"
I answer that, As was said above ([3943]FS, Q[3], AA[1],4), the
gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and
spiritual doctrine.
I answer that, As was said above ([3943]FS, Q[3], AA[1],4), the
gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and
spiritual doctrine.
Summa Theologica
" And hence
it was most fitting that His soul should receive the influx of Divine
grace. Secondly, on account of the dignity of this soul, whose
operations were to attain so closely to God by knowledge and love, to
which it is necessary for human nature to be raised by grace. Thirdly,
on account of the relation of Christ to the human race. For Christ, as
man, is the "Mediator of God and men," as is written, 1 Tim. 2:5; and
hence it behooved Him to have grace which would overflow upon others,
according to Jn. 1:16: "And of His fulness we have all received, and
grace for grace. "
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is the true God in Divine Person and
Nature. Yet because together with unity of person there remains
distinction of natures, as stated above ([3924]Q[2], AA[1],2), the soul
of Christ. is not essentially Divine. Hence it behooves it to be Divine
by participation, which is by grace.
Reply to Objection 2: To Christ, inasmuch as He is the natural Son of
God, is due an eternal inheritance, which is the uncreated beatitude
through the uncreated act of knowledge and love of God, i. e. the same
whereby the Father knows and loves Himself. Now the soul was not
capable of this act, on account of the difference of natures. Hence it
behooved it to attain to God by a created act of fruition which could
not be without grace. Likewise, inasmuch as He was the Word of God, He
had the power of doing all things well by the Divine operation. And
because it is necessary to admit a human operation, distinct from the
Divine operation, as will be shown ([3925]Q[19], A[1]), it was
necessary for Him to have habitual grace, whereby this operation might
be perfect in Him.
Reply to Objection 3: The humanity of Christ 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. And hence the nature of the action
demanded that he should have habitual grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were no virtues. For
Christ had the plenitude of grace. Now grace is sufficient for every
good act, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee. "
Therefore there were no virtues in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1),
virtue is contrasted with a "certain heroic or godlike habit" which is
attributed to godlike men. But this belongs chiefly to Christ.
Therefore Christ had not virtues, but something higher than virtue.
Objection 3: Further, as was said above ([3926]FS, Q[65], AA[1],2), all
the virtues are bound together. But it was not becoming for Christ to
have all the virtues, as is clear in the case of liberality and
magnificence, for these have to do with riches, which Christ spurned,
according to Mat. 8:20: "The Son of man hath not where to lay His
head. " Temperance and continence also regard wicked desires, from which
Christ was free. Therefore Christ had not the virtues.
On the contrary, on Ps. 1:2, "But His will is in the law of the Lord,"
a gloss says: "This refers to Christ, Who is full of all good. " But a
good quality of the mind is a virtue. Therefore Christ was full of all
virtue.
I answer that, As was said above ([3927]FS, Q[110], AA[3],4), as grace
regards the essence of the soul, so does virtue regard its power. Hence
it is necessary that as the powers of the soul flow from its essence,
so do the virtues flow from grace. Now the more perfect a principle is,
the more it impresses its effects. Hence, since the grace of Christ was
most perfect, there flowed from it, in consequence, the virtues which
perfect the several powers of the soul for all the soul's acts; and
thus Christ had all the virtues.
Reply to Objection 1: Grace suffices a man for all whereby he is
ordained to beatitude; nevertheless, it effects some of these by
itself---as to make him pleasing to God, and the like; and some others
through the medium of the virtues which proceed from grace.
Reply to Objection 2: A heroic or godlike habit only differs from
virtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode, inasmuch as one is
disposed to good in a higher way than is common to all. Hence it is not
hereby proved that Christ had not the virtues, but that He had them
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" (cf. [3928]FS, Q[61] , A[5]).
Reply to Objection 3: Liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy in
regard to riches, inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the
extent of wishing to retain it, so as to forego what ought to be done.
But he esteems them least who wholly despises them, and casts them
aside for love of perfection. And hence by altogether contemning all
riches, Christ showed the highest kind of liberality and magnificence;
although He also performed the act of liberality, as far as it became
Him, by causing to be distributed to the poor what was given to
Himself. Hence, when our Lord said to Judas (Jn. 13:21), "That which
thou dost do quickly," the disciples understood our Lord to have
ordered him to give something to the poor. But Christ had no evil
desires whatever, as will be shown ([3929]Q[15], AA[1],2); yet He was
not thereby prevented from having temperance, which is the more perfect
in man, as he is without evil desires. Hence, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 9), the temperate man differs from the
continent in this---that the temperate has not the evil desires which
the continent suffers. Hence, taking continence in this sense, as the
Philosopher takes it, Christ, from the very fact that He had all
virtue, had not continence, since it is not a virtue, but something
less than virtue.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith is
a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e. g. temperance and liberality.
Now these were in Christ, as stated above [3930](A[2]). Much more,
therefore, was there faith in Him.
Objection 2: Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not
Himself, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach. " But
of Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is "the author and finisher of
our faith. " Therefore there was faith in Him before all others.
Objection 3: Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the
blessed. But in the blessed there is faith; for on Rom. 1:17, "the
justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith," a gloss says:
"From the faith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight. "
Therefore it would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it
implies nothing imperfect.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of
things that appear not. " But there was nothing that did not appear to
Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (Jn. 21:17): "Thou knowest
all things. " Therefore there was no faith in Christ.
I answer that, As was said above ([3931]SS, Q[1], A[4]), the object of
faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every
other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that
the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith.
Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence
fully, as will be made clear (Q[34], A[1]). Hence there could be no
faith in Him.
Reply to Objection 1: Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues,
seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a
certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in
Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral
virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with
regard to their matter.
Reply to Objection 2: The merit of faith consists in this---that man
through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to
Rom. 1:5: "For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name. " Now
Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8:
"Becoming obedient unto death. " And hence He taught nothing pertaining
to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.
Reply to Objection 3: As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that
"whereby such things as are not seen are believed. " But faith in things
seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with
regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was hope?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was hope in Christ. For it is
said in the Person of Christ (Ps. 30:1): "In Thee, O Lord, have I
hoped. " But the virtue of hope is that whereby a man hopes in God.
Therefore the virtue of hope was in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, hope is the expectation of the bliss to come, as
was shown above ([3932]SS, Q[17], A[5], ad 3). But Christ awaited
something pertaining to bliss, viz. the glorifying of His body.
Therefore it seems there was hope in Him.
Objection 3: Further, everyone may hope for what pertains to his
perfection, if it has yet to come. But there was something still to
come pertaining to Christ's perfection, according to Eph. 4:12: "For
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
building up [Douay: 'edifying'] of the body of Christ. " Hence it seems
that it befitted Christ to have hope.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 8:24): "What a man seeth, why doth
he hope for? " Thus it is clear that as faith is of the unseen, so also
is hope. But there was no faith in Christ, as was said above
[3933](A[1]): neither, consequently, was there hope.
