Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an unfitting manner.

Objection 2: Further, as stated above (Question 43, Article 2), Christ worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mk. 8:22-25) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly.

Objection 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (Jn. 9:3): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the sins of those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Mt. 9:2): the more that the healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the power of forgiving sins.

Objection 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Question 43, Article 4). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed miraculously to tell no one, as appears from Mt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26: the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles worked on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee."

On the contrary, It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak."

I answer that, The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to Jn. 3:17: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting that Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.

Reply to Objection 1: The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, which is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the former of which presupposes the latter, since, as it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should be made righteous unless he willed: for this would be both against the nature of righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the very nature of man, which requires to be led to good by the free-will, not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine power, but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine power He infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to them (Lk. 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but only as regards the outward action---namely, in so far as men saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the Jews, "seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men . . . wondered."---And though such like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles, yet do they testify to Christ's doctrine and power, according to Heb. 2:4: "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost."

Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on Mt. 9:9, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in His human countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first sight." And on Mt. 21:12, "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs worked by our Lord, this seems to me the most wondrous---that one man, at that time despised, could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a multitude. For a fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His Godhead shone in His countenance." And Origen says on Jn. 2:15 that "this was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He shows His power over inanimate matter, whereas here He tames the minds of thousands of men." Again, on Jn. 18:6, "They went backward and fell to the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms, yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) ---namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst of them, went His way," on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, that which is written Jn. 8:59, "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, as if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to those who were threatening Him, He passed through the midst of them."

From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed, changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the bestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human nature. Hence on Lk. 4:40, "He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue." And on Mk. 8:23, "Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth." Again, on Jn. 9:6, "He made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine says: "Of His spittle He made clay---because 'the Word was made flesh.'" Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of "the slime of the earth."

It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on Jn. 2:10, "Every man at first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness." Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on Mt. 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly."

There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom says. Or as Bede observes on Mk. 8:23: "Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace."

Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 43, Article 2), Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" (Dt. 32:4). But nothing is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the outward healing worked by Christ is the healing of the soul. Consequently it was not fitting that Christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul. Wherefore on Jn. 7:23, "I have healed the whole man on a Sabbath day," Augustine says: "Because he was cured, so as to be whole in body; he believed, so as to be whole in soul." To the man sick of the palsy it is said specially, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," because, as Jerome observes on Mt. 9:5,6: "We are hereby given to understand that ailments of the body are frequently due to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first are his sins forgiven, that the cause of the ailment being removed, health may return." Wherefore, also (Jn. 4:14), it is said: "Sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee." Whence, says Chrysostom, "we learn that his sickness was the result of sin."

Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Mt. 9:5: "By how much a soul is of more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater work than healing the body; but because the one is unseen He does the lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more unseen."

Reply to Objection 4: On Mt. 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says: "If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Lk. 8:39), that is not contrary to this. For He instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but if the glory be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command, that it be done."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter circa homines christus miracula fecit. In homine enim potior est anima quam corpus. Sed circa corpora multa miracula fecit christus, circa animas vero nulla miracula legitur fecisse, nam neque aliquos incredulos ad fidem virtuose convertit, sed admonendo et exteriora miracula ostendendo; neque etiam aliquos fatuos legitur sapientes fecisse. Ergo videtur quod non convenienter sit circa homines miracula operatus.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut supra dictum est, christus faciebat miracula virtute divina, cuius proprium est subito operari, et perfecte, et absque adminiculo alicuius. Sed christus non semper subito curavit homines quantum ad corpus, dicitur enim marci VIII quod, apprehensa manu caeci, eduxit eum extra vicum, et exspuens in oculos eius, impositis manibus suis, interrogavit eum si aliquid videret. Et aspiciens ait, video homines velut arbores ambulantes.

Deinde iterum imposuit manus super oculos eius, et coepit videre, et restitutus est ita ut videret clare omnia.

Et sic patet quod non subito eum curavit, sed primo quidem imperfecte, et per sputum. Ergo videtur non convenienter circa homines miracula fecisse.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quae se invicem non consequuntur, non oportet quod simul tollantur. Sed aegritudo corporalis non semper ex peccato causatur, ut patet per illud quod dominus dicit, Ioan. IX, neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur.

