Here present Good afternoon, how are y'all today? Thank y'all so much for having us today We wanted to come give you an update on our assembly street project also known as the South Carolina State House Entrance Way project on our state priority list with me today I do have Zach Haney which you had just mentioned with Mead and Hunt Jennifer Satherthwaite as well as Francis Bryan She's our assistant city engineer for design for the city of Columbia the first phase of Assembly Street was completed back in 2014 Extended from Blossom up to Pendleton using CTC funding and guide share funding we engaged Mead and Hunt last summer and at this point We just want to give you an update because we are at the point where we want to start engaging stakeholders We want to make y'all aware of the project and where we stand right now So with that I'll hand this over to Zach. You said first update was 2014 The first phase was Blossom to Pendleton. Yes, ma'am appreciate the time As Miss Dana was saying my name is Zach Haney I am the project manager with Mead and Hunt for the assembly street pedestrian safety improvement project The project stretches from Lady Street to Pendleton Street And it is a pedestrian safety and streetscape enhancement project that also like Miss Dana was saying It's a continuation of a previous phase. What we'll call phase one, I guess from Lady to Pendleton that was completed in 2014 The project study area is about 1600 feet Pendleton Dravet lady it encompasses four blocks one unique aspect is it is immediately adjacent to the state house Where Senate Street is at so I'm sure y'all are all very familiar with that. So not gonna waste a whole lot of time on this guy The object and purpose and need of the project is to promote pedestrian safety improvements Put the entire corridor within ADA compliance Roadway safety improvements aesthetic enhancements to the corridor such things like lighting pedestrian lighting green space landscaping etc etc And also provide continuity to the assembly street corridor and then create connectivity between the Main Street district and the Vista district and I forgot to mention I Was going to do this very informally. So if anybody has any questions, please just here we go So as I previously mentioned in 2014 phase one was completed it was from Blossom Street to Pendleton Street and there's immediate things that you notice the Medium parking was removed Pedestrian bump outs were added that also facilitated parking on the side streets or more parking on the side streets ADA compliance was also included There are decorative decorative crosswalks. Excuse me They're considered high visibility decorative crosswalks also because the color of the pavement is different from the color of crosswalk There was landscaping and decorative lighting as well Absolutely, we we have look We are in the preliminary stages right now We're in the preliminary stages right now. So Later down in the slides kind of show where we're at and these are the things that we will consider moving forward a true pedestrian cross It's very famous in Japan if I'm assuming that's what you're referring to that is If there's the volume to support it then yes by all means it'll be something that we'll put at the top of the recommendation list But where we're at right now. We're still in the conceptual phases. So these are the called low hanging fruit and Objectives to move forward with and then once we get into the nitty gritty the weeds These are absolutely things that will take I think when we show it from the beginning of what our intent is It gets ingrained in people's head So that the only thing they envision is what we're asking for and not give them a way to say no Absolutely And in moving forward so a picture is worth a thousand words what you see on the right is a completed portion That's the Pendleton assembly street intersection. You can see the crosswalks the bumpouts are a little bit harder to see The photo on the left shows what's existing one block up And you can see a Quite a bit of difference and one thing I would like to point out Um, but one thing Instead of traveling or a pedestrian having to travel across Six seven eight lanes of traffic. They're only going to have to travel across a parking stall and then two or three other lanes next The ad t just like every other street in south carolina was affected by covid The numbers that are showing here is the trend is starting to come back up And then also one thing that we thought was notable Is fhw a did a study for post covet multimodal functions that if you have an opportunity to build something pedestrians will use it So I feel like right out here is is a perfect example You put a sidewalk in bike path in anything like that people will use it. So this is 23,000 cars Yes, ma'am 23,000 vehicles per day along assembly street. That is both northbound and southbound So these are our conceptual typical sections what you see on the top is the existing You'll notice the median parking the parking also on the right and left side of the roadway and then your three travel lanes What is being proposed is to remove the median parking Maintain the travel lanes as well as the parking on both the left and right side or northbound and southbound lanes along assembly street Going back to the pictures worth a thousand words What you see on the left is the existing part of assembly street that is within the project corridor You'll notice the turn lanes the parking the subtle Landscape median, but what you see on the right is the completed product I wish we would have taken the pictures in the summer. So it would have been a little more green, but it's okay You still kind of get the picture with a controlled access fence across the center median. There's an ad a refuge There's true carbon gutter drainage, etc. Etc. That The project will benefit from Next the there's a large and a small photo on the left and also a large and small photo on the right The existing is on the left the proposed is on the right. You'll notice like I just mentioned The crosswalk That's 12 lanes of traffic Sometimes 130 feet that a pedestrian has to go from one side to the other So if you notice on the right, there's a refuge island that's there So they only have to travel a smaller distance They can wait whether the signal cycles through or if they can make it all the way across they still make it all the Cross This is mainly for ada accessibility. So the city can safely say hey, we're doing everything we can for ada accessibility Okay, um, and then the last one pictures worth a thousand words You see on the left side again the lovis crosswalk the right side. You see pedestrians actually using the refuge island waiting Seeing cars go by Where they're not stuck in no man's land as well as the ada accessibility for Anybody that cannot travel all the way across those lanes so with all that said The conceptual recommended improvements consist of revitalizing the existing sidewalks Providing ada compliance throughout the corridor Install and pedestrian bump out to eat each intersection Which will also benefit the individuals that are parking along the left and right side of the street Um remove the median parking eliminate mid block pedestrian crossings create pedestrian refugee areas Install lighting and landscaping Again hives crosswalks and then undergrounding the overhead utilities That is key. That was my question. Okay, if we're going to do all of that and then have awful Wires in the sky. It's not worth it. So yes, ma'am It makes a huge difference and it makes some of our entryways very welcoming. So it's great to hear that. Absolutely. Yes Uh and potential benefits Uh was one of the things that definitely wanted to cover so everybody can kind of have something to discuss The uh continuity between the main street and the vista entertainment districts is key uh another Crucial success factor is the pedestrian traffic between main street and the vista vista and the state house As well as the pedestrian safety aspect where We intend to reduce rear end Side swipe and pedestrian collisions along main street by removing that median parking So as miss dana alluded to earlier where we are at now We're in the month five six So we've completed our concept development our data collections surveys utility coordination, etc, etc We are now currently working on the plans And for the first step, this is a two-step project. The first step will get us to 30 or preliminary plans Uh to where we can identify costs utility conflicts Um Parking is going to be another issue. So we're still you know, we're in the we're in the fledgling phases Which is why we're bringing everybody in right now um the environmental document will work all the way through and then the uh, I guess the cherry on top For the first step or first stage is to hit public outreach here within the next several months This is a nice little roadmap started on the bottom left at step one We'll work our way through to step two the uh, the things that are in blue are up and coming The things that are in yellow are currently underway And then like I said the data collection survey the studies they have have all been completed and with that I've taken up 12 minutes of y'all's time and I appreciate it very much. Can I answer any questions y'all might have? um Yeah, I'll tell you assembly street. Jervay. Yeah, it's it's scary Can you talk to us? Are we going above and beyond for the pedestrian lighting the flashing? to to Make cars aware more than just the standard dot um pedestrian crossings We We are held to scdot standards since this is an scdot uh roadway Anything in and above that Are absolutely things that we can entertain again since we're in the fledgling phases These are the ideas that we want to and you know the latest and greatest in technologies you could present that to us I have It's it's one of those things that you can spend All the money in the world and get that Cadillac or you can do the You know the other end of the spectrum So it depends on how much money the budgets are willing to spend and these are some of the things like we'd said Because we're going to stair step the project We can identify costs very very early and No, I would I would appreciate and I think we would all appreciate if you could present that to us You know that there's it's always good when the state Puts in such a large portion to to get to that Cadillac version. Like you said, let's talk about it and see what that premium Number is absolutely Yeah, that was that was My question is how are we funding this and um, what are we looking at in terms of timeline? Yes, ma'am. Uh, so right now we have three million dollars 609,000 from ctc 2.4 from guide chair Right now we have 13 million that re requested from the state house budget this year Total project is estimated Broadly at 16 million But of course when zack and his team are able to start fine tuning the design They'll be able to get a little bit more specific about their cost And we're thinking of course state house pending funding pending. When would we start this next phase for construction drawings? I think that they're ready to start as soon as we're working through the conceptual 30 and then the next step is going to be a right-of-way The idea is not The idea is to have zero right-of-way