I answer that, As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what
one sees not, so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what as
yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a theological virtue,
does not regard everything unseen, but only God; so likewise hope, as a
theological virtue, has God Himself for its object, the fruition of
Whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of hope; yet, in consequence,
whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the Divine aid in other
things, even as he who has the virtue of faith believes God not only in
Divine things, but even in whatsoever is divinely revealed. Now from
the beginning of His conception Christ had the Divine fruition fully,
as will be shown ([3934]Q[34], A[4]), and hence he had not the virtue
of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as regards such things as He did not
yet possess, although He had not faith with regard to anything;
because, although He knew all things fully, wherefore faith was
altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He did not as yet fully possess
all that pertained to His perfection, viz. immortality and glory of the
body, which He could hope for.
Reply to Objection 1: This is said of Christ with reference to hope,
not as a theological virtue, but inasmuch as He hoped for some other
things not yet possessed, as was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: The glory of the body does not pertain to
beatitude as being that in which beatitude principally consists, but by
a certain outpouring from the soul's glory, as was said above
([3935]FS, Q[4], A[6]). Hence hope, as a theological virtue, does not
regard the bliss of the body but the soul's bliss, which consists in
the Divine fruition.
Reply to Objection 3: The building up of the church by the conversion
of the faithful does not pertain to the perfection of Christ, whereby
He is perfect in Himself, but inasmuch as it leads others to a share of
His perfection. And because hope properly regards what is expected by
him who hopes, the virtue of hope cannot properly be said to be in
Christ, because of the aforesaid reason.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were the gifts?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts were not in Christ. For, as
is commonly said, the gifts are given to help the virtues. But what is
perfect in itself does not need an exterior help. Therefore, since the
virtues of Christ were perfect, it seems there were no gifts in Him.
Objection 2: Further, to give and to receive gifts would not seem to
belong to the same; since to give pertains to one who has, and to
receive pertains to one who has not. But it belongs to Christ to give
gifts according to Ps. 67:19. "Thou hast given gifts to men [Vulg. :
'Thou hast received gifts in men']. " Therefore it was not becoming that
Christ should receive gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, four gifts would seem to pertain to the
contemplation of earth, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and
counsel which pertains to prudence; hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vi,
3) enumerates these with the intellectual virtues. But Christ had the
contemplation of heaven. Therefore He had not these gifts.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 4:1): "Seven women shall take hold
of one man": on which a gloss says: "That is, the seven gifts of the
Holy Ghost shall take hold of Christ. "
I answer that, As was said above ([3936]FS, Q[68], A[1]), the gifts,
properly, are certain perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch a[9]
these have a natural aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost, according
to Luke 4:1: "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 in Christ the gifts were in a pre-eminent degree.
Reply to Objection 1: What is perfect in the order of its nature needs
to be helped by something of a higher nature; as man, however perfect,
needs to be helped by God. And in this way the virtues, which perfect
the powers of the soul, as they are controlled by reason, no matter how
perfect they are, need to be helped by the gifts, which perfect the
soul's powers, inasmuch as these are moved by the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ is not a recipient and a giver of the
gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the same respect; for He gives them as God
and receives them as man. Hence Gregory says (Moral. ii) that "the Holy
Ghost never quitted the human nature of Christ, from Whose Divine
nature He proceedeth. "
Reply to Objection 3: In Christ there was not only heavenly knowledge,
but also earthly knowledge, as will be said (Q[15], A[10]). And yet
even in heaven the gifts of the Holy Ghost will still exist, in a
certain manner, as was said above ([3937]FS, Q[68], A[6]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of
fear. For hope would seem to be stronger than fear; since the object of
hope is goodness, and of fear, evil. as was said above ([3938]FS,
Q[40], A[1]; [3939]FS, Q[42], A[1]). But in Christ there was not the
virtue of hope, as was said above [3940](A[4]). Hence, likewise, there
was not the gift of fear in Him.
Objection 2: Further, by the gift of fear we fear either to be
separated from God, which pertains to "chaste" fear---or to be punished
by Him, which pertains to "servile" fear, as Augustine says (In Joan.
Tract. ix). But Christ did not fear being separated from God by sin,
nor being punished by Him on account of a fault, since it was
impossible for Him to sin, as will be said ([3941]Q[15], AA[1],2). Now
fear is not of the impossible. Therefore in Christ there was not the
gift of fear.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Jn. 4:18) that "perfect charity
casteth out fear. " But in Christ there was most perfect charity,
according to Eph. 3:19: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all
knowledge. " Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:3): "And He shall be filled with
the spirit of the fear of the Lord. "
I answer that, As was said above ([3942]FS, Q[42], A[1]), fear regards
two objects, one of which is an evil causing terror; the other is that
by whose power an evil can be inflicted, as we fear the king inasmuch
as he has the power of putting to death. Now whoever can hurt would not
be feared unless he had a certain greatness of might, to which
resistance could not easily be offered; for what we easily repel we do
not fear. And hence it is plain that no one is feared except for some
pre-eminence. And in this way it is said that in Christ there was the
fear of God, not indeed as it regards the evil of separation from God
by fault, nor as it regards the evil of punishment for fault; but
inasmuch as it regards the Divine pre-eminence, on account of which the
soul of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, was borne towards God in an act
of reverence. Hence it is said (Heb. 5:7) that in all things "he was
heard for his reverence. " For Christ as man had this act of reverence
towards God in a fuller sense and beyond all others. And hence
Scripture attributes to Him the fulness of the fear of the Lord.
Reply to Objection 1: The habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness
properly and of themselves; but evil, consequently; since it pertains
to the nature of virtue to render acts good, as is said Ethic. ii, 6.
And hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that evil which
fear is concerned with, but the pre-eminence of that goodness, viz. of
God, by Whose power evil may be inflicted. on the other hand, hope, as
a virtue, regards not only the author of good, but even the good
itself, as far as it is not yet possessed. And hence to Christ, Who
already possessed the perfect good of beatitude, we do not attribute
the virtue of hope, but we do attribute the gift of fear.
Reply to Objection 2: This reason is based on fear in so far as it
regards the evil object.
Reply to Objection 3: Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which
principally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in
Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the gratuitous graces were in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in
Christ. For whoever has anything in its fulness, to him it does not
pertain to have it by participation. Now Christ has grace in its
fulness, according to Jn. 1:14: "Full of grace and truth. " But the
gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed
distributively and particularly upon divers subjects, according to 1
Cor. 12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces. " Therefore it would
seem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, what is due to anyone would not seem to be
gratuitously bestowed on him. But it was due to the man Christ that He
should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge, and to be mighty in
doing wonderful works and the like, all of which pertain to gratuitous
graces: since He is "the power of God and the wisdom of God," as is
written 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to have
the gratuitous graces.
Objection 3: Further, gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of
the faithful. But it does not seem that a habit which a man does not
use is for the benefit of others, according to Ecclus. 20:32: "Wisdom
that is hid and treasure that is not seen: what profit is there in them
both? " Now we do not read that Christ made use of these gratuitously
given graces, especially as regards the gift of tongues. Therefore not
all the gratuitous graces were in Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that "as in
the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces.
