Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
We must now consider the grace of Christ as the Head of the Church; and
under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?
(2) Whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies or only as
regards their souls?
(3) Whether He is the Head of all men?
(4) Whether He is the Head of the angels?
(5) Whether the grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as His
habitual grace as an individual man?
(6) Whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ?
(7) Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked?
(8) Whether Anti-christ can be called the head of all the wicked?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to be Head
of the Church. For the head imparts sense and motion to the members. Now
spiritual sense and motion which are by grace, are not imparted to us by
the Man Christ, because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 12; xv, 24), "not
even Christ, as man, but only as God, bestows the Holy Ghost." Therefore
it does not belong to Him as man to be Head of the Church.
Objection 2: Further, it is not fitting for the head to have a head. But God
is the Head of Christ, as man, according to 1 Cor. 11:3, "The Head of
Christ is God." Therefore Christ Himself is not a head.
Objection 3: Furthermore, the head of a man is a particular member, receiving
an influx from the heart. But Christ is the universal principle of the
whole Church. Therefore He is not the Head of the Church.
On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:22): "And He . . . hath made Him
head over all the Church."
I answer that, As the whole Church is termed one mystic body from its
likeness to the natural body of a man, which in divers members has divers
acts, as the Apostle teaches (Rm. 12; 1 Cor. 12), so likewise Christ is
called the Head of the Church from a likeness with the human head, in
which we may consider three things, viz. order, perfection, and power:
"Order," indeed; for the head is the first part of man, beginning from
the higher part; and hence it is that every principle is usually called a
head according to Ezech. 16:25: "At every head of the way, thou hast set
up a sign of thy prostitution"---"Perfection," inasmuch as in the head
dwell all the senses, both interior and exterior, whereas in the other
members there is only touch, and hence it is said (Is. 9:15): "The aged
and honorable, he is the head"---"Power," because the power and movement
of the other members, together with the direction of them in their acts,
is from the head, by reason of the sensitive and motive power there
ruling; hence the ruler is called the head of a people, according to 1
Kgs. 15:17: "When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not
made the head of the tribes of Israel?" Now these three things belong
spiritually to Christ. First, on account of His nearness to God His grace
is the highest and first, though not in time, since all have received
grace on account of His grace, according to Rm. 8:29: "For whom He
foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of
His Son; that He might be the first-born amongst many brethren."
Secondly, He had perfection as regards the fulness of all graces,
according to Jn. 1:14, "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] . . . full of
grace and truth," as was shown, Question [7], Article [9]. Thirdly, He has the power of
bestowing grace on all the members of the Church, according to Jn. 1:16:
"Of His fulness we have all received." And thus it is plain that Christ
is fittingly called the Head of the Church.
Reply to Objection 1: To give grace or the Holy Ghost belongs to Christ as He is
God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him as man,
inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead. And hence by
the power of the Godhead His actions were beneficial, i.e. by causing
grace in us, both meritoriously and efficiently. But Augustine denies
that Christ as man gives the Holy Ghost authoritatively. Even other
saints are said to give the Holy Ghost instrumentally, or ministerially,
according to Gal. 3:5: "He . . . who giveth to you the Spirit."
Reply to Objection 2: In metaphorical speech we must not expect a likeness in all respects; for thus there would be not likeness but identity. Accordingly a natural head has not another head because one human body is not part of another; but a metaphorical body, i.e. an ordered multitude, is part of another multitude as the domestic multitude is part of the civil multitude; and hence the father who is head of the domestic multitude has a head above him, i.e. the civil governor. And hence there is no reason why God should not be the Head of Christ, although Christ Himself is Head of the Church.
Reply to Objection 3: The head has a manifest pre-eminence over the other
exterior members; but the heart has a certain hidden influence. And hence
the Holy Ghost is likened to the heart, since He invisibly quickens and
unifies the Church; but Christ is likened to the Head in His visible
nature in which man is set over man.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of men as to their
bodies. For Christ is said to be the Head of the Church inasmuch as He
bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on the Church. But a
body is not capable of this spiritual sense and movement. Therefore
Christ is not the Head of men as regards their bodies.
Objection 2: Further, we share bodies with the brutes. If therefore Christ was
the Head of men as to their bodies, it would follow that He was the Head
of brute animals; and this is not fitting.
Objection 3: Further, Christ took His body from other men, as is clear from
Mt. 1 and Luke 3. But the head is the first of the members, as was said
above (Article [1], ad 3). Therefore Christ is not the Head of the Church as
regards bodies.
