Read Ebook: Summa Theologica Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition by Thomas Aquinas Saint

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 5276 lines and 450604 words, and 106 pages

Transcribed from the Rowell and Son edition by David Price. Many thanks to the British Library for making their copy available.

ADDRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF RUGBY ABOUT THE CHOLERA MORBUS.

FRIENDS AND FELLOW TOWNSMEN,

CHOLERA MORBUS means in English "a disease of the bile." Those common bowel complaints which occur every Autumn are instances of CHOLERA; the bile is out of order, and the natural action of the bowels becomes disordered. But the CHOLERA which has been so much talked of on the Continent of Europe is called SPASMODIC CHOLERA, that is "a disease of the bile attended with spasms or cramps." To say the truth however, it does not appear that CHOLERA is a very proper name for it; for it seems much more a disease of the blood than of the bile. It is by no means always accompanied with disorder in the bowels, but it is as if a man's life blood were suddenly poisoned; as if it were choked up so that it could not flow freely, and therefore there is a great feeling of weight and pressure about the heart and chest. The powers of life seem palsied, the legs and belly become cold and cramped, and the pulse so weak that you can scarcely feel it. A man dies of the disorder keeping his senses to the last generally within twenty-four hours, unless you can succeed in restoring the natural action of the blood, and so relieving him from the cramps, and chills, and oppression under which he had laboured.

This is a new disorder in this part of the world, and one asks naturally how and where it first broke out. It was first observed at a place called Jessore in India, about a hundred miles north east of Calcutta. This was in August, 1817, that is, more than fourteen years ago. How it arose, nobody can certainly tell. Some say that the rice on which the natives chiefly live, was very bad that year, and bred the disorder in those who ate it. But however this be, the disease has ever since been travelling about in various directions in Asia, till in the Autumn of last year, 1830, it made its appearance in Europe, and broke out at Moscow in Russia towards the end of September. From thence in the present year it has spread to St. Petersburg, the capital of the Russian Empire; to Berlin, the capital of Prussia; to Vienna, the capital of Austria; and latterly to Hamburg, in Germany, a great city near the mouth of the river Elbe, opposite to the eastern coast of England. It is now said to have crossed over to England within the last week, and to have appeared at Sunderland, in Durham, and at Newcastle upon Tyne, in Northumberland.

At any rate this much is certain,--that whether it be in the air or whether it be caught from those who are ill of it, there are a great many persons who will neither take it one way or the other. If it is in the air, all people living in the same place must be equally exposed to it, but we see that at Vienna, out of a population of nearly 300,000 persons, only 2,800 have taken the Cholera: at Berlin, out of a population of 200,000, the deaths have been about 1,184. Or supposing that it is caught by one person from another, still we find that few only catch it; for of these 1,184 persons who have died at Berlin, more than 700 lived in 400 different houses, which 400 houses were inhabited by above 16,000 people. You see at once that they must have been very crowded, for this is at the rate of 40 inhabitants to every house, and yet out of these 40 persons, placed in circumstances the most likely, one would think, to make them catch it, not so many as two died from it. It should be added that there are in all about 7000 houses in Berlin, so that in 6600 of these there were not more than 400 deaths, and as the whole population of the City is only 200,000, it is plain that the houses in which the deaths took place must have been much more closely inhabited than is generally the case, for allowing 40 persons for every house in the whole town would make the population 280,000, instead of 200,000.

My object in writing this has been merely to give some information to those who do not see much of books or newspapers. Of course those who do, know already just as much about the Cholera, and very likely much more than I do. And further for those persons who if they read a newspaper do not keep it by them, I have thought it right to reprint the Directions published by Sir Henry Halford, the President of the London Board of Health, and circulated with his authority in London.

AN INHABITANT OF RUGBY.

NOVEMBER 11TH.

"It is important to point out the instant measures which may safely and beneficially be employed where medical aid cannot immediately be procured. All means tending to restore the circulation and maintain the warmth of the body, should be had recourse to without delay. The patients should always immediately be put to bed, wrapped up in hot blankets, and warmth should be sustained by other external applications, such as repeated frictions with flannels and camphorated spirits; poultices of mustard and linseed to the stomach, particularly where pain and vomiting exist; similar poultices to the feet and legs to restore their warmth. The returning heat of the body may be prompted by bags containing hot salt or bran applied to different parts of it. For the same purpose of restoring and sustaining the circulation, white wine whey with spice, hot brandy and water, or sal volatile, in a dose of a tea-spoonful, in hot water, frequently repeated, or from 5 to 20 drops of some of the essential oils, as peppermint, cloves, or cajeput, in a wine-glass of water, may be administered: with the same view, where the stomach will bear it, warm broth, with spice may be employed. In very severe cases, or where medical aid is difficult to be obtained, from 20 to 40 drops of laudanum may be given in any of the warm drinks previously recommended,

Obj. 2: Further, from the union of soul and body results the nature of the human species. But Damascene says , that "we must not conceive a common species in the Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore there was no union of soul and body in Him.

