III. ogy.

24 Cfr. Schema Constit. Vat. (Col-
214 UNITY IN DUALITY
pressly secured against theological censure by a decree of Paul V. (3) The third opinion is that of Peter Lom- bard,^^ adopted by St. Thomas,^'* and championed by his entire school as well as by all Jesuit theologians. It holds that Christ is impeccable by virtue of an intrinsic quality of the will resulting from the Hypostatic Union of the two natures. This is called impeccabilitas interna.
a) The Bible does not expressly teach the im- peccability of our Divine Saviour, but the texts we have quoted in support of His sinlessness go far towards proving that He was incapable of sinning. The Fathers and the early councils of the Church unanimously uphold the impeccability of our Divine Redeemer and trace it to the Hypo- static Union.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, e. g., says : " All those who maintain that Christ was able to commit sin — I know not how — are foolish and destitute of reason." ^° St. Augustine teaches that the Hypostatic Union makes it impossible for Christ to sin. " It was by this [the grace of God] ," he says, " that a man, without any antecedent merit, was at the very moment of His existence as man so united in one person with the Word of God, that the very person who was Son of man was at the same time Son of God, and the very person who was Son of God was at the same time Son of man ; and by the adoption of His human nature into the divine, the grace itself became in a way so natural to the man as to leave no room for the entrance of sin." '^ Similarly St. Leo
28 Lt&, Sent., Ill, dist. 12. il Enchiridion c. 40: ". . . ut
205. Thcol., 3a, qu. 15, art. 1. idem ipse essci Filius Dei qui filius
30 Anthropom., c. 23. hominis el filius hominis qui Filius
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 215
the Great : " For we should not be able to vanquish the author of sin and death, were it not for the fact that our nature was assumed and appropriated by Him whom sin cannot sully and death cannot claim." ^- Fulgentius' teaching on this point is distinguished by extraordinary clearness. " The Godhead cannot be overcome," he says, " therefore also the humanity of Christ remained with- out sin, because it was assumed into the Godhead, which of its very nature is incapable of committing sin." ^^ In conformity with the teaching of the Fathers the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) defined: " Sicut enim eius caro Dei Verhi dicitur et est, ita et naturalis caniis eius voluntas propria Dei Verbi^* dicitur et est; . . . hu- mana eius voluntas deificata ^° non est perempta, salvata est autem magis secundum deiloquum Gregorium dicen- tem: 'Nam illius velle, quod in Salvatore intelligitur, non est contrarium Deo, deificatum totum.' " ^'
b) The theological reasons for Christ's impec- cability are trenchantly set forth by St. Thomas as follows: "Simpliciter loqiiendo Christus nun- quam potuit peccare. Potest enim considerari lit viator vel lit comprehensor [sell, per visionem
Dei: ac sic in naturae humanae sus- 33 Ad Trasam., Ill, 29: " Deitas
ceptione fieret quodammodo ipsa non potest superari; propterea uti-
gratia illi homini naturalis, quae nul- que etiam Christi humanitas sine
lum peccatum possit admittere." peccato permansit, quia earn in uni-
(Cfr. St. Augustine, De Corr. et tate personae divinitas accepit, quae
Grat., XI, 30; De Praedest. Sanctor., naturaliter peccare non noz-it."
XV, 30). 34 ^cXtj^q Ibiov Tov Qeov AoyoV'
32 Ep. Dogmat. ad Flavian., c. 2 : 35 SeXrj/ia OewQiv.
" Non enim superare possemus pec- 36 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En-
cati et mortis auctorem, nisi na- chiridion, a, 291. Other proofs can
turam nostram ille susciperet et be found in Petavius, De Incarn.,
suam faceret, quam nee peccatum XI, 1 1 ; Vasquez, Comment, in S.
contaminare nee mors potuit de- Th., Ill, disp. 61, c. 3; Suarez, De
tinere." Incarn., disp. 35, sect. 2.
2i6 UNITY IN DUALITY
beatificam] vel ut Deus. Ut viator quidem dux videtur esse dirigens nos secundum viam r eat am; . . . secundum quod fuit comprehensor, mens ems totaliter est coniuncta fini. . . . Secundum autem quod fuit Deus, et anima et corpus eius fuerunt organum deitatis, . , . unde peccatum non poterat attingere ad eius animam, sicut nee Deus potest peccare." ^^ Accordingly, the im- peccability of Christ is based on these three grounds : ( i ) His mission as leader of the hu- man race, (2) the fact that He always enjoyed the beatific vision, and (3) the Hypostatic Union of the two natures. Of these grounds the last is no doubt the strongest, in fact it is the only de- cisive one among the three. On this account the Fathers laid particular stress on the considera- tion that it would be just as reasonable to as- sume that the Godhead is capable of sinning as that the Logos should permit His human na- ture, which, in consequence of the Hypostatic Union, is entirely His own, to be tainted by even the slightest sin.