impact since we are working with a relatively existing large footprint So that's in our favor. Um, and then after that will be construction plans So we'll have everything buttoned up ideally within the next 18 to 20 months We launch Yes, ma'am. Hey for the pavement. Hey for the pavement utility Underline so let's make sure that as we move or we make sure that somebody in the office is kept up today is this going to be In parallel with the south main street construction project to any extent Hopefully that one's buttoned up before this one breaks ground Definitely. I would think the construction period is about 18 months purchase. South may not believe so that will be about like we'll be starting our project funding Okay Thank you all very much Yes, ma'am. Thank you Number two our next item for committee discussion is distance requirements for tattoo establishments and our own miss christa hampton planning and development services director Good afternoon everyone. Um at the last council meeting there was a discussion of council to Want to look at your current regulations with regard to Body piercing in test two establishments. And so I'm here just to get some policy direction guidance for you all Perhaps throughout a couple of options for you Currently, uh, the city of colombia actually is fairly liberal with with regards to these regulations When you look at other communities, they're somewhat stuck in the past to be perfectly honest and Lump them in similarly with sexually oriented businesses and relegate them to industrial areas And limit them pretty significantly and require Distance from churches religious organizations and the such so the city of colombia while we do have some conditions Only has the spacing requirements between Tattoo facilities and then also from the fort and then a hundred feet away from the residential districts. They are allowed in most of our commercial and mixed-use districts So again, not relegated to those kind of industrial areas So I provided for you some of those other communities and their regulations so you could see that So depending on the policy guidance of council You have an option to go all the way from Eliminating the distance requirement between facilities Minimizing it you could you could bring it down from a thousand feet to a lesser amount The other option, which is what you had previously is In some of the districts is you could make it a special exception From the board of zoning appeals. So special exceptions are are set out by state law To apply to uses that are permitted Provided that the board reviews them on a case-by-case basis So that it could be special circumstances would say that it's appropriate where in others it may not be And so that is another one of your options. And so I'm here just to kind of listen And provide feedback To you on this issue It says permitted by special exception In commercial and light industrial areas, but then also has a caveat of Within five hundred feet of residential rural church Do we know how that's Worked for them From a special exception side. Is that No, sir. I certainly could could contact them to see how it is. Um You know, we've come a long way from the days when it was a special exception I mean perceptions have certainly changed about about these facilities From the old days So some of these ordinances we have a lot of options. I guess the the issue at hand is We've got somebody who's kind of trapped by not being able to have one closer to one that they Do we have any examples of types of business businesses where Let's say the previous business that was there was the same use the same permitted Use in this case of piercing or tattoo. Is that is there anything in your planning? I guess world that we could Some language we could include in that to basically say if it was one It can now be a new one under a new business license So that currently exists because if if there is a facility it's considered Whether if it was lawfully established If one leaves another can come in within 12 months. It doesn't lose it. So that business can be Let's say it's a restaurant that's in a facility that's no longer allowed as long as if the restaurant leaves Another one can come in within that 12 month period. So what's holding up this issue? It's a new location It's it's in the fifth place where there currently is not a tattoo establishment It's a new business. It would be a new location for a new tattoo establishment So previously what in a tattoo or body piercing establishment? That's not my understanding now How long ago? Still speaking the microphone Previously a piercing studio that went by the name of five points body piercing Their lease was terminated In november and I put down the deposit that same month So does that change the conversation? So our zoning administrator will need to look in that. Um We did not know that before now. So that would have been helpful. Um, but we can certainly look at it So we need to verify That and it's business license and that should tell us That's the case then Yeah I mean, I I think we ought to answer that question before we absolutely had we've been We certainly would have answered that question before now a set of trying to go and spend six months changing Ordinance and stuff to try to figure out a way to Now if it's not, you know, we'll be back here again So we would still like the the thinking on the policy guidance I'm inclined with the special exception approach, but Well, I mean when you look at it, I mean we're in seven allowed districts right now, which is pretty much the majority of the city When you look at it other than you know, it's got the restrictions residential I guess the question is is this really about a special exception on an individual or a second one? How many is acceptable to have in one area? Um, you know, because I'm gonna be honest. This is gonna be a conversation We're gonna have about vape shops. You know, how how many do you cluster in one area? So Not that they're the same business is too totally different, but the question's already come up So as we think through this, we need to be be thinking do you do you want to have a special exception Based on a second location within The thousand feet they make it specific for Single store owner, you know somebody who owns a second location I do caution against that because once the business is established It doesn't require that that person maintain ownership. So we don't Couldn't we do that? Zoning is about the use and not the owner so But in this case, it'd be a special exception. So it'd be a little different Just food for thought right, but then it would still run with the land It would run with the property once you grant that special exception Um, you could not I thought this this special exception only ran with the business as it's operating if it Sees to operate then It's not especially a cheese has to be a special exception It it it is applied to the property to the to the land Sounds like we need to know the answer That's the case if they haven't been shut down for more than 12 months then That's a grandfather in and that just answers our question I don't want to spend a whole lot of time chasing another solution in 90 to 180 days worth of Back and forth in public hearings if we don't have to have that All for that Yeah, I would love to take a 10 minute recess and find out the answer Madam clerk, we're going to adjourn for 10 minutes See we need popcorn and lemonade up here today No, we don't do anything without checking with the clerk first Right now we cannot find a record of the five points piercing We are going to continue to look so I'll leave that up to the policy makers My suggestion is is that We allow staff to have time to confirm Make sure that there's not a wrong address or something to punch in so that we've checked all that because that would make a big Determining decision how we move forward and that we reconvene maybe quickly before council meeting next Yeah, I would if during the research can we find out length of the business license and then also the lease I think it's good to know in our decision making on that prior access. How would we get that lease? Does that work for everybody because I think we just want to make sure we have all the correct information Is uh dehec. Is there a permit to be Gotten from dehec that we can review Check with dehec as well to see if they they uh, they have information on that site. Absolutely All right with that


Question 8 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 8 of the Grace of Christ as He is the Head of the Church, in eight articles. We must now consider the Grace of Christ as the Head of the Church, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry. First, whether Christ is the Head of the Church. Second, whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies, or only as regards their souls. Third, whether He is the Head of all men. Fourth, whether He is the Head of the Angels. Fifth, whether the Grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as His habitual Grace as an individual man. Sixth, whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ. Seventh, whether the devil is the Head of all the wicked. Eighth, whether Antichrist can be called the Head of all the wicked. First article, whether Christ is the Head of the Church. Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to be Head of the Church, for the Head imparts sense and motion to the members. Now spiritual sense and motion, which are by grace, are not imparted to us by the man Christ, because, as Augustine says in On the Trinity 112, not even Christ as man, but only as God bestows the Holy Ghost. Therefore it does not belong to Him as man to be Head of the Church. Objection 2 further. It is not fitting for the Head to have a Head. But God is the Head of Christ as man, according to 1 Corinthians 11-3. The Head of Christ is God. Therefore Christ Himself is not a Head. Objection 3 furthermore. The Head of a man is a particular member, receiving an influx from the heart. But Christ is the universal principle of the whole Church. Therefore He is not the Head of the Church. On the contrary, it is written in Ephesians 122. And he hath made him Head over all the Church. I answer that, as the whole Church is termed one mystic body from its likeness to the natural body of a man, which in diverse members has diverse acts, as the Apostles teaches in Romans 12-1 and in Corinthians 12. So likewise Christ is called the Head of the Church from a likeness with the human Head, in which we may consider three things, notably order, perfection, and power. Order indeed, for the Head is the first part of man, beginning from the higher part, and hence it is that every principle is usually called a Head according to Ezekiel 16-25. At every Head of the Way thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution, perfection, in as much as in the Head dwell all the senses, both interior and exterior, whereas in the other members there is only touch, and hence it is said in Isaiah 9-15. The aged and honourable he is the Head. Power, because the power and movement of the other members, together with the direction of them in their acts, is from the Head by reason of the sensitive and mode of power there ruling. Hence the ruler is called the Head of a people according to 1 Kings 15-17. When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the Head of the tribes of Israel. Now these three things belong spiritually to Christ. First, on account of his nearness to God, his grace is the highest and first, though not in time, since all have received grace on account of his grace according to Romans 8-29. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren. Secondly, he had perfection as regards the fullness of all graces according to John 1-14. We saw him full of grace and truth, as was shown in Question 7 Article 9. Thirdly, he has the power of bestowing grace on all the members of the Church according to John 1-16, of his fullness we have all received. And thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly called the Head of the Church. Reply to Objection 1. To give grace, or the Holy Ghost, belongs to Christ as he is God, authoritatively. But instrumentally it belongs also to him as man, inasmuch as his manhood is the instrument of his Godhead. And hence by the power of the Godhead, his actions were beneficial, that is, by causing grace in us, both meritoriously and efficiently. But Augustine denies that Christ as man gives the Holy Ghost authoritatively. Even other saints are said to give the Holy Ghost instrumentally or ministerially, according to Galatians 3-5. He who giveth to you the Spirit. Reply to Objection 2. In metaphorical speech, we must not expect a likeness in all respects, for thus there would not be likeness but identity. Accordingly, a natural head has not another head because one human body is not part of another, but a metaphorical body, that is, an ordered multitude, is part of another multitude as the domestic multitude is part of the civil multitude. And hence the Father who is head of the domestic multitude has a head above him, that is, the civil governor. And hence there is no reason why God should not be the head of Christ, although Christ himself is head of the church. Reply to Objection 3. The head has a manifest preeminence over the other exterior members. But the heart has a certain hidden influence. And hence the Holy Ghost is likened to the heart, since he invisibly quickens and unifies the church. But Christ is likened to the head in his visible nature in which man is set over man. Second article. Whether Christ is the head of men as to their bodies or only as to their souls. Objection 1. You would seem that Christ is not the head of men as to their bodies. For Christ is said to be the head of the church in as much as he bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on the church. But a body is not capable of this spiritual sense and movement. Therefore Christ is not the head of men as regards their bodies. Objection 2. We share bodies with the brutes. If therefore Christ was head of man as to their bodies, he would follow that he was the head of brute animals, and this is not fitting. Objection 3. Further. Christ took his body from other men, as is clear from Matthew 1 and Luke 3. But the head is the first of the members as was said above in article 1, 3 reply. Therefore Christ is not the head of the church as regards bodies. On the contrary, it is written in Philippians 321, who will reform the body of our lowliness made like to the body of his glory. I answer that the human body has a natural relation to the rational soul, which is its proper form and motor. In as much as the soul is its form, it receives from the soul life and the other properties which belong specifically to man. But in as much as the soul is its motor, the body serves the soul instrumentally. Therefore we must hold that the manhood of Christ had the power of influence, in as much as it is united to the Word of God, to whom his body is united through the soul as stated above in question 6 article 1. Hence, the whole manhood of Christ, that is, according to soul and body, influences all, both in soul and body. But principally the soul and secondarily the body. First, in as much as the members of the body are presented as instruments of justice in the soul that lives through Christ, as the Apostle says in Romans 6.13. Secondly, in as much as the life of glory flows from the soul onto the body, according to Romans 8.11. He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his spirit that dwelleth in you. Reply to Objection 1. The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body first and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally as was said above. Reply to Objection 2. The body of an animal has no relation to a rational soul as the human body has, hence there is no parity. Reply to Objection 3. Although Christ drew the matter of his body from other men, yet all draw from him the immortal life of their body, according to 1 Corinthians 15.22. And as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. Third article. Whether Christ is the head of all men. Objection 1. You would seem that Christ is not the head of all men, for the head has no relation except to the members of its body. While the unbaptized are no wise members of the church which is the body of Christ as it is written in Ephesians 1.23. Therefore Christ is not the head of all men. Objection 2 further. The apostle writes to the Ephesians in chapter 5 verses 25 through 27. Christ delivered himself up for the church, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing. But there are many of the faithful in whom has found the spot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the head of all the faithful. Objection 3 further. The sacraments of the old law are compared to Christ as the shadow to the body, as it is written in Colossians 2.17. But the fathers of the Old Testament in their day served under these sacraments according to Hebrews 8.5, who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Hence they did not pertain to Christ's body, and therefore Christ is not the head of all men. On the contrary, it is written in 1 Timothy 4.10, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful. And in 1 John 2.2, he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world. Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to Christ as head. Therefore Christ is the head of all men. I answer that this is the difference between the natural body of man and the church's mystical body, that the members of the natural body are altogether, and the members of the mystical are not altogether, neither as regards their natural being, since the body of the church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end, nor as regards their supernatural being, since of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act, and this according to the triple class of which the first is by faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in general, Christ is the head of all men, but diversely.  Such are those men existing in the world who are not predestined, who however on their departure from this world wholly cease to be members of Christ as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ. Reply to Objection 1. Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the church, are in the church potentially, and this potentiality is rooted in two things. First and principally, in the power of Christ, who is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race, secondly in free will. Reply to Objection 2. To be a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle is the ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ. Hence this will be in heaven and not on earth in which if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, as is written in 1 John 1.8. Nevertheless, there are some notably mortal sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity. But such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually but potentially, except perhaps imperfectly by formless faith which unites to God relatively but not simply, notably so that man partake of the life of grace. Or as is written in James 2.20, faith without works is dead. Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act that is to believe as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent. Reply to Objection 3. The Holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments not as realities but as images and shadows of what was to come. Now it is the same motion to an image as image and to the reality as is clear from the philosopher in On Memory and Reminiscence 2. Hence the ancient fathers by observing the legal sacraments were born to Christ by the same faith and love whereby we also are born to him and hence the ancient fathers belong to the same church as we. Fourth Article Whether Christ is the Head of the Angels Objection 1. It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the angels. For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as man is not of the same nature with the angels but only with men. This as is written in Hebrews 2.16, For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he takeeth hold. Therefore Christ as man is not the head of the angels. Objection 2. Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the church which is his body as is written in Ephesians 1.23. But the angels do not belong to the church. For the church is like the congregation of the faithful. And in the angels there is no faith, for they do not walk by faith but by sight. Otherwise they would be absent from the Lord as the apostle argues in 2 Corinthians 5.6.7. Therefore Christ as man is not the head of the angels. Objection 3. Augustine says in a commentary on John that as the word which was in the beginning with the Father quickens souls, so the word made flesh quickens bodies which angels lack. But the word made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ as man does not give life to angels and hence as man he is not the head of the angels. On the contrary, the apostle says in Colossians 2.10, who is the head of all principality and power, and the same reason holds good with the other orders of angels. Therefore Christ is the head of the angels. I answer that as was said above in article 1, 2nd reply. Where there is one body we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained to one end with distinct acts and duties may be metaphorically called one body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one end which is the glory of the divine fruition. Hence the mystical body of the church consists not only of men but of angels. Now of all this multitude Christ is the head since he is nearer God and shares his gifts more fully, not only than man, but even than angels, and of his influence not only men but even angels partake since it is written in Ephesians 1 verses 20 to 22 that God the Father set him, namely Christ, on his right hand in the heavenly places above all principality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come, and he hath subjected all things under his feet. Therefore Christ is not only head of men but of angels. Hence we read in Matthew 4 verse 11 that angels came and ministered to him. Reply to Objection 1 Christ's influence over men is chiefly with regard to their souls wherein men agree with angels in generic nature though not in specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can be said to be the head of the angels although the agreement falls short as regards