine says in a sermon on the Assumption, A true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from certain general rules, for neither did she multiply her conceptions, nor was she under man's, that is her husband's, power who in her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it was fitting that she should be informed of the mystery of the Incarnation by means not of a man but of an angel. For this reason it was made known to her before Joseph, since the message was brought to her before she conceived, but to Joseph after she had conceived. Reply to Objection 3, As may be gathered from the passage quoted from Dionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the Incarnation, and yet they put this question being desirous that Christ should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this mystery which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus Maximus of Constantinople says that there can be no question that the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place, but it was not given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's conception, nor how it was that he remained whole in the Father, whole throughout the universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of the Virgin. Reply to Objection 4, Some say that Gabriel was of the highest order, because Gregory says, inhomily on the Hundred Cheap, it was right that one of the highest angels should come, since his message was most sublime. But this does not imply that he was of the highest order of all, but in regard to the angels, since he was an archangel. Thus the church calls him an archangel, and Gregory himself, in the same homily, says that those are called archangels who announce sublime things. It is therefore sufficiently credible that he was the highest of the archangels, and as Gregory says, this name agrees with his office, for Gabriel means power of God. This message therefore was fittingly brought by the power of God, because the Lord of Hosts and Mighty in Battle was coming to overcome the powers of the air. 3rd Article Whether the Angel of Annunciation should have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. Objection 1, he would seem that the Angel of the Annunciation should not have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. 4. Intellectual vision is more excellent than bodily vision, as Augustine says in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 12, and especially more becoming to an Angel, since by intellectual vision an Angel is seen in his substance, whereas in a bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes. Now since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the divine conception, so seemingly he should have appeared in the most excellent kind of vision. Therefore, it seems that the Angel of the Annunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision. Objection 2 further. Imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily vision, just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But according to Matthew 1, verse 20, the Angel appeared to Joseph in his sleep, which was clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore, it seems that he should have appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision. Objection 3 further. The bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies the beholder, thus we sing of the Virgin herself, and the Virgin seeing the light was filled with fear. But it was better that her mind should be preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore, it was not fitting that this announcement should be made in a bodily vision. On the contrary, Augustine in a sermon on the Annunciation pictures the Blessed Virgin as speaking thus. To me came the archangel Gabriel with glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step. But these cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore, the Angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin. I answer that the Angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin, and this indeed was fitting, first in regard to that which was announced, for the Angel came to announce the incarnation of the invisible God. Therefore it was becoming that, in order to make this known, an invisible creature should assume a form in which to appear visibly, for as much as all the apparitions of the Old Testament are ordered to that apparition in which the Son of God appeared in the flesh. Secondly, it was fitting as regards the dignity of the Mother of God, who was to receive the Son of God not only in her mind, but in her bodily womb. Therefore it behooved not only her mind, but also her bodily senses to be refreshed by the angelic vision. Thirdly, it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was announced, for we apprehend with greater certainty that which is before our eyes, than what is in our imagination. Thus Chrysostom says in a homily on the Gospel of Matthew that the angel came to the Virgin, not in her sleep, but visibly, for since she was receiving from the angel a message exceedingly great, before such an event she needed a vision of great solemnity. Reply to Objection 1. Intellectual vision excels merely imaginary and merely bodily vision, but Augustine himself says that prophecy is more excellent if accompanied by intellectual and imaginary vision, than if accompanied by only one of them. Now the Blessed Virgin perceived not only the bodily vision, but also the intellectual illumination. Wherefore this was a more excellent vision. Yet it would have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel himself in his substance by her intellectual vision. But it was incompatible with her state of wayfarer that she should see an angel in his essence. Reply to Objection 2. The imagination is indeed a higher power than the exterior sense. But because the senses are the principle of human knowledge, the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of knowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, to whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a vision as the Blessed Virgin. Reply to Objection 3. As Ambrose says on Luke 1.11, We are disturbed and lose our presence of mind when we are confronted by the presence of a superior power. And this happens not only in bodily, but also in imaginary vision. Wherefore it is written in Genesis 15.12 that, When the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and dark some horror seized upon him. But by being thus disturbed, man is not harmed to such an extent that therefore he ought to forgo the vision of an angel. First, because from the very fact that man is raised above himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his inferior powers are weakened. And from this results the aforesaid disturbance. Thus also when the natural heat is drawn within a body, the exterior parts tremble. Secondly, because as Origen says in a homily on the Gospel of Luke, The angel who appeared knowing hers was a human nature, first sought to remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man is subject. Wherefore, both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they were disturbed, he said, Fear not. For this reason, as we read in the Life of Anthony, it is difficult to discern good from evil spirits. For