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.
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.
Summa Theologica
" Now the humanity
is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts. Therefore the
Son of God assumed the parts through the medium of the whole.
I answer that, When anything is said to be a medium in the assumption
of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time, because the
assumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous. For it has been
shown ([3918]AA[3] ,4) that the soul and body were mutually united at
the same time in order to constitute the human nature of the Word. But
it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what is prior in
nature, that is assumed which is posterior in nature. Now a thing is
prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the agent, secondly
on the part of the matter; for these two causes precede the thing. On
the part of the agent---that is simply first, which is first included
in his intention; but that is relatively first, with which his
operation begins---and this because the intention is prior to the
operation. On the part of the matter---that is first which exists first
in the transmutation of the matter. Now in the Incarnation the order
depending on the agent must be particularly considered, because, as
Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii), "in such things the whole
reason of the deed is the power of the doer. " But it is manifest that,
according to the intention of the doer, what is complete is prior to
what is incomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it
must be said that the Word of God assumed the parts of human nature,
through the medium of the whole; for even as He assumed the body on
account of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He assumed a
body and soul on account of their relation to human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: From these words nothing may be gathered, except
that the Word, by assuming the parts of human nature, assumed the whole
human nature. And thus the assumption of parts is prior in the order of
the intellect, if we consider the operation, but not in order of time;
whereas the assumption of the nature is prior if we consider the
intention: and this is to be simply first, as was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: God is so simple that He is also most perfect;
and hence the whole is more like to God than the parts, inasmuch as it
is more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: It is a personal union wherein the assumption is
terminated, not a union of nature, which springs from a conjunction of
parts.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human nature was assumed through the medium of grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God assumed human nature
through the medium of grace. For by grace we are united to God. But the
human nature in Christ was most closely united to God. Therefore the
union took place by grace.
Objection 2: Further, as the body lives by the soul, which is its
perfection, so does the soul by grace. But the human nature was fitted
for the assumption by the soul. Therefore the Son of God assumed the
soul through the medium of grace.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 11) that the
incarnate Word is like our spoken word. But our word is united to our
speech by means of "breathing" [spiritus]. Therefore the Word of God is
united to flesh by means of the Holy Spirit, and hence by means of
grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit, according to 1 Cor.
12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. "
On the contrary, Grace is an accident in the soul, as was shown above
([3919]FS, Q[110], A[2]). Now the union of the Word with human nature
took place in the subsistence, and not accidentally, as was shown above
(Q[2], A[6]). Therefore the human nature was not assumed by means of
grace.
I answer that, In Christ there was the grace of union and habitual
grace. Therefore grace cannot be taken to be the medium of the
assumption of the human nature, whether we speak of the grace of union
or of habitual grace. For the grace of union is the personal being that
is given gratis from above to the human nature in the Person of the
Word, and is the term of the assumption. Whereas the habitual grace
pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an effect following
the union, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of
the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"---by which we
are given to understand that because this Man (as a result of the
union) is the Only-begotten of the Father, He is full of grace and
truth. But if by grace we understand the will of God doing or bestowing
something gratis, the union took place by grace, not as a means, but as
the efficient cause.
Reply to Objection 1: Our union with God is by operation, inasmuch as
we know and love Him; and hence this union is by habitual grace,
inasmuch as a perfect operation proceeds from a habit. Now the union of
the human nature with the Word of God is in personal being, which
depends not on any habit, but on the nature itself.
Reply to Objection 2: The soul is the substantial perfection of the
body; grace is but an accidental perfection of the soul. Hence grace
cannot ordain the soul to personal union, which is not accidental, as
the soul ordains the body.
Reply to Objection 3: Our word is united to our speech, by means of
breathing [spiritus], not as a formal medium, but as a moving medium.
For from the word conceived within, the breathing proceeds, from which
the speech is formed. And similarly from the eternal Word proceeds the
Holy Spirit, Who formed the body of Christ, as will be shown
([3920]Q[32], A[1]). But it does not follow from this that the grace of
the Holy Spirit is the formal medium in the aforesaid union.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider such things as were co-assumed by the Son of God
in human nature; and first what belongs to perfection; secondly, what
belongs to defect.
Concerning the first, there are three points of consideration: (1) The
grace of Christ; (2) His knowledge; (3) His power.
With regard to His grace we must consider two things: (1) His grace as
He is an individual man; (2) His grace as He is the Head of the Church.
Of the grace of union we have already spoken ([3921]Q[2]).
Under the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?
(2) Whether in Christ there were virtues?
(3) Whether He had faith?
(4) Whether He had hope?
(5) Whether in Christ there were the gifts?
(6) Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?
(7) Whether in Christ there were any gratuitous graces?
(8) Whether in Christ there was prophecy?
(9) Whether there was the fulness of grace in Him?
(10) Whether such fulness was proper to Christ?
(11) Whether the grace of Christ was infinite?
(12) Whether it could have been increased?
(13) How this grace stood towards the union?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the Soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?
Objection 1: It would seem there was no habitual grace in the soul
assumed by the Word. For grace is a certain partaking of the Godhead by
the rational creature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "By Whom He hath given
us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made
partakers of the Divine Nature. " Now Christ is God not by
participation, but in truth. Therefore there was no habitual grace in
Him.
Objection 2: Further, grace is necessary to man, that he may operate
well, according to 1 Cor. 15:10: "I have labored more abundantly than
all they; yet not I, but the grace of God with me"; and in order that
he may reach eternal life, according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of God
(is) life everlasting. " Now the inheritance of everlasting life was due
to Christ by the mere fact of His being the natural Son of God; and by
the fact of His being the Word, by Whom all things were made, He had
the power of doing all things well. Therefore His human nature needed
no further grace beyond union with the Word.
Objection 3: Further, what operates as an instrument does not need a
habit for its own operations, since habits are rooted in the principal
agent. Now the human nature in Christ was "as the instrument of the
Godhead," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15). Therefore there
was no need of habitual grace in Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:2): "The Spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon Him"---which (Spirit), indeed, is said to be in man by
habitual grace, as was said above ([3922]FP, Q[8], A[3]; [3923]FP,
Q[43], AA[3],6). Therefore there was habitual grace in Christ.
I answer that, It is necessary to suppose habitual grace in Christ for
three reasons. First, on account of the union of His soul with the Word
of God. For the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more
does it partake of its influence. Now the influx of grace is from God,
according to Ps. 83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory. " 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.
is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts. Therefore the
Son of God assumed the parts through the medium of the whole.
I answer that, When anything is said to be a medium in the assumption
of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time, because the
assumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous. For it has been
shown ([3918]AA[3] ,4) that the soul and body were mutually united at
the same time in order to constitute the human nature of the Word. But
it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what is prior in
nature, that is assumed which is posterior in nature. Now a thing is
prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the agent, secondly
on the part of the matter; for these two causes precede the thing. On
the part of the agent---that is simply first, which is first included
in his intention; but that is relatively first, with which his
operation begins---and this because the intention is prior to the
operation. On the part of the matter---that is first which exists first
in the transmutation of the matter. Now in the Incarnation the order
depending on the agent must be particularly considered, because, as
Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii), "in such things the whole
reason of the deed is the power of the doer. " But it is manifest that,
according to the intention of the doer, what is complete is prior to
what is incomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it
must be said that the Word of God assumed the parts of human nature,
through the medium of the whole; for even as He assumed the body on
account of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He assumed a
body and soul on account of their relation to human nature.
Reply to Objection 1: From these words nothing may be gathered, except
that the Word, by assuming the parts of human nature, assumed the whole
human nature. And thus the assumption of parts is prior in the order of
the intellect, if we consider the operation, but not in order of time;
whereas the assumption of the nature is prior if we consider the
intention: and this is to be simply first, as was said above.
Reply to Objection 2: God is so simple that He is also most perfect;
and hence the whole is more like to God than the parts, inasmuch as it
is more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3: It is a personal union wherein the assumption is
terminated, not a union of nature, which springs from a conjunction of
parts.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the human nature was assumed through the medium of grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God assumed human nature
through the medium of grace. For by grace we are united to God. But the
human nature in Christ was most closely united to God. Therefore the
union took place by grace.
Objection 2: Further, as the body lives by the soul, which is its
perfection, so does the soul by grace. But the human nature was fitted
for the assumption by the soul. Therefore the Son of God assumed the
soul through the medium of grace.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 11) that the
incarnate Word is like our spoken word. But our word is united to our
speech by means of "breathing" [spiritus]. Therefore the Word of God is
united to flesh by means of the Holy Spirit, and hence by means of
grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit, according to 1 Cor.