Durandus tried to weaken the force of this conclu- sion by objecting that sin is no more repugnant to the infinite holiness of the Logos than death is repugnant to His eternity. But it is contrary to Christian sen- timent to say that the Logos, by virtue of the Communi- cation of Idioms, is fully as capable of committing sin as
3T Com. in Quatuor Libras Sent., Ill, dist. la, qu. 3, art. i.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 217
He is of suffering and dying. Passibility is no disgrace, but sin is. Being a mere tnalum poenae, passibility may even, for the purposes of salvation, become a honiim, and as such be assumed into and sanctified by the Hypostatic Union. Sin, on the other hand, being a malum culpae, is absolutely and under all circumstances repugnant to the holiness of God. Hence there is no parity between death and sin.^®
c) But if Christ could not sin, how can He be said to have had a free will? And how was it possible for Him to take upon Himself suffering and death voluntarily in expiation of our sins ? This is a serious difficulty; indeed De Lugo does not hesitate to call it one of the gravest problems of theology.^^
Despite our inability fully to reconcile these two truths, we must uphold our Lord's free will as staunchly as the reality of His human nature. Cfr. John X, 18: " Sed ego potto earn [scil. animam] a meipso, et po- testatem habeo *" ponendi earn {scil. moriendi] et potesta- tem habeo iteriim siimendi earn: hoc mandatum *^ accept a Patre meo — But I lay it [t, e., my life] down of my- self, and I have power to lay it down [i. e., to die] ; and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father." *^ St. Augustine teaches : " The spirit of the Mediator showed how it was through no punishment of sin that He came to the
38 Cfr. Tepe, Instit. TheoL, Vol. giae." {De Myst. Incarn., disp. 26, III, pp. 582 sqq. ; Janssens, De Deo- sect. 2.)
Homine, I, pp. 666 sqq.; Franzelin, *0 i^ovffiaf >.
De Verba Incarnato, thes. 43. 41 evroKiiv
39 " Una ex gravissimis theolo- 42 Cfr. Is. LIU, 7.
2i8 UNITY IN DUALITY
death of the flesh, because He did not leave it against His will, but because He willed, when He willed, as He willed." "
The difficulty of reconciling these two dogmas is well brought out by the following dilemma : In suffering for us, Christ, as man, either acted of His own free choice or not. If He was not free, His Passion lacked meri- toriousness and therefore had no power to redeem us. If He zvas free. He was able to rebel against the com- mandment (mandatum) of the Father, i. e., to sin. Con- sequently, it is necessary to deny either His* free-will or His impeccability.
The Scholastics have suggested a variety of theories to escape this dilemma, Francis Amicus, S. J.,** enu- merates no less than eleven different solutions, of which the eleventh can be formulated in seven different ways. In spite of this emharras de richesse no really satisfac- tory solution of the difficulty has yet been found. We shall briefly review the more probable suggestions.
a) One of the first attempts to solve the difficulty was made by Francis De Lugo (d. 1660). Though at first considered " singular," it subsequently obtained con- siderable renown through the authority of Petavius, Pal- lavicini, Velasquez, Riva, and others. De Lugo held that neither the free-will of Christ nor the meritoriousness of His passion and death was affected by the " command- ment of the Father," because this commandment was not a " precept " *° binding strictly under pain of sin, but purely a paternal " wish," *® which the Son accepted of His own free choice, and which by this acceptance,
a" Demonstravit spiritus Media- voluit." {De Trinit., IV, 13, 16.)
toris, quam nulla poena peccati us- 44 Died 1651.
que ad mortem carnis accesserit, 45 Pracceptum.
quia non earn deseruit invitus, scd 40 Bcneplacitum. quia voluit, qudndo voluit, quomodo
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 219
with the consent of the Father, from a conditional be- came an absohite mode of redemption.*^
This view seems to have been, shared by St. Anselm.*' What are we to think of it? The rules of sound exe- gesis will hardly permit us to regard the mandatum Pafris as a mere beneplacitum, because throughout the Xew Testament maudatitm (cvtoA^) is employed as a technical term to describe a strict precept.*^ More- over, in enforcing the duty of obedience to God's com- mands, Christ never once makes an exception in His own favor. On the contrary. He expressly declares: " Si praecepta mea °" servaveritis, manehitis in dilectione mea, stent et ego Patris met praecepta ^^ servavi, et tnaneo in eius dilectione — If you keep my command- ments, you shall abide in my love, as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love." "* Our Divine Saviour Himself religiously practiced the virtue of obedience. Cf r. Phil. II, 8 : " He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross." Obedience, in the words of St. Thomas, " is a special virtue, and its special object is a precept, tacit or expressed." ^^ For these and other reasons De Lugo's theory is combated by the Thomists,®*
47 " Praeceptum illud et manda- nibus profuturum intellexit, hoc
turn, quod Christo Pater edidisse sponte fecit." {Medit. de Redempt.,
dicitur, ... non absolutum im- XL)
perium videtur fuisse, sed simplex 49 Cfr. Matth. V, 19, XXII, 36;
significatio consilii ac voluntatis John X, 18, XII, 49,
suae, qua multa illi proponebat 50 j-ay evroKa.^ liov.
Pater ad humanam recuperandam 5i rov irarpos nov ras ivToKas,
salutem remedia: ex quibus quod 52 John XV, 10.
vellet eligeret, adeo ut, quidquid ex 63 " Obedientia est specialis virtus
omnibus capesseret, id sibi gratum et eius speciale obiectum est prae-
esse ac placere monstraret." (Pe- ceptum taciturn vel expressum."
tavius, De Incarn., IX, 8, 6.) (5". Theol., 2a aae, qu. 104, art. 2.)
48 " Non enim illi homini Pater, 54 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss.
ut moreretur, cogendo praecepit, sed 18, art. 4, | i. tile, quod Patri placiturum et homi- 16
220 UNITY IN DUALITY
the Scotists, and many Jesuit theologians, e. g., Suarez, Vasquez, Gregory of Valentia, Toletus, John De Lugo,^^ Chr. Pesch, and Tepe.
