1 The principle of economy, as applied to theology, refers to the divine plan in God's external operations. Here it is the relation of the Incarnation to the divine plan. The ultimate principle to which everything is referred is the hypostatic union. (Tr.)

2 Summa Theol., Ia, q. 2, introd. to a. 1

3 Ibid., IIIa, Prologue.

4 Ibid., q. 1, a. 3, 4.

5 For a fuller explanation of the objectum formale quod and quo, see The One God, p. 57, footnotes. (Tr.)

6 Thus a theological knowledge about human nature, habitual grace, the infused virtues is required in advance to discuss such questions as: whether Christ was endowed with habitual grace as well as having the grace of union—whether He had faith, hope, and penance considered as a virtue.

7 John 14:6.

8 Ibid., 3:16.

9 I John 4:10.

10 John 3:16.

11 Life of Jesus (about end).

12 Denz., no. 1796.

13 Hermeneutica biblica, sect. 1: de heuristica rationali; sect. 2: de heuristica christiana; sect. 3: de heuristica catholica.

14 Denz., no. 1943

15 Ibid., no. 1788.

16 Hermeneutica biblica, p. 21.

17 I Pet. 1:10f.

18 Summa Theol., IIa IIae, q. 173, a. 4; John 11:50.

19 Denz., nos. 2027-38.

20 See Lepin, Jesus Messie et Fils de Dieu, p. 223; Lebreton, La vie et l'enseignement de Jesus.

21 Lepin, op. cit., p. 237

22 "Messias" comes from the Hebrew "masiah, " which means "anointed, " being derived from the Hebrew verb "masah, " "to anoint." It corresponds to the Greek Christos, Messias (John 1:42; 4:25), and to "Christus" in the Latin Vulgate.

23 See Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, Part II, chap. 3.

24 Mark 1:14f.

25 Matt. 4:19.

26 Ibid., 4:23.

27 Ibid., 5:21

28 Ibid., 7:29.

29 Ibid., 12:8.

30 Ibid., 12:41f.

31 Mark 12:35f.

32 Luke 4:18f.; Mark 2:3; Luke 5:18.

33 Matt. 13:55; Luke 4:22f.

34 Ibid., 9:2-7; Mark 2:3 ff.; Luke 5:24.

35 John, chap. 5

36 Ibid., 1:41f.

37 Ibid., 1:43f.

38 Matt. 10:1, 7, 20, 40; Mark 9:36

39 Luke 10:16

40 Matt. 11:4.

41 Isa. 35:5.

42 John 3:13f.

43 Ibid., 4:25.

44 Ibid., 4:42.

45 Matt. 16:13f.; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20

46 John 7:15f.

47 Ibid., 8:12f.

48 Matt. 21:9.

49 Luke 19:40

50 Ibid., 26:62f.; Mark 16:60f.

51 Luke 24:26.

52 John 20:21

53 L'essence du Christianisme (Fr. tr., p. 140).

54 Acts 2:36; 3:13f. Catholics and conservative Protestants agree that the Acts of the Apostles was written by St. Luke about A.D. 70. Harnack says A.D. 78-83, or perhaps 60-70.

55 Concerning the opinion of these rationalists of modern times, cf. Lepin, Jesus Messie et Fils de Dieu, p. 228.

56 About the opinion of these Protestants, cf. ibid., p. 237; see also M. Braun, O.P., Ou en est le probleme de Jesus.

57 Denz., nos. 2027-38.

58 Dict. de la Bible, art. "Jesus-Christ"; Dict. de theol. cath., col. 1132-1246.

59 Tekna Theou (Gr.)

60 John 1:18; Ho uios tou Theou (Gr.)

61 Mark 3:11

62 Even Christians are said to be "partakers of the divine nature" (II Pet. 1:4).

63 Cf. Lepin, Jesus Messie et Fils de Dieu, pp. 267-371.

64 Matt. 12:41f.

65 Mark 12:36; Matt. 22:45.

66 Matt. 17:3.

67 Ibid., 11:3, 11; Mark 1:13; Matt. 4:11

68 Matt. 16:27; 24:31

69 Ibid., 5:21, 48

70 Ibid., 5:32; 19:9.

71 Mark 2:27f.

72 Matt. 9:6.

73 Ibid., 18:18

74 Ibid., 9:6; Mark 2:9; 5:41; Luke 7:14.

75 Mark 4:39

76 Matt. 7:22; Acts 3:6; 4:10

77 Matt. 10:37 Luke 14:26

78 Mark 10:29 Matt. 12:30

79 Mark 14:62; 8:38; 13:26

80 Matt. 24:31

81 Luke 24:49

82 Acts 10:25f; 14:14 Apoc. 19:10; 22:8

83 Cf. P. F. Ceuppens, O.P., Theologia biblica, De incarn., III, 35-51.

84 Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:21

85 Cf. M. J. Lagrange, Ev. de S. Matthieu, pp. 226-30; L. de Grandmaison, Jesus Christ, II, 60-62; F. Ceuppens Theol., bibl. de SS. Trinitate, II, 89

86 St. Thomas, In Matt., chap. 11

87 John 1:18.

88 Matt. 16:16f.

89 Mark 8:29

90 Luke 9:20

91 John 1:41f.; Matt. 11:4. Cf. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 322, with whom Lepin, F. Prat, D. Busy, and Ceuppens agree

92 Matt. 21:33; Mark 12:1f.; Luke 20:1f.

93 Matt. 23:31

94 Heb. 1:1f.

95 Matt. 22:42; Luke 20:41f.; Mark 12:35f.

96 Matt. 26:63f.; Mark 14:61f.; Luke 22:66, 70

97 John 5:18

98 Ibid., 19:7.

99 Cf. J. Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinite, I, 311-13

100 Matt. 28:18f.; concerning the authenticity of this formula, cf. Lepin, Dict. Apol., art. "Evangiles canoniques, " col. 1621

101This formula is found in Didache, VII, 1

102Cf. E. Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N. T., III, 80

103A Harnack, Die apostelgesch., p. 22.

104Acts 3:13f.

105Ibid., 4:10f.

106Ibid., 5:31f.

107Ibid., 15:11

108Ibid., 2:36; 11:20.

109Ibid., 10:36.

110Ibid., 10:42

111Ibid., 7:58. The Word "Lord" (ho Kyrios, (Gr.)) in the Acts of the Apostles as in other books of the New Testament, denotes the divinity itself. See A. Lemmonyer, Theologie du N. T., pp. 151-56

112These epistles are I and II Thess., Gal., I and II Cor., Rom., Eph., Col., and Phil. Cf. F. Prat, Theologie de St. Paul

113Rom. 1:4.

114Ibid., 8:3, 32.

115Gal. 4:4f.

116II Cor. 4:4

117Col. 1:15

118Rom. 11:36

119Cf. P. F. Ceuppens, Theol. biblica, De incarn., III, 47.

120I Cor. 1:23f.

121Col. 2:9f.

122Phil. 2:5f. In this utterance the phrase "being in the form of God" (hos en morphe theou (Gr.)) the word morphe (Gr.) ("form") signifies something that belongs inseparably to the essence of any being. Thus in the present instance it designates the divine essence or nature, and this is confirmed from the words that follow, namely, "to be equal with God."

123Ibid., 2:9.

124Rom. 9:3f.

125Heb. 1:2f.

126Ibid., 1:6, 7, 13, 14.

127John 1:1.

128It is unfortunate that we have not a more accurate translation of the Greek verb egeneto (Gr.) in the Vulgate, which the Douai Version translate "were made." The same applies to the phrase, "The Word was made flesh, " which would have no meaning to the Greek mind if used in this sense. (Tr.)

129John 1:18

130Ibid., 17:1, 10

131Ibid., 5:20f.

132Ibid., 8:42

133Ibid., 16:28, 32.

134Ibid., 8:58.

135Ibid., 17:5, 24.

136Ibid., 10:15

137Ibid., 16:14f.

138Ibid., 10:30; cf. 17:11, 21.

139Ibid., 14:6.

140I John 1:1f.

141Ibid., 5:20.

142Apoc. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13

143Ibid., 3:14.

144Ibid., 17:14; 19:6; as God, 6:15f.; 15:3.

145Ibid., 1:18.

146Ibid., 2:23; as God, Jer. 17:10

147Ibid., chaps. 5f.

148Ibid., 1:4; 2:26; 4:5.

149Ibid., 1:8; 4:8.

150Ibid., 1:1

151Ibid., 2:13, 20; 17:14.

152Ibid., 20:6.

153Ibid., 5:8, 12f

154Ibid., 19:10; 22:9

155Summa theol., IIIa, q. 19, 48

156Isa. 9:6

157Deut. 10:17; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18; Neh. 9:32; Theol. biblica, De incarn., III, 33.

158Dict. theol. cath., art. "Jesus-Christ, " col. 1247-62.

159St. Clement, I Cor. 32, 2; 36, 2-5; St. Ignatius, Magn., 6, 1; 8:2; Eph., 1, 1; 7, 2; 15, 3; Pseudo Barnabas, 5, 11.

160St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., III, xviii, 1; xxi, 10; v, 18. Tertullian, adv. Praxeam; St. Hippolytus, Philosophumena.

161Adv. Praxeam, P.L., II, 191

162Cf. Contra Apollinarium, a work that has been unjustifiably attributed to St. Athanasius. See also St. Gregory of Nazianzus in several of his epistles; St. Epiphanies, De haeresibus. Cf. also Denzinger, nos. 65, 85, in which the Apollinarians were condemned by Pope St. Damasus and by the First Council of Constantinople.

163S. Cyrillus Alex., Epist. I; P.G., LXXVII, 27. See Denz., nos. 113f., Anathematismi Cyrilli contra Nestorium. Also Conc. Chalcedonense, Denz., no. 148

164Denz. (16 ed.), p. 20

165Ibid., no 1.

166Ibid., no. 2.

167Ibid., no. 13. This creed is the formula of the Nicene Council: see Denz., no. 54.

168Ibid., no 54

169Denz., no. 1796

170An example would be to prove that the following proposition: The Word, who is consubstantial with the Father, was made man, is equivalent to this revealed truth: The Word was made flesh

171Com. in III Sent., d. 1, a. 1.

172John 1:14

173Cf. St. Thomas, Com. in III Sent., d. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

174Eph. 3:9

175Denz., nos. 282, 284f.

176Ibid., nos. 1669-71. A few lines above in this same document, Frohschammer applied this teaching about reason to the supernatural end of man and the most sacred mystery of the Incarnation. (Tr.)

177Ibid., no. 1671

178Ibid., nos. 1671, 1795.

179Cf. Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 27; cf. also Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " colt 1453-63; E. Hugon, Le mystère de l'Incarnation, pp. 52f.

180See St. Thomas Com. in Boetium de Trinit., q. 2, a. 3

181De incarnatione, beginning of treatise

182The expression according to scholastic terminology, means that the truth of this proposition: God exists, understood as the Creator of the universe, has its foundation and objective validity in the subject itself of the proposition, inasmuch as God is externally related to all things He has created, real on the part of creatures to God, though logical on the part of God to creatures. (Tr.)

183Summa theol., Ia, q. 3, a. 4, ad 2

184See Chapters 2-16 (passim).

185Summa theol., IIIa, q. 16, a. 6, 2nd. obj. Also III sent., d. 1, a. 1, ad 1.

186Summa theol., IIa, q. 16, a. 6, ad 2.

187Ibid., ad 2

188Com. in III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, ad 1.

189Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 6, ad 2.

190Cf. Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chaps. 40, 49f.

191See infra, chap. 5, art. 8.

192See infra, chap. 6, art. 1.

193Cf. Contra Gentes Bk. IV, chap. 40, for other objections

194Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col. 1463-73

195John 3:16

196 Ibid.

197Summa theol., Ia, q. 5, a. 4, ad 2

198Div. nom., Bk. IV.

199Summa theol., Ia, q. 5, a. 4, ad 2

200 Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 1, a. 4, ad 1. See also Ia, q. 19, a. 2; Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 30, no. 3; chap. 45, no. 1

201Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 11

202Denz., no. 1783

203They said that God was obliged not by a physical but a moral necessity to create the best possible world which finds its ultimate perfection in the Incarnation, thus making this latter morally necessary. This is contrary to the gratuity of this greatest gift

204Summa theol., Ia, q. 19, a. 3.

205 Ibid., Ia, q. 6, a. 1, 2.

206 Ibid., IIIa, q. 1, a. 1, c.

207Com. in IIIam, q. 1, a. 1.

208 Ibid., q. 1, a. 1, no. 6. The author remarks that what Cajetan says here is more forcible than what he said previously on this point. Cf. in Iam, q. 19, a. 3.

209Summa theol., Ia, q. 23, a. 5, ad 5

210See q. 1, a. 2.

211I Cor. 3:22f.

212Summa theol., Ia, q. 25, a. 6, ad 1.

213Cf. Monsabre, Conference 34

214Denz., no. 607

215De natura et gratia, no. 5.

216Summa, Ia, q. 64, a. 2.

217Cur Deus homo, Bk. I, chap. 4.

218 Ibid., Bk. II, chaps. 5, 17.

219Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " cols. 1474-82.

220Com. in IIIam., q. 1, a. 2.

221De agone christiano, chap. 11. See also De Trinitate, Bk. XIII, chap. 10.

222Summa, IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, § 1

223 Ibid., IIIa, q. 46, a. 2, ad 3.

224John 6:47.

225 Ibid., 8:18

226 Ibid., 14:6.

227 Ibid., 17:8.

228 Ibid., 4:41f.

229 Ibid., 1:16f.

230I John 1:1f.

231Heb. 1:1f.

232 Ibid., 2:2f.

233De civ. Dei, Bk. XL, chap. 2.

234John 8:14.

235Matt. 11:28; 10:37.

236Luke 2:34

237Matt. 11:6.

238Sermon 53, Vol. 38.

239John 7:46.

240Matt. 11:28

241 Ibid., 9:6.

242Col. 1:26f.

243I Tim. 1:1.

244Rom. 8:31f

245Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, c.

246Ps. 113:1

247John 3:16

248 Ibid., 15:9

249 Ibid., 15:13

250I John 4:9f.

251 Ibid., 4:19

252Rom. 5:8f.

253Titus 2:11f. See also 2:4

254John 8:46.

255I Cor. 15:10.

256Cf. ad 3.

257 Ibid., ad 2

258Denz., no. 3034

259Epistle, March 22, 1918

260Council of Cologne, 1860.

