Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 15
Quaestio III. Utrum in Christo fuerit passio vel affectio irae.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum in Christo fuerit passio vel affectio irae. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. In quocumque est ponere zelum vindictae, est ponere motum irae; sed in Christo fuit zelus vindictae, sicut patet, quando eiecit ementes et vendentes de templop339-6: ergo videtur, quod habuit in se affectionem irae.
2. Item, detestari malum non est aliud quam irasci malo; sed in Christo fuit mali detestatio perfecta: ergo in Christo fuit passio, quae est ira.
3. Item, sicut rationalis ordinatur ad discutiendum, sic irascibilis ordinatur ad irascendum: ergo sicut in Christo ex parte rationalis fuit usus prudentiae, sic ex parte irascibilis fuit affectio irae.
4. Item, plus competit ira statui viae quam statui patriae; sed Dominus in die iudicii irascetur malis, ut saepe in Scriptura dicitur: ergo multo fortius affectum irae habuit in statu viatoris.
Sed contra: 1. Super illud Iob quintop339-10: Virum stultum interficit iracundia; Gregorius: « Ira per vitium oculum mentis excaecat, ira per zelum turbat »; sed oculus mentis in Christo nec excaecari potuit nec turbari, cum in ipso esset in continuo usu contemplationis: ergo non videtur, quod in eo aliqua affectio irae fuerit.
2. Item, Damascenusp339-11 definiens iram dicit, quod « ira est vindex laesae concupiscentiae »; et iterum, quod « ira est desiderium repunitionis »; sed in Christo nec fuit laesio concupiscentiae nec amor vindictae: ergo nec in eo fuit passio irae.
3. Item, Christus ita fuit perfecte mitis, sicut et humilisp339-12; sed in Christo ita fuit perfecta humilitas, quod nulla fuit superbia: ergo ita fuit perfecta mansuetudo, quod nulla ira.
4. Item, « ira secundum naturam est accensio sanguinis circa cor, secundum quod vult Philosophusp339-13 et Damascenus, ex evaporatione fellis »: ergo si hoc dicit passionem foedam, quae habet secum inquietationem et perturbationem coniunctam; videtur, quod talis passio in Christo non sit ponenda.
Conclusio.
In Christo fuit affectus irae, prout dicit affectum detestationis et commotionem partis sensualis, quae tamen subiecta est rationi.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ira uno modo dicit pure affectionemp340-1, et sic dicitur ira affectus detestationis alicuius mali, vel apparentis mali. Alio modo ira dicit affectum cum poena; et sic ira habet perturbationem et inquietationem annexam. Hoc autem potest esse in triplici differentia: quia aut perturbatio illa solum tangit potentias inferiores et nullo modo tangit oculum mentis; aut tangit oculum mentis ad tempus turbando, sed non excaecandop340-2; aut oculum mentis attingit ipsum perturbando et obnubilando. Et secundum hoc motus irae in quadruplici differentia reperitur, secundum quod colligitur ex dictis Sanctorum: uno modo pure dicit affectum detestationis; et hoc modo potuisset esse in Adam in statu innocentiaep340-3. — Alio modo dicit motum detestationis cum inquietatione et perturbatione partis sensualis sine aliqua perturbatione mentis, et hoc modo fuit in Christo affectio irae; sicut enim dicit Evangeliump340-4: Infremendo conturbavit semetipsum. — Tertio modo dicit affectum detestationis cum commotione et perturbatione non solum partis sensualis, sed etiam rationis ad tempus; et hoc modo reperitur ira in viris iustis, qui irascuntur ira per zelum, de quibus dicit Gregoriusp340-5, quod « inde mens perturbata proficit, ut clarescat; sicut oculus per collyrium immissum ad tempus turbatur, ut postmodum clarior efficiatur ». — Quarto modo ira dicit affectum detestationis cum commotione sensualitatis et etiam mentis, ita quod commotio illa habet secum perturbationem mentis annexam, vel ad illam est ordinata; et sic est ira per vitium, et reperitur in peccatoribus et prohibetur a Dominop340-6.