12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. "
On the contrary, Grace is an accident in the soul, as was shown above
([3919]FS, Q[110], A[2]). Now the union of the Word with human nature
took place in the subsistence, and not accidentally, as was shown above
(Q[2], A[6]). Therefore the human nature was not assumed by means of
grace.
I answer that, In Christ there was the grace of union and habitual
grace. Therefore grace cannot be taken to be the medium of the
assumption of the human nature, whether we speak of the grace of union
or of habitual grace. For the grace of union is the personal being that
is given gratis from above to the human nature in the Person of the
Word, and is the term of the assumption. Whereas the habitual grace
pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an effect following
the union, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of
the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"---by which we
are given to understand that because this Man (as a result of the
union) is the Only-begotten of the Father, He is full of grace and
truth. But if by grace we understand the will of God doing or bestowing
something gratis, the union took place by grace, not as a means, but as
the efficient cause.
Reply to Objection 1: Our union with God is by operation, inasmuch as
we know and love Him; and hence this union is by habitual grace,
inasmuch as a perfect operation proceeds from a habit. Now the union of
the human nature with the Word of God is in personal being, which
depends not on any habit, but on the nature itself.
Reply to Objection 2: The soul is the substantial perfection of the
body; grace is but an accidental perfection of the soul. Hence grace
cannot ordain the soul to personal union, which is not accidental, as
the soul ordains the body.
Reply to Objection 3: Our word is united to our speech, by means of
breathing [spiritus], not as a formal medium, but as a moving medium.
For from the word conceived within, the breathing proceeds, from which
the speech is formed. And similarly from the eternal Word proceeds the
Holy Spirit, Who formed the body of Christ, as will be shown
([3920]Q[32], A[1]). But it does not follow from this that the grace of
the Holy Spirit is the formal medium in the aforesaid union.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)
We must now consider such things as were co-assumed by the Son of God
in human nature; and first what belongs to perfection; secondly, what
belongs to defect.
Concerning the first, there are three points of consideration: (1) The
grace of Christ; (2) His knowledge; (3) His power.
With regard to His grace we must consider two things: (1) His grace as
He is an individual man; (2) His grace as He is the Head of the Church.
Of the grace of union we have already spoken ([3921]Q[2]).
Under the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry:
(1) Whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?
(2) Whether in Christ there were virtues?
(3) Whether He had faith?
(4) Whether He had hope?
(5) Whether in Christ there were the gifts?
(6) Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?
(7) Whether in Christ there were any gratuitous graces?
(8) Whether in Christ there was prophecy?
(9) Whether there was the fulness of grace in Him?
(10) Whether such fulness was proper to Christ?
(11) Whether the grace of Christ was infinite?
(12) Whether it could have been increased?
(13) How this grace stood towards the union?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the Soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?
Objection 1: It would seem there was no habitual grace in the soul
assumed by the Word. For grace is a certain partaking of the Godhead by
the rational creature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "By Whom He hath given
us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made
partakers of the Divine Nature. " Now Christ is God not by
participation, but in truth. Therefore there was no habitual grace in
Him.
Objection 2: Further, grace is necessary to man, that he may operate
well, according to 1 Cor. 15:10: "I have labored more abundantly than
all they; yet not I, but the grace of God with me"; and in order that
he may reach eternal life, according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of God
(is) life everlasting. " Now the inheritance of everlasting life was due
to Christ by the mere fact of His being the natural Son of God; and by
the fact of His being the Word, by Whom all things were made, He had
the power of doing all things well. Therefore His human nature needed
no further grace beyond union with the Word.
Objection 3: Further, what operates as an instrument does not need a
habit for its own operations, since habits are rooted in the principal
agent. Now the human nature in Christ was "as the instrument of the
Godhead," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15). Therefore there
was no need of habitual grace in Christ.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:2): "The Spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon Him"---which (Spirit), indeed, is said to be in man by
habitual grace, as was said above ([3922]FP, Q[8], A[3]; [3923]FP,
Q[43], AA[3],6). Therefore there was habitual grace in Christ.
I answer that, It is necessary to suppose habitual grace in Christ for
three reasons. First, on account of the union of His soul with the Word
of God. For the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more
does it partake of its influence. Now the influx of grace is from God,
according to Ps. 83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory. " 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.
