 Question 23 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 23 of Adoption as Befitting to Christ in four articles. We must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ, and under this head there are four points of inquiry. First, whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons. Second, whether this is fitting to God the Father alone. Third, whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God. Fourth, whether Christ can be called the adopted son. First article, whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons. Objection one, you would seem that it is not fitting that God should adopt sons, for as jurists say, no one adopts anyone but a stranger as his son. But no one is a stranger in relation to God, who is the Creator of all. Therefore it seems unfitting that God should adopt. Objection two further. Adoption seems to have been introduced in defaults of natural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as said down in the first part, Question 27, Article 2. Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt. Objection three further. The purpose of adopting anyone is that he may succeed, as heir, the person who adopts him. But it does not seem possible for anyone to succeed God as heir, for he can never die. Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt. On the contrary it is written in Ephesians 1.5 that, He hath predestined us unto the adoption of children of God. But the predestination of God is not ineffectual. Therefore God does adopt some as his sons. I answer that, a man adopts someone as his son, for as much as out of goodness he admits him as heir to his estate. Now God is infinitely good, for which reason he admits his creatures to a participation of good things. Especially rational creatures, who for as much as they are made to the image of God, are capable of divine beatitude. And this consists in the enjoyment of God, by which also God himself is happy and rich in himself, that is, in the enjoyment of himself. Now a man's inheritance is that which makes him rich. Therefore, in as much as God of his goodness admits men to the inheritance of beatitude, he is said to adopt them. Moreover, divine exceeds human adoption, for as much as God, by bestowing his grace, makes man whom he adopts worthy to receive the heavenly inheritance. Whereas man does not make him worthy whom he adopts, but rather in adopting him he chooses one who is already worthy. Reply to Objection 1. Considered in his nature, man is not a stranger in respect to God, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him. But he is as to the gifts of grace and glory, in regard to which he is adopted. Reply to Objection 2. Man works in order to supply his wants, not so God who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of his perfection. Therefore, as by the work of creation, the divine goodness is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so that by the work of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men, according to Romans 8 verse 29, whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his son. Reply to Objection 3. Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the same time, not so material goods, wherefor none can receive a material inheritance except the successor of a deceased person, whereas all receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety without detriment to the ever-living Father. Yet it might be said that God ceases to be, according as he is in us by faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a gloss says on Romans 8.17, if sons heirs also. Second article. Whether it is fitting that the whole trinity should adopt. Objection 1. It would seem unfitting that the whole trinity should adopt. For adoption is said of God in likeness to human custom, but among men those only adopt who can be get. And in God this can be applied only to the Father. Therefore God the Father alone can adopt. Objection 2 further. By adoption man become the brethren of Christ according to Romans 8.29, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Now brethren are the sons of the same Father, wherefor our Lord says in John 20 verse 17, I ascend to my Father and to your Father. Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons. Objection 3 further. It is written in Galatians 4 verses 4 through 6. God sent his son that we might receive adoption of sons. And because you are sons of God, God hath sent the spirit of his son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father. Therefore it belongs to him to adopt, who has the Son and the Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the Father alone. Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt. On the contrary it belongs to him to adopt us as sons, whom we can call Father. Once it is written in Romans 8 verse 15, you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba, Father. But when we say to God, our Father, we address the whole trinity, as is the case with the other names which are said of God in respective creatures. As stated in the first part, Question 33 Article 3, Objection 1, confer also Question 45 Article 6. Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole trinity. I answer that there is this difference between an adopted son of God and the natural son of God, that the latter is begotten not made. Whereas the former is made, according to John chapter 1 verse 12, he gave them power to be made the sons of God. Yet sometimes the adopted son is said to be begotten by reason of the spiritual regeneration which is by grace, not by nature. Wherefore it is written in James 1 verse 18, Of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth. Now although in God, to beget belongs to the person of the Father, yet to produce any effect in creatures is common to the whole trinity by reason of the oneness of their nature. Since where there is one nature, there must needs be one power and one operation. Whence our Lord says in John 5 verse 19, What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. Therefore it belongs to the whole trinity to adopt men as sons of God. Reply to Objection 1. All human individuals are not of one individual nature, so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all, as is the case in God. Consequently in this respect no comparison is possible. Reply to Objection 2. By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ as having with him the same Father. Who nevertheless is his Father in one way and ours in another? Whence pointedly our Lord says separately, My Father and Your Father confer John 2017. For he is Christ's Father by natural generation and this is proper to him, whereas he is our Father by voluntary operation, which is common to him and to the Son and Holy Ghost, so that Christ is not the Son of the whole trinity as we are. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above in Article 1, Second Reply. Adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal sonship, just as all that takes place in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man is likened to the splendor of the eternal Son by reason of the light of grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though common to the whole trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its author, to the Son as its exemplar, to the Holy Ghost as imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar. Third Article. Whether it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted. Objection 1. It would seem that it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted, for God is not said to be the Father of the rational creature saved by adoption. But God is called the Father even of the irrational creature according to Job 38 verse 28. Who is the Father of the rain, or who begot the drops of dew? Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted. Objection 2 further. By reason of adoption some are called sons of God. But to be sons of God seems to be properly attributed by the Scriptures to the angels according to Job 1.6. On a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord. Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted. Objection 3 further. Whatever is proper to a nature belongs to all that have that nature. Just as visibility belong to all men. But to be adopted does not belong to every rational creature. Therefore it is not proper to human nature. On the contrary adopted sons are the heirs of God as is stated in Romans chapter 8 verse 17. But such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational nature. Therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted. I answer that as stated above in article 2 third reply. The sonship of adoption is a certain likeness of natural sonship. Now the son of God proceeds naturally from the Father as the intellectual word in oneness of nature with the Father. To this word therefore something may be likened in three ways. First on the part of the form but not on the part of its intelligibility. Thus the form of a house already built is like the mental word of the builder in its specific form but not in intelligibility because the material form of a house is not intelligible as it was in the mind of the builder. In this way every creature is like the eternal word since it was made through the word. Secondly the creature is likened to the word not only as to its form but also as to its intelligibility. Thus the knowledge which is begotten in the disciples mind is likened to the word in the mind of the master. In this way the rational creature even in its nature is likened to the word of God. Thirdly a creature is likened to the eternal word as to the oneness of the word with the Father which is by reason of grace and charity. Wherefore our Lord prays in John 17 verses 21 and 22 that they may be one in us as we also are one and this likeness perfects adoption. For to those who are thus like him the eternal inheritance is due. It is therefore clear that to be adopted belongs to the rational creature alone not indeed to all but only to those who have charity which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost according to Romans 5.5 For which reason in Romans 8.15 the Holy Ghost is called the spirit of adoption of sons. Reply to Objection 1 God is called the Father of the irrational creature not properly speaking by reason of adoption by reason of creation according to the first mention participation of likeness. Reply to Objection 2 Angels are called sons of God by adoptive sonship not that it belongs to them first but because they were the first to receive the adoption of sons. Reply to Objection 3 Adoption is a property resulting not from nature but from grace which the rational nature is capable. Therefore it need not belong to every rational nature but every rational creature must needs be capable of adoption. Fourth article Whether Christ as man is the adopted son of God Objection 1 it would seem that Christ as man is the adopted son of God for Hilary says in On the Trinity speaking of Christ the dignity of power is not forfeited when carnal humanity is adopted. Therefore Christ as man is the adopted son of God Objection 2 further Augustine says in On the Predestination of the Saints 15 that by the same grace that man is Christ as from the birth of faith every man is a Christian but other men are Christians by the grace of adoption therefore this man is Christ by adoption and consequently he would seem to be an adopted son. Objection 3 further Christ as man is a servant but it is of greater dignity to be an adopted son than to be a servant. Therefore much more is Christ as man an adopted son. On the contrary Ambrose says in On the Incarnation 8 we do not call an adopted son a natural son the natural son is a true son but Christ is the true and natural son of God according to 1st John 520 that we may be in his true son Jesus Christ therefore Christ as man is not an adopted son. I answer that sonship belongs properly to the hypothesis or person not to the nature. Wentz in the first part question 32 article 3 we have stated that filiation is a personal property now in Christ there is no other than the uncreated person or hypothesis to whom it belongs by nature to be the son but it has been said above in 1st and 2nd reply that the sonship of adoption is a participated likeness of natural sonship nor can a thing be said to participate in what it has essentially therefore Christ who is the natural son of God can know wise be called an adopted son but according to those who suppose two persons or two hypothesis or two supposita in Christ no reason prevents Christ being called the adopted son of God reply to objection 1 as sonship does not properly belong to the nature so neither does adoption consequently when it is said that carnal humanity is adopted the expression is metaphorical and adoption is used to signify the union of human nature to the person of the son reply to objection 2 this comparison of Augustine is to be referred to the principle because to wit just as it is granted to any man without meriting it to be a Christian so did it happen that this man without meriting it was Christ but there is a difference on the part of the term because by the grace of union Christ is the natural son whereas another man by habitual grace is an adopted son yet habitual grace in Christ does not make one who is not a son to be an adopted son but is a certain effect of filiation in the soul of Christ according to John 1 verse 14 we saw his glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth reply to objection 3 to be a creature as also to be subservient or subject to God regards not only the person but also the nature but this cannot be said of sonship wherefor the comparison does not hold end of question 23 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC question 24 of Summa Theologica Terziapars triities 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 triities on the Saviour by Saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province question 24 of the predestination of Christ in four articles we shall now consider the predestination of Christ under this head there are four points of inquiry first whether Christ was predestinated second whether he was predestinated as man third whether his predestination is the exemplar of ours fourth whether it is the cause of our predestination first article whether it is befitting that Christ should be predestinated objection one it would seem unfitting that Christ should be predestinated for the term of anyone's predestination seems to be the adoption of sons according to Ephesians 1.5 who hath predestined us unto the adoption of children but it is not befitting to Christ to be an adopted son as stated above in question 23 article 4 therefore it is not fitting that Christ be predestinated objection two further we may consider two things in Christ his human nature and his person but it cannot be said that Christ is predestinated by reason of his human nature for this proposition is false the human nature is Son of God in like manner neither by reason of the person for this person is the Son of God not by grace but by nature whereas predestination regards what is of grace as stated in the first part question 23 articles 2 and 5 therefore Christ was not predestinated to be the Son of God objection three further just as that which has been made not always so also that which was predestinated since predestination implies a certain antecedence but because Christ was always God and the Son of God it cannot be said that man was made the Son of God therefore for like reason we ought not to say that Christ was predestinated the Son of God on the contrary as speaking of Christ in Romans 1 4 who was predestinated the Son of God in power I answer that as is clear from what has been said in the first part question 23 articles 1 and 2 predestination in its proper sense is a certain divine preordination from eternity of those things which are to be done in time by the grace of God now that man is God and that God is man is something done in time by God through the grace of union nor can it be said that God has not from eternity preordained to do this in time since it would follow that something would come anew into the divine mind and we must needs admit that the union itself of natures in the person of Christ falls under the eternal predestination of God for this reason do we say that Christ was predestinated reply to objection 1 the apostle there speaks of that predestination by which we are predestinated to be adopted sons and just as Christ in a singular manner above all others is the natural Son of God so in a singular manner he is predestinated reply to objection 2 as a gloss says on Romans 1 verse 4 some understood that predestination to refer to the nature and not to the person that is to say that on human nature was bestowed the grace of being united to the Son of God in unity of person but in that case the phrase of the apostle would be improper for two reasons first