Et per hanc distinctionem patet responsio ad quaestionem et ad rationes ad utramque partem. Quodam enim modo fuit in Christo passio irae sive affectio irae, videlicet prout dicit affectum detestationis et commotionem partis sensualis, quae tamen subiecta est rationi. Et sic procedunt rationes ad primam partem inductae probantes, affectionem irae in Christo fuisse, ut aspicienti patet; et ideo sunt concedendae. Quodam etiam modo non fuit, videlicet prout dicit perturbationem oculi mentalis, et prout dicit affectum repunitionis, in quantum ille affectus est ex libidine vindictae, non ex zelo iustitiae; sic enim est passio perturbans.
Ad oppositorum solutionem:
Ad 1. 2. Et hoc modo procedunt duae primae rationes ad secundam partem; et propterea secundum illam viam verum concludunt et concedi possunt.
Ad 3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod in Christo nulla fuit superbia, ergo nulla debuit esse ira, quia fuit perfectus in mansuetudine sicut in humilitate; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia superbia directe nominat vitium, et ideo semper oppositum habet cum humilitate, et propterea non potest stare cum perfecta humilitate. Ira autem non semper nominat vitium, immo etiam nominat virtutem; ideo non sic oppositionemp340-7 habet cum mansuetudine. Et propter hoc non sequitur, quod si fuit perfectae mansuetudinis, quod propter hoc non habuerit affectionem irae.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ira est ex accensionep340-8 sanguinis circa cor; dicendum, quod illud verum est in nobis, in quibus caro repugnat spiritui, et sensualitas rationi, qui non tantum habemus corruptionem poenalitatis, immo etiam foeditatis; hoc autem non oportet esse in Christo. — Si quis tamen diceret, in Christo fuisse accensionem sanguinis, sed moderate, non videtur esse inconveniensp340-9.
---
Question III. Whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger.
Thirdly it is asked, whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger. And that there was, it seems.
1. In whomever there is to be posited a zeal for vengeance, there is to be posited a movement of anger; but in Christ there was a zeal for vengeance, as is clear, when he cast out those buying and selling from the templep339-6: therefore it seems that he had in himself an affection of anger.
2. Likewise, to detest evil is nothing other than to be angry at evil; but in Christ there was a perfect detestation of evil: therefore in Christ there was a passion, which is anger.
3. Likewise, just as the rational [power] is ordered to discerning, so the irascible is ordered to being angry: therefore just as in Christ on the side of the rational there was a use of prudence, so on the side of the irascible there was an affection of anger.
4. Likewise, anger befits the state of the way more than the state of the fatherland; but the Lord on the day of judgment will be angry at the wicked, as is often said in Scripture: therefore much more strongly did he have an affection of anger in the state of the wayfarer.
On the contrary: 1. Upon that text of Job, chapter fivep339-10: Anger slays the foolish man; Gregory: « Anger through vice blinds the eye of the mind, anger through zeal disturbs it »; but the eye of the mind in Christ could neither be blinded nor disturbed, since in him it was in the continual use of contemplation: therefore it does not seem that there was in him any affection of anger.
2. Likewise, Damascenep339-11, defining anger, says that « anger is the avenger of an injured concupiscence »; and again, that « anger is the desire for repayment »; but in Christ there was neither an injury of concupiscence nor a love of vengeance: therefore neither was there in him a passion of anger.
3. Likewise, Christ was as perfectly meek as he was humblep339-12; but in Christ the humility was so perfect that there was no pride: therefore the meekness was so perfect that there was no anger.
4. Likewise, « anger according to nature is a kindling of the blood about the heart, according to what the Philosopherp339-13 and Damascene hold, from the evaporation of the bile »: therefore if this denotes a foul passion, which has joined to it disquiet and disturbance; it seems that such a passion is not to be posited in Christ.