On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 3:21): "Who will reform the body
of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory."
I answer that, The human body has a natural relation to the rational
soul, which is its proper form and motor. Inasmuch as the soul is its
form, it receives from the soul life and the other properties which
belong specifically to man; but inasmuch as the soul is its motor, the
body serves the soul instrumentally. Therefore we must hold that the
manhood of Christ had the power of "influence," inasmuch as it is united
to the Word of God, to Whom His body is united through the soul, as
stated above (Question [6], Article [1]). Hence the whole manhood of Christ, i.e.
according to soul and body, influences all, both in soul and body; but
principally the soul, and secondarily the body: First, inasmuch as the
"members of the body are presented as instruments of justice" in the soul
that lives through Christ, as the Apostle says (Rm. 6:13): secondly,
inasmuch as the life of glory flows from the soul on to the body,
according to Rm. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall
quicken also your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in
you."
Reply to Objection 1: The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body
first and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally, as was said
above.
Reply to Objection 2: The body of an animal has no relation to a rational soul, as the human body has. Hence there is no parity.
Reply to Objection 3: Although Christ drew the matter of His body from other men,
yet all draw from Him the immortal life of their body, according to 1
Cor. 15:22: "And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made
alive."
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of all men. For the
head has no relation except to the members of its body. Now the
unbaptized are nowise members of the Church which is the body of Christ,
as it is written (Eph. 1:23). Therefore Christ is not the Head of all men.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25,27): "Christ
delivered Himself up for" the Church "that He might present it to Himself
a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." But
there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or the wrinkle
of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the faithful.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to Christ as
the shadow to the body, as is written (Col. 2:17). But the fathers of the
Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments, according to
Heb. 8:5: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
Hence they did not pertain to Christ's body, and therefore Christ is not
the Head of all men.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Tim. 4:10): "Who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of the faithful," and (1 Jn. 2:2): "He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world." Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins
belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is the Head of all men.
I answer that, This is the difference between the natural body of man
and the Church's mystical body, that the members of the natural body are
all together, and the members of the mystical are not all
together---neither as regards their natural being, since the body of the
Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the
world until its end---nor as regards their supernatural being, since, of
those who are at any one time, some there are who are without grace, yet
will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore
consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act,
but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality
who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to
act; and this according to the triple class, of which the first is by
faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition
of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the whole time of
the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For,
first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by
glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity;
thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of
those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet
reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine
predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality,
which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the
world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from
this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in
potentiality to be united to Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the
Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in
two things---first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is
sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in
free-will.
Reply to Objection 2: To be "a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle" is the
ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ. Hence this
will be in heaven, and not on earth, in which "if we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves," as is written (1 Jn. 1:8). Nevertheless, there are
some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of
Christ by the actual union of charity; but such as are tainted with these
sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except,
perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively
but not simply, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is
written (James 2:20): "Faith without works is dead." Yet such as these
receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a
lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent.
Reply to Objection 3: The holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments, not as
realities, but as images and shadows of what was to come. Now it is the
same motion to an image as image, and to the reality, as is clear from
the Philosopher (De Memor. et Remin. ii). Hence the ancient Fathers, by
observing the legal sacraments, were borne to Christ by the same faith
and love whereby we also are borne to Him, and hence the ancient Fathers
belong to the same Church as we.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the angels.
For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as man is not of
the same nature with the angels, but only with men, since, as is written
(Heb. 2:16): "For nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the
seed of Abraham He taketh hold." Therefore Christ as man is not the head
of the angels.
Objection 2: Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the Church,
which is His Body, as is written (Eph. 1:23). But the angels do not
belong to the Church. For the Church is the congregation of the faithful:
and in the angels there is no faith, for they do not "walk by faith" but
"by sight," otherwise they would be "absent from the Lord," as the
Apostle argues (2 Cor. 5:6,7). Therefore Christ as man is not head of
the angels.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix; xxiii in Joan.), that as
"the Word" which "was in the beginning with the Father" quickens souls,
so the "Word made flesh" quickens bodies, which angels lack. But the Word
made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ as man does not give life
to angels, and hence as man He is not the head of the angels.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:10), "Who is the head of all
Principality and Power," and the same reason holds good with the other
orders of angels. Therefore Christ is the Head of the angels.
