Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there was contrariety of wills in Christ. For contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects, as contrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini, as is plain from the Philosopher (Phys. v, text. 49, seq.). Now Christ in His different wills wished contrary things. For in His Divine will He wished for death, from which He shrank in His human will, hence Athanasius says : "When Christ says 'Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done,' and again, 'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak,' He denotes two wills---the human, which through the weakness of the flesh shrank from the passion---and His Divine will eager for the passion." Hence there was contrariety of wills in Christ.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Gal. 5:17) that "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." Now when the spirit desires one thing, and the flesh another, there is contrariety of wills. But this was in Christ; for by the will of charity which the Holy Spirit was causing in His mind, He willed the passion, according to Is. 53:7: "He was offered because it was His own will," yet in His flesh He shrank from the passion. Therefore there was contrariety of wills in Him.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Lk. 22:43) that "being in an agony, He prayed the longer." Now agony seems to imply a certain struggle in a soul drawn to contrary things. Hence it seems that there was contrariety of will in Christ.

On the contrary, In the decisions of the Sixth Council it is said: "We confess two natural wills, not in opposition, as evil-minded heretics assert, but following His human will, and neither withstanding nor striving against, but rather being subject to, His Divine and omnipotent will."

I answer that, Contrariety can exist only where there is opposition in the same and as regards the same. For if the diversity exists as regards diverse things, and in diverse subjects, this would not suffice for the nature of contrariety, nor even for the nature of contradiction, e.g. if a man were well formed or healthy as regards his hand, but not as regards his foot. Hence for there to be contrariety of wills in anyone it is necessary, first, that the diversity of wills should regard the same. For if the will of one regards the doing of something with reference to some universal reason, and the will of another regards the not doing the same with reference to some particular reason, there is not complete contrariety of will, e.g. when a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged for the good of the commonwealth, and one of the latter's kindred wishes him not to be hanged on account of a private love, there is no contrariety of wills; unless, indeed, the desire of the private good went so far as to wish to hinder the public good for the private good---in that case the opposition of wills would regard the same.

Secondly, for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be in the same will. For if a man wishes one thing with his rational appetite, and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite, there is no contrariety, unless the sensitive appetite so far prevailed as to change or at least keep back the rational appetite; for in this case something of the contrary movement of the sensitive appetite would reach the rational will.

And hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive will in Christ wished what the Divine will did not wish, yet there was no contrariety of wills in Him. First, because neither the natural will nor the will of sensuality rejected the reason for which the Divine will and the will of the human reason in Christ wished the passion. For the absolute will of Christ wished the salvation of the human race, although it did not pertain to it to will this for the sake of something further; but the movement of sensuality could nowise extend so far. Secondly, because neither the Divine will nor the will of reason in Christ was impeded or retarded by the natural will or the appetite of sensuality. So, too, on the other hand, neither the Divine will nor the will of reason in Christ shrank from or retarded the movement of the natural human will and the movement of the sensuality in Christ. For it pleased Christ, in His Divine will, and in His will of reason, that His natural will and will of sensuality should be moved according to the order of their nature. Hence it is clear that in Christ there was no opposition or contrariety of wills.

Reply to Objection 1: The fact of any will in Christ willing something else than did the Divine will, proceeded from the Divine will, by whose permission the human nature in Christ was moved by its proper movements, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15,18,19).

Reply to Objection 2: In us the desires of the spirit are impeded or retarded by the desires of the flesh: this did not occur in Christ. Hence in Christ there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit, as in us.

Reply to Objection 3: The agony in Christ was not in the rational soul, in as far as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity of motives, as when anyone, on his reason considering one, wishes one thing, and on its considering another, wishes the contrary. For this springs from the weakness of the reason, which is unable to judge which is the best simply. Now this did not occur in Christ, since by His reason He judged it best that the Divine will regarding the salvation of the human race should be fulfilled by His passion. Nevertheless, there was an agony in Christ as regards the sensitive part, inasmuch as it implied a dread of coming trial, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15; iii, 18,23).

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo fuerit contrarietas voluntatum. Contrarietas enim voluntatum attenditur secundum contrarietatem obiectorum, sicut et contrarietas motuum attenditur secundum contrarietatem terminorum, ut patet per philosophum, in V physic..

Sed christus secundum diversas voluntates contraria volebat, nam secundum voluntatem divinam volebat mortem, quam refugiebat secundum voluntatem humanam.

Unde Athanasius dicit, in libro adversus Apollinarium, quando christus dixit, pater si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste, et tamen non mea, sed tua voluntas fiat, et iterum, spiritus promptus est, caro autem infirma, duas voluntates hic ostendit, humanam, quae propter infirmitatem carnis refugiebat passionem; et divinam eius, promptam ad passionem.