Conclusion.
In Christ there was an affect of anger, inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason.
I respond: It must be said that anger in one way denotes purely an affectionp340-1, and thus anger is called an affect of detestation of some evil, or of an apparent evil. In another way anger denotes an affect with punishment; and thus anger has disturbance and disquiet annexed to it. And this can be in a threefold difference: for either that disturbance touches only the lower powers and in no way touches the eye of the mind; or it touches the eye of the mind by disturbing it for a time, but not by blinding itp340-2; or it reaches the eye of the mind itself by disturbing and beclouding it. And according to this the movement of anger is found in a fourfold difference, according to what is gathered from the sayings of the Saints: in one way it denotes purely an affect of detestation; and in this way it could have been in Adam in the state of innocencep340-3. — In another way it denotes a movement of detestation with disquiet and disturbance of the sensual part without any disturbance of the mind, and in this way there was in Christ an affection of anger; for as the Gospel saysp340-4: Groaning, he troubled himself. — In a third way it denotes an affect of detestation with commotion and disturbance not only of the sensual part, but also of reason for a time; and in this way anger is found in just men, who are angry with anger through zeal, of whom Gregory saysp340-5 that « thereby the disturbed mind makes progress, so that it grows clear; just as the eye is for a time disturbed by the eye-salve applied to it, so that afterwards it may be made clearer ». — In a fourth way anger denotes an affect of detestation with commotion of the sensuality and also of the mind, so that that commotion has annexed to it a disturbance of the mind, or is ordered to it; and thus anger is through vice, and is found in sinners and is forbidden by the Lordp340-6.
And through this distinction the response to the question and to the reasons on both sides is clear. For in a certain way there was in Christ a passion of anger or affection of anger, namely inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason. And thus the reasons adduced for the first part proceed, proving that an affection of anger was in Christ, as is clear to one who looks; and therefore they are to be conceded. And in a certain way it was not, namely inasmuch as it denotes a disturbance of the mental eye, and inasmuch as it denotes an affect of repayment, insofar as that affect is from a craving for vengeance, not from a zeal for justice; for thus it is a disturbing passion.
On the solution of the opposing arguments:
To 1 and 2. And in this way the first two reasons proceed to the second part; and therefore along that way they conclude truly and can be conceded.
To 3. As for that which is objected, that in Christ there was no pride, therefore there ought to have been no anger, since he was perfect in meekness as in humility; it must be said that the case is not alike, because pride directly names a vice, and therefore it always has the opposite [relation] with humility, and therefore it cannot stand with perfect humility. But anger does not always name a vice; rather it even names a virtue; therefore it does not have such an oppositionp340-7 with meekness. And on account of this it does not follow that, if he was of perfect meekness, on account of this he did not have an affection of anger.
To 4. As for that which is objected, that anger is from a kindlingp340-8 of the blood about the heart; it must be said that this is true in us, in whom the flesh struggles against the spirit, and the sensuality against reason, who have not only the corruption of penalty but even of foulness; but this need not be in Christ. — If, however, anyone should say that in Christ there was a kindling of the blood, but a moderate one, it does not seem to be unfittingp340-9.
---
- Ioan. 2, 17. Cfr. Marc. 11, 15. et Luc. 19, 45. — In principio quaest. pro Tertio codd. A N T U X Tertio loco.John 2:17. Cf. Mark 11:15 and Luke 19:45. — At the beginning of the question, for Tertio the codices A N T U X read Tertio loco.
- Vers. 2, ubi pro Virum Vulgata habet Vere, et pro interficit codd. G H N U X bb interficiet. — Pro Gregorius, cuius dictum habetur in V. Moral. c. 45. n. 82, codd. K Y substituerunt Glossa. Paulo inferius pro in ipso esset cod. K ipse esset.Verse 2, where for Virum (the man) the Vulgate has Vere (truly), and for interficit (slays) the codices G H N U X bb [read] interficiet (shall slay). — For Gregorius, whose saying is found in Morals V, c. 45, n. 82, the codices K Y substituted Glossa. A little below, for in ipso esset cod. K [reads] ipse esset.
- Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. 3. (c. 2.), et I. de Anima, text. 16. (c. 1.).[Damascene,] On the Orthodox Faith II, c. 16. Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric II, c. 3 (c. 2), and On the Soul I, text 16 (c. 1).
- Matth. 11, 29: Discite a me, quia mitis sum etc.Matthew 11:29: Learn of me, for I am meek, etc.
- Libr. I. de Anima, text. 16. (c. 1.): « Differenter autem definiet naturalis et dialecticus unumquodque ipsorum. Ut ira quid est? Hic enim appetitum recontristationis (ἀντιλυπήσεως) aut aliquid huiusmodi; ille autem fervorem sanguinis aut calidi circa cor ». Cfr. ibid. text. 63. (c. 4.). Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 16. ait: Ira est fervor eius qui circa cor est sanguinis, ex evaporatione fellis.On the Soul I, text 16 (c. 1): « The natural philosopher and the dialectician will define each of these differently. As, what is anger? For the former [defines it as] an appetite for retaliation (ἀντιλυπήσεως) or something of this kind; the latter, however, [as] a fervor of the blood or of the heat about the heart ». Cf. ibid., text 63 (c. 4). Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith II, c. 16, says: Anger is a fervor of the blood that is about the heart, from the evaporation of the bile.
- Cod. K affectionem.Cod. K [reads] affectionem.
- Edd. excedendo.The editions [read] excedendo.
- August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 19. docet, ante peccatum in paradiso iram ad exercendam iustam coercitionem non fuisse vitiosam.Augustine, On the City of God XIV, c. 19, teaches that before sin, in paradise, anger for exercising a just coercion was not vicious.
- Ioan. 11, 33. Cod. F cum Vulgata: Infremuit spiritu et turbavit se ipsum. Cfr. q. praeced. in corp.John 11:33. Cod. F, with the Vulgate: He groaned in the spirit and troubled himself. Cf. the preceding question in the body.
- Libr. V. Moral. c. 45. n. 82: Unde mens turbatur, ne videat, inde proficit, ut ad videndum verius clarescat; sicut infirmanti oculo, cum collyrium immittitur, lux penitus negatur; sed inde eam post paululum veraciter recipit, unde hanc ad tempus salubriter amittit.Morals V, c. 45, n. 82: Whence the mind is disturbed, so that it may not see, thence it makes progress, so that for seeing it may grow more truly clear; just as to an ailing eye, when the eye-salve is applied, the light is utterly denied; but thence it truly recovers it after a little while, whence for a time it salubriously loses it.
- Matth. 5, 22. Bernard., Epist. 69. n. 1. scripsit haec: Itaque, dilectissime, irascere et noli peccare. Peccabis autem non minus nimis irascendo, quam omnino non irascendo. Siquidem non irasci, ubi irascendum sit, nolle emendare peccatum est; plus vero irasci, quam irascendum sit, peccatum peccato addere est. — Mox pro ad utramque partem cod. K utriusque partis.Matthew 5:22. Bernard, Letter 69, n. 1, wrote this: Therefore, most beloved, be angry and sin not. But you will sin no less by being too angry than by not being angry at all. Since indeed not to be angry, where one ought to be angry, is to be unwilling to amend a sin; but to be angry more than one ought is to add sin to sin. — Shortly after, for ad utramque partem cod. K [reads] utriusque partis.
- Ita edd. et complures codd., in aliis oppositum.So the editions and several codices, in others oppositum.
- Codd. F G I L N T V Z accessione; cod. U ira est accensio.The codices F G I L N T V Z [read] accessione; cod. U [reads] ira est accensio.
- Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---