Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
We must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and
concerning this there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of His
conception?
(2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will?
(3) Whether in that same instant He could merit?
(4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor?
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not sanctified in the first instant
of His conception. For it is written (@1 Cor. 15:46): "That was not first
which is spiritual, but that which is natural: afterwards that which is
spiritual." But sanctification by grace is something spiritual. Therefore
Christ received the grace of sanctification, not at the very beginning of
His conception, but after a space of time.
Objection 2: Further, sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin:
according to 1 Cor. 6:1: "And such some of you were," namely, sinners,
"but you are washed, but you are sanctified." But sin was never in
Christ. Therefore it was not becoming that He should be sanctified by
grace.
Objection 3: Further, as by the Word of God "all things were made," so from
the Word incarnate all men who are made holy receive holiness, according
to Heb. 2:11: "Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are
all of one." But "the Word of God, by whom all things were made, was not
Himself made"; as Augustine says (De Trin. i). Therefore Christ, by whom
all are made holy, was not Himself made holy.
On the contrary, It is written (@Lk. 1:35): "The Holy which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God"; and (@Jn. 10:36): "Whom the
Father hath sanctified and sent into the world."
I answer that, As stated above (Question [7], Articles [9],10,12), the abundance of
grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the Word,
according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the
Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." For it has been
shown above (Question [33], Articles [2],3) that in the first instant of conception,
Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the Word of God.
Consequently, in the first instant of His conception, Christ had the
fulness of grace sanctifying His body and His soul.
Reply to Objection 1: The order set down by the Apostle in this passage refers to
those who by advancing attain to the spiritual state. But the mystery of
the Incarnation is considered as a condescension of the fulness of the
Godhead into human nature rather than as the promotion of human nature,
already existing, as it were, to the Godhead. Therefore in the man Christ
there was perfection of spiritual life from the very beginning.
Reply to Objection 2: To be sanctified is to be made holy. Now something is made
not only from its contrary, but also from that which is opposite to it,
either by negation or by privation: thus white is made either from black
or from not-white. We indeed from being sinners are made holy: so that
our sanctification is a cleansing from sin. Whereas Christ, as man, was
made holy, because He was not always thus sanctified by grace: yet He was
not made holy from being a sinner, because He never sinned; but He was
made holy from not-holy as man, not indeed by privation, as though He
were at some time a man and not holy; but by negation---that is, when He
was not man He had not human sanctity. Therefore at the same time He was
made man and a holy man. For this reason the angel said (@Lk. 1:35): "The
Holy which shall be born of thee." Which words Gregory expounds as
follows (Moral. xviii): "In order to show the distinction between His
holiness and ours, it is declared that He shall be born holy. For we,
though we are made holy, yet are not born holy, because by the mere
condition of a corruptible nature we are tied . . . But He alone is truly
born holy who . . . was not conceived by the combining of carnal union."
Reply to Objection 3: The Father creates things through the Son, and the whole
Trinity sanctifies men through the Man Christ, but not in the same way.
For the Word of God has the same power and operation as God the Father:
hence the Father does not work through the Son as an instrument, which is
both mover and moved. Whereas the humanity of Christ is as the instrument
of the Godhead, as stated above (Question [7], Article [1], ad 3; Question [8], Article [1], ad 1).
Therefore Christ's humanity is both sanctified and sanctifier.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as man had not the use of free-will in
the first instant of His conception. For a thing is, before it acts or
operates. Now the use of free-will is an operation. Since, therefore,
Christ's soul began to exist in the first instant of His conception, as
was made clear above (Question [33], Article [2]), it seems impossible that He should
have the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception.
Objection 2: Further, the use of free-will consists in choice. But choice
presupposes the deliberation of counsel: for the Philosopher says (Ethic.
iii) that choice is "the desire of what has been previously the object of
deliberation." Therefore it seems impossible that Christ should have had
the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception.