261Enchir., chap. 108

262Sermo I, De nativitate

263Encycl., Miserentissimus Redemptor

264Cf. ad. 2

265Cf. Salmant., De incar., disp. I

266De veritate, q. 28, a. 2

267See Billuart, De peccatis, dist. VIII, a. 5.

268Cf. IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2

269De veritate, q. 28, a. 2. See also Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col 1478-82

270As philosophers say: an absolute denial, since it is of a malignant nature, entirely destroys or excludes. For this reason, negative universal propositions are very dangerous, for a single example to the contrary suffices to show their falsity. Such propositions are totally exclusive.

271Summa theol., la, q. 3, prologue

272 Ibid., Ia, q. 12, a. 8

273 Ibid., IIIa, q. 48, a. 2

274De peccatis, dist. VIII, a. 5

275Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2

276 Ibid., IIIa, q. 48, a. 2

277Cf. especially St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses III, vi 12, also St. Basil, Com. in Ps. 48, no. 4. See also Petavius, Bk. II, no. 12 (beginning).

278St. Thomas, loc. cit.

279 Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 5

280See III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3. Also Com. in Tim., chap. 1, lect. 4

281See Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col 1482-1506

282Cf. Com. in III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3.

283De Trinit., Bk. XIII chap. 17

284Com. in III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3.

285Com. in I Tim., chap. 1, lect. 4

286If it is a question of things in nature already produced, it is possible for us from things naturally knowable to know that God freely willed to create them

287Wisd. 9:13

288Luke 5:31f.

289 Ibid., 19:10

290I Tim. 1:15.

291Gal. 4:4f.

292John 3:16.

293 Ibid., 1:29. See also Rom. 3:22; I John 1:7; 2:12:3:5, 4:10.

294Cf. Isa. 61:1; Dan. 9:24 Zach. 3:9.

295Cf F. Ceuppens, O.P. (Theol. biblica, De incarnatione, pp. 6-

29) whose conclusion is: "The motive of the Incarnation, according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, is the redemption of the human race, and no other motive is given in the pages of Sacred Literature."

296Denz., no. 54. Someone wrote recently: "No Scholastic, as far as we know, would be so imprudent as to quote this text of the Creed on this disputed point." On the contrary, appeal to this text is made by the Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, and many others.

297 Ibid. no. 371

298Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, nos. 406-15. Adv. haer., chap. 14; cf. Rouet de Journel, op. cit., no. 254.

299De Trinitate, dial. 5 (about middle).

300Adv. Arianos, Oratio 2, no. 56; Rouet de Journel, op. cit., no. 765

301Oratio 30, no. 2. see also Rouet de Journel, op. cit., no. 991

302Homily 5, in Epist. ad Hebraeos; Journel, no. 1218

303Enchiridion, no. 108; Journel, no. 1218

304Com. in Tim., 1:15; cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col. 1489-91, in which we find a collection of patristic texts which testify that the Incarnation is for the redemption of the human race. See also Petavius, De incarnatione, Bk. II, chap. 9.

305Col. 1:15f.

306Cf. Billot, De incarnatione, thesis 3; A. Michel, Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col. 1500-1506. Father Chrysostom, O.F.M., wrote an article entitled: "Is the redemption the motive of the incarnation?" On page 5 he asserts, and several Scotists agree with him, that according to Scotus there is neither a proximate end nor a proximate motive for the Incarnation; for God willed it because of His own excellence, as being the greatest manifestation of His goodness.

We reply to this by saying that, nevertheless, in Sacred Scripture not only the ultimate and most common end of God's works is assigned for the Incarnation, but also its proximate and special end, which is our redemption. At least the texts of Scripture seem to state clearly that the redemption is the principal and proximate motive, and hence the indispensable condition of the Incarnation.

307Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 3.

308 Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 6, ad 1.

309Suarez argues that the Incarnation was willed for two ultimate ends, namely, because of its excellence and for the redemption of the human race.

In refutation of Suarez, cf. Gonet (Clypeus, De incarnatione, disp. V, par. 3), who says: "The same effect cannot proceed from two causes that are each totally efficient and adequate; otherwise the effect would and would not depend on each cause for the same reason; but there is the same reason for each of the totally final and adequate causes." Hence the two above-mentioned ends are not coordinated, as Suarez would have it, but they are subordinated to each other, in such manner that the redemption of the human race is the proximate reason of the Incarnation.

Moreover, this opinion posits, like that of Scotus, mutability and imperfection in God. God, who foresees everything from all eternity, had foreseen and permitted from all eternity Adam's sin, and therefore does not begin to have another motive for His willing, but He persists immutably in the motive once chosen.

Finally, in the opinions of both Suarez and Scotus, the first decree abstracting from the condition of passible flesh cannot be efficacious, because the efficacious decree is directed to the object right at the moment to be produced, as it truly will be in time. Hence the Thomists, in opposition to Scotus and Suarez, admit only one efficacious decree of the Incarnation, willed by God in manifestation of His goodness by way of mercy for the redemption of man.

310De Trinitate, Bk. XIII, chap. 17.

311Summa theol., IIIa, q 24, a. 1

312 Ibid., Ia, q. 23, a. 5

313 Ibid

314Com. in IIIam, q. 1, a. 3, no 6

315 Ibid.. no. 7.

316Summa theol.. IIIa, a. 7, q. 3.

317See St. Thomas, Com. in Sent., d. 41, q. 1, a. 4.

318Rom. 8:28

319Com. in Summam, IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, no. 7.

320 Ibid., no. 9.

321 Ibid.

322 Ibid.

323 Ibid., no. 10.

324See his Com. in III Sent., d. 7, q. 3. Cf. also Father Chrysostom's "Le motif de l'Incarnation, " in the Etudes franciscaines, 1913; also "La Redemption este-elle le motif de l'Incarnation, " in La France franciscaine, 1931, p. 10.

325Com. in Summam, IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, no. 5.

326 Ibid., no. 10

327God permits the elect to fall into sin, as in Peter's case, for the sole reason of causing them to be more humble. Thus "to them that love God[unto the end] all things work together unto good" (Rom. 8:28), and Augustine adds "even sins."

328Loc. cit., nos. 9 and l0.

329 Ibid., no. 10

330 Ibid., no. 9

331La Redemption est-elle le motif de l'Incarnation?, pp. 24 and 50

332Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.

333The exact words of St. Thomas in this third article are: "Unde cum in Sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur, incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium contra peccatum." (Tr.)

334Ps. 6:3.

335 Ibid., 24:16.

336 Ibid., 30:10

337Com. in Summam, IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.

338Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2.

339 Ibid., a. 4.

340Com. in Joann., 14:12; see also St. Thomas, op. cit., Ia IIae, q. 113, a. 9.

341Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 30. a. 4. See also Ia, q. 21, a. 4

342 Ibid., IIa IIae, q. 30, a. 2, 4.

343Collect for Tenth Sunday after Pentecost

344This thesis was developed by the author in the periodical Angelicum, 1930, pp. 289f., under the title: "Mercy was the motive of the Incarnation."

345Summa theol, Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 2.

346 Ibid., ad 1

347Com in IIa IIae q. 17, a. 5, no. 6.

348If certain Thomists of more recent times say that the Incarnation is subordinated to the redemption, they use the word subordination in a broad sense; for the eminent cause cannot be subordinated to its effect in the strict sense, but in some way it is ordained to produce it; otherwise divine omnipotence would be subordinated to creatures which it produced.

349Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 188, a. 6.

350I Cor. 3:23

351Cf. ad 3; also Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.

352Com. in lam, q. 22, a. 2, ad 2 and a. 4.

353These two possible worlds, the second of which God chose by one sole efficacious decree in all its component parts, may be illustrated by the following schema.

Innocent world to be preserved in its innocence: preservation of original justice = Christ not the Redemeer

Sinful world to be redeemed: Original justice with permission of original sin = reparation to be made = Christ the Redeemer.

Cf. E. Hugon, Le mystere de l'Incarnation, p. 75; also Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " col. 1504.

354Summa theol., Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.

355Rom. 5:20

356Blessing of paschal candle

357P.L., XXXVI, 539

358For example, that a certain man die, indeed, from a disease right at the moment when in the state of grace, and that he should have the grace of final perseverance, this depends on supernatural predestination; similarly, the end of the world, in the material sense, will come when the number of the elect is completed. Therefore it cannot be said that God willed the natural order and its events independent of the order of grace, and this latter independently of the order of the hypostatic union; but by one decree He willed this present world and its three orders.

359See God, His existence, II, 54

360John 3 16.

361I Cor. 1:27f. For this same reason, frequently in the supernatural order God by an inequality of graces compensates for the inequality of natural conditions; for this is what is meant when it is said in the beatitudes, as recorded in the Gospels: "Blessed are the pure in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; blessed are the meek; blessed are they that mourn; blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake" (Matt. 5:3f.; Luke 6:20f.). Therefore we must not say: (1) God willed the natural order with its events; (2) the supernatural order; (3) the hypostatic union. But He first had in mind the present world as possible with all its subordinated parts and by a single decree chose it in preference to other equally possible worlds.

362Le Sauveur et son amour pour nous, p. 136f.

363Summa theol., Ia, q. 20, a. 4, ad 1.

364Luke 9:23.

365But this view of the Christian life completely harmonizes with that held by St. Francis of Assisi and St. Bonaventure. Scotus seems to take a somewhat different view of the Christian life, however, in his thesis on the motive of the Incarnation.

366Summa theol., IIIa. q. 62, a. 2.

367John 12:24f.

368Luke 24:26.

369Rom. 8:17.

370Cf P. Roschini, Mariologia, II, 40f.

371 Ibid

372See Angelicum, January, 1942, pp. 97-103: "Ancora intorno alla ragione primaria dell'esistenza di Cristo."

373Com. in Ep. ad Tim. They are two very different questions, just as these two are: (1) Would this building remain intact if this column were removed? (2) If the architect had not willed this particular column in the building, what would he have ordered in its place for the permanence of the structure?

374For a complete examination of this problem in answer to recent objections, cf. the article "De motivo incarnationis, " pp. 7-45, in the Acta Acad. Romanae S. Thomae, 1945.

375John 1:29

376Nestle's critical edition of St. John's Greek text has ten hamartian tou kosmou (Gr.)

377Rom. 5:15f. These words are quoted from the Vulgate, which differs somewhat from the text as given by St. Thomas in this article.

378Cf. the Sixth Council of Toledo, and the Council of Trent, Sess. VI, chap. 2; Denz., no. 794

379If there had been no original sin, then a number of persons would not have needed redemption, because they would have remained in the state of grace, in fact, of innocence; but in the others there would have been actual or personal sin, which is not transmitted except by example or by a sort of heredity. It must be noted that St. Thomas says in this fourth article: "It is certain that Christ came into this world... also to take away all sins that are subsequently added to original sin; not that all are taken away, and this is from men's fault, inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ..., but because He offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins."

380Gal. 4:4.

381 Ibid

382Hab. 3:2. This text is quoted by St. Thomas in the counterargument of this article

383See Tixeront, History of Dogmas, for an account of these heresies in their historical aspect

384Contra Arianos, II, 7

385Denz., nos. 54, 61, 705, concerning the definitions of the Church against the Arians. Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Arianisme.

386Denz., nos. 85, 206, 223, 227, 271; definitions of the Church against Apollinaris

387Ibid., nos. 113, 168. Cf. also P. Jugie, Nestorius et la controverse Nestorienne; also Dict. theol. cath., art. "Union hypostatique, " col. 471, and art. "Nestorius"

388Denz., no. 1917

389Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Eutyches."

390Ibid., art. "Kenose." This heresy is also known as the kenotic theory, from the Greek kenosis, which means "an emptying."

391Denz., no. 6.

392The Greek text reads: Homoosion toi patri, "of one and the same nature with the Father."

393Denz., nos. 85, 86.

394Ibid., no 40

395Ibid., no. 114

396Ibid., no. 118

397The Greek text reads: kai eis hen prosopon kai mian hupistasin

398Ibid., no. 148

399Ibid., no. 2031; proposition 31

400Ibid., no. 220

401Ibid., no. 115. St. Cyril's expression is: henosis physiche

402Ibid., no. 114 kath hypostasin

403The exact signification of the terms ousia, hypostasis, prosopon in the Greek Church, however, was the result of a gradual process of determination. In the Greek language prosopon signifies a theatrical mask or face, a figure used by actors to represent heroes, and therefore it often designates a dramatic person on the stage

404The Greek text reads: en duo physesin asygchytos

405Denz., no. 148. The concluding words of this quotation in the Greek read: eis en prosopon kai mian hypostasin.

406Ibid., nos. 219f.

407Ibid., no. 40

408Isa. 9:6

409John 14:6

410Phil. 2:6.

411I John 1:1.

412Cf. II Phys., chap. 1

413Similarly pantheism, since it confuses the divine nature with created natures, involves a contradiction, and de facto this theory means either that the world is absorbed in God, and then we have acosmism as taught by Parmenides, or pantheism; or else it means that God is absorbed in the world, as in the case of absolute evolutionism, a theory that maintains God is in a process of becoming in the world and never will be a reality.

414Denz., no. 220

415The Greek text is: henosis physike

416Denz., no. 114. The Greek words are: henosis kath hypostasin

417Ibid., nos. 114-18; henosis kath hypostasin

418Ibid., no. 117.

419 Ibid., no. 124

420 Theotokon

421 Denz., no. 113

422 Ibid., no. 148

423 Ibid., no. 40

424John 14:6

425 Ibid., 1:14

426The expression sui juris as applied to the definition of person implies a subject to whom ultimately all the actions are attributed. It also means a subject that has a complete nature that is individualized, and consequently incommunicable as such to any other. Just what constitutes a subject sui juris is very much disputed in the schools of Catholic theology. When a subject is intelligent and sui juris it follows that it must be endowed with freedom, though it may not always be able to exercise this power. On this point, cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, II, 306

427John 14:6.

428Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, Index theol., nos. 384f.

429Summa theol., Ia, q. 54, a. 1.

430Concerning the correlation prevailing between abstract terms and concrete terms, it must be said: just as humanity is that by which a man is a man, so personality is that by which a person is a person, and subsistence is that by which a suppositum is a suppositum; more briefly, subsistence or even personality is that by which a thing is a what or subject of attribution.