for a general reason for we do not speak of a person's nature but of his person as being predestinated because to be predestinated is to be directed towards salvation which belongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beatitude secondly for a special reason because to be Son of God is not befitting to human nature for this proposition is false the human nature is the Son of God unless one were to force from it such an exposition as who was predestinated the Son of God in power that is it was predestinated that the human nature should be united to the Son of God in the person hence we must attribute predestination to the person of Christ not indeed in himself or as subsisting in the divine nature but as subsisting in the human nature where for the apostle after saying who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh added who was predestinated the Son of God in power so as to give us to understand that in respect of his being the seed of David according to the flesh he was predestinated the Son of God in power for although it is natural to that person considered in himself to be the Son of God in power yet this is not natural to him considered in the human nature in respect of which this befits him according to the grace of union reply to Objection 3 Origen commenting on Romans 1.4 says that the true reading of this passage of the apostle is who was destined to be the Son of God in power so that no antecedence is implied and so there would be no difficulty others refer the antecedence implied in the possible predestinated not to the fact of being the Son of God but to the manifestation thereof according to the customary way of speaking in Holy Scripture by which things are said to take place when they are made known so that the sense would be Christ was predestinated to be made known as the Son of God but this is an improper signification of predestination for a person is properly said to be predestinated by reason of his being directed to the end of Beatitude but the Beatitude of Christ does not depend on our knowledge thereof it is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the participle predestinated is to be referred to the person not in himself but by reason of the human nature since although that person was the Son of God from eternity it was not always true that one subsisting in human nature was the Son of God hence Augustine says in On the Predestination of the Saints 15 Jesus was predestinated so that he who according to the flesh was to be the Son of David should nevertheless be Son of God in power moreover it must be observed that although the participle predestinated just as this participle made implies antecedence yet there is a difference for to be made belongs to the thing in itself whereas to be predestinated belongs to someone as being in the apprehension of one who preordains now that which is the subject of a form or nature in reality can be apprehended either as under that form or absolutely and since it cannot be said absolutely of the person of Christ that he began to be the Son of God yet this is becoming to him as understood or apprehended to exist in human nature because at one time it began to be true that one existing in human nature was the Son of God therefore this proposition Christ was predestinated the Son of God is prurer than this Christ was made the Son of God second article whether this proposition is false Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God Objection 1 it would seem that this proposition is false Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God for at some time a man is that which he was predestined to be since God's predestination if therefore Christ as man was predestinated the Son of God it seems to follow that as man he is the Son of God but the latter is false therefore the former is false Objection 2 further what is befitting to Christ as man is befitting to any man since he belongs to the same species as other men if therefore Christ as man was predestinated the Son of God it will follow that this is befitting to any other man but the latter is false therefore the former is false Objection 3 further that is predestinated from eternity which is to take place at some time but this proposition the Son of God was made man is prurer than this man was made the Son of God therefore this proposition Christ as the Son of God was predestinated to be man is truer than this Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God on the contrary Augustine in on the predestination of the saints 15 says for as much as God the Son was made man we say that the Lord of glory was predestinated I answer that two things may be considered in predestination one on the part of eternal predestination itself and in this respect it implies a certain antecedence in regard to that which comes under predestination secondly predestination may be considered as regards its temporal effect which is some gratuitous gift of God therefore from both points of view we must say that predestination is ascribed to Christ by reason of His human nature alone for human nature was not always united to the word and by grace bestowed on it was it united in person to the Son of God consequently by reason of human nature alone can predestination be attributed to Christ where for Augustine says in on the predestination of the Saints 15 this human nature of ours was predestinated to be raised to so great so lofty so exalted a position that it would be impossible to raise it higher now that is said to belong to anyone as man which belongs to Him by reason of human nature consequently we must say that Christ as man was predestinated the Son of God reply to Objection 1 when we say Christ as man was predestinated the Son of God this qualification as man can be referred in two ways to the action signified by the participle first as regards what comes under predestination materially and thus it is false for the sense would be that it was predestinated that Christ as man should be the Son of God and in this sense the objection takes it secondly it may be referred to the very nature of the action itself that is for as much as predestination implies antecedence and gratuitous effect and thus predestination belongs to Christ by reason of his human nature as stated above and in this sense he is said to be predestinated as man reply to Objection 2 something may be befitting to a man by reason of human nature in two ways first so that human nature be the cause thereof thus visibility is befitting to Socrates by reason of human nature being caused by its principles in this manner predestination is not befitting either to Christ or to any other man by reason of human nature this is the sense of the objection secondly a thing may be befitting to someone by reason of human nature because human nature is susceptible of it and in this sense we say that Christ was predestinated by reason of human nature because predestination refers to the exaltation of human nature in him as stated above reply to Objection 3 as Augustine says in On the Predestination of the Saints 15 the word of God assumed man to himself in such a singular and ineffable manner that at the same time he may be truly and correctly called the Son of Man because he assumed man to himself and the Son of God because it was the only begotten of God who assumed human nature consequently since this assumption comes under predestination by reason of its being gratuitous we can say both that the Son of God was predestinated to be man and that the Son of Man was predestinated to be the Son of God but because grace was not bestowed on the Son of God that he might be man but rather on human nature that it might be united to the Son of God it is more proper to say that Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God than that Christ as Son of God was predestinated to be man third article whether Christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours objection one it would seem that Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours for the exemplar exists before the exemplate but nothing exists before the eternal since therefore our predestination is eternal it seems that Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours objection two further the exemplar leads us to knowledge of the exemplate but there was no need for God to be led from something else to knowledge of our predestination since it is written in Romans 8 29 whom he foreknew he also predestinated