Chapter IX. Question 7

AWWA BBBBBABBBRBRRRBRRRRRBREBRBRERRRBEBRBRERRERBRREREREERER ER EEE SEE EE SE

THE Tuincs Co-AssUMED

THE GRACE OF CHRIST

AVING considered the nature that was assumed, we pass on to treat of what pertains to the perfection of Christ’s human nature, namely, His grace, knowledge, and power; then we shall discuss His passibility together with His sensitive nature. The thirteenth question is concerned with Christ’s human will, namely, with those things that pertain to the conformity of the two wills in Christ. There are two questions on Christ’s grace, namely: (1) Christ’s grace as an individual man (q. 7); (2) Christ’s grace as the head of the Church (q. 8).

Theologians generally distinguish between two graces in Christ: (1) the grace of union, that is, His personal being that is gratuitously given by God to His human nature; (2) His habitual grace, as an individual man and as head of the Church.

In the seventh question St. Thomas, in discussing Christ’s habitual grace as an individual man, includes the whole organism of the supernatural life in Christ’s most holy soul, namely, the grace that is called “the grace of the virtues and of the gifts”; in that the virtues and the gifts belong properly to this grace. He also treats of the graces gratis datae and of the plenitude of Christ’s grace. Some might object to the order followed in these questions, and say that the present problem, just as the question concerning the union of wills in Christ, ought to be relegated to the latter part of this treatise, when the consequences of the union are discussed.

The answer must be, in all probability, that the proper place to discuss the things co-assumed on the part of the human nature is here; whereas, on the contrary, from the sixteenth to the twenty- 247 sixth questions inclusive, those things consequent to the union of the two natures are discussed, namely, Christ’s unity as regards being, will, and operation, as also His relation to the Father, and to us, for example, that Christ must be worshiped as God.’

Hence the proper place to discuss the things co-assumed is here, this being the truly logical order, after the consideration of the nature that was assumed.

Hence, after consideration of the nature that was assumed, the truly logical order is to discuss the things that were co-assumed, from the seventh question to the fifteenth question.

There are three parts to this seventh question.

First part. It discusses habitual grace, the virtues and gifts in Christ (a. 1-6).

Second part. It treats of the graces freely bestowed upon Christ by His heavenly Father.

Third part. It is concerned with the plenitude of Christ’s grace (a. 9-13).

All these articles pertain to Christ’s sanctity. But after the time of St. Thomas, Christ’s sanctity was discussed more in detail by way of a preliminary question, which is usually inserted here by way of a preliminary by the Thomists. The precise purport of this question is to settle the doubt whether the substantial grace of union sanctifies formally or merely radically Christ’s human nature.

This question must be examined here since it serves as an introduction to the articles of the seventh question, enabling us to understand them better, for the substantial grace and uncreated grace of union is, so to speak, the radical cause of habitual grace, or the grace of the virtues and gifts in Christ.

PRELIMINARY QUESTION

CHRIST'S SUBSTANTIAL GRACE OF UNION AS THE SOURCE OF HIS SANCTIFICATION

State of the question. Gonet observes: “It is a question of three kinds of grace, to which St. John briefly and indirectly alludes. For concerning the substantial grace of union, he says: ‘The Word was made flesh.’ * Concerning Christ’s habitual grace as an individual person,

*Cf. L. B. Gillon, O.P., Angelicum: “La notion de consequence de l'union hypostatique dans le cadre de la III° pars. q. 2-26.” 2 John 1:14.

he adds: ‘We saw His glory full of grace and truth.’ Finally, there is indirect allusion to Christ’s grace as head of the Church when, farther on he says: ‘And of His fullness we have all received.’ ” ®

Cajetan observes in his commentary at the beginning of this seventh question that St. Thomas already discussed the grace of union, not under the name of grace, however, but inasmuch as it is the hypostatic union of Christ’s human nature with the Word. But when the question arose, whether Christ’s human nature is formally sanctified by the substantial and uncreated grace of union, then Durandus * and the Scotists said that Christ’s human nature is not formally but only radically sanctified by the grace of union. The affirmative opinion prevails as the more general one among Thomist theologians and those of other schools, which is the conclusion we come to from the teaching of the councils and the Fathers of the Church, and there is more than an indirect reference to this opinion in the passages we shall quote from St. Thomas. Of this opinion are John of St. Thomas, Godoy, Soto, Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, and more recent Thomists, as also Suarez, de Lugo, Valentia, Vasquez, Franzelin, Billot, Hurter, and Pesch. It is the common and certain doctrine.”

T hesis. Christ’s human nature is not only radically, but also formally sanctified by the substantial and uncreated union of the Word with the human nature.

In other words, Christ’s sanctity is not accidental, but it is also substantial and uncreated, because it began at the very moment of His virginal conception. To understand this doctrine we must recall what sanctity is. St. Thomas says that sanctity is steadfast union with God, which implies “stainless purity.” °

This steadfast union is unchangeable in heaven or among the blessed. The just have not as yet in this life attained to this unchangeableness, but, as St. Thomas says,’ the holiness of the wayfarer causes him to direct his thoughts and actions toward God or is firmly turned to Him.

3 Clypeus theol. thom., de incarn., disp. 11.

T Ibid.¹²³

There is a twofold acceptation of sanctity as thus defined.

1. It may mean the proximately operative virtue of good, and in this sense there is no difference between it and the virtue of religion that is commanded by the theological virtues and that firmly directs all our actions to the worship of God.

2. It may be regarded as the foundation for this union with God, and thus in us it is habitual grace, which for this reason is called sanctifying grace, or the grace that unites us with God and makes us pleasing to Him.

All admit that Christ, as God, possesses essential and uncreated sanctity. But the question is whether the uncreated and substantial grace of union sanctifies Christ’s human nature radically, namely, in that it is the source of habitual grace, or whether it sanctifies His human nature formally, that is, in the true and strict sense of the word, independently even of habitual grace. Likewise, farther on there will be a question of whether the grace of union suffices for the negative effect of sanctity, namely, impeccability; and the answer will be in the affirmative.

1. Teaching of the Fathers on Christ’s sanctity. The passages commonly quoted are as follows:

St. Cyril: “Christ was anointed not as other saints and kings are; but because the Word is flesh,” ê that is, because the Word was made flesh.

St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Christ is so called because of His divine nature; for that is the unction of His human nature, which is not effected by operation, as in others that are anointed, but Christ is sanctified by the presence of the whole divine unction.” °

St. John Damascene: “He [Christ] anointed Himself, which means that as God, He anointed His body by His divine nature; He was anointed, however, as man. . . . Moreover, the divinity is the unction of His humanity.” +°

St. Augustine, commenting on this scriptural text, “that they also may be sanctified in truth,” ™ says: “The Son of man was sanctified from the beginning of His creation, when the Word was made flesh; because one person became Word and man. Therefore He was sancti-

1° De fide orthod., Bk. ITI, chap. 3 (Rouet de Journel, no. 1842). u John 17:19.

fied by Himself in Himself; because the one Christ, who is Word and man, sanctifies the man in the Word.” +°

In another work St. Augustine says likewise: “Christ . . . was known to be anointed by that mystic and invisible union, at the time when the Word was made flesh, namely, when the human nature, without any previous merits because of good works, was united with the Word of God in the womb of the Virgin so as to become one person with the Word.” 1°

2. St. Thomas says in a similar manner: “The grace of union is the personal being that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the person of the Word, and it is the term of the assumption, whereas the habitual grace pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an effect following the union.” * But the effect, inasmuch as it is a consequent accident, presupposes substantial sanctity.

Likewise St. Thomas,’® in proving the necessity of habitual grace in Christ, does not seek the reason for it in His already established sanctity by the grace of union, but he explains it: (1) because of the union of His soul with the Word; (2) because it had to be the connatural principle of knowledge and love in the supernatural order; (3) on account of Christ’s relation to the human race, since He is its head.

Hence St. Thomas does not say that Christ’s habitual grace is sanctifying grace. In fact, he says farther on that Christ’s human nature during the Passion had “the actual holiness of a victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely.” +° St. Thomas speaks in similar terms when discussing the plenitude of Christ’s grace. After having said that by habitual grace man is united to God by love, he adds: “There is another kind of union of man with God, which is not only accomplished by love or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but also by the unity of the hypostasis. . . . And this belongs properly to Jesus Christ . . .

13 De Trinitate, Bk. XV, chap. 26, no. 46 (Rouet de Journel, no. 1680). See also Council of Frankfort (Denz., no. 311). This council says: “Christ is by nature anointed, but we are by grace; because in Him was the fullness of the divinity.” Otherwise there would be only an accidental difference in accordance with the degree of grace between Christ’s sanctification and ours.

and makes Him most pleasing to God, so that it may be said of Him as an individual: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” *"

Again, when St. Thomas asks whether Christ can be called the adopted Son of God, he replies: “The sonship of adoption is a participated likeness of natural sonship; nor can a thing be said to participate in what it has essentially. Therefore Christ, who is the natural Son of God, can nowise be called an adopted Son.” 1°

He also shows that Christ, as man, was predestined primarily and principally for natural and divine sonship, or for the grace of union, and secondarily and consequently for habitual grace and glory, as the effects of the grace of union.’® St. Thomas, in his comment on the scriptural text, “Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,” *° referring to St. Hilary, likewise says: “He precedes the rest by this, that He was sanctified as the Son.” 7? Hence St. Thomas taught even explicitly the doctrine of the present thesis, and, though he did not use the same terminology as nowadays, yet he expressed himself in equivalent terms.

Theological proof. This proof from reason that is proposed in various ways by the Thomists, may be clearly expressed by the following syllogism.

Formal sanctity which the just possess by reason of sanctifying grace, includes but four requisite conditions. But these four requisite conditions are found in Christ solely because of the grace of union, even independently of habitual grace. Therefore the substantial grace of union is what formally constitutes sanctity in Christ. Therefore His sanctity is innate, substantial, and increate. Accidental sanctity, which results from habitual grace is derived from this grace of union.

Proof of major. Formal sanctity about which we are concerned, is not a proximately operative virtue that is really distinct from the virtue of religion, but it is that union with God which the just have by reason of habitual or sanctifying grace. This formal sanctity, however, includes but four necessary conditions, so that the just person be formally holy. These conditions are the following.

17 Comp. theol., chap. 214; Matt. 3:17. Even though Christ’s soul were not adorned with habitual grace, these words of God the Father would still be true.

1. That the person be united with God and somehow drawn into union with the divine being.

2. That the person be constituted the son of God, heir of His kingdom, pleasing to Him and loved by Him.

3. That the person be radically disposed to perform supernaturally good works.

4. That the principle of life is in such a person, which principle is incompatible with mortal sin.

All these four conditions are fully explained in that part of the treatise in which habitual or sanctifying grace is discussed, or that grace which makes us pleasing to God.

Minor. But Christ possesses these four conditions in a much higher degree by reason of His substantial and increate grace of union, even independently of habitual grace. For 1) by the grace of union, Christ’s human nature is more perfectly drawn to and united with the divine nature than by habitual grace. For Christ’s human nature is drawn to the divine nature as it is in Itself, and not merely to a participation in the divine nature. It is also united with the divine nature not merely accidentally and lovingly, but substantially and personally. .

2. By the grace of union, Christ as man becomes the natural Son and heir of God, most pleasing to Him and loved by Him, whereas by habitual grace man becomes merely the adopted son of God. St. Thomas shows that love on God’s part is the diffusion of good, and He could not confer a greater good on the human nature than to give Himself substantially to it.??

3. The grace of union makes Christ the principium quod ** of theandric operations that are infinitely meritorious, whereas Christ has need of habitual grace only so that these supernatural operations be elicited connaturally by His human faculties.

4. Finally, the hypostatic union implies greater incompatibility with sin than habitual grace does, for, as will be stated farther on, not only is this union incompatible with mortal sin, but even with the slightest sin, and it makes such a man not only sinless, but absolutely impeccable.**

23 It is almost impossible to give the concise equivalent in English of “principium quod.” By this expression the Scholastics meant the suppositum or person that performs the act, in accordance with the axiom that actions are attributed either to the suppositum or to the person. (Tr.)

Therefore the conclusion follows that the substantial grace of union is what makes Christ formally holy, and this holiness is not accidental, but substantial, increate, and also innate.

Confirmation. By the grace of union, Christ is the natural Son of God. To be the natural Son of God means the maximum of sanctity, or the greatest of union with God and of supernatural union with Him, in accordance with what the Father said: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” °

Objection. The grace of union cannot make a man formally blessed. Therefore it cannot make him formally holy.

Reply. I deny the consequent. The difference between the two is that formal blessedness is a vital act consisting in the vision and love of God; formal holiness, however, with which we are here concerned, consists in habitual union with God, which is ordered to right action; and just as habitual grace gives one a right to eternal happiness, provided this grace be not lost by mortal sin, so a fortiori does the grace of union.

Again I insist. But if the Word were to assume an irrational nature, for example, a dove or a lamb, such a creature would not be sanctified by the Word.

Reply. The reason for this lack of sanctification would be that such subject or nature that is assumed is incapable of it; in fact, the Word would not give personality but only subsistence to such a nature. Likewise during the three days of Christ’s death, the Word remained united with Christ’s corpse, not because it was a person, but because it was a suppositum.

Another objection. The divine nature can formally sanctify Christ’s human nature only by intrinsically perfecting it and really changing it as its intrinsic form. But the divine nature cannot be in relation to Christ’s human nature as its intrinsic form. Therefore the divine nature cannot formally sanctify Christ’s human nature. This means that Christ’s human nature would be holy only by extrinsic denomination.