Non ergo oportuit ut hominibus corporum curationem quaerentibus peccata dimitteret, sicut legitur fecisse circa paralyticum, Matth. IX, praesertim quia sanatio corporalis, cum sit minus quam remissio peccatorum, non videtur esse sufficiens argumentum quod possit peccata dimittere.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, miracula christi facta sunt ad confirmationem doctrinae ipsius, et testimonium divinitatis eius, ut supra dictum est.

Sed nullus debet impedire finem sui operis.

Ergo videtur inconvenienter christus quibusdam miraculose curatis praecepisse ut nemini dicerent, ut patet Matth. IX et marci VIII, praesertim quia quibusdam aliis mandavit ut miracula circa se facta publicarent, sicut marci V legitur quod dixit ei quem a Daemonibus liberaverat, vade in domum tuam ad tuos, et nuntia eis quanta dominus tibi fecerit.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur marci VII, bene omnia fecit, et surdos fecit audire, et mutos loqui.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae sunt ad finem, debent fini esse proportionata. Christus autem ad hoc in mundum venerat et docebat, ut homines salvos faceret, secundum illud Ioan. III, non enim misit deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum.

Et ideo conveniens fuit ut christus, particulariter homines miraculose curando, ostenderet se esse universalem et spiritualem omnium salvatorem.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt ad finem, distinguuntur ab ipso fine. Miracula autem a christo facta ordinabantur, sicut ad finem, ad rationalis partis salutem, quae consistit in sapientiae illustratione et hominum iustificatione. Quorum primum praesupponit secundum, quia, ut dicitur Sap. I, in malevolam animam non intrabit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis.

Iustificare autem homines non conveniebat nisi eis volentibus, hoc enim esset et contra rationem iustitiae, quae rectitudinem voluntatis importat; et etiam contra rationem humanae naturae, quae libero arbitrio ad bonum ducenda est, non autem per coactionem. Christus ergo virtute divina interius hominem iustificavit, non tamen eis invitis. Nec hoc ad miracula pertinet, sed ad miraculorum finem. Similiter etiam virtute divina simplicibus discipulis sapientiam infudit, unde dicit eis, Luc. XXI ego dabo vobis os et sapientiam cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri.

Quod quidem, quantum ad interiorem illuminationem, inter visibilia miracula non numeratur, sed solum quantum ad exteriorem actum, inquantum scilicet videbant homines eos qui fuerant illiterati et simplices, tam sapienter et constanter loqui.

Unde dicitur Act. IV, videntes Iudaei Petri constantiam et ioannis, comperto quod homines essent sine litteris et idiotae, admirabantur.

Et tamen huiusmodi spirituales effectus, etsi a miraculis visibilibus distinguantur, sunt tamen quaedam testimonia doctrinae et virtutis christi, secundum illud Heb. II, contestante deo signis et portentis et variis virtutibus, et spiritus sancti distributionibus.

Sed tamen circa animas hominum, maxime quantum ad immutandas inferiores vires, christus aliqua miracula fecit. Unde Hieronymus, super illud Matth. IX, surgens secutus est eum, dicit, fulgor ipse et maiestas divinitatis occultae, quae etiam in facie relucebat humana, videntes ad se trahere poterat ex primo aspectu.

Et super illud Matth. XXI, eiiciebat omnes vendentes et ementes, dicit idem Hieronymus, mihi inter omnia signa quae fecit dominus hoc videtur esse mirabilius, quod unus homo, et illo tempore contemptibilis, potuerit ad unius flagelli verbera, tantam eiicere multitudinem. Igneum enim quiddam atque sidereum radiabat ex oculis eius, et divinitatis maiestas lucebat in facie.

Et Origenes dicit, super Ioan., hoc esse maius miraculum eo quo aqua conversa est in vinum, eo quod illic subsistit inanimata materia, hic vero tot millium hominum domantur ingenia.

Et super illud Ioan. XVIII, abierunt retrorsum et ceciderunt in terram, dicit Augustinus, una vox turbam odiis ferocem armisque terribilem, sine telo ullo, percussit, repulit, stravit, deus enim latebat in carne.