431 The words in parentheses are the translator's explanation.

432This fundamental doctrine concerning the suppositum is found in the writings of Aristotle. In his Perihermeneias (On Judgment), Bk. 1, lect. 3, 5, 8, the significance of the verb "is" in affirmative judgments is explained. In the Metaphysics, Bk. V, chap. 6, lect. 7, it is shown that every verb is resolved into the following parts of the verb "to be": "am, art, is, " and its participle.

The source of judgment is the verb "is." Thus, "Peter walks" signifies "Peter is walking, " or that Peter is the same real subject that is walking.

See also Met., chap. 7, lect. 9 of St. Thomas, no. 893, where we read: "Any verb whatever can be reduced to a form that includes the verb 'is.' Hence it is evident that there are as many modes of predication as there are modes of being, such as substantive, or quantitative, qualitative, active, passive, relative, and so forth. Thus the predicaments or categories of being are like different adornments of the verb 'is, ' as when we say: "Peter is substantially a man, quantitatively great, qualitatively wise, " and so forth.

Similarly, in Aristotle's Post. Analytics, Bk. II, lect. 10 of St. Thomas, on the third mode of per se predication, it is stated that first substance, or anything that subsists by itself (Peter, for instance), is not in another as in its subject, whereas second substance, as in the case of humanity, is attributed to Peter, as also are his accidents, although in another manner. The first mode of per se predication is the definition, the second is the necessary property, the third is first substance, the fourth is the proper cause which is of itself and immediately as such required for the production of its proper effect, as singing is required for a singer, or killing for a killer. On this point God, His existence, I, 379f. (Tr.)

St. Thomas says (Ia, q. 13, a. 12): "In every true affirmative proposition the predicate and the subjects signify in some way the same thing in reality, and different things in idea." Other citations on this point from St. Thomas are: Ia, q. 14, a. 14; q. 85, a. 5; IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, 6; q. 4, a. 2 (Cajetan's Comment.) q. 16, a. 1; q. 17, a. 2. Contra Gentes, Bk. 1, chap. 57.

Cf. also the Tabula aurea of the works of St. Thomas, under the word verbum, nos 77f.

We have treated this question at length in Le sens commun et la philosophie de l'etre. pp. 50, 320-58.

433Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 3

434Ibid., Ia, q. 13, a. 9; IIIa, q. 77, a. 2.

435 De ente et essentia

436 Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 3.

437If matter were that which is, and not that by which stones, plants, and animals are something material, materialism would be true: for then all bodies, even the human body, and man himself would be accidental modifications of this particular matter that exists by itself, which was the view of Thales, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus

438Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 3 et ad 4.

439 Ibid.

440Ibid., Ia, q. 3, a. 3, ad 4; q. 19, a. 3, ad 4.; q. 29, a. 3, ad 4. De potentia, q. 9, a. 2, ad 2; Summa theol., IIIa, q. 72, a. 2. Cf. Tabula aurea, under the heading "Incommunicable." This question has been given considerable attention in the book entitled Le sens commun, pp. 320-58.

441See the appendix to this article, concerning the various theories about personality

442See Cajetan's commentary, nos. 6f.

443Ibid., no. 8

444Ibid.

445Ibid., no. 9

446Summa theol., IIIa., q. 2, a. 2, ad 2; see also IIIa, q. 4, a. 2, ad 2 et ad 3.

447cf. God, His Existence. I, 216, no. 19

448Denz., nos. 1655f.

449 Ibid., no 1917

450Summa theol., Ia., q. 29, a. 1, which gives the definition of person; a. 3, which asks whether the name "person" should be applied to God; also IIIa, q. 2, which inquires whether the union took place in the person.

451Denz., no. 1810

452See Aristotle's Ethics, definition of virtue.

453Magna moralis, Bk. VII, De bona fortuna

454John 12:25

455Ibid., 4:34

456 Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 17, a. 6, ad 3

457Gal. 2:20.

458Phil. 1:21

459Com. in Epist. ad Phil., 1:21

460 Les Pensees, p. 267

461Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 17, a. 6, ad 3

462Gal. 2:20

463Denz., no. 1917

464John 11:25

465Ibid., 10:30

466 Summa theol., IIIa, q. 1, a. 1

467 Ibid., IIIa, q. 9, a. 22.

468Ibid., q. 18, a. 5

469 kath hypostasin

470Denz., no. 114

471 nos. 1665f.; see also Vacant, Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, I, 130. Gunther was a German priest born in 1873, who sought to put new life into theology by means of a Kantian inspired philosophy

472Denz., no. 1655

473Cf. Zigliara's Ontologia, chap. 29

474Summa theol., Ia, q. 5, a. 2, C

475Denz., 1891

476Ibid., no. 1893

477Ibid., no. 1897

478Ibid., nos. 1915f.

479Ibid., nos. 1908

480 Ibid., nos. 1911

481Ibid., no. 1917. This philosophical system about person was condemned by the Holy Office, December 14, 1887

482Le sens commun, pp. 320-23.

483Renouvier, Logique, II, 493.

484Revue de philosophie, December, 1938

485De veritate, q. 27, a. 1, ad 8. See also Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 52

486Cf. I Sent., d. 19, q. 2, a. 2

487De veritate fundamentali philosophiae Christianae, pp. 23f.

488Cf. III Sent., d. 1, q. 1, nos. 5f. According to Scotus, person and personality are negative notions, since not being assumed by a higher principle constitutes the formal notion of person or personality in human beings. Since the human nature of Christ was actually and aptitudinally such that it was assumed by the person of the Word, it did not have its own person or personality. As Garrigou-Lagrange points out, therefore the hypostatic union for Scotus consisted in something negative in this respect. The term "singular" is applied to anything that cannot be multiplied numerically. (Tr.)

489 Disp. Met., disp. 34, sects. 1, 2, 4; disp. II, sect. 3.

490Cajetan, 4, a. 2, no. 8.

491Cf. Capreolus, Com in IV Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 3, pp. 109-19

492De Verbo incarnato, q. 2, pp. 75, 84, 140. See also Dict. theol. cath., art. "HypoStase cols. 411f.

493Exod. 3:14

494 Summa theol., Ia, q. 3, a. 4

495 Ibid.

496John 14:6.

497Com. in III Sent., d. 5, q. 3, par. 2, p. 105

498 Ibid.,

499Ibid., q. 4, a. 2, nos. 3, 13.

500Ibid., nos. 15f.

501Ibid., d. 5, q. 3, par. 2, p. 105

502Cursus phil., phil. nat., q. 7, a. 1

503Ont., chap. 29.

504De Verbo incarn., q. 2, par. 1, p. 125

505Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 3

506Cursus phil, m phil. nat., q. 7, a. 1

507Our conception of God's independence is negative, because our first knowledge is of creatures that are dependent on God. So also we conceive spiritual beings negatively, as immaterial, because our first knowledge is of material things. On the contrary, God and the angels, whose first knowledge is of spiritual beings, must conceive material beings negatively, as non-spiritual. See in which Garrigou-Lagrange points out that self-subsisting Being is the supreme truth from which all God's attributes are derived. (Tr.)

508 The One God, loc. cit.

509Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, ad 2.

510Ibid., q. 17, a. 2.

511 Ibid.

512Billot, De Verbo incarn., q. 2, p. 125; also Zigliara, Summa phil., Ontologia, chap. 29, par. 4.

Father Billot says that Scotus and Father Tiphanus, S.J., hold almost similar views on this question. The latter, in his work entitled De hypostasi et persona, chaps. 10-24, holds that there is merely a logical distinction between nature and suppositum, inasmuch as a complete and singular nature is a person by the very fact that it is a whole in itself, or because it is not either actually or aptitudinally united with another suppositum. According to Father Billot the arguments against Scotus are equally valid against Tiphanus on this point, concerning the concept of person.

This seems true, as also Father Hugon observes in his De Verbo incarnato., q. 2, a. 2. But Tiphanus, op. cit., chap. 7, differs from Scotus in that he holds a real distinction between essence and existence, which he says is fundamental and clearly taught by St. Thomas.

Opinions similar to that of Scotus are held by Franzelin, De Verbo incarnato., props. 7-9; Galtier, De incarnatione et redemptione, thesis 15.

Hugon, De Verbo incarnato., q. 2, a. 2, par. 5, sums up all the arguments against the aforesaid opinion of Scotus as follows: "The constituent of that which is most perfect in nature cannot consist in something negative. But person, as St. Thomas says (Ia, q. 29, a. 3), is that which is most perfect in nature. Therefore the constituent of person cannot consist in something negative."

513Disp. Metaph., disp. 34, sects., 1, 2, 4, nos. 9f.: De incarn., disp. 11, sect. 3. Almost similar views are held by De Lugo De incarn., disp. 12, sect. 1, nos. 1-4. Vasquez, Com. in Summam theol., IIIa, q. 4, a. 2, disp. 31, chap. 6

514Exod. 3:14

515John 14:6

516Acta Apost., Sedis, VI, 383

517Cursus philosophicus, loc. cit.

518Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 1.

519Ibid., q. 2, a. 5, ad 1

520 Ibid., Ia, q. 45, a. 4

521Similarly the period serves a useful purpose in terminating a proposition, such as: This is My body. For if the period is not inserted at the end, the proposition is not considered complete, and someone could add an adjective, such as figurative, which would completely change the meaning of the proposition, because then the body of Christ would be in the Eucharist only figuratively and not really

522Cursus phil., phil. nat., q. 7, a. 1.

523De Verbo incarn., q. 2, pp. 75-84, 137f.

524Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, and similar passages

525 De Verbo incarn. p. 88

526It was Euclid who gave us the postulate, that a point is that which has position but not magnitude. (Tr.)

527Roundness is indeed a mode that is really distinct from quantity, for the same quantity could have another shape. But there could be no roundness without quantity, whereas in the Eucharist the quantity of the bread is without substance

528De Verbo incarn., pp. 89, 140

529Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2.

530De Verbo incarnato., p. 69

531Com in IIIam., d. 5, q. 3 (toward the end).

532Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 1

533Ibid., q. 17 (in toto)

534Ibid., q. 16

535Ibid., q. 2.

536 Ibid.

537Ibid., q. 17.

538De generatione, disp. 15, q. 3

539Summa theol., Ia, q. 50, a. 2, ad 3

540By the principium quod is meant the suppositum or. person that performs the act.(Tr.)

541Quodlibet 2, q. 2, a. 4

542Ibid

543Cf. Angelicum, June, 1945, pp. 83-55

544I grandi commentatori di S. Tomasso.

545De Verbo incarnato., p. 116.

546Ibid., pp. 118f

547Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 2; De potentia, q. 9, a. 1; I Sent., d. 23, q. 1, a. 1. In the above-quoted text it is manifest that subsistence or personality is distinct from existential substance or from subsisting; for St. Thomas says in this text: "Subsistence or personality is said of that whose act is to subsist"; therefore it is not identified with the act that is received in it. In other words, subsistence is an abstract term that does not correspond to this concrete that is said to subsist, but to this concrete that is the suppositum.

548De generatione, disp. 15, q. 3

549Objection. But subsistence or personality also is related to the subject as that by which. Therefore the difficulty remains.

Reply. Personality is that by which a person is formally a what, or a subject of itself separately existing. But essence is that which constitutes the being in a certain species and existence places it outside nothing. Hence there is no parity of argument, for personality is that by which most formally anything is constituted a what but it differs from a person as the abstract term does from the concrete term.

550Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 3

551Cf. Penido, Le role de l'analogie en theologie dogmatique, Part II, chap. 1, La Trinite.

552Com. in IIIam Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 3, no. 2

553Cf. no. 5, the refutation of Scotus' opinion.

554Com. in IIIam, q. 4, a

555Cajetan, loc. cit., nos. 6-11, gives the following interpretation of St. Thomas' doctrine on this point: "We must say that there is some real difference between this humanity and this man, so that man includes something real... whereby this man is susceptible of both the act of existing, as of real filiation.... For this difference between this man and this humanity belongs to the nature of things... and for this reason cannot be reduced to a difference in the various ways of understanding the terms, or to a difference according as it is outside the scope of connotated things, whatever these may be; for this difference precedes all extrinsic things and modes of understanding and signifying. The difference does not come within the scope of negations, for a negation does not constitute the real entity of the subject.... Hence there must be something positive included in this man that is not included in this humanity, by which this man becomes primarily and directly susceptible of this thing (existence) of which humanity is not capable."

But this positive element must be that whereby first substance is what exists separately of itself. Therefore it must be something substantial, like a terminus, as the point is the terminus of the line. Cajetan says (loc. cit., no. 11): "Just by dividing a line each part acquires a new terminus in the genus of quantity... for each part becomes actually a whole (something)." Likewise, as Aristotle teaches (De anima, Bk. II, chap. 2, lect. 4 of St. Thomas): "just by dividing an imperfect animal, such as a worm, we get two actual substances, two animals." St. Thomas considers that this analogy applies to the Incarnation, for he says (III Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 3): "What is assumed, is drawn to something more complete, existing incomplete before its assumption; and this is contrary to the notion of person, which has the maximum of completion."

And St. Thomas concedes (Ibid., ad 3): "If Christ were separated from His assumed humanity, solely by such separation this humanity would become this man." To the objection that, from the thing separated nothing is acquired by the thing separated, St. Thomas replies: "Separation gives to each of the parts totality, and in things of continued quantity it also gives to each of the parts actual existence. Hence, in the supposition that Christ were to cease as man, that man would subsist of himself in the rational nature, and by this very fact would be entitled to be called a person, " just as in things of continued quantity, by the fact that the part separated from the whole is terminated, and has actual existence, so in the substantial order, a singular nature by the fact that it is terminated receives actual existence.

556 Bk. IV, chap. 43.

557Com. in Iam, q. 3 a. 5

558 d. 4, a. 1

559 a. 2.

560 2, ad 1

561 q. 35, a. 5, ad 1

562Ibid., q. 4, a. 2, ad 3; see also q. 4, a. 1, c. et ad 3; q. 2, a. 3, ad 2.

563Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 43.

564Com. in I Sent., d. 23, q. I, ad. I. See also De potentia, q. 9, a. I; Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 2; III Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 3, c. et ad 3.

565Summa theol., Ia, q. 39, a. 3, ad 4

566Com. in I Sent., d. 73, q. l, a. 4, ad 4. See also I Sent., d. 4, q. 2, a. 2, ad 4.

