Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 55

Reply Obj. 4: Increase is caused by the augmentative power of that which is the subject of increase: but the formation of the body is caused by the generative power, not of that which is generated, but of the father generating from seed, in which the formative power derived from the father's soul has its operation. But Christ's body was not formed by the seed of man, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 5, ad 3), but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the formation thereof should be such as to be worthy of the Holy Ghost. But the development of Christ's body was the effect of the augmentative power in Christ's soul: and since this was of the same species as ours, it behooved His body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other men, so as to prove the reality of His human nature.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 2]

Whether Christ's Body Was Animated in the First Instant of Its Conception?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception. For Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian.): "Christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours: nor was the beginning of His animation different from that of other men." But the soul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their conception. Therefore neither should Christ's soul have been infused into His body in the first instant of its conception.

Obj. 2: Further, the soul, like any natural form, requires determinate quant.i.ty in its matter. But in the first instant of its conception Christ's body was not of the same quant.i.ty as the bodies of other men when they are animated: otherwise, if afterwards its development had been continuous, either its birth would have occurred sooner, or at the time of birth He would have been a bigger child than others. The former alternative is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. iv), where he proves that Christ was in the Virgin's womb for the s.p.a.ce of nine months: while the latter is contrary to what Pope Leo says (Serm. iv in Epiph.): "They found the child Jesus nowise differing from the generality of infants." Therefore Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception.

Obj. 3: Further, whenever there is "before" and "after" there must be several instants. But according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.

ii) in the generation of a man there must needs be "before" and "after": for he is first of all a living thing, and afterwards, an animal, and after that, a man. Therefore the animation of Christ could not be effected in the first instant of His conception.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of G.o.d, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul."

_I answer that,_ For the conception to be attributed to the very Son of G.o.d, as we confess in the Creed, when we say, "who was conceived by the Holy Ghost," we must needs say that the body itself, in being conceived, was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d. Now it has been shown above (Q. 6, AA. 1, 2) that the Word of G.o.d a.s.sumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect.

Wherefore in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul.

Reply Obj. 1: The beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways. First, in regard to the disposition of the body. And thus, the beginning of the infusion of the soul into Christ's body was the same as in other men's bodies: for just as the soul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed, so was it with Christ. Secondly, this beginning may be considered merely in regard to time. And thus, because Christ's body was perfectly formed in a shorter s.p.a.ce of time, so after a shorter s.p.a.ce of time was it animated.

Reply Obj. 2: The soul requires due quant.i.ty in the matter into which it is infused: but this quant.i.ty allows of a certain lat.i.tude because it is not fixed to a certain amount. Now the quant.i.ty that a body has when the soul is first infused into it is in proportion to the perfect quant.i.ty to which it will attain by development: that is to say, men of greater stature have greater bodies at the time of first animation. But Christ at the perfect age was of becoming and middle stature: in proportion to which was the quant.i.ty of His body at the time when other men's bodies are animated; though it was less than theirs at the first instant of His conception. Nevertheless that quant.i.ty was not too small to safeguard the nature of an animated body; since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's body.

Reply Obj. 3: What the Philosopher says is true in the generation of other men, because the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul: whence, first, as being imperfectly disposed, it receives an imperfect soul; and afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it receives a perfect soul. But Christ's body, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed instantaneously.

Wherefore, at once and in the first instant it received a perfect form, that is, the rational soul.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 3]

Whether Christ's Flesh Was First of All Conceived and Afterwards a.s.sumed?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived, and afterwards a.s.sumed. Because what is not cannot be a.s.sumed. But Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived.

Therefore it seems that it was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d after it was conceived.

Obj. 2: Further, Christ's flesh was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d, by means of the rational soul. But it received the rational soul at the term of the conception. Therefore it was a.s.sumed at the term of the conception. But at the term of the conception it was already conceived. Therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards a.s.sumed.

Obj. 3: Further, in everything generated, that which is imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect: which is made clear by the Philosopher (Metaph. ix). But Christ's body is something generated.

Therefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection, which consisted in the union with the Word of G.o.d, at the first instant of its conception; but, first of all, the flesh was conceived and afterwards a.s.sumed.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii [*Written by Fulgentius]): "Hold steadfastly, and doubt not for a moment that Christ's flesh was not conceived in the Virgin's womb, before being a.s.sumed by the Word."

_I answer that,_ As stated above, we may say properly that "G.o.d was made man," but not that "man was made G.o.d": because G.o.d took to Himself that which belongs to man--and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist, as subsisting in itself, before being a.s.sumed by the Word. But if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being a.s.sumed by the Word, it would have had at some time an hypostasis other than that of the Word of G.o.d. And this is against the very nature of the Incarnation, which we hold to consist in this, that the Word of G.o.d was united to human nature and to all its parts in the unity of hypostasis: nor was it becoming that the Word of G.o.d should, by a.s.suming human nature, destroy a pre-existing hypostasis of human nature or of any part thereof. It is consequently contrary to faith to a.s.sert that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 1: If Christ's flesh had been formed or conceived, not instantaneously, but successively, one of two things would follow: either that what was a.s.sumed was not yet flesh, or that the flesh was conceived before it was a.s.sumed. But since we hold that the conception was effected instantaneously, it follows that in that flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the same instant. So that, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum xviii] says: "We say that the very Word of G.o.d was conceived in taking flesh, and that His very flesh was conceived by the Word taking flesh."

From the above the reply to the Second Objection is clear. For in the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived, its conception and animation were completed.

Reply Obj. 3: The mystery of the Incarnation is not to be looked upon as an ascent, as it were, of a man already existing and mounting up to the dignity of the Union: as the heretic Photinus maintained.

Rather is it to be considered as a descent, by reason of the perfect Word of G.o.d taking unto Himself the imperfection of our nature; according to John 6:38: "I came down from heaven."

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 4]

Whether Christ's Conception Was Natural?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's conception was natural. For Christ is called the Son of Man by reason of His conception in the flesh. But He is a true and natural Son of Man: as also is He the true and natural Son of G.o.d. Therefore His conception was natural.

Obj. 2: Further, no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect.

But Christ's conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, who is a mere creature: for we say that the Virgin conceived Christ. Therefore it seems that His conception was not miraculous, but natural.

Obj. 3: Further, for a transformation to be natural, it is enough that the pa.s.sive principle be natural, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 4).

But in Christ's conception the pa.s.sive principle on the part of His Mother was natural, as we have shown (Q. 32, A. 4). Therefore Christ's conception was natural.

_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Ep. ad Caium Monach.): "Christ does in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man: this is shown in the miraculous virginal conception."

_I answer that,_ As Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "In this mystery thou shalt find many things that are natural, and many that are supernatural." For if we consider in this conception anything connected with the matter thereof, which was supplied by the mother, it was in all such things natural. But if we consider it on the part of the active power, thus it was entirely miraculous. And since judgment of a thing should be p.r.o.nounced in respect of its form rather than of its matter: and likewise in respect of its activity rather than of its pa.s.siveness: therefore is it that Christ's conception should be described simply as miraculous and supernatural, although in a certain respect it was natural.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ is said to be a natural Son of Man, by reason of His having a true human nature, through which He is a Son of Man, although He had it miraculously; thus, too, the blind man to whom sight has been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously received.

Reply Obj. 2: The conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, not as the active principle thereof, but because she supplied the matter, and because the conception took place in her womb.

Reply Obj. 3: A natural pa.s.sive principle suffices for a transformation to be natural, when it is moved by its proper active principle in a natural and wonted way. But this is not so in the case in point. Therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural.

_______________________

QUESTION 34

OF THE PERFECTION OF THE CHILD CONCEIVED (In Four Articles)

We must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of His conception?

(2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will?

(3) Whether in that same instant He could merit?

(4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 1]

Whether Christ Was Sanctified in the First Instant of His Conception?

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 s.p.a.ce of time.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 3: Further, as by the Word of G.o.d "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 G.o.d, 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.