Objection 3: Further, the free-will is "a faculty of the will and reason," as
stated in the FP, Question [83], Article [2], Objection [2]: consequently the use of free-will
is an act of the will and the reason or intellect. But the act of the
intellect presupposes an act of the senses; and this cannot exist without
proper disposition of the organs---a condition which would seem
impossible in the first instant of Christ's conception. Therefore it
seems that Christ could not have the use of free-will at the first
instant of His conception.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Trinity (Gregory:
Regist. ix, Ep. 61): "As soon as the Word entered the womb, while
retaining the reality of His Nature, He was made flesh, and a perfect
man." But a perfect man has the use of free-will. Therefore Christ had
the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), spiritual perfection was becoming
to the human nature which Christ took, which perfection He attained not
by making progress, but by receiving it from the very first. Now ultimate
perfection does not consist in power or habit, but in operation;
wherefore it is said (De Anima ii, text. 5) that operation is a "second
act." We must, therefore, say that in the first instant of His conception
Christ had that operation of the soul which can be had in an instant. And
such is the operation of the will and intellect, in which the use of
free-will consists. For the operation of the intellect and will is sudden
and instantaneous, much more, indeed, than corporeal vision; inasmuch as
to understand, to will, and to feel, are not movements that may be
described as "acts of an imperfect being," which attains perfection
successively, but are "the acts of an already perfect being," as is said,
De Anima iii, text. 28. We must therefore say that Christ had the use of
free-will in the first instant of His conception.
Reply to Objection 1: Existence precedes action by nature, but not in time; but
at the same time the agent has perfect existence, and begins to act
unless it is hindered. Thus fire, as soon as it is generated, begins to
give heat and light. The action of heating, however, is not terminated in
an instant, but continues for a time; whereas the action of giving light
is perfected in an instant. And such an operation is the use of
free-will, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: As soon as counsel or deliberation is ended, there may be
choice. But those who need the deliberation of counsel, as soon as this
comes to an end are certain of what ought to be chosen: and consequently
they choose at once. From this it is clear that the deliberation of
counsel does not of necessity precede choice save for the purpose of
inquiring into what is uncertain. But Christ, in the first instant of His
conception, had the fulness of sanctifying grace, and in like manner the
fulness of known truth; according to Jn. 1:14: "Full of grace and truth."
Wherefore, as being possessed of certainty about all things, He could
choose at once in an instant.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's intellect, in regard to His infused knowledge,
could understand without turning to phantasms, as stated above (Question [11], Article [2]). Consequently His intellect and will could act without any action
of the senses.
Nevertheless it was possible for Him, in the first instant of His
conception, to have an operation of the senses: especially as to the
sense of touch, which the infant can exercise in the womb even before it
has received the rational soul, as is said, De Gener. Animal. ii, 3,4.
Wherefore, since Christ had the rational soul in the first instant of His
conception, through His body being already fashioned and endowed with
sensible organs, much more was it possible for Him to exercise the sense
of touch in that same instant.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit in the first instant of
His conception. For the free-will bears the same relation to merit as to
demerit. But the devil could not sin in the first instant of his
creation, as was shown in the FP, Question [63], Article [5]. Therefore neither could
Christ's soul merit in the first instant of its creation---that is, in
the first instant of Christ's conception.
Objection 2: Further, that which man has in the first instant of his
conception seems to be natural to him: for it is in this that his natural
generation is terminated. But we do not merit by what is natural to us,
as is clear from what has been said in the FS, Question [109], Article [5]; FS, Question [114],
Article [2]. Therefore it seems that the use of free-will, which Christ as man
had in the first instant of His conception, was not meritorious.
Objection 3: Further, that which a man has once merited he makes, in a way,
his own: consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same thing again:
for no one merits what is already his. If, therefore, Christ merited in
the first instant of His conception, it follows that afterwards He
merited nothing. But this is evidently untrue. Therefore Christ did not
merit in the first instant of His conception.