567Com. in IIIam, q. 4, a. 2, no. 8

568Cf. Billuart, Index, the word "person"; also his Dialectica, Bk. II, chap. 1, art. 2 (19); III, chap. 2; Ibid., 21, nos. 5, 6; Ibid., 22, no. 7. Also Zigliara, Della luce intellectuale, II, Bk. III, no. 374. Gonzales, Logica, p. 51; St. Bonaventure says something similar in his Com. in IIIam Sent., d. 4, a. 1, q. 3, and IV Sent., d. 8, q. 1.

569Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 3.

570Ibid., ad I.

571Ibid., Ia, q. 50, ad 3

572Quodl., II, q. 2, a. 4.

573Ibid., II, a. 3, 4; Com. in II Sent., d. 3, a. 1, 2.

574Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 1

575Quodl., II, a. 3, 4

576De generatione, disp. 15, q. 3.

577Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "hypostase, " col. 418

578Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 52

579Summa theol., Ia, q. 54, a. 1, ad 2.

580Ibid., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 3.

581Ibid., q. 19, a. 1, ad 4.

582Ibid., Ia, q. 29, a. 1, 2; also IIIa, q. 2, a. 2.

583Ibid., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, ad 3.

584Ibid., q. 17, a. 2.

585Ibid., q. 19

586De Verbo incarnato, p. 118

587Cf. I Sent. d. 23, q. I, a. I; De pot., q. 9, a. 1. Summa theol., Ia, q. 29, a. 2.

588One per se, or unity per se, is said of a being that is specifically one, lion, and not a combination of several specific essences. (Tr.)

589Post Anal., Bk. I, lect. 10.

590Etudes carmelitaines, April, 1936, pp. 125f., art. "Recherche de la personne."

591Com. in IIIam, q. 4, a. 2, no. 8.

592De Verbo incarnato, p. 351.

593Denz., no. 114.

594Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 3, ad. 2., for a more complete explanation of the notion of person

595Denz., no. 216

596Cf. Com. in II Sent., d. 6, q. 2, a. 3.

597Cf. ad I, ad 2, ad 3

598Denz., no. 114

599See replies to objections in this article, especially ad 2 and ad 3

600See his commentary on this article, no. 10

601Cf. Post. Anal., Bk. 1, chap. 4 (lect. 10 of St. Thomas).

602The expression per se as used here, means that the humanity is in the Word as a substance, and not as in a subject of inhesion, in that the Word has given to the humanity, not only individualization, but also subsistence and existence. (Tr.)

603Com. in IIIam, q. 2, a. 6, no. 9.

604See reply to the second objection of this article

605See a. 8 of this question.

606In fact, Father de la Taille says that the grace of union may be called created, whereas St. Thomas and the majority of theologians say that this grace is uncreated. See infra q. 6, a. 6; De veritate q. 29, a. 2 (about end); also the Tabula aurea of the works of St. Thomas, under the word "Christ, " nos. 68f.

607Cf. Dict, theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " cols. 1525f.

608Cf. Summa theol., Ia, q. 45, a. 3.

609Cf. Com. in III Sent., d. 2, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula prima

610Summa theol., Ia, q. 45, a. 3

611Ibid., a. 2. ad 2

612Ibid., a. 3, c. Transitive action is motion as it is coming from the agent, and passion is motion as it is in the patient. Therefore, when motion is removed from action and passion, nothing remains but a relation of dependence operates by an action that is not formally transitive

613See reply to the second objection of this article

614Cf. IIIa, q. 17, a. 2, for a clearer explanation of this truth

615See reply to the fourth objection of this article

616De consideratione Bk. V, chap. 8.

617Cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 9, obj 3

618Ibid., ad 3.

619Ibid. q. 2, a. 2, ad 2.

620Matt. 4:9.

621Ibid., 4:10

622Com in IIIam, 2, a. 9.

623 Ibid.

624Cf. argumentative part of this article, and ad 1.

625 Little Office of B.V.M., Ant. at Benedicturs

626De praed. sanct., chap. 15

627Titus 3:5.

628Summa theol., Ia, q. 23, a. 5.

629Denz., nos. 65, 85, 88, 233

630John 1:17

631Ibid., 1:16

632Cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, ad 3

633St. Thomas seems to say something more (III Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 1, ad 6.), for he writes: "The Blessed Virgin did not merit the Incarnation, but, presupposing the Incarnation as an established fact, she merited that it should take place through her not by condign merit, but by congruous merit, inasmuch as it was becoming for the Mother of God to be most pure and most perfect." On careful consideration, however, this way of presenting the case does not make any addition to the previous statement. It merely asserts that the Blessed Virgin merited that the Incarnation should take place through her, inasmuch as she merited that degree of purity and holiness, which befitted the Mother of God, and no other virgin could merit this, because no other virgin received from her conception this original plentitude of grace. So the Blessed Virgin Mary in the order of execution could have prepared herself for the divine maternity, but she could not have merited it, for, such being the case, she would have merited the Incarnation.

634Cf. Gonet, disp. 7, a. 3.

635Summa theol., Ia IIae, q. 114, a. 9; De veritate q. 29, a. 6.

636See solution of objections in Gonet, disp. 7, a. 3; Billuart, diss. 5, a. 1.

637Cf. Salamenticenses disp., 7, dub. 2, par. 7.

638We are here concerned with circumstances that are necessarily connected according to a hypothetical necessity with the Incarnation in the concrete, as it is willed by God, such as the conception and birth of Jesus

639That Christ merited what preceded His conception presents no difficulty, and so He merited the redemption of the just of the old Testament. The reason is that merit is not a physical but a moral cause; a physical cause exerts no influence before it exists, whereas God, foreseeing and willing the future merits of Christ, gave grace to those who were justified before the coming of Christ.

640Cf. IIIa, q. 19, a. 3

641Com. in IIIam, disp. 7, dub. 2, par. 7, no. 53

642Luke 1 78

643Titus 3:4f.

644Denz., no. 1641. Bull Ineffabilis Deus

645Because of this principle, St. Thomas at times feared to affirm the privilege of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when, for instance, he did not have in mind her preservative redemption.

646Summa theol., IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2.

647Matt. 1:21.

648Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, ad 2.

649Cf. Billuart and Gotti on this difficulty, who discuss the problem better than Gonet and the Salmanticenses

650By the word "adult" the Catholic Church understands those who have come to the use of reason. (Tr.)

651Whereas merit refers to divine justice, at least according to an amicable right, prayer as such not necessarily meritorious, refers to divine mercy

652Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 11, c (end).

653Ibid., ad 3

654Com. in III Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 1, ad 6

655Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 11 c (middle).

656Ibid., q. 31, a. 5; a. 32, a. 4, c.

657Ibid., Ia, q. 45, a. 5.

658 Cf. Dict. theol. cath., art. "Incarnation, " cols. 1509 Also art. "Marie, " col. 2362. Cf. also John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Salmanticenses, Contenson.

659For a fuller explanation of this distinction, which is called a virtual minor distinction, see The One God, pp. 168f.; also God, His Existence, II, 203-46. (Tr.)

660Cf. IIIa, q. 3, a. I, ad 2, quaestiuncula 3a

661Ibid., ad 1

662Ibid., ad 3

663Ibid., ad 1, ad 2, ad 3.

664Cf. ad 2.

665Cf. Ia, q. 3, a. 3

666Cf. IIIa, q. 3, a. 2, 4

667Denz., no. 285

668Cf. IIIa, q. 3, a. 3, ad 1, ad 2.

669Ibid., a. 1, ad 2. See also Penido, Le role de l'analogie en theologie dogmatique, PP 337f.

670The Deity is not communicated internally inasmuch as it is terminated by paternity. Thus in the figure that represents the Holy Trinity, in the equilateral triangle, the first angle that is formed communicates indeed to the second and third angles its superficies, but not itself, nor its superficies so far as this latter is terminated by itself. Thus it is that this same superficies is terminated by the three angles that are really distinct from one another and are not really distinct from their common superficies

671Summa theol., Ia, q. 32, a. 2

672Ibid., a. 1

673Denz., no. 282. See also no. 422, profession of faith enjoined upon the Waldensians

674The entire reply should be read

675Cf. ad 8.

676Consult the Thomist theologians for the solution of the objections raised by Scotus

677Cf. ad 3, which should read: "It would not be necessary (non oporteret), " according to the Leonine edition.

678Cf. Summa theol., Ia, q. 36, a. 4, ad 2; q. 39, a. 3; IIIa, q. 3, a. 6, ad 1; a. 7, ad 2.

679This analogy enables us to see more clearly that adoptive sonship is a certain participated likeness of eternal natural sonship. See a. 5, ad 2, of this question. St. Paul expresses the same analogy in the following text: "God predestinated us to be made conformable to the image of His Son. that He might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).

680Read the text of St. Thomas, the second reason

681Rom. 8:29.

682Com. in Ep. ad Rom

683Cf. supra, a. 5, ad 2.

684Ibid., IIIa, q 23, a. 1

685Ibid., a. 2.

686Ibid., ad 3. Cf. Ia, q. 93, a. 4, ad. 2; IIa IIae, q. 45, a. 6; IIIa, q. 3, a. 5, ad 2; a. 8; q. 39, a. 8, ad 3; q. 45, a. 4

687Cf. IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3.

688The obediential power in itself implies only a non-repugnance to elevation, because God's power to elevate is limited only by repugnance. Thus in every individualized human nature, such as in Peter and Paul, there is an obediential power for the hypostatic union, and this applies even to the angelic nature; but besides the obediential power there can be a certain fitness in the nature. But besides the obediential power in our intellect to be raised to the supernatural order and hence to the beatific vision, there is a certain fitness in the intellect, which is not absolutely the same as the obediential power or capacity of being raised to this order. This point is not sufficiently taken note of by some theologians, when they read in the works of St. Thomas (Ia q. 12, a. 1) of the natural desire of seeing God in His essence

689Com. in III Sent., d. 2, q. 1, a. 1.

690Prov. 8:31

691Heb. 2:10, 16f.

692Wherefore only a rational nature or intellectual nature is capable of the merit and satisfaction that are required in offering the sacrifice of redemption, and this sacrifice had to be offered by one whose nature is specifically the same as the human race that had to be redeemed.

693Com. in III Sent., d. 2, q. 1, a. 1

694Cf. IIIa, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3.

695Cf. ad 3

696Cf. Ia, q. 64, a. 2

697But the devil, after his confirmation in sin, cannot consider anything previously not considered about the sin. There is only one way for him to return to God, which is by humility and obedience, and pride makes him unwilling to accept this way, even though it were offered to him

698Summa theol., Ia, q. 3, a. 3.

699Ibid., IIIa, q. 4, a. 1, ad 3

700Cf. Ia, q. 3, a. 3

701Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 52

702Denz., no. 217

703Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, ad 2. Cf. Cajetan, who in his famous commentary on this article gave his interpretation of St. Thomas' teaching on personality. We have already (supra, q. 2, a. 2) expounded the doctrine of St. Thomas on personality, and there is no need of again referring to it.

704Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 2: "In intellectual substances (and in every creature), there is a difference between existence and what is."

705Com. in IIIam, q. 4, a. 2, no. 7

706Ibid., no. 8.

707Contra Gentes, Bk. II, chap. 52

708Objection. But Peter is not his personality.

Reply. I concede the statement. But personality is a most formal part of Peter, formally constituting Peter as a person, thus enabling him to receive existence

709Matt. 1:21f. Cf. infra, q. 16, a. 1

710These personalities or subsistent relations are only virtually distinct from the divine nature or essence. See God, His Existence, II, 7f. Also The One God, pp. 303-5. There is also a virtual distinction between God's absolute subsistence and the relative subsistences of the divine persons. The human nature was united with the relative subsistence of the Word, for, as the absolute subsistence of God cannot denote incommunicability of perseity to the other persons, all. three persons would have assumed the human nature, which is contrary to revelation. (Tr.)

711Cf. infra, q. 16, a. 1.

712Ibid

713The human nature can be considered apart from its individualizing notes, but it cannot exist separated from them; for it implies common matter, that is, bones and flesh, which can exist only if they are these particular bones and this particular flesh. (Cf. Met., Bk. VII, chap. 15, no. 2.) On the contrary, being, one, true, good, do not claim in their definition common matter, and can exist apart from singular sensible things.

714I Cor. 3:22..

715Feast of Ascension, Hymn for Matins

716Job 14:4

717Summa theol., IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, ad. 2

718Denz., nos. 20, 216, 255, 344, 393, 462.

719Adversus haereses, Bk. I, chap. 24

720John 1:14

721I John 4:2

722Rom. 1:3.

723Matt. 20:18f.

724Luke 24:39

725Contra Marcionem, Bk. III, chap. 8

726Adversus haereses, Bk. V, chap. 20.

727Luke 24:39

728Denz., no. 710. This heresy is recalled in the decree for the Jacobites

729Luke 24:39

730Rom. 1:3.

731Gal. 4:4.

732Matt. 1:1

733Luke 1:31.

734Matt. 1:16

735I Cor. 15:47.

736Cf. ad I.

737Cf. IIIa, q. 50, a. 1. The entire article ought to be read.

738Contra Gentes, Bk. IV, chap. 30.

739He was so called because of his having been appointed bishop of Avila. (Tr.)

740The Catholic Encyclopedia says of him that he was a Franciscan whose origin and nationality are unknown. (Tr.)

741Cf. IIIa, q. 54, a. 2.

742Denz., no. 718.

743Billuart, De Verbo incarnato

744Rom. 2:14

745I John I: 7. See also I Pet. 1:2

746Denz., no. 876.

747Ibid., no. 550

748Cf. IIIa, q. 54, a. 2, especially the argumentative part, and the replies to the second and third objections

749Ibid., a. 3, ad 3.

750The author means only that amount of blood that was required for reassumption. (Tr.)

751Denz., no 876

752Summa theol., IIIa, q. 5, a. 3, ad 3. 3

753Denz., nos. 216, 223, 227, 271, 710.

754Matt. 26:38

755Luke 23:46

756Isa. 40:5.

757Matt. 11:29

758Denz., no. 204

759Ibid., no. 205.