if joy succeed fear, we should know that the help is from the Lord, because security of soul is a sign of present majesty. But if the fear with which we are stricken persevere, it is an enemy that we see. Moreover, it was becoming to virginal modesty that the virgin should be troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Luke 1.20, It is the part of a virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink from men's addresses. But others say that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic visions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, but with wonder at hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so highly of herself. Wherefore, the evangelist does not say that she was troubled at seeing the angel, but at his saying. Fourth article. Whether the Annunciation took place in becoming order? Objection one. It would seem that the Annunciation did not take place in becoming order. For the dignity of the mother of God results from the child she conceived. But the cause should be made known before the effect. Therefore, the angel should have announced to the virgin the conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity and greeting her. Objection two further. Proof should be admitted in things which admit of no doubt, and premised where doubt is possible. But the angel seems to first have announced what the virgin might doubt, and which, because of her doubt, would make her ask, how shall this be done, and afterwards to have given the proof alleging both the instance of Elizabeth and the omnipotence of God. Therefore, the Annunciation was made by the angel in unbecoming order. Objection three further. The greater cannot be adequately proved by the less. But it was greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman to be with child. Therefore, the angel's proof was insufficient to demonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old woman. On the contrary, it is written in Romans 13.1, Those that are of God are well ordered. Now the angel was sent by God to announce unto the virgin as is related in Luke 1.26. Therefore, the Annunciation was made by the angel in the most perfect order. I answer that the Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming manner, for the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the virgin. First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwanted salutation. Wherefore, Origen says, commenting on Luke, that if she had known that similar words had been addressed to anyone else, she who had no knowledge of the law would never have been astonished at the seeming strangeness of the salutation, in which salutation he began by asserting her worthiness of the conception by saying, full of grace. Then he announced the conception in the words, The Lord is with thee. And then foretold the honor which would result from her therefrom by saying, Blessed art thou among women. Secondly, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the Incarnation which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by foretelling the conception and birth, saying, Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, etc. And by declaring the dignity of the child conceived, saying, He shall be great. And further, by making known the mode of conception when he said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee. Thirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent, deceded by the instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from divine omnipotence. Reply to Objection 1, To a humble mind, nothing is more astonishing than to hear its own excellence. Now wonder is most effective in drawing the mind's attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the virgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began by praising her. Reply to Objection 2. Ambrose says explicitly on Luke 1.34 that the Blessed Virgin did not doubt the angel's words, for he says, Mary's answer is more temperate than the words of the priest. She says, How shall this be? He replies, Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he believes, since he denies that he knows this. She does not doubt fulfillment when she asks, How it shall be done? Augustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted, for he says in his questions on the Old and New Testament, Question 51, To Mary, in doubt about the conception, the angel declares the possibility thereof. But such a doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. And so the angel adduces a proof not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove her astonishment. Reply to Objection 3. As Ambrose says in the Hexameron 5, For this reason had many barren women born children, that the virginal birth might be credible. The conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced not as a sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example. Consequently, in support of this instance, the convincing argument is added taken from the divine omnipotence. TREATIES ON THE SAVIOR This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, TREATIES ON THE SAVIOR by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 31 of the matter from which the Savior's body was conceived in 8 articles. Part 1, Articles 1-4 We have now to consider the Savior's conception. First as to the matter from which his body was conceived. Secondly as to the author of his conception. Thirdly as to the manner and order of his conception. Concerning the first, there are eight points of inquiry. First, whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam. Second, whether it was derived from David. Third, of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels. Fourth, whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman. Fifth, whether his body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin. Sixth, whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something signet. Seventh, whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin. Eighth, whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham. First article, whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam. Objection one, it would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from Adam. For the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 15 47, The first man was of the earth, earthly. The second man from heaven, heavenly. Now the first man is Adam, and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him. Objection two further. The conception of Christ should have been most miraculous, but it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the slime of the earth than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam. Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed for the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter. Objection three further. By one man sin entered into the world. That is, by Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally as is clear from Romans 5 12. But if Christ's body was derived from Adam, he would have been in Adam originally when he sinned. Therefore he would have contracted original sin, which is unbecoming in his purity. Therefore the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam. On the contrary, the apostle says in Hebrews 2 16, Nowhere doth he, that is the Son of God, take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he takeeth hold. But the seed of Abraham was derived from Adam. Therefore Christ's body was formed of matter derived from Adam. I answer that Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption, but human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that he should assume flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the assumption. Reply to Objection one. The second man, that is Christ, is said to be of heaven, not indeed as to the matter from which his body was formed, but either as to the virtue whereby it was formed, or even as to his very Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly as Adam's body was. Reply to Objection two. As stated above in question 29 article one, second reply, The mystery of Christ's incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen faith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of the incarnation, we do not seek that which is most miraculous as in those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith. But what is most becoming to divine wisdom, and most expedient for the salvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith. It may also be said that in the mystery of the incarnation, the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth, in as much as a virgin conceived and gave birth to God. Reply to Objection three. As stated above in question 15 article one, second reply, Christ's body was in Adam in respect of a bodily substance, that is to say that the corporeal matter of Christ's body was derived from Adam. But it was not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived from the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as others were descended from Adam by man's seed. Second article, whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David. Objection one, it would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew and tracing the genealogy of Christ brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ's father, as shown above in question 28 article one, first and second reply. Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David. Objection two further. Aaron was of the tribe of Levi as related in Exodus 6. Now Mary, the mother of Christ, is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Luke one verse five and verse thirty-six. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Judah, as is shown in Matthew chapter one, it seems that Christ was not descended from David. Objection three further. It is written of Geconius in Jeremiah 22 30. Write this man barren, for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David. Whereas of Christ it is written in Isaiah nine seven, he shall sit upon the throne of David. Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Geconius, nor consequently of the family of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Geconius. On the contrary, it is written in Romans one three, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. I answer that Christ is said to have been the Son, especially of two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Matthew one one. There are many reasons for this. First, to these especially, was the promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham in Genesis 22 18, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, which words the apostle expounds of Christ in Galatians 3 16. To Abraham were the promises made unto his seed, he saith not, and to his seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And to David it was said in Psalm 131 verse 11, Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne. Wherefore the Jewish people receiving him with kingly honour said in Matthew 21 9, Hosanna to the Son of David. A second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet and priest. Now Abraham was a priest, which is clear from the Lord saying unto him in Genesis 15 9, Take thee a cow of three years old, etc. He was also a prophet according to Genesis 20 verse 7. He is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee. Lastly, David was both king and prophet. A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham. While in David, God's election was most clearly made manifest according to 1 Kings 13 14. The Lord hath sought him, a man according to his own heart. And consequently Christ is called in a most special way the Son of both, in order to show that he came for the salvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles. Reply to Objection 1 Faustus the Manachian argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because he was not conceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew's genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus, in against Faustus 22. Since the same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary's husband, and that Christ's mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, what must we believe but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of David, and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their hearts, although not mingled in the flesh, and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her, by reason of the dignity of the husband. So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David, because we believe the scriptures which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was his mother, not bisexual intercourse, but retaining her virginity, for as Jerome says on Matthew 1.18, Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, wherefore he was bound by law to marry her, as she was his kin's woman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock. Reply to Objection 2. Gregory of Nanceansum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God's will that the royal family was united to the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who was the first priest according to the law, married a wife of the tribe of Judah, Elizabeth, daughter of Animadab. It is therefore possible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. Or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron. Again, it may be said with Augustine, that if Joachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron, as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings, that we must believe that Joachim's mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David. Reply to Objection 3. As Ambrose says on Luke 3.25, This prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias, and so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for he did not reign with worldly honor, since he declared, My kingdom is not of this world. 