"
I answer that, As was said above ([3943]FS, Q[3], AA[1],4), the
gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and
spiritual doctrine. For it behooves him who teaches to have the means
of making his doctrine clear; otherwise his doctrine would be useless.
Now Christ is the first and chief teacher of spiritual doctrine and
faith, according to Heb. 2:3,4: "Which having begun to be declared by
the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God also bearing
them witness by signs and wonders. " Hence it is clear that all the
gratuitous graces were most excellently in Christ, as in the first and
chief teacher of the faith.
Reply to Objection 1: As sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious
acts both interior and exterior, so likewise gratuitous grace is
ordained to certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith, as the
working of miracles, and the like. Now of both these graces Christ had
the fulness. since inasmuch as His soul was united to the Godhead, He
had the perfect power of effecting all these acts. But other saints who
are moved by God as separated and not united instruments, receive power
in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that act. And
hence in other saints these graces are divided, but not in Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ is said to be the power of God and the
wisdom of God, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Son of God. But in this
respect it does not pertain to Him to have grace, but rather to be the
bestower of grace. but it pertains to Him in His human nature to have
grace.
Reply to Objection 3: The gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles,
because they were sent to teach all nations; but Christ wished to
preach personally only in the one nation of the Jews, as He Himself
says (Mat. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of
the house of Israel"; and the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): "I say that
Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision. " And hence it was not
necessary for Him to speak several languages. Yet was a knowledge of
all languages not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts, of
which all words are signs, were not hidden from Him, as will be shown
([3944]Q[10], A[2]). Nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed. just
as it is not useless to have a habit, which we do not use when there is
no occasion.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the gift of prophecy?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of
prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect
knowledge, according to Num. 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of
the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a
dream. " But Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more than
Moses, of whom it is subjoined that "plainly and not by riddles and
figures doth he see God" (Num. 6:8). Therefore we ought not to admit
prophecy in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and
hope with what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is not
present, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of
far-off things. But in Christ there could be neither faith nor hope, as
was said above ([3945]AA[3],4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be
admitted in Christ.
Objection 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel;
hence Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above
([3946]SS, Q[174], A[4]) is said (Acts 7:38) to have spoken with an
angel in the desert. But Christ was "made lower than the angels," not
as to the knowledge of His soul, but only as regards the sufferings of
His body, as is shown Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was not
a prophet.
On the contrary, It is written of Him (Dt. 18:15): "Thy God will raise
up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren," and He says of
Himself (Mat. 13:57; Jn. 4:44): "A prophet is not without honor, save
in his own country. "
I answer that, A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of far-off
things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from
men's senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now we must
bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing and
announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And this
is clear in regard to place and time. For if anyone living in France
were to know and announce to others living in France what things were
transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus told Giezi (4
Kings 5:26) how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him.
But if anyone living in Syria were to announce what things were there,
it would not be prophetical. And the same appears in regard to time.
For it was prophetical of Isaias to announce that Cyrus, King of the
Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, as is clear from Is. 44:28.
But it was not prophetical of Esdras to write it, in whose time it took
place. Hence if God or angels, or even the blessed, know and announce
what is beyond our knowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since
they nowise touch our state. Now Christ before His passion touched our
state, inasmuch as He was not merely a "comprehensor," but a
"wayfarer. " Hence it was prophetical in Him to know and announce what
was beyond the knowledge of other "wayfarers": and for this reason He
is called a prophet.
Reply to Objection 1: These words do not prove that enigmatical
knowledge, viz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy;
but the comparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine
things in dreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and not by
riddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to Dt. 24:10: "And
there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses. " Nevertheless
it may be said that although Christ had full and unveiled knowledge as
regards the intellective part, yet in the imaginative part He had
certain similitudes, in which Divine things could be viewed, inasmuch
as He was not only a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer. "
Reply to Objection 2: Faith regards such things as are unseen by him
who believes; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by
the one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the
sense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this state
of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of
Christ's beatitude; but prophecy is not.
Reply to Objection 3: Angels, being "comprehensors," are above
prophets, who are merely "wayfarers"; but not above Christ, Who was
both a "comprehensor" and a "wayfarer. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the fulness of grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the fulness of
grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above ([3947]FS,
Q[110], A[4]). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for there
was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above ([3948]AA[3],4).
Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace.
Objection 2: Further, as is plain from what was said above ([3949]FS,
Q[111], A[2]), grace is divided into operating and cooperating. Now
operating grace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified, which
has no place in Christ, Who never lay under any sin. Therefore in
Christ there was not the fulness of grace.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (James 1:17): "Every best gift and
every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights. " But what comes thus is possessed partially, and not fully.
Therefore no creature, not even the soul of Christ, can have the
fulness of the gifts of grace.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His
glory'] full of grace and truth. "
I answer that, To have fully is to have wholly and perfectly. Now
totality and perfection can be taken in two ways: First as regards
their "intensive" quantity; for instance, I may say that some man has
whiteness fully, because he has as much of it as can naturally be in
him; secondly, "as regards power"; for instance, if anyone be said to
have life fully, inasmuch as he has it in all the effects or works of
life; and thus man has life fully, but senseless animals or plants have
not. Now in both these ways Christ has the fulness of grace. First,
since He has grace in its highest degree, in the most perfect way it
can be had. And this appears, first, from the nearness of Christ's soul
to the cause of grace. For it was said above [3950](A[1]) that the
nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause, the more it receives. And
hence the soul of Christ, which is more closely united to God than all
other rational creatures, receives the greatest outpouring of His
grace. Secondly, in His relation to the effect. For the soul of Christ
so received grace, that, in a manner, it is poured out from it upon
others. And hence it behooved Him to have the greatest grace; as fire
which is the cause of heat in other hot things, is of all things the
hottest.
Likewise, as regards the "virtue" of grace, He had grace fully, since
He had it for all the operations and effects of grace; and this,
because grace was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in the
genus of such as have grace. Now the virtue of the first principle of a
genus universally extends itself to all the effects of that genus; thus
the force of the sun, which is the universal cause of generation, as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), extends to all things that come under
generation. Hence the second fulness of grace is seen in Christ
inasmuch as His grace extends to all the effects of grace, which are
the virtues, gifts, and the like.
Reply to Objection 1: Faith and hope signify effects of grace with
certain defects on the part of the recipient of grace, inasmuch as
faith is of the unseen, and hope of what is not yet possessed. Hence it
was not necessary that in Christ, Who is the author of grace, there
should be any defects such as faith and hope imply; but whatever
perfection is in faith and hope was in Christ most perfectly; as in
fire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the
subject's defect, but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat.
Reply to Objection 2: It pertains essentially to operating grace to
justify; but that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it
on the part of the subject, in which sin is found. Therefore the soul
of Christ was justified by operating grace, inasmuch as it was rendered
just and holy by it from the beginning of His conception; not that it
was until then sinful, or even not just.
Reply to Objection 3: The fulness of grace is attributed to the soul of
Christ according to the capacity of the creature and not by comparison
with the infinite fulness of the Divine goodness.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the fulness of grace is proper to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to
Christ. For what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone. But to be
full of grace is attributed to some others; for it was said to the
Blessed Virgin (Lk. 1:28): "Hail, full of grace"; and again it is
written (Acts 6:8): "Stephen, full of grace and fortitude. " Therefore
the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Objection 2: Further, what can be communicated to others through Christ
does not seem to be proper to Christ. But the fulness of grace can be
communicated to others through Christ, since the Apostle says (Eph.
3:19): "That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. " Therefore
the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, the state of the wayfarer seems to be
proportioned to the state of the comprehensor. But in the state of the
comprehensor there will be a certain fulness, since "in our heavenly
country with its fulness of all good, although some things are bestowed
in a pre-eminent way, yet nothing is possessed singularly," as is clear
from Gregory (Hom. De Cent. Ovib. ; xxxiv in Ev. ). Therefore in the
state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is possessed by
everyone, and hence the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. on
the contrary, The fulness of grace is attributed to Christ inasmuch as
He is the only-begotten of the Father, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw
Him [Vulg. : 'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth. " But to be the Only-begotten of the
Father is proper to Christ. Therefore it is proper to Him to be full of
grace and truth.
I answer that, The fulness of grace may be taken in two ways: First, on
the part of grace itself, or secondly on the part of the one who has
grace. Now on the part of grace itself there is said to be the fulness
of grace when the limit of grace is attained, as to essence and power,
inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest possible excellence and
in its greatest possible extension to all its effects. And this fulness
of grace is proper to Christ. But on the part of the subject there is
said to be the fulness of grace when anyone fully possesses grace
according to his condition---whether as regards intensity, by reason of
grace being intense in him, to the limit assigned by God, according to
Eph. 4:1: "But to every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the giving of Christ"---or "as regards power," by reason of
a man having the help of grace for all that belongs to his office or
state, as the Apostle says (Eph. 3:8): "To me, the least of all the
saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men. " And this
fulness of grace is not proper to Christ, but is communicated to others
by Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace,
not on the part of grace itself---since she had not grace in its
greatest possible excellence---nor for all the effects of grace; but
she is said to be full of grace in reference to herself, i. e. inasmuch
as she had sufficient grace for the state to which God had chosen her,
i. e. to be the mother of His Only-begotten. So, too, Stephen is said to
be full of grace, since he had sufficient grace to be a fit minister
and witness of God, to which office he had been called. And the same
must be said of others. Of these fulnesses one is greater than another,
according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher or lower state.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle is there speaking of that fulness
which has reference to the subject, in comparison with what man is
divinely pre-ordained to; and this is either something in common, to
which all the saints are pre-ordained, or something special, which
pertains to the pre-eminence of some. And in this manner a certain
fulness of grace is common to all the saints, viz. to have grace enough
to merit eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God. And this
is the fulness of grace which the Apostle desires for the faithful to
whom he writes.
Reply to Objection 3: These gifts which are in common in heaven, viz. :
vision, possession and fruition, and the like, have certain gifts
corresponding to them in this life which are also common to all the
saints. Yet there are certain prerogatives of saints, both in heaven
and on earth, which are not possessed by all.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of Christ is infinite?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's grace is infinite. For
everything immeasurable is infinite. But the grace of Christ is
immeasurable; since it is written (Jn. 3:34): "For God doth not give
the Spirit by measure to His Son [*'To His Son' is lacking in the
Vulgate], namely Christ. " Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.
Objection 2: Further, an infinite effect betokens an infinite power
which can only spring from an infinite essence. But the effect of
Christ's grace is infinite, since it extends to the salvation of the
whole human race; for He is the propitiation for our sins . . . and for
those of the whole world, as is said (1 Jn. 2:2). Therefore the grace
of Christ is infinite.
Objection 3: Further, every finite thing by addition can attain to the
quantity of any other finite thing. Therefore if the grace of Christ is
finite the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as
to reach to an equality with Christ's grace, against what is written
(Job 28:17): "Gold nor crystal cannot equal it," as Gregory expounds it
(Moral. xviii). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.
On the contrary, Grace is something created in the soul. But every
created thing is finite, according to Wis. 11:21: "Thou hast ordered
all things in measure and number and weight. " Therefore the grace of
Christ is not infinite.
I answer that, As was made clear above ([3951]Q[2], A[10]), a twofold
grace may be considered in Christ; the first being the grace of union,
which, as was said ([3952]Q[6], A[6]), is for Him to be personally
united to the Son of God, which union has been bestowed gratis on the
human nature; and it is clear that this grace is infinite, as the
Person of God is infinite. The second is habitual grace; which may be
taken in two ways: first as a being, and in this way it must be a
finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and
Christ's soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being
of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.
Secondly it may be viewed in its specific nature of grace; and thus the
grace of Christ can be termed infinite, since it is not limited, i. e.
it has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace, and what pertains
to the nature of grace is not bestowed on Him in a fixed measure;
seeing that "according to the purpose" of God to Whom it pertains to
measure grace, it is bestowed on Christ's soul as on a universal
principle for bestowing grace on human nature, according to Eph. 1:5,6,
"He hath graced us in His beloved Son"; thus we might say that the
light of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but in the nature of
light, as having whatever can pertain to the nature of light.
Reply to Objection 1: When it is said that the Father "doth not give
the Spirit by measure," it may be expounded of the gift which God the
Father from all eternity gave the Son, viz. the Divine Nature, which is
an infinite gift. Hence the comment of a certain gloss: "So that the
Son may be as great as the Father is. " Or again, it may be referred to
the gift which is given the human nature, to be united to the Divine
Person, and this also is an infinite gift. Hence a gloss says on this
text: "As the Father begot a full and perfect Word, it is united thus
full and perfect to human nature. " Thirdly, it may be referred to
habitual grace, inasmuch as the grace of Christ extends to whatever
belongs to grace. Hence Augustine expounding this (Tract. xiv in Joan. )
says: "The division of the gifts is a measurement. For to one indeed by
the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge. " But Christ the giver does not receive by measure.
Reply to Objection 2: The grace of Christ has an infinite effect, both
because of the aforesaid infinity of grace, and because of the unity
[*Perhaps we should read 'infinity'---Ed. ] of the Divine Person, to
Whom Christ's soul is united.
Reply to Objection 3: The lesser can attain by augment to the quantity
of the greater, when both have the same kind of quantity. But the grace
of any man is compared to the grace of Christ as a particular to a
universal power; hence as the force of fire, no matter how much it
increases, can never equal the sun's strength, so the grace of a man,
no matter how much it increases, can never equal the grace of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of Christ could increase?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace of Christ could increase. For
to every finite thing addition can be made. But the grace of Christ was
finite. Therefore it could increase.
Objection 2: Further, it is by Divine power that grace is increased,
according to 2 Cor. 9:8: "And God is able to make all grace abound in
you. " But the Divine power, being infinite, is confined by no limits.