760Cf. infra, IIIa, q. 33, a. 2, in which St. Thomas asks whether Christ's body was animated at the first moment of its conception. He answers in the affirmative, giving as his reason that for the conception to be attributed to the Son of God, as we say in the Apostles' Creed, "who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, " We must say that the body itself of Christ, When it was conceived, was assumed by the Word of God. But now in this first article it is shown that the Word assumed the body through the intermediary of the soul without which the body would not have been a human body

St. Thomas also says (loc. cit.): "In the generation of other men, he is first of all a living thing, and afterward an animal, and after that a man (so that animation or passive conception is completed after the inceptive passive conception of the embryonic body), because the body is successively formed and disposed for the 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." Nevertheless the period of gestation was not shortened. Even in accordance with the present condition of medical science, the hypothesis can very safely be admitted which teaches that the ordinary process is for the spiritual soul not to be created and united with the embryonic body until one month after the conception of the embryonic body. The dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception affirms nothing that is contrary to this hypothesis, for it is concerned solely with the preservation of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary from original sin; but the person does not exist prior to the existence of the spiritual soul. The dogmatic definition is not concerned with the question of the first moment of the conception of the body as distinct from its animation.

761Denz., no. 204

762Cf. IIIa, q. 33, a. 3.

763Denz., nos. 63, 85, 88, 233.

764Summa theol., IIIa, q. 33, a. 3.

765Cf. IIIa, q. 50, a. 2, 3, where this statement is made clearer

766The Greek word nous corresponds to "intellect, " whereas psyche refers to the sensitive soul

767Denz., no. 204

768Cf. ad 2

769Cf. Ia, q. 85, a. 7; IIIa, q. 31, a. 5. Also Tabula aurea, under the word "anima, " nos. 69, 72, 73.

770Cf. Ia, q. 76, a. 5

771Aristotle, De anima, Bk. II, chap. 9

772Summa theol., Ia, q. 85, a. 7.

773Ibid., IIIa, q. 31, a. 5.

774De veritate, q. 24, a. 8, ad 6

775Elementa philosophiae, I, no. 461

776Summa theol., IIIa, q. 33, a. 2, 3

777Denz., nos. 204, 205; also nos. 63, 85, 88, 233

778De fide orthod., Bk. III, chap. 2 (about the end); see also IIIa, q. 33, a. 2, sed contra

779Denz., no. 205: "If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that afterward God, the Word, and the soul were united with it, as if it had already existed, let him be anathema." Thus St. Gregory says (Moral., Bk. XVIII, chap. 27): "As soon as the angel announced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the womb within the womb the Word was made flesh." St. Thomas says: "For the conception to be attributed to the very Son of God, as we confess in the Creed, when we say, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, we must say that the body itself, in being conceived, was assumed by the Word of God. Now it has been shown above (q. 6 a. 1, 2) that the Word of God assumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit" (IIIa, q. 33, a. 2), because it is only by means of the rational soul that the flesh is human (cf. Ibid., ad 3). If the divine maternity were to terminate in the conception of the flesh that is not united with the Word, the Blessed Virgin would not be the Mother of God, but the mother of a man, who in losing afterward His own personality, would have received the divine personality.

780Cajetan says (Com. in IIIam, q. 6, a. 4, no. 3): "The proper matter of any form is said to be either in the process of becoming, and so it is prior even in time to the reception of the form; or else it is actually in being, and thus it is proper only at the very moment that it receives the form."

781Summa theol., IIIa, q. 33, a. 2, ad 3.

782Ibid., a. 4.

783Ibid., q. 27, a. 2.

784Elementa philosophiae, no. 536.

785Propedeutica ad psychologiam, p. 461 (Mss.).

786Cf. ad 1 (end).

787Cf. Ia, q. 23, a. 2. The whole of this article should be read, as also the replies to the first and second objections

788Cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 7

789Ibid., q. 2, a. 10

790Ibid., q. 6, ad 2

791Com. in III Sent., d. 2, q. 2., quaestiuncula Ia

792Ibid., q. 3

793Summa theol., Ia, q. 45, a. 3; IIIa, q. 2, a. 7.

794Ibid., IIIa, q. 2, a. 7.

795Ibid., Ia, q. 45, a. 2

796Ibid., a. 3. Transitive action is motion as coming from the agent, and passion is motion that is in the patient. Hence with the removal of action and passion, there is nothing left but a relation of real dependence

797Com. in III Sent., d. 2, q. 2, quaestiuncula Ia.

798Cf. IIIa, q. 16, 17

799Ibid., q. 17, a. 2

800Cf. L. B. Gillon, O.P., Angelicum: "La notion de consequence de l'union hypostatique dans le cadre de la IIIe pars. q. 2-26."

801John 1:14

802Clypeus theol. thom., de incarn., disp. II

803Com. in IIIam, d. 13, q. 1, no. 7.

804Dict. theol. cath., art. "Jesus-Christ, " cols. 1274-85. See also E. Hugon, Le mystere de l'incarnation, part 4, chap. 1; also Garrigou-Lagrange, Le Sauveur; Monsabre Expose du dogme catholique, conference 40

805Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 81, a. 8. The Greek word for holy is a hagios as though meaning earthless

806Ibid.

807Com. in Joan., Bk. IV, chap. 29

808Oratio 30, no. 31 (cf. Rouet de Journel, no. 995).

809De fide orthod., Bk. III, chap. 3 (Rouet de Journel, no. 1842

810John 17:19

811Com. in Joan., tract. 108, no. 5

812De Trinitate. Bk. XV, chap. 26, no. 46 (Rouet de Journel, no. 1680). See also Council of Frankfort (Denz., no. 311). This council says: "Christ is by nature anointed, but we are by grace; because in Him was the fullness of the divinity." Otherwise there would be only an accidental difference in accordance with the degree of grace between Christ's sanctification and ours.

813Summa theol., IIIa, q. 6, a. 6

814Ibid., q. 7, a. 1.

815Ibid., q. 22, a. 2, ad 3.

816Comp. theol., chap. 214; Matt. 3:17. Even though Christ's soul were not adorned with habitual grace, these words of God the Father would still be true.

817Summa theol., IIIa, q. 23, a. 4.

818Ibid., q. 24, a. 1, 2

819John 10:36. Catena aurea., Com. in Joan. 10:36

820Catena aurea, loc. cit

821Summa theol., IIIa, q. I, a. 1, 2

822It is almost impossible to give the concise equivalent in English of "principium quod." By this expression the Scholastics meant the suppositum or person that performs the act, in accordance with the axiom that actions are attributed either to the suppositum or to the person. (Tr.)

823Cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 1.

824Matt. 17:5

825Oratio 30, no. 21

826In other words, the person of the Word sanctifies the human nature of Christ, because the person is divine.

827Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2

828Com. in IIIam, d. 13, q. 2

829Gonet, De incarnatione, disp. 12, a. 2, nos. 35, 44-53

830Cf. Salmanticenses, De incarnatione, disp. XIII, dub. 4, nos. 60, 62, 90. Nevertheless the Salmanticenses (Ibid., nos. 66, 70) say: "Christ could not merit de condigno supernatural rewards without habitual grace, " because in their opinion, as given in the places cited above: "Condign merit of any reward has a connatural tendency for this reward."

On this point, the Salmanticenses differ from Godoy, Gonet, Billuart, and a fortiori from Suarez, who unjustifiably holds that Christ could have merited de condigno the supernatural rewards without the assistance, by way of transient help, of supernatural and elevating grace (cf. Ibid., no. 92). Suarez says this because he admits against the Thomists, that there is in our nature an obediential potentiality that is not only passive and elevational, but also active.

831Com. in IIIam, d. 13

832Isa. 11:2f.

833Luke 4:1

834John 1:14

835Ibid. 1:16

836Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, Index theol., no. 394

837Com. in Ps. 44. (Journel, op. cit., no. 1208.)

838Dial. de SS. Trinitate (op. cit., no. 2088). P. G., LXXV, 1018

839John 1:14

840Luke 4:1

841Acts 10:38

842De Trinit., Bk. XV, chap. 26, no. 46 (op. cit., no. 1680).

843Luke I: 35.

844Hom. 4 super Missus est, no. 5

845Summa theol., IIIa, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3.

846Ibid., ad 1.

847Ibid., q. 6, a. 6

848Ibid., q. 7, a. 1, ad 2.

849John 1:16

850Summa theol., IIIa, q. 8, a. 5.

851De veritate, q. 29, a. 5, ad 4.

852De incarnatione, disp. 12, a. 2, no. 45.

853De incarnatione, disp. 8, a. 2, no. 2

854Cf. IIIa, q. 34, a. 1

855Ibid., q. 34, a. 3

856Ibid., a. 2, ad 3

857Ibid., Ia, q. 76, a. 4, ad 1

858Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 113, a. 8, ad 1

859John 8:46

860Matt. 26:59

861Ibid., 26:65

862Ibid., 27:4

863Ibid., 27:24

864cf. IIIa, q 7, a. 9f.

865This argument presupposes that created habitual grace is in Christ's soul. But we can invert the process of argumentation by appealing to Sacred scripture where it is asserted that infused virtues, such as charity and humility, were and are in Christ's most holy soul so as to prove likewise that this created habitual grace, which is the root of the infused virtues and the gifts, and which, for this reason, is called "the grace of the virtues and the gifts, " was and still is in the soul Of Christ (cf. IIIa, q 62, a. 2).

This argument in reverse now makes it clear that it would have been most unbefitting for Christ's most holy soul not to have had created habitual grace for then the infused virtues would have been in His soul without their proximate and normal foundation, or rather instead of the infused virtues there would have been in His soul only a transient supernatural help, functioning like a transient light of glory.

Hence, although the created habitual grace is not absolutely necessary, presupposing the actual presence of the increate grace of union (by which Christ's soul is already most holy), but only most fitting; nevertheless this fitness is such that its absence would be most unfitting; for it would mean that Christ's soul would then be imperfect, in fact, a sort of monstrosity in the supernatural order. On the contrary, when it is said that "it was fitting for God to create, rather than not to create, to raise us to the supernatural order, and will the Incarnation... rather than not to will such things, " then the absence of such would have meant no unfitness.

In this we see how very fitting it was for Christ to have habitual grace. Thus all due proportion preserved, it is fitting for the just to have the seven sacred gifts of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise their life of grace would be imperfect, which would be unbefitting as regards Providence that disposes all things sweetly and firmly. (Cf. Ia IIae, q. 68, a. 2.)

866Cf. infra, q. 15, a. 1, ad 5. Although Christ's detestation of sin was perfect, yet there could be no repentance in Him, simply because He could not sin.

867In somno Scipionis, Bk. I, chap. 8.

868Cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 1, 2.

869Com. in IIIam, q. 7, a. 2, ad 3.

870The infused virtue of itself does indeed give intrinsic facility for its acts, but there may be an extrinsic difficulty because of inordinate passions, if the acquired correlative virtue is lacking, as in the case of the repentant drunkard in whom the acquired virtue of sobriety is wanting

871Cf. IIIa, q. 9, a. 4.

872Matt. 22:21

873Cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 2

874Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 67, a. 1

875So say Gonet, Billuart, as also Suarez and Vasquez, but the latter on different grounds.

876Denz., no. 224

877Luke 2:52

878Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 12, ad 3.

879Ibid., q. 9, a. 4, and especially q. 12, a. 2, c; also ad 3

880John 21:17

881Cf. IIIa, q. 34, a. 4

882Heb. 11:1

883Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 4.

884However, in the case of the infused moral virtues, the imperfection of the discursive method of prudence enters in, and for this reason they are inferior to the gifts

885Osee 2:20.

886Isa. 11:5.

887Ps. 30:1

888Rom. 8:24.

889Cf. a. 1.

890Cf. IIIa, q. 34, a. 4.

891Ps. 30:1.

892Stabat Mater. After Christ's death, the Blessed Virgin Mary, during her life on earth, made more sublime acts of faith and hope subjectively, but not objectively. Thus it is said that all Christ's acts were personally of infinite value subjectively, but His act of love on the cross was nobler objectively. Thus to teach the subject matter of theology is more meritorious than to be engaged in any other material pursuit, even though done under obedience; but to teach theology subjectively and personally is less meritorious when one is not actuated so much by charity.

893John 15:13

894A.S.S., XXXVI, 319.

895Cf. IIIa, q. 80, a. 2.

896Ibid., q. 15.

897Isa. 11:2. See also q. 7, a. 1.

898Although in this text of Isaias there is no mention made of the gift of godliness yet St. Paul refers to it when he says: "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father)" (Rom. 8:15). The liturgy of Pentecost attests that the doctrine of the sacred sevenfold gifts is the constant tradition of the Church.

899Summa theol., Ia IIae, q. 68, a. 5

900Ibid.

901See God, His Existence, II, 57.

902Cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 10.

903Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 68, a. 6

904De Spiritu Sancto, Bk. I, chap. I.

905Isa. 11:3

906Denz., no. 378

907Ps. 18:10

908Preface of Mass

909Summa theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2.

910Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 111. a. 4; IIa IIae, q. 171.

911Ep ad Dardan., no. 287

912Com. in IIIam, d. 13.

913I Cor. 12:7f.

914Cf. Ia IIae, q. 111, a. 4; IIa IIae, q. 171.

915This faith is not the theological virtue, but a gift whereby those who instruct others in the principles of the faith are endowed with certainty

916I Cor. 12:4

917Summa theol., IIIa, q. 12, a. 1; q. 20, a. 2

918Cf. Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 111, a. 4

919Com. in I Cor., XII, lect 2.

920Matt. 9:4.

921Ibid., 12:25

922Luke 24:32

923I Cor. 13:8

924Deut. 18:15

925John 5:46.

926Matt. 13:57.

927Ibid., chaps. 15, 20

928I Cor. 13:8.

929John 1:14f.

930This text is clarified from what St. Paul says in one of his epistles: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us" (Rom. 5:5). St. Thomas explains (Ia, 9. q. 43, a. 3) that the mission of the Holy Ghost takes place in that the Holy Ghost becomes present in the soul in a new way by sanctifying grace, and by an increase of this grace. Hence Christ, inasmuch as He received the fullness of grace, is said not to have been limited in His reception of the Spirit.

931Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, no. 394. See also St. Augustine's Com. in Joan., loc. cit.

932John 1:14

933Luke 12:49

934Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 9, c

935Luke 1:28.

936Acts 6:8

937Eph. 3:19

938John 1:14

939Luke 1:28

940Cf. ad 1. The whole of this article should be read

941Cf. infra, q. 35, a. 5.

942Matt. 12:41

943Mark 13:27

944Versicle and response for Second Vespers of Assumption

945Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 24, a. 5

946Com. in Joan., Bk. XVI, lect. 10

947Summa theol., IIIa, q. 59, a. 6.