3. Whether Christ's genealogy is suitably traced by the evangelists Objection 1. He would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably traced by the evangelists, for it is written in Isaiah 53.8. Who shall declare his generation? Therefore, Christ's genealogy should not have been set down. Objection 2. One man cannot possibly have two fathers, but Matthew says that Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, whereas Luke says that Joseph was the son of Eli. Therefore, they contradict one another. Objection 3. There seem to be divergencies between them on several points, for Matthew, at the commencement of his book, beginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates 42 generations, whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy after his baptism, and beginning from Christ, traces the series of generations back to God, counting in all 77 generations, the first and last included. It seems, therefore, that their accounts of Christ's genealogy do not agree. Objection 4. Further, we read in 4 Kings 8, 24, that Joram begot Ocosias, who was succeeded by his son Joas, who was succeeded by his son Amazius, after whom reigned his son Azarias, called Ozias, who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot Ozias, therefore it seems that his account of Christ's genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three Kings in the middle thereof. Objection 5. Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers also. Now in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three mothers, namely Tamar, Ruth, and the wife of Uraias. He also mentions the brothers of Judas and Jeconius, and also Fares and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore, the evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner. On the contrary, the authority of Scripture suffices. I answer that, as is written in 2 Timothy 3.16, all holy Scripture is inspired of God, etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order, according to Romans 13.1. Those that are of God are ordained. Therefore, Christ's genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order. Reply to Objection 1. As Jerome says on Matthew 1, Isaiah speaks of the generation of Christ's Godhead, whereas Matthew relates the generation of Christ in his humanity, not indeed by explaining the manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable, but by enumerating Christ's forefathers from whom he was descended according to the flesh. Reply to Objection 2. Various answers have been made by certain writers to the subjection, which was raised by Julian the Apostate. For some, as Gregory of Nanceansum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they each had two. But this will not stand, because Matthew mentions one of David's sons, namely Solomon, whereas Luke mentions another, namely Nathan, who according to the history were clearly brothers, according to 2 Kings 514. Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ, while Luke gave the suppositus genealogy. Hence he began, being as it was supposed, the son of Joseph. For among the Jews there were some who believed that on account of the crimes of the kings of Judah, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private individuals. Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh, whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that is, righteous men who are called Christ's forefathers by likeness of virtue. But an answer is given in the questions on the Old and New Testament to the effect that we are not to understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli, but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli, as though the evangelists were to say that Christ, from the fact that he was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli, and of all those who are descended from David, as the apostle says in Romans 9.5, of whom is Christ according to the flesh. Augustine again gives three solutions, in his questions on the Gospel 2, saying, There are three motives by one or another of which the evangelist was guided, for either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he was begotten, whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers, or one was Joseph's natural father, the other is father by adoption, or according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of his married wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former, which is a kind of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says in the Consensus of the Evangelists 2. The last motive is the truest. Jerome also gives it, commenting on Matthew 1.16, and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History 1.7, says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers say that Mathan and Melchie at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Eztha. For Mathan, who traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first and died leaving one son, whose name was Jacob, and after his death, as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchie, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe, though not of the same family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son called Heli, so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says, Jacob begot Joseph, whereas Luke, who is giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting. And although Damascene, in On the True Faith Four, says that the Blessed Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph, in as far as Heli was accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchie. Yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended from Solomon through these patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who has said to have set down Christ's genealogy according to the flesh, and although more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jeconeus? Reply to Objection 3. According to Augustine, in the Consensus of the Evangelists 2, Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ, Luke, the priestly personality, so that in Matthew's genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as by his carnal origin, he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh. But in Luke's genealogy, the washing away of our sins is signified, which is affected by Christ's sacrifice. For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards? For the same reason too, Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned, whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake the prophet God expiated his sin. And hence it is also noted that because Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our moral nature, he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and the birth of Christ himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ's genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's baptism, and not in the descending but in the ascending order, as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins to which John bore witness saying, Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. And in the ascending order he passes Abraham and continues up to God to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating. With reason true, he follows the origin of adoption, because by adoption we become children of God, whereas by carnal generation the Son of God became the Son of Man. Moreover, he shows sufficiently that he does not say that Joseph was the Son of Heli as though begotten by him, but because he was adopted by him since he says that Adam was the Son of God in as much as he was created by God. Again, the number 40 pertains to the time of our present life, because of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal life under the rule of Christ. And 40 is the product of four multiplied by ten, while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue, and the number four to the present life, or again to the four gospels, according to which Christ reigns in us. And