therefore Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours objection three further the exemplar is conformed to the exemplate but Christ's predestination seems to be of a different nature from ours because we are predestinated to the sonship of adoption whereas Christ was predestinated Son of God in power as is written in Romans 1 4 therefore his predestination is not the exemplar of ours on the contrary Augustine says in On the predestination of the saints 15 the Savior himself the mediator of God and man the man Christ Jesus is the most splendid light of predestination and grace now he is called the light of predestination and grace in as much as our predestination is made manifest by his predestination and grace and this seems to pertain to the nature of an exemplar therefore Christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours I answer that predestination may be considered in two ways first on the part of the act of predestination and thus Christ's predestination cannot be said the exemplar of ours for in the same way and by the same eternal act he predestinated us and Christ secondly predestination may be considered on the part of that to which anyone is predestinated and this is the term and effect of predestination in this sense Christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours and this in two ways first in respect of the good to which we are predestinated for he was predestinated to be the natural son of God whereas we are predestinated to the adoption of sons which is a participated likeness of natural sonship whence it is written in Romans 829 whom he foreknew he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his son secondly in respect of the manner of obtaining this good that is by grace this is most manifest in Christ because human nature in him without any antecedent merits was united to the son of God and of the fullness of his grace we have all received as it is written in John 1 verse 16 Reply to Objection 1 this argument considers the aforesaid act of the predestinator the same is to be said of the second objection Reply to Objection 3 the exemplet need not be conformed to the exemplar in all respects it is sufficient that it imitated in some 4th article whether Christ's predestination is the cause of ours Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours for that which is eternal has no cause but our predestination is eternal therefore our predestination is not the cause of ours Objection 2 further that which depends on the simple will of God has no other cause but God's will now our predestination depends on the simple will of God for it is written in Ephesians 111 being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will therefore Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours Objection 3 further if the cause be taken away the effect is also taken away but if we take away Christ's predestination ours is not taken away since even if the Son of God were not incarnate our salvation might yet have been achieved in a different manner as Augustine says in on the Trinity 1310 therefore Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours on the contrary it is written in Ephesians 1 verse 5 who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ I answer that if we consider predestination on the part of the very act of predestinating then Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours because by one and the same act God predestinated both Christ and us but if we consider predestination on the part of its term thus Christ's predestination is the cause of ours for God by predestinating from eternity so decreed our salvation that it should be achieved through Jesus Christ for eternal predestination covers not only that which is to be accomplished in time but also the mode and order in which it is to be accomplished in time replies to objection 1 and 2 these arguments consider predestination on the part of the act of predestinating reply to objection 3 if Christ were not to have been incarnate God would have decreed men salvation by other means but since he decreed Christ he decreed at the same time that he should be the cause of our salvation end of question 24 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC question 25 of summa theologica terzia pars triates 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 pars triates on the saviour by Saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province question 25 of the adoration of Christ in six articles we have now to consider things pertaining to Christ in reference to us and first the adoration of Christ by which we adore him secondly we must consider how he is our mediator with God under the first head there are six points of inquiry first whether Christ's Godhead and humanity are to be adored with one and the same adoration second whether his flesh is to be adored with the adoration of Latria third whether the adoration of Latria is given to the image of Christ fourth whether Latria is to be given to the cross of Christ fifth whether to his mother sixth concerning the adoration of the relics of saints first article whether Christ's humanity and Godhead are to be adored with the same adoration objection one whether Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration for Christ's Godhead is to be adored as being common to father and son wherefore it is written in John 523 that all may honour the son as they honour the father but Christ's humanity is not common to him and the father therefore Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration objection two further honour is properly the reward of virtue as the philosopher says in Ethics 4 3 but virtue merits its reward by action since therefore in Christ the action of the divine nature is distinct from that of the human nature as stated above in question 19 article 1 it seems that Christ's humanity is to be adored with a different adoration from that which is given to his Godhead objection three further if the soul of Christ were not united to the word it would have been worthy of veneration on account of the excellence of its wisdom and grace but by being united to the word it lost nothing of its worthiness therefore his human nature should receive a certain veneration proper thereto besides the veneration which is given to his Godhead on the contrary we read in the chapters of the fifth council Constantinople Colation 8 canon 9 if anyone say that Christ is adored in two natures so as to introduce two distinct adorations and does not adore God the word made flesh with the one and same adoration as his flesh as the church is handed down from the beginning let such a one be anathema I answer that we may consider two things in a person to whom honor is given the person himself and the cause of his being honored now properly speaking honor is given to a subsistence thing in its entirety for we do not speak of honoring a man's hand but the man himself and if at any time it happened that we speak of honoring a man's hand or foot not by reason of these members being honored of themselves but by reason of the whole being honored in them in this way a man may be honored even in something external for instance in his vesture his image or his messenger the cause of honor is that by reason of which the person honored has a certain excellence for honor is reverence given to something on account of its excellence as stated in the second part the bars question 103 article 1 if therefore in one man there are several causes of honor for instance rank, knowledge and virtue the honor given to him will be one in respect of the person honored but several in respect of the causes of honor for it is the man that is honored both on account of his knowledge and by reason of his virtue therefore in Christ there is but one person of the divine and human natures and one hypothesis and one suppositum he is given one adoration and one honor on the part of the person adored but on the part of the cause for which he is honored we can say that there are several adorations for instance that he receives one honor on account of his uncreated knowledge and another on account of his created knowledge but if it be said that there are several persons or hypothesis in Christ you would follow that there would be absolutely speaking several adorations and this is what is condemned in the councils for it is written in the chapters of Cyril the council of Ephesus part 1 chapter 26 if anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored besides the divine word as though these were two distinct persons and does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single adoration in as much as the word was made flesh let him be anathema reply to objection 1 in the trinity there are three who are honored but only one cause of honor in the mystery of the incarnation it is the reverse and therefore only one honor is given to the trinity and only one to Christ but in a different way reply to objection 2 operation is not the object but the motive of honor and therefore there being two operations in Christ proves not two adorations but two causes of adoration reply to objection 3 if the soul of Christ were not united to the word of God it would be the principal thing in that man where for honor would be due to it principally this man is that which is principal in him confer ethics 9 8 but since Christ's soul is united to a person of greater dignity to that person is honor principally due to whom Christ's soul is united nor is the dignity of Christ's soul hereby diminished but rather increased as stated above in question 2 article 2 second reply second article objection 1 it would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with the adoration of Latria for on the words of psalm 98 verse 5 ador his footstool for it is holy a gloss says the flesh assumed by the word of God is rightly adored by us for no one partakes spiritually of his flesh unless he first adored it indeed with the adoration called Latria which is due to the creator alone now the flesh is part of the humanity therefore Christ's humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of Latria objection 2 further the worship of Latria is not to be given to any creature since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved that they worshipped and served the creature as it is written in Romans 125 but Christ's humanity is a creature therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of Latria objection 3 further the adoration of Latria is due to God in recognition of his supreme dominion according to Deuteronomy 613 thou shalt adore the Lord thy God and thou shalt serve him only but Christ as man is less than the Father therefore his humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of Latria on the contrary Damascene says in On the True Faith 4 3 on account of the incarnation of the Divine Word we adore the flesh of Christ not for its own sake but because the Word of God is united there too in person and on Psalm 98 verse 5 adore his footstool a gloss says he who adores the body of Christ regards not the earth but rather him whose footstool it is in whose honour he adores the footstool but the Incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of Latria therefore also his body or his humanity I answer that as stated above in article 1 adoration is due to the subsisting Hypostasis yet the reason for honouring may be something non-subsistent on account of which the person in whom it is is honoured and so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in two ways first so that the humanity is the thing adored and thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the Incarnate Word of God just as to adore a king's robe is nothing else than to adore a robed king and in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration of Latria secondly the adoration of Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being perfected with every gift of grace and so in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of Latria but of Dulia so that one in the same person Christ is adored with Latria on account of his divinity and with Dulia on account of his perfect humanity nor is this unfitting for the honour of Latria is due to God the Father himself on account of his Godhead and the honour of Dulia on account of the dominion by which he rules over creatures wherefore on Psalm 7 verse 1 O Lord my God in Thee I have hoped the Gloss says Lord of all by power to whom Dulia is due God of all by creation to whom Latria is due reply to Objection 1 that Gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of Christ were adored separately from his Godhead for this could happen only if there were one hypothesis of God and another of man but since as Damascene says in On the True Faith 4.3 if by a subtle distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood it cannot be adored because it is a creature that is with adoration of Latria and then thus understood as distinct from the word of God it should be adored with the adoration of Dulia not any kind of Dulia such as is given to other creatures but with a certain higher adoration which is called Hyperdulia hence appear the answers to the second and third objections because the adoration of Latria is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father 3rd article whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of Latria Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of Latria for it is written in Exodus 20 verse 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing nor the likeness of anything but no adoration should be given against the commandment of God therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of Latria Objection 2 further we should have nothing in common with the works of the Gentiles as in Ephesians 5.11 but the Gentiles are reproached principally for that they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man as is written in Romans 1.23 therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of Latria Objection 3 further to Christ the adoration of Latria is due by the image of his Godhead not of his humanity but the adoration of Latria is not due to the image of his Godhead which is imprinted on the rational soul much less therefore is it due to the material image which represents the humanity of Christ himself Objection 4 further it seems that nothing should be done in the divine worship that is not instituted by God wherefore the Apostle and 1 Corinthians 11.23 when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the church says I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you but Scripture does not lay anything down concerning the adoration of images therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of Latria on the contrary Damocene and on the true faith 4.16 quotes Basel saying the honor given to an image reaches to the prototype that is the exemplar but the exemplar itself namely Christ is to be adored with the adoration of Latria therefore also his image I answer that as the philosopher says in On Memory and Reminiscence 1 there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image one indeed towards the image itself as a certain thing another towards the image insofar as it is the image of something else and between these movements there is this difference that the former by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing is different from the movement towards the thing whereas the latter movement which is towards the image as an image is one and the same as that which is towards the thing thus therefore we must say that no reverence is shown to Christ's image as a thing for instance carved or painted wood because reverence is not do saved to a rational creature it follows therefore that reverence should be shown to it insofar only as it is an image consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ himself since therefore Christ is adored with the adoration of Latria it follows that his image should be adored with the adoration of Latria reply to objection one this commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration wherefore it is added thou shalt not adore them nor serve them above the movement towards the image is the same as the movement towards the thing adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose image it is wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand that the prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods that is the demons and so it is premised thou shalt not have strange gods before me but no corporal image could be raised to the true God himself since he is incorporeal because as Damascene observes in On the True Faith 416 it is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what is divine but because in the New Testament God was made man he can be adored in his corporeal image reply to objection two the apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the unfruitful works of the Gentiles but not with their useful works now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects first because some of the Gentiles used to adore the images themselves as things believing that there was something divine therein on account of the answers which the demons used to give in them and on account of other such like wonderful effects secondly on account of the things of which they were images for they set up images to certain creatures to whom in these images they gave the veneration of Latria whereas we give the adoration of Latria to the image of Christ who is true God not for the sake of the image but for the sake of the thing as stated above reply to objection three reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake consequently if the adoration of Latria were shown to the rational creature in which this image is there might be an occasion of error namely lest the movement of adoration might stop short at the man as a thing and not be carried on to God whose image he is this cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in insensible material reply to objection four the apostles led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost handed down to the church as certain instructions which they did not put in writing but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the church as practiced by the faithful as time went on where for the apostle says in 2 Thessalonians 2 14 stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word that is by word of mouth or by our epistle that is by word put into writing among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image where for it is said that the blessed Luke painted the image of Christ which is in Rome fourth article whether Christ's cross should be worshipped with the adoration of Latria objection one you would seem that Christ's cross should not be worshipped with the adoration of Latria for no dutiful son honors that which dishonors his father as the scourge with which he was scourged or the gibbet on which he was hanged rather does he abhor it now Christ underwent the most shameful death on the cross according to wisdom 220 let us condemn him to a most shameful death therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we should abhor it objection two further Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration of Latria in as much as it is united to the son of God in person but this cannot be said of the cross therefore Christ's cross should not be worshipped with the adoration of Latria objection three further as Christ's cross was the instrument of his passion and death so were also many other things for instance the nails the crown the lands yet to these we do not show the worship of Latria it seems therefore that Christ's cross should not be worshipped with the adoration of Latria on the contrary we show the worship of Latria to that in which place we honor our hope of salvation but we place our hope in Christ's cross for the church sings dear cross best hope or all beside that cheers the solemn passion tide give to the just increase of grace give to each contrite sinner peace the hymn vexilla regis therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of Latria I answer that as stated above in article three honor or reverence is due to a rational creature only while to an insensible creature no honor or reverence is due saved by reason of a rational nature and this in two ways first in as much as it represents a rational nature secondly in as much as it is united to it in any way whatsoever in the first way men are want to venerate the king's image in the second way his robe and both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king if therefore we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was crucified it is to be venerated by us in both ways namely in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended thereon in the other way from its contact with the limbs of Christ and from its being saturated with his blood where for in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ notably the adoration of Latria and for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it as to the crucified himself but if we speak of the effigy of Christ's cross in any other material whatever for instance in stone or wood silver or gold thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's image which we worship with the adoration of Latria as stated above in article three reply to objection one if in Christ's cross we consider the point of view and intention of those who did not believe in him it will appear as his shame but if we consider its effect which is our salvation it will appear as endowed with divine power by which it triumphed over the enemy according to collosions to verses fourteen and fifteen he have taken the same out of the way fastening it to the cross and dispoiling the principalities and powers he had exposed them confidently in open show triumphing over them in himself where for the apostle says in first Corinthians one eighteen the word of the cross to them indeed that parish is foolishness but to them that are saved that is to us it is the power of God reply to objection two although Christ's cross was not united to the word of God in person yet it was united to him in some other way notably by representation and contact and for this sole reason reverence is shown to it reply to objection three by reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship not only the cross but all that belongs to Christ where for Damascene says in on the true faith for eleven the precious would as having been sanctified by the contact of his holy body and blood should be neatly worshiped as also his nails his lance and his sacred dwelling places such as the manger the cave and so forth yet these very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does which is called the sign of the son of man that will appear in heaven as it is written in matthew twenty four verse thirty where for the angel said to the women in mark sixteen verse six you seek Jesus of Nazareth who has crucified he said not pierced but crucified for this reason we worship the image of Christ's cross in any material but not the image of the nails or of any such thing fifth article whether the mother of God should be worshiped with the adoration of Latria objection one you would seem that the mother of God is to be worshiped with the adoration of Latria for it seems that the same honour is due to the king's mother as to the king whence it is written in third kings two nineteen that a throne was set for the king's mother and she sat on his right hand moreover Augustine in his sermon on the assumption says it is right that the throne of God the resting place of the lord of heaven the abode of Christ should be there where he is himself but Christ is worshiped with the adoration of Latria therefore his mother also should be objection two further Damascene says and on the true faith four sixteen the honour of the mother reflects on the son but the son is worshiped with the adoration of Latria therefore the mother also objection three further Christ's mother is more akin to him than the cross but the cross is worshiped with the adoration of Latria therefore also his mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration on the contrary the mother of God is a mere creature therefore the worship of Latria is not due to her I answer that since Latria is due to God alone it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake for though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake consequently the worship of Latria is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake since therefore the blessed virgin is a mere rational creature the worship of Latria is not due to her but only that in a higher degree than to other creatures in as much as she is the mother of God for this reason we say that not any kind of doulia is due to her but hyperdoulia reply to objection one the honor due to the king's mother is not equal to the honor which is due to the king but is somewhat like it by reason of a certain excellence on her part this is what is meant by the authorities quoted reply to objection two the honor given to the mother reflects on her son because the mother is to be honored for her son's sake but not in the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar because the image itself considered as a thing is not to be venerated in any way at all objection three the cross, considered in itself is not an object of veneration as stated above in articles four and five but