948Ibid., q. 7, a. 12

949Ibid. q. 6, a. 6.

950Ibid

951Com in III Sent., d 13, q 3

952Com. in Lucam, 2:40.

953Phys., disp. 13, par. 47.

954John 3:34

955Eph. 4:7.

956Cf. q. 6, a. 6.

957Thus a distinction can be made in our intellect, first in that it is a being and accident of the soul; secondly in that it is an intellect that is intentionally infinite, inasmuch as it regards universal truth. The same distinction must be made for the will, and even for habitual grace, which, as a grace, is a participation of the divine nature

958When it is said that this habitual grace is morally infinite, this means that it is not physically infinite, since it is a formal participation of the divine nature, but it means that it implies a dignity to merit and satisfy for us, a participated dignity from its personal union with the Word of God. But there is such a great difference between each kind of grace; for grace considered in the first sense is actually finite, although taken in the second or moral sense it is absolutely infinite, as when we say that Christ's merit is absolutely infinite in value

959De veritate, q. 29, a. 3, ad 3. See also IIa IIae, q. 29, a. 3, ad 3

960In this passage St. Thomas says: "Although the divine power can make something greater than the habitual grace of Christ, yet it could not make it to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with the only begotten Son of the Father; and to this union, by the purpose of the divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient."

961Cf. q. 7, a. 12, ad 1, where it is said that "Christ's grace is finite in its essence."

962Ibid., ad 2

963Ibid., a. 11, ad 2.

964Ibid., q. 19, a. 4

965Ibid., a. 12, ad 2; q. 10, a. 4, ad 3

966Eph. 1:5f.

967Cf. IIIa, q. 8, a. 5

968John 3:34

969An editorial footnote to this article in the English Dominican translation remarks that perhaps we should read "infinity" instead of "unity." (Tr.)

970Denz., no. 471.

971Com. in IIIam, q. 7, a. 11, no. 5.

972This last example supposes that fire, according to the physics of the ancients, is a substance, namely, one of the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. Nowadays physicists look upon fire as an incandescent body, for example, like coal or vapor, resulting from the combustion of certain bodies. Thus they consider a flame to be a burning, lucent vapor, of greater or less intensity

973Com. in IIam IIae, q. 24, a. 7

974Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 12, ad 2

975De veritate, q. 29, a. 3, ad 3.

976Com. in IIIam, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3.

977Com. in IIIam, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3

978Com. in IIam IIae, q. 24, a. 7

979Luke 2:52

980John 1:14

981Counterargument of St. Thomas

982Denz., no. 224

983Ibid., no. 122

984Luke 2:55

985Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 12, ad 3.

986Enchiridion patristicum, nos. 394, 399, 404, 405. See also IIIa, q. 10, on the beatific knowledge of Christ

987Cf. infra, q. 10

988Ibid., q. 10, a. 4, ad 3.

989Com. in IIIam, q. 7, a. 11, no. 2

990Ibid., no. 5 (the end).

991Ibid., no. 6

992Ibid., q. 10, a. 4, ad 2.

993Ibid., ad 3

994Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 113, a. 9, ad 2

995Ibid., IIIa, q. 7, a. 12, ad 2.

996Ibid., Ia, q. 25.

997Some think that such a consideration of God's merely absolute power is useless, because truly God can act only by His power as regulated by His wisdom. Reply. This consideration is not useless; it must be properly understood, namely, on the part of possible effects. This explains why certain effects are intrinsically possible, such as the annihilation of all creatures, both material and spiritual, although such effects may not be extrinsically possible on the part of the end and the agent, because God can have neither motive nor end in annihilating spiritual creatures.

998Com. in IIIam, d. 13

999Summa theol., IIIa, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3.

1000Ibid., q. 7, a. 12, ad 2

1001De Verbo incarnato, thesis 17, p. 208. Father Billot asks why God, as the author of grace, cannot be participated in various species of grace, since there is such participation of God as the author of nature. Against this thesis of Father Billot, it must be said that there is, indeed, a participation of God as the author of nature in divers natural species, through the intermediary of the divine ideas, but habitual grace is the immediate participation of the divine nature, or of the Deity as It is in Itself, that is, of God's intimate life. Hence for there to be two species of habitual grace is impossible. Moreover, if Christ's grace were of a higher species than ours, then His beatific vision would be of a higher species, because it is immediately specified by God Himself clearly seen, by the very Deity as It is in Itself. Therefore only different degrees of this vision are possible, and only God's uncreated and comprehensive vision of Himself transcends all other visions.

1002Summa theol.. IIa IIae, q. 24, a. 7.

1003Ibid., ad 2

1004De veritate, q. 29, a. 3 ad 3

1005Cf. ad 2.

1006Com. in IIIam, q. 7, a. 12, no. 24.

1007Denz., no. 224

1008Matt. 11:25f.

1009Cf q. 7, a. 12, ad 2.

1010John 11:1f. See also Com. of St. Thomas on St. John's Gospel

1011Eph. 1:22f. cf. Rom. 12:4f.; I Cor. 12:13f.; Eph. 4:15f.; 6:5; Col. 4:18f. cf. also Father Voste, O.P., Com. in Ep. ad Eph., p. 289.

1012Eph. 1:20f

1013Rom. 5:15f

1014Cf. IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3.

1015Rom. 12:4.

1016Col. 2:10; Eph. 1:20; Col. 1:18

1017Col. 2:19. See also Eph. 4:11f.; 5:23

1018I Cor. 12:12f.; 10:16f.; also I Cor. 15:21f.

1019Denz., no. 809

1020Ibid., no. 936. cf. also St. Augustine's Book of 83 questions, chap. 9, no. 69; De civitate Dei, Bk. X, chap. 20

1021Rom. 8:29.

1022John 1:14

1023Ibid., 1:16

1024Cf. ad 1, and also IIIa, q. 13, a. 2, where we shall engage in a long discussion on the question of the physical and instrumental causality of Christ's soul. Likewise q. 43, a. 2: Whether Christ worked miracles by divine power. Also see IIIa., q. 48, a. 6: Whether Christ's passion brought about our salvation efficiently. And q. 49, a. 1: Whether we were delivered from sin through Christ's passion

1025Cf. St. Thomas, Com. in Ep. ad Cor., chap. 12; also De veritate, q. 29, a. 4, ad 6.

1026Eph. 5:25f.

1027I Tim. 4:10

1028I John 2:2.

1029Denz., nos. 631, 1422-30.

1030Matt. 3:12; 13:29, 47

1031Ibid., 35:2

1032Denz., no. 430

1033cf. Gonet, De incarnatione, disp. 14, nos. 64, 104.

1034De correptione et gratia, chap. 11

1035Ibid., chap. 12

1036De veritate, q. 29, a. 4, ad 3.

1037cf. IIIa, q. 24

1038cf. De incarnatione, disp. XVI, dub. 4, par. 1, nos. 52f.

1039cf. De incarnatione, disp. IX, a. 2, par. 3, solv. obj. 4

1040See pp. 32-71

1041Thus by the diagrams given below we may again represent these two possible worlds, the second of which was chosen by God by one sole efficacious decree together with all its parts.

preservation of original justice = Christ not Redeemer

original justice with permission of original sin = reparation to be made = Christ the Redeemer

1042De incarnatione, disp XVI, nos. 69f.

1043Ibid., no. 61

1044Ibid

1045Billuart, De praedest.

1046De incarn., disp. XIV, a. 3, par. 3, no. 52. See also IIIa, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5; and for the angels: Ia, q. 64, a. 1, ad 4.

1047De incarn., disp. IV, chap. 2, no. 54.

1048Col. 2:9f.

1049Eph. 1:20

1050Matt. 13:41

1051Mark 13:27

1052Matt. 24:31.

1053Ibid., 28:18. This text is commonly quoted in our times to show that Christ even as man, because of His grace of union and fullness of habitual grace, is king of all creatures, even of angels.

1054Heb. 1:4; 2:1-4; I Cor. 15:25f

1055cf. a. 4, c.

1056Col. 2:10

1057Mark 13:26f.

1058Matt. 28:18. See also Heb., chaps. 1 and 2

1059cf. IIIa, q. 57, a. 5

1060Heb. 1:14

1061De incarn., disp. XVI, dub. 5, no. 76.

1062cf. Gonet, Salmanticenses, De incarnatione

1063Luke 2:10.

1064Isa. 9:6.

1065Hom. 3 super Missus est

1066Com. in I Reg., Bk. I, chap. 2.

1067Nicene Creed

1068De veritate, q. 29, a. 7, ad 5.

1069Com. in III Sent., d. 13, q. 2, a. 3, quaestiuncula, 1

1070cf. IIIa, q. 59, a. 6.

1071cf. infra, q. 24

1072John 14:6.

1073Rom. 5:15.

1074Ibid

1075De incarn., disp. IV, chap. 2

1076Ibid.

1077Rom. 12:3

1078De incarn., disp. XVI, dub. 5, par. 1, no. 76. This view is also affirmed by several other Thomists, though more or less incidentally, whereas the Salmanticenses insist on this, and rightly so, inasmuch as it can clearly be seen from their interpretation of St. Thomas' teaching on the motive of the Incarnation.

1079This opinion becomes increasingly evident from what we said concerning the motive of the Incarnation (Com. in IIIam, q. 1, a. 3), in explaining the reply to the third objection of this article. See also what we shall say further on (IIIa, q. 24, a. 3, 4) concerning Christ's predestination as He is the exemplary cause of our predestination.

This view presupposes that God by one decree chose all parts of this possible world, which includes angels and men to be redeemed by Christ. In this possible world Christ is the end of all, although He is not either the meritorious cause or the efficient cause of essential grace in the angels; for everything in such a world is subordinated to Him inasmuch as He is the God-man, for St. Paul says: "All things are yours... and you[even the angels] are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (I Cor. 3:21).

1080De incarn., disp. II, dub. 1, nos. 4, 26

1081Heb. 2:10; Col. 1:15.

1082De veritate, q. 29, a. 4, ad 5

1083John 1:6.

1084cf. infra, q. 19, a. 3, on Christ's merits

1085cf. IIIa, q. 43, a. 2.; q. 48, a. 6; q. 62, a. 4.

1086cf. infra, q. 13, a. 2: the power of Christ's soul; its physical and instrumental causality

1087Com. in IIIam, q. 8, a. 5, no. 5

1088cf. IIIa, q. 6, a. 6. See Cajetan's comment on the reply to this third objection

1089See note 75.

1090However, according to the common teaching of theologians, what Christ merited for us de condigno, the Blessed Virgin merited for us strictly de congruo, namely, by merit that had its foundation not in justice, but in charity which united her to God and to us, or by an amicable right. Wherefore Mary is the universal Mediatrix and Mother of all men, and is like the neck that joins the head to the body. She is also called the aqueduct of all graces.

1091In recapitulation of those things that pertain to Christ's capital grace, read carefully the encyclical of Pius XII on "The Mystical Body of Christ" (1944).

1092cf. IIIa, q. 9, a. 1 (about end).

1093Dict. theol. cath., art. "Jesus-Christ, " cols. 1273f. See also "Science du Christ."

1094John 8:55

1095Denz., nos. 290f.

1096Ibid

1097He is so called from the monastery of Good Hope in which he lived. (Tr.)

1098Dict. theol. cath., art. "Agnoetes"

1099Mark 13:32

1100Matt. 24:36

1101Denz., nos. 1665f.

1102Ibid., nos. 2032-35.

1103John 14:6.

1104Matt. 23:10; John 3:11; 9:16; 19:37

1105John 8:12

1106Matt. 16:18

1107Ibid., 20:18f.; 26:21f.; 24:5f.; 16:18f.; 28:19f.

1108John 1:14

1109cf. IIIa, q. 10, a. 2; q. 11, a. 1.

1110John 1:14

1111Matt. 16:8; Mark 7:17; John 2:24f

1112John 1:48; 11:14; Matt. 20:15f.

1113Mark 13:32

1114Gen. 22:12

1115John 13:3.

1116Denz., no. 248..

1117cf. IIIa, q. 10, a. 2, ad 1

1118Such are the comments of St. Basil, Adv. Eunom., Bk. IV, chap. 3.

1119De peccatorum meritis et remissione, Bk. II, chap. 48.

1120Ep. ad Sergium, Rouet de Journel, no. 2290

1121De fide Orthod., Bk. III, chap. 22. cf. Journel, no. 2368

1122John 1:14

1123Denz., nos. 2032-35 Decree Lamentabili

1124Proposition 32

1125Ibid., 35.

1126Denz., nos. 2183-85.

1127De revelatione, Bk. II, chap. 4, a. 4; chap. 11, a. 1

1128Matt. 24:34

1129Ibid., 16:28

1130For already Christ gloriously risen from the dead, by divers apparitions, came forth as victor over the devil, sin, and death in His kingdom

1131cf. Lepin, Jesus Messie et Fils de Dieu, pp. 385-99

1132Mark 16:15.

1133Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47

1134Mark 13:10

1135Matt. 8:24; Luke 13:29; Rom. 11:25f

1136Luke 21:24

1137Acts 1:7.

1138cf. Rouet de Journel, nos. 774, 925, 2072.

1139John 2:25

1140cf. Salmanticenses, De incarn., disp. 17, dub. 4, nos. 42, 44; Melchior Cano, Loc. theol., Bk. XII, chap. 14; S. R. Bellarminus, De anima Christi, Bk. I, chaps. 1, 8; Suarez, De incarn., disp. 25

1141Denz., no. 2183

1142John 10:15.

1143Matt. 11:27

1144John 1:18

1145Ibid., 3:31f.

1146Ibid., 8:38.

1147Ibid., 6:46

1148Ibid., 8:14

1149Ibid., 16:27f.

1150Ibid., 3:13.

1151Ibid., 3:12

1152Ibid., 17:24.

1153Denz. no. 224

1154Enchiridion patristicum, nos. 670, 2238, 2239

1155Ibid., no. 670

1156Ibid., no. 913

1157Ibid., nos. 2238f.

1158Ibid

1159Epist. 147, chap. 13; also Super Gen. ad lit., Bk. XII, chap. 27, which is quoted by St. Thomas in IIa IIae, q. 175, a. 3

1160cf. IIIa, q. 9, a. 2, c. (end).

1161The Dominicans have translated "oportuit', by "necessary", but perhaps they mean "necessary" in a broad sense. (Tr.)

