_______________________
TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 10]
Whether the Union of the Incarnation Took Place by Grace?
Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 2). But the union of the human nature to the Divine did not take place accidentally, as was shown above (A. 6). Therefore it seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace.
Obj. 2: Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written (Col. 2:9): "In Christ [Vulg.: "Him"] dwelleth all the fulness of the G.o.dhead corporeally." Therefore it seems that this union did not take place by grace.
Obj. 3: Further, every saint is united to G.o.d by grace. If, therefore, the union of the Incarnation was by grace, it would seem that Christ is said to be G.o.d no more than other holy men.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): "By the same grace every man is made a Christian, from the beginning of his faith, as this man from His beginning was made Christ." But this man became Christ by union with the Divine Nature. Therefore this union was by grace.
_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 1), grace is taken in two ways:--first, as the will of G.o.d gratuitously bestowing something; secondly, as the free gift of G.o.d. Now human nature stands in need of the gratuitous will of G.o.d in order to be lifted up to G.o.d, since this is above its natural capability. Moreover, human nature is lifted up to G.o.d in two ways: first, by operation, as the saints know and love G.o.d; secondly, by personal being, and this mode belongs exclusively to Christ, in Whom human nature is a.s.sumed so as to be in the Person of the Son of G.o.d. But it is plain that for the perfection of operation the power needs to be perfected by a habit, whereas that a nature has being in its own suppositum does not take place by means of a habit.
And hence we must say that if grace be understood as the will of G.o.d gratuitously doing something or reputing anything as well-pleasing or acceptable to Him, the union of the Incarnation took place by grace, even as the union of the saints with G.o.d by knowledge and love. But if grace be taken as the free gift of G.o.d, then the fact that the human nature is united to the Divine Person may be called a grace, inasmuch as it took place without being preceded by any merits--but not as though there were an habitual grace, by means of which the union took place.
Reply Obj. 1: The grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of the Divinity partic.i.p.ated by man. But by the Incarnation human nature is not said to have partic.i.p.ated a likeness of the Divine nature, but is said to be united to the Divine Nature itself in the Person of the Son. Now the thing itself is greater than a partic.i.p.ated likeness of it.
Reply Obj. 2: Habitual grace is only in the soul; but the grace, i.e.
the free gift of G.o.d, of being united to the Divine Person belongs to the whole human nature, which is composed of soul and body. And hence it is said that the fulness of the G.o.dhead dwelt corporeally in Christ because the Divine Nature is united not merely to the soul, but to the body also. Although it may also be said that it dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. not as in a shadow, as it dwelt in the sacraments of the old law, of which it is said in the same place (Col. 2:17) that they are the "shadow of things to come but the body is Christ" [Vulg.: "Christ"s"], inasmuch as the body is opposed to the shadow. And some say that the G.o.dhead is said to have dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. in three ways, just as a body has three dimensions: first, by essence, presence, and power, as in other creatures; secondly, by sanctifying grace, as in the saints; thirdly, by personal union, which is proper to Christ.
Hence the reply to the third is manifest, viz. because the union of the Incarnation did not take place by habitual grace alone, but in subsistence or person.
_______________________
ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 11]
Whether Any Merits Preceded the Union of the Incarnation?
Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation followed upon certain merits, because upon Ps. 32:22, "Let Thy mercy, o Lord, be upon us, as," etc. a gloss says: "Here the prophet"s desire for the Incarnation and its merited fulfilment are hinted at." Therefore the Incarnation falls under merit.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever merits anything merits that without which it cannot be. But the ancient Fathers merited eternal life, to which they were able to attain only by the Incarnation; for Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Those who came into this world before Christ"s coming, whatsoever eminency of righteousness they may have had, could not, on being divested of the body, at once be admitted into the bosom of the heavenly country, seeing that He had not as yet come Who, by His own descending, should place the souls of the righteous in their everlasting seat." Therefore it would seem that they merited the Incarnation.
Obj. 3: Further, of the Blessed Virgin it is sung that "she merited to bear the Lord of all" [*Little Office of B. V. M., Dominican Rite, Ant. at Benedictus], and this took place through the Incarnation.
Therefore the Incarnation falls under merit.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): "Whoever can find merits preceding the singular generation of our Head, may also find merits preceding the repeated regeneration of us His members."
But no merits preceded our regeneration, according to t.i.tus 3:5: "Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the laver of regeneration." Therefore no merits preceded the generation of Christ.
_I answer that,_ With regard to Christ Himself, it is clear from the above (A. 10) that no merits of His could have preceded the union.
For we do not hold that He was first of all a mere man, and that afterwards by the merits of a good life it was granted Him to become the Son of G.o.d, as Photinus held; but we hold that from the beginning of His conception this man was truly the Son of G.o.d, seeing that He had no other hypostasis but that of the Son of G.o.d, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of G.o.d." And hence every operation of this man followed the union.