the blessed virgin is in herself an object of veneration hence there is no comparison sixth article whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints objection one it would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all for we should avoid doing what may be the occasion of error but to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the gentiles who gave honor to dead men therefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored objection two further it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible but the relics of the saints are insensible therefore it is absurd to venerate them objection three further a dead body is not of the same species as a living body consequently it does not seem to be identical with it therefore after a saint's death it seems that his body should not be worshiped on the contrary it is written in on the church's teaching 40 we believe that the bodies of the saints above all the relics of the blessed martyrs as being the members of Christ should be worshiped in all sincerity and further on if anyone holds a contrary opinion he is not accounted a Christian but a follower of Eumenius and Vigilansius I answer that as Augustine says in On the City of God 113 if a father's coat or ring or anything else of that kind is so much more cherished by his children as love for one's parents is greater in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised which are much more intimately and closely united to us than any garment for they belong to man's very nature it is clear from this that he who has a certain affection for anyone venerates whatever of his is left after his death not only his body and the parts thereof but even external things as his clothes and such like now it is manifest that we should show honour to the saints of God as being members of Christ the children and friends of God and our intercessors wherefore in memory of them we ought to honour any relics of theirs in a fitting manner principally their bodies which were temples and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the resurrection hence God himself fittingly honours such relics by working miracles at their presence reply to Objection 1 this was the argument of Vigilanceus whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him chapter 2 as follows we see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion worship with kisses I know what tiny heap of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen to him Jerome replies we do not adore I will not say the relics of the martyrs but either the sun or the moon or even the angels that is to say with the worship of Latria but we honour the martyrs relics so that thereby we give honour to him whose martyrs they are we honour the servants that the honour shown to them may reflect on their master consequently by honouring the martyrs relics we do not fall into the error of the Gentiles who gave the worship of Latria to dead men reply to Objection 2 we worship that insensible body not for its own sake but for the sake of the soul which was once united there too and now enjoys God for God's sake whose ministers the saints were reply to Objection 3 the dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life on account of the difference of form notably the soul but it is the same by identity of matter which is destined to be reunited to its form End of Question 25 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert L.C. Question 26 of Summa Theologica Terziapars 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 Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 26 of Christ as called The Mediator of God and Man in two articles We have now to consider how Christ is called The Mediator of God and Man and under this head there are two points of inquiry First whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and Man Second whether this belongs to him by reason of his human nature First article whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and Man Objection one it would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and Man for a priest and a prophet seem to be Mediators between God and Man according to Deuteronomy 5.5 I was the Mediator between God and you at that time but it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet neither therefore is it proper to him to be Mediator Objection two further that which is fitting to angels both good and bad cannot be said to be proper to Christ but to be between God and Man is fitting to the good angels as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 it is also fitting to the bad angels that is the demons for they have something in common with God namely immortality and something they have in common with men namely passability of soul and consequently unhappiness as appears from what Augustine says in On the City of God 9 13 and 15 therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator of God and Man Objection 3 further it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech one of those between whom he mediates for the other but the Holy Ghost as it is written in Romans 8 26 asketh God for us with unspeakable groanings therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between God and Man therefore this is not proper to Christ on the contrary it is written in 1st Timothy 2 5 there is one mediator of God and Man the Man Christ Jesus I answer that properly speaking the office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates for extremes are united in the mean issue now to unite men to God perfectively belongs to Christ through whom men are reconciled to God according to 2nd Corinthians 519 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and consequently Christ alone is the perfect mediator of God and Man in as much as by his death he reconciled the human race to God hence the apostle after saying mediator of God and Man the Man Christ Jesus added who gave himself a redemption for all however nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators in some respect between God and man for as much as they cooperate in uniting men to God dispositively or ministerially reply to objection 1 the prophets and priests of the old law were called mediators between God and Man dispositively and ministerially in as much as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect mediator of God and Man as to the priests of the new law they may be called mediators of God and Man in as much as they are the ministers of the true mediator by administering in his dead the saving sacraments to men reply to objection 2 the good angels as Augustine says in on the city of God 913 cannot rightly be called mediators between God and Man for since in common with God they have both beatitude and immortality and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man how much rather are they not aloof from men than established between them Dionysius however says that they do occupy a middle place because in the order of nature they are established below God and above Man moreover they fulfill the office of mediator not indeed principally and perfectively but ministerially and dispositively whence in Matthew 411 it is said that angels came and ministered unto him namely Christ as to the demons it is true that they have immortality in common with God and unhappiness in common with men and for this purpose does the immortal and unhappy demon intervene in order that he may hinder men from passing to a happy immortality and may allure them to an unhappy immortality whence he is like an evil mediator who separates friends as Augustine comments in on the city of God 15 but Christ had Beatitude in common with God mortality in common with men hence for this purpose did he intervene that having fulfilled the span of his mortality he might from dead men make immortal which he showed in himself by rising and that he might confer Beatitude on those who are deprived of it for which reason he never forsook us wherefore he is the good mediator who reconciles enemies again according to Augustine on the city of God 15 reply to Objection 3 since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to God he cannot be said to be between mediator of God and men but Christ alone who though equal to the father in his Godhead yet is less than the father in his human nature as stated above in question 20 article 1 hence on Galatians 320 Christ is a mediator the gloss says not the father nor the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost however is said to ask for us because he makes us ask second article whether Christ as man is the mediator of God and men Objection 1 he would seem that Christ is not as man the mediator of God and men for Augustine says against Felicia 10 one is the person of Christ lest there be not one Christ not one substance lest the office of mediator being denied he be called the son either of God alone or merely the son of a man but he is the son of God and man not as man but at the same time God and man therefore neither should we say that as man alone he is mediator of God and man objection 2 further just as Christ as God has a common nature with the father and the Holy Ghost although as man he has a common nature with men but for the reason that as God he has the same nature as the father and the Holy Ghost he cannot be called mediator as God for on 1st Timothy 2.5 mediator of God and man Gloss says as the word he is not a mediator because he is equal to God and God with God at the same time one God therefore neither as man can he be called mediator on account of his having the same nature as man objection 3 further Christ is called mediator in as much as he reconciled us to God and this he did by taking away sin which separated us from God but to take away sin belongs to Christ but as God therefore Christ is our mediator not as man but as God on the contrary Augustine says on the city of God 915 not because he is the word is Christ mediator since he who is supremely immortal and supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals but he is mediator as man we may consider two things in a mediator first that he is a mean secondly that he unites others now it is of the nature of a mean to be distant from each extreme while it unites us by communicating to one that which belongs to the other now neither of these can be applied to Christ as God but only as man for as God he does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and power of dominion nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything that the Son has not so that he be able to communicate to other something belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost as though it were belonging to others than himself but both can be applied to him as man because as man he is distant both from God by nature and from man by dignity of both grace and glory again it belongs to him as man to unite men to God by communicating to men both precepts and gifts and by offering satisfaction and prayers to God for men and therefore he is most truly called mediator as man reply to Objection 1 if we take the divine nature from Christ we consequently take from him the singular fullness of grace which belongs to him as the only begotten of the Father as it is written in John 1.14 from which fullness it resulted that he was established over all men and approached nearer to God reply to Objection 2 Christ as God is in all things equal to the Father but even in the human nature he is above all men therefore as man he can be mediator but not as God reply to Objection 3 although it belongs to Christ as God to take away sin authoritatively yet it belongs to him as man to satisfy for the sin of the human race and in this sense he is called the mediator of God and man End of Question 26 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC Editorial note on St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception of Summa Theologica Terziapars 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 Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Editorial note on St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception The privilege of the Virgin Mother of God and the supreme prerogative of her son may be seen from the following diagram The following content was presented in the form of a three column table in the original Column 1 Under the Law All descendants from Adam Spring from Adam materially and seminally The body lies not under the guilt but under the effects of original sin The stricken body dispositively causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin The soul at the moment of union with the body contracts the stain All contract both debt and stain All need a redeemer to destroy the stain contracted Column 2 Partially exempt from the law privilege of Immaculate Conception Spring from Adam materially and seminally The body lies not under the guilt but under the effects of original sin The stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to contract the guilt of original sin The soul at the moment of union with the body was prevented by the infusion of grace from contracting the stain Mary contracted the debt but not the stain Mary needed a redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain Column 3 Holy Exempt from the Law Miraculous Conception Spring from Adam materially not seminally Confer question 31 article 1 His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin The body being entirely free could not transmit the stain to his soul No preventive grace needed Jesus Christ contracted neither debt nor stain Jesus Christ is not redeemed but the redeemer end of table It will thus be seen how accurately Saint Thomas speaks of the flesh or body of our Blessed Lady For it should be remembered that according to Saint Thomas the human body is animated in succession by 1. a vegetative 2. a sensitive 3. a rational soul Hence his assertion that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin Confer question 14 article 3 1st reply Means that the body of the Blessed Virgin being descended from Adam both materially and seminally contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal generation and are the results of the privation of original justice Question 69 article 4 3rd reply Before animation, therefore the body of the Blessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of grace notably the rational soul Nevertheless before animation the body of the Blessed Virgin being seminally descended from Adam was such that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original sin to the rational soul at the very instant of animation unless the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul in that same self-instant thus redeeming her and preventing her from contracting the guilt of original sin Why then does Saint Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin would not be sanctified after animation therefore she could be sanctified only after animation Such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of nature A thing must be before it is such Prius est esse quam esse tale And therefore the soul must be before it is sanctified But if Saint Thomas held for a posteriority of time no matter how short we ask how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument since it might be neither before nor after but in the very instant of animation The question is answered thus Saint Thomas as a doctor of the church and in matters which were not then de fide is a witness to the expression of the faith of his time The line of argument coincides with because it follows that of Saint Bernard Peter Lombard Alexander of Hales Albert the Great Saint Bonaventure It was not likely that Saint Thomas would differ from the great masters of his time who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at the same time be one of preservation and prevention Nor is it likely that Saint Thomas had any reliable information about the movement in progress at that time towards a belief in the immaculate conception Principally in England where owing to the influence of Saint Anselm 1109 the doctrine was maintained by Eadmer 1137 Nicholas of Saint Albans 1175 Osbert of Clair 1170 Robert Grostesta Bishop of Lincoln 1253 William of Ware 1300 No doubt he knew something of it but the names of its promoters would have weighed little with him as against those of Bernard, Albert, Peter, Alexander and Bonaventure And it must not be forgotten that among those who upheld the doctrine of the immaculate conception not a few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not one of preservation and redemption Hence it is that Saint Thomas insists on two things One, that the mother of God was redeemed and two, that the grace of her sanctification was a grace of preservation And be it remarked in conclusion these two points so much insisted on by Saint Thomas are at the very basis of the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception End of editorial note on Saint Thomas and the immaculate conception