On the contrary, Augustine [*Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov. Test. super
Ex. 40] says: "Increase of merit was absolutely impossible to the soul of
Christ." But increase of merit would have been possible had He not
merited in the first instant of His conception. Therefore Christ merited
in the first instant of His conception.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), Christ was sanctified by grace in
the first instant of His conception. Now, sanctification is twofold: that
of adults who are sanctified in consideration of their own act; and that
of infants who are sanctified in consideration of, not their own act of
faith, but that of their parents or of the Church. The former
sanctification is more perfect than the latter: just as act is more
perfect than habit; and "that which is by itself, than that which is by
another" [*Aristotle, Phys. viii]. Since, therefore, the sanctification
of Christ was most perfect, because He was so sanctified that He might
sanctify others; consequently He was sanctified by reason of His own
movement of the free-will towards God. Which movement, indeed, of the
free-will is meritorious. Consequently, Christ did merit in the first
instant of His conception.
Reply to Objection 1: Free-will does not bear the same relation to good as to
evil: for to good it is related of itself, and naturally; whereas to evil
it is related as to a defect, and beside nature. Now, as the Philosopher
says (De Coelo ii, text. 18): "That which is beside nature is subsequent
to that which is according to nature; because that which is beside nature
is an exception to nature." Therefore the free-will of a creature can be
moved to good meritoriously in the first instant of its creation, but not
to evil sinfully; provided, however, its nature be unimpaired.
Reply to Objection 2: That which man has at the first moment of his creation, in
the ordinary course of nature, is natural to him. but nothing hinders a
creature from receiving from God a gift of grace at the very beginning of
its creation. In this way did Christ's soul in the first instant of its
creation receive grace by which it could merit. And for this reason is
that grace, by way of a certain likeness, said to be natural to this Man,
as explained by Augustine (Enchiridion xl).
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents the same thing belonging to someone from
several causes. And thus it is that Christ was able by subsequent actions
and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality, which He also merited
in the first instant of His conception: not, indeed, so that it became
thereby more due to Him than before, but so that it was due to Him from
more causes than before.
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not a perfect comprehensor in the
first instant of His conception. For merit precedes reward, as fault
precedes punishment. But Christ merited in the first instant of His
conception, as stated above (Article [3]). Since, therefore, the state of
comprehension is the principal reward, it seems that Christ was not a
comprehensor in the first instant of His conception.
Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (@Lk. 24:26): "Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" But glory belongs
to the state of comprehension. Therefore Christ was not in the state of
comprehension in the first instant of His conception, when as yet He had
not suffered.
Objection 3: Further, what befits neither man nor angel seems proper to God;
and therefore is not becoming to Christ as man. But to be always in the
state of beatitude befits neither man nor angel: for if they had been
created in beatitude, they would not have sinned afterwards. Therefore
Christ, as man, was not in the state of beatitude in the first instant of
His conception.
On the contrary, It is written (@Ps. 64:5): "Blessed is he whom Thou hast
chosen, end taken to Thee"; which words, according to the gloss, refer to
Christ's human nature, which "was taken by the Word of God unto the unity
of Person." But human nature was taken by the Word of God in the first
instant of His conception. Therefore, in the first instant of His
conception, Christ, as man, was in the state of beatitude; which is to be
a comprehensor.
I answer that, As appears from what was said above (Article [3]), it was
unbecoming that in His conception Christ should receive merely habitual
grace without the act. Now, He received grace "not by measure" (@Jn. 3:34), as stated above (Question [7], Article [11]). But the grace of the "wayfarer,"
being short of that of the "comprehensor," is in less measure than that
of the comprehensor. Wherefore it is manifest that in the first instant
of His conception Christ received not only as much grace as comprehensors
have, but also greater than that which they all have. And because that
grace was not without its act, it follows that He was a comprehensor in
act, seeing God in His Essence more clearly than other creatures.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question [19], Article [3]), Christ did not merit the
glory of the soul, in respect of which He is said to have been a
comprehensor, but the glory of the body, to which He came through His
Passion.
Wherefore the reply to the Second Objection is clear.
Reply to Objection 3: Since Christ was both God and man, He had, even in His
humanity, something more than other creatures---namely, that He was in
the state of beatitude from the very beginning.