Therefore no operation of His could have been meritorious of the union.
Neither could the needs of any other man whatsoever have merited this union condignly: first, because the meritorious works of man are properly ordained to beat.i.tude, which is the reward of virtue, and consists in the full enjoyment of G.o.d. Whereas the union of the Incarnation, inasmuch as it is in the personal being, transcends the union of the beatified mind with G.o.d, which is by the act of the soul in fruition; and therefore it cannot fall under merit. Secondly, because grace cannot fall under merit, for the principle of merit does not fall under merit; and therefore neither does grace, for it is the principle of merit. Hence, still less does the Incarnation fall under merit, since it is the principle of grace, according to John 1:17: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Thirdly, because the Incarnation is for the reformation of the entire human nature, and therefore it does not fall under the merit of any individual man, since the goodness of a mere man cannot be the cause of the good of the entire nature. Yet the holy Fathers merited the Incarnation congruously by desiring and beseeching; for it was becoming that G.o.d should harken to those who obeyed Him.
And thereby the reply to the First Objection is manifest.
Reply Obj. 2: It is false that under merit falls everything without which there can be no reward. For there is something pre-required not merely for reward, but also for merit, as the Divine goodness and grace and the very nature of man. And again, the mystery of the Incarnation is the principle of merit, because "of His fulness we all have received" (John 1:16).
Reply Obj. 3: The Blessed Virgin is said to have merited to bear the Lord of all; not that she merited His Incarnation, but because by the grace bestowed upon her she merited that grade of purity and holiness, which fitted her to be the Mother of G.o.d.
_______________________
TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 12]
Whether the Grace of Union Was Natural to the Man Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace of union was not natural to the man Christ. For the union of the Incarnation did not take place in the nature, but in the Person, as was said above (A. 2). Now a thing is denominated from its terminus. Therefore this grace ought rather to be called personal than natural.
Obj. 2: Further, grace is divided against nature, even as gratuitous things, which are from G.o.d, are distinguished from natural things, which are from an intrinsic principle. But if things are divided in opposition to one another, one is not denominated by the other.
Therefore the grace of Christ was not natural to Him.
Obj. 3: Further, natural is that which is according to nature. But the grace of union is not natural to Christ in regard to the Divine Nature, otherwise it would belong to the other Persons; nor is it natural to Him according to the human nature, otherwise it would belong to all men, since they are of the same nature as He. Therefore it would seem that the grace of union is nowise natural to Christ.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "In the a.s.sumption of human nature, grace itself became somewhat natural to that man, so as to leave no room for sin in Him."
_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), nature designates, in one way, nativity; in another, the essence of a thing.
Hence natural may be taken in two ways: first, for what is only from the essential principles of a thing, as it is natural to fire to mount; secondly, we call natural to man what he has had from his birth, according to Eph. 2:3: "We were by nature children of wrath"; and Wis. 12:10: "They were a wicked generation, and their malice natural." Therefore the grace of Christ, whether of union or habitual, cannot be called natural as if caused by the principles of the human nature of Christ, although it may be called natural, as if coming to the human nature of Christ by the causality of His Divine Nature. But these two kinds of grace are said to be natural to Christ, inasmuch as He had them from His nativity, since from the beginning of His conception the human nature was united to the Divine Person, and His soul was filled with the gift of grace.
Reply Obj. 1: Although the union did not take place in the nature, yet it was caused by the power of the Divine Nature, which is truly the nature of Christ, and it, moreover, belonged to Christ from the beginning of His nativity.
Reply Obj. 2: The union is not said to be grace and natural in the same respect; for it is called grace inasmuch as it is not from merit; and it is said to be natural inasmuch as by the power of the Divine Nature it was in the humanity of Christ from His nativity.
Reply Obj. 3: The grace of union is not natural to Christ according to His human nature, as if it were caused by the principles of the human nature, and hence it need not belong to all men. Nevertheless, it is natural to Him in regard to the human nature on account of the _property_ of His birth, seeing that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so that He might be the natural Son of G.o.d and of man. But it is natural to Him in regard to the Divine Nature, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the active principle of this grace; and this belongs to the whole Trinity--to wit, to be the active principle of this grace.
_______________________
QUESTION 3
OF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON a.s.sUMING (In Eight Articles)
We must now consider the union on the part of the Person a.s.suming, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether to a.s.sume is befitting to a Divine Person?
(2) Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature?
(3) Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can a.s.sume?
(4) Whether one Person can a.s.sume without another?
(5) Whether each Person can a.s.sume?
(6) Whether several Persons can a.s.sume one individual nature?
(7) Whether one Person can a.s.sume two individual natures?
(8) Whether it was more fitting for the Person of the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume human nature than for another Divine Person?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 1]