I answer that, As was said above (Article [1], ad 2), where there is one body
we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained to one
end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically called one
body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one
end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition. Hence the mystical body
of the Church consists not only of men but of angels. Now of all this
multitude Christ is the Head, since He is nearer God, and shares His
gifts more fully, not only than man, but even than angels; and of His
influence not only men but even angels partake, since it is written (Eph. 1:20-22): that God the Father set "Him," namely Christ, "on His right
hand in the heavenly places, above all Principality and Power and Virtue
and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come. And He hath subjected all things under His
feet." Therefore Christ is not only the Head of men, but of angels. Hence
we read (Mt. 4:11) that "angels came and ministered to Him."
Reply to Objection 1: Christ's influence over men is chiefly with regard to their
souls; wherein men agree with angels in generic nature, though not in
specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can be said to be the
Head of the angels, although the agreement falls short as regards the
body.
Reply to Objection 2: The Church, on earth, is the congregation of the faithful;
but, in heaven, it is the congregation of comprehensors. Now Christ was
not merely a wayfarer, but a comprehensor. And therefore He is the Head
not merely of the faithful, but of comprehensors, as having grace and
glory most fully.
Reply to Objection 3: Augustine here uses the similitude of cause and effect,
i.e. inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies, and spiritual things on
spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by virtue of the
spiritual nature, i.e. the Divine, can cause something not only in the
spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on account of its most
close conjunction with God, i.e. by personal union.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is Head of the Church
and the individual grace of the Man are not the same. For the Apostle
says (Rm. 5:15): "If by the offense of one many died, much more the grace
of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many." But the actual sin of Adam is distinct from original sin
which he transmitted to his posterity. Hence the personal grace which is
proper to Christ is distinct from His grace, inasmuch as He is the Head
of the Church, which flows to others from Him.
Objection 2: Further, habits are distinguished by acts. But the personal grace
of Christ is ordained to one act, viz. the sanctification of His soul;
and the capital grace is ordained to another, viz. to sanctifying others.
Therefore the personal grace of Christ is distinct from His grace as He
is the Head of the Church.
Objection 3: Further, as was said above (Question [6], Article [6]), in Christ we distinguish
a threefold grace, viz. the grace of union, capital grace, and the
individual grace of the Man. Now the individual grace of Christ is
distinct from the grace of union. Therefore it is also distinct from the
capital grace.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:16): "Of His fulness we all have
received." Now He is our Head, inasmuch as we receive from Him. Therefore
He is our Head, inasmuch as He has the fulness of grace. Now He had the
fulness of grace, inasmuch as personal grace was in Him in its
perfection, as was said above (Question [7], Article [9]). Hence His capital and
personal grace are not distinct.
I answer that, Since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act,
it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts, as it
is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats. Yet not every
act whereby anything is in act suffices for its being the principle of
acting upon others. For since the agent is nobler than the patient, as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16) and the Philosopher (De Anima iii,
19), the agent must act on others by reason of a certain pre-eminence.
Now it was said above (Article [1]; Question [7], Article [9]) grace was received by the soul
of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from this pre-eminence of
grace which He received, it is from Him that this grace is bestowed on
others---and this belongs to the nature of head. Hence the personal
grace, whereby the soul of Christ is justified, is essentially the same
as His grace, as He is the Head of the Church, and justifies others; but
there is a distinction of reason between them.
Reply to Objection 1: Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the nature, is
derived from his actual sin, which is a personal sin, because in him the
person corrupted the nature; and by means of this corruption the sin of
the first man is transmitted to posterity, inasmuch as the corrupt nature
corrupts the person. Now grace is not vouchsafed us by means of human
nature, but solely by the personal action of Christ Himself. Hence we
must not distinguish a twofold grace in Christ, one corresponding to the
nature, the other to the person as in Adam we distinguish the sin of the
nature and of the person.
Reply to Objection 2: Different acts, one of which is the reason and the cause of
the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the personal grace
which is formally to sanctify its subject, is the reason of the
justification of others, which pertains to capital grace. Hence it is
that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this difference.
Reply to Objection 3: Personal and capital grace are ordained to an act; but the
grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the personal being.
Hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the essence of the
habit; but the grace of union does not, although the personal grace can
be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch as it brings about a
fitness for the union; and thus the grace of union, the capital, and the
personal grace are one in essence, though there is a distinction of
reason between them.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of the
Church. For it is written (1 Kgs. 15:17): "When thou wast a little one in
thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?" Now
there is but one Church in the New and the Old Testament. Therefore it
seems that with equal reason any other man than Christ might be head of
the Church.
Objection 2: Further, Christ is called Head of the Church from His bestowing
grace on the Church's members. But it belongs to others also to grant
grace to others, according to Eph. 4:29: "Let no evil speech proceed from
your mouth; but that which is good to the edification of faith, that it
may administer grace to the hearers." Therefore it seems to belong also
to others than Christ to be head of the Church.
Objection 3: Further, Christ by His ruling over the Church is not only called
"Head," but also "Shepherd" and "Foundation." Now Christ did not retain
for Himself alone the name of Shepherd, according to 1 Pt. 5:4, "And when
the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading
crown of glory"; nor the name of Foundation, according to Apoc. 21:14:
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations." Therefore it seems
that He did not retain the name of Head for Himself alone.
On the contrary, It is written (Col. 2:19): "The head" of the Church is
that "from which the whole body, by joints and bands being supplied with
nourishment and compacted groweth unto the increase of God." But this
belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is Head of the Church.
I answer that, The head influences the other members in two ways. First,
by a certain intrinsic influence, inasmuch as motive and sensitive force
flow from the head to the other members; secondly, by a certain exterior
guidance, inasmuch as by sight and the senses, which are rooted in the
head, man is guided in his exterior acts. Now the interior influx of
grace is from no one save Christ, Whose manhood, through its union with
the Godhead, has the power of justifying; but the influence over the
members of the Church, as regards their exterior guidance, can belong to
others; and in this way others may be called heads of the Church,
according to Amos 6:1, "Ye great men, heads of the people"; differently,
however, from Christ. First, inasmuch as Christ is the Head of all who
pertain to the Church in every place and time and state; but all other
men are called heads with reference to certain special places, as bishops
of their Churches. Or with reference to a determined time as the Pope is
the head of the whole Church, viz. during the time of his Pontificate,
and with reference to a determined state, inasmuch as they are in the
state of wayfarers. Secondly, because Christ is the Head of the Church by
His own power and authority; while others are called heads, as taking
Christ's place, according to 2 Cor. 2:10, "For what I have pardoned, if I
have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have done it in the person of
Christ," and 2 Cor. 5:20, "For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God,
as it were, exhorting by us."
Reply to Objection 1: The word "head" is employed in that passage in regard to
exterior government; as a king is said to be the head of his kingdom.
Reply to Objection 2: Man does not distribute grace by interior influx, but by
exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xlvi in Joan.): "If the rulers of
the Church are Shepherds, how is there one Shepherd, except that all
these are members of one Shepherd?" So likewise others may be called
foundations and heads, inasmuch as they are members of the one Head and
Foundation. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (Tract. xlvii), "He gave to
His members to be shepherds; yet none of us calleth himself the Door. He
kept this for Himself alone." And this because by door is implied the
principal authority, inasmuch as it is by the door that all enter the
house; and it is Christ alone by "Whom also we have access . . . into
this grace, wherein we stand" (Rm. 5:2); but by the other names
above-mentioned there may be implied not merely the principal but also
the secondary authority.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the devil is not the head of the wicked. For
it belongs to the head to diffuse sense and movement into the members, as
a gloss says, on Eph. 1:22, "And made Him head," etc. But the devil has
no power of spreading the evil of sin, which proceeds from the will of
the sinner. Therefore the devil cannot be called the head of the wicked.
Objection 2: Further, by every sin a man is made evil. But not every sin is
from the devil; and this is plain as regards the demons, who did not sin
through the persuasion of another; so likewise not every sin of man
proceeds from the devil, for it is said (De Eccles. Dogm. lxxxii): "Not
all our wicked thoughts are always raised up by the suggestion of the
devil; but sometimes they spring from the movement of our will."
Therefore the devil is not the head of all the wicked.
Objection 3: Further, one head is placed on one body. But the whole multitude
of the wicked do not seem to have anything in which they are united, for
evil is contrary to evil and springs from divers defects, as Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore the devil cannot be called the head of all
the wicked.
On the contrary, A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xiv] on Job 18:17, "Let
the memory of him perish from the earth," says: "This is said of every
evil one, yet so as to be referred to the head," i.e. the devil.