Obj. 3: Further, the soul is united to the body for the sole purpose of quickening it. But the body of Christ could be quickened by the Word of God Himself, seeing He is the fount and principle of life. Therefore in Christ there was no union of soul and body.

Reply Obj. 1: This would seem to be the reason which was of weight with such as denied the union of the soul and body in Christ, viz. lest they should thereby be forced to admit a second person or hypostasis in Christ, since they saw that the union of soul and body in mere men resulted in a person. But this happens in mere men because the soul and body are so united in them as to exist by themselves. But in Christ they are united together, so as to be united to something higher, which subsists in the nature composed of them. And hence from the union of the soul and body in Christ a new hypostasis or person does not result, but what is composed of them is united to the already existing hypostasis or Person. Nor does it therefore follow that the union of the soul and body in Christ is of less effect than in us, for its union with something nobler does not lessen but increases its virtue and worth; just as the sensitive soul in animals constitutes the species, as being considered the ultimate form, yet it does not do so in man, although it is of greater effect and dignity, and this because of its union with a further and nobler perfection, viz. the rational soul, as has been said above .

Secondly, this saying of Damascene may be taken not as referring to human nature, as if from the union of soul and body one common nature did not result, but as referring to the union of the two natures Divine and human: which do not combine so as to form a third something that becomes a common nature, for in this way it would become predicable of many, and this is what he is aiming at, since he adds: "For there was not generated, neither will there ever be generated, another Christ, Who from the Godhead and manhood, and in the Godhead and manhood, is perfect God and perfect man."

Whether the Human Nature Was United to the Word of God Accidentally?

Objection 1: It would seem that the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally. For the Apostle says of the Son of God, that He was "in habit found as a man." But habit is accidentally associated with that to which it pertains, whether habit be taken for one of the ten predicaments or as a species of quality. Therefore human nature is accidentally united to the Son of God.

Obj. 2: Further, whatever comes to a thing that is complete in being comes to it accidentally, for an accident is said to be what can come or go without the subject being corrupted. But human nature came to Christ in time, Who had perfect being from eternity. Therefore it came to Him accidentally.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever does not pertain to the nature or the essence of a thing is its accident, for whatever is, is either a substance or an accident. But human nature does not pertain to the Divine Essence or Nature of the Son of God, for the union did not take place in the nature, as was said above . Hence the human nature must have accrued accidentally to the Son of God.

Obj. 4: Further, an instrument accrues accidentally. But the human nature was the instrument of the Godhead in Christ, for Damascene says , that "the flesh of Christ is the instrument of the Godhead." Therefore it seems that the human nature was united to the Son of God accidentally.

But some more recent masters, thinking to avoid these heresies, through ignorance fell into them. For some conceded one person in Christ, but maintained two hypostases, or two supposita, saying that a man, composed of body and soul, was from the beginning of his conception assumed by the Word of God. And this is the first opinion set down by the Master . But others desirous of keeping the unity of person, held that the soul of Christ was not united to the body, but that these two were mutually separate, and were united to the Word accidentally, so that the number of persons might not be increased. And this is the third opinion which the Master sets down .

But both of these opinions fall into the heresy of Nestorius; the first, indeed, because to maintain two hypostases or supposita in Christ is the same as to maintain two persons, as was shown above . And if stress is laid on the word "person," we must have in mind that even Nestorius spoke of unity of person on account of the unity of dignity and honor. Hence the fifth Council directs an anathema against such a one as holds "one person in dignity, honor and adoration, as Theodore and Nestorius foolishly wrote." But the other opinion falls into the error of Nestorius by maintaining an accidental union. For there is no difference in saying that the Word of God is united to the Man Christ by indwelling, as in His temple , or by putting on man, as a garment, which is the third opinion; rather it says something worse than Nestorius--to wit, that the soul and body are not united.

Now the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis. Hence in the fifth Council we read: "Since the unity may be understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of Apollinaris and Eutyches, professing the destruction of what came together" , "confess a union by mingling; but the followers of Theodore and Nestorius, maintaining division, introduce a union of purpose. But the Holy Church of God, rejecting the impiety of both these treasons, confesses a union of the Word of God with flesh, by composition, which is in subsistence." Therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions, mentioned by the Master , which holds one hypostasis of God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but an article of Catholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two hypostases, and the third which holds an accidental union, are not to be styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils.