Reply. I distinguish the major: unless the divine nature intrinsically perfected the human nature as the intrinsic form that terminates it, or rather as the act that intrinsically terminates it, this I concede; that the divine nature could formally sanctify it only as its intrinsic form that informs it, this I deny. And I contradistinguish the minor.

For just as Christ’s human nature is really and intrinsically per- fected, not because it is a nature, but because it is a suppositum, inasmuch as it is terminated by the Word, so it is really and intrinsically sanctified by its personal union with the Word.

But I insist. There can be no holiness without the intrinsic form that excludes sin. But this intrinsic form must inform, just as sin is an inherent privation; so also blindness is removed only by the inherent power to see, and not as proposed by reason of the terminating object.

Reply. I concede the major. I deny the minor, for sin is absolutely impossible in Christ’s human nature solely because this human nature is assumed by the Word. The reason is that sin is a privation that introduces disorder in the entire suppositum, and the divine suppositum cannot be subjected to disorder. On the contrary, blindness is only the privation of some particular accident, namely, the power to see, and hence this blindness is removed only by the restoration of the inherent visual faculty.

Final objection. But in such a case, Christ’s human nature is sanctified by the increate sanctity and consequently would be God or the Godhead. Confusion of the nature would follow the form.

Reply. I distinguish the consequent as in the previous objection. That Christ’s human nature would be God or the Godhead, if it were sanctified by the divine nature, as the informing form, this I concede; as the act that properly terminates the nature, this I deny. Therefore Christ’s sanctity is substantial, increate, and also innate.

Doubt. Is Christ’s human nature formally and substantially sanctified by the divine nature that is included in the personality of the Word, or is it sanctified by His relative personality, because of what this adds to the absolute perfections, or even by the very mode of the union ?

Reply. Gonet, Billuart, and several other Thomists say that Christ’s humanity is substantially sanctified by the divine nature that is included in the personality of the Word, but not in the other two ways. There is authoritative proof for this affirmation from the quotations of the above-mentioned Fathers, especially St. Gregory, who says: “Christ [anointed] is so called because of His divine nature, for that is the unction of the human nature.” *® But what anoints the human nature is formally what sanctifies it. Therefore the human nature is formally sanctified by the divine nature.

Theological proof. Christ’s human nature is formally sanctified by

the divine sanctity. The divine sanctity, however, is the divine nature as such, which is included in the personality of the Word, and therefore the three divine persons are holy by the same essential holiness.?*

Confirmation. Habitual grace formally sanctifies inasmuch as it is a participation of the divine nature, and thus it is the source of strictly divine operations and ultimately of the beatific vision. Therefore, in like manner, what formally sanctifies Christ’s human nature is precisely the divine nature that is included in the personality of the Word.

Hence the other two modes are rejected. First of all, it is clearly evident that Christ’s human nature is not formally sanctified by the mode itself of the union, because, in our opinion, there is no such mode of union; and if there were, it would not formally sanctify the nature, because it would not be the sanctifying form, but merely the application of the nature to the form. Thus the just person is not said to be sanctified by the mode of union with habitual grace, but by habitual grace itself.

Finally, Christ’s human nature is not formally sanctified by the relative personality of the Word because of what this personality adds to the absolute perfections of the divine persons, for, according to the more probable opinion of several Thomists as explained in the treatise on the Trinity, the divine personalities considered as such or because of the notion of reference to the opposite correlative in the order of divine relations (esse ad), which they add to the divine essence, do not declare a new perfection, and therefore sanctity, but rather they abstract, as the free act of God does, from both perfection and imperfection. Otherwise we should have to say that the Father is lacking in a certain perfection since He does not have sonship, or that subsistent relation which constitutes the person of the Son. Hence the subsistent, divine relations, that are opposed to one another and God’s free act, are not absolutely simple perfections at least in the strict sense; for an absolutely simple perfection is defined as a perfection the concept of which implies no imperfection, and which is better to have than not to have. Thus the Father has all absolutely simple perfections, otherwise He would not be God, but He does not have the correlative opposite relation of sonship. It is also not better

27 In other words, the person of the Word sanctifies the human nature of Christ, because the person is divine.

for Him to have the free act of creating than not to have it. For God is not better because He created the universe.

Objection. Some say that Christ’s nature is formally sanctified by that with which it is immediately united. But it is more immediately united with the subsistence of the Word than with the divine nature. Therefore Christ’s nature is formally sanctified by the subsistence of the Word.

Reply. I distinguish the major. If this to which the human nature is immediately united is the sanctifying form, then I concede the major; otherwise I deny it.

It is not unbefitting Christ’s human nature to be united with the divine nature through the medium of the personality of the Word, because this union cannot be effected in the nature, but only in the person. Likewise it is only through the medium of the person of the Word that the human nature is united with the one and only divine nature.** Similarly habitual grace sanctifies the whole being of man, although it is not united immediately with the whole of his being.

Thus it remains true that Christ’s human nature is formally sanctified by the substantial and increate grace of union, but with a union not by participation with the divine nature, but with the divine nature itself, in the person of the Word. Thus, as already stated, Christ’s sanctity is not only a transport of joy experienced in His intellect and will, but it is also the transport of joy that is felt in His whole being.

This preliminary article does not give the complete teaching of St. Thomas on this question, but it covers a particular phase of it, for this is what he had already said in equivalent words.

Having discussed Christ’s substantial sanctity, we must now consider the question of His accidental sanctity, which consists in habitual grace that was infused into His soul at the moment of His conception. St. Thomas treats of this grace throughout the whole of this seventh question.

First ARTICLE

WHETHER IN THE SOUL OF CHRIST THERE WAS ANY HABITUAL GRACE

State of the question. Paludanus asserts ** that some theologians were of the opinion that there was no habitual grace in Christ, be-

cause they thought it to be entirely superfluous in Him. Their reasons are given by St. Thomas in the objections placed at the beginning of this article, and are as follows:

I. Grace is a certain participation of the divine nature; but Christ is God not by participation, but in truth.

2. By the mere fact that Christ was the natural Son of God, He had the power of doing all things well in the supernatural order, and eternal life was His by right.

What is true about these arguments, as will at once be evident, is that, absolutely speaking, Christ could have acted freely, and, by way of transient help that functions instead of habitual grace, be elevated to elicit supernatural and even meritorious acts, but these would not have been connatural to Him.”® It is difficult to deny this statement, which is admitted by several Thomists, such as Gonet, Godoy, Billuart, and others.

Let us suppose that Christ or the Word incarnate had not received habitual grace and, nevertheless, had offered Himself for us on the cross; this oblation would not only be salutary, as our acts are that precede justification and dispose us for it, but by virtue of the grace of union this oblation would also be meritorious, in fact, of infinite value.*? Nevertheless, as we shall immediately show, this oblation would not have been connatural, as it must be, nor would it have been connatural merit de condigno. l

Conclusion. We must say that Christ’s soul was endowed with habitual grace.

It is the common opinion among theologians, which the Scholastics hold along with the Master of the Book of Sentences ** and the commentators of St. Thomas on this article. This conclusion is at least

81 Cf. Salmanticenses, De incarnatione, disp. XIII, dub. 4, nos. 60, 62, go. Nevertheless the Salmanticenses (7id., nos. 66, 70) say: “Christ could not merit de condigno supernatural rewards without habitual grace,” because in their opinion, as given in the places cited above: “Condign merit of any reward has a connatural tendency for this reward.”

On this point, the Salmanticenses differ from Godoy, Gonet, Billuart, and a fortiori from Suarez, who unjustifiably holds that Christ could have merited de condigno the supernatural rewards without the assistance, by way of transient help, of supernatural and elevating grace (cf. ibid., no. 92). Suarez says this because he admits against the Thomists, that there is in our nature an obediential potentiality that is not only passive and elevational, but also active.

theologically certain which is correctly deduced and commonly admitted, so that it belongs at least to “the science of theology,” which is subordinate to faith and above theological systems.

For the purpose of reconciling the various theologians who do not attach the same note of censure to the opposite opinion, Francis Sylvius made the following distinctions.

In his opinion: (1) It is certainly of faith that Christ even in His human nature was holy and pleasing to God.

2. It is probably of faith that Christ was sanctified by habitual grace that was infused into His soul, especially because, as Sacred Scripture attests, Christ had charity and the other infused virtues, which presuppose habitual grace.

3. Christ in His human nature was sanctified in two ways: first by the grace of union; secondly by habitual grace. The first sanctity is substantial, the second is accidental. Hence the opinion of those who said that Christ’s habitual grace must be denied as superfluous, because He was sanctified by the grace of union, must be rejected, as at least temerarious.

Scriptural proof. St. Thomas quotes in the counterargument, the following text: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him fi.e., Christ, or the Messias] : the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness, and He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord.” **

This text from Isaias proves directly the presence of the gifts of the Holy Ghost in the soul of Christ and consequently the presence of created habitual grace, from which the gifts proceed as explained in the treatises on grace and the gifts. Thus grace is called by theologians the grace of the virtues and gifts, because these are derived from it.

The Evangelist explains these words of Isaias as referring to Christ,** and the interpretation of St. Thomas on these words is the one generally followed.

There is another text that must be quoted concerning this grace. The Evangelist writes: “And the Word was made flesh . . . and we saw His glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father [which is the grace of union or natural divine sonship], full of grace and truth” ° [where the fullness of habitual grace is implied]. The

Evangelist likewise says: “And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.” ° We have confirmation of this grace from those texts of Scripture attributing to Christ virtues that presuppose habitual grace, such as charity, humility, and other virtues.

The meaning of these texts of Sacred Scripture is made clearer by the testimony of tradition, which is the living commentary of Scripture.

Patristic proof.*” St. John Chrysostom says: “The full measure of grace has been poured out over that Temple [Christ]: for the Spirit does not measure this grace out to Him. . . . We have received of His fullness, but that Temple has received the complete measure of grace. .. . In Him is all grace, in men but a small measure, a drop of that grace.” 3°

St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “Christ sanctifies Himself, since as God He is holy by nature; but according to His human nature He is sanctified together with us.” *°

St. Augustine says: “The Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God; but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace ° and of the Holy Spirit.* And it is still more plainly written of Him, ‘Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit’ *? Certainly, not with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized.” ** l

St. Bernard, commenting on these words of the Evangelist, “And therefore also the Holy that shall be born of thee,” ** says: “He [Christ] was undoubtedly and particularly holy through the sanctification by the Spirit and assumption by the Word.” ** These last words contain two distinct assertions. Evidently, the words “and through the assumption by the Word” signify the increate grace of union; hence the preceding words, “through the sanctification by the Spirit,” imply created or habitual grace.

57 Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, Index theol., no. 394.

We do not find, however, that the Fathers distinguish so clearly between the increate grace of union and created habitual grace as the Scholastics do and especially as St. Thomas does. Yet the Fathers distinguish more explicitly between the Word and charity that is infused into Christ’s soul, because the Gospels and epistles frequently refer to Christ’s charity and His other virtues that always presuppose habitual grace. The Fathers spoke more in the concrete, that is, they spoke of Christ’s acts and were not so much concerned with the abstract question of habitual grace. Such is always the case, inasmuch as our intellect gradually makes the transition from the concrete to the abstract and then returns to the concrete for a better understanding of the question. We find this to be the method of procedure in all treatises.

Theological proof. Three proofs from theological reasoning are given in the body of this article.

1. On account of the principle which is the hypostatic union.

2. In view of the end, or the purpose of the supernatural operations in Christ’s soul.

3. Because of Christ’s relation to the human race.

The article must be read.

1. The reason on the part of the principle, which is the hypostatic union, is reduced to the following syllogism.

The nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more does it partake of its influence. But Christ’s soul is most closely associated with the Word of God, the Author of grace, since it is united with the Word in the person, and there cannot be a closer union. Therefore Christ’s soul receives the maximum influx of grace from God.

It follows from this that Christ’s habitual grace, though it is not a physical property, is at least a moral property of the hypostatic union, inasmuch as the Word incarnate was connaturally entitled to it. It is not, however, a physical property, for the Word does not constitute with Christ’s human nature one nature, but only one person.

A similar reason, all due proportions being observed, prevails for the fullness of grace in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

2. The reason, because of the end of Christ’s operation in His soul, may thus be expressed: That the operations of the soul, namely, knowledge and love, may attain to God the Author of grace, who is to be loved above all things, the soul and its faculties must be elevated by habitual grace as by a second nature. But it was necessary that operations of Christ’s soul should most closely and therefore connaturally attain to God the Author of grace, by knowledge and love. Therefore Christ’s soul and its faculties had to be elevated by habitual grace.

The major is evident, inasmuch as habitual grace is necessary so that these operations be elicited connaturally. For the agent operates connaturally when it has in itself the nature or permanent form by which it is inclined to its act. But Christ’s soul could be inclined intrinsically and permanently to vital supernatural acts only by habitual grace. Therefore, that Christ’s soul be inclined intrinsically and permanently to vital supernatural acts, it had to have habitual grace.*®

The nature itself of the soul did not suffice nor did the grace of union.

For the soul by nature is entitatively natural and hence it is intrinsically incapable of eliciting vital supernatural acts; but with merely actual grace it could indeed elicit such acts, just as a sinner elicits a salutary act before justification; but such an act is not connatural to the soul, as it is generally admitted to be in the case of a just person.*?