Therefore it seems that the grace of Christ could have been greater.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Lk. 2:52) that the child "Jesus
advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men. " Therefore the
grace of Christ could increase.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His
glory'] as it were . . .
it was most fitting that His soul should receive the influx of Divine
grace. Secondly, on account of the dignity of this soul, whose
operations were to attain so closely to God by knowledge and love, to
which it is necessary for human nature to be raised by grace. Thirdly,
on account of the relation of Christ to the human race. For Christ, as
man, is the "Mediator of God and men," as is written, 1 Tim. 2:5; and
hence it behooved Him to have grace which would overflow upon others,
according to Jn. 1:16: "And of His fulness we have all received, and
grace for grace. "
Reply to Objection 1: Christ is the true God in Divine Person and
Nature. Yet because together with unity of person there remains
distinction of natures, as stated above ([3924]Q[2], AA[1],2), the soul
of Christ. is not essentially Divine. Hence it behooves it to be Divine
by participation, which is by grace.
Reply to Objection 2: To Christ, inasmuch as He is the natural Son of
God, is due an eternal inheritance, which is the uncreated beatitude
through the uncreated act of knowledge and love of God, i. e. the same
whereby the Father knows and loves Himself. Now the soul was not
capable of this act, on account of the difference of natures. Hence it
behooved it to attain to God by a created act of fruition which could
not be without grace. Likewise, inasmuch as He was the Word of God, He
had the power of doing all things well by the Divine operation. And
because it is necessary to admit a human operation, distinct from the
Divine operation, as will be shown ([3925]Q[19], A[1]), it was
necessary for Him to have habitual grace, whereby this operation might
be perfect in Him.
Reply to Objection 3: The humanity of Christ 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. And hence the nature of the action
demanded that he should have habitual grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were no virtues. For
Christ had the plenitude of grace. Now grace is sufficient for every
good act, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee. "
Therefore there were no virtues in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1),
virtue is contrasted with a "certain heroic or godlike habit" which is
attributed to godlike men. But this belongs chiefly to Christ.
Therefore Christ had not virtues, but something higher than virtue.
Objection 3: Further, as was said above ([3926]FS, Q[65], AA[1],2), all
the virtues are bound together. But it was not becoming for Christ to
have all the virtues, as is clear in the case of liberality and
magnificence, for these have to do with riches, which Christ spurned,
according to Mat. 8:20: "The Son of man hath not where to lay His
head. " Temperance and continence also regard wicked desires, from which
Christ was free. Therefore Christ had not the virtues.
On the contrary, on Ps. 1:2, "But His will is in the law of the Lord,"
a gloss says: "This refers to Christ, Who is full of all good. " But a
good quality of the mind is a virtue. Therefore Christ was full of all
virtue.
I answer that, As was said above ([3927]FS, Q[110], AA[3],4), as grace
regards the essence of the soul, so does virtue regard its power. Hence
it is necessary that as the powers of the soul flow from its essence,
so do the virtues flow from grace. Now the more perfect a principle is,
the more it impresses its effects. Hence, since the grace of Christ was
most perfect, there flowed from it, in consequence, the virtues which
perfect the several powers of the soul for all the soul's acts; and
thus Christ had all the virtues.
Reply to Objection 1: Grace suffices a man for all whereby he is
ordained to beatitude; nevertheless, it effects some of these by
itself---as to make him pleasing to God, and the like; and some others
through the medium of the virtues which proceed from grace.
Reply to Objection 2: A heroic or godlike habit only differs from
virtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode, inasmuch as one is
disposed to good in a higher way than is common to all. Hence it is not
hereby proved that Christ had not the virtues, but that He had them
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" (cf. [3928]FS, Q[61] , A[5]).
Reply to Objection 3: Liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy in
regard to riches, inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the
extent of wishing to retain it, so as to forego what ought to be done.
But he esteems them least who wholly despises them, and casts them
aside for love of perfection. And hence by altogether contemning all
riches, Christ showed the highest kind of liberality and magnificence;
although He also performed the act of liberality, as far as it became
Him, by causing to be distributed to the poor what was given to
Himself. Hence, when our Lord said to Judas (Jn. 13:21), "That which
thou dost do quickly," the disciples understood our Lord to have
ordered him to give something to the poor. But Christ had no evil
desires whatever, as will be shown ([3929]Q[15], AA[1],2); yet He was
not thereby prevented from having temperance, which is the more perfect
in man, as he is without evil desires. Hence, according to the
Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 9), the temperate man differs from the
continent in this---that the temperate has not the evil desires which
the continent suffers. Hence, taking continence in this sense, as the
Philosopher takes it, Christ, from the very fact that He had all
virtue, had not continence, since it is not a virtue, but something
less than virtue.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith is
a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e. g. temperance and liberality.
Now these were in Christ, as stated above [3930](A[2]). Much more,
therefore, was there faith in Him.
Objection 2: Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not
Himself, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach. " But
of Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is "the author and finisher of
our faith. " Therefore there was faith in Him before all others.
Objection 3: Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the
blessed. But in the blessed there is faith; for on Rom. 1:17, "the
justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith," a gloss says:
"From the faith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight. "
Therefore it would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it
implies nothing imperfect.
On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of
things that appear not. " But there was nothing that did not appear to
Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (Jn. 21:17): "Thou knowest
all things. " Therefore there was no faith in Christ.
I answer that, As was said above ([3931]SS, Q[1], A[4]), the object of
faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every
other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that
the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith.
Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence
fully, as will be made clear (Q[34], A[1]). Hence there could be no
faith in Him.
Reply to Objection 1: Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues,
seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a
certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in
Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral
virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with
regard to their matter.
Reply to Objection 2: The merit of faith consists in this---that man
through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to
Rom. 1:5: "For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name. " Now
Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8:
"Becoming obedient unto death. " And hence He taught nothing pertaining
to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.
Reply to Objection 3: As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that
"whereby such things as are not seen are believed. " But faith in things
seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with
regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was hope?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was hope in Christ. For it is
said in the Person of Christ (Ps. 30:1): "In Thee, O Lord, have I
hoped. " But the virtue of hope is that whereby a man hopes in God.
Therefore the virtue of hope was in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, hope is the expectation of the bliss to come, as
was shown above ([3932]SS, Q[17], A[5], ad 3). But Christ awaited
something pertaining to bliss, viz. the glorifying of His body.
Therefore it seems there was hope in Him.
Objection 3: Further, everyone may hope for what pertains to his
perfection, if it has yet to come. But there was something still to
come pertaining to Christ's perfection, according to Eph. 4:12: "For
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
building up [Douay: 'edifying'] of the body of Christ. " Hence it seems
that it befitted Christ to have hope.
On the contrary, It is written (Rom. 8:24): "What a man seeth, why doth
he hope for? " Thus it is clear that as faith is of the unseen, so also
is hope. But there was no faith in Christ, as was said above
[3933](A[1]): neither, consequently, was there hope.