thus, Matthew putting forward the royal personality of Christ enumerates 40 persons not counting him, as Augustine states in the Consensus of the Evangelists, too. But this is to be taken on the supposition that it be the same Jacconius at the end of the second, and at the commencement of the third series of 14, as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to signify that under Jacconius there was a certain defection to strange nations during the Babylonian captivity, which also foreshadowed the fact that Christ would pass from the Jews to the Gentiles. On the other hand, Jerome, commenting on Matthew 1, verses 12 through 15, says that there were two Joachim's, that is, Jacconius' father and son, both of whom are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, so as to make clear the distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of 14, which amounts in all to 42 persons. Which number may also be applied to the Holy Church? For it is the product of six, which signifies the labor of the present life, and seven, which signifies the rest of the life to come. For six times seven are 42. The number 14, which is the sum of ten and four, can also be given the same signification as that given to the number 40, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication. But the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the generality of sins. For the number 10 is shown in the ten precepts of the law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the law, and 11 is the number beyond 10. And seven signifies universality, because universal time is involved in seven days. Now, seven times eleven are 77, so that this number signifies the generality of sins, which are taken away by Christ. Reply to Objection 4, as Jerome says on Matthew 1, verses 8 and 11. Because Jerome allied himself with the family of the most wicked Jezebel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the nativity. Hence, as Chrysostom says, just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu, who wrought vengeance on the house of Acub and Jezebel, so also great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter of Acub and Jezebel, so that until the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of the kings, according to Exodus 20, verse 5, I shall visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, but their impiety was not continuous. For, as it is stated in the book, in the questions on the Old and New Testament, question 85, Solomon, through his father's merits, is included in the series of kings, and Roboam, through the merits of Asa, who was his son, to his Roboam's son, Abiam. But the impiety of those three was continuous. Reply to Objection 5, as Joram says on Matthew 1.3, None of the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, that only those whom Scripture censures, so that he who came for the sake of sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin. Thus Tamer is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law, Rahab, who was a whore, Ruth, who was a foreigner, and Bethsebe, the wife of Urius, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by name, but is designated through her husband, both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder. And further, in order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention Judah's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people, whereas Ishmael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, or Jacob's brother, were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of birth, for many of Judah's brethren were born of handmaidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Farez and Zahra are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3.23, they are the type of the twofold life of man, one according to the law, signified by Zahra, the other by faith, of which Farez is the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various times, which was not the case with other kings. Or again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune. Fourth article. Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman? Objection one. It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that he should not have taken flesh from a woman, but rather from man, just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man. Objection two further. Whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her womb. But it ill becomes God who fills heaven and earth, as is written in Jeremiah 23-24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb. Therefore it seems that he should not have been conceived of a woman. Objection three further. Those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness, as is written in Job 25-4. Can man be justified compared with God, or he that is born of a woman appear clean? But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ, for he is the wisdom of God, of whom it is written in Wisdom 7-25 that no defiled thing cometh into her. Therefore it does not seem right that he should have taken flesh from a woman. On the contrary, it is written in Galatians 4-4, God sent his son made of a woman. I answer that, although the Son of God could have taken flesh from whatever matter he willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that he should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says in his 83 Questions, Question 11, It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man being of the nobler sex to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman. Secondly, because thus the truth of the incarnation is made evident, wherefore Ambrose says in On the Incarnation 6, Thou shalt find in Christ many things both natural and supernatural, in accordance with nature he was within the womb, notably of a woman's body. But it was above nature that a virgin should conceive and give birth, that Thou mightest believe that he was God, who was renewing nature, and that he was a man who, according to nature, was being born of a man. And Augustine says in a letter, If Almighty God had created a man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly produced him to sight, would he not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that he had become a true man? And whilst he is doing all things wondrously, he would have taken away that which he accomplished in mercy. But now, he, the mediator between God and man, has so shown himself that uniting both natures in the unity of one person, he has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things, and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary. Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the slime of the earth, without the concurrence of man or woman. Eve was made of man, but not of woman. And other men are made from both man and woman, so that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that he should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man. Reply to Objection 1. The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that he should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says in On Christian Struggle 11, Men despise not yourselves, the Son of God became a man. Despise not yourselves, women, the Son of God was born of a woman. Reply to Objection 2. Augustine thus replies to Faustus, who urged this objection. By no means, says he, does the Catholic faith which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of a virgin according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of God was so shut up in his mother's womb as to cease to be elsewhere, as though he no longer continued to govern heaven and earth, as though he had withdrawn himself from the Father. But you, Manicheans, being of a mind that admits of not but material things, are utterly unable to grasp these things. For again, as he says in his other letter, It belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible bodies, none of which can be entire everywhere, because they must of necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places. For otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body, how much more the nature of God the Creator of soul and body. He is able to be entire everywhere and to be contained in no place. He is able to come without moving from the place where he was, and to go without leaving this spot whence he came. Reply to Objection 3 There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God, wherefore it is written in Acts 1015, That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common, that is unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness therein resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ as shown above in Question 28, Article 1. But if there were any uncleanness therein, the word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for he is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says in Against the Five Heresies, Number 5, God saith the Creator of man, What is it that troubles thee in my birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet not be defiled, much more can the splendour of eternal light cleanse whatever it shines upon, but itself cannot be sullied. End of Question 31, Part 1 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 31, Part 2 Of Summa Theologica Terzia Parz, Treaties on the Saviour This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terzia Parz, Treaties on the Saviour, by St. Thomas Aquinas, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 31, Of the matter from which the Saviour's body was conceived, in Eight Articles Part 2, Articles 5-8 Fifth Article Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived in the Virgin's purest blood Objection 1 It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived of the Virgin's purest blood, for it is said in the Collect for the Feast of the Annunciation that God willed that his word should take flesh from a virgin. But flesh differs from blood, therefore Christ's body was not taken from the Virgin's blood. Objection 2 Further As the woman was miraculously formed from the man, so Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But the woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but rather from his flesh and bones, according to Genesis 2.23. This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. It seems, therefore, that neither should Christ's body have been formed from the Virgin's blood, but from her flesh and bones. Objection 3 Further Christ's body was of the same species as other man's bodies. But other man's bodies are not formed from the purest blood, but from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore, it seems that neither was Christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the Virgin. On the contrary, Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 that The Son of God from the Virgin's purest blood formed himself flesh, animated with a rational soul. I answer that as stated above in Article 4. In Christ's conception, his being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but that he was born of a Virgin was above the laws of nature. Now such is the law of nature, that in the generation of an animal, the female supplies the matter, while the male is the active principle of generation as the philosopher proves in the generation of animals one. But a woman who conceives of a man is not a virgin, and consequently it belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the active principle of generation was the supernatural power of God, but it belongs to the natural mode of his generation, that the matter from which his body was conceived is similar to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring. Now this matter, according to the philosopher, is the woman's blood, not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect stage of secretion by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt for conception. And therefore of such matter was Christ's body conceived. Reply to Objection 1. Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature as other women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same nature as theirs. Now flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom, and consequently they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or diminished. But as Christ came to heal what was corrupt, it was not fitting that he should bring corruption or diminution to the integrity of his mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's body should be formed, not from the flesh or bones of the Virgin, but from her blood, which as yet is not actually a part, but is potentially the whole, as stated in On the Generation of Animals 1. Hence he is said to have taken flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter from which his body was formed was actual flesh, but blood, which is flesh potentially. Reply to Objection 2. As stated in the first part, Question 92, Article 3, Second Reply, Adam, through being established as a kind of principle of human nature, had in his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone, which belonged to him, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to his state as a principle of human nature. And from this was the woman formed without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there was nothing of this sort, from which Christ's body could be formed without detriment to his mother's body. Reply to Objection 3. Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is something imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the imperfection of the female power, it has not been possible to bring to complete seminal perfection. Consequently, the semen is not the necessary matter of conception, as the philosopher states, wherefore there was none such in Christ's conception. Although more since, though it is imperfect in the seminal order, a certain concupiscence accompanies its omission, as also that of the male semen, whereas in that virginal conception there could be no concupiscence. Wherefore Damascene says, in On the True Faith 3, the Christ's body was not conceived seminally, but the menstrual blood, the flow of which is subject to monthly periods, has a certain natural impurity of corruption, like other superfluities, which nature does not heed and therefore expels. Of such menstrual blood infected with corruption and repudiated by nature, the conception is not formed, but from a certain secretion of the pure blood, which by a process of elimination is prepared for conception, being as it were, more pure and more perfect than the rest of the body. Nevertheless, it is