Et ad idem pertinet quod dicitur Luc. IV, quod iesus transiens per medium illorum ibat, ubi dicit chrysostomus quod stare in medio insidiantium et non apprehendi, divinitatis eminentiam ostendebat.

Et quod dicitur Ioan. VIII, iesus abscondit se et exivit de templo, ubi Augustinus dicit, non abscondit se in angulo templi quasi timens, vel post murum aut columnam divertens, sed, caelica potestate se invisibilem insidiantibus constituens, per medium illorum exivit.

Ex quibus omnibus patet quod christus, quando voluit, virtute divina animas hominum immutavit, non solum iustificando et sapientiam infundendo, quod pertinet ad miraculorum finem, sed etiam exterius alliciendo vel terrendo vel stupefaciendo, quod pertinet ad ipsa miracula.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod christus venerat salvare mundum non solum virtute divina, sed per mysterium incarnationis ipsius. Et ideo frequenter in sanatione infirmorum non sola potestate divina utebatur, curando per modum imperii, sed etiam aliquid ad humanitatem ipsius pertinens apponendo.

Unde super illud Luc. IV, singulis manus imponens curabat omnes, dicit Cyrillus, quamvis, ut deus, potuisset omnes verbo pellere morbos, tangit tamen eos, ostendens propriam carnem efficacem ad praestanda remedia.

Et super illud marci VIII, exspuens in oculos eius impositis manibus etc., dicit chrysostomus, spuit quidem et manus imponit caeco, volens ostendere quod verbum divinum, operationi adiunctum, mirabilia perficit, manus enim operationis est ostensiva, sputum sermonis ex ore prolati.

Et super illud Ioan. IX, fecit lutum ex sputo et linivit lutum super oculos caeci, dicit Augustinus, de saliva sua lutum fecit, quia verbum caro factum est.

Vel etiam ad significandum quod ipse erat qui ex limo terrae hominem formaverat, ut chrysostomus dicit.

Est etiam circa miracula christi considerandum quod communiter perfectissima opera faciebat.

Unde super illud Ioan. II, omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, dicit chrysostomus, talia sunt christi miracula ut multo his quae per naturam fiunt, speciosiora et utiliora fiant.

Et similiter in instanti infirmis perfectam sanitatem conferebat.

Unde super illud Matth. VIII, surrexit et ministrabat illis, dicit Hieronymus, sanitas quae confertur a domino, tota simul redit.

Specialiter autem in illo caeco contrarium fuit propter infidelitatem ipsius, ut chrysostomus dicit. Vel, sicut beda dicit, quem uno verbo totum simul curare poterat, paulatim curat, ut magnitudinem humanae caecitatis ostendat, quae vix, et quasi per gradus ad lucem redeat, et gratiam suam nobis indicet, per quam singula perfectionis incrementa adiuvat.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, christus miracula faciebat virtute divina.

Dei autem perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deut. XXXII.

Non est autem aliquid perfectum, si finem non consequatur. Finis autem exterioris curationis per christum factae est curatio animae. Et ideo non conveniebat christo ut alicuius corpus curaret, nisi eius curaret animam. Unde super illud Ioan. VII, totum hominem sanum feci in sabbato, dicit Augustinus, quia curatus est, ut sanus esset in corpore; et credidit, ut sanus esset in anima.

Specialiter autem paralytico dicitur, dimittuntur tibi peccata, quia, ut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., datur ex hoc nobis intelligentia propter peccata plerasque evenire corporum debilitates, et ideo forsitan prius dimittuntur peccata, ut, causis debilitatis ablatis, sanitas restituatur.

Unde et Ioan. V dicitur, iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat.

Ubi, ut dicit chrysostomus, discimus quod ex peccato nata erat ei aegritudo.

Quamvis autem, ut chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quanto anima est potior corpore, tanto peccatum dimittere maius sit quam corpus sanare, quia tamen illud non est manifestum, facit minus quod est manifestius, ut demonstraret maius et non manifestum.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, super illud Matth. IX, videte ne quis sciat, dicit chrysostomus non esse hoc contrarium quod hic dicitur, ei quod alteri dicit, vade et annuntia gloriam dei. Erudit enim nos prohibere eos qui volunt nos propter nos laudare. Si autem ad deum gloria refertur, non debemus prohibere, sed magis iniungere ut hoc fiat.