Reply Obj. 1: As Damascene says : "Examples need not be wholly and at all points similar, for what is wholly similar is the same, and not an example, and especially in Divine things, for it is impossible to find a wholly similar example in the Theology," i.e. in the Godhead of Persons, "and in the Dispensation," i.e. the mystery of the Incarnation. Hence the human nature in Christ is likened to a habit, i.e. a garment, not indeed in regard to accidental union, but inasmuch as the Word is seen by the human nature, as a man by his garment, and also inasmuch as the garment is changed, for it is shaped according to the figure of him who puts it on, and yet he is not changed from his form on account of the garment. So likewise the human nature assumed by the Word of God is ennobled, but the Word of God is not changed, as Augustine says .

Reply Obj. 2: Whatever accrues after the completion of the being comes accidentally, unless it be taken into communion with the complete being, just as in the resurrection the body comes to the soul which pre-exists, yet not accidentally, because it is assumed unto the same being, so that the body has vital being through the soul; but it is not so with whiteness, for the being of whiteness is other than the being of man to which whiteness comes. But the Word of God from all eternity had complete being in hypostasis or person; while in time the human nature accrued to it, not as if it were assumed unto one being inasmuch as this is of the nature , but to one being inasmuch as this is of the hypostasis or person. Hence the human nature is not accidentally united to the Son of God.

SEVENTH ARTICLE

Whether the Union of the Divine Nature and the Human Is Anything Created?

Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the union is not anything created.

Obj. 2: Further, the end holds first place in everything. But the end of the union is the Divine hypostasis or Person in which the union is terminated. Therefore it seems that this union ought chiefly to be judged with reference to the dignity of the Divine hypostasis, which is not anything created. Therefore the union is nothing created.

Obj. 3: Further, "That which is the cause of a thing being such is still more so" . But man is said to be the Creator on account of the union. Therefore much more is the union itself nothing created, but the Creator.

Reply Obj. 1: This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to God without any change in Him.

Reply Obj. 2: The specific nature of a relation, as of motion, depends on the subject. And since this union has its being nowhere save in a created nature, as was said above, it follows that it has a created being.

EIGHTH ARTICLE

Whether Union Is the Same As Assumption?

Objection 1: It would seem that union is the same as assumption. For relations, as motions, are specified by their termini. Now the term of assumption and union is one and the same, viz. the Divine hypostasis. Therefore it seems that union and assumption are not different.

Obj. 2: Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the same thing seems to be what unites and what assumes, and what is united and what is assumed. But union and assumption seem to follow the action and passion of the thing uniting and the united, of the thing assuming and the assumed. Therefore union seems to be the same as assumption.

Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says : "Union is one thing, incarnation is another; for union demands mere copulation, and leaves unsaid the end of the copulation; but incarnation and humanation determine the end of copulation." But likewise assumption does not determine the end of copulation. Therefore it seems that union is the same as assumption.

Reply Obj. 1: Union and assumption have not the same relation to the term, but a different relation, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 2: What unites and what assumes are not the same. For whatsoever Person assumes unites, and not conversely. For the Person of the Father united the human nature to the Son, but not to Himself; and hence He is said to unite and not to assume. So likewise the united and the assumed are not identical, for the Divine Nature is said to be united, but not assumed.

NINTH ARTICLE

Whether the Union of the Two Natures in Christ Is the Greatest of All Unions?

Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the two natures in Christ is not the greatest of all unions. For what is united falls short of the unity of what is one, since what is united is by participation, but one is by essence. Now in created things there are some that are simply one, as is shown especially in unity itself, which is the principle of number. Therefore the union of which we are speaking does not imply the greatest of all unions.

Obj. 2: Further, the greater the distance between things united, the less the union. Now, the things united by this union are most distant--namely, the Divine and human natures; for they are infinitely apart. Therefore their union is the least of all.

Obj. 3: Further, from union there results one. But from the union of soul and body in us there arises what is one in person and nature; whereas from the union of the Divine and human nature there results what is one in person only. Therefore the union of soul and body is greater than that of the Divine and human natures; and hence the union of which we speak does not imply the greatest unity.

Reply Obj. 1: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a Divine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received into another by participation. Also, it is complete in itself, having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as in numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by the things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of the Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to it.

Reply Obj. 2: This reason regards the things united, and not the Person in Whom the union takes place.

Reply Obj. 3: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than the unity of person and nature in us; and hence the union of the Incarnation is greater than the union of soul and body in us.

TENTH ARTICLE

Whether the Union of the Incarnation Took Place by Grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above . But the union of the human nature to the Divine did not take place accidentally, as was shown above . Therefore it seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace.

Obj. 2: Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written : "In Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Therefore it seems that this union did not take place by grace.

Obj. 3: Further, every saint is united to God by grace. If, therefore, the union of the Incarnation was by grace, it would seem that Christ is said to be God no more than other holy men.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet