No More Learning

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 . . . the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace
and truth. " But nothing can be or can be thought greater than that
anyone should be the Only-begotten of the Father. Therefore no greater
grace can be or can be thought than that of which Christ was full.

I answer that, For a form to be incapable of increase happens in two
ways: First on the part of the subject; secondly, on the part of the
form itself. On the part of the subject, indeed, when the subject
reaches the utmost limit wherein it partakes of this form, after its
own manner, e. g. if we say that air cannot increase in heat, when it
has reached the utmost limit of heat which can exist in the nature of
air, although there may be greater heat in actual existence, viz. the
heat of fire. But on the part of the form, the possibility of increase
is excluded when a subject reaches the utmost perfection which this
form can have by nature, e. g. if we say the heat of fire cannot be
increased because there cannot be a more perfect grade of heat than
that to which fire attains. Now the proper measure of grace, like that
of other forms, is determined by the Divine wisdom, according to Wis.
11:21: "Thou hast ordered all things in number, weight and measure. "
And it is with reference to its end that a measure is set to every
form. as there is no greater gravity than that of the earth, because
there is no lower place than that of the earth. Now the end of grace is
the union of the rational creature with God. But there can neither be
nor be thought a greater union of the rational creature with God than
that which is in the Person. And hence the grace of Christ reached the
highest measure of grace. Hence it is clear that the grace of Christ
cannot be increased on the part of grace. But neither can it be
increased on the part of the subject, since Christ as man was a true
and full comprehensor from the first instant of His conception. Hence
there could have been no increase of grace in Him, as there could be
none in the rest of the blessed, whose grace could not increase, seeing
that they have reached their last end. But as regards men who are
wholly wayfarers, their grace can be increased not merely on the part
of the form, since they have not attained the highest degree of grace,
but also on the part of the subject, since they have not yet attained
their end.

Reply to Objection 1: If we speak of mathematical quantity, addition
can be made to any finite quantity, since there is nothing on the part
of finite quantity which is repugnant to addition. But if we speak of
natural quantity, there may be repugnance on the part of the form to
which a determined quantity is due, even as other accidents are
determined. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 41) that "there is
naturally a term of all things, and a fixed limit of magnitude and
increase. " And hence to the quantity of the whole there can be no
addition. And still more must we suppose a term in the forms
themselves, beyond which they may not go. Hence it is not necessary
that addition should be capable of being made to Christ's grace,
although it is finite in its essence.

Reply to Objection 2: 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 to this union, by the purpose
of the Divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient.

Reply to Objection 3: Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two
ways. First inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are
increased; and in this way Christ did not increase. Secondly, as
regards the effects, i. e. inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works;
and in this way Christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age,
since in the course of time He did more perfect works, to prove Himself
true man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the habitual grace of Christ followed after the union?

Objection 1: It would seem that the habitual grace did not follow after
the union. For nothing follows itself. But this habitual grace seems to
be the same as the grace of union; for Augustine says (De Praedest.
Sanct. xv): "Every man becomes a Christian from the beginning of his
belief, by the same grace whereby this Man from His beginning became
Christ"; and of these two the first pertains to habitual grace and the
second to the grace of union. Therefore it would seem that habitual
grace did not follow upon the union.

Objection 2: Further, disposition precedes perfection, if not in time,
at least in thought. But the habitual grace seems to be a disposition
in human nature for the personal union. Therefore it seems that the
habitual grace did not follow but rather preceded the union.

Objection 3: Further, the common precedes the proper. But habitual
grace is common to Christ and other men; and the grace of union is
proper to Christ. Therefore habitual grace is prior in thought to the
union. Therefore it does not follow it.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 42:1): "Behold my servant, I will
uphold Him . . . "and farther on: "I have given My Spirit upon Him";
and this pertains to the gift of habitual grace. Hence it remains that
the assumption of human nature to the unity of the Person preceded the
habitual grace of Christ.

I answer that, The union of the human nature with the Divine Person,
which, as we have said above ([3953]Q[2], A[10];[3954] Q[6], A[6]), is
the grace of union, precedes the habitual grace of Christ, not in order
of time, but by nature and in thought; and this for a triple reason:
First, with reference to the order of the principles of both. For the
principle of the union is the Person of the Son assuming human nature,
Who is said to be sent into the world, inasmuch as He assumed human
nature; but the principle of habitual grace, which is given with
charity, is the Holy Ghost, Who is said to be sent inasmuch as He
dwells in the mind by charity. Now the mission of the Son is prior, in
the order of nature, to the mission of the Holy Ghost, even as in the
order of nature the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, and love from
wisdom. Hence the personal union, according to which the mission of the
Son took place, is prior in the order of nature to habitual grace,
according to which the mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Secondly,
the reason of this order may be taken from the relation of grace to its
cause. For grace is caused in man by the presence of the Godhead, as
light in the air by the presence of the sun. Hence it is written
(Ezech. 43:2): "The glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of
the east . . . and the earth shone with His majesty. " But the presence
of God in Christ is by the union of human nature with the Divine
Person. Hence the habitual grace of Christ is understood to follow this
union, as light follows the sun. Thirdly, the reason of this union can
be taken from the end of grace, since it is ordained to acting rightly,
and action belongs to the suppositum and the individual. Hence action
and, in consequence, grace ordaining thereto, presuppose the hypostasis
which operates. Now the hypostasis did not exist in the human nature
before the union, as is clear from[3955] Q[4], A[2]. Therefore the
grace of union precedes, in thought, habitual grace.

Reply to Objection 1: Augustine here means by grace the gratuitous will
of God, bestowing benefits gratis; and hence every man is said to be
made a Christian by the same grace whereby a Man became Christ, since
both take place by the gratuitous will of God without merits.

Reply to Objection 2: As disposition in the order of generation
precedes the perfection to which it disposes, in such things as are
gradually perfected; so it naturally follows the perfection which one
has already obtained; as heat, which was a disposition to the form of
fire, is an effect flowing from the form of already existing fire. Now
the human nature in Christ is united to the Person of the Word from the
beginning without succession. Hence habitual grace is not understood to
have preceded the union, but to have followed it; as a natural
property. Hence, as Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "Grace is in a
manner natural to the Man Christ. "

Reply to Objection 3: The common precedes the proper, when both are of
the same genus; but when they are of divers genera, there is nothing to
prevent the proper being prior to the common. Now the grace of union is
not in the same genus as habitual grace; but is above all genera even
as the Divine Person Himself. Hence there is nothing to prevent this
proper from being before the common since it does not result from
something being added to the common, but is rather the principle and
source of that which is common.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AS HE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We must now consider the grace of Christ as the Head of the Church; and
under this head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?

(2) Whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies or only as
regards their souls?

(3) Whether He is the Head of all men?

(4) Whether He is the Head of the angels?

(5) Whether the grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as
His habitual grace as an individual man?

(6) Whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ?

(7) Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked?

(8) Whether Anti-christ can be called the head of all the wicked?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to
be Head of the Church. For the head imparts sense and motion to the
members. Now spiritual sense and motion which are by grace, are not
imparted to us by the Man Christ, because, as Augustine says (De Trin.
i, 12; xv, 24), "not even Christ, as man, but only as God, bestows the
Holy Ghost.
" Therefore it does not belong to Him as man to be Head of
the Church.

Objection 2: Further, it is not fitting for the head to have a head.
But God is the Head of Christ, as man, according to 1 Cor. 11:3, "The
Head of Christ is God. " Therefore Christ Himself is not a head.

Objection 3: Furthermore, the head of a man is a particular member,
receiving an influx from the heart. But Christ is the universal
principle of the whole Church. Therefore He is not the Head of the
Church.

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. 1:22): "And He . . . hath made Him
head over all the Church. "

I answer that, As the whole Church is termed one mystic body from its
likeness to the natural body of a man, which in divers members has
divers acts, as the Apostle teaches (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12), so likewise
Christ is called the Head of the Church from a likeness with the human
head, in which we may consider three things, viz. order, perfection,
and power: "Order," indeed; for the head is the first part of man,
beginning from the higher part; and hence it is that every principle is
usually called a head according to Ezech. 16:25: "At every head of the
way, thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution"---"Perfection,"
inasmuch as in the head dwell all the senses, both interior and
exterior, whereas in the other members there is only touch, and hence
it is said (Is. 9:15): "The aged and honorable, he is the
head"---"Power," because the power and movement of the other members,
together with the direction of them in their acts, is from the head, by
reason of the sensitive and motive power there ruling; hence the ruler
is called the head of a people, according to 1 Kings 15:17: "When thou
wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the
tribes of Israel? " Now these three things belong spiritually to Christ.
First, on account of His nearness to God His grace is the highest and
first, though not in time, since all have received grace on account of
His grace, according to Rom. 8:29: "For whom He foreknew, He also
predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He
might be the first-born amongst many brethren. " Secondly, He had
perfection as regards the fulness of all graces, according to Jn. 1:14,
"We saw Him [Vulg. : 'His glory'] . . . full of grace and truth," as was
shown[3956], Q[7], A[9]. Thirdly, He has the power of bestowing grace
on all the members of the Church, according to Jn. 1:16: "Of His
fulness we have all received. " And thus it is plain that Christ is
fittingly called the Head of the Church.

Reply to Objection 1: To give grace or the Holy Ghost belongs to Christ
as He is God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to
Him as man, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead.
And hence by the power of the Godhead His actions were beneficial, i. e.
by causing grace in us, both meritoriously and efficiently. But
Augustine denies that Christ as man gives the Holy Ghost
authoritatively. Even other saints are said to give the Holy Ghost
instrumentally, or ministerially, according to Gal. 3:5: "He . . . who
giveth to you the Spirit. "

Reply to Objection 2: In metaphorical speech we must not expect a
likeness in all respects; for thus there would be not likeness but
identity. Accordingly a natural head has not another head because one
human body is not part of another; but a metaphorical body, i. e. an
ordered multitude, is part of another multitude as the domestic
multitude is part of the civil multitude; and hence the father who is
head of the domestic multitude has a head above him, i. e. the civil
governor. And hence there is no reason why God should not be the Head
of Christ, although Christ Himself is Head of the Church.

Reply to Objection 3: The head has a manifest pre-eminence over the
other exterior members; but the heart has a certain hidden influence.
And hence the Holy Ghost is likened to the heart, since He invisibly
quickens and unifies the Church; but Christ is likened to the Head in
His visible nature in which man is set over man.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ is the Head of men as to their bodies or only as to their
souls?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of men as to
their bodies. For Christ is said to be the Head of the Church inasmuch
as He bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on the Church.
But a body is not capable of this spiritual sense and movement.
Therefore Christ is not the Head of men as regards their bodies.

Objection 2: Further, we share bodies with the brutes. If therefore
Christ was the Head of men as to their bodies, it would follow that He
was the Head of brute animals; and this is not fitting.

Objection 3: Further, Christ took His body from other men, as is clear
from Mat. 1 and Luke 3. But the head is the first of the members, as
was said above (A[1], ad 3). Therefore Christ is not the Head of the
Church as regards bodies.

On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 3:21): "Who will reform the body
of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory. "

I answer that, The human body has a natural relation to the rational
soul, which is its proper form and motor. Inasmuch as the soul is its
form, it receives from the soul life and the other properties which
belong specifically to man; but inasmuch as the soul is its motor, the
body serves the soul instrumentally. Therefore we must hold that the
manhood of Christ had the power of "influence," inasmuch as it is
united to the Word of God, to Whom His body is united through the soul,
as stated above ([3957]Q[6], A[1]). Hence the whole manhood of Christ,
i. e. according to soul and body, influences all, both in soul and body;
but principally the soul, and secondarily the body: First, inasmuch as
the "members of the body are presented as instruments of justice" in
the soul that lives through Christ, as the Apostle says (Rom. 6:13):
secondly, inasmuch as the life of glory flows from the soul on to the
body, according to Rom. 8:11: "He that raised up Jesus from the dead
shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that
dwelleth in you. "

Reply to Objection 1: The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to
the body first and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally, as
was said above.

Reply to Objection 2: The body of an animal has no relation to a
rational soul, as the human body has. Hence there is no parity.

Reply to Objection 3: Although Christ drew the matter of His body from
other men, yet all draw from Him the immortal life of their body,
according to 1 Cor. 15:22: "And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ
all shall be made alive. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ is the Head of all men?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of all men. For
the head has no relation except to the members of its body. Now the
unbaptized are nowise members of the Church which is the body of
Christ, as it is written (Eph. 1:23). Therefore Christ is not the Head
of all men.

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25,27):
"Christ delivered Himself up for" the Church "that He might present it
to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing. " But there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or
the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the
faithful.

Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to
Christ as the shadow to the body, as is written (Col. 2:17). But the
fathers of the Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments,
according to Heb. 8:5: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things. " Hence they did not pertain to Christ's body, and
therefore Christ is not the Head of all men.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Tim. 4:10): "Who is the Saviour of
all men, especially of the faithful," and (1 Jn. 2:2): "He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world. " Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their
sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is the Head of all
men.

I answer that, This is the difference between the natural body of man
and the Church's mystical body, that the members of the natural body
are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all
together---neither as regards their natural being, since the body of
the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of
the world until its end---nor as regards their supernatural being,
since, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without
grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must
therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they
are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in
potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at
some time to act; and this according to the triple class, of which the
first is by faith, the second by the charity of this life, the third by
the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the
whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but
diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are
united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to
Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by
faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality,
which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according
to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in
potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men
existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their
departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as
being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.

Reply to Objection 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in
the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is
rooted in two things---first and principally, in the power of Christ,
which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race;
secondly, in free-will.

Reply to Objection 2: To be "a glorious Church not having spot or
wrinkle" is the ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of
Christ. Hence this will be in heaven, and not on earth, in which "if we
say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," as is written (1 Jn. 1:8).
Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are
free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but such
as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but
potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which
unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that man partake of
the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20): "Faith without
works is dead. " Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital
act, i. e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some
extent.

Reply to Objection 3: The holy Fathers made use of the legal
sacraments, not as realities, but as images and shadows of what was to
come. Now it is the same motion to an image as image, and to the
reality, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Memor. et Remin. ii).
Hence the ancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were
borne to Christ by the same faith and love whereby we also are borne to
Him, and hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ is the Head of the angels?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the
angels. For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as man
is not of the same nature with the angels, but only with men, since, as
is written (Heb. 2:16): "For nowhere doth He take hold of the angels,
but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold. " Therefore Christ as man is
not the head of the angels.

Objection 2: Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the
Church, which is His Body, as is written (Eph. 1:23). But the angels do
not belong to the Church. For the Church is the congregation of the
faithful: and in the angels there is no faith, for they do not "walk by
faith" but "by sight," otherwise they would be "absent from the Lord,"
as the Apostle argues (2 Cor. 5:6,7). Therefore Christ as man is not
head of the angels.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix; xxiii in Joan. ), that
as "the Word" which "was in the beginning with the Father" quickens
souls, so the "Word made flesh" quickens bodies, which angels lack. But
the Word made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ as man does not
give life to angels, and hence as man He is not the head of the angels.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:10), "Who is the head of all
Principality and Power," and the same reason holds good with the other
orders of angels. Therefore Christ is the Head of the angels.

I answer that, As was said above (A[1], ad 2), where there is one body
we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained to one
end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically called one
body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are ordained to one
end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition. Hence the mystical body
of the Church consists not only of men but of angels. Now of all this
multitude Christ is the Head, since He is nearer God, and shares His
gifts more fully, not only than man, but even than angels; and of His
influence not only men but even angels partake, since it is written
(Eph. 1:20-22): that God the Father set "Him," namely Christ, "on His
right hand in the heavenly places, above all Principality and Power and
Virtue and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come. And He hath subjected all
things under His feet. " Therefore Christ is not only the Head of men,
but of angels. Hence we read (Mat. 4:11) that "angels came and
ministered to Him. "

Reply to Objection 1: Christ's influence over men is chiefly with
regard to their souls; wherein men agree with angels in generic nature,
though not in specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can
be said to be the Head of the angels, although the agreement falls
short as regards the body.

Reply to Objection 2: The Church, on earth, is the congregation of the
faithful; but, in heaven, it is the congregation of comprehensors. Now
Christ was not merely a wayfarer, but a comprehensor. And therefore He
is the Head not merely of the faithful, but of comprehensors, as having
grace and glory most fully.

Reply to Objection 3: Augustine here uses the similitude of cause and
effect, i. e. inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies, and spiritual
things on spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by
virtue of the spiritual nature, i. e. the Divine, can cause something
not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on
account of its most close conjunction with God, i. e. by personal union.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the grace of Christ, as Head of the Church, is the same as His
habitual grace, inasmuch as He is Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is Head of the
Church and the individual grace of the Man are not the same. For the
Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): "If by the offense of one many died, much
more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto many. " But the actual sin of Adam is
distinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity. Hence
the personal grace which is proper to Christ is distinct from His
grace, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, which flows to others
from Him.

Objection 2: Further, habits are distinguished by acts. But the
personal grace of Christ is ordained to one act, viz. the
sanctification of His soul; and the capital grace is ordained to
another, viz. to sanctifying others. Therefore the personal grace of
Christ is distinct from His grace as He is the Head of the Church.

Objection 3: Further, as was said above ([3958]Q[6], A[6]), in Christ
we distinguish a threefold grace, viz. the grace of union, capital
grace, and the individual grace of the Man. Now the individual grace of
Christ is distinct from the grace of union. Therefore it is also
distinct from the capital grace.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:16): "Of His fulness we all have
received. " Now He is our Head, inasmuch as we receive from Him.
Therefore He is our Head, inasmuch as He has the fulness of grace. Now
He had the fulness of grace, inasmuch as personal grace was in Him in
its perfection, as was said above ([3959]Q[7], A[9]). Hence His capital
and personal grace are not distinct.

I answer that, Since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act,
it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts, as it
is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats. Yet not
every act whereby anything is in act suffices for its being the
principle of acting upon others. For since the agent is nobler than the
patient, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16) and the Philosopher
(De Anima iii, 19), the agent must act on others by reason of a certain
pre-eminence. Now it was said above [3960](A[1]; Q[7], A[9]) grace was
received by the soul of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from
this pre-eminence of grace which He received, it is from Him that this
grace is bestowed on others---and this belongs to the nature of head.
Hence the personal grace, whereby the soul of Christ is justified, is
essentially the same as His grace, as He is the Head of the Church, and
justifies others; but there is a distinction of reason between them.

Reply to Objection 1: Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the
nature, is derived from his actual sin, which is a personal sin,
because in him the person corrupted the nature; and by means of this
corruption the sin of the first man is transmitted to posterity,
inasmuch as the corrupt nature corrupts the person. Now grace is not
vouchsafed us by means of human nature, but solely by the personal
action of Christ Himself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace
in Christ, one corresponding to the nature, the other to the person as
in Adam we distinguish the sin of the nature and of the person.

Reply to Objection 2: Different acts, one of which is the reason and
the cause of the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the
personal grace which is formally to sanctify its subject, is the reason
of the justification of others, which pertains to capital grace. Hence
it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this
difference.

Reply to Objection 3: Personal and capital grace are ordained to an
act; but the grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the
personal being. Hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the
essence of the habit; but the grace of union does not, although the
personal grace can be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch
as it brings about a fitness for the union; and thus the grace of
union, the capital, and the personal grace are one in essence, though
there is a distinction of reason between them.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is proper to Christ to be Head of the Church?

Objection 1: It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of the
Church. For it is written (1 Kings 15:17): "When thou wast a little one
in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel? "
Now there is but one Church in the New and the Old Testament. Therefore
it seems that with equal reason any other man than Christ might be head
of the Church.