Tertia Pars · The Incarnation

Of Christ's Prayer

III, q. 21 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de oratione Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Christo conveniat orare. Secundo, utrum conveniat sibi secundum suam sensualitatem. Tertio, utrum conveniat sibi orare pro seipso, an tantum pro aliis. Quarto, utrum omnis oratio eius sit exaudita.

We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?

(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?

(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for others?

(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?

  1. 1 Whether It Is Becoming of Christ to Pray?
  2. 2 Whether It Pertains to Christ to Pray According to His Sensuality?
  3. 3 Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Pray for Himself?
  4. 4 Whether Christ's Prayer Was Always Heard?

Articulus I

Whether It Is Becoming of Christ to Pray?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo non competat orare. Nam, sicut dicit Damascenus, oratio est petitio decentium a Deo. Sed, cum Christus omnia facere posset, non videtur ei convenire quod aliquid ab aliquo peteret. Ergo videtur quod Christo non conveniat orare.

It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "prayer is the asking for becoming things from God." But since Christ could do all things, it does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore it does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, non oportet orando petere illud quod aliquis scit pro certo esse futurum, sicut non oramus quod sol oriatur cras. Neque etiam est conveniens quod aliquis orando petat quod scit nullo modo esse futurum. Sed Christus sciebat circa omnia quid esset futurum. Ergo non conveniebat ei aliquid orando petere.

Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in prayer.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod oratio est ascensus intellectus in Deum. Sed intellectus Christi non indigebat ascensione in Deum, quia semper intellectus eius erat Deo coniunctus, non solum secundum unionem hypostasis, sed etiam secundum fruitionem beatitudinis. Ergo Christo non conveniebat orare.

Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that "prayer is the raising up of the mind to God." Now Christ's mind needed no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. VI, factum est in illis diebus, exiit in montem orare, et erat pernoctans in oratione Dei.

On the contrary, It is written (Luke 6:12): "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est in secunda parte, oratio est quaedam explicatio propriae voluntatis apud Deum, ut eam impleat. Si igitur in Christo esset una tantum voluntas, scilicet divina, nullo modo sibi competeret orare, quia voluntas divina per seipsam est effectiva eorum quae vult, secundum illud Psalmi, omnia quaecumque voluit dominus fecit. Sed quia in Christo est alia voluntas divina et alia humana; et voluntas humana non est per seipsam efficax ad implendum ea quae vult, nisi per virtutem divinam, inde est quod Christo, secundum quod est homo et humanam voluntatem habens, competit orare.

I answer that, As was said in the Second Part (Q. 83, AA. 1, 2), prayer is the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If, therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the Divine, it would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps. 134:6: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." But because the Divine and the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will of itself is not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power, hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus poterat perficere omnia quae volebat secundum quod Deus, non autem secundum quod homo, quia, secundum quod homo, non habuit omnipotentiam, ut supra habitum est. Nihilominus tamen, idem ipse Deus existens et homo, voluit ad patrem orationem porrigere, non quasi ipse esset impotens, sed propter nostram instructionem. Primo quidem, ut ostenderet se esse a patre. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. XI, propter populum qui circumstat dixi, scilicet verba orationis, ut credant quia tu me misisti. Unde Hilarius, in X de Trin., dicit, non prece eguit, nobis oravit, ne filius ignoraretur. Secundo, ut nobis exemplum daret. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., noli insidiatrices aperire aures, ut putes filium Dei quasi infirmum rogare, ut impetret quod implere non possit. Potestatis enim auctor, obedientiae magister, ad praecepta virtutis suo nos informat exemplo. Unde et Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., poterat dominus in forma servi, si hoc opus esset, orare silentio. Sed ita se patri voluit exhibere precatorem, ut meminisset nostrum se esse doctorem.

Christ as God and not as man was able to carry out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 1). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the Father; hence He says (John 11:42): "Because of the people who stand about I have said it" (i.e. the words of the prayer) "that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He did not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be unknown." Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose says (on Luke 6:12): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the Author of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of virtue by His example." Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, if need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, inter alia quae Christus scivit futura, scivit quaedam esse fienda propter suam orationem. Et huiusmodi non inconvenienter a Deo petiit.

Amongst the other things which He knew would happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for these He not unbecomingly besought God.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ascensio nihil est aliud quam motus in id quod est sursum. Motus autem, ut dicitur in III de anima, dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, proprie, secundum quod importat exitum de potentia in actum, prout est actus imperfecti. Et sic ascendere competit ei quod est potentia sursum et non actu. Et hoc modo, ut Damascenus dicit, in III libro, intellectus humanus Christi non eget ascensione in Deum, cum sit semper Deo unitus et secundum esse personale, et secundum beatam contemplationem. Alio modo dicitur motus actus perfecti, idest existentis in actu, sicut intelligere et sentire dicuntur quidam motus. Et hoc modo intellectus Christi semper ascendit in Deum, quia semper contemplatur ipsum ut supra se existentem.

To rise is nothing more than to move towards what is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii, 7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect, and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision." Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, i.e. something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always raised up to God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself.

Articulus II

Whether It Pertains to Christ to Pray According to His Sensuality?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo conveniat orare secundum suam sensualitatem. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, ex persona Christi, cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum. Sed sensualitas dicitur appetitus carnis. Ergo Christi sensualitas potuit ascendere in Deum vivum exultando, et pari ratione, orando.

It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the person of Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God." Now sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence Christ's sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal reason by praying.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, eius videtur esse orare cuius est desiderare illud quod petitur. Sed Christus petivit aliquid quod desideravit sensualitas, cum dixit, transeat a me calix iste, ut habetur Matth. XXVI. Ergo sensualitas Christi oravit.

Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His sensuality desired when He said (Matt. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass from Me." Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, magis est uniri Deo in persona quam ascendere in Deum per orationem. Sed sensualitas fuit assumpta a Deo in unitate personae, sicut et quaelibet pars humanae naturae. Ergo multo magis potuit ascendere in Deum orando.

Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Philipp. II dicitur quod filius Dei, secundum naturam quam assumpsit, est in similitudinem hominum factus. Sed alii homines non orant secundum sensualitatem. Ergo nec Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem.

On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in the nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men." But the rest of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ pray according to His sensuality.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod orare secundum sensualitatem potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, sic quod oratio sit actus sensualitatis. Et hoc modo Christus secundum sensualitatem non oravit. Quia eius sensualitas eiusdem naturae et speciei fuit in Christo et in nobis. In nobis autem non potest orare, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia motus sensualitatis non potest sensualia transcendere, et ideo non potest in Deum ascendere, quod requiritur ad orationem. Secundo, quia oratio importat quandam ordinationem, prout aliquis desiderat aliquid quasi a Deo implendum, et hoc est solius rationis. Unde oratio est actus rationis, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Alio modo potest dici aliquis orare secundum sensualitatem, quia scilicet eius ratio orando Deo proposuit quod erat in appetitu sensualitatis ipsius. Et secundum hoc, Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem, inquantum scilicet eius oratio exprimebat sensualitatis affectum, tanquam sensualitatis advocata. Et hoc, ut nos de tribus instrueret. Primo, ut ostenderet se veram humanam naturam assumpsisse, cum omnibus naturalibus affectibus. Secundo, ut ostenderet quod homini licet, secundum naturalem affectum, aliquid velle quod Deus non vult. Tertio, ut ostendat quod proprium affectum debet homo divinae voluntati subiicere. Unde Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., sic Christus, hominem gerens, ostendit privatam quandam hominis voluntatem, cum dicit, transeat a me calix iste. Haec enim erat humana voluntas, proprium aliquid, et tanquam privatum, volens. Sed quia rectum vult esse hominem, et ad Deum dirigi, subdit, veruntamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu, ac si dicat, vide te in me, quia potes aliquid proprium velle, etsi Deus aliud velit.

I answer that, To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and in this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the movement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and, consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer; secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of reason alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 83, A. 1).

Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of the sensuality—and this, that He might teach us three things. First, to show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): "Christ acting as a man, shows the proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else.'"

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caro exultat in Deum vivum, non per actum carnis ascendentem in Deum, sed per redundantiam a corde in carnem, inquantum appetitus sensitivus sequitur motum appetitus rationalis.

The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart into the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement of the rational appetite.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet sensualitas hoc voluerit quod ratio petebat, hoc tamen orando petere non erat sensualitatis, sed rationis, ut dictum est.

Although the sensuality wished what the reason besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying, but to the reason, as stated above.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod unio in persona est secundum esse personale, quod pertinet ad quamlibet partem humanae naturae. Sed ascensio orationis est per actum qui non convenit nisi rationi, ut dictum est. Unde non est similis ratio.

The union in person is according to the personal being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the uplifting of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as stated above. Hence there is no parity.

Articulus III

Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Pray for Himself?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christo non fuerit conveniens pro se orare. Dicit enim Hilarius, in X de Trin., cum sibi non proficeret deprecationis sermo, ad profectum tamen fidei nostrae loquebatur. Sic ergo videtur quod Christus non sibi, sed nobis oraverit.

It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our faith." Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for us.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, nullus orat nisi pro eo quod vult, quia, sicut dictum est oratio est quaedam explicatio voluntatis per Deum implendae. Sed Christus volebat pati ea quae patiebatur, dicit enim Augustinus, XXVI contra Faustum, homo plerumque, etsi nolit, contristatur; etsi nolit, dormit; etsi nolit, esurit aut sitit. Ille autem, scilicet Christus, omnia ista habuit quia voluit. Ergo ei non competebat pro seipso orare.

Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as was said (A. 1), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i.e. Christ) "did all these things, because He wished." Therefore it was not fitting that He should pray for Himself.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Cyprianus dicit, in libro de oratione dominica, pacis et unitatis magister noluit sigillatim et privatim precem fieri, ut quis, dum precatur, pro se tantum precetur. Sed Christus illud implevit quod docuit secundum illud Act. I, coepit Iesus facere et docere. Ergo Christus nunquam pro se solo oravit.

Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom.): "The Doctor of Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered individually and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for ourselves alone." Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Therefore Christ never prayed for Himself alone.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod ipse dominus orando dicit, Ioan. XVII, clarifica filium tuum.

On the contrary, our Lord Himself said while praying (John 17:1): "Glorify Thy Son."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod Christus pro se oravit dupliciter. Uno modo, exprimendo affectum sensualitatis, ut supra dictum est; vel etiam voluntatis simplicis, quae consideratur ut natura; sicut cum oravit a se calicem passionis transferri. Alio modo, exprimendo affectum voluntatis deliberatae, quae consideratur ut ratio, sicut cum petiit gloriam resurrectionis. Et hoc rationabiliter. Sicut enim dictum est, Christus ad hoc uti voluit oratione ad patrem, ut nobis daret exemplum orandi; et ut ostenderet patrem suum esse auctorem a quo et aeternaliter processit secundum divinam naturam, et secundum humanam naturam ab eo habet quidquid boni habet. Sicut autem in humana natura quaedam bona habebat a patre iam percepta, ita etiam expectabat ab eo quaedam bona nondum habita, sed percipienda. Et ideo, sicut pro bonis iam perceptis in humana natura gratias agebat patri, recognoscendo eum auctorem, ut patet Matth. XXVI et Ioan. XI, ita etiam, ut patrem auctorem recognosceret, ab eo orando petebat quae sibi deerant secundum humanam naturam, puta gloriam corporis et alia huiusmodi. Et in hoc etiam nobis dedit exemplum ut de perceptis muneribus gratias agamus, et nondum habita orando postulemus.

I answer that, Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above (A. 2); or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Matt. 26:39). Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His Resurrection (John 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said above (A. 1, ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and of all the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His human nature He had already received certain gifts from His Father. so there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the author thereof, as we read (Matt. 26:27; John 11:41): so also, in recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts still due to Him in His human nature, such as the glory of His body, and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give thanks for benefits received, and ask in prayer for those we have not as yet.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hilarius loquitur quantum ad orationem vocalem, quae non erat ei necessaria propter ipsum, sed solum propter nos. Unde signanter dicit quod sibi non proficiebat deprecationis sermo. Si enim desiderium pauperum exaudit dominus, ut in Psalmo dicitur, multo magis sola voluntas Christi habet vim orationis apud patrem. Unde ipse dicebat, Ioan. XI, ego sciebam quia semper me audis, sed propter populum qui circumstat dixi, ut credant quia tu me misisti.

Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. Whence he says pointedly that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself." For if "the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the Ps. 9:38, much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the Father: wherefore He said (John 11:42): "I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus volebat quidem pati illa quae patiebatur, pro tempore illo, sed nihilominus volebat ut, post passionem, gloriam corporis consequeretur, quam nondum habebat. Quam quidem gloriam expectabat a patre sicut ab auctore. Et ideo convenienter ab eo ipsam petebat.

Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered, at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His passion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod ipsa gloria quam Christus orando sibi petebat, pertinebat ad salutem aliorum, secundum illud Rom. IV, resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram. Et ideo illa etiam oratio quam pro se faciebat, erat quodammodo pro aliis. Sicut et quicumque homo aliquod bonum a Deo postulat ut utatur illo ad utilitatem aliorum, non sibi soli, sed etiam aliis orat.

This very glory which Christ, while praying, besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to Rom. 4:25: "He rose again for our justification." Consequently the prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for the good of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.

Articulus IV

Whether Christ's Prayer Was Always Heard?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christi oratio non fuerit semper exaudita. Petiit enim a se removeri calicem passionis, ut patet Matth. XXVI, qui tamen ab eo non fuit translatus. Ergo videtur quod non omnis eius oratio fuerit exaudita.

It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard. For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from Him, as we read (Matt. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ipse oravit ut peccatum suis crucifixoribus ignosceretur, ut patet Luc. XXIII. Non tamen omnibus fuit illud peccatum dimissum, nam Iudaei fuerunt pro illo peccato puniti. Ergo videtur quod non omnis eius oratio fuerit exaudita.

Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him might be forgiven, as is related (Luke 23:34). Yet not all were pardoned this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, dominus oravit pro his qui erant credituri per verbum apostolorum in ipsum, ut omnes in eo unum essent, et ut pervenirent ad hoc quod essent cum ipso. Sed non omnes ad hoc perveniunt. Ergo non omnis eius oratio est exaudita.

Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one in Him," and that they might attain to being with Him (John 17:20, 21, 24). But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was heard.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, in Psalmo dicitur, in persona Christi, clamabo per diem, et non exaudies. Non igitur omnis eius oratio est exaudita.

Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear." Not every prayer of His, therefore, was heard.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Heb. V, cum clamore valido et lacrymis offerens, exauditus est pro sua reverentia.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry and tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, oratio est quodammodo interpretativa voluntatis humanae. Tunc ergo alicuius orantis exauditur oratio, quando eius voluntas adimpletur. Voluntas autem simpliciter hominis est voluntas rationis, hoc enim absolute volumus quod secundum deliberatam rationem volumus. Illud autem quod volumus secundum motum sensualitatis, vel etiam secundum motum voluntatis simplicis, quae consideratur ut natura, non simpliciter volumus, sed secundum quid, scilicet, si aliud non obsistat quod per deliberationem rationis invenitur. Unde talis voluntas magis est dicenda velleitas quam absoluta voluntas, quia scilicet homo hoc vellet si aliud non obsisteret. Secundum autem voluntatem rationis, Christus nihil aliud voluit nisi quod scivit Deum velle. Et ideo omnis absoluta voluntas Christi, etiam humana, fuit impleta, quia fuit Deo conformis, et per consequens, omnis eius oratio fuit exaudita. Nam et secundum hoc aliorum orationes adimplentur, quod sunt eorum voluntates Deo conformes, secundum illud Rom. VIII, qui autem scrutatur corda, scit, idest, approbat, quid desideret spiritus, idest, quid faciat sanctos desiderare, quoniam secundum Deum, idest, secundum conformitatem divinae voluntatis, postulat pro sanctis.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), prayer is a certain manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that which we will in accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the simple will, which is considered as nature is willed not absolutely but conditionally (secundum quid)—that is, provided no obstacle be discovered by reason's deliberation. Wherefore such a will should rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would will (vellet) if there were no obstacle.

But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human, was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also is it that other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity with God, according to Rom. 8:27: "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the Spirit desireth," that is, what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the saints according to God," that is, in conformity with the Divine will.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa petitio de translatione calicis diversimode a sanctis exponitur. Hilarius enim, super Matth., dicit, quod autem ut a se transeat rogat, non ut ipse praetereatur orat, sed ut in alterum id quod a se transit excedat. Atque ideo pro his orat qui passuri post se erant, ut sit sensus, quomodo a me bibitur calix passionis, ita ab aliis bibatur, sine spei diffidentia, sine sensu doloris, sine metu mortis. Vel, secundum Hieronymum, signanter dicit, calix iste, hoc est, populi Iudaeorum, qui excusationem ignorantiae habere non potest, si me occiderit, habens legem et prophetas, qui me vaticinantur. Vel, secundum Dionysium Alexandrinum, quod dicit, transfer calicem istum a me, non hoc est, non adveniat mihi, nisi enim advenerit, transferri non poterit. Sed, sicut quod praeterit nec intactum est nec permanens, sic salvator leviter invadentem tentationem flagitat pelli. Ambrosius autem et Origenes et Chrysostomus dicunt quod petiit quasi homo naturali voluntate mortem recusans. Sic igitur, si intelligatur quod petierit per hoc alios martyres suae passionis imitatores fieri, secundum Hilarium; vel si petiit quod timor bibendi calicis eum non perturbaret; vel quod mors eum non detineret, omnino impletum est quod petivit. Si vero intelligitur petiisse quod non biberet calicem passionis et mortis; vel quod non biberet ipsum a Iudaeis, non quidem est factum quod petiit, quia ratio, quae petitionem proposuit, non volebat ut hoc impleretur; sed, ad instructionem nostram, volebat declarare nobis suam voluntatem naturalem, et sensualitatis motum, quam, sicut homo, habebat.

This prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says: "When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may pass by Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the passion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with unflinching anguish, without fear of death."

Or according to Jerome (on Matt. 26:39): "He says pointedly, 'This chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the Prophets, who foretold concerning Me."

Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7): "When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let it not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the Saviour beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed."

Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will.

Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was entirely fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not drink it at the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled, because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make known to us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His as man.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod dominus non oravit pro omnibus crucifixoribus, neque etiam pro omnibus qui erant credituri in eum, sed pro his solum qui erant praedestinati ut per ipsum vitam consequerentur aeternam.

Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Unde patet etiam responsio ad tertium.

Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum dicit, clamabo et non exaudies, intelligendum est quantum ad affectum sensualitatis, quae mortem refugiebat. Exauditur tamen quantum ad affectum rationis, ut dictum est.

When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality, which shunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as stated above.

Showing Thomas's answers only.