tainted with the impurity of lust in the conception of other men, in as much as bisexual intercourse, this blood is drawn to a place apt for conception. This, however, did not take place in Christ's conception, because this blood was brought together in the virgin's womb and fashioned into a child by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore is Christ's body said to be formed of the most chaste and purest blood of the virgin. Sixth article. Whether Christ's body was in Adam and the other patriarchs as to something signet. Objection one. It would seem that Christ's body was in Adam and the patriarchs as to something signet. For Augustine says in On the literal meaning of Genesis 10, that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham by way of a bodily substance. But bodily substance is something signet. Therefore Christ's flesh was in Adam, Abraham, and the other patriarchs according to something signet. Objection two further. It is said in Romans 1.3 that Christ was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. But the seed of David was something signet in him. Therefore Christ was in David according to something signet, and for the same reason in the other patriarchs. Objection three further. The human race is Christ's kindred in as much as he took flesh therefrom. But if that flesh were not something signet in Adam, the human race which is descended from Adam would seem to have no kindred with Christ, but rather with those other things from which the matter of his flesh was taken. Therefore it seems that Christ's flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs according to something signet. On the contrary, Augustine says, in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 10, that in whatever way Christ was in Adam and Abraham, other men were there also, but not conversely. But other men were not in Adam and Abraham by way of some signet matter, but only according to origin, as stated in the first part, in Question 119 Article 1 and in Article 2, Fourth Reply. Therefore, neither was Christ in Adam and Abraham according to something signet, and for the same reason, neither was he in the other patriarchs. I answer that, as stated above in Article 5, First Reply. The matter of Christ's body was not the flesh and bones of the Blessed Virgin, nor anything that was actually a part of her body, but her blood which was her flesh potentially. Now, whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, as received from her parents, was actually a part of her body. Consequently, that which the Blessed Virgin received from her parents was not the matter of Christ's body. Therefore, we must say that Christ's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs according to something signet, in the sense that some part of Adam's, or of anyone else's body, could be singled out and designated as the very matter from which Christ's body was to be formed. But it was there according to origin, just as was the flesh of other men. For Christ's body is related to Adam and the other patriarchs through the medium of his mother's body. Consequently, Christ's body was in the patriarchs, in no other way than was his mother's body, which was not in the patriarchs according to signet matter. Neither were the bodies of other men as stated in the first part. Question 119, Article 1, as well as in Article 2, Fourth Reply. Reply to Objection 1. The expression Christ was in Adam according to bodily substance does not mean that Christ's body was a bodily substance in Adam, but that the bodily substance of Christ's body, that is, the matter which he took from the virgin, was in Adam as in its active principle, but not as in its material principle. In other words, by the generative power of Adam and his descendants down to the blessed virgin, this matter was prepared for Christ's conception. But this matter was not fashioned into Christ's body by the seminal power derived from Adam. Therefore Christ is said to have been in Adam by way of origin, according to bodily substance, but not according to seminal virtue. Reply to Objection 2. Although Christ's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs according to seminal virtue, yet the blessed virgin's body was thus in them through her being conceived from the seed of a man. For this reason, through the medium of the blessed virgin, Christ is said to be the seed of David according to the flesh by way of origin. Reply to Objection 3. Christ and the human race are kindred through the likeness of species. Now specific likeness results not from remote but from proximate matter, and from the active principle which begets its like in species. Thus then, the kinship of Christ and the human race is sufficiently preserved by his body being formed from the virgin's blood, derived in its origin from Adam and the other patriarchs. Nor is this kindred affected by the matter whence this blood is taken, as neither is it in the generation of other men, as stated in the first part. Question 119, Article 2, Third Reply. Seventh Article Whether Christ's flesh in the patriarchs was infected by sin. Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's flesh was not infected by sin in the patriarchs. For it is written in Wisdom 725 that no defiled thing cometh into divine wisdom. But Christ is the Wisdom of God according to 1 Corinthians 124. Therefore, Christ's flesh was never defiled by sin. Objection 2 further. Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 that Christ assumed the first fruits of our nature. But in the primitive state human flesh was not infected by sin. Therefore, Christ's flesh was not infected either in Adam or in the other patriarchs. Objection 3 further. Augustine says in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 10 that human nature ever had, together with the wound, the balm with which to heal it. But that which is infected cannot heal a wound. Rather does it need to be healed itself? Therefore, in human nature there was ever something preserved from infection, from which afterwards Christ's body was formed. On the contrary, Christ's body is not related to Adam and the other patriarchs, save through the medium of the Blessed Virgin's body, of whom he took flesh. But the body of the Blessed Virgin was wholly conceived in original sin as stated above in Question 14 Article 3, 1st reply. And thus as far as it was in the patriarchs, it was subject to sin. Therefore the flesh of Christ, as far as it was in the patriarchs, was subject to sin. I answer that when we say that Christ or His flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs, we compare Him or His flesh to Adam and the other patriarchs. Now it is manifest that the condition of the patriarchs differed from that of Christ. For the patriarchs were subject to sin, whereas Christ was absolutely free from sin. Consequently, a twofold error may occur on this point. First, by attributing to Christ or to His flesh, that condition which was in the patriarchs, by saying for instance that Christ sinned in Adam, since after some fashion He was in Him. But this is false, because Christ was not in Adam in such a way that Adam's sin belonged to Christ, for as much as He has not descended from Him according to the law of concupiscence or according to seminal virtue, as