^) A second theory for solving the difficulty was ex- cogitated by Ysambert,^* and adopted by Gregory of Valentia, Vasquez, and Lessius. Cardinal Franzelin re- gards it as equally probable with the one already dis- cussed.^'^ It may be summarized as follows: The Father (or the Blessed Trinity) enjoined upon the Son a rigorous precept to die, biit the manner of its execution (time, place, motives, circumstances, etc.) was left to the Redeemer's own free decision. In other words : the " commandment " of the Father regarded only the sub- stance of the atonement but left all accidental cir- cumstances to the free determination of the Son. Or, in the technical language of the Schoolmen : While Christ's death was of strict precept in genere, not so its exe- cution in individuo. But does not this theory un- duly restrict the free will of our Blessed Redeemer by limiting it to the mode and circumstances of the di- vine command? Ysambert and his followers met this objection by asserting that the innumerable circumstances surrounding its execution were so intimately bound up with the command itself that substance and accidents were really inseparable. Did not the holy martyrs, too, die freely for the faith, though they were condemned to death? Under the circumstances they could not have escaped martyrdom, yet it is accounted to them as a meritorious deed and they are rewarded for it. This explanation has the advantage that it does not do violence
B8 Cardinal John De Lugo was a bo Comment, in S. TheoL, III, qu.
brother of P. Francis De Lugo. i8, disp. 2, art. 6.
Both were eminent theologians and BT De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 44. members of the Society of Jesus.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 221
to the Biblical term mandatum (evToXrj). Nevertheless it is not altogether convincing. To assert that our Lord en- joyed freedom of choice only with regard to the con- crete circumstances of His death, is tantamount to ad- mitting that He was not free to die or not to die. But Holy Scripture bases the value and meritoriousness of His death upon the substantia mortis as well as upon its modus.^^ Consequently this theory does not do full jus- tice to the sense of Scripture. In the words of De Lugo : " Videtur non trihucndum Christo ad laudem, quod mor- tuus fuerit sitnpliciter et absolute . . . nee redemisse homines, quia mortuus, sed quia tunc vel libentius vel ex tali motivo mortuus fuerit." ^^ In spite of these objec- tions, however, Ysambert's theory is not altogether devoid of probability.
y) A third theory destined to reconcile free-will and impeccability in Christ is that of the early School- men. They held that the human will of our Divine Saviour, though physically able to commit sin, attained impeccability by a continuous series of actual graces and was determined to a free though infallibly certain acceptation of the decree involving His death by one special grace of particular strength and effectiveness. Impeccability thus conceived, i. e., in consonance with free-will, is called "confirmation in grace" (confirmatio in gratia). We may suppose it to have been the happy lot of the Blessed Virgin also. St. Bonaventure ex- plains the process thus: " Determinatio potentiae ad unum potest esse dupliciter, vid. per necessitatem na- turae et per confirtnationem gratiae. Si sit per neces- sitatem naturae, tunc tollit arbitrii libertatem ac per hoc tollit dignitatem meriti. Si autem sit determinatio per
58Cfr. Is. LIU, 10; Phil. II, 8; 69 De Mysterio Incarn., disp. 26,
Heb. XII, 2. sect. 7.
222 UNITY IN DUALITY
confirmationefH gratiae, qimm talis conUrmatio simul stet cum libera voluntate, sic non tollit ah ipso opere boni- tatem moris, quum sit voluntarium, ac per hoc nee qiiali- tatem meriti. In Christ o autem fuit liberum arbitrium determinatum ad unum non per necessitatem naturae, sed per confirmationem gratiae" ""^ Among the later Scholastics this particular theory was adopted by Molina,®^ Suarez,^^ Lessius, and Tanner. Its leading defenders at the present time are Cardinal Billot ^^ and Chr. Pesch.^* Though it is sufficiently plausible, most other theologians reject this theory, (i) because it were preposterous to ad- mit that it was physically possible for Christ, who was the Divine Logos, to commit sin, and (2) because to ex- plain Christ's impeccability otherwise than by the Hypo- static Union and the beatific vision, is equivalent to basing it on an inferior principle which might be ap- plied to any saint. Against the former objection some advocates of this theory contend that, as the physical lib- erty of committing sin is an essential attribute of every rational creature, it cannot be a reprehensible defect, and therefore is not repugnant to the Hypostatic Union, provided, of course, that the necessary measures be taken to prevent the power to sin from ever effectuating a sinful act under any circumstances. Of such neces- sary measures, they add, " confirmation in grace " is the first and most effective. But this explanation is hardly tenable. It is far easier to refute the second objection. " Confirmation in grace " is really nothing else than a necessary effect of the Hypostatic Union, which postu- lates with metaphysical necessity that the human will of
CO Comment, in Quatuor Libros 62 De Incarn., disp. 37, sect. 3.
Sent., Ill, dist. 18, art. 1, qu. 2, 03 De Verba Incarn., thes. 28.
ad I. 84 Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV,
01 Concord., disp. 53, menibr. 4. pp. 180 sqq.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 223
Christ be endowed with intrinsic impeccability by all moral means at the command of an omnipotent God.®^
8) There is a fourth theory which tries to harmonize the dogma of our Lord's free-will with that of His impeccability by asserting that He could have obtained from His Heavenly Father at any time a revocation of, or a dispensation from the rigorous mandate which commanded Him to die for the salvation of mankind. This theory is based mainly on Matth. XXVI, 53: "An pittas quia non possum rogare Patrem meum et exhihehit mihi modo plus qiiam duodecim legiones angelorumf — Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of an- gels ? " Though Pallavicini boasts of having publicly combated this opinion of his famous master De Lugo during the latter's life-time in Rome, it has yet found many adherents, among them Maurus Hurtado, Carle- ton, Mayr, Legrand, and more recently Tepe.^^ We are inclined to think that it effectively safeguards both the free-will and the impeccability of Christ. A precept re- mains in force so long as the lawgiver does not dispense from it. On the other hand, to employ De Lugo's own words, " non potest maior Uhertas excogitari, quam ita acceptare mortem, ut posset non solum tunc, sed niin- quam earn acceptare, . . . quia licet haheret praeceptum, poterat Christus impetrare facile ablationem praecepti." ®^
65 For a refutation of the diffi- Molinists. We shall discuss this
culties arising from the Saviour's question more fully in our trea-
impeccability as a result of the tise on Grace. Cfr. also Billuart,
beatific vision, see Chr. Pesch, De Incar., diss. 18, art. 4, f 2;
Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, pp. 187 Gonet, De Div. Verbi Jncarn., disp.
sqq. As regards the nature and 21, art. 3, n. 85; Bellarmine, De
properties of the efficacious graces lustific, V, 11.
which condition, and ultimately ef- 66 Instil. Theolog., VoL III, pp.
feet, the state of " confirmation in 599 sqq.
grace," they are differently ex- 67 De Myst. Incarn., disp. 26,
plained by the Thomists and the sect. 8, n. 103.
224 UNITY IN DUALITY
To this theory Velasquez, Chr. Pesch, and others oppose the following dilemma : " Either the mandatum mortis was an unconditional or it was a conditional command; if it was unconditional, no dispensation was possible; if it was conditional, no dispensation was needed." But, as De Lugo "^ triumphantly shows against Velasquez, this argument proves too much and therefore proves nothing. Positive precepts, whether given to a com- munity (as, e. g., monogamy) or to an individual (as, e. g., the command to Abraham to sacrifice his son), are never essentially irrevocable or indispensable."*
Thesis IV : The human nature of Christ, in virtue of the Hypostatic Union, was and is substantially sanc- tified by the increate holiness of the Divine Logos.
This thesis is held by nearly all theological schools.
Proof. By substantial sanctity we do not understand sanctifying grace,"^*^ but that peculiar holiness which was effected in the human soul of Christ by its incorporation with the Divine Logos in the Hypostatic Union. The only school of the- • ologians who demur to this thesis are the Scotists. They assert that the holiness of Christ was acci- dental, i. e., solely due to sanctifying grace.*^^ Because of this Scotistic opposition our thesis cannot be qualified as a theological conclusion,
68 Op. cit., sect. 9. Vol. m, pp. 599 sqq.
60 For a refutation of certain 70 Sanctitas accidentalis.
other objections raised against this 71 Cfr., e. g., Fr. Henno, Theol.
theory we must refer the student to Dogmat., disp. 14, qu. 1, art. i sq. G. B. Tepe, Institutiones Theol.,
CHRIST'S HOLINESS
22 =
but is merely communis in the technical sense of the temi.
Under the rules which govern the Communication of Idioms,"- the " increate sanctity " of the Logos appears to be as intransf erable as His immensit}' or omnipotence. Why, then, do Catholic theologians, who reject the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity,'^ make an exception in favor of the attribute of sanctity? We shall try to explain this seeming inconsistency.
It is true that the divine sanctity of the Logos is no more capable of being transferred to a mere creature than any other divine attribute. On the other hand, how- ever, the manhood united with the Logos, by the very fact of becoming " the second nature " of one of the Three Divine Persons, must be infinitely pleasing to God, and, consequently, infinitely holy, even in the hy- pothesis that it were not endowed with sanctifying grace. By virtue of the H\-postatic L'nion the man Jesus is the natural Son of God,'* in whom the Father must be infinitely well pleased. But He could not possibly be well pleased in one who lacked holiness."^ Consequently, the man Jesus, irrespective of His being or not being en- dowed with sanctifying grace, is substantially holy by virtue of His Hypostatic Union with the Logos, who is substantial sanctity. Thus holiness is the only divine at- tribute which is substantially communicable to a creature.
72 y. supra, pp. 187 sqq.
73 V. supra, pp. 194 sq.
74 V. supra, pp. 196 sqq.
75 " Alia vera coniunctio est ho- minis ad Deum non solum per af- fectum aut inhabitationem [= acci- dentaliter'\, sed etiam per unitatem hypostasis seu personae, ut scil. una et eadem hypostasis seu persona sit
Deus et homo. Et haec quidem coniunctio hominis ad Dcum est propria lesu Christi . , . et gratis- simum Deo facit, ita quod de ipso singulariter dicatur: Hie est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi com- placui." (St. Thomas Aqiiinas, Comp. TheoL. c 222.}
226 UNITY IN DUALITY
But does not such a substantial communication of a divine attribute entail Monophysitic or Pantheistic as- sumptions? It does not. First, because sanctity in a human being involves only an ethical relation towards God, and, secondly, whereas the infinite sanctity of the Logos is held to be communicable to the creature, it is not held to be communicable in an infinite manner. For, as Suarez justly observes, " the grace of union is infinite in its kind and renders human nature infinitely pleasing [to God], though not in an equal measure with Divinity. Divinity is pleasing in itself, humanity merely by its union with Divinity, and consequently Divinity is infinite in the strict sense of the term, whereas humanity is in- finite only under a certain respect." ''^
a) That Jesus, as man, was substantially sanc- tified by his Hypostatic Union with the Divine Logos can be demonstrated from Sacred Scrip- ture. Cfr. Luke I, 35 : "' Quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocahitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of thee [Mary], shall be called the Son of God." Here Christ's divine sonship is given as the ontological reason why He was sanctified in the womh of His mother. It follows that the man Jesus was holy because he was the Son of God. Now, divine sonship depends upon the Hypostatic Union as an indispensable condition. Consequently, the Hypostatic Union
78 " Gratia unionis est in suo ge- per unionem, unde ilia est infinita
nere infinita et reddit liumanitatcm simpliciter, haec secundum quid."
infinite gratam, licet non aeque at- (Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 22, sect.
que est grata divinitas ipsa; quia i, n. 22.) Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect.
haec est grata per essentiam, ilia Dogtnat., Vol. IV, pp. 140 sq.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 227
alone was sufficient to sanctify the humanity of Christ.
St. Paul, referring to the Messianic Psalm XLIV, verse 8, compares Christ's substantial sanctity with the anoint- ment of His humanity with Divinity : " Propterea unxit te Dens, Dens tuns," oleo exultationis prae participibus tnis — Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." ^® Origen com- ments on this text as follows : " Just as the substance of an ointment is something different from its odor, so Christ is different from His fellows (i. e., the prophets and Apostles). And as a receptacle containing the substance of an ointment can nowise assimie an evil smell, whereas those who go too far away from its odor can contract an evil smell (/. e., by sin), so it was utterly impossible for Christ, as the vessel in which the substance of the ointment was contained, to contract the odor of sin." This interpretation of the forty-fourth Psalm is quite common. Thus St. Ambrose writes: "Dens est qui nngit, et Deus qui secundum carnem ungitur Dei Fi- lius. Denique quos habet unctionis suae Christus nisi in came participesf Vides igitur quia Deus a Deo unc- tus est; sed in assumptione naturae unctiis humanae Dei Filius designatur." '® The same thought is expressed somewhat more tersely by St. Gregory of Xazianzus: " God the Father anointed Christ with the oil of joy above all His fellows, when He united the human nature with the Godhead, in order to make them both into one." *°
The argument for our thesis may be effectively con- densed into the formula : Unio hypostatica == unctio substantialis = sanctificatio substantialis.
77 e-^piffd ffe 6 Qeos, 6 Qeos ffov, De Fide ad Gratian., I, 3 (Migne,
78Heb. I, 9. ' P. L.. XVI. 556).
79 Grig., De Princ, II, 6; Ambr., 80 Oral.. V, sub fin.
228 UNITY IN DUALITY
b) The name "Christ," though used in a figur- ative sense, admirably describes the essential constitution of the Godman. Xpio-ros is derived from xp'"!', "to anoint," and designates our Lord as the Anointed, unctus, in a special and pre-em- inent sense.
Describing as it does not merely the Son of God, nor yet merely the Son of man, but the Godman (dedv6po)iro^) as such, " Christ " is truly a proper and personal name. In the Old Testament priests,*^ kings,®^ and prophets,^^ were consecrated with holy oil, and thereby became ac- cidentally " anointed of the Lord." Christ, who unites in His Person the three offices of priest, king, and prophet, is alone of all men anointed with an anointment formally substantial, because the invisible ointment of the Divinity, namely, the Divine Substance itself, permeates and perfects His human nature in virtue of the Hypo- static Union.
The Fathers are unanimous in interpreting the name " Christ " in this personal sense. " We call ' Christ ' a personal name," says, e. g., St. John of Damascus, " be- cause it is not assumed one-sidedly, but designates a twofold nature. For He Himself anointed Himself : as God, He anointed His body with His Divinity ; as man. He received anointment, since He is both God and man." ** The human nature thus substantially anointed with Divinity must needs be substantially holy. For, as Nazianzen puts it, "[Filius] dicitur Christus propter di- vinitatem; haec enim est unctio humanitatis, non sancti- ficans operatione, ut in aliis Christis, sed totius ungentis
81 Cfr. Lev. IV, 3. 84 De Fide Orthodoxa, III, 3
82Cfr. Is. XLV, 1; Ps. CIV, 15. (Migne, P. C, XCIV, 990), 83 Cfr. 3 Kings XIX, 15 sqq.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 229
praesentid, cuius effectns est, ut qui ungit dicatur homo et ut quod ungitur faciat Deum." *^ Or, in the words of St. Augustine: "In quo [sell. Verbo] et ipse Filius hominis sanctificatus est ah initio creationis suae, quando Verbum factum est caro, quia una persona facta est Verbum et homo. Tunc ergo sanctificavit se in se, hoc est, hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus Christus Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo" *"
c) The Hypostatic Union does not, however, com- municate to the soul of Christ formally and substan- tially that " love which God has for Himself," and which is a vital immanent act of the Divine Trinity and consti- tutes the innermost essence of divine holiness.*^ God's intrinsic essence is as incommtmicable to creatures as the vital act by which He knows Himself.** What is sub- stantially and formally communicable is the so-called ob- jective holiness of God, vis.: the dignity, majesty, and adorableness of the Logos, which mediately effects the moral sanctity of the man Jesus, making him not only sacrum (lepov), hnt sanctum (ayiov).®* On this ineffable and infinite dignity of the Godman is based both the ador- ability of Christ's humanity and the infinite meritorious- ness of all the free acts which His soul inspired.
Does the sanctity of Christ's human nature consist formally in the Personality of the Logos, or in His Di- vinity, or in both? This is a subtle problem, concern-
85 Or., 30, n. 21 (Migne, P. G., alt- und neutestamentlichen The- XXXVI, 132). ologie, Koln 1905.
86 Tract, in loa., :o8, n. 3. Cfr. 87 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Petavius, De Incarn., XI, 8 sq. On Knowability, Essence, and Attri- the meaning of the name Christ butes, pp. 423 sqq.
cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, 88 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp.
§ 222, Freiburg 1878; L. Janssens, 113 sqq.
De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 637 89 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol.
sqq., Friburgi 1901; Ph. Friedrich, II, p. 160.
Der Christus-Name im Lichte der
^30 UNITY IN DUALITY
ing which theologians are not agreed. The more com- mon opinion (St. Thomas, Suarez, and De Lugo) is that the substantial sanctity of Christ's manhood is for- mally communicated to it by the Personality of the Lo- gos, which incorporates itself immediately and formally with His humanity in the Hypostatic Union. Others maintain that since the Person of the Logos is the pos- sessor and bearer of His Divine Nature, the Divinity of the Logos must be regarded at least as the mediate forma sanctificans of His humanity. A third theory assumes that the Godhead, abstracted from its bearer, i. e., the Logos, is the immediate and formal forma sanctificans. But this absurd and impossible hypothesis involves the danger of degrading the Hypostatic Union to the level of a mere natural synthesis. Vasquez no doubt felt this, for he refrained from pushing his thesis " Formam sanctiH- cantem esse ipsam deitatem " ^^ to its last conclusions. He based it on such Patristic expressions as " deificatio " and " unctio humanitatis per divinitatem," which Schee- ben "^ interprets as follows : The phrases " Deification " and '* Anointment of humanity with Divinity " describe the divine nature or substance of the Logos in the sense of St. Cyril, i. e., the divinely spiritual nature of the Lo- gos as 'the formal principle of sanctification, without sep- arating Personality and Nature, which are so intimately united in the Logos that both together penetrate and per- fect His human nature.*^
Thesis V: Besides the substantial sanctity re- sulting from the " grace of union," the human soul of our Lord also possessed an accidental holiness which,
90 Disp. 41, c, 4, n. 23. 82 Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol, Vol.
01 Dogmatik, Vol. II, p. 161. Ill, pp. 572 sqq.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 231
though not actually infinite, was by far the most per- fect created in the present economy.
This proposition is theologically certain.
Proof. By accidental or created (in contradis- tinction to substantial) holiness we understand primarily the state of sanctifying grace.^^
Being a creature, the soul of Qirist was incapable of an actually infinite sanctity ; yet, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, it was endowed with a superabundance of grace, greater than any other conceivable in the present economy.
Theologians are at variance as to the degree of cer- tainty to be attributed to our present thesis. Suarez holds it to embody an article of faith, or at least a doc- trine which it is morally certain that the Church ac- knowledges as divinely revealed (fidei proximum), while Vasquez, Petavius, and De Lugo ** regard it merely as a theologically certain deduction. All agree in attributing the moral necessity of the existence of super- abundant grace in Christ, not to a positive decree of God, nor to the merits of Christ's human soul, but to the Hy- postatic L^ion. The soul of our Lord, in consequence of its personal union with the Logos, was endowed with the greatest measure of grace which in the present econ- omy God can bestow on any creature. Though in its last analysis due to the " grace of union," and therefore supernatural in character, the plenitude of grace with which the soul of Christ was endowed was connatural to, i. e., a moral postulate of His nature.
93 Gratia habitualis sive sancti- matic text-books, on Grace, Actual ficans. It will be treated in the and Habitual.
seventh volume of this series of dog- 94 De My it. Incarn., disp. i6,
sect. 5, n. 91.
232 UNITY IN DUALITY
a) The Scriptural argument for our thesis is mainly based on John I, 14 sqq. : "Et Ver- bum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis . . . plenum gratiae et veritatis. . . . Et de pleni- tudine eius nos omnes accepimus et gratiam pro gratia ^^ — And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth . . . and of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace."
The " Word Incarnate," i. e., the Godman, is here de- scribed as " full of grace " ®® in specifically the same sense in which we are said to have received from His fulness " grace for grace." In other words, there is no qualitative difference between the grace of the Giver and the grace of those who receive — the two are abso- lutely homogeneous. Now, the grace which man re- ceives from his Redeemer is primarily sanctifying grace or justification. Consequently the soul of Christ must have been endowed with this same grace, and with such a fulness "^ thereof that all who were redeemed by Him, severally and together (including the Blessed Vir- gin, who was so singularly endowed), can participate in, without ever exhausting it.^* It will not do to say that John I, 14 could, without straining, be applied to the mere gratia unionis, i. e., substantial sanctification. The gratia unionis is not homogeneous with the gratia iiistificatorum, and consequently cannot be the immediate fount from which the justified draw. Whenever the Bible speaks
05 Kal iK Tov irXripufJiaTos airov oi Plenitudo, irX^pwfia.
ilfieh ndvTes iXd^ofiep, Kal x^P^" *^ ^^'^' Maldonatus' exposition of
dfrl x
00 Plcnus gratiae, ttXiJjbtjs X^^P'-
TOJ.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 233
of a plenitude of grace, it always means created grace,®^ whereas it defines the " grace of union," which results in substantial holiness, as " the fulness of the Godhead." Cfr. Col. II, 9: " Quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis ^°® corporaliter — For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Then there are a number of Scriptural texts in which Christ, as man, is said to be "anointed with Divinity" {^gratia unionis) , and also " with the Holy Ghost " {= gratia sanctificans) , the latter anointment evidently presup- posing the former. Isaias says of the future Messias: " Egredietur virga de radice lesse . . . et requiescet super eum Spiritus Domini, Spiritus sapientiae et in- tellectus, etc. — And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse . . . and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him : the spirit of wisdom, etc." ^"^ With this passage compare another by the same prophet: "Spiritus Domini super me, eo quod unxerit Dominus me — The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me," ^°- and Acts X, 38: " Quo- modo unxit eum Deus Spiritu Sancto ^°^ et virtute — How God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power." Whenever Scripture says of an ordinary mor- tal that " he was anointed with the Holy Ghost," or " the Holy Ghost rests upon him," the meaning is that the person in question was endowed with supernatural graces, of which the chief is sanctifying grace, both on its own accoimt and because it is the condition and f oun-
99 Cfr. Luke I, 28: "And the lOO irdv to irXripufia rijs Oeonj-
angel being come in, said unto her tos.
[Mary] : Hail, full of grace." loi Is. XI, i sqq.
Acts VI, 8: "And Stephen, full 102 Is. LXI. 1 sqq.
of grace and fortitude, did great 103 ^,5 l^^pttre;/ avrby 6 Geis xi»ci5-
wonders and signs among the peo- fiari ayiu. pie."
234 UNITY IN DUALITY
dation of the " seven gifts of the Holy Ghost." Since the Bible employs the same terms in respect of our Divine Saviour/"* the soul of Christ cannot be conceived as devoid of sanctifying grace. In other words, our Lord possessed created or accidental in addition to substantial holiness.
b) Among the numerous Patristic texts which theologians are accustomed to quote in support of this thesis, we can admit as really convincing only those that draw a clear-cut distinction be- tween created holiness and the " grace of union," and expressly attribute both to the soul of our Lord.
St. Cyril of Alexandria says : " Christ sanctifies Him- self, since as God He is holy by nature, but according to His humanity He is sanctified together with us, in that . . . He does not hesitate to call us His breth- ren." ^°* St. Chrysostom asserts both the existence and the superabundance of sanctifying grace in our Di- vine Redeemer. " The full measure of grace," he says, " has been poured out over that Temple [i. e., Christ] . For He doth not dispense grace according to measure. We have received of His fulness, but that Temple hath received the complete measure of grace. This is what Isaias meant when he said: [The Spirit of the Lord] shall rest upon him, etc. In Him is all grace, in men but a small measure, a drop of that grace." "* St. Augus-
104 Cfr., e. g., Luke IV, i8: 105 D»a/. De 55". Trim'*., 6 (Migne,
" Spiritus Domini super me, propter P. C, LXXV, ioi8).
quod unxit me — The Spirit of the loo In Ps., 44, 2. The passage
Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath in Isaias referred to by Chrysostom
anointed me." is XI, 2.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 235
tine beautifully expounds the Scriptural texts which we have adduced above as follows : " The Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace"' and of the Holy Spirit."^ And in the Acts of the Apostles it is still more plainly written of Him, ' Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit.' "^ Certainly not with visible oil, but with the gift of grace, which is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized." ^^'^
St. Thomas Aquinas says : " Necesse est ponere in Christo gratiam habitualem propter tria: primo quidem propter unionem animae illius ad Verbum Dei, . . . secundo propter nohilitatem illius animae, . . . tertio propter hahitudinem ipsiiis Christi ad genus htimamcm. Christus enim, inqiiantum homo, est mediator Dei et ho- minum, ut dicitur i Tim. 2; et ideo oportebat quod haberet gratiam etiam in alios rediindantem secundum illud lo. i, 16: De plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia." ^^^ Of these three reasons the first, which is based on the Hypostatic Union, is the most important: "Ex ipsa igitur unione naturae humanae ad Deum in unitate consequens est, ut anima Christi donis gratiarum habitualibus prae ceteris fuerit plena; et sic habitualis gratia in Christo non est dispositio ad unionem, sed magis unionis effectus." ^^^
107 John I, 14. unxit eum Deus Spiritu Sancto
108 Luke XI, S2, IV, 1. (Act. lo, 38). Non utique oleo
109 Acts X, 38. visibili, sed dono gratiae, quod visi-
110 Aug., De Trinit., XV, 26, 46: bili significatur unguento, quo bap- " Dominus ipse lesus Spiritum S. tizatos ungit Ecclesia." Other Pa- non solum dedit ut Deus, sed etiam tristic texts quoted by Petavius, De accepit ut homo; propterea dictus Jncarn., XI, 6.
est plenus gratia (lo. i, 14) et m 5. Theol., 3a, qu. 7, art. i.
Spiritu Sancto (Luc. 11, 52; 4, i). 112 Comp. Theol., c. 214. For a
Et manifestius de illo scriptum est more elaborate treatment see
in Actibus Apostolorum: quoniam Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 18, sect. 2. 16
236 UNITY IN DUALITY
c) In this connection theologians are wont to discuss the following questions: (a) When was the fulness of sanctifying grace infused into the human soul of Christ? and (^) Was that soul also endowed with other supernatural preroga- tives, such as the theological virtues? The for- mer question is suggested by Luke II, 52 : "And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men." The latter arises from a comparison between Christ and justified man. (y) A third question, the most important of all, has to do with the so-called "grace of headship" (gratia capitis).
a) All theologians are agreed that, as the fulness of sanctifying grace was included in the "grace of union," the accidental sanctification of the soul of Christ must have exactly coincided with the moment of the Hypostatic Union, i. e., with the instant of His conception. ^^^
From this teaching not even St. Bonaventure dissents, though he holds the peculiar view that for the soul of our Divine Lord the state of grace was a " preparation " or debita dispositio for, rather than an effect of, the Hypostatic Union. No matter whether it be regarded as a preparation or an effect, unless we admit that the " fulness of grace " was from the very beginning a rel- atively infinite entity incapable of increase, we shall be compelled to assent to the absurd conclusion that the Hypostatic Union exercised a stronger influence over
XI8 y. supra, pp. 166 sqq.
CHRIST'S HOLINESS 237
the soul of Christ in later life than at the moment of His conception. These considerations furnish us with a key to the proper interpretation of Luke II, 52 : " Et lesiis proHciebat ^^* sapientid et aetate et gratia ^^^ apiid Deum et homines — And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men." He who from the very beginning possessed the fulness of created grace could not advance in interior holiness. Christ was equally holy as a babe and as an adult man. The exer- cise of virtue, therefore, could not merit for Him an in- crease of sanctifying grace, as is the case with us, but merely greater extrinsic glory for Himself and addi- tional favors for us. The Fathers and theologians ex- plain His advance in wisdom and grace not as an in- crease in, but merely as an outward manifestation of sanctifying grace.^^* But why does Sacred Scripture say that He advanced in wisdom and grace, as He ad- vanced in age, njith Godf^" Because the works of wis- dom which he performed, and His diligent co-operation with actual grace, by means of which His holiness grad- ually became manifest to His fellow-men, were merito- rious and pleasing in the eyes of God.