the body. Reply to Objection 2 The church on earth is the congregation of the faithful but in heaven it is the congregation of comprehensors. Now Christ was not merely a wayfarer but a comprehensor and therefore he is the head not merely of the faithful but of comprehensors as having grace and glory most fully. Reply to Objection 3 Augustin here uses the similitude of cause and effect that is in as much as corporeal things act on bodies and spiritual things on spiritual things. Nevertheless the humanity of Christ by virtue of the spiritual nature that is the divine can cause something not only in the spirits of men but also in the spirits of angels on account of its most close conjunction with God that is by personal union. Fifth article Whether the grace of Christ as head of the church is the same as his habitual grace in as much as he is man. Objection 1 It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is head of the church and the individual grace of the man are not the same. For the apostle says in Romans 5.15 If by the offense of one many died much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one man Jesus Christ at abounded unto many. But the actual sin of Adam is distinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity. Hence the personal grace which is proper to Christ is distinct from his grace in as much as he is the head of the church which flows to others from him. Objection 2 Habits are distinguished by acts. But the personal grace of Christ is ordained to one act, notably the sanctification of his soul, and the capital grace is ordained to another, notably to sanctifying others. Therefore the personal grace of Christ is distinct from his grace as he is the head of the church. Objection 3 Further, as was said above in Question 6 Article 6, in Christ we distinguish a threefold grace, notably the grace of union, capital grace and the individual grace of the man. While the individual grace of Christ is distinct from the grace of union, therefore it is also distinct from the capital grace. On the contrary, it is written in John 1.16 Of his fullness we have all received. Now he is our head in as much as we receive from him. Therefore he is our head in as much as he has the fullness of grace. Now he had the fullness of grace in as much as personal grace was in him in its perfection as was said above in Question 7 Article 9. Hence his capital and personal grace are not distinct. I answer that, since everything acts in as much as it is a being in act, it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts, as it is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats. Yet not every act whereby anything is in act suffices for its being the principle of acting upon others. For since the agent is nobler than the patient, as Augustine says, in on the literal meaning of Genesis 12.16 and the philosopher in on the soul 3.19, the agent must act on others by reason of a certain preeminence. Now it was said above in Article 1 and in Question 7 Article 9, Grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way, and therefore from this preeminence of grace which he received it is from him that this grace is bestowed on others, and this belongs to the nature of head. Since the personal grace whereby the soul of Christ is justified is essentially the same as his grace as he is the head of the church and justifies others. But there is a distinction of reason between them. Reply to Objection 1. Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the nature, is derived from his actual sin which is a personal sin. As in him the person corrupted the nature, and by means of this corruption the sin of the first man is transmitted to posterity, in as much as the corrupt nature corrupts the person. Now grace is not vouchsave to us by means of human nature, but solely by the personal action of Christ himself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace in Christ, one corresponding to the nature, the other to the person, as in Adam we distinguish the sin of the nature and of the person. Reply to Objection 2. Different acts, one of which is the reason and the cause of the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the personal grace which is formally to sanctify its subject is the reason of the justification of others which pertains to capital grace. Hence it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this difference. Reply to Objection 3. Personal and capital grace are ordained to an act, but the grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the personal being. Hence the personal and the capital grace agree on the essence of the habit, but the grace of union does not, although the personal grace can be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch as it brings about a fitness for the union, and thus the grace of union, the capital, and the personal grace are one in essence, though there is a distinction of reason between them. 6th article. Whether it is proper to Christ to be head of the church? Objection 1. It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be the head of the church, for it is written in 1 Kings 1517. When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel? No, there is but one church in the New and the Old Testament. Therefore it seems that with equal reason any other man than Christ might be head of the church? Objection 2 further. Christ is called head of the church from his bestowing grace on the church's members, but it belongs to others also to grant grace to others according to Ephesians 429. Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth, but that which is good to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. Therefore it seems to belong also to others than Christ to be the head of the church? Objection 3 further. Christ by his ruling over the church is not only called head but also shepherd and foundation. Now Christ did not retain for himself alone the name of shepherd according to 1 Peter 5.4. And when the Prince of Pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory. Nor the name of foundation according to Apocalypse 2114. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations. Therefore it seems that he did not retain the name of head for himself alone. On the contrary, it is written in Colossians 219, the head of the church is that from which the whole body by joints and bands being supplied with nourishment and compacted growth unto the increase of God, but this belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is head of the church. I answer that the head influences the other members in two ways. First, by a certain intrinsic influence, in as much as motive and sensitive force flow from the head to the other members. Secondly, by a certain exterior guidance, in as much as by sight and the senses, which are rooted in the head, man is guided in his exterior acts. Now the interior influx of grace is from no one save Christ, whose manhood, through its union with the Godhead, has the power of justifying. But the influence over the members of the church, as regards their exterior guidance, can belong to others, and in this way others may be called heads of the church according to Amos 61. Ye great men, heads of the people, differently however from Christ. First, in as much as Christ is the head of all who pertain to the church in every place and time and state. But all other men are called heads, with reference to certain special places as bishops of their churches. Or with reference to a determined time, as the pope is the head of the whole church, notably during the time of his pontificate, and with reference to a determined state, in as much as they are in the state of wayfarers. Secondly, because Christ is the head of the church by his own power and authority, while others are called heads, as taking Christ's place, according to 2 Corinthians 2-10. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have done it in the person of Christ. And in 2 Corinthians 5-20. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were, exhorting by us. Reply to Objection 1. The word head is employed in that passage in regard to exterior government, as a king is said to be the head of his kingdom. Reply to Objection 2. Man does not distribute grace by interior influx, but by exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace. Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says in a commentary on John, if the rulers of the church are shepherds, how is there one shepherd except that all these are members of one shepherd? So likewise others may be called foundations and heads, in as much as they are the members of the one head and foundation. Nevertheless, as Augustine says, he gave to his members to be shepherds, yet none of us calledeth himself the door. He kept this for himself alone, and this is because by door is implied the principal authority, in as much as it is by the door that all enter the house, and it is Christ alone by whom also we have access into this grace wherein we stand, as is written in Romans 5.2. But by the other names above mentioned, there may be implied not merely the principal, but also the secondary authority. Seventh Article. Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked. Objection 1. It would seem that the devil is not the head of the wicked, for it belongs to the head to diffuse sense and movement into the members, as Agloss says, on Ephesians 1.22. And made him head, etc. But the devil has no power of spreading the evil of sin, which proceeds from the will of the sinner. Therefore the devil cannot be called the head of the wicked. Objection 2 further. By every sin a man is made evil. But not every sin is from the devil, and this is plain as regards the demons, who did not sin through the persuasion of another. So likewise not every sin of man proceeds from the devil for it is said. Not only our wicked thoughts are always raised up by the suggestion of the devil, but sometimes they spring from the movement of our will. Therefore the devil is not the head of all the wicked. Objection 3 further. One head is placed on one body. But the whole multitude of the wicked do not seem to have anything in which they are united. For evil is contrary to evil and springs from diverse effects, as Dionysius says, in On the Divine Names Four. Therefore the devil cannot be called the head of all the wicked. On the contrary. Agloss by Gregory in his commentary on Job, Job 1817. Let the memory of him perish from the earth, says, This is said of every evil one, yet so as to be referred to the head, that is the devil. I answer that, as was said above in Article 6, the head not only influences the members interiorly, but also governs them exteriorly, directing their actions to an end. Hence it may be said that any one is the head of a multitude, either as regards both, that is, by interior influence and exterior governance. And thus Christ is the head of the church, as was stated in Article 6. Or as regards exterior governance, and thus every prince or prelate is head of the multitude subject to him. And in this way the devil is head of all the wicked. For as is written in Job 4125, He is king over all the children of pride. Now it belongs to a governor to lead those whom he governs to their end. But the end of the devil is the aversion of the rational creature from God. Hence from the beginning he has endeavored to lead man from obeying the divine precept. But aversion from God has the nature of an end. Inasmuch as it is sought for under the appearance of liberty according to Jeremiah 220. Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saddest I will not serve. Hence inasmuch as some are brought to this end by sinning, they fall under the rule and government of the devil, and therefore he is called their head. Reply to Objection 1. Although the devil does not influence the rational mind interiorly, yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion. Reply to Objection 2. A governor does not always suggest to his subjects to obey his will, but proposes to all the sign of his will, in consequence of which some are incited by inducement, and some by their own free will. As is plain in the leader of an army, who standard all the soldiers follow, though no one persuades them. Therefore in the same way the first sin of the devil, who sineth from the beginning according to 1 John 3.8, is held out to all to be followed, and some imitate at his suggestion, and some of their own will without any suggestion. And hence the devil is the head of all the wicked, inasmuch as they imitate him according to Wisdom 2, 24 and 25. By the envy of the devil, death came into the world, and they follow him that are of his side. Reply to Objection 3. All sins agree in a version from God, although they differ by conversion to different changeable goods. Eighth article. Whether Antichrist may be called the head of all the wicked. Objection 1. You would seem that Antichrist is not the head of the wicked, for there are not several heads of one body, but the devil is the head of the multitude of the wicked. Therefore Antichrist is not their head. Objection 2 further. Antichrist is a member of the devil. Now the head is distinguished from the members. Therefore Antichrist is not the head of the wicked. Objection 3 further. The head has an influence over the members, but Antichrist has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him. Therefore Antichrist is not the head of the wicked. On the contrary, a gloss on Job 21 29. Ask any of them that go by the way, says. Whilst he was speaking of the body of all the wicked, suddenly he turned his speech to Antichrist, the head of all evildoers. I answer that, as was said above in article 1. In the head are found three things, order, perfection, and the power of influencing. But as regards to the order of the body, Antichrist is not said to be the head of the wicked as if his sin had preceded as the sin of the devil preceded. So likewise he is not called the head of the wicked from the power of influencing, although he will pervert some in his day by exterior persuasion. Nevertheless those who were before him were not beguiled into wickedness by him. Nor have imitated his wickedness. Hence he cannot be called the head of all the wicked in this way, but of some. Therefore it remains to be said that he is the head of all the wicked by reason of the perfection of his wickedness. Hence on 2 Thessalonians 2.4, showing himself as if he were God, a gloss says, As in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead, so in Antichrist the fullness of all wickedness. Not indeed as if his humanity were assumed by the devil into unity of person as the humanity of Christ by the Son of God, but that the devil by suggestion infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than into all others. And in this way all the wicked who have gone before are signs of Antichrist, according to 2 Thessalonians 2.7, for the mystery of iniquity already worketh. Reply to Objection 1. The devil and Antichrist are not two heads but one, since Antichrist is called the head in as much as the wickedness of the devil is most fully impressed on him. Hence on 2 Thessalonians 2.4, showing himself as if he were God, a gloss says, The head of all the wicked, namely the devil, who is king over all the children of pride, will be in him. Now he is said to be in him, not by personal union, nor by indwelling, since the trinity alone dwells in the mind as is taught, but by the effect of wickedness. Reply to Objection 2. As the head of Christ is God, yet he is the head of the church, as was said above in Article 1, second reply. So likewise Antichrist is a member of the devil, and yet is head of the wicked. Reply to Objection 3. Antichrist is said to be the head of all the wicked, not by a likeness of influence, but by a likeness of perfection. For in him the devil, as it were, brings his wickedness to a head, in the same way that anyone is said to bring his purpose to a head when he executes it. End of Question 8. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 9 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 9. Of Christ's knowledge in general, in four articles. We must now consider Christ's knowledge, concerning which the consideration will be two-fold. First, of Christ's knowledge in general. Secondly, of each particular kind of knowledge he had. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry. First, whether Christ had any knowledge besides the divine. Second, whether he had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have. Third, whether he had an imprinted or infused knowledge. Fourth, whether he had any acquired knowledge. First article. Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the divine. Objection 1. You would seem that in Christ there was no knowledge except for the divine. For knowledge is necessary that things may be known thereby. But by his divine knowledge Christ knew all things. Therefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in him. Objection 2 further. The lesser light is dimmed by the greater. But all created knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge of God is as the lesser to the greater light. Therefore there shone in Christ no other knowledge except the divine. Objection 3 further. The union of the human nature with the divine took place in the person, as is clear from question 2 article 2. Now according to some there is in Christ a certain knowledge of the union, whereby Christ knew what belongs to the mystery of the incarnation more fully than anyone else. Hence, since the personal union contains two natures, it would seem that there are not two knowledges in Christ but only one, pertaining to both natures. On the contrary, Ambrose says in On the Incarnation 7. God assumed the perfection of human nature in the flesh. He took upon himself the sense of man, but not the swollen sense of the flesh. But created knowledge pertains to the sense of man. Therefore in Christ there was created knowledge. I answer that as said above in question 5. The Son of God assumed an entire human nature, that is not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore behooved him to have created knowledge for three reasons. First, on account of the soul's perfection, for the soul considered in itself is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things, since it is like a tablet on which nothing is written. And yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said in On the Soul 3.18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act? But it was fitting that the Son of God should assume not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature. Since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the divine knowledge. Otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because since everything is on account of its operation, as stated in On the Heavens 2.17, Christ would have had an intellect of soul to no purpose if he had not understood by it. And this pertains to created knowledge. Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, notably, that whereby we naturally know first principles, since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect. Now nothing natural was wanting to Christ since he took the whole human nature, as stated above in Question 5. And since the Sixth Council condemned the opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms. Reply to Objection 1. Christ knew all things with the divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very essence of God, since God's understanding is His substance, as the philosopher proves, in Metaphysics 1239. Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have known nothing, and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose, since everything is on account of its operation. Reply to Objection 2. If the two lights are supposed to be in the same order, the lesser is dimmed by the greater, as the light of the sun dims the light of a candle, both being in the class of illuminance. But if we suppose two lights, one of which is in the class of illuminance, and the other in the class of illuminated, the lesser light is not dimmed by the greater, but rather is strengthened, as the light of the air by the light of the sun. And in this manner, the light of knowledge is not dimmed, but rather is heightened in the soul of Christ by the light of the divine knowledge, which is the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world, as is written in John 1.9. Reply to Objection 3. On the part of what are united, we hold there is a knowledge in Christ, both as to his divine and as to his human nature, so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one apostasis of God and man, the things of God are attributed to man, and the things of man are attributed to God, as was said above in Question 3, Articles 1 and 6. But on the part of the union itself, we cannot admit any knowledge in Christ, for this union is in personal being, and knowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature. Second article. Whether Christ had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have. Objection 1. It would seem that in Christ, there was not the knowledge of the blessed or comprehensors. For the knowledge of the blessed is a participation of divine light according to Psalm 3510. In thy light we shall see light. Now Christ had not a participated light, but he had the Godhead itself substantially abiding in him according to Colossians 2.9. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. Therefore in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed. Objection 2 further. The knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed, according to John 17.3. This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the one true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent. But this man was blessed through being united to God in person according to Psalm 64.5. Blessed is he whom thou hast chosen and taken to thee. Therefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed in him. Objection 3 further. To man belongs a double knowledge, one by nature and one above nature. Now the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God, is not natural to man but above his nature. But in Christ there was another and much higher supernatural knowledge, that is the divine knowledge. Therefore there was no need of the knowledge of the blessed in Christ. On the contrary, the knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of God. But he knew God fully, even as he was man, according to John 8.55. I do know him and do keep his word. Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed. I answer that, what is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is an act, for that whereby things are heeded must be itself hot. Now man is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God, and is ordained to it as to his an end. Since the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge, in as much as he is made in the image of God. Now men are brought to this end of Beatitude by the humanity of Christ, according to Hebrews 2.10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children unto glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by his passion. And hence it was necessary that the Beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, should belong to Christ preeminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect. Reply to Objection 1. The Godhead is united to the manhood of Christ in person, not in essence or nature, yet with the unity of the person remains the distinction of natures. And therefore the soul of Christ, which is a part of human nature, through a light participated from the divine nature, is perfected with the Beatific knowledge whereby it sees God in essence. Reply to Objection 2. By the union this man is blessed with the uncreated Beatitude, even as by the union he is God. Yet besides the uncreated Beatitude, it was necessary that there should be in the human nature of Christ a created Beatitude whereby his soul was established in the last end of human nature. Reply to Objection 3. The Beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent above the nature of the rational soul, inasmuch as it cannot reach it of its own strength. But in another way it is in accordance with its nature, inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature, having been made to the likeness of God as stated above. But the uncreated knowledge is in every way above the nature of the human soul. Third Article Whether Christ had an imprinted or infused knowledge Objection 1. It would seem that there was not in Christ another infused knowledge besides the Beatific knowledge. For all other knowledge compared to the Beatific knowledge is like imperfect to perfect. But imperfect knowledge is removed by the presence of perfect knowledge, as the clear face-to-face vision removes the enigmatic vision of faith as is plain from 1 Corinthians 13, 10 and 12. Since therefore in Christ there was the Beatific knowledge as stated above in Article 2, it would seem that there could not be any other imprinted knowledge. Objection 2 further An imperfect mode of cognition disposes towards a more perfect. As opinion, the result of dialectical syllogism, disposes towards science which results from demonstrative syllogisms. Now when perfection is reached there is no further need of the disposition, even as on reaching the end motion is no longer necessary. Hence, since every created cognition is compared to Beatific cognition as imperfect to perfect and as disposition to its term, it seems that since Christ had Beatific knowledge, it was not necessary for him to have any other knowledge. Objection 3 further As corporeal matter is in potentiality to sensible forms, so the possible intellect is in potentiality to intelligible forms. Now corporeal matter cannot receive two forms at once, one more perfect and the other less perfect. Neither can the soul receive a double knowledge at once, one more perfect and the other less perfect, and hence the same conclusion as above. On the contrary, it is written in Colossians 2-3 that in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I answer that as stated above in Article 1. It was fitting that the human nature assumed by the word of God should not be imperfect. Now everything in potentiality is imperfect unless it be reduced to act. But the passive intellect of man is in potentiality to all intelligible things, and it is reduced to act by intelligible species, which are its competitive forms, as is plain from what is said in On the Soul 3, 32 and 38. And hence we must admit in the soul of Christ an infused knowledge, in as much as the word of God imprinted upon the soul of Christ, which is personally united to Him. Intelligible species of all things to which the possible intellect is in potentiality, even as in the beginning of the creation of things, the word of God imprinted intelligible species upon the angelic mind, as is clear from Augustine, in On the Liberal Meeting of Genesis 2-8. And therefore, even as in the angels according to Augustine, there is a double knowledge, one the morning knowledge, whereby they know things in the word, the other the evening knowledge, whereby they know things in their proper natures by infused species. So likewise, besides the divine and uncreated knowledge in Christ, there is in his soul a beatific knowledge, whereby he knows the word and things in the word, and an infused or imprinted knowledge, whereby he knows things in their proper nature by intelligible species proportioned to the human mind. Reply to Objection 1. The imperfect vision of faith is essentially opposed to manifest vision, seeing that it is of the essence of faith to have reference to the unseen, as was said above in the parts Sukunda Sukunde, Question 1, Article 4. But cognition by infused species includes no opposition to beatific cognition. Therefore, there is no parity. Reply to Objection 2. Disposition is referred to perfection in two ways. First, as a way leading to perfection. Secondly, as an effect proceeding from perfection. Thus matter is disposed by heat to receive the form of fire, and when this comes, the heat does not cease but remains as an effect of this form. So too, opinion caused by a dialectical syllogism is a way to knowledge, which is acquired by demonstration, yet when this has been acquired, there may still remain the knowledge gained by the dialectical syllogism, following, so to say, the demonstrative knowledge which is based on the cause, since he who knows the cause is thereby enabled to better understand the probable signs from which dialectical syllogisms proceed. So likewise in Christ, together with the beatific knowledge, there still remains infused knowledge, not as a way to beatitude, but as strengthened by beatitude. Reply to Objection 3. The beatific knowledge is not by a species, that is, a similitude of the divine essence, or of whatever is known in the divine essence, as is plain from what has been said in the first part, Question 12, Article 2. But it is a knowledge of the divine essence immediately, in as much as the divine essence itself is united to the beatified mind, as an intelligible to an intelligent being. And the divine essence is a form exceeding the capacity of any creature whatsoever. Hence, together with this super exceeding form, there is nothing to hinder from being in the rational mind intelligible species, proportioned to its nature. Fourth Article Whether Christ Had Any Acquired Knowledge Objection 1. It would seem that in Christ there was no empiric and inquired knowledge. For whatever befitted Christ he had most perfectly. Now Christ did not possess acquired knowledge most perfectly, since he did not devote himself to the study of letters by which knowledge is acquired in its perfection. For it is said in John 7.15. The Jews wondered, saying, How doth this man know letters having never learned? Therefore it seems that in Christ there was no acquired knowledge. Objection 2 further. Nothing can be added to what is full. But the power of Christ's soul was filled with intelligible species defiantly infused, as was said above in Article 3. Therefore no acquired species could accrue to his soul. Objection 3 further. He who already has the habit of knowledge acquires no new habit. Through what he receives from the senses, otherwise two forms of the same species would be in the same thing together. But the habit which previously existed is strengthened and increased. Therefore, since Christ had the habit of infused knowledge, it does not seem that he acquired a new knowledge through what he perceived by the senses. On the contrary, it is written in Hebrews 5.8. Whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. That is, experienced, says Aglas. Therefore there was in the soul of Christ an empiric knowledge which is acquired knowledge. I answer that as is plain from Article 1. Nothing that God planted in our nature was wanting to the human nature assumed by the word of God. Now it is manifest that God planted in human nature not only a passive but an active intellect. Hence it is necessary to say that in the soul of Christ there was not merely a passive but also an active intellect. But if in other things God and nature make nothing in vain, as the philosopher says on the heavens 131, still less in the soul of Christ is there anything in vain. Now what is not its proper operation is useless, as is said on the heavens 217. Now the proper operation of the active intellect is to make intelligible species and act by abstracting them from phantasms. Hence it is said that the active intellect is that whereby everything is made actual. And thus it is necessary to say that in Christ there were intelligible species received in the passive intellect by the action of the active intellect, which means that there was inquired knowledge in him, which some call empiric. And hence although I wrote differently elsewhere in the sentences, it must be said that in Christ there was acquired knowledge, which is properly knowledge in a human fashion, both as regards the subject receiving and as regards the active cause. For such knowledge springs from Christ's active intellect, which is natural to the human soul. But infused knowledge is attributed to the soul, on account of a light infused from on high, and this manner of knowing is proportioned to the angelic nature. But the beatific knowledge, whereby the very essence of God is seen, is proper and natural to God alone, as was said in the first part, Question 12, Article 4. Reply to Objection 1. Since there is a twofold way of acquiring knowledge, by discovery and by being taught, the way of discovery is the higher and the way of being taught is secondary. Hence it is said in Ethics 1.4. He indeed is the best who knows everything by himself, yet he is good who obeys him that speaks a right. And hence it was more fitting for Christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery than by being taught, especially since he was given to be the teacher of all according to Joel 223. Be joyful in the Lord your God, because he hath given you a teacher of justice. Reply to Objection 2. The human mind has two relations, one to higher things, and in this respect the soul of Christ was full of the infused knowledge. The other relation is to lower things, that is, to phantasms which naturally move the human mind by virtue of the active intellect. Now it was necessary that even in this respect the soul of Christ should be filled with knowledge, not that the first fullness was insufficient for the human mind in itself, but that it behoved it to be also perfected with regard to phantasms. Reply to Objection 3. Acquired and infused habits are not to be classed together, for the habit of knowledge is acquired by the relation of the human mind to phantasms. Hence another habit of the same kind cannot be again acquired. But the habit of infused knowledge is of a different nature, as coming down to the soul from on high and not from phantasms, and hence there is no parity between these habits. End of question 9. Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC. Question 10 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 10 of the Beatific Knowledge of Christ's Soul in Four Articles. We must now consider each of the aforesaid knowledges. Since, however, we have treated of the divine knowledge in the first part, question 14, it now remains to speak of the three others. One of the Beatific Knowledge. Two of the Infused Knowledge. Three of the Acquired Knowledge. But again, because much has been said in the first part, notably in question 12, of the Beatific Knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, we shall speak here only of such things as belong properly to the Soul of Christ. Under this head, there are four points of inquiry. First, whether the Soul of Christ comprehended the word or the divine essence. Second, whether it knew all things in the word. Third, whether the Soul of Christ knew the infinite in the word. Fourth, whether it saw the word or the divine essence, clearer than did any other creature. First article, whether the Soul of Christ comprehended the word or the divine essence. Objection one, you would seem that the Soul of Christ comprehended and comprehends the word or divine essence. For is it or says in, on the Supreme Good 13, that, the Trinity is known only to itself and to the man assumed. Therefore, the man assumed communicates with the Holy Trinity in that knowledge of itself which is proper to the Trinity. Now this is the knowledge of comprehension. Therefore, the Soul of Christ comprehends the divine essence. Objection two, further, to be united to God in personal being is greater than to be united by vision. But as Damascene says in, on the True Faith 3.6, the whole Godhead in one person is united to the human nature in Christ. Therefore, much more is the whole divine nature seen by the Soul of Christ. And hence it would seem that the Soul of Christ comprehended the divine essence. Objection three, further, what belongs by nature to the Son of God, belongs by grace to the Son of Man, as Augustine says in, on the Trinity 1.13. But to comprehend the divine essence belongs by nature to the Son of God. Therefore, it belongs by grace to the Son of Man, and thus it seems that the Soul of Christ comprehended the divine essence by grace. On the contrary, Augustine says in his 83 questions, question 14, whatsoever comprehends itself is finite to itself. But the divine essence is not finite with respect to the Soul of Christ, since it infinitely exceeds it. Therefore, the Soul of Christ does not comprehend the Word. I answer that, as is plain from question two, articles one and six. The union of the two natures in the Person of Christ took place in such a way that the properties of both natures remained unconfused, that is, the uncreated remained uncreated, and the created remained within the limits of the creature, as Damascene says in, on the true faith three, three and four. Now, it is impossible for any creature to comprehend the divine essence, as was shown in the first part, question 12, articles one, four and seven, seeing that the infinite is not comprehended by the finite. And hence it must be said that the Soul of Christ no wise comprehends the divine essence. Reply to Objection one, the man assumed is reckoned with the divine trinity in the knowledge of itself, not indeed as regards comprehension, but by reason of a certain most excellent knowledge above the rest of creatures. Reply to Objection two, not even in the union by personal being does the human nature comprehend the Word of God or the divine nature, for although it was wholly united to the human nature in the one person of the Son, yet the whole power of the Godhead was not circumscribed by the human nature. Hence, Augustine says in his letter to Volusianus, number 137, I would have you know that it is not the Christian doctrine that God was united to flesh in such a manner as to quit or lose the care of the world's government, neither did he narrow or reduce it when he transferred it to that little body. So likewise, the Soul of Christ sees the whole essence of God, yet does not comprehend it, since it does not see it totally, that is, not as perfectly as it is knowable, as was said in the first part, Question 12, Article 7. Reply to Objection three, this saying of Augustine is to be understood by the grace of union, by reason of which all that is said of the Son of God in his divine nature is also said of the Son of Man on account of the identity of suppositum. And in this way it may be said that the Son of Man is a comprehensor of the divine essence, not indeed by his soul, but in his divine nature, even as we may also say that the Son of Man is the Creator. Second Article Whether the Son of God knew all things in the Word Objection one You would seem that the Soul of Christ does not know all things in the Word, for it is written in Mark 1332, But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. Therefore he does not know all things in the Word. Objection two further, the more perfectly anyone knows a principle, the more he knows in the principle. But God ceases essence more perfectly than the Soul of Christ does. Therefore he knows more than the Soul of Christ knows in the Word. Therefore the Soul of Christ does not know all things in the Word. Objection three further, the extent depends on the number of things known. If therefore the Soul of Christ knew in the Word all that the Word knows, it would follow that the knowledge of the Soul of Christ would equal the divine knowledge, that is, the created would equal the uncreated, which is impossible. On the contrary, on Apocalypse 512, the Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive divinity and wisdom, Agloss says, The knowledge of all things. I answer that, When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things in the Word, all things may be taken in two ways. First, properly, to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And in this way it must be said that the Soul of Christ knows all things in the Word. For every created intellect knows in the Word, not all simply, but so many more things, the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself. Now to Christ and to his dignity, all things to some extent belong, in as much as all things are subject to him. Moreover, he has been appointed Judge of all by God, because he is the Son of Man, as is said in John 527. And therefore the Soul of Christ knows in the Word all things existing in whatever time and the thoughts of men, of which he is the Judge, so that what is said of him, in John 225, for he knew what was in man, can be understood not merely of the divine knowledge, but also of his soul's knowledge, which it had in the Word. Secondly, all things may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act. Now some of these are in the divine power alone, and not all of these does the Soul of Christ know in the Word. For this would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the divine power, and consequently the divine essence. For every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do. Some, however, are not only in the power of God, but also in the power of the creature. And all of these the Soul of Christ knows in the Word, for it comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature, and consequently its power and virtue, and all things that are in the power of the creature. Reply to Objection 1. Arius and Eonomius understood this saying, not of the knowledge of the Soul, which they did not hold to be in Christ, as was said above in Question 9, Article 1, but of the divine knowledge of the Son, whom they held to be less than the Father as regards knowledge. But this will not stand, since all things were made by the Word of God, as is said in John 1.3. And amongst other things, all times were made by Him.  He is said therefore not to know the day and the hour of the judgment, for that He does not make it known, since on being asked by the apostles in Acts 1.7, He was unwilling to reveal it. And on the contrary, we read in Genesis 2212, Now I know that Thou fierest God, that is, now I have made thee know. But the Father is said to know, because He imparted this knowledge to the Son. Hence by saying, But the Father, we are given to understand that the Son knows not merely in the divine nature, but also in the human, because as Chrysostom argues, in his homily 78 on the Gospel of Matthew, if it is given to Christ as man to know how to judge, which is greater, much more is it given to him to know the less, notably the time of judgment. Origin however, in his commentary on Matthew number 30 expounds it of his body, which is the church, which is ignorant of this time. Lastly, some say this to be understood of the adoptive and not of the natural Son of God. Reply to Objection 2, God knows his essence so much the more perfectly than the soul of Christ as He comprehends it. And hence He knows all things, not merely whatever are an act at any time, which things He is said to know by knowledge of vision, but also what He ever Himself can do, which He is said to know by simple intelligence, as was shown in the first part, Question 14, Article 9. Therefore the soul of Christ knows all things that God knows in Himself by the knowledge of vision, but not all that God knows in Himself by knowledge of simple intelligence. And thus in Himself God knows many more things than the soul of Christ. Reply to Objection 3, The extent of knowledge depends not merely on the number of knowable things, but also on the clearness of the knowledge. Therefore, although the knowledge of the soul of Christ, which He has in the word, is equal to the knowledge of vision as regards the number of things known, nevertheless the knowledge of God infinitely exceeds the knowledge of the soul of Christ in clearness of cognition. Since the uncreated light of the divine intellect infinitely exceeds any created light received by the soul of Christ. Although, absolutely speaking, the divine knowledge exceeds the knowledge of the soul of Christ, not only as regards the mode of knowing, but also as regards the number of things known, as was stated above. Third Article. Whether the soul of Christ can know the infinite in the word? Objection 1. You would seem that the soul of Christ cannot know the infinite in the word. For that the infinite should be known is repugnant to the definition of the infinite, which in Physics 363 is said to be that, from which however much we may take, there always remains something to be taken. But it is impossible for the definition to be separated from the thing defined, since this would mean that contradictory exist together. Therefore, it is impossible that the soul of Christ knows the infinite. Objection 2. Further. The knowledge of the infinite is infinite. But the knowledge of the soul of Christ cannot be infinite, because its capacity is finite, since it is created. Therefore, the soul of Christ cannot know the infinite. Objection 3. Further. There can be nothing greater than the infinite. But more is contained in the divine knowledge, absolutely speaking, than in the knowledge of Christ's soul, as stated above in Article 2. Therefore, the soul of Christ does not know the infinite. On the contrary, the soul of Christ knows all its power and all it can do. Now it can cleanse infinite sins, according to first John 2.2. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Therefore, the soul of Christ knows the infinite. I answer that knowledge regards only being, since being and truth are convertible. Now a thing is said to be a being in two ways. First, simply, that is, whatever is a being in act. Secondly, relatively, that is, whatever is a being in potentiality. And because, as is said in Metaphysics 9.20, everything is known as it is an act, and not as it is in potentiality. Knowledge primarily and essentially regards being an act. And secondarily, regards being in potentiality, which is not knowable of itself, but in as much as that in whose power it exists is known. Hence, with regard to the first mode of knowledge, the soul of Christ does not know the infinite. Because there is not an infinite number in act, even though we were to reckon all that are an act at any time whatsoever, since the state of generation and corruption will not last forever. Consequently, there is a certain number not only of things lacking generation and corruption, but also of things capable of generation and corruption. But with regard to the other mode of knowing, the soul of Christ knows the infinite things in the word, for it knows, as stated above in Article 2, all that is in the power of the creature. Hence, since in the power of the creature there is an infinite number of things, it knows the infinite, as it were, by a certain knowledge of simple intelligence and not by a knowledge of vision. Reply to Objection 1. As we said in the first part, Question 8, Article 1, the infinite is taken in two ways. First, on the part of a form, and thus we have the negatively infinite, that is, a form or act not limited by being received into matter or a subject. And this infinite of itself is the most knowable on account of the perfection of the act. Although it is not comprehensible by the finite power of the creature, for thus God is said to be infinite. And this infinite, the soul of Christ knows, yet does not comprehend. Secondly, there is the infinite as regards matter, which is taken privately. That is, in as much as it has not the form it ought naturally to have. And in this way we have infinite in quantity. Now such an infinite of itself is unknown, in as much as it is, as it were, matter with privation of form, as is said in Physics 365. But all knowledge is by form or act. Therefore, if this infinite is to be known according to its mode of being, it cannot be known. For its mode is that part be taken after part, as is said in Physics 3, 62 and 63. And in this way it is true that if we take something from it, that is, taking part after part, there always remains something to be taken. But as material things can be received by the intellect immaterially, and many things unitedly, so can infinite things be received by the intellect, not after the manner of infinite, but finitely. And thus what are in themselves infinite are, in the intellect of the knower, finite. And in this way the soul of Christ knows an infinite number of things, in as much as it knows them not by discoursing from one to another, but in a certain unity. That is, in any creature in whose potentiality infinite things exist, and principally in the word himself. Reply to Objection 2. There is nothing to hinder a thing from being infinite in one way and finite in another, as when in quantities we imagine a surface infinite in length and finite in breadth. Hence, if there were an infinite number of men, they would have a relative infinity, that is, in multitude. But as regards the essence, they would be finite, since the essence of all would be limited to one specific nature. But what is simply infinite in its essence is God, as was said in the first part, Questions 7 Article 2. Now the proper object of the intellect is what a thing is, as is said in On the Soul 326, to which pertains the notion of the species. And thus the soul of Christ, since it has a finite capacity, attains to but does not comprehend what is simply infinite in essence, as stated above in Article 1. But the infinite in potentiality, which is in creatures, can be comprehended by the soul of Christ, since it is compared to the soul according to its essence, in which respect it is not infinite. For even our intellect understands the universal, for example the nature of a genus or a species, which in a manner has infinity in as much as it can be predicated of an infinite number. Reply to Objection 3. That which is infinite in every way can be but one. Hence the philosopher says in On the Heavens 1, 2 and 3, that since bodies have dimensions in every part, there cannot be several infinite bodies. Yet if anything were infinite in one way only, nothing would hinder the existence of several such infinite things, as if we were to suppose several lines of infinite length drawn on a surface of finite breadth. Hence, because infinitude is not a substance, but is accidental to things that are said to be infinite, as the philosopher says in Physics 3, 37 and 38. As the infinite is multiplied by different subjects, so too a property of the infinite must be multiplied in such a way that it belongs to each of them according to that particular subject. Now it is a property of the infinite that nothing is greater than it. Hence, if we take one infinite line, there is nothing greater in it than the infinite. So too, if we take any one of other infinite lines, it is plain that each has infinite parts. Therefore, of necessity in this particular line, there is nothing greater than all these infinite parts. Yet in another or a third line, there will be more infinite parts besides these. We observe this in numbers also, for the species of even numbers are infinite, and likewise the species of odd numbers are infinite. Yet there are more even and odd numbers than even. And thus it must be said that nothing is greater than the simply and in every way infinite. But than the infinite which is limited in some respect, nothing is greater in that order. Yet we may oppose something greater outside that order. In this way, therefore, there are infinite things in the potentiality of the creature, and yet there are more in the power of God than in the potentiality of the creature. So too, the soul of Christ knows infinite things by the knowledge of simple intelligence. Yet God knows more by this manner of knowledge or understanding. Fourth article. Whether the soul of Christ sees the word or the divine essence more clearly than does any other creature. Objection one. It would seem that the soul of Christ does not see the word more perfectly than does any other creature. For the perfection of knowledge depends upon the medium of knowing. As the knowledge we have by means of a demonstrative syllogism is more perfect than that which we have by means of a probable syllogism. But all the blessed see the word immediately in the divine essence itself, as was said in the first part, question 12 article 2. Therefore, the soul of Christ does not see the word more perfectly than any other creature. Objection two further. The perfection of vision does not exceed the power of seeing, but the rational power of a soul, such as is the soul of Christ, is below the intellect of power of an angel, as is plain from Dionysius in On the Celestial Hierarchy IV. Therefore, the soul of Christ did not see the word more perfectly than the angels. Objection three further. God sees his word infinitely more perfectly than does the soul of Christ. Hence there are infinite possible immediate degrees between the manner in which God sees his word and the manner in which the soul of Christ sees the word. Therefore, we cannot assert that the soul of Christ sees the word or the divine essence more perfectly than does every other creature. On the contrary, the apostle says in Ephesians 1 versus 20 and 21 that God set Christ on his right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power and virtue and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. But in that heavenly glory, the higher anyone is, the more perfectly does he know God. Therefore, the soul of Christ sees God more perfectly than does any other creature. I answer that the vision of the divine essence is granted to all the blessed by a partaking of the divine light which is shed upon them from the fountain of the word of God, according to Ecclesiasticus 1.5. The word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom. Now the soul of Christ, since it is united to the word in person, is more closely joined to the word of God than any other creature. Hence it more fully receives the light in which God is seen by the word himself than any other creature. And therefore, more perfectly than the rest of creatures, it sees the first truth itself which is the essence of God. Hence it is written in John 1.14, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full not only of grace, but also of truth. Reply to Objection 1. Perfection of knowledge on the part of the thing known depends on the medium, but as regards the knower, it depends on the power or habit. And hence it is that even amongst men one sees a conclusion in a medium more perfectly than another does. And in this way, the soul of Christ, which is filled with a more abundant light, knows the divine essence more perfectly than do the other blessed, although all see the divine essence in itself. Reply to Objection 2. The vision of the divine essence exceeds the natural power of any creature, as was said in the first part, Question 12, Article 4. And hence the degrees thereof depend rather on the order of grace in which Christ is supreme than on the order of nature in which the angelic nature is placed before the human. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above in Question 7, Article 12. There cannot be a greater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the union with the word, and the same is to be said of the perfection of the divine vision, although, absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and more sublime degree by the infinity of the divine power. End of Question 10, Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC


When Mayor Gertz recommended keeping tax rates steady while property values grew by 13% last year, he made some homeowners very angry. Cut the millage rate, cut whatever spending you need to because the property taxes keep going up and up and up and up. And you're trying to tax us out of our homes. We have too much subsidized rental housing in Athens and that is a huge problem. I paid $22,000 for the house, by the way. And the homeless people have come here from all around to on our backs to pay for the services for everybody else. There's a low-income taxpayer freeze. There's a senior taxpayer freeze, assessment freeze. The people who are really hurting, who would really hurt from these assessment hikes have the ability to be okay. And the people who have spoken today do not represent the majority of Athens. Thank you, sir. Folks, we'll go ahead and just wait for the move.