The grace of union likewise did not suffice, because this grace is, as already stated by St. Thomas: “the personal being that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the person of the Word.” +8 Thus this grace was the principium quod of the operations, but not the principium quo. That by which Christ’s soul is intrinsically, permanently, and connaturally inclined to supernatural acts, must be in the soul by way of a second nature, as the radical principium quo of operations, just as the infused virtues are the proximate principium quo.

It is evident from this that habitual grace in Christ was not superfluous, but it was necessary for the eliciting of connatural supernatural and meritorious acts.*°

We must insist upon the word “connatural” because, absolutely speaking, Christ, in virtue of the grace of union, and with a transient help, could have elicited supernatural and even meritorious acts. But that He should elicit these acts connaturally, His soul had to be

endowed with habitual grace as a second nature, which is a participation of the divine nature. Otherwise His soul would be imperfect, which is absolutely unbefitting Him.

3. The reason of Christ’s relation to us confirms the preceding proofs, and may be expressed by the following syllogism.

The mediator between God and man must have grace overflowing upon others. But Christ, as man, is the mediator between God and man, for the Scripture says: “Of His fullness, we have all received, and grace for grace.” 5°

We shall see farther on that Christ’s grace as head of the Church is not precisely the grace of union, but it is habitual grace as presupposing and connoting the grace of union. For St. Thomas says: “Everything acts inasmuch as it isa being in act . . . , hence the agent is nobler than the patient. . . . And therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which Christ received, it is befitting to Him that this grace is bestowed on others.” 5+

Truly Christ is the head of the human race inasmuch as He merited and satisfied for us, and He could not connaturally elicit these meritorious and satisfactory acts without habitual grace, as already stated. But the grace of union is presupposed so that these acts may be of infinite value on the part of the principium quod of these operations.

For a more complete understanding of this article, the following three conclusions taken from Gonet, with whom several other Thomists such as Godoy and Billuart agree, must be noted. However, the Salmanticenses differ from the others concerning the third conclusion.

1. Habitual grace was required in Christ’s soul for the completion and perfection of His sanctity. Such is the opinion of all theologians except Vasquez.

2. Habitual grace was required in Christ’s soul for His supernatural acts to be connatural.

3. It was necessary for Christ to have habitual grace so that He could merit connaturally a supernatural reward. By Christ’s absolute power, however, without this grace He could have merited a supernatural reward with intrinsically supernatural help by way of a transient light of glory.

So say several Thomists, such as Godoy and Billuart.

Objection. The argument raised against this third conclusion is that St. Thomas says: “Although there is a certain note of infinity in Christ’s merit because of the dignity of the person, yet His actions are meritorious because of habitual grace, without which merit is impossible.” °?

Gonet replies as follows: “I answer that the purpose of St. Thomas in the passage just quoted is to point out that without habitual grace there can be no question of connatural merit. It does not follow from this, absolutely speaking, and according to God’s absolute power. that Christ’s soul solely with the grace of union and an actual help in the supernatural order could not merit a supernatural reward, but only that He could not do so connaturally.” 5°

John of St. Thomas is of about the same opinion, saying: “Habitual grace is not absolutely necessary for the validity of Christ's merit and satisfaction that transcends the former and that is derived from the value of the person.” **

The conclusion of St. Thomas is confirmed from the solution of the objections in this article.

Reply to first objection. “The soul of Christ is not essentially divine. Hence it behooves it to be divine by participation, which is by grace.”

Reply to second objection. In Christ’s soul “the beatific act and its fruition could not be without grace.”

Reply to third objection. “Christ’s humanity is the instrument of the Godhead, not indeed an inanimate instrument, which nowise acts, but is merely acted upon, but an instrument animated by a rational soul, which is so acted upon as to act.” For Christ’s soul to act supernaturally by the love of charity, it was at least the normal requisite for His soul to have habitual grace. It would have been something absolutely abnormal for Christ not to have this habitual grace.

Another objection. If Christ had habitual grace, He would be the adoptive son of God, for adoptive sonship is the formal effect of habitual grace. We shall see further on that Christ cannot be called the adopted son of God, because He is already the natural Son of God in His own right.

Reply. I deny the consequence, for adoptive sonship is not the

58 De incarnatione, disp. 12, a. 2, no. 45. 54 De incarnatione, disp. 8, a. 2, no. 2.

primary effect of habitual grace, but only its secondary effect, and even if it were the primary effect, it would not be communicated to Christ, because He is already the natural Son of God and hence is incapable of being an adopted son of God. Adopted sonship applies to anyone by reason of the suppositum, or person, and hence the person who is the natural Son of God, cannot be called the adopted son. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary is the first of the adopted children of God.

First doubt. When did Christ receive habitual grace?

Reply. He received this grace at the moment of His conception, because habitual grace is the connatural consequence of the hypostatic union.””

Second doubt. Did Christ at the first moment of His conception dispose Himself by an act of free will for the habitual grace that was then infused?

St. Thomas answers this question in the affirmative, because this mode of sanctification by one’s own disposing act, as in adults, is more perfect than to be sanctified by the disposing act of another as an infant.*®

St. Thomas holds that “Christ’s intellect in regard to His infused knowledge, could understand at the first moment of His conception, without turning to phantasms.” °* Many doctors admit this truth as applicable to the Blessed Virgin Mary. So also the angels; Adam and Eve, who were created as fully grown, by receiving habitual grace at the moment of their creation disposed themselves for it by actual grace.

Objection. Some say that this act of free will comes from habitual grace and therefore cannot dispose one for it.

Reply. Several Thomists, such as Gonet and Serra rightly maintain in their treatises on grace, when discussing the justification of adults, that the free act that ultimately disposes in the order of material cause for habitual grace follows it in the order of formal cause and hence is the effect of habitual grace, in accordance with the principle: causes mutually interact, though in a different order.

Likewise the due organization of the human body disposes it for

the reception of the human soul; however, the body has this ultimate disposition only from the soul, as St. Thomas teaches.”*

Other Thomists, such as Goudin, say that the free act which is the ultimate disposition for habitual grace in adults proceeds effectively from the virtue of charity that is not as yet permanently communicated as a habit but is of the nature of a transient actual help. The former answer seems the more profound.

St. Thomas solves this question, saying: “Because the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God who justifies, hence in the order of nature, [instantaneously] the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what takes place on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature, the being freed from sin, is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace.” °° But the being freed from sin is the ultimate disposition for the attainment of habitual grace, and this takes place in the adult only by an act of free will (as stated in the body of the article) ; this movement of the free will to God proceeds from the actual infusion of habitual grace and follows it in the orders of formal, efficient, and final causes, although it precedes this grace in the order of material cause, as the ultimate disposition in the body in its relation to the soul.

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WERE VIRTUES

State of the question. We are concerned with virtues that are so called in the strict sense, such as the theological and cardinal virtues. Afterward, in discussing Christ’s knowledge, we shall devote a question exclusively (q. 9) to the consideration of the intellectual virtues, which are not virtues in the strict sense inasmuch as they do not make a person absolutely good, but only in a qualified manner, such as when we say a person is good in metaphysics or mathematics.

We are concerned not only with directly infused moral virtues, but also with moral virtues of the natural order, which are acquired by our individual acts.

Conclusion. Christ had all the virtues. This means that He had all virtues that do not in their notion imply any defect in the soul of Christ, who was both wayfarer and comprehensor, as will be pointed

out farther on. Thus in the following articles we shall have occasion to remark that Christ did not have either faith or hope or penance.

Scriptural proof. The Gospels authoritatively represent Christ as the exemplar of all virtues. Rationalists, such as Renan, acknowledge this to be true. We must insist upon this truth for the better manifestation of Christ’s sanctity, which is the motive of credibility that leads to faith in Him.

There is negative evidence of this truth inasmuch as Christ was sinless, so that He could say to the Jews who sought to kill Him: “Which of you shall convince Me of sin?” © And nobody dared to contradict Him. Truly, indeed, as the Gospel narrates: “The chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus that they might put Him to death, and they found not.” ! But it was only because Jesus confessed that He is Christ, the Son of God, that “the high priest rent His garments, saying: ‘He hath blasphemed.’ ” ® Even Judas confessed, saying: “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood”; ° and Pilate said: “I am innocent of the blood of this just man, look you to it.” “4

Moreover, Christ had all virtues and even most different kinds of them which He practiced in a heroic degree. Love and dutiful submission to God are especially evident in the life of Jesus, His love and mercy for men, perfect self-denial, humility and utmost magnanimity, most perfect meekness as also fortitude and patience on the cross, as when He prayed for those who tortured Him. We find wonderfully reconciled in Christ that holy rigor of justice toward the impenitent Pharisees and that immensity of mercy toward those sinners who do not resist God’s grace.

In fact, as shown in apologetics, this harmony and perseverance that prevails between such vastly different virtues practiced in a heroic degree is a moral miracle. For this sublime and profound harmony between the virtues or holiness of life is impossible without God’s special intervention, for it consists in an inseparable union with God which can come only from God, inasmuch as the order of agents must correspond to the order of ends. Apologetical arguments founded not on revelation but on reason make this already evident.

In fact, Christ’s sanctity is not only eminent, but is manifestly extraordinary in that it unites in itself vastly different heroic virtues. We have seen indeed that a person is at times naturally disposed or is by force of habit ready to perform acts requiring fortitude of soul, who, nevertheless, is not ready to perform acts that call for meekness of soul, for by nature such a person is determined one particular way. But that anyone may have all the virtues and also excel in them, even those so vastly different, such as supreme fortitude and supreme meekness, perfect love of truth and justice and also the greatest of mercy toward those that err and fall into sin, this is impossible without God’s special help, who alone in the simplicity of His nature contains formally and eminently vastly different perfections, and who can unite these in the human soul, so as to make it a perfect image of God. Thus the soul of Christ is that most sublime image in which it is possible to contemplate the Deity.

Theological proof. It can be proved by theological reasoning that Christ had all the virtues. This reasoning of St. Thomas is valid for the infused virtues, and may be expressed as follows:

As the faculties of the soul stem from its essence, so the infused virtues stem from habitual grace, and in a proportionate degree. But Christ’s soul was endowed with habitual grace from the moment of His conception, and indeed in the highest degree of perfection, as will be more clearly explained farther on.® Therefore Christ had all the infused virtues and in the highest degree.®° e5 Cf. Tila, q. 7,2. 9£.

66 This argument presupposes that created habitual grace is in Christ’s soul. But we can invert the process of argumentation by appealing to Sacred Scripture where it is asserted that infused virtues, such as charity and humility, were and are in Christ’s most holy soul so as to prove likewise that this created habitual grace, which is the root of the infused virtues and the gifts, and which, for this reason, is called “the grace of the virtues and the gifts,” was and still is in the soul of Christ (cf. IIIa, q. 62, a. 2).

This argument in reverse now makes it clear that it would have been most unbefitting for Christ’s most holy soul not to have had created habitual grace, for then the infused virtues would have been in His soul without their proximate and normal foundation, or rather instead of the infused virtues there would have been in His’ soul only a transient supernatural help, functioning like a transient light of glory.

f Hence, although the created habitual grace is not absolutely necessary, presupposing the actual presence of the increate grace of union (by which Christ’s soul is already most holy), but only most fitting; nevertheless this fitness is such that its absence would be most unfitting; for it would mean that Christ’s soul would then be imperfect, in fact, a sort of monstrosity in the supernatural order. On the contrary, when it is said that “it was fitting for God to create, rather than not to create,

We are concerned with virtues which, in what they mean, imply no defect in the soul of Christ, who was both wayfarer and comprehensor. Thus faith, hope, and repentance must be excluded." The reason given by St. Thomas holds good for charity and all the infused moral virtues.

Reply to first objection. Habitual grace performs supernatural acts only through the medium of the virtues.

Reply to second objection. Christ had the virtues most perfectly, beyond the common mode. In this sense Plotinus gave to a certain sublime degree of virtue the name of virtue of the purified soul, as Macrobius says.°°

Reply to third objection. “Christ showed the highest kind of liberality and magnificence by despising all riches.” For these virtues, just as wittiness which has to do with joking, can be either made use of or despised for the sake of a higher end. But Christ had no evil desires whatever, as will be shown farther on.°* Thus Christ had perfect temperance, but not continence, which St. Augustine says is not a virtue but something less than the virtue of chastity, for the continent person, strictly speaking, has evil tendencies, but resists them by will power. Cajetan ‘° remarks, taking the name “continence” in the more common acceptation of the word, that there is nothing that prevents us from calling Christ continent.

First doubt. Did Christ have all moral virtues that of themselves can be acquired? Theologians generally give an affirmative answer to this question.

The reason is that the sensitive appetite in Christ was no different from ours, which is an inclination to sensible delectable good; that it may completely and perfectly tend to its natural and fitting good, it requires a superadded form, that can be nothing else but a moral vir- to raise us to the supernatural order, and will the Incarnation . . . rather than not to will such things,” then the absence of such would have meant no unfitness.

In this we see how very fitting it was for Christ to have habitual grace. Thus all due proportion preserved, it is fitting for the just to have the seven sacred gifts of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise their life of grace would be imperfect, which would be unbefitting as regards Providence that disposes all things sweetly and firmly. (Cf. Ta Hae, q. 68, a. 2.)