Ergo in christo fuit contrarietas voluntatum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Galat. V dicitur quod caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, et spiritus adversus carnem.

Est igitur contrarietas voluntatum quando spiritus concupiscit unum, et caro aliud. Sed hoc fuit in christo, nam per voluntatem caritatis, quam spiritus sanctus in eius mente faciebat, volebat passionem, secundum illud Isaiae LIII, oblatus est quia ipse voluit; secundum autem carnem, passionem refugiebat.

Ergo erat in eo contrarietas voluntatum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Luc. XXII dicitur quod, factus in agonia, prolixius orabat.

Sed agonia videtur importare quandam impugnationem animi in contraria tendentis. Ergo videtur quod in christo fuerit contrarietas voluntatis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod in determinatione sextae synodi dicitur, praedicamus duas naturales voluntates, non contrarias, iuxta quod impii asserunt haeretici; sed sequentem humanam eius voluntatem, et non resistentem vel reluctantem, sed potius subiectam divinae eius atque omnipotenti voluntati.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod contrarietas non potest esse nisi oppositio attendatur in eodem et secundum idem. Si autem secundum diversa, et in diversis existat diversitas, non sufficit hoc ad rationem contrarietatis, sicut nec ad rationem contradictionis, puta quod homo sit pulcher aut sanus secundum manum, et non secundum pedem. Ad hoc igitur quod sit contrarietas voluntatum in aliquo, requiritur, primo quidem, quod secundum idem attendatur diversitas voluntatum. Si enim unius voluntas sit de aliquo fiendo secundum quandam rationem universalem, et alterius voluntas sit de eodem non fiendo secundum quandam rationem particularem, non est omnino contrarietas voluntatum. Puta, si rex vult suspendi latronem in bonum reipublicae, et aliquis eius consanguineus velit eum non suspendi propter amorem privatum, non erit contrarietas voluntatis, nisi forte se in tantum extendat voluntas boni privati ut bonum publicum velit impedire ut conservetur bonum privatum; tunc enim secundum idem attenderetur repugnantia voluntatum. Secundo autem requiritur ad contrarietatem voluntatis, quod sit circa eandem voluntatem. Si enim homo vult unum secundum appetitum intellectus, et aliud secundum appetitum sensitivum, non est hic aliqua contrarietas, nisi forte appetitus sensitivus in tantum praevaleat quod vel immutet vel saltem retardet appetitum rationis; sic enim iam ad ipsam voluntatem rationis perveniet aliquid de motu contrario appetitus sensitivi.

Sic igitur dicendum est quod, licet voluntas naturalis et voluntas sensualitatis in christo aliquid aliud voluerit quam divina voluntas et voluntas rationis ipsius, non tamen fuit ibi aliqua contrarietas voluntatum. Primo quidem, quia neque voluntas eius naturalis, neque voluntas sensualitatis, repudiabat illam rationem secundum quam divina voluntas, et voluntas rationis humanae in christo, passionem volebant. Volebat enim voluntas absoluta in christo salutem humani generis, sed eius non erat velle hoc in ordine ad aliud. Motus autem sensualitatis ad hoc se extendere non valebat. Secundo, quia neque voluntas divina, neque voluntas rationis in christo, impediebatur aut retardabatur per voluntatem naturalem, aut per appetitum sensualitatis. Similiter autem nec e converso voluntas divina, vel voluntas rationis in christo, refugiebat aut retardabat motum voluntatis naturalis humanae, et motum sensualitatis in christo. Placebat enim christo secundum voluntatem divinam, et secundum voluntatem rationis, ut voluntas naturalis in ipso et voluntas sensualitatis secundum ordinem suae naturae moverentur. Unde patet quod in christo nulla fuerit repugnantia vel contrarietas voluntatum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod aliqua voluntas humana in christo aliud volebat quam eius voluntas divina, procedebat ex ipsa voluntate divina, cuius beneplacito natura humana propriis motibus movebatur in christo, ut Damascenus dicit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in nobis per concupiscentiam carnis impeditur aut retardatur concupiscentia spiritus, quod in christo non fuit. Et ideo in christo non fuit contrarietas carnis ad spiritum, sicut in nobis.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod agonia non fuit in christo quantum ad partem animae rationalem, secundum quod importat concertationem voluntatum ex diversitate rationum procedentem, puta cum aliquis secundum quod ratio considerat unum, vult hoc, et secundum quod considerat aliud, vult contrarium. Hoc enim contingit propter debilitatem rationis, quae non potest diiudicare quid sit simpliciter melius. Quod in christo non fuit, quia per suam rationem iudicabat simpliciter esse melius quod per eius passionem impleretur voluntas divina circa salutem generis humani.

Fuit tamen in christo agonia quantum ad partem sensitivam, secundum quod importat timorem infortunii imminentis, ut dicit Damascenus, in III libro.