stated above in Article 1, 3rd reply, as well as in Article 6, 1st reply, and in Question 15, Article 1, 2nd reply. Secondly, error may occur by attributing the condition of Christ or of His flesh to that which was actually in the patriarchs, by saying for instance that because Christ's flesh, as existing in Christ, was not subject to sin, therefore in Adam also and in the patriarchs, there was some part of His body that was not subject to sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body was formed, as some indeed held. For this is quite impossible. First, because Christ's flesh was not in Adam and in the other patriarchs, according to something signet, distinguishable from the rest of His flesh, as pure from impure, as already stated in Article 6. Secondly, because since human flesh is infected by sin, through being conceived and lost, just as the entire flesh of a man is conceived through lust, so also is it entirely defiled by sin. Consequently, we must say that the entire flesh of the patriarchs was subjected to sin, nor was there anything in them that was free from sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body could be formed. Reply to Objection 1. Christ did not assume the flesh of the human race subject to sin, but cleansed from all infection of sin. Thus it is that no defiled thing cometh into the wisdom of God. Reply to Objection 2. Christ is said to have assumed the first fruits of our nature as to the likeness of condition, for as much as He assumed flesh not infected by sin, like unto the flesh of man before sin. But this is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that primitive purity as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved in its freedom from sin until the formation of Christ's body. Reply to Objection 3. Before Christ there was actually in human nature a wound, that is, the infection of original sin. But the balm to heal the wound was not there actually, but only by a certain virtue of origin, for as much as from those patriarchs the flesh of Christ was to be propagated. 8. Weather Christ paid dithes in Abraham's loins. Objection 1. You would seem that Christ paid dithes in Abraham's loins. For the apostle says in Hebrews 7 verses 6 through 9 that Levi, the great grandson of Abraham, paid dithes in Abraham, because when the latter paid dithes to Melchizedek he was yet in his loins. In like manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the latter paid dithes. Therefore Christ himself also paid dithes in Abraham. Objection 2 further. Christ is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh which he received from his mother, but his mother had paid dithes in Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ. Objection 3 further. In Abraham tithe was levied on that which needed healing. As Augustine says in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 10. But all flesh subject to sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh was the subject of sin as stated above in Article 7. It seems that Christ's flesh paid tithes in Abraham. Objection 4 further. This does not seem to be at all derogatory to Christ's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop paid the tithes to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of a higher rank than an ordinary priest? Consequently although we may say that Christ paid tithes when Abraham paid them to Melchizedek, it does not follow that Christ was not greater than Melchizedek. On the contrary Augustine says in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 10 that Christ did not pay tithes there, that is in Abraham. For his flesh derived from him not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the antidote. I answer that. It behooves us to say that the sense of the passage quoted from the apostle is that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham. For the apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek is greater than the Levitical priesthood, from the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, while Levi, from whom the legal priesthood was derived, was yet in his loins. Now if Christ had also paid tithes in Abraham, his priesthood would not have been according to the order of Melchizedek, but of a lower order. Consequently we must say that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham's loins as Levi did, for since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself, and surrenders the tenth to another, in as much as the number ten is the sign of perfection as being in a sort, the terminus of all numbers which mount from one to ten. It follows that he who pays a tithe bears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another. Now to sin is due to the imperfection of the human race, which needs to be perfected by him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from sin belongs to Christ alone, for he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, according to John 1.29, whose figure was Melchizedek as the apostle proves in Hebrews 7. Therefore by giving tithes to Melchizedek, Abraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in sin, and all who were to be his descendants in contracting original sin, needed that healing which is through Christ. And Isaac, Jacob and Levi, and all the others were in Abraham in such a way so as to be descended from him, not only as the bodily substance, but also as the seminal virtue, by which original sin is transmitted. Consequently they all paid tithes in Abraham, that is foreshadowed as needing to be healed by Christ. And Christ alone was in Abraham, in such a manner as to descend from him, not by seminal virtue, but according to bodily substance. Therefore he was not in Abraham so as to need to be healed, but rather as the bomb with which the wound was to be healed. Therefore he did not pay tithes in Abraham's loins. Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest. Reply to Objection 2. Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore she paid tithes in him as descending from him according to seminal virtue. But this is not true of Christ's body as stated above. Reply to Objection 3. Christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin, according as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the condition in which it was in his forefathers, who paid tithes, but not by reason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not pay tithes. Reply to Objection 4. The Levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin, wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi. Reply to Objection 4. The Levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin, wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi. Consequently, since Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek as to one greater than he, it follows that the priesthood of Melchizedek, in as much as he was a figure of Christ, was greater than that of Levi. But the priesthood of Christ does not result from carnal origin, but from spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible that a father paid tithes to a priest as the less to the greater, and yet his son, if he be a bishop, is greater than the priest, though not through carnal origin, but through the spiritual grace which he has received from Christ.