1162John 14:6

1163Heb. 2:10

1164Ibid., chaps. 1, 2.

1165Gal. 1:8.

1166Plato, speaking of the ideal teacher, says (in his Banquet, chap. 29): "Do we not think it would be a fortunate sight, if man had eyes to see the true beauty, the divine beauty, I mean, pure and clear and unalloyed, not clogged with the pollutions of mortality and all the colors and vanities of human life? Do you not think such a man would produce not the semblances of virtues, since He attains not to the image but to the reality, and since he begets and feeds upon true virtue, will be made the friend of God and of all other men, he will be immortal in the highest degree?" But this finds its verification in Christ already in this life

1167The Jews distinguished between three heavens: (1) the aerial or atmospheric heavens; (2) the astronomical or ethereal heaven; (3) the spiritual or empyrean heaven where God dwells and is seen by the angels

1168II Cor. 12:2f.

1169cf. IIa IIae q. 188, a. 6.

1170Ibid., q. 175, a. 3

1171Ibid., (about end). cf. P. Sales, O.P., Le lettere degli Apostoli, II Cor. 12:4.

1172See also P. B. Allo, O.P., Commentaire sur la IIe Ep. aux Corinthiens, 12-4. Allo says that St. Paul was raised to the highest form of contemplation, and he refers to the interpretation given by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, having nothing to say against it, merely remarking that it is not admitted by Estius and Cornelius a Lapide

1173De veritate, q. 18, a. 1

1174John 3:34

1175Discours sur l'histoire universelle, Part II, chap. 19

1176It is in this way that apologetics develops the argument taken from the sublimity of Christ's doctrine and His manner of preaching. cf. the author's work De revelatione Bk. II, chap. 8.

1177cf. Ia, q. 12, a. 2: "The essence of God cannot be seen by any created likeness whatever."

1178Col. 2:3

1179John 8:14.

1180Ibid., 16:28f. The expression "I came from the Father" can signify, indeed, the particular and eternal generation of the Word, but the following words, "'I came into the world, " signify the very incarnation of the Word. But Christ says: "I know whence I came"; therefore He does not believe but sees the mystery of the Incarnation and His own divine personality

1181Ibid., 8:38

1182Even the most sublime prophetic illumination and the more exalted intellectual visions of the mystics do not go beyond the order of faith.

1183Rom. 8:16

1184Com. in Rom., 8:16

1185Ps. 33:9.

1186John 8:14.

1187Ibid., 8:38. See St. Thomas, De veritate, q. 18, a. 1.

1188cf. IIIa., q. 7, a. 1, 9.

1189Ibid., q. 24

1190cf. Tabula aurea, under the word "Apostle." Here the holy doctor shows that the apostles were more perfect than the other saints, having all knowledge of things pertaining to faith and morals, inasmuch as this was expedient for the conversion of the world. The Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth that was necessary for salvation, but not all future happenings. The words of the apostles are the result of intimate revelation received from the Holy Ghost and from Christ. Therefore they must be retained, because they belong to the canon of the Scripture, which forbids us to believe that it contains anything false. God gave the apostles knowledge of the scriptures and of divers tongues, which men can acquire by study or by accustoming themselves to speak the language, although they do not succeed in speaking it so perfectly. But if the apostles were so illumined concerning divine truth, Christ Himself must have been far more illumined concerning God's intimate life and more than all doctors and contemplatives after His time.

1191cf. IIIa, q. 34, a. 4

1192Denz., no. 224

1193Luke 24:26

1194cf. IIIa, q. 19, a. 3

1195Luke 24:26.

1196Matt. 26:38

1197cf. IIIa, q. 46, a. 8, c. et ad 3; a. 6, ad 4; q. 84, a. 9, ad 2.

1198cf. The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, I, 189-223. From this plenitude of grace there resulted in Christ, on the one hand, the light of glory and beatific charity, and on the other hand, utmost zeal for God's glory and the salvation of souls, by which He willed most perfectly to fulfill His redemptive mission by His holocaust on the cross offered with utmost grief of soul, as a better manifestation of His love for the human race.

1199cf. IIIa, q. 46, a. 6, ad 4.

1200Comp., theol., chap. 232.

1201Col. 2:3

1202II Cor. 12:4

1203Col. 2:3

1204cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 4

1205De veritate, q. 20, a. 3, ad 1.

1206cf. IIIa, q. 9, a. 3, c (end).

1207Thus the saints even in this life sometimes knew the secrets of hearts as if they saw another person not only exactly as in the flesh, but also had complete knowledge of the interior disposition of such a person, a quasi-photograph of the other person's soul, so that they could detect whether the acts of such a person were the result of true or false humility.

1208St. Angela de Foligno saw her own soul, just as the angels see themselves

1209Several saints had knowledge that is per se infused concerning the secrets of hearts, and knowledge of languages that is per accidens infused.

1210Heb. 5:8.

1211cf. IIIa, q. 12, a. 2

1212Luke 2:52

1213cf. III Sent., q. 3, a. 3, quaestiuncula 5 a.

1214Luke 2:52.

1215cf. ad 2. The whole reply should be read.

1216cf. Ia, q. 12, a. 10.

1217Mark 13:32

1218Denz., no. 248. Moreover, as St. Augustine remarked, Christ as the best of teachers taught His disciples what was necessary and nothing more, because He said: "You cannot bear them now" (John 16:12).

In this we see pedagogy in its splendor. Thus it is said that younger professors seek to teach what they do not know; older professors seek to teach what they know; and teachers advanced in years what is useful to their disciples. This is what Christ did.

1219cf. ad 3.

1220Ibid., Ia, q. 7, a. 4.

1221Ibid., IIIa, q. 10, a. 3, ad 1.

1222Ibid., Ia, q. 34, a. 3

1223Eph. 1:20f.

1224cf. Ia, q. 12, a. 4.

1225cf. IIIa, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3.

1226Com. in IIIam, q. 10, a. 4, ad 3

1227cf. supra q. 7, a. 11f.

1228Ibid., a. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12.

1229Isa. 11:2.

1230Because the normal method of knowing separated souls is by infused species, which is the same for comprehensors, and Christ already in this life was both wayfarer and comprehensor

1231He knew particulars, even the least of those that are recorded in the Old Testament, for example, in Deuteronomy or the books of Paralipomenon. If He had been questioned about them, He would not have shown Himself ignorant of anything, especially of even the least things that pertain to Sacred Scripture.

1232cf. Summa theol., q. 7, a. 12, ad 2.

1233Ibid., Ia, q. 89, a. 1, 2.

1234Ibid., Ia, q. 55, 56. These infused species are not abstract but concrete universals, for they represent even singulars that are contained under the universal; consequently each one is a quasi-intelligible but not sensible panorama. And the gifts of the Holy Ghost in Christ made use not only of acquired species, but also of infused species.

1235Discrete time differs from continuous time, for instance, solar time, because it is not the measure of continuous time, but of a succession of thoughts, as in the case of the angels

1236cf. Ia, q. 14, a. 13

1237Com. in IIam IIae, q. 5, a. 1

1238Disp. 61, 118f.

1239cf. c. et ad 3

1240cf. IIIa, q. 11, a. 6.

1241Com. in III Sent., d. 14, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 4.

1242Summa theol., IIa IIae, q. 4, a. 8

1243Ibid. q. 175, a. 2

1244cf. ad 3.

1245Heb. 10:25

1246Com. in Heb., 10:25

1247Prov. 4:18

1248Summa theol., Ia, q. 85, a. 7.

1249Com. on Aristotle's De anima, Bk. II, lect. 94

1250De veritate, q. 12, a. 6, ad 4; q. 24, a. 8, ad 6.

1251Luke 2:52

1252De incarnatione Domini, chap. 7

1253Com. in III Sent., d. 14, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 5.

1254cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 9, 11, 12.

1255Luke 2:46

1256cf. IIIa, q. 12, a. 3, c. (end).

1257Hom. 19, in Lucam

1258This is known as the Socratic method in philosophy. It consisted in drawing the knowledge of the subject sought for gradually from the students by a series of easy questions; granted as implicitly known by them

1259Luke 22:43

1260cf. ad 1

1261Com. in Lucam, 22:43

1262Luke 23:46; John 19:30. See also IIIa, q. 46, a. 7, 8.

1263cf. IIIa, q. 42.

1264Ibid.. a. 4.

1265II Cor. 3:3.

1266Exod. 15:3

1267cf. IIIa, q. 16, on predication of idioms or properties

1268Ibid., Ia, q. 45, a. 5

1269Matt. 11:27

1270Ibid., 28:18

1271Ibid., 28:19. See also IIIa, q. 13, a. 2, ad 1

1272cf. IIIa, q. 17, a. 2

1273Ibid., q. 13, a. 2, c. (end); see also Ia, q. 105, a. 1, 5, 6; q. 110, a. 2

1274cf. De revelatione, Bk. I, chap. 19, a. 3, on the discernibility of the miracle, where this subject has been fully treated by the author, in which it is shown that the most universal effects can be produced only by God, who is the most universal cause, and these are produced by Him as the principal cause

1275Eph. 1:10

1276cf. Ia, q. 45, a. 5

1277In the expression "'physically instrumental causality, " the term "physical', is not used in opposition to either metaphysical or spiritual and incorporeal, but to moral causality, by which the object proposed attracts the agent to act, or it is a causality that operates by way of merit, satisfaction, or prayer. The question concerns the instrumental production of some effect that is either corporeal, as in the case of physical miracles, or spiritual, as in the production of grace.

1278Among those theologians who admit only a moral causality, we mention St. Bonaventure, Durandus, Scotus, Vasquez, Melchior Cano, Franzelin. On the contrary, St. Thomas, the Thomists, Suarez, Billot, and several others admit also a physically instrumental causality

1279Summa theol., Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 1.

1280Luke 6:19

1281Ibid., 8:46

1282John 10:25

1283Denz., no. 123

1284Lauda Sion, liturgical hymn for Mass of Corpus Christi.

1285cf. IIIa, q. 8, a. 1, ad 1; see also IIIa, q. 48, a. 6; q. 49, a. 1; q. 50, a. 6; q. 62, a. 1; De potentia, q. 6, a. 4

1286Heb. 7:25

1287Denz., no 940

1288cf. E. Hugon, O.P., La causalite instrumentale en theologie, chap. 3, pp. 73-118; especially, pp. 101f., 108, 111; see also Summa theol., IIIa, q. 48, a. 6, ad 2

1289cf. IIIa, q. 8

1290Ibid., q. 13, a. 3, ad 2; also q. 14, a. 1

1291Ibid., q. 13, a. 4, ad 3; also q. 18, a. 5; q. 21, a. 4.

1292Matt. 26:39

1293Summa theol., q. 21, a. 4.

1294For this same reason Christ merited absolutely the efficacious graces bestowed or to be bestowed on men. Other graces that are not bestowed, these He merited in a qualified sense, namely, as offered, but not as bestowed. Thus, as will be stated farther on, His passion is of infinite value inasmuch as it sufficed for the salvation of all men, and it was efficacious to those to whom it is applied, namely, to the baptized children and to adults who place no obstacle in the way. But efficacious grace is included in the sufficient grace that is offered to the sinner, just as the fruit is included in the flower. Yet, if the sinner of his own accord refuses the sufficient grace, he deserves to be deprived of the efficacious grace

1295Mark 14:33

1296Heb. 2:18

1297Apostle's Creed

1298Denz., no. 124

1299Rom. 5:12.

1300The principle of merit is the same as the principle of satisfaction, for the meritorious act becomes satisfactory when it is of an afflictive nature, or when it is accompanied by a feeling of pain

1301Summa theol., IIIa, q. 48, a. 2

1302Rom. 8:3.

1303Ibid., 5:12

1304Ibid

1305Cf. ad 3

1306Cf. ad I et ad 2

1307Com. in Ps. 44

1308Com. in Isa., chap. 53.

1309Luke 1:35

1310John 8:46

1311Ibid., 1:29.

1312I Pet. 2:22

1313Heb. 7:26. See also Isa. 53:12; II Cor. 5:21; I John 3:5

1314Denz., nos. 13, 65, 122, 148, 224f., 251, 258, 286, 290, 711

1315Ibid., no. 224

1316Ibid., no. 1314

1317Lev. 12:6

1318cf. q. 14, a. 1, 2.

1319Ps. 21:1f. According to the Hebraic text, the reading should be "my salvation is far from me", and not "far from my salvation are the words of my sins", which is the Septuagint and Vulgate version

1320cf. ad 1

1321Ps. 21:2.

1322Rom. 1:3.

1323Gen. ad lit., 10:20

1324Rom. 1:3.

1325Denz., no. 1314, one of the condemned Jansenist errors

1326II Cor. 5:21

1327Isa. 53:6

1328cf. Summa theol., IIIa, q. 15, a. 1, ad 5

1329Harmonia, Matt. 27:46

1330Matt. 27:46

1331Ibid., 26:39

1332Ps 21:1

1333Luke 23:46

1334Denz., no 224

1335This fullness of grace and charity was inamissible inasmuch as it flowed from the grace of union as its quasi-property, and moreover, inasmuch as the fervor of this fullness of charity was itself inamissible, for it excluded venial sin, which does not intrinsically diminish charity, but its fervor.

1336cf. q. 19

1337Objection. The Scotists say that the divine permission to sin is not evil, and thus God permits certain sins, even in the saints, as is evident in the life of St. Peter. Why could not the Word permit sin in the assumed nature?

Reply. The difference here is that, with respect to other men, God is related to them as the universal cause, the general foreseer, directing them in accordance with the laws of His general providence, to whom it pertains that what is defectible should fail at times, so that this should be the occasion of a greater good resulting therefrom. Thus God permitted Peter to deny Christ three times during His passion, so as to take away Peter's presumption and make him more humble.

On the contrary, as regards the actions of the assumed human nature, the Word stands in relation to these as the cause and particular foreseer, positing them as His own actions and as especially imputable to Him. These actions proceed from the Word as the particular principle that operates, and it is incumbent upon Him so to govern the human nature that it does not sin.