87 Cf. infra, q. 15, a. 1, ad 5. Although Christ’s detestation of sin was perfect, yet there could be no repentance in Him, simply because He could not sin.

tue that is directly acquirable. Infused moral virtues did not suffice, because the direct purpose of these is to incline the will to supernatural acts. The correlative moral and acquirable virtues, although they are in themselves in their own order truly virtues, are related to the virtues as dispositions from which there arises an extrinsic facility for the practice of the infused virtues, for they exclude inordinate inclinations resulting from repetition of acts."* The acquired moral virtues are in their relation to the infused virtues somewhat like dexterity in manipulating the harp is to the art that is in the practical intellect of the musician. Hence it is certain that Christ had moral virtues that are of themselves acquirable; otherwise He would have been morally imperfect, just as beginners in the Christian life who, by the very fact that they are in the state of grace, have infused prudence, which scarcely manifests itself, however, because they lack the virtue of acquired prudence, without which it is difficult to practice the virtue of infused prudence.

Confirmation. Christ’s will must be perfected as regards good, just as much as His intellect is as regards truth. But there was acquired knowledge in Christ’s intellect, as will be made clear farther on.” Therefore, likewise in His will and sensitive appetite there was the possibility of acquiring moral virtues.

First objection. To perform a most perfect act is to act from a supernatural motive. But Christ always had to perform most perfect acts. Therefore He always acted from a supernatural motive or by acts of the infused virtues and not by acts of virtues that of themselves were acquirable.

Reply. I distinguish the major: to perform a most perfect act is to act from a supernatural motive, when this motive is the end in view of the person acting, this I concede; that the deed performed must always be in itself supernatural, this I deny. Hence, just as Christ performed not only acts of charity, but also acts of the infused virtues, so also He performed natural acts that as regards the object and end of these acts were good and fitting, though they were subordinated to the supernatural end of charity as being the end in view of the person acting. Thus Christ said: “Render to Caesar the things that are

71 The infused virtue of itself does indeed give intrinsic facility for its acts, but there may be an extrinsic difficulty because of inordinate passions, if the acquired correlative virtue is lacking, as in the case of the repentant drunkard in whom the acquired virtue of sobriety is wanting. *8 Cf. Hla, q. 9, a. 4.

Caesar's. . . .”"° These are natural obligations, just as even pagans know that commutative justice requires the payment of debts.

As grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, so also the infused virtues neither destroy nor render the acquired virtues useless, but perfect them, directing them to be performed for the love of God, not that the acts themselves are supernatural, but that the end in view of the agent is supernatural. Thus the act of the acquired virtue of temperance is modally supernatural, whereas the act of the infused virtue of temperance is substantially supernatural. Thus the acquired moral virtues are subordinated to the infused moral virtues in some way just as the imagination and sensitive memory are subordinated to knowledge, philosophy to theology, and theology to the doctrine of faith that transcends the science of theology. There is a normal hierarchy of functions in this subordination.

Second objection. But the acquired virtues are required to restrain the immoderate tendencies of the passions, which Christ did not have, for, as will be mentioned farther on,** Christ was free from concupiscence. Therefore He had no need of the acquired virtues.

Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: that the acquired virtues are necessary in a secondary sense so as to check the immoderate tendencies of the passions, this I concede; that they are primarily necessary, this I deny. For the primary and special purpose of these virtues is to enable the faculties to act properly, promptly, and with facility in the natural order. It is in this way that chastity operates, for example, even when there are no temptations to be overcome or passions to be curbed. Thus humility in Christ did not check the first movements of pride, but it completely subjected His will to the divine majesty.

Thus Adam in the state of innocence had those virtues that are of themselves capable of attainment, and they remain in the blessed, as St. Thomas teaches.”°

Second doubt. Did Christ have these moral virtues that can be acquired of themselves by infusion, or did He acquire them by His own acts?

It is difficult to give a definite answer to this question." The more probable opinion of several Thomists is that they were infused, just as

78 Ibid., Ia Hae, q. 67, a. 1. 16 So say Gonet, Billuart, as also Suarez and Vasquez, but the latter on different grounds.

Adam in the state of innocence had them from the moment of his creation. However, Adam was created in the adult state, whereas Christ as man gradually grew up to manhood.

The principal reason for this answer is that Christ was never without these virtues, for to be deprived of them for any time is in itself something evil, and no defect is admissible in God, except those that are not contrary to the end of the Incarnation, such as the privation of the glorification of His body for a time. But such is not the case with the temporary privation of these virtues. It would be more derogatory to Christ’s dignity that He should be for a time without these virtues, than increase in perfection by acquiring them, which cannot be instantancous, but only a progressive process. Moreover, the Church declared in the Second Council of Constantinople: “Christ was not subjected to passions, nor did He become better by the repetition of virtuous acts.” 77

Objection. But the Gospel says: “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men.” 7°

Reply. The answer of St. Thomas is: “Christ advanced in wisdom and grace as also in age (not by an actual increase of the habits but), because as He advanced in age He performed more perfect works.” °°

Another objection. St. Thomas says farther on *° that Christ advanced in acquired knowledge. Therefore He also advanced in moral virtues that of themselves can be acquired.

Reply. There is not parity of argument. (1) The natural sciences do not make man absolutely good, such as the moral virtues do, but good only in a qualified sense, such as good in mathematics or in physics. (2) If the natural sciences were infused in Christ, then His active intellect would be in a state of continual idleness as regards its first function, which is to abstract intelligible species from the senses. Therefore it is more probable that Christ had moral virtues that of themselves can be acquired from the time of His conception.

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WAS FAITH

The general opinion of theologians is that Christ did not have faith. Such is the opinion of St. Thomas.

The reason given in the counterargument does not absolutely prove this assertion, for the words of Peter quoted here, namely, “Thou knowest all things,” ** were spoken after Christ’s resurrection. Hence these words prove to some extent that at least after the resurrection Jesus did not have faith concerning mysteries in the strict sense, but the beatific vision.

The body of the article presupposes what must be proved farther on,” namely, that Christ from the first moment of His conception completely saw God in His essence. But the clear vision of God excludes the notion of faith, which is of things not seen.

In other words, a virtue cannot be in a subject to whom its primary act is derogatory. But the primary act of faith refers to God not seen. Therefore Christ could not have had faith, since from the moment of His conception He clearly saw God in His essence. This is the common opinion among theologians. No theologian holds that an act of faith is simultaneously compatible with the beatific vision, because the scriptural text of St. Paul is clear on this point: “Faith ® . . . is the evidence of things that appear not.” Durandus thinks that the habit of faith, however, if not its act, can remain in the blessed. Scotus holds this to be possible, but useless. St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure are of the opinion that the habit of faith cannot co-exist with the beatific vision. Thus St. Thomas says: “The object of faith is a divine thing not seen. But the habit of virtue . . . takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith.” **

At least the permanence of the beatific vision excludes both act and habit of faith. The beatific vision as a transient act, which St. Augustine and St. Thomas think St. Paul had on this earth, excludes the act of faith concerning this object, but not the habit of faith.

Reply to first objection. The moral virtues, although they are inferior to faith, were and are always in Christ because they imply no defect as regards their subject matter."

Reply to second objection. St. Thomas does not teach that Christ had the merit of faith, but He had what constitutes the reward of our faith, which is perfect obedience to the loving commands of God.

85 However, in the case of the infused moral virtues, the imperfection of the discursive method of prudence enters in, and for this reason they are inferior to the gifts.

But Christ was faithful to His promises, and this is sometimes called faith in Sacred Scripture.** Thus the prophet says of the Messias: “Faith shall be the girdle of His loins.” *

Therefore the maximum of faith that any intellectual creature had was the theological faith of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for her faith was proportionate to her plenitude of grace. From this we conclude how sublime must have been the acts of faith and hope made by the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially on Mount Calvary, not in the least doubting that her Son, who seemed to be conquered, was the Son of God, the conqueror of the devil and sin, and the proximate victor of death.

FourTH ARTICLE

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WAS HOPE

State of the question. There is some difficulty, for the Psalmist, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped.” §§ Moreover, Christ awaited or hoped for the glorification of His body and the building up of His mystical body.

Conclusion. St. Thomas, with whom the majority of theologians agree, maintains that Christ did not have the virtue of hope but had a certain act of hope or rather of desire concerning things He did not yet possess.

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?” ® But Christ did not have faith, as was said above,°° because from the beginning (of the hypostatic union) He enjoyed the vision of the divine essence. Therefore, too, He did not have the virtue of hope.

Theological proof. The reason for this proof is taken from the formal or primary object of hope, for hope, considered as a theological virtue, has God Himself as its primary object, whose fruition is expected. But Christ from the beginning of His conception had the complete fruition of the divine essence, as will be stated farther on.** Therefore He did not have the theological virtue of hope.

The principle of the preceding article applies equally here, namely, a virtue cannot be in a subject to whom its primary act is derogatory.

However, at the end of the argumentative part of this article, St. Thomas admits that Christ had a certain act of hope or rather of desire as regards some things, so that He could expect the glorification of His body and the building up of the Church. Thus the Psalmist, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped.” °” But these things do not constitute the primary object of the theological virtue of hope, and thus it remains true that Christ did not have this theological virtue of hope.

Therefore of all intellectual creatures, the hope of the Blessed Virgin Mary was the most sublime especially on Mount Calvary, when all the apostles, with the exception of St. John, did not have the courage to witness the death of Christ. Hence it is said of her: “Grant that I may carry the cross of Christ.” °?

First doubt. To what virtue must we attribute this act of desire in Christ for the glorification of His body and the building up of the Church?

Reply. This act must be attributed to the virtue of charity, as its secondary act, whereby Christ loved Himself and the Church, for God’s sake, as the Evangelist says: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” °

Thus the love of concupiscence by which we desire eternal life for the glory of God, is attributed to us as a secondary act of charity.

Second doubt. Was there penance as a virtue in Christ?

Reply. There was no penance, as a virtue, in Christ, because it implies in the strict sense sorrow for one’s own sins. But Christ was impeccable, as will be explained farther on. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office forbade such invocations as: “Heart of Jesus, penitent for us, Jesus penitent, Jesus penitent for us.” °*

The truth of this reply is clearly established since it agrees with the

93 Stabat Mater. After Christ’s death, the Blessed Virgin Mary, during her life on earth, made more sublime acts of faith and hope subjectively, but not objectively. Thus it is said that all Christ’s acts were personally of infinite value subjectively, but His act of love on the cross was nobler objectively. Thus to teach the subject matter of theology is more meritorious than to be engaged in any other material pursuit, even though done under obedience; but to teach theology subjectively and personally is less meritorious when one is not actuated so much by charity.

generally accepted teaching of St. Thomas, which declares that penance is a special virtue that is distinct not only from the virtue of religion, but also from the virtue of vindictive justice and of all the other virtues.’

Thus the primary and specific act of penance is sorrow for one’s own sins with the motive of amendment, and the intention of performing salutary acts in satisfaction for one’s past offenses.

But a virtue cannot be in a subject to whom its primary act is intrinsically repugnant. But the act of penance is intrinsically repugnant to Christ’s human nature, because it was united to the Word.”" But Christ had a perfect detestation for sin inasmuch as it is an offense against God, arising from the intensity of His love for God offended and for souls that are dead to God through mortal sin.

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WERE THE GIFTS

State of the question. The difficulty is that gifts are given to help the virtues. But the virtues were most perfect in Christ. Therefore He did not need this help.

Moreover, Christ had already on this earth the contemplation of heaven as explained farther on. But the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding seem to belong to contemplation in this life, and apparently these are useless in a soul that already enjoys the beatific vision.

Conclusion. It is commonly admitted, however, that the soul of Christ had these gifts in a pre-eminent degree.

Gonet maintains that this conclusion is a certainty of the faith, because of the text of Isaias quoted in the proof.

Scriptural proof. The prophet says: “The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness. And He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord.” °

Instead of the words, “the spirit of knowledge and of godliness,” the Hebrew text reads, “the spirit of knowledge and of fear.” Thus fear is mentioned twice. The Greek version and the Vulgate give

“godliness,” which is about the same in meaning as reverential godliness. The Old Testament does not distinguish so clearly between godliness and fear as the New Testament does, which is not the law of fear, but of love.®®

The Fathers and Scholastics are generally agreed that this text concerns Christ’s human nature.

Theological proof. Although it has been revealed that Christ had gifts and still has them, this assertion can also be proved from higher revealed principles, namely, from the definition of gifts. St. Thomas says in this article: “The gifts, properly, are certain perfections of the soul’s powers, inasmuch as they have a natural aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost,” according to St. Luke, who says: “And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert.” Hence it is manifest that the gifts were in Christ in a pre-eminent degree.

The thesis is confirmed by the fact that the gifts of the Holy Ghost follow from habitual grace and are connected with charity, as St. Thomas teaches.*°® But Christ had habitual grace in the most perfect manner and the highest degree of charity. Therefore He also had preeminently the gifts.

The thesis is also confirmed from the solution of the objections.

Reply to first objection. It points out that as a man, however perfect he may be, needs to be helped by God, so also, no matter how perfect the virtues are, they need to be helped by the gifts, which perfect the powers of the soul, inasmuch as these are not controlled by reason illumined by faith, but by the Holy Spirit. This reply confirms the teaching of St. Thomas as set forth in a previous passage '°? where he shows that the infused virtues, even the highest degree, are specifically distinct from the gifts as regards their formal object quo or their rule or motive; +°? for to be ruled by right reason even though illumined by the light of faith differs from being ruled by the Holy Spirit, which means to be ruled by His special inspiration, which transcends the discursive process of reasoning. Thus there is a mani-

99 Although in this text of Isaias there is no mention made of the gift of godliness, yet St. Paul refers to it when he says: “You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father)” (Rom. 8:15). The liturgy of Pentecost attests that the doctrine of the sacred sevenfold gifts is the constant tradition of the Church.

fest difference between being ruled by infused prudence, which proceeds from living faith, and being ruled by the gift of counsel.

Reply to third objection. It states that the gifts were not useless in Christ, for He also had earthly knowledge, as will be stated farther on; +°? for Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor. He was comprehensor as regards the higher part of the soul, and wayfarer inasmuch as His soul still was passible and His body passible and mortal, so that He looked forward to beatitude in all those things which were wanting to Him of beatitude. Moreover, as explained elsewhere,'** the gifts remain in heaven.

As stated in this last citation, this doctrine of the permanence of the gifts in heaven is affirmed by St. Ambrose,"®’ and the reason is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit perfect the human mind to follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit, which is especially the case in heaven. But in heaven, evil and temptation being no more, by the gifts of the Holy Spirit we are perfected in good, not entirely as regards the same material object but the gifts will preserve in us intact the same formal objects both quo and quod of the virtues by which latter they are specified ; for as theologians in heaven will see the object of theology, either in the Word if in this life they studied it out of love for God, or outside the Word; so also all the blessed in heaven will receive special inspirations from the Holy’ Spirit to know something special by means of experimental knowledge, according as it is connaturally related to divine things, for instance, to know for what wayfarers they must especially pray. The beatific vision precedes beatific love, whereas the knowledge obtained by the gifts follows this love. Finally, there is neither succession in knowledge nor acquisition of anything new, whereas by the gifts it is possible for the blessed to acquire additional knowledge.

But obscurity and similar imperfections that now actually belong to the gifts, either of wisdom or counsel, or of other such gifts, do not belong to the state of glory, nor were these defects in Christ.

Thus the gift of wisdom disposed Christ so as to be moved with facility by the Holy Spirit to pass certain judgment on divine things by the highest of causes, in accordance with a connaturalness that is founded on charity for things.

108 Cf, Ila, q. 15, a. 10. 104 Ibid., Ia Ilae, q. 68, a. 6. 105 De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. 1, chap. 1.

But the gift of understanding attributed to Him correct and immediate penetration of those things that pertain to the kingdom of God.

The gift of counsel likewise attributed to Christ the power of immediately finding out the motive for action.

The gift of knowledge so that even in the consideration of inferior motives, He might judge with absolute certainty about things that happened.

The gift of fortitude expelled from Him the fear of death and its attendant tortures.

Gonet says these conclusions are admitted by all theologians as being certain and beyond dispute.

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WAS THE GIFT OF FEAR

State of the question. There are two difficulties: (1) It seems that hope is stronger than fear, for the object of hope is good, whereas the object of fear is evil. If, therefore, Christ did not have the virtue of hope, a fortiori He did not have the gift of fear. (2) The gift of fear makes one afraid either of being separated from God, or of being punished by Him. But these two were impossible for Christ, because He was impeccable.

Reply. Christ had the gift of fear.

Scriptural proof. The testimony of the prophet, quoted in the preceding article, is: “He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord,” 1°° which also in the Hebrew text refers to the spirit of fear. Moreover, the Church condemned the following proposition of Abelard: “The spirit of the fear of the Lord was not in Christ.” *°7

Theological proof. This assertion of Sacred Scripture is not so much proved as explained by the following syllogism.

God is feared by an act of reverential fear, not only inasmuch as He can inflict punishment but on account of His pre-eminence, who cannot with impunity be resisted. But the soul of Christ was moved by the Holy Spirit toward God by certain reverential affection. Therefore Scripture attributes to Him the fullness of the gift of fear, not indeed of the fear of punishment, or sin, but of reverential fear.

Confirmation. This gift of fear, understood as reverential fear, remains in the blessed, for the Psalmist exclaims: “The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring forever and ever.” ° It is said of the angels, especially of those called Powers: “The Powers tremble.” °° For every creature that is not self-existent trembles in the sight of Him who alone is and can be the self-subsisting Being. But Christ’s human nature is not His being, although it exists by the very being of the Word, inasmuch as there is one being in Christ, just as there is one person.*?°

Doubt. What is the primary object of the gift of fear?

It is God’s pre-eminence, who cannot with impunity be resisted; and its primary act is reverence for this divine pre-eminence, and so this gift can be both in Christ and the blessed. The secondary object of the gift of fear, or of filial fear, is the evil of sin that must be avoided.

In contrast to this, the primary object of fear, considered as a passion, is terrifying sensible evil, and the primary act of this fear is flight from this evil. Finally, the primary object of servile fear is the evil of punishment to be inflicted on account of the offense committed.

Thus it remains true that the habits of the virtues and the gifts properly and directly refer to good, but to evil as a consequence.

WHETHER THE GRACES GRATIS DATAE WERE IN CHRIST

State of the question. By placing the article about the graces gratis datae here, it is evident that St. Thomas draws a complete distinction between them and the gifts as he has already shown."! The seven gifts, which are connected with charity, belong to the organism of the supernatural life, but the graces gratis datae do not.

The difficulty is that the graces gratis datae are freely given by way of a transient act. But Christ had permanently the fullness of grace. Hence He did not need these secondary graces. The Gospel does not say that He had the gift of tongues.

Reply. Nevertheless the answer is that all the graces gratis datae were pre-eminently in Christ as the first and chief teacher of the faith.

109 Preface of Mass.

Authoritative proof. St. Augustine says: “As in the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces.” **? St. Augustine is also expressly referring here to the graces gratis datae in Christ.

The Master of the Book of the Sentences is precisely of the same opinion,'** and it is commonly admitted by the scholastic theologians.

Theological proof. Graces gratis datae are ordained for the manifestation of faith and spiritual doctrine, because the manner of their enumeration makes this evident,''* and also the explanation of St. Thomas.'** But Christ is the first and chief teacher of the faith and of spiritual doctrine. Therefore the graces gratis datae were in Christ.

This means that the graces gratis datae were most excellently in Christ, being ordained for the benefit of others. They may be expressed by the following schema.

faith concerning principles.**® to acquire . . q word of wisdom concerning the complete knowl- |. : principal conclusions. word of edge of knowledge concerning the ex- divine things j amples and effects.

Graces gratis datae that are by grace of healing. ordained for to confirm doing na of miracles. the instruc- the divine ion of others revelation by prophecy. in divine knowing Vea of spirits. things to convey fittingly to the kinds of tongues. interpretation hearers je speeches. the divine message

Christ had to have in the most perfect degree all these graces that were bestowed on others; for they denote no imperfection that is re-

116 This faith is not the theological virtue, but a gift whereby those who instruct others in the principles of the faith are endowed with certainty.

pugnant either to the beatific vision or to the hypostatic union. They are also becoming to the dignity of the head of the mystical body, as St. Augustine says in the counterargument of this article.

Reply to first objection. St. Thomas points out that these graces are called “diversities of graces,” +" inasmuch as in the saints these graces are divided; but Christ had these graces all at once and in their plenitude just as He had and always has the plenitude of habitual grace.

Reply to second objection. It was fitting for Christ to have habitual grace, not according to His divine nature, but according to His human nature.

Reply to third objection. It is pointed out that, although we do not read of Christ having had the gift of tongues, because He preached only to the Jews, “yet a knowledge of all languages was not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts, of which all words are signs, were not hidden from Him.” **®

Christ likewise had the grace gratis datae of faith. This grace is a certain pre-eminence of knowledge concerning the revealed mysteries whether such knowledge be clear or obscure; ® it is also a facility given by the Holy Spirit of proposing the things of faith simply and in a way adapted to all, so that they can be understood even by the ignorant, as explained by St. Thomas.'® It is evident from the Gospel that Christ had both kinds of excellence.

There is no doubt about Christ’s powers concerning either the grace of healing or the discernment of spirits, for the Evangelist says: “And Jesus seeing their thoughts [of the Pharisees], said: ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts?’” *? Again he says: “Jesus knowing their thoughts.” 177

Finally, Christ had pre-eminently the grace of interpretation of speech for explaining the Scriptures in the true and most exalted sense. Hence the Evangelist relates that the disciples going to the town called Emmaus said: “Was not our heart burning within us, whilst He spoke in the way, and opened to us the Scriptures?” +23

118 Summa theol., Illa, q. 12, a. 1; q. 20, a. 2. 119 Cf. ibid., Ia Hae, q. 111, a. 4.

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WAS THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

State of the question. St. Thomas posited this special article about prophecy, because this grace gratis data presents a particular difficulty. For the first objection of this article remarks that prophecy implies a certain obscurity. But Christ already enjoyed on this earth the beatific vision. Also prophecy concerns distant things or those that are far off, and seems to imply an essential imperfection, as faith and hope do. Moreover, the Apostle says that in heaven, “prophecies shall be made void.” ***

Reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

Scriptural proof. Moses announced to the Israelites: “The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet . . . of thy brethren . . . Him thou shalt hear.” **° Jesus applied to Himself what Moses foretold of Him, saying: “He wrote of Me.” +° Likewise Jesus said of Himself in the synagogue at Nazareth: “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.” 157

Theological proof. He is a prophet who knows and announces what is distant both from himself according to his state and from his hearers. But Christ, who was not only comprehensor but also wayfarer, knew and announced very many things which were distant from Him according to His state as wayfarer, such as His betrayal, death, and resurrection,'”* as also the destruction of Jerusalem, the signs preceding the end of the world, the denial of Peter, and several other events. Therefore Christ was a prophet.

Reply to first objection. Prophecy, as usually communicated, is obscure and enigmatic not in itself, but because of the imperfection of the hearer. Its clarity or obscurity, that it be communicated transiently, or permanently, are of themselves a matter of indifference. But in Christ prophecy was clear and permanent because of the union of His human nature with the Word.

But if the Apostle says that in heaven “prophecies shall be made

void,” 12° he has in mind complete beatitude, which is incompatible with the state of wayfarer.

NINTH ARTICLE

WHETHER IN CHRIST THERE WAS THE FULLNESS OF GRACE

State of the question. The third part of this question begins here. After the consideration of the grace of the virtues and of the gifts and of the graces gratis datae in Christ, St. Thomas treats of the fullness of grace. He asks whether Christ was simply full of grace, both intensively and extensively.

This article and those that follow are therefore concerned with the perfection of Christ’s grace.

Conclusion. Christ had fullness of grace, both intensively, that is, as regards its perfection, and extensively, that is, as regards the various effects it can produce.

Scriptural proof. The Evangelist says: “We saw His glory . . . full of grace and truth. . . . And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.” **° Likewise St. John the Baptist testified concerning Christ, and the Evangelist says; “He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God does not give to Him the spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son, and He hath given all things into His hand.” 11

The Fathers of the Church have often explained these texts by showing that Christ, who is most full of grace, had every kind of holiness.?*?

Theological proof. It is simply discursive and explanatory, explaining the above quoted text.'**

This proof may be reduced to the following syllogism.

Fullness of grace is of two kinds, namely, intensive and extensive.

131 This text is clarified from what St. Paul says in one of his epistles: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us” (Rom. 5:5). St. Thomas explains (la, q. 43, a. 3) that the mission of the Holy Ghost takes place in that the Holy Ghost becomes present in the soul in a new way by sanctifying grace, and by an increase of this grace. Hence Christ, inasmuch as He received the fullness of grace, is said not to have been limited in His reception of the Spirit.

182 Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, no. 394. See also St. Augustine’s Com, in Joan., loc. cit.

But Christ had each kind. Therefore Christ had absolutely or completely fullness of grace.

Major. It is thus explained. There is intensive fullness of any quality in a being, for instance, of whiteness, when the being has as much of this quality as it can naturally have. Thus it appears that a lily has the highest possible degree of whiteness; so also snow.

Hence intensive fullness is estimated from the degree and radication of any quality in the subject. But extensive fullness of any quality is estimated from the relation to the various effects that any operative principle is capable of producing; for example, the irrational animal has not extensive fullness of life, because it has not intellectual life, but only the vegetative life and sensitive life.

Minor. Its parts are proved. Christ had intensive fullness of grace, that is, in the highest degree that it can be had, for two reasons.

1. Because His soul, which was united to God by the most exalted of all possible unions, which is the hypostatic union, received the greatest influx of grace, just as the air that is nearer to the fire is warmer and more luminous.

2. Because grace was given to Christ, as the head, from which it was to be poured out upon all others; just as in this world nothing is brighter than the sun, which illumines all other things. Hence the Evangelist quotes Jesus as saying: “I am come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?” *** The reference is to fire that purifies, illumines, and kindles spiritually.

From these proofs it is apparent that intensive fullness of any quality is estimated from its intrinsic perfection inasmuch as it is pure and free from all imperfection. Thus snow is perfectly white; it has whiteness in all its intensity or purity, containing no element that is not white.

If there is reference to some operative habit, since this habit determines the faculty to operate, it is all the more perfect intensively, the more it determines the faculty with reference to the formal object of the operation to be elicited, that is, it actuates the faculty and is radicated in it. There is something similar in the case of habitual grace, which is an entitative habit, which is received in the essence of the soul, and is radically operative, inasmuch as the virtues are derived from it, just as the faculties are derived from the essence of the soul. Thus intensive fullness of habitual grace is estimated from its intrinsic perfection free from all imperfection, and its radication in the soul, which it especially determines radically to operate most holily free from all imperfection. This intensive fullness of grace would apply to Christ even if His soul were ordered solely to the performance of acts of the love of God.

Likewise Christ had extensive fullness of grace, which is estimated from its relation to the various effects it can produce.

The reason is that, as St. Thomas says: “Christ had grace for all its operations and effects, and this because it was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in the genus of such as have grace . . . just as the sun is the universal cause of generation.” ***

This twofold fullness, intensive and extensive, is called absolute on the part of the grace itself, which by God’s ordinary power cannot be received in a more perfect manner. It is not merely relatively perfect or according to the exigencies of the state or dignity of the subject. In fact, this most exalted dignity of head and redeemer of the human race demands absolute fullness of grace.

Doubt. Is this plenitude of grace more perfect intensively than extensively ?

Reply. It is the common opinion among theologians that intensive plenitude is the more perfect, just as quality is to be preferred to quantity, although positivism is inclined to the contrary view; for indeed intensive plenitude is immediately estimated from the intrinsic perfection of the quality, and is the foundation of extensive plenitude. This is especially evident in knowledge, for its intensive plenitude results from the deeper penetration of its first notions and principles, whereas its extensive plenitude, both habitual and actual, is estimated according to the number of conclusions that are deduced from the principles. There are certain physicists who know all the conclusions of their own science in its actual state of development, and who have read all the books of any importance belonging to this science. This does not mean, however, that they have penetrated more deeply into the principles of this science; for the scientific habit is not yet, perhaps, established in their intellect as a sort of second nature. On the contrary, another physicist knows more from on high the principles of this particular science, and their subordination to the other sciences, even though he may have forgotten certain conclusions. The perfection of a science is not estimated according to the number of its conclusions, for although science may make use of many subordinated ideas, it is a simple quality that perfects the intellect in its relation to some formal object and to certain first principles, which virtually contain all the conclusions of this particular science.

Thus there is a great difference between Aristotle and the author of a textbook on peripatetic philosophy. Although the author of such a textbook may perhaps succeed in giving to this science new conclusions, yet he has not the genius of Aristotle, nor could he be the author of such works as the Organon, Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics of the Stagirite. There is also a similar difference between St. Thomas and his commentators, although the latter may succeed in giving to the science new conclusions.

Likewise those historians who write a critical estimate of the life of Napoleon have a more extensive knowledge perhaps than the ambassadors and soldiers of his time, but they generally do not penetrate so intensively and vividly into the mind of such a genius as Napoleon.

Similarly those historians who insist on giving us a critical evaluation of the Gospels, certainly have a less intensive knowledge of Christ’s preaching than the apostles had who heard Him. Thus St. John the Evangelist had a better knowledge of Christ’s teaching than a theologian would have who would know all the condemned propositions contained in Denzinger’s Enchiridion.

Therefore, a fortiori, there was in Christ intensive plenitude of habitual grace and hence of the virtues and gifts.

WHETHER THE FULLNESS OF GRACE IS PROPER TO CHRIST

State of the question. The reason for inserting this article is that Sacred Scripture attributes at least a certain fullness of grace to some others. Thus the angel says to the Blessed Virgin Mary: “Hail, full of grace.” 138 The Scripture also says: “Stephen, full of grace and fortitude.” 1°71 In fact, St. Paul writing to the Ephesians, thus expresses his desire to them: “That you may be filled unto all the fullness of

God.” #8 Moreover, for all the blessed in heaven, beatitude is the fullness of all good, which presupposes a certain fullness of grace in this life. What is therefore the fullness of grace that is proper to Christ?

First conclusion. Absolute fullness of grace, but not relative fullness, belongs to Christ alone.

Scriptural proof. The Evangelist says: “We saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” "° But to be the only-begotten of the Father, belongs to Christ alone. Therefore, too, does fullness of grace.

Theological proof. Absolute fullness of grace is attained when there is as much grace as can be had, at least according to God’s ordinary power. But Christ alone had grace in the highest possible degree of excellence and intensity that can be had, at least according to God’s ordinary power. Therefore Christ alone had absolute fullness of grace, both in its intensity and extent, as was stated in the preceding article.

Second conclusion. Relative fullness of grace does not belong to Christ alone, but is communicated to others through Him.

There is, indeed, relative fullness of grace when it is of such a nature and extent as demanded by the condition and office of the person to whom it is attributed.

But several saints, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, had grace that was perfectly proportioned to the state and duty assigned to them. Thus the Blessed Virgin is declared to be “full of grace.” 14° Therefore relative fullness of grace does not belong to Christ alone.**

Corollary.**” Christ’s habitual grace, from the very moment of His conception, excelled in both intensity and extent all grace, even the ultimate grace of angels and men combined. The reason is that the grace in Christ is in proportion to the hypostatic union, and is in Him as the source from which it flows even to the angels; for, as will be stated farther on, Christ is the head of the angels at least as regards accidental grace and glory, inasmuch as the angels are His ministers in the kingdom of God. Jesus said, “The Son of man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all scandals, and

141 Cf. ad 1. The whole of this article should be read. 142 Cf, infra, q. 35, a. 5.

all them that work iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.” “** He likewise said: “He shall send His angels and shall gather together His elect.” ***

From these texts it is evident that Christ has a higher degree of grace than all angels and men combined, including the blessed, just as in a way the sun is brighter in its intensity than any lesser light whatever, and iron is of more value than a huge pile of common stones. Moreover, it is also said of the Blessed Virgin Mary that her first fullness of grace excelled in intensity the final degree of grace, though not the glory of angels and men combined, and so it is said: “The holy Mother of God has been raised above the choirs of angels to the heavenly kingdom.” '*°

It even appears to be true that the grace received by the founders of religious orders excels, as regards the founding of the order, the grace of their combined associates, in this sense, that these associates, unless their founder had been especially inspired by God, would not have started this order, whereas, contrary to this, the founder, deputed by God for this work, could have done it with other companions. Thus the grace, either of St. Benedict or of St. Dominic or of St. Francis, seems to excel the grace of his companions. Likewise, the degree of grace in St. Thomas is greater than that of all his commentators combined. This is more readily understood in that grace is a quality and hence its perfection is qualitative but not quantitative. Consequently, grace that is equivalent for ten talents is of a higher degree than ten graces each of which is equivalent to one talent. Thus a saint, such as the saintly parish priest of Ars, has a greater degree of grace and accomplishes more than many of the faithful and even priests whose charity is of a less degree.

Thus St. Thomas shows **° that charity—and he says that the same applies to habitual grace—is not increased in intensity by the addition of charity to charity; for this would be a multiplication of charity, but not an increase of it. It is increased, however, by becoming more firmly rooted in the recipient or, not using metaphysical language, by a greater actuation or determination of, and inherence in the recipient; for it is the nature of an accident to inhere.

145 Versicle and response for Second Vespers of Assumption. 146 Summa theol., IIa Tae, q. 24, a. 5.

All these statements are but one and the same way of expressing the intensification of qualities. A new degree of charity, and a more perfect actuation of this charity and of its inherence in the recipient, mean the same thing.

If, then, a higher degree of grace is taken in a qualitative sense and not in its quantitative sense, it is easy to see that Christ’s habitual grace excels in intensity even every ultimate grace of men and angels combined. From the moment of His conception it excelled their glory.

St. Thomas teaches that this fullness of grace is of three kinds. He says: “There is sufficient fullness by which anyone has sufficient grace to perform meritorious and excellent acts, as St. Stephen did. There is likewise redundant fullness by which the Blessed Virgin excelled all the saints on account of the eminence and abundance of her merits. There is also efficient and affluent fullness, which applies to Christ alone as man, as to the quasi-author of grace. Thus there was an outpouring of grace on us by the Blessed Virgin, yet she was by no means the author of grace. . . . Christs fullness of grace is the cause of all the graces in all intellectual creatures.” 1*7

St. Thomas says in this text, “of all graces” in general; he does not, however, determine the kind, and he does not say “even of essential grace and glory” in the angels, which elsewhere he denies.***

Objection. There would be great disproportion in the natural body if the head were larger than the rest of the body. Therefore, for a similar reason, there would be disproportion in the mystical body if the grace of Christ as its head were in intensity to exceed or equal all the grace of those that constitute His mystical body.

Reply. Gonet answers this objection by conceding the antecedent and denying the consequence, because, as he points out, a distinction must be made between quality and quantity, and there is by no means parity of argument between the mystical body and the natural body. There is indeed similarity of comparison between the two bodies as regards the influx of the head in the members and its pre-eminence over them. But in the natural body the substantial form demands a determinate quantity, both in the head and in the members, that the body may be able to perform its vital operations: and so it is necessary that our head be smaller than our body. Moreover, since habitual grace is the form that vivifies the mystical body of the Church, it

does not demand a determinate intensity, but can be increased indefinitely."*° Hence in the head of the mystical body there can be a greater intensification of grace than in all other persons, and this even pertains to the dignity of the head. Finally, there is in no way any vital dependence of the mystical body on the members, whereas, on the contrary, the head of the physical body depends on the heart, lungs, and other parts.

ELEVENTH ARTICLE

WHETHER THE GRACE OF CHRIST IS INFINITE

State of the question. This article is evidently not strictly concerned with the increate grace of union, for St. Thomas said: “The grace of union is the personal being that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the person of the Word.” '°° This increate grace of union is infinite inasmuch as it is identical with the very Word of God that terminates the human nature. But it is strictly a question here of habitual grace which is “an effect following the union.” 7°?

Theologians are not all agreed on this point. Major °? asserts that Christ’s grace is absolutely infinite in intensity. Maldonatus +° and Hurtado '* afterward said the same. St. Bonaventure, Durandus, Scotus, Ricardus, and the Thomists Cajetan and Nazarius are of the same opinion, since they taught that Christ’s grace could not be increased by God’s absolute power. But the opposite opinion seems far more probable and more in conformity with the teaching of St. Thomas, and it is commonly held by theologians, not only of the Thomist school of thought, but also of other schools.

St. Thomas splendidly presents the difficulty of the question at the beginning of this article, where he remarks that Christ’s grace appears to be infinite, because the Gospel declares it to be measureless

. ° A cé h = Hi S ooo b », 155 or immense, saying: “God doth not give His Spirit by measure”; whereas, contrary to this, St. Paul says of others: “To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” 1°

Moreover, Christ’s grace extends to the whole human race. Finally, if Christ’s grace were finite, then some other person’s grace might increase so much as to equal Christ’s grace. These objections consider in habitual grace, not only the being of grace, but also the nature of grace.

Nevertheless it is evidently true to say that Christ’s habitual grace, inasmuch as it is distinct from His grace of union, is something created. But everything created is finite, as stated in the counterargument of this article. Therefore Christ’s habitual grace must be finite.

How is this question to be solved? The article must be read.

First conclusion. The grace of union is infinite, because it is the very person of the Word, who terminates Christ’s human nature, as stated above.'*”

Second conclusion. Christ’s habitual grace, inasmuch as it is a being, or considered as an entity, is not physically infinite, because it is in Christ’s soul, as an accident is in its subject. But Christ’s soul is a certain creature having finite capacity. It will be made clear in the following article that grace can always be increased, but considered as a being, since it is something created, it can never be physically and actually infinite.

Third conclusion. Christ’s habitual grace, not considered as a being, but according to what strictly pertains to the notion of grace, can be termed infinite." Almost all Thomists understand this conclusion in this sense, namely, that Christ’s grace is in its notion of grace morally infinite, though not physically so.'°° For St. Thomas says: “As stated above (q. 7, a. 12) there cannot be a greater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the union with the Word; and the same is to be said of the perfection of the divine vision; although,

158 Thus a distinction can be made in our intellect, first in that it is a being and accident of the soul; secondly in that it is an intellect that is intentionally infinite, inasmuch as it regards universal truth. The same distinction must be made for the will, and even for habitual grace, which, as a grace, is a participation of the divine nature.

159 When it is said that this habitual grace is morally infinite, this means that it is not physically infinite, since it is a formal participation of the divine nature; but it means that it implies a dignity to merit and satisfy for us, a participated dignity from its personal union with the Word of God. But there is such a great difference between each kind of grace; for grace considered in the first sense is actually finite, although taken in the second or moral sense it is absolutely infinite, as when we say that Christ’s merit is absolutely infinite in value.

absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and more sublime degree by the infinity of the divine power.” °° He says the same in the reply to the second objection of the next article of this question.’? Neither does St. Thomas say, concerning this third conclusion of ours: “We must say that Christ’s grace, considered as grace, is infinite,” but he says “it can be termed infinite,” which means, if interpreted in some good sense.

Hence this third conclusion thus understood of grace that is morally infinite viewed in its specific nature of grace, is easily proved.

Two proofs are given in the body of this article, inasmuch as this grace is considered both intensively and extensively.

Intensive proof. Christ’s habitual grace is intensively infinite because it has whatever can pertain to the nature of grace, and it is not bestowed “in a fixed measure,” just as we may say that the light of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but in the nature of light, inasmuch as it has whatever can pertain to the nature of light.

This means that Christ’s habitual grace is according to its intensity in the highest degree of its excellence capable of being bestowed on others, at least according to God’s ordination and His ordinary power.'° ,

We shall see that it can be increased by God’s absolute power.’ Moreover, it must be noticed that the three objections placed at the beginning of the present article conclude that Christ’s grace, considered in its specific nature, is also infinite, and that this is denied in the counterargument.

Something of very great importance must be added here which is implied in the present article,’®* namely, that this habitual grace of Christ, by reason of its union with the Word, is the principle by which Christ performs meritorious and satisfactory acts that are intrinsically and absolutely infinite in value. This infinity, although it comes from the divine person as the principle that operates, nevertheless redounds

161 In this passage St. Thomas says: “Although the divine power can make something greater than the habitual grace of Christ, yet it could not make it to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with the only begotten Son of the Father; and to this union, by the purpose of the divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient.”

162 Cf, q. 7, a. 12, ad 1, where it is said that “Christ’s grace is finite in its essence.”

in moral value and worth on the habitual grace that is the principle by which Christ perfoms meritorious acts that are strictly and intrinsically infinite in value. Farther on we discuss the commonly accepted thesis of Thomists and almost all theologians, with the exception of Scotists, namely, that Christ’s operations were not only extrinsically accepted by God, but they were also intrinsically “absolutely infinite in value both for meriting and for satisfying.” '°*

All these things considered, it is no wonder that St. Thomas says in this article, concerning Christ’s habitual grace taken in its intensity, that it can be termed infinite, viewed in its specific nature of grace, though he afterward adds that it can be increased by God’s absolute power.?°°

Extensive proof. Christ’s habitual grace is at least morally infinite because, as St. Thomas says in this article, it is bestowed on Christ’s soul, as on a universal principle for bestowing grace on human nature. St. Paul says: “He hath graced us in His beloved Son.” 167 This means that Christ’s habitual grace extends to all effects that pertain to the nature of grace, even to those that are syncategorematically infinite. Thus we shall see that this habitual grace is called the grace of headship, inasmuch as by it there flews from Christ upon the members of the Church (through the influx of His merits) grace and glory; but glory is without end, since it is eternal life.1®

But if Christ’s grace does not extend so far as to merit the essential grace of Adam in the state of innocence and of the angels, this is not because it did not have the power, but because these were not included in the divine ordering. Hence Christ’s grace viewed in its specific nature of grace is morally infinite, both in intensity and extent.

The answer of St. Thomas, as understood in the sense stated above, receives its confirmation in the solution of the objections.

First objection. The Gospel declares: “God doth not give the Spirit by measure [to the Son].” 1°° Therefore Christ’s grace is infinite.

St. Thomas replies that the words of the Baptist as recorded by St. John can refer: (r) cither to the eternal and infinite gift, namely, to the divine nature which the Father from all eternity communicated

to the Son; (2) or to the grace of union that is infinite inasmuch as the Word terminates the human nature; (3) or to habitual grace inasmuch as it extends to all that pertains to grace, namely, to the word of wisdom or to the word of knowledge, or to other such gifts.

Hence St. Thomas does not concede the conclusion of the objection, that Christ’s habitual grace is absolutely and physically infinite, so that it cannot be greater by God’s absolute power.

Reply to second objection. “The grace of Christ has an infinite effect,” which means that it includes the salvation of the whole human race “both because of the aforesaid infinity of grace,” which for this reason is called the grace of headship, and because of the unity +° of the divine person, to whom Christ’s soul is united. Thus, as we said, Christ’s habitual grace, because of its union with the Word, is the principle by which His meritorious and satisfactory acts for us were intrinsically of absolutely infinite validity, and He could have merited eternal life for an ever greater and vast number of human beings, even though, for example, the generations of human beings were to continue even after the end of the world.

By this reply St. Thomas shows that he does not concede the conclusion of this second objection, which is that Christ’s habitual grace viewed in this sense is absolutely and physically infinite, so that it cannot by God’s absolute power be increased.

Third objection. It states that, “if Christ’s grace were finite, then the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as to reach to an equality with Christ’s grace.” The Beghards were condemned for saying: “If one could always advance in perfection, then someone more perfect than Christ could be found.” *”

Reply. St. Thomas does not say that Christ’s habitual grace is physically and absolutely infinite viewed in its specific nature of grace, but he says: “The grace of any man is compared to the grace of Christ as a particular to a universal power.” By way of illustration, the light of the moon, no matter how much it may increase in intensity, cannot equal in intensity the light of the sun from which it receives its light. For the moon does not have its own light, but transmits the light it has received from the sun. St. Thomas, in accordance with the physics of ancient times, made use of another example because he thought the

170 An editorial footnote to this article in the English Dominican translation remarks that perhaps we should read “infinity” instead of “unity.” (Tr.) 171 Denz., no. 471.

stars were incorruptible, and the light and heat of the sun were of a kind different from the heat of terrestrial fire. Spectral analysis, however, has established the fact that the stars are not incorruptible, but that the same chemical combinations take place in these as on this earth.

Therefore Christ’s habitual grace is a finite being, and viewed in its specific nature of grace, if it is not physically infinite, is at least morally infinite, both in its intensity and in its extent, inasmuch as it concurs with the grace of union to produce merit that is intrinsically of infinite validity.

Cajetan, in his commentary on this article, adverting to the fact of his recent elevation to the cardinalate, considers this all the more a reason why the mysteries of Christ should be examined and made known to all. His purpose is to show that Christ’s habitual grace is in Him in all the perfection that grace as such can have. In other words, this grace is in Christ “as in the whole that is equivalent to it as such,” just as heat is not in the air but in the fire; just as a line could be infinite in length, viewed as a line, although finite as a being, just as whiteness, which is finite indeed, as a being, since it is an accident, is intensively infinite in its nature of whiteness, since there could not be a more perfect whiteness.

Nevertheless Cajetan maintains '** that Christ’s habitual grace, as well as that of others, is of the same most particular species, as regards its essence; the difference is only as regards the mode of its being, just as heat differs in its mode of being as found in terrestrial fire and in the air.?*°

Let us see in what Cajetan agrees and disagrees with other Thomists.

Cajetan *** maintains, indeed, with other Thomists, that charity can always be increased in this life, and that charity in itself has no ultimately possible degree, because it is a participation of infinite charity and so it differs from heat and from whiteness. But Cajetan is not in agreement with other Thomists when he says that charity

178 This last example supposes that fire, according to the physics of the ancients, is a substance, namely, one of the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. Nowadays physicists look upon fire as an incandescent body, for example, like coal or vapor, resulting from the combustion of certain bodies. Thus they consider a flame to be a burning, lucent vapor, of greater or less intensity.

in itself does not exclude the highest possible degree of this virtue, especially so if it is ordered to the greatest possible union, namely, the hypostatic union, for then it has, as proportionate to this union, the highest possible degree of this virtue, as heat in fire, and whiteness in snow.

Other Thomists justly reply to him by saying that there is a greater difference between habitual grace or charity and natural qualities, such as heat in fire and whiteness in snow.

First difference. These natural qualities have their own intrinsic and finite specification, and are not defined with reference to something else; whereas habitual grace is defined as a formal and physical participation in the divine nature, the possibility of this participation being infinite. Thus of itself there is no limit to it, but it even excludes this, which means that it seeks intrinsically to have syncategorematically no limitation, which means that the highest possible degree of habitual grace, or of charity or of the light of glory, is intrinsically repugnant, just as the absolutely swiftest motion is a contradiction in terms, for it is always possible to conceive a swifter motion, accomplished in a shorter time, that is however distinct from the indivisible instant of time.

Second difference. Natural qualities, such as heat in fire—a better illustration is whiteness in snow—are natural properties of some natural and finite substance; whereas habitual grace is not a natural property of the created intellectual substance, not even of Christ’s soul as united with the Word, because it flows in a certain measure not necessarily, but freely from the Word, a point that will be more clearly explained in the following article.*"

Third difference. Natural qualities, such as heat and whiteness, are received in the subject according to its passive and finite natural power, whereas habitual grace is received in the subject not according to its natural power, but its obediential power. And St. Thomas says: “The obediential power, inasmuch as it can receive something from God, is not limited in this respect because, whatever God does in the creature, there still remains in it the power to accept something from God.” **°

Finally, grace is something freely given that is dependent in its measure on the divine good pleasure.

Cajetan seeks to defend his opinion and says: “It is possible for one to have a higher degree of the vision of God (than the degree granted to the soul of Christ) from a more sublime intellect equally illumined,” 17 in other words, if to an equal degree of the light of glory an angel were assumed by the Word of God into unity of person.

Other Thomists reply that then the degree of the beatific vision would not be formally more sublime but only materially; in fact, not even materially, because this angel would not have a clearer vision of the divine essence, which is an essentially supernatural object that absolutely transcends the power of whatsoever created intellect, as Alvarez remarks.**$

Cajetan likewise sets forth his same view in his treatise on charity.” He maintains especially in his great commentary, that charity in this life can always be increased and in itself this virtue is not found in the highest possible degree, though it does not exclude this degree, as it excludes mortal sin. In fact, for it to be proportionate to this union, then charity must be in the highest possible degree.

Cajetan, seeking to magnify Christ’s habitual grace, minimizes the sublimity of absolutely assumed grace, as we shall see in the explanation of the following article.

So far, Cajetan asserts but he does not prove that Christ’s habitual grace is not in the highest possible degree. We shall see in the explanation of the following article what he adds in confirmation of his special opinion.

TWELFTH ARTICLE

WHETHER THE GRACE OF CHRIST COULD INCREASE

State of the question. St. Thomas clearly sets forth the difficulty of this problem, for he says:

1. To every finite thing addition can be made. But Christ’s habitual grace, as we said, considered as a being, is finite. Therefore it can be increased.

2. Also considered as grace, it seems that it can be increased, for increase of grace is effected by divine power; and since this power is absolutely infinite, there are no limits to it.

3. The Evangelist says that “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men.” +5°

Conclusion. Christ’s habitual grace could not be increased after the first moment of His conception, either on the part of the grace itself, or on the part of the recipient of this grace. Thus Christ differs from all others, even from the Blessed Virgin and the angels, who were wayfarers and not comprehensors.

Let us first of all examine the proofs of this article; afterward we shall consider Cajetan’s interpretation; finally we shall discuss the interpretation of other Thomists.

Scriptural proof. The Evangelist says: “We saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” +51 “But nothing can be or can be thought greater than that anyone should be the begotten of the Father. Therefore no greater grace can be or can be thought than that of which Christ was full.” *S? Thus we said in the preceding article that Christ’s grace is at least morally infinite inasmuch as it is the principle by means of which He performed meritorious and satisfactory acts that are of absolutely infinite value. Thus Christ’s habitual grace absolutely excels the grace of all men and angels combined.

Moreover, the Second Council of Constantinople defined: “If anyone defends the assertion that Christ . . . as He advanced in the performance of good works became better ... let him be declared anathema.” '$* This means that Christ did not either become more perfect, or was subjected to passions, or offered sacrifice for Himself.‘8* In this Christ differs from all the just, even from the angels in heaven, who became more perfect in the second instant of their creation, since they were wayfarers and merited, and after this they were only comprehensors. But if St. Luke says that “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men,” **® St. Thomas replies in this article, along with the whole of ecclesiastical tradition: “Christ did not increase inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace were increased in Him . . . , but as regards the effects, . . . since in the course of time He did more perfect works, to prove Him-

182 Counterargument of St. Thomas.

self true man, both in the things of God and in the things of man.” *°°

The Greek and Latin Fathers generally take this view when they speak of the fullness of Christ’s grace."

Theological proof. There are two subdivisions to this proof.

a) On the part of the recipient of this grace, Christ’s grace could not be increased from the beginning, because as man He was from the first moment of His conception truly and completely comprehensor, as will be made clear farther on.'®* But in comprehensors, or in the blessed, there can be no increase of grace, subjectively speaking, for they have already reached their final end to which they were eternally predestined. Therefore, subjectively speaking, there can be no increase in Christ’s grace.

b) On the part of grace. Christ’s grace from the beginning could not be increased, because Christ as man was from the beginning personally united with the Word, and He already received, as St. Thomas says in this article, “the highest measure of grace.”

This consequence is proved by one syllogism on which Cajetan very much insists.

It is in reference to the end that a measure is prefixed to each form; for example, in accordance with the physics of the ancients, there is no greater gravity than that of the earth because there is no lower place than that of the earth. Or, as we now can‘say, in our solar world there is no greater light and heat than the light and heat of the sun, which is the center of attraction of this solar world.

But the end of grace is the union of the rational creature with God, and there cannot be a greater union than the hypostatic union of Christ’s human nature with the Word.

Therefore, from the moment of His conception, Christ’s grace attained its highest degree of grace, and there was no possibility of its future increase; whereas, on the contrary, the first fullness of grace in the Blessed Virgin always received an increase of this grace until it acquired its consummate fullness when she entered heaven.

St. Thomas determines more clearly the force of this conclusion in his replies to the objections placed at the beginning of this article.

187 Enchiridion patristicum, nos. 394, 399, 404, 405. See also IIa, q. 10, on the beatific knowledge of Christ.

Reply to first objection. To the proposed difficulty that “to every finite thing addition can be made,” St. Thomas replies by making the following distinction: that addition can be made to every finite mathematical quantity, namely, to every line, to every number, I concede; that addition can be made to every natural quantity I deny, for example, the quantity or height of a dog or a horse, or an elephant, or a man cannot always be increased. St. Thomas concludes at the end of his reply by saying: “Hence it is not necessary that addition should be capable of being made to Christ’s grace,” although it is finite in its essence, which means that it is finite as having reached “the highest measure of grace” as stated toward the end of the argumentative part of this article.

Second objection. “It is by divine power that grace is increased and, since this power is infinite, it is confined by no limits.”

Reply. St. Thomas answers by saying: “Although the divine power can make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ, yet it could not make it to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with the only-begotten Son of the Father; and the measure of grace corresponds sufficiently (not adequately) to this union, in accordance with the definition of divine wisdom.” This text is of great importance. Similarly farther on it is stated that, “absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and more sublime degree [of the beatific vision] by the infinity of the divine power.” 18°

Concerning the interpretation of this second reply and of what is said in the body of this article, Cajetan and Nazarius differ from the rest of the Thomists, both ancient and modern. Let us consider each interpretation.

Cajetan’s interpretation.

Cajetan gives the following interpretation to this article. He himself says: “What is substantially for the end must be commensurate with the end (as the shape of the saw for the cutting of wood), .. . wherefore, since the tendency of a heavy object is to fall down, . . . the lowest point to which an object can fall must be governed and measured only by the maximum influence exerted on it by the law of gravitation. Thus the greatest union of the rational creature with God must be measured only by the greatest grace.” ?°° Farther on

Cajeton remarks: “Therefore Christ’s grace is finite and at the same time it excludes addition.” ***

In the reply to the second objection, when St. Thomas says that “God can make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ,” Cajetan introduces the following distinction: that God can make something greater and better inasmuch as it is a being, this I concede; inasmuch as it is ordained to its proper end, which is the hypostatic union, this I deny.'*”

Criticism. Cajetan does not sufficiently explain the words of St. Thomas in his reply to the second objection, when he says: “To this [hypostatic] union such measure of grace is correspondingly sufhcient, according to the definition of divine wisdom” or the divine ordination. He also does not explain the similar and clearer text of St. Thomas concerning the higher degree of the light of glory that is possible by God’s absolute power.'**

It is of no avail to say that God can produce something better than Christ’s grace because this is an accident, and God can produce substance or even give to an angel the same degree of the light of glory.

In these considerations Cajetan, who almost always views problems in their formal aspect, seems to understand the reply to the second objection of this article in a material sense, as well as the other reply similar to this.’®*

He seems to stress too much the quasi-material aspect in the subject of grace and the fact that grace is an accident, and not a substance.

Now indeed, as St. Thomas says: “The good of grace in one is greater than the good of nature in the whole universe,” 1° that is, than all created and creatable creatures. Hence, when St. Thomas says, “The divine power can make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ,” °° his purpose is not to speak of substance God can produce. Nor does it seem true, as stated above, that an angel, who would have the same degree of the light of glory as the soul of Christ, would have a clearer vision of the divine essence, because the divine essence is an essentially supernatural object, which

does not seem to be seen more clearly because of the keener penetration of a material and created intellect.

Common interpretation of Thomists. Such are Capreolus, Bannez, John of St. Thomas, Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, and others.

To understand this interpretation, we must bear in mind the division commonly admitted by the Thomists about the divine power. It may be expressed by the following schema.'®7 absolute extraor- Divine dinary power or- . : dained according to hypostatic order ; ascending to order of grace ordinary spiritual according to natural order corporal

The merely absolute divine power is the divine power considered apart from the ordination of divine wisdom, and so considered it refers to all things not intrinsically repugnant even though they may be extrinsically repugnant on the part of the end.'*8

Thus God, by His merely absolute power, could annihilate all the blessed in heaven, even the Blessed Virgin and Christ’s human nature, since He freely preserves these in being. This annihilation is not intrinsically repugnant but extrinsically repugnant on the part of the end, for on the part of the end there can be no purpose in this annihilation. Hence this annihilation is repugnant to God’s power as regulated by divine wisdom.

The ordained divine power is that which refers to the ordaining of divine wisdom, and it concerns everything that is neither intrinsi-

198 Some think that such a consideration of God’s merely absolute power is useless, because truly God can act only by His power as regulated by His wisdom.

Reply. This consideration is not useless; it must be properly understood, namely, on the part of possible effects. This explains why certain effects are intrinsically possible, such as the annihilation of all creatures, both material and spiritual, although such effects may not be extrinsically possible on the part of the end and the agent, because God can have neither motive nor end in annihilating spiritual creatures.

cally repugnant, nor extrinsically repugnant on the part of the end.

It is divided into ordinary and extraordinary. The ordinary ordained divine power is that which operates in accordance with the laws as established by God, either in the natural order, or in the supernatural order, or even in the order of the hypostatic union.

It is called extraordinary, when it is called into action and reaches beyond the above-mentioned laws either of the natural order (as when miracles of the physical order are performed) or of the supernatural order (such as a sudden and miraculous conversion as in the case of the conversion of St. Paul) or of those that pertain to the hypostatic union. Thus the question is put, whether Christ’s habitual grace could have been greater by God’s absolute power, and also by His ordained power and His extraordinary power, so that the Incarnation could have taken place without Christ suffering. There seems to be no doubt that the fullness of even the grace acquired by the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of her death could have been intensively greater not only by God’s absolute power but even by His ordained power and also His extraordinary power.

These principles established, Thomists almost unanimously hold that by God’s absolute power Christ’s habitual grace could have been increased in intensity, although He actually had the highest possible degree of such grace by God’s ordained and ordinary power. So say Capreolus,'®? Bannez, Medina, John of St. Thomas, Alvarez, Suarez, Vasquez, and others, against the Scotists and Cajetan.

John of St. Thomas says that this opinion is more probable and undoubtedly more according to the mind of St. Thomas. This seems to be proved when he says: “As stated above, there cannot be a greater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the union with the Word; and the same is to be said of the perfection of the divine vision; although, absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and more sublime degree by the infinity of the divine power.” *°° So says St. Thomas in this passage, and he is plainly speaking of God’s absolute power and he cites and explains what he had said previously about Christ’s grace.?°?

To be sure, Cajetan says that Christ’s beatific vision could increase, not because of a greater light of glory but because of a greater natural

200 Summa theol., Ila, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3. 202 bid., q. 7, a. 12, ad 2, power, for example, if the Word were to assume an angelic nature.

Reply. The beatific vision is regulated and measured only according to the elevating power which is the light of glory; for the vision itself is an essentially supernatural act, specified by an essentially supernatural object, which infinitely transcends the natural vigor of any created or creatable intellect whatever.

Doubt. Is it possible to conceive a grace and light of glory of a higher species, and can Christ’s grace be of a higher species than ours?

Reply. The answer is, No, for the following reasons. (1) Because grace, as in the just and in Christ is already a formal and physical participation in the Deity; having in each case the same definition, and there cannot be anything capable of participation that is higher than the divine nature or the Deity as it is in Itself, or in other words, God’s intimate life; this view is against a certain thesis of Father Billot.?°

2. Because otherwise Christ would not contain in Himself all the effects of grace if He did not have a certain species of grace. Therefore the only possible conception of a higher beatific vision is that resulting from a greater penetration of the divine essence and from an increase in the intensity of habitual grace and of the light of glory in the same species.

This same interpretation is also proved from the previous reply of St. Thomas to his query about the possibility of charity being increased infinitely. He says: “In no way, either on the part of the form or of the agent or of the subject is a limit to be set to the increase of charity in this life. For there is no limit to the increase of charity in what properly belongs to it in its species, for it is a certain participation of infinite charity, which is the Holy Spirit. Similarly also the causal agent of charity is infinite in power, for it is God. Similarly, too, on the part of the subject, there can be no pre-assigned terminus

202 De Verbo incarnato, thesis 17, p. 208. Father Billot asks why God, as the author of grace, cannot be participated in various species of grace, since there is such participation of God as the author of nature. Against this thesis of Father Billot, it must be said that there is, indeed, a participation of God as the author of nature in divers natural species, through the intermediary of the divine ideas, but habitual grace is the immediate participation of the divine nature, or of the Deity as It is in Itself, that is, of God’s intimate life. Hence for there to be two species of habitual grace is impossible. Moreover, if Christ’s grace were of a higher species than ours, then His beatific vision would be of a higher species, because it is immediately specified by God Himself clearly seen, by the very Deity as It is in Itself. Therefore only different degrees of this vision are possible, and only God’s uncreated and comprehensive vision of Himself transcends all other visions.

set to this increase since the greater the increase, the greater the aptitude for further increase,” °°? because as St. Thomas also says here, “by it [charity] the heart expands.” °°* As we already remarked, St. Thomas says: “The obediental power, inasmuch as it can receive something from God, is not limited in this respect, because whatever God does in the creature, there still remains in it the power to receive something from God”; °° for the obediental power in the creature has immediate reference not to some object that must be known or loved, or to some act that must be elicited, but it has reference to the absolutely free agent, who is infinite in power, whom it obeys and from whom it can always receive something.

Hence we must conclude, as St. Thomas says in this article: “By the purpose of divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient for this [hypostatic] union.” *°

John of St. Thomas remarks: “Clearly St. Thomas signifies that the end in view of that grace is union with the Word, not in the absolute sense, but as it serves the purpose of divine Wisdom, who assigned such measure of grace to Christ. Hence we conclude that by another purpose of divine Wisdom, there is nothing repugnant in a different measure and increase of grace being given to Christ.” ?°7

Solution of objections.

Objection. St. Thomas says in his counterargument to this twelfth article: “Therefore no greater grace can be or can be thought than that of which Christ was full.”

Reply. That St. Thomas says this about Christ’s grace with reference to its extrinsic end, which is the hypostatic union, of which he speaks in the preceding article of this question, and as it serves the purpose of divine Wisdom, with which his reply to the second objection of this article is concerned, this I concede; that he says this about Christ’s grace taken in the absolute sense of the term and independently of the purpose of divine Wisdom, this I deny.

Thus Christ’s grace on account of the union of His human nature with the person of the Word, was the greatest in this order in which it is produced; that is, it is connaturally the greatest, for the purpose or ordination of divine Wisdom that pre-assigned the connatural

limits to all forms, according to the connatural order in which these were established by this Wisdom. As God, who gave to St. Peter, to St. John, and to St. Paul, also to St. Augustine, and to St. Thomas a fitting degree of wisdom and charity, could have given them a higher degree, so He gave Christ a higher degree of grace, but on absolute consideration He could have given Christ a higher degree, because the highest possible degree cannot be conceived. Thus the final argument fittingly terminates the best sermon, although, absolutely speaking, there could still be another exhortation.

Another objection. St. Thomas said in the preceding article: “Christ’s grace has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace.”

Reply. This must be understood from the immediate context and from other texts of St. Thomas in this same question, because we cannot suppose that He contradicted himself. In other words, he meant that Christ’s grace has whatever pertains to the nature of grace, considered in its moral aspect and with reference to its union with the Word.

Finally, God’s power would be exhausted if He could produce nothing more perfect by His absolute power, and even by His extraordinary ordained power.

Final objection. If a higher degree of grace were possible, then Christ would have merited this grace, for His merits were of infinite value.

Reply. That Christ would have merited a higher degree of grace if He had not already been a comprehensor and beyond the condition of wayfarer, let this pass without comment; but although the comprehensor, by means of grace performs many good works, this neither increases grace nor merits an increase of it in the comprehensor, as is evident in the blessed, who in this respect are like to God, inasmuch as God’s works can in no way increase His perfection. God did not become better by the fact that He created the universe or sent His Son into the world for our salvation.

If Christ merited the glorification of His body, the reason is that the temporary lack of this glorification of the body was conducive to the end of redemption; whereas, on the contrary, He had from the beginning grace in the highest degree according to His connatural state both as comprehensor and as wayfarer, and thus He absolutely transcended all the just, both angels and men. The Second Council of Constantinople declared that Christ was not made better by ad- vancing in the performance of good works.°* On the contrary, the Blessed Virgin, by her continuous and uninterrupted performance of meritorious acts until death, was made better.

Corollary. Hence Christ adored God’s supreme good pleasure by which He simultaneously freely willed the Incarnation and determined the degree of habitual grace befitting the Word incarnate. In this also Christ could say: “I confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth . . . for so hath it seemed good in Thy sight.” *°° God’s most free decrees must be adored and they are infinitely good, since they are decrees that are the result of infinite wisdom and of infinite love. From this the sublimity of the Deity and of grace taken in the absolute sense, which by God’s absolute power can always be increased, is more clearly seen since it is a participation of the divine nature, which is always capable of participation in a more sublime way.

THIRTEENTH ARTICLE

WHETHER THE HABITUAL GRACE OF CHRIST FOLLOWED AFTER THE UNION

Reply. The grace of union precedes the habitual grace of Christ, not in order of time but by nature and in thought, and this for three reasons.

1. Because of the principles of both graces. For the mission of the Son by the Incarnation precedes by nature the mission of the Holy Spirit by habitual grace and charity, just as in the order of nature the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

2. Because of the relation of grace to its cause. For Christ’s habitual grace is caused by God’s presence in Him through His personal union with the Word just as the brightness of the sun comes from the sun.

3. Because of the end of grace. For the purpose of grace is good action, and actions belong to the suppositum and presuppose the suppositum constituted in being. Therefore Christ’s habitual grace, since the purpose of it is good action, presupposes the union of the human nature with the Word.

Reply to second objection. “Habitual grace is not understood to have preceded the union but to have followed it, as a natural property”;

however, as already stated, the degree of this habitual grace does not flow of necessity from the Word, but “the measure of grace is sufficient to this union by the purpose of divine Wisdom.” 21°

This terminates the question of Christ’s grace inasmuch as He is a certain individual man. This question presents to us a sublime illustration of the definition of grace, inasmuch as now we see more clearly that there cannot be a nobler species of habitual grace than ours, or a more exalted species of the beatific vision than that which the blessed possess.

Footnotes

1. Com. in Illam, d. 13, q. 1, no. 7. ↩

2. Dict. théol. cath., art. “Jésus-Christ,” cols. 1274-85. See also E. Hugon, Le mystère dé l'incarnation, part 4, chap. 1; also Garrigou-Lagrange, Le Sauveur; Monsabré, Exposé du dogme catholique, conference 40. ↩

3. Summa theol., Ila Mae, q. 81, a. 8. The Greek word for holy is @yws, as though meaning earthless. ↩