|
State of the question. This article is evidently not strictly
concerned with the increate grace of union, for St. Thomas said:
"The grace of union is the personal being that is given gratis from
above to the human nature in the person of the Word."[949] This
increate grace of union is infinite inasmuch as it is identical with the
very Word of God that terminates the human nature. But it is
strictly a question here of habitual grace which is "an effect
following the union."[950]
Theologians are not all agreed on this point. Major[951] asserts
that Christ's grace is absolutely infinite in intensity.
Maldonatus[952] and Hurtado[953] afterward said the same.
St. Bonaventure, Durandus, Scotus, Ricardus, and the Thomists
Cajetan and Nazarius are of the same opinion, since they taught that
Christ's grace could not be increased by God's absolute power. But
the opposite opinion seems far more probable and more in conformity with
the teaching of St. Thomas, and it is commonly held by theologians,
not only of the Thomist school of thought, but also of other schools.
St. Thomas splendidly presents the difficulty of the question at the
beginning of this article, where he remarks that Christ's grace
appears to be infinite, because the Gospel declares it to be
measureless or immense, saying: "God doth not give His Spirit by
measure";[954] whereas, contrary to this, St. Paul says of
others: "To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure
of the giving of Christ."[955] Moreover, Christ's grace
extends to the whole human race. Finally, if Christ's grace were
finite, then some other person's grace might increase so much as to
equal Christ's grace. These objections consider in habitual grace,
not only the being of grace, but also the nature of grace.
Nevertheless it is evidently true to say that Christ's habitual
grace, inasmuch as it is distinct from His grace of union, is
something created. But everything created is finite, as stated in the
counter-argument of this article. Therefore Christ's habitual grace
must be finite.
How is this question to be solved? The article must be read.
First conclusion. The grace of union is infinite, because it is the
very person of the Word, who terminates Christ's human nature, as
stated above.[956]
Second conclusion. Christ's habitual grace, inasmuch as it is a
being, or considered as an entity, is not physically infinite,
because it is in Christ's soul, as an accident is in its subject.
But Christ's soul is a certain creature having finite capacity. It
will be made clear in the following article that grace can always be
increased, but considered as a being, since it is something created,
it can never be physically and actually infinite.
Third conclusion. Christ's habitual grace, not considered as a
being, but according to what strictly pertains to the notion of grace,
can be termed infinite.[957] Almost all Thomists understand this
conclusion in this sense, namely, that Christ's grace is in its
notion of grace morally infinite, though not physically so.[958]
For St. Thomas says: "As stated above (q. 7, a. 12) there
cannot be a greater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the
union with the Word; and the same is to be said of the perfection of
the divine vision; although, absolutely speaking, there could be a
higher and-more sublime degree by the infinity of the divine
power."[959] He says the same in the reply to the second
objection of the next article of this question.[960] Neither does
St. Thomas say, concerning this third conclusion of ours: "We
must say that Christ's grace, considered as grace, is infinite,"
but he says "it can be termed infinite," which means, if interpreted
in some good sense.
Hence this third conclusion thus understood of grace that is morally
infinite viewed in its specific nature of grace, is easily proved.
Two proofs are given in the body of this article, inasmuch as this
grace is considered both intensively and extensively.
Intensive proof. Christ's habitual grace is intensively infinite
because it has whatever can pertain to the nature of grace, and it is
not bestowed "in a fixed measure," just as we may say that the light
of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but in the nature of
light, inasmuch as it has whatever can pertain to the nature of light.
This means that Christ's habitual grace is according to its intensity
in the highest degree of its excellence capable of being bestowed on
others, at least according to God's ordination and His ordinary
power.[961]
We shall see that it can be increased by God's absolute
power.[962] Moreover, it must be noticed that the three
objections placed at the beginning of the present article conclude that
Christ's grace, considered in its specific nature, is also
infinite, and that this is denied in the counter-argument.
Something of very great importance must be added here which is implied
in the present article,[963] namely, that this habitual grace of
Christ, by reason of its union with the Word, is the principle by
which Christ performs meritorious and satisfactory acts that are
intrinsically and absolutely infinite in value. This infinity,
although it comes from the divine person as the principle that
operates, nevertheless redounds in moral value and worth on the
habitual grace that is the principle by which Christ performs
meritorious acts that are strictly and intrinsically infinite in value.
Farther on we discuss the commonly accepted thesis of Thomists and
almost all theologians, with the exception of Scotists, namely, that
Christ's operations were not only extrinsically accepted by God, but
they were also intrinsically "absolutely infinite in value both for
meriting and for satisfying."[964]
All these things considered, it is no wonder that St. Thomas says
in this article, concerning Christ's habitual grace taken in its
intensity, that it can be termed infinite, viewed in its specific
nature of grace, though he afterward adds that it can be increased by
God's absolute power.[965]
Extensive proof. Christ's habitual grace is at least morally
infinite because, as St. Thomas says in this article, it is
bestowed on Christ's soul, as on a universal principle for bestowing
grace on human nature. St. Paul says: "He hath graced us in His
beloved Son."[966] This means that Christ's habitual grace
extends to all effects that pertain to the nature of grace, even to
those that are syncategorematically infinite. Thus we shall see that
this habitual grace is called the grace of headship, inasmuch as by it
there flows from Christ upon the members of the Church (through the
influx of His merits) grace and glory; but glory is without end,
since it is eternal life.[967]
But if Christ's grace does not extend so far as to merit the
essential grace of Adam in the state of innocence and of the angels,
this is not because it did not have the power, but because these were
not included in the divine ordering. Hence Christ's grace viewed in
its specific nature of grace is morally infinite, both in intensity and
extent.
The answer of St. Thomas, as understood in the sense stated above,
receives its confirmation in the solution of the objections.
First objection. The Gospel declares: "God doth not give the
Spirit by measure[to the Son]."[968] Therefore Christ's
grace is infinite.
St. Thomas replies that the words of the Baptist as recorded by
St. John can refer: (1) either to the eternal and infinite gift,
namely, to the divine nature which the Father from all eternity
communicated to the Son; (2) or to the grace of union that is
infinite inasmuch as the Word terminates the human nature; (3) or
to habitual grace inasmuch as it extends to all that pertains to grace,
namely, to the word of wisdom or to the word of knowledge, or to other
such gifts.
Hence St. Thomas does not concede the conclusion of the objection,
that Christ's habitual grace is absolutely and physically infinite,
so that it cannot be greater by God's absolute power.
Reply to second objection. "The grace of Christ has an infinite
effect," which means that it includes the salvation of the whole human
race "both because of the aforesaid infinity of grace," which for
this reason is called the grace of headship, and because of the
unity[969] of the divine person, to whom Christ's soul is
united. Thus, as we said, Christ's habitual grace, because of its
union with the Word, is the principle by which His meritorious and
satisfactory acts for us were intrinsically of absolutely infinite
validity, and He could have merited eternal life for an ever greater
and vast number of human beings, even though, for example, the
generations of human beings were to continue even after the end of the
world.
By this reply St. Thomas shows that he does not concede the
conclusion of this second objection, which is that Christ's habitual
grace viewed in this sense is absolutely and physically infinite, so
that it cannot by God's absolute power be increased.
Third objection. It states that, "if Christ's grace were finite,
then the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as to
reach to an equality with Christ's grace." The Beghards were
condemned for saying: "If one could always advance in perfection,
then someone more perfect than Christ could be found."[970]
Reply. St. Thomas does not say that Christ's habitual grace is
physically and absolutely infinite viewed in its specific nature of
grace, but he says: "The grace of any man is compared to the grace
of Christ as a particular to a universal power." By way of
illustration, the light of the moon, no matter how much it may
increase in intensity, cannot equal in intensity the light of the sun
from which it receives its light. For the moon does not have its own
light, but transmits the light it has received from the sun. St.
Thomas, in accordance with the physics of ancient times, made use of
another example because he thought the stars were incorruptible, and
the light and heat of the sun were of a kind different from the heat of
terrestrial fire. Spectral analysis, however, has established the
fact that the stars are not incorruptible, but that the same chemical
combinations take place in these as on this earth.
Therefore Christ's habitual grace is a finite being, and viewed in
its specific nature of grace, if it is not physically infinite, is at
least morally infinite, both in its intensity and in its extent,
inasmuch as it concurs with the grace of union to produce merit that is
intrinsically of infinite validity.
Cajetan, in his commentary on this article, adverting to the fact of
his recent elevation to the cardinalate, considers this all the more a
reason why the mysteries of Christ should be examined and made known to
all. His purpose is to show that Christ's habitual grace is in Him
in all the perfection that grace as such can have. In other words,
this grace is in Christ "as in the whole that is equivalent to it as
such," just as heat is not in the air but in the fire; just as a line
could be infinite in length, viewed as a line, although finite as a
being, just as whiteness, which is finite indeed, as a being, since
it is an accident, is intensively infinite in its nature of whiteness,
since there could not be a more perfect whiteness.
Nevertheless Cajetan maintains[971] that Christ's habitual
grace, as well as that of others, is of the same most particular
species, as regards its essence; the difference is only as regards the
mode of its being, just as heat differs in its mode of being as found
in terrestrial fire and in the air.[972]
Let us see in what Cajetan agrees and disagrees with other Thomists.
Cajetan[973] maintains, indeed, with other Thomists, that
charity can always be increased in this life, and that charity in
itself has no ultimately possible degree, because it is a participation
of infinite charity and so it differs from heat and from whiteness.
But Cajetan is not in agreement with other Thomists when he says that
charity in itself does not exclude the highest possible degree of this
virtue, especially so if it is ordered to the greatest possible union,
namely, the hypostatic union, for then it has, as proportionate to
this union, the highest possible degree of this virtue, as heat in
fire, and whiteness in snow.
Other Thomists justly reply to him by saying that there is a greater
difference between habitual grace or charity and natural qualities,
such as heat in fire and whiteness in snow.
First difference. These natural qualities have their own intrinsic
and finite specification, and are not defined with reference to
something else; whereas habitual grace is defined as a formal and
physical participation in the divine nature, the possibility of this
participation being infinite. Thus of itself there is no limit to it,
but it even excludes this, which means that it seeks intrinsically to
have syncategorematically no limitation, which means that the highest
possible degree of habitual grace, or of charity or of the light of
glory, is intrinsically repugnant, just as the absolutely swiftest
motion is a contradiction in terms, for it is always possible to
conceive a swifter motion, accomplished in a shorter time, that is
however distinct from the indivisible instant of time.
Second difference. Natural qualities, such as heat in fire—a better
illustration is whiteness in snow—are natural properties of some
natural and finite substance; whereas habitual grace is not a natural
property of the created intellectual substance, not even of Christ's
soul as united with the Word, because it flows in a certain measure
not necessarily, but freely from the Word, a point that will be more
clearly explained in the following article.[974]
Third difference. Natural qualities, such as heat and whiteness,
are received in the subject according to its passive and finite natural
power, whereas habitual grace is received in the subject not according
to its natural power, but its obediential power. And St. Thomas
says: "The obediential power, inasmuch as it can receive something
from God, is not limited in this respect because, whatever God does
in the creature, there still remains in it the power to accept
something from God."[975]
Finally, grace is something freely given that is dependent in its
measure on the divine good pleasure.
Cajetan seeks to defend his opinion and says: "It is possible for
one to have a higher degree of the vision of God (than the degree
granted to the soul of Christ) from a more sublime intellect equally
illumined,"[976] in other words, if to an equal degree of the
light of glory an angel were assumed by the Word of God into unity of
person.
Other Thomists reply that then the degree of the beatific vision would
not be formally more sublime but only materially; in fact, not even
materially, because this angel would not have a clearer vision of the
divine essence, which is an essentially supernatural object that
absolutely transcends the power of whatsoever created intellect, as
Alvarez remarks.[977]
Cajetan likewise sets forth his same view in his treatise on
charity.[978] He maintains especially in his great commentary,
that charity in this life can always be increased and in itself this
virtue is not found in the highest possible degree, though it does not
exclude this degree, as it excludes mortal sin. In fact, for it to
be proportionate to this union, then charity must be in the highest
possible degree.
Cajetan, seeking to magnify Christ's habitual grace, minimizes the
sublimity of absolutely assumed grace, as we shall see in the
explanation of the following article.
So far, Cajetan asserts but he does not prove that Christ's
habitual grace is not in the highest possible degree. We shall see in
the explanation of the following article what he adds in confirmation of
his special opinion.
|
|