I answer that, As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what
one sees not, so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what as
yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a theological virtue,
does not regard everything unseen, but only God; so likewise hope, as a
theological virtue, has God Himself for its object, the fruition of
Whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of hope; yet, in consequence,
whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the Divine aid in other
things, even as he who has the virtue of faith believes God not only in
Divine things, but even in whatsoever is divinely revealed. Now from
the beginning of His conception Christ had the Divine fruition fully,
as will be shown ([3934]Q[34], A[4]), and hence he had not the virtue
of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as regards such things as He did not
yet possess, although He had not faith with regard to anything;
because, although He knew all things fully, wherefore faith was
altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He did not as yet fully possess
all that pertained to His perfection, viz. immortality and glory of the
body, which He could hope for.
Reply to Objection 1: This is said of Christ with reference to hope,
not as a theological virtue, but inasmuch as He hoped for some other
things not yet possessed, as was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: The glory of the body does not pertain to
beatitude as being that in which beatitude principally consists, but by
a certain outpouring from the soul's glory, as was said above
([3935]FS, Q[4], A[6]). Hence hope, as a theological virtue, does not
regard the bliss of the body but the soul's bliss, which consists in
the Divine fruition.
Reply to Objection 3: The building up of the church by the conversion
of the faithful does not pertain to the perfection of Christ, whereby
He is perfect in Himself, but inasmuch as it leads others to a share of
His perfection. And because hope properly regards what is expected by
him who hopes, the virtue of hope cannot properly be said to be in
Christ, because of the aforesaid reason.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there were the gifts?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gifts were not in Christ. For, as
is commonly said, the gifts are given to help the virtues. But what is
perfect in itself does not need an exterior help. Therefore, since the
virtues of Christ were perfect, it seems there were no gifts in Him.
Objection 2: Further, to give and to receive gifts would not seem to
belong to the same; since to give pertains to one who has, and to
receive pertains to one who has not. But it belongs to Christ to give
gifts according to Ps. 67:19. "Thou hast given gifts to men [Vulg. :
'Thou hast received gifts in men']. " Therefore it was not becoming that
Christ should receive gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, four gifts would seem to pertain to the
contemplation of earth, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and
counsel which pertains to prudence; hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vi,
3) enumerates these with the intellectual virtues. But Christ had the
contemplation of heaven. Therefore He had not these gifts.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 4:1): "Seven women shall take hold
of one man": on which a gloss says: "That is, the seven gifts of the
Holy Ghost shall take hold of Christ. "
I answer that, As was said above ([3936]FS, Q[68], A[1]), the gifts,
properly, are certain perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch a[9]
these have a natural aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost, according
to Luke 4:1: "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 in Christ the gifts were in a pre-eminent degree.
Reply to Objection 1: What is perfect in the order of its nature needs
to be helped by something of a higher nature; as man, however perfect,
needs to be helped by God. And in this way the virtues, which perfect
the powers of the soul, as they are controlled by reason, no matter how
perfect they are, need to be helped by the gifts, which perfect the
soul's powers, inasmuch as these are moved by the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ is not a recipient and a giver of the
gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the same respect; for He gives them as God
and receives them as man. Hence Gregory says (Moral. ii) that "the Holy
Ghost never quitted the human nature of Christ, from Whose Divine
nature He proceedeth. "
Reply to Objection 3: In Christ there was not only heavenly knowledge,
but also earthly knowledge, as will be said (Q[15], A[10]). And yet
even in heaven the gifts of the Holy Ghost will still exist, in a
certain manner, as was said above ([3937]FS, Q[68], A[6]).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of
fear. For hope would seem to be stronger than fear; since the object of
hope is goodness, and of fear, evil. as was said above ([3938]FS,
Q[40], A[1]; [3939]FS, Q[42], A[1]). But in Christ there was not the
virtue of hope, as was said above [3940](A[4]). Hence, likewise, there
was not the gift of fear in Him.
Objection 2: Further, by the gift of fear we fear either to be
separated from God, which pertains to "chaste" fear---or to be punished
by Him, which pertains to "servile" fear, as Augustine says (In Joan.
Tract. ix). But Christ did not fear being separated from God by sin,
nor being punished by Him on account of a fault, since it was
impossible for Him to sin, as will be said ([3941]Q[15], AA[1],2). Now
fear is not of the impossible. Therefore in Christ there was not the
gift of fear.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Jn. 4:18) that "perfect charity
casteth out fear. " But in Christ there was most perfect charity,
according to Eph. 3:19: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all
knowledge. " Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:3): "And He shall be filled with
the spirit of the fear of the Lord. "
I answer that, As was said above ([3942]FS, Q[42], A[1]), fear regards
two objects, one of which is an evil causing terror; the other is that
by whose power an evil can be inflicted, as we fear the king inasmuch
as he has the power of putting to death. Now whoever can hurt would not
be feared unless he had a certain greatness of might, to which
resistance could not easily be offered; for what we easily repel we do
not fear. And hence it is plain that no one is feared except for some
pre-eminence. And in this way it is said that in Christ there was the
fear of God, not indeed as it regards the evil of separation from God
by fault, nor as it regards the evil of punishment for fault; but
inasmuch as it regards the Divine pre-eminence, on account of which the
soul of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, was borne towards God in an act
of reverence. Hence it is said (Heb. 5:7) that in all things "he was
heard for his reverence. " For Christ as man had this act of reverence
towards God in a fuller sense and beyond all others. And hence
Scripture attributes to Him the fulness of the fear of the Lord.
Reply to Objection 1: The habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness
properly and of themselves; but evil, consequently; since it pertains
to the nature of virtue to render acts good, as is said Ethic. ii, 6.
And hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that evil which
fear is concerned with, but the pre-eminence of that goodness, viz. of
God, by Whose power evil may be inflicted. on the other hand, hope, as
a virtue, regards not only the author of good, but even the good
itself, as far as it is not yet possessed. And hence to Christ, Who
already possessed the perfect good of beatitude, we do not attribute
the virtue of hope, but we do attribute the gift of fear.
Reply to Objection 2: This reason is based on fear in so far as it
regards the evil object.
Reply to Objection 3: Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which
principally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in
Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the gratuitous graces were in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in
Christ. For whoever has anything in its fulness, to him it does not
pertain to have it by participation. Now Christ has grace in its
fulness, according to Jn. 1:14: "Full of grace and truth. " But the
gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed
distributively and particularly upon divers subjects, according to 1
Cor. 12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces. " Therefore it would
seem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, what is due to anyone would not seem to be
gratuitously bestowed on him. But it was due to the man Christ that He
should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge, and to be mighty in
doing wonderful works and the like, all of which pertain to gratuitous
graces: since He is "the power of God and the wisdom of God," as is
written 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to have
the gratuitous graces.
Objection 3: Further, gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of
the faithful. But it does not seem that a habit which a man does not
use is for the benefit of others, according to Ecclus. 20:32: "Wisdom
that is hid and treasure that is not seen: what profit is there in them
both? " Now we do not read that Christ made use of these gratuitously
given graces, especially as regards the gift of tongues. Therefore not
all the gratuitous graces were in Christ.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that "as in
the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces.
"
I answer that, As was said above ([3943]FS, Q[3], AA[1],4), the
gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and
spiritual doctrine. For it behooves him who teaches to have the means
of making his doctrine clear; otherwise his doctrine would be useless.
Now Christ is the first and chief teacher of spiritual doctrine and
faith, according to Heb. 2:3,4: "Which having begun to be declared by
the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God also bearing
them witness by signs and wonders. " Hence it is clear that all the
gratuitous graces were most excellently in Christ, as in the first and
chief teacher of the faith.
Reply to Objection 1: As sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious
acts both interior and exterior, so likewise gratuitous grace is
ordained to certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith, as the
working of miracles, and the like. Now of both these graces Christ had
the fulness. since inasmuch as His soul was united to the Godhead, He
had the perfect power of effecting all these acts. But other saints who
are moved by God as separated and not united instruments, receive power
in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that act. And
hence in other saints these graces are divided, but not in Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ is said to be the power of God and the
wisdom of God, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Son of God. But in this
respect it does not pertain to Him to have grace, but rather to be the
bestower of grace. but it pertains to Him in His human nature to have
grace.
Reply to Objection 3: The gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles,
because they were sent to teach all nations; but Christ wished to
preach personally only in the one nation of the Jews, as He Himself
says (Mat. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of
the house of Israel"; and the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): "I say that
Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision. " And hence it was not
necessary for Him to speak several languages. Yet was a knowledge of
all languages not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts, of
which all words are signs, were not hidden from Him, as will be shown
([3944]Q[10], A[2]). Nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed. just
as it is not useless to have a habit, which we do not use when there is
no occasion.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the gift of prophecy?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of
prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect
knowledge, according to Num. 12:6: "If there be among you a prophet of
the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a
dream. " But Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more than
Moses, of whom it is subjoined that "plainly and not by riddles and
figures doth he see God" (Num. 6:8). Therefore we ought not to admit
prophecy in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and
hope with what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is not
present, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of
far-off things. But in Christ there could be neither faith nor hope, as
was said above ([3945]AA[3],4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be
admitted in Christ.
Objection 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel;
hence Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above
([3946]SS, Q[174], A[4]) is said (Acts 7:38) to have spoken with an
angel in the desert. But Christ was "made lower than the angels," not
as to the knowledge of His soul, but only as regards the sufferings of
His body, as is shown Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was not
a prophet.
On the contrary, It is written of Him (Dt. 18:15): "Thy God will raise
up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren," and He says of
Himself (Mat. 13:57; Jn. 4:44): "A prophet is not without honor, save
in his own country. "
I answer that, A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of far-off
things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from
men's senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now we must
bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing and
announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And this
is clear in regard to place and time. For if anyone living in France
were to know and announce to others living in France what things were
transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus told Giezi (4
Kings 5:26) how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him.
But if anyone living in Syria were to announce what things were there,
it would not be prophetical. And the same appears in regard to time.
For it was prophetical of Isaias to announce that Cyrus, King of the
Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, as is clear from Is. 44:28.
But it was not prophetical of Esdras to write it, in whose time it took
place. Hence if God or angels, or even the blessed, know and announce
what is beyond our knowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since
they nowise touch our state. Now Christ before His passion touched our
state, inasmuch as He was not merely a "comprehensor," but a
"wayfarer. " Hence it was prophetical in Him to know and announce what
was beyond the knowledge of other "wayfarers": and for this reason He
is called a prophet.
Reply to Objection 1: These words do not prove that enigmatical
knowledge, viz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy;
but the comparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine
things in dreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and not by
riddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to Dt. 24:10: "And
there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses. " Nevertheless
it may be said that although Christ had full and unveiled knowledge as
regards the intellective part, yet in the imaginative part He had
certain similitudes, in which Divine things could be viewed, inasmuch
as He was not only a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer. "
Reply to Objection 2: Faith regards such things as are unseen by him
who believes; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by
the one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the
sense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this state
of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of
Christ's beatitude; but prophecy is not.
Reply to Objection 3: Angels, being "comprehensors," are above
prophets, who are merely "wayfarers"; but not above Christ, Who was
both a "comprehensor" and a "wayfarer. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in Christ there was the fulness of grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the fulness of
grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above ([3947]FS,
Q[110], A[4]). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for there
was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above ([3948]AA[3],4).
Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace.
Objection 2: Further, as is plain from what was said above ([3949]FS,
Q[111], A[2]), grace is divided into operating and cooperating. Now
operating grace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified, which
has no place in Christ, Who never lay under any sin. Therefore in
Christ there was not the fulness of grace.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (James 1:17): "Every best gift and
every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights. " But what comes thus is possessed partially, and not fully.
Therefore no creature, not even the soul of Christ, can have the
fulness of the gifts of grace.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His
glory'] full of grace and truth. "
I answer that, To have fully is to have wholly and perfectly. Now
totality and perfection can be taken in two ways: First as regards
their "intensive" quantity; for instance, I may say that some man has
whiteness fully, because he has as much of it as can naturally be in
him; secondly, "as regards power"; for instance, if anyone be said to
have life fully, inasmuch as he has it in all the effects or works of
life; and thus man has life fully, but senseless animals or plants have
not. Now in both these ways Christ has the fulness of grace. First,
since He has grace in its highest degree, in the most perfect way it
can be had. And this appears, first, from the nearness of Christ's soul
to the cause of grace. For it was said above [3950](A[1]) that the
nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause, the more it receives. And
hence the soul of Christ, which is more closely united to God than all
other rational creatures, receives the greatest outpouring of His
grace. Secondly, in His relation to the effect. For the soul of Christ
so received grace, that, in a manner, it is poured out from it upon
others. And hence it behooved Him to have the greatest grace; as fire
which is the cause of heat in other hot things, is of all things the
hottest.
Likewise, as regards the "virtue" of grace, He had grace fully, since
He had it for all the operations and effects of grace; and this,
because grace was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in the
genus of such as have grace. Now the virtue of the first principle of a
genus universally extends itself to all the effects of that genus; thus
the force of the sun, which is the universal cause of generation, as
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), extends to all things that come under
generation. Hence the second fulness of grace is seen in Christ
inasmuch as His grace extends to all the effects of grace, which are
the virtues, gifts, and the like.
Reply to Objection 1: Faith and hope signify effects of grace with
certain defects on the part of the recipient of grace, inasmuch as
faith is of the unseen, and hope of what is not yet possessed. Hence it
was not necessary that in Christ, Who is the author of grace, there
should be any defects such as faith and hope imply; but whatever
perfection is in faith and hope was in Christ most perfectly; as in
fire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the
subject's defect, but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat.
Reply to Objection 2: It pertains essentially to operating grace to
justify; but that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it
on the part of the subject, in which sin is found. Therefore the soul
of Christ was justified by operating grace, inasmuch as it was rendered
just and holy by it from the beginning of His conception; not that it
was until then sinful, or even not just.
Reply to Objection 3: The fulness of grace is attributed to the soul of
Christ according to the capacity of the creature and not by comparison
with the infinite fulness of the Divine goodness.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the fulness of grace is proper to Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to
Christ. For what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone. But to be
full of grace is attributed to some others; for it was said to the
Blessed Virgin (Lk. 1:28): "Hail, full of grace"; and again it is
written (Acts 6:8): "Stephen, full of grace and fortitude. " Therefore
the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Objection 2: Further, what can be communicated to others through Christ
does not seem to be proper to Christ. But the fulness of grace can be
communicated to others through Christ, since the Apostle says (Eph.
3:19): "That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God. " Therefore
the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.
Objection 3: Further, the state of the wayfarer seems to be
proportioned to the state of the comprehensor. But in the state of the
comprehensor there will be a certain fulness, since "in our heavenly
country with its fulness of all good, although some things are bestowed
in a pre-eminent way, yet nothing is possessed singularly," as is clear
from Gregory (Hom. De Cent. Ovib. ; xxxiv in Ev. ). Therefore in the
state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is possessed by
everyone, and hence the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. on
the contrary, The fulness of grace is attributed to Christ inasmuch as
He is the only-begotten of the Father, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw
Him [Vulg. : 'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth. " But to be the Only-begotten of the
Father is proper to Christ. Therefore it is proper to Him to be full of
grace and truth.
I answer that, The fulness of grace may be taken in two ways: First, on
the part of grace itself, or secondly on the part of the one who has
grace. Now on the part of grace itself there is said to be the fulness
of grace when the limit of grace is attained, as to essence and power,
inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest possible excellence and
in its greatest possible extension to all its effects. And this fulness
of grace is proper to Christ. But on the part of the subject there is
said to be the fulness of grace when anyone fully possesses grace
according to his condition---whether as regards intensity, by reason of
grace being intense in him, to the limit assigned by God, according to
Eph. 4:1: "But to every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the giving of Christ"---or "as regards power," by reason of
a man having the help of grace for all that belongs to his office or
state, as the Apostle says (Eph. 3:8): "To me, the least of all the
saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men. " And this
fulness of grace is not proper to Christ, but is communicated to others
by Christ.
Reply to Objection 1: The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace,
not on the part of grace itself---since she had not grace in its
greatest possible excellence---nor for all the effects of grace; but
she is said to be full of grace in reference to herself, i. e. inasmuch
as she had sufficient grace for the state to which God had chosen her,
i. e. to be the mother of His Only-begotten. So, too, Stephen is said to
be full of grace, since he had sufficient grace to be a fit minister
and witness of God, to which office he had been called. And the same
must be said of others. Of these fulnesses one is greater than another,
according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher or lower state.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle is there speaking of that fulness
which has reference to the subject, in comparison with what man is
divinely pre-ordained to; and this is either something in common, to
which all the saints are pre-ordained, or something special, which
pertains to the pre-eminence of some. And in this manner a certain
fulness of grace is common to all the saints, viz. to have grace enough
to merit eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God. And this
is the fulness of grace which the Apostle desires for the faithful to
whom he writes.
Reply to Objection 3: These gifts which are in common in heaven, viz. :
vision, possession and fruition, and the like, have certain gifts
corresponding to them in this life which are also common to all the
saints. Yet there are certain prerogatives of saints, both in heaven
and on earth, which are not possessed by all.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of Christ is infinite?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's grace is infinite. For
everything immeasurable is infinite. But the grace of Christ is
immeasurable; since it is written (Jn. 3:34): "For God doth not give
the Spirit by measure to His Son [*'To His Son' is lacking in the
Vulgate], namely Christ. " Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.
Objection 2: Further, an infinite effect betokens an infinite power
which can only spring from an infinite essence. But the effect of
Christ's grace is infinite, since it extends to the salvation of the
whole human race; for He is the propitiation for our sins . . . and for
those of the whole world, as is said (1 Jn. 2:2). Therefore the grace
of Christ is infinite.
Objection 3: Further, every finite thing by addition can attain to the
quantity of any other finite thing. Therefore if the grace of Christ is
finite the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as
to reach to an equality with Christ's grace, against what is written
(Job 28:17): "Gold nor crystal cannot equal it," as Gregory expounds it
(Moral. xviii). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.
On the contrary, Grace is something created in the soul. But every
created thing is finite, according to Wis. 11:21: "Thou hast ordered
all things in measure and number and weight. " Therefore the grace of
Christ is not infinite.
I answer that, As was made clear above ([3951]Q[2], A[10]), a twofold
grace may be considered in Christ; the first being the grace of union,
which, as was said ([3952]Q[6], A[6]), is for Him to be personally
united to the Son of God, which union has been bestowed gratis on the
human nature; and it is clear that this grace is infinite, as the
Person of God is infinite. The second is habitual grace; which may be
taken in two ways: first as a being, and in this way it must be a
finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and
Christ's soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being
of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.
Secondly it may be viewed in its specific nature of grace; and thus the
grace of Christ can be termed infinite, since it is not limited, i. e.
it has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace, and what pertains
to the nature of grace is not bestowed on Him in a fixed measure;
seeing that "according to the purpose" of God to Whom it pertains to
measure grace, it is bestowed on Christ's soul as on a universal
principle for bestowing grace on human nature, according to Eph. 1:5,6,
"He hath graced us in His beloved Son"; thus we might say that the
light of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but in the nature of
light, as having whatever can pertain to the nature of light.
Reply to Objection 1: When it is said that the Father "doth not give
the Spirit by measure," it may be expounded of the gift which God the
Father from all eternity gave the Son, viz. the Divine Nature, which is
an infinite gift. Hence the comment of a certain gloss: "So that the
Son may be as great as the Father is. " Or again, it may be referred to
the gift which is given the human nature, to be united to the Divine
Person, and this also is an infinite gift. Hence a gloss says on this
text: "As the Father begot a full and perfect Word, it is united thus
full and perfect to human nature. " Thirdly, it may be referred to
habitual grace, inasmuch as the grace of Christ extends to whatever
belongs to grace. Hence Augustine expounding this (Tract. xiv in Joan. )
says: "The division of the gifts is a measurement. For to one indeed by
the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge. " But Christ the giver does not receive by measure.
Reply to Objection 2: The grace of Christ has an infinite effect, both
because of the aforesaid infinity of grace, and because of the unity
[*Perhaps we should read 'infinity'---Ed. ] of the Divine Person, to
Whom Christ's soul is united.
Reply to Objection 3: The lesser can attain by augment to the quantity
of the greater, when both have the same kind of quantity. But the grace
of any man is compared to the grace of Christ as a particular to a
universal power; hence as the force of fire, no matter how much it
increases, can never equal the sun's strength, so the grace of a man,
no matter how much it increases, can never equal the grace of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of Christ could increase?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace of Christ could increase. For
to every finite thing addition can be made. But the grace of Christ was
finite. Therefore it could increase.
Objection 2: Further, it is by Divine power that grace is increased,
according to 2 Cor. 9:8: "And God is able to make all grace abound in
you. " But the Divine power, being infinite, is confined by no limits.
Therefore it seems that the grace of Christ could have been greater.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Lk. 2:52) that the child "Jesus
advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men. " Therefore the
grace of Christ could increase.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His
glory'] as it were . . .