^) In the ordinary process of justification the infusion of sanctifying grace is accompanied by other supernatural prerogatives, vis.: the
a* irpo€KoirTe», aliquis sapientiora et virtuosiora
115 T^optrt. opera facit; et sic Christus proficie-
116 irpoKoinj Kara (pavepuffiV' bat sapientia et gratia, sicut et ae- Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. tate, quia secundum processum ae- 7, art. 12, ad 3: "Aliquis potest iatis perfectiora opera faciebat, ut proficere dupliciter. Uno modo se- se verum hominem demonstraret, et cundum ipsos habitus sapicntiae et in his quae sunt ad Deum, et in gratiae augmentatos; et sic Christus his quae sunt ad homines."
in eis non proficiebat. Alio modo 117 wapii ©cw.
secundum effectus, inquantum sdl.
238 UNITY IN DUALITY
three theological and the so-called moral virtues, together with the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. Now, it would be wrong to hold that the hu- man soul of Christ enjoyed the state of grace in the same sense as we do, only in a more perfect manner. The soul of our Blessed Redeemer, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union of the two na- tures, is in a class altogether by itself.
Of the theological virtues Christ doubtless possessed charity. Not so faith and hope. There was no room in His soul for the theological virtue of faith, because He already enjoyed the beatific vision. " Christus a primo instanti suae conceptionis plene vidit Deum per essen- tiam," says St. Thomas, " et per hanc visionem beatificam etiam omnia supernaturalia clarissime perspexit, unde in eo fides esse non potuit." ^^^ Nor could He exercise the virtue of hope, because the actual enjoyment of the bea- tific vision renders theological hope useless, nay impossible. One cannot hope to attain what one already possesses. Only with respect of such gifts of grace as He did not yet possess, e. g., His glorification by means of the Resurrec- tion and Ascension, was Christ able, after a fashion, to exercise hope.^^*
Of the infused moral virtues Christ cannot possibly have practiced repentance (poenitentia) , because it sup- poses forgiveness of sins. Our Divine Lord had no sins to be wiped out by contrition and penance. He was abso- lutely sinless and impeccable in His human as well as in His divine nature. As regards the other moral virtues,
118 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 7, art. 3.
119 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. ThcoL, 3a, qu. 7, art. 4.
THE " GRATIA CAPITIS " 239
it is the common opinion of theologians that Jesus possessed them all, both natural and supernatural. Though inferior in character to the supernatural, the natural virtues, too, were His, because they serve to per- fect human nature, and no ideal man is conceivable with- out them.
It is of faith that the soul of Christ was endowed with the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, though, of course, " godliness " in Him was not a servile fear (timor servilis) but that filial reverence (timor Ulialis) which a good son bears towards his father. Cfr. Is. XI, 2 sq. : " Et reqttiescet super eum spiritus Domini: spiritus sa- pientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et pietatis, et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini — And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him : the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness; and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord." ^-**
y) Through the Hypostatic Union Christ not only received for Himself personally the pleni- tude of all graces but likewise the gratia capitis, i. e., the natural and supernatural headship of all creatures.
Christ is " full of grace and truth," and " of His fulness we have all received." ^-^ Thus from the gratia unionis spontaneously flows the gratia capitis, in virtue of which our Lord is the natural and supernatural Head
120 On the gratiae gratis datae of L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, VoL
Christ compare St. Thomas, S. I, pp. 341 sqq. TheoL, 3a, qu. 7, art. 7-8. On the 121 John I, 14, 16.
entire subject of this thesis cfr.
240 UNITY IN DUALITY
of fallen men, of the angels, in fact of all rational crea- tures, nay even of inanimate nature.^^^ Where there is a head there must be members to constitute an organism. St. Thomas ^^^ distinguishes a twofold relationship be- tween the head and the body, distinctio and conformifas. Under the first-mentioned aspect the head is distinguished from the members of the body (i) by its dignity as the sole possessor of the five senses ; ^-* (2) by its government as the ruler of the whole organism,^^^ and (3) by the vital influence it exercises over the entire body.^^^ The con- formity of the head with the body manifests itself (i) by the unity of its nature ^^^ with that of the body, be- cause head and members are homogeneous; (2) by the unity of order ^^* which connects the members with the head and regulates their respective functions; (3) by the unity of continuity ,^^* in so far as the head is per- fectly joined to its members. Both series of relations are organically interrelated and point each to the other. The dignity of the head supposes the existence of homo- geneous members from among which it stands out. Again the head could not rule over the body were it not that the members are wisely ordained towards one an- other. Lastly, the exercise of the head's influence de- pends on the existence of organic continuity by which the vital fluids are enabled to circulate freely through the organs; This allegory is based upon Sacred Scripture. Let us apply it to the Godman.
122 For a discussion of the subtle 123 De Verit,, qu. 29, art. 4.
problem how the gratia capitis is 124 Dignitas.
related to the gratia unionis, and 12B Gubcrnatio,
whether or not it is objectively 126 Causalitas.
identical with habitual grace, we 127 Unitas naturae.
must refer the reader to Billuart, 128 Unitas ordinis.
De Incarn., diss. 9, art. 4, and to 129 Unitas continuitatis. St Thomas, S. Th., 3a, qu. 8, art. 5.
THE " GRATIA CAPITIS
241