Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de perfectione prolis conceptae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum in primo instanti conceptionis Christus fuerit sanctificatus per gratiam. | (1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of His conception? |
| Secundo, utrum in eodem instanti habuerit usum liberi arbitrii. | (2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will? |
| Tertio, utrum in eodem instanti potuerit mereri. | (3) Whether in that same instant He could merit? |
| Quarto, utrum in eodem instanti fuerit plene comprehensor. | (4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 34 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non fuerit sanctificatus in primo instanti suae conceptionis. Dicitur enim I Cor. XV, non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale, deinde quod spirituale. Sed sanctificatio gratiae pertinet ad spiritualitatem. Non ergo statim a principio suae conceptionis Christus percepit gratiam sanctificationis, sed post aliquod spatium temporis. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sanctificatio videtur esse a peccato, secundum illud I Cor. VI, et hoc quidem fuistis aliquando, scilicet peccatores, sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis. Sed in Christo nunquam fuit peccatum. Ergo non convenit sibi sanctificari per gratiam. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut per verbum Dei omnia facta sunt, ita per verbum incarnatum sunt omnes homines sanctificati qui sanctificantur, Heb. II, qui sanctificat et qui sanctificantur ex uno omnes. Sed verbum Dei, per quod facta sunt omnia, non est factum, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin. Ergo Christus, per quem sanctificantur omnes, non est sanctificatus. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. I, quod ex te nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei. Et Ioan. X, quem pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, abundantia gratiae sanctificantis animam Christi derivatur ex ipsa verbi unione, secundum illud Ioan. I, vidimus gloriam eius quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Ostensum est autem supra quod in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi animatum fuit et a verbo Dei assumptum. Unde consequens est quod in primo instanti conceptionis Christus habuit plenitudinem gratiae sanctificantis animam et corpus eius. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille ordo quem ponit ibi apostolus, pertinet ad eos qui per profectum ad spiritualem statum perveniunt. In mysterio autem incarnationis magis consideratur descensus divinae plenitudinis in naturam humanam, quam profectus humanae naturae, quasi praeexistentis, in Deum. Et ideo in homine Christo a principio fuit perfecta spiritualitas. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sanctificari est aliquid fieri sanctum. Fit autem aliquid non solum ex contrario, sed etiam ex negative vel privative opposito, sicut album fit ex nigro, et etiam ex non albo. Nos autem ex peccatoribus sancti efficimur, et ita sanctificatio nostra est ex peccato. Sed Christus quidem, secundum hominem, factus est sanctus, quia hanc gratiae sanctitatem non semper habuit, non tamen factus est sanctus ex peccatore, quia peccatum nunquam habuit; sed factus est sanctus ex non sancto secundum hominem, non quidem privative, ut scilicet aliquando fuerit homo et non fuerit sanctus, sed negative, quia scilicet, quando non fuit homo, non habuit sanctitatem humanam. Et ideo simul factus fuit homo et sanctus homo. Propter quod Angelus dixit, Luc. I, quod nascetur ex te sanctum. Quod exponens Gregorius, XVIII Moral., dicit, ad distinctionem nostrae sanctitatis, Iesus sanctus nasciturus asseritur. Nos quippe, si sancti efficimur, non tamen nascimur, quia ipsa naturae corruptibilis conditione constringimur. Ille autem solus veraciter sanctus natus est, qui ex coniunctione carnalis copulae conceptus non est. | 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." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod aliter operatur pater creationem rerum per filium, aliter tota Trinitas sanctificationem hominum per hominem Christum. Nam verbum Dei est eiusdem virtutis et operationis cum Deo patre, unde pater non operatur per filium sicut per instrumentum, quod movet motum. Humanitas autem Christi est sicut instrumentum divinitatis, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo humanitas Christi est sanctificans et sanctificata. | 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 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus, secundum hominem, non habuerit usum liberi arbitrii in primo instanti suae conceptionis. Prius est enim esse rei quam agere vel operari. Usus autem liberi arbitrii est quaedam operatio. Cum ergo anima Christi esse incoeperit in primo instanti conceptionis, ut ex praedictis patet, videtur esse impossibile quod in primo instanti conceptionis habuit usum liberi arbitrii. | 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. |
| Praeterea, usus liberi arbitrii est electio. Electio autem praesupponit deliberationem consilii, dicit enim philosophus, in III Ethic., quod electio est appetitus praeconsiliati. Ergo videtur impossibile quod in primo instanti suae conceptionis Christus habuerit usum liberi arbitrii. | 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. |
| Praeterea, liberum arbitrium est facultas voluntatis et rationis, ut in prima parte habitum est, et ita usus liberi arbitrii est actus voluntatis et rationis, sive intellectus. Sed actus intellectus praesupponit actum sensus, qui esse non potest sine convenientia organorum, quae non videtur fuisse in primo instanti conceptionis Christi. Ergo videtur quod Christus non potuerit habere usum liberi arbitrii in primo instanti suae conceptionis. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Trin., mox ut verbum venit in uterum, servata veritate propriae naturae, factum est caro et perfectus homo. Sed perfectus homo habet usum liberi arbitrii. Ergo Christus habuit in primo instanti suae conceptionis usum liberi arbitrii. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, naturae humanae quam Christus assumpsit, convenit spiritualis perfectio, in quam non profecit, sed eam statim a principio habuit. Perfectio autem ultima non consistit in potentia vel in habitu, sed in operatione, unde in II de anima dicitur quod operatio est actus secundus. Et ideo dicendum est quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis habuit illam operationem animae quae potest in instanti haberi. Talis autem est operatio voluntatis et intellectus, in qua consistit usus liberi arbitrii. Subito enim et in instanti perficitur operatio intellectus et voluntatis, multo magis quam visio corporalis, eo quod intelligere, velle et sentire non est motus qui sit actus imperfecti, quod successive perficitur; sed est actus iam perfecti, ut dicitur in III de anima. Et ideo dicendum est quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis habuit usum liberi arbitrii. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod esse est prius natura quam agere, non tamen est prius tempore, sed, simul cum agens habet esse perfectum, incipit agere, nisi sit aliquid impediens. Sicut ignis, simul cum generatur, incipit calefacere et illuminare. Sed calefactio non terminatur in instanti, sed per temporis successionem, illuminatio autem perficitur in instanti. Et talis operatio est usus liberi arbitrii, ut dictum est. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, simul cum terminatur consilium vel deliberatio, potest esse electio. Illi autem qui deliberatione consilii indigent, in ipsa terminatione consilii primo habent certitudinem de eligendis, et ideo statim eligunt. Ex quo patet quod deliberatio consilii non praeexigitur ad electionem nisi propter inquisitionem incerti. Christus autem in primo instanti suae conceptionis, sicut habuit plenitudinem gratiae iustificantis ita habuit plenitudinem veritatis cognitae, secundum illud, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Unde, quasi habens omnium certitudinem, potuit statim in instanti eligere. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod intellectus Christi, secundum scientiam infusam, poterat intelligere etiam non convertendo se ad phantasmata, ut supra habitum est. Unde poterat in eo esse operatio voluntatis et intellectus absque operatione sensus. | 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. |
| Sed tamen potuit in eo esse etiam operatio sensus in primo instanti suae conceptionis, maxime quantum ad sensum tactus, quo sensu proles concepta sentit in matre etiam antequam animam rationalem obtineat, ut dicitur in libro de Generat. Animal. Unde, cum Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis habuit animam rationalem, formato iam et organizato corpore eius, multo magis in eodem instanti poterat habere operationem sensus tactus. | 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 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis mereri non potuerit. Sicut enim se habet liberum arbitrium ad merendum, ita ad demerendum. Sed Diabolus in primo instanti suae creationis non potuit peccare, ut in prima parte habitum est. Ergo neque anima Christi in primo instanti suae creationis, quod fuit primum instans conceptionis Christi, potuit mereri. | 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. |
| Praeterea, illud quod homo habet in primo instanti suae conceptionis, videtur ei esse naturale, quia hoc est ad quod terminatur sua generatio naturalis. Sed naturalibus non meremur, ut patet ex his quae dicta sunt in secunda parte. Ergo videtur quod usus liberi arbitrii quem Christus habuit secundum hominem in primo instanti suae conceptionis, non fuerit meritorius. | 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. |
| Praeterea, illud quod semel aliquis meruit, iam facit quodammodo suum, et ita non videtur quod iterum possit illud idem mereri, quia nullus meretur quod suum est. Si ergo Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis meruit, sequitur quod postea nihil meruerit. Quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis meruit. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, super Exod., non habuit omnino Christus, iuxta animae meritum, quo potuisset proficere. Potuisset autem proficere in merito si in primo instanti suae conceptionis non meruisset. Ergo in primo instanti suae conceptionis meruit Christus. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus in primo instanti conceptionis suae sanctificatus fuit per gratiam. Est autem duplex sanctificatio, una quidem adultorum, qui secundum proprium actum sanctificantur; alia autem puerorum, qui non sanctificantur secundum proprium actum fidei, sed secundum fidem parentum vel Ecclesiae. Prima autem sanctificatio est perfectior quam secunda, sicut actus est perfectior quam habitus; et quod est per se, eo quod est per aliud. Cum ergo sanctificatio Christi fuerit perfectissima, quia sic sanctificatus est ut esset aliorum sanctificator; consequens est quod ipse secundum proprium motum liberi arbitrii in Deum fuerit sanctificatus. Qui quidem motus liberi arbitrii est meritorius. Unde consequens est quod in primo instanti suae conceptionis Christus meruerit. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod liberum arbitrium non eodem modo se habet ad bonum et ad malum, nam ad bonum se habet per se et naturaliter; ad malum autem se habet per modum defectus, et praeter naturam. Sicut autem philosophus dicit, in II de caelo, posterius est quod est praeter naturam, eo quod est secundum naturam, quia id quod est praeter naturam, est quaedam excisio ab eo quod est secundum naturam. Et ideo liberum arbitrium creaturae in primo instanti creationis potest moveri ad bonum merendo, non autem ad malum peccando, si tamen natura sit integra. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod homo habet in principio suae creationis secundum communem naturae cursum, est homini naturale, nihil tamen prohibet quin aliqua creatura in principio suae creationis aliquod beneficium gratiae a Deo consequatur. Et hoc modo anima Christi in principio suae creationis consecuta est gratiam, qua posset mereri. Et ea ratione gratia illa, secundum quandam similitudinem, dicitur fuisse illi homini naturalis, ut patet per Augustinum, in Enchirid. | 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). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil prohibet idem esse alicuius ex diversis causis. Et secundum hoc, Christus gloriam immortalitatis, quam meruit in primo instanti suae conceptionis, potuit etiam posterioribus actibus et passionibus mereri, non quidem ut esset sibi magis debita; sed ut sibi ex pluribus causis deberetur. | 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 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non fuerit perfectus comprehensor in primo instanti suae conceptionis. Meritum enim praecedit praemium, sicut et culpa poenam. Sed Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis meruit, sicut dictum est. Cum ergo status comprehensoris sit principale praemium, videtur quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis non fuerit comprehensor. | 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. |
| Praeterea, dominus dicit, Luc. ult., haec oportuit Christum pati, et ita intrare in gloriam suam. Sed gloria pertinet ad statum comprehensionis. Ergo Christus non fuit in statu comprehensoris in primo instanti suae conceptionis, quando adhuc nullam sustinuit passionem. | 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. |
| Praeterea, illud quod non convenit nec homini nec Angelo, videtur esse proprium Deo, et ita non convenit Christo secundum quod homo. Sed semper esse beatum non convenit nec homini nec Angelo, si enim fuissent conditi beati, postmodum non peccassent. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, non fuit beatus in primo instanti suae conceptionis. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, beatus quem elegisti et assumpsisti, quod, secundum Glossam, refertur ad humanam naturam Christi, quae assumpta est a verbo Dei in unitatem personae. Sed in primo instanti conceptionis fuit assumpta humana natura a verbo Dei. Ergo in primo instanti suae conceptionis Christus, secundum quod homo, fuit beatus. Quod est esse comprehensorem. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, non fuit conveniens ut Christus in sua conceptione acciperet gratiam habitualem tantum absque actu. Accepit autem gratiam non ad mensuram, ut supra habitum est. Gratia autem viatoris, cum sit deficiens a gratia comprehensoris, habet mensuram minorem respectu comprehensoris. Unde manifestum est quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis accepit non solum tantam gratiam quantam comprehensores habent, sed etiam omnibus comprehensoribus maiorem. Et quia gratia illa non fuit sine actu, consequens est quod actu fuit comprehensor, videndo Deum per essentiam clarius ceteris creaturis. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Christus non meruit gloriam animae, secundum quam dicitur comprehensor, sed gloriam corporis, ad quam per suam passionem pervenit. | 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. |
| Unde patet responsio ad secundum. | Wherefore the reply to the Second Objection is clear. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus, ex hoc quod fuit Deus et homo, etiam in sua humanitate habuit aliquid prae ceteris creaturis, ut scilicet statim a principio esset beatus. | 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. |