I answer that, As was said above (Article [6]), the head not only influences
the members interiorly, but also governs them exteriorly, directing their
actions to an end. Hence it may be said that anyone is the head of a
multitude, either as regards both, i.e. by interior influence and
exterior governance, and thus Christ is the Head of the Church, as was
stated (Article [6]); or as regards exterior governance, and thus every prince
or prelate is head of the multitude subject to him. And in this way the
devil is head of all the wicked. For, as is written (Job 41:25): "He is
king over all the children of pride." Now it belongs to a governor to
lead those whom he governs to their end. But the end of the devil is the
aversion of the rational creature from God; hence from the beginning he
has endeavored to lead man from obeying the Divine precept. But aversion
from God has the nature of an end, inasmuch as it is sought for under the
appearance of liberty, according to Jer. 2:20: "Of old time thou hast
broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst, 'I will not
serve.'" Hence, inasmuch as some are brought to this end by sinning, they
fall under the rule and government of the devil, and therefore he is
called their head.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the devil does not influence the rational mind
interiorly, yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion.
Reply to Objection 2: A governor does not always suggest to his subjects to obey
his will; but proposes to all the sign of his will, in consequence of
which some are incited by inducement, and some of their own free-will, as
is plain in the leader of an army, whose standard all the soldiers
follow, though no one persuades them. Therefore in the same way, the
first sin of the devil, who "sinneth from the beginning" (1 Jnn 3:8), is
held out to all to be followed, and some imitate at his suggestion, and
some of their own will without any suggestion. And hence the devil is the
head of all the wicked, inasmuch as they imitate Him, according to Wis.
2:24,25: "By the envy of the devil, death came into the world. And they
follow him that are of his side."
Reply to Objection 3: All sins agree in aversion from God, although they differ
by conversion to different changeable goods.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 8 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Antichrist is not the head of the wicked. For
there are not several heads of one body. But the devil is the head of the
multitude of the wicked. Therefore Anti-christ is not their head.
Objection 2: Further, Anti-christ is a member of the devil. Now the head is
distinguished from the members. Therefore Anti-christ is not the head of
the wicked.
Objection 3: Further, the head has an influence over the members. But
Anti-christ has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him.
Therefore Anti-christ is not the head of the wicked.
On the contrary, A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xv] on Job 21:29, "Ask
any of them that go by the way," says: "Whilst he was speaking of the
body of all the wicked, suddenly he turned his speech to Anti-christ the
head of all evil-doers."
I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), in the head are found three
things: order, perfection, and the power of influencing. But as regards
the order of the body, Anti-christ is not said to be the head of the
wicked as if his sin had preceded, as the sin of the devil preceded. So
likewise he is not called the head of the wicked from the power of
influencing, although he will pervert some in his day by exterior
persuasion; nevertheless those who were before him were not beguiled into
wickedness by him nor have imitated his wickedness. Hence he cannot be
called the head of all the wicked in this way, but of some. Therefore it
remains to be said that he is the head of all the wicked by reason of the
perfection of his wickedness. Hence, on 2 Thess. 2:4, "Showing himself as
if he were God," a gloss says: "As in Christ dwelt the fulness of the
Godhead, so in Anti-christ the fulness of all wickedness." Not indeed as
if his humanity were assumed by the devil into unity of person, as the
humanity of Christ by the Son of God; but that the devil by suggestion
infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than into all others. And
in this way all the wicked who have gone before are signs of Anti-christ,
according to 2 Thess. 2:7, "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh."
Reply to Objection 1: The devil and Anti-christ are not two heads, but one; since
Anti-christ is called the head, inasmuch as the wickedness of the devil
is most fully impressed on him. Hence, on 2 Thess. 2:4, "Showing himself
as if he were God," a gloss says: "The head of all the wicked, namely the
devil, who is king over all the children of pride will be in him." Now
he is said to be in him not by personal union, nor by indwelling, since
"the Trinity alone dwells in the mind" (as is said De Eccles. Dogm.
lxxxiii), but by the effect of wickedness.
Reply to Objection 2: As the head of Christ is God, and yet He is the Head of the
Church, as was said above (Article [1], ad 2), so likewise Anti-christ is a
member of the devil and yet is head of the wicked.
Reply to Objection 3: Anti-christ is said to be the head of all the wicked not by
a likeness of influence, but by a likeness of perfection. For in him the
devil, as it were, brings his wickedness to a head, in the same way that
anyone is said to bring his purpose to a head when he executes it.