1338Summa theol., Ia IIae, q. 4, a. 4. See also Ia IIae, q. 5, a. 4, and q. 10, a. 2

1339Ibid., q. 10, a. 4, ad 3

1340Ibid., q. 18, a. 4

1341This question is sometimes directed solely against casuistry, according to which frequently and unjustifiably that is called an imperfection which truly is a venial sin. But this question must be examined in itself, and with reference to Christ and the Blessed Virgin, on a much higher plane than that of customary casuistic consideration

1342De incarnatione, disp. 25, dub. 5

1343cf. Christian Perfection and Contemplation, pp. 429-31; also The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, I, 318 ff. in which we have discussed this question at length. Hence those who refuse to admit the distinction between imperfection and venial sin tend to confuse what is a less good with what is evil, which is against the first principle of ethics, namely, that there is a distinction between moral good and moral evil. Hence they ought to say that a less evil is good, and that a less evil is not only to be tolerated so as to avoid committing a greater evil, but that it is actually preferable as a good in itself.

Thus this confusion is accompanied by and is the cause of many other confusions. However, as there are venial sins that dispose a person to commit mortal sin, so there are certain imperfections that dispose a person to commit venial sin. And although the call to religious life does not in itself oblige anyone to enter this state, yet this way of life must be followed, as being an invitation to salvation especially if other ways seem to us more dangerous; Jesus saying to the young man: "If thou wilt be perfect... follow Me" (Matt. 19:21). Then if anyone, because of too great an attachment to the things of this world, refuses to enter the religious life, such a person sins, not because of the obligation of entering religion, but because of the aforesaid obligation of avoiding the too great attachment to the things of this world

1344Denz. no. 224.

1345cf. IIIa, q. 41, a. 1, ad 3.

1346Matt. 1:20

1347See the replies to the second and third objections of this article

1348cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 9; q. 9, a. 1, 2

1349John 1:14

1350Ibid., 14:6

1351cf. IIIa, q. 12, a. 2.

1352Ps. 87:4

1353Mark 14:33

1354See argumentative part of this article

1355De civitate Dei, Bk. XIV, chap. 9

1356Matt. 26:37

1357Com. in Matt. 26:37

1358Isa. 53:4

1359Matt. 26:38

1360Cf. IIIa, q. 7, a. 6.

1361Mark 14:33.

1362Matt 8:10

1363Ps. 68:10

1364Cf. q. 16, a. 5.

1365However, since God is His Godhead, in the material sense the following propositions are true: This man is the Godhead; the Godhead is this man. Taken in the material and identical sense the propositions are true because the subject of attribution is identical; but they are not strictly true in the formal sense, namely, in virtue of the difference of meaning in the terms. The meaning of the first proposition is: This man is God, who is His Godhead.

1366Denz., nos. 116, 124

1367Ibid., nos. 213, 215

1368Summa theol. Ia, q. 13, a. 12

1369Ibid., IIIa, q. 16, a. 5

1370Denz. nos. 116, 124. Council of Ephesus

1371cf. IIIa, q. 4, a. 2

1372John 8:58

1373Denz., no. 40. Athanasian Creed

1374Ibid., no. 54; Council of Nicaea. See also Denz. nos. 118f.; Council of Ephesus, can. 6.

1375cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 2, 3.

1376This entire article I should be read

1377See Father Billot's opinion, pp. 153-60 (De Christo Salvatore).

1378Ibid.

1379cf. IIIa, q. 2

1380John 8:58.

1381cf. IIIa, q. 2, a. 6.

1382Ibid., q. 2, a. 2, 6

1383Ibid., q. 17, a. 2, ad 1

1384This article must be read carefully, and Cajetan's commentary on it.

1385It must be observed that Christ, although He has two distinct natures, is essentially one, not indeed in nature, but in suppositum or person, that per se subsists (in the third mode of per se predication). See Aristotle's Post. Anal., Bk. I, chap. 4, lect. 10 of St. Thomas: On the four modes of per se (essential) predication.

1386The person of the Word incarnate is really distinct from His human nature, just as there is a real distinction between the whole and its part; for before any consideration of our mind, the whole is not its part. This distinction is real and inadequate between created essence and being (existence).

1387The entire answer to this fourth objection should be read

1388John 8:58

1389Several are mistaken in thinking that subsistence is the abstract term that corresponds to what in the concrete subsists; whereas it corresponds to what in the concrete is the suppositum. Confusion is removed by substituting for "subsistence" the equivalent word "personality, " because it is evident that person is the correlative concrete to it. and not to subsist.

1390Quaest. disp. de unione Verbi, a. 4, ad. 1.

1391Grabmann says the composition of this disputed question occurred between the years 1260-68; Mandonnet assigns it to the year 1268. Thus both maintain that it was written before the third part of the Summa theologica (1271-73). However, Father Peltzer, S.J., Father Synave, O.P. (Bulletin Thomiste, 1926), and Glorieux maintain that this disputed question was completed later. Yet the Compendium of theology appeared still later, and it contains the same doctrine as the Commentary of St. Thomas on the Book of the Sentences, and what is found in his Summa theol., and he says nothing in these works about secondary being. cf. Heris, O.P., Le Verbe incarne, 1931, pp. 291-93, 329

1392Quaest. disp. de unioni Verbi, a. 4, ad 1

1393cf. IIIa, q. 17, a. 2

1394Ibid., q. 2, a. 2, 6

1395Denz., no. 251, Epistle of Pope Honorius I (634); see also no. 289, Third Council of Constantinople (680), in which it was defined that there are two wills in Christ; also no. 1465.

1396Luke 22:42

1397Matt. 26:39

1398John 5:30

1399cf. Summa theol., q. 18, a. I, ad 4

1400Denz., no. 1094

1401De malo, q. 6

1402cf. IIIa, q. 18, a. 4

1403Denz., nos. 148, 288

1404Ibid., nos. 122, 286, 319, 462, 794f.

1405cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 1

1406Denz., no. 224

1407cf. Summa theol., IIIa, q. 15, a. 1

1408John 10:17f

1409Ibid., 14:30f.

1410Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8; I Pet. 2:21

1411Dict. theol. cathol

1412De incarnatione, theses 29, 30

1413Mysterium fidei, elucid., 7, 8; pp. 89, 95, 99

1414De incarnatione, disp. 74, chap. 5.

1415Ibid., disp. 26, sect. 7, no. 82; sect. 8, no. 102

1416De Summo Bono Bk. II, no 185

1417De justificatione, Bk. V, chap. II

1418Summa theol., Ia, q. 19, a. 2, 3.

1419Ibid., Ia, q. 20, a. 3, 4

1420Mysterium fidei, elucidationes 7, 8, pp. 89-93.

1421John 10:17f.

1422Ibid., 1:18; 14:31. St. John, who wrote his Gospel in Greek, used the words entello, entole which always mean a strict command. (Tr.)

1423Matt. 5:19; 22:36.

1424John 14:30f.

1425Ibid., 15:10

1426Luke 22:22

1427Ibid., 22:42

1428Heb. 10:5f. Also Acts 4:28; Ps. 39:8.

1429Phil. 2:8.

1430Rom. 5:19

1431Acts 4:28. If God had only permitted the crime of the Jews against Jesus, as He permitted the persecution against the martyrs, Christ's death would also infallibly have come to pass and He would have had to accept this consequence of the divine permission

1432Phil. 2:8

1433Matt. 26:56.

1434John 13:1

1435Isa. 53:10

1436Denz., nos. 799f.

1437John 15:10

1438Ibid., 10:17f.

1439See pp. 324f.

1440See God, His Existence, II, 293f. (Tr.)

1441Hence St. Thomas defines liberty as the faculty of choosing the means, "'keeping the order of the end in view, " but "it comes of the defect of liberty for it to choose anything by turning away from the order of the end, and this is to sin... just as it belongs to the power of the intellect to be able to proceed to different conclusions, according to different principles; but for it to proceed to some conclusion, by passing out of the order of principles, comes of its own defect" (Ia, q. 62, a. 8, ad 3). See also Ia, q. 83, a. 4, c

1442The French word "desobeir" means more than "ne pas obeir."

1443This distinction is of great importance, and in omitting it there is danger of saying that a person can be punished before that person has begun to be guilty whereas punishment can be inflicted only on account of guilt. Such a doctrine would lead to Calvinism

1444Summa theol., Ia, q. 14, a. 13, ad 2, 3

1445Perihermeneias, Bk. 1, chap. 9 (lect. 15 of St. Thomas).

1446Denz., no. 1783

1447This point has been explained at length in God, His Existence, II, 342-54

1448Summa theol., Ia, q. 19, a. 2, 3

1449Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 2. See also IIIa, q. 1, a. 1, in which the same reason is given for the manifestation of the possibility and fitness of the Incarnation

1450OEuvres de Leibnitz (Erdmann ed.), 563 a

1451Denz., no. 1783

1452Summa theol., la, q. 19, a. 3. See also ad 5; and Contra Gentes, Bk. I, chaps. 76, 82

1453There is a distinction between the speculative-practical judgment and the practico-practical judgment as in the common saying I see and approve of the better (speculative-practical judgment), but I choose the worse (ultimate practico-practical judgment and choice). The ultimate practico-practical judgment that immediately directs the choice, is not always in conformity with the speculative-practical judgment, and this already presupposes an actual affection for the object to be chosen. In the absence of this actual affection the practico-practical judgment, as is evident in the above-mentioned saying and in any sin, is not in conformity with the speculative-practical judgment, from which there arises in the intellect advertence to sin.

1454cf. a. 4, ad 3

1455cf. Billuart, Com. in Iam IIae, q. 13

1456See God, His Existence, II, 296f. The aforesaid Molinist definition does not sufficiently consider the object from which freedom receives its specification; but the faculty must be defined with reference to its specificative object; that is, freedom is the dominating indifference of judgment and will concerning an object that is not universally good. The determinate act also remains intrinsically free because of the object.

1457Summa theol. Ia, q. 23, a. 5, ad 3.

1458Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 10, a. 2

1459Ibid., Ia, q. 19, a. 3

1460Ibid., c. et ad 2

1461De incarnatione, disp. 17, a. 3, no. 14.

1462Other Thomists, who appeal to Christ's infused knowledge, nevertheless say that this act as regulated by the beatific vision belonged to Christ not as wayfarer, but as comprehensor. Thus this act, although it was free, was not meritorious, for merit requires not only freedom, but the state of the wayfarer. To this we can reply by saying that this act belonged, however, to Christ, who at this particular time was still a wayfarer

1463Matt. 26:39

1464Ibid.

1465cf. IIIa, q. 18, a. 5, c

1466Denz., no. 291

1467Denz., nos. 290-92

1468Summa theol., IIIa, q. 19, a. 1, ad 1, ad 2.

1469Ibid., q. 17, a. 5

1470For He was full of grace and charity, free and a wayfarer

1471Denz., nos. 799, 820

1472Phil. 2:8f.

1473Heb. 2:9.

1474Luke 24:26

1475John 17:4f.

1476Summa theol., IIIa, q. 19, a. 3, c.

1477Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 114, a. 5.

1478See introduction to q. 18, a. 5, supra.

1479See St. Thomas, his com. on Ep. to Heb., chap. 1.

1480Denz., no. 122, can. 10.

1481cf. Summa theol., IIIa, q. 24

1482Ibid., Ia IIae, q. 114, a. 6

1483Tabula aurea, nos. 106, 115

1484Rom. 5:18

1485Eph. 1:3

1486John 15:5

1487Ibid., 1:16

1488Denz., nos. 103f.

1489Ibid., no. 197

1490Rom. 5:10

1491Eph. 2:4.

1492Denz., no. 799

1493Ibid., no. 820

1494Summa theol., IIIa, q. 24, a. 4.

1495This means that Christ did not merit the uncreated act by which God predestined us, but He merited whatever was willed by this divine act, that is, He merited our predestination not on the part of God willing, but on the part of the object willed and eternally willed. Hence St. Thomas says: "God wills this to be as means to that; but He does not will this on account of that" (Ia, q. 19, a. 5, the end). For example, God wills the effects of our predestination to be on account of Christ's merits, but He does not will this, namely, the act of God willing our predestination. The fundamental reason is, as stated in Ia, q. 19, a. 5, that there is only one act of will in God, for which no cause can be assigned in the created order.

1496Eph. 1:3.

1497Ibid., 1:4

1498John 15:15f.

1499Com. ad Eph., I, lect. 1. See also St. Thomas' Com. in Joan., 17:24; also Salmanticenses, De incarnatione, disp. 28, dub. 8, nos. 93, 98, 99, 102; dub. 9, no. 107, especially no. 109. Also John of St. Thomas, Com. in Iam, q. 23, a. 5.

1500John 17:6

1501Such is the common teaching of the Thomists either in their commentaries on our predestination (cf. in Iam, q. 23, a. 5) or concerning Christ's predestination as the cause of ours (cf. in IIIam, q. 24, a. 4).

1502cf. IIIa, q. 21, a. 4; also ad 2.

1503Rom. 8:29

1504cf. IIIa, q. 21, a. 4, ad 2; q. 48, a. 1; q. 62, a. 5; De veritate, q. 29, a. 7, ad 8 et 13; also Com. in Joan., 17:24.

1505Denz., no. 842, also nos. 803, 809f.

1506Panoplia gratiae, Vol. II, tr. 5, c. 20, no. 215.

1507Com. in Iam, q. 23, a. 5 (end).

1508Com. in IIIam, disp. 28, dub. 9, no. 109; dub. 8, nos. 93, 102

1509Summa theol., IIIa, q. 21, a. 4, ad 2. See also Billuart's De incarnatione, disp. 22, a. 2

1510John 15:5.

1511Rom. 5:20

1512Acts 4:12

1513cf. IIIa, q. 8, a. 4.

1514Ibid

1515Ibid., q. 34, a. 3

1516Heb. 10 5

1517Summa theol., IIIa, q. 50, a. 6. It is said to be by way of causality, as pointed out here: "inasmuch as the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death; and therefore, whatever befell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was separated from the body, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united to it."

1518John 9:4.

1519See St. Thomas, Com. in III Sent., d. 18, a. 5.

1520cf. IIIa, q. 19, a. 4.

1521This reason is not cogent, because for a meritorious act it suffices that the subject of this free act be still a wayfarer. But Christ was still a wayfarer in that His soul was still the form of His passible body; but neither did infused knowledge belong to His soul inasmuch as it was the form of His passible body. Therefore, if He could merit by a free act regulated by infused knowledge, so also He could merit by a free act regulated by the beatific vision.

1522John 14:31

1523On this subject cf. Billuart and Other commentators of St. Thomas

1524Summa theol., IIIa, q. 47, a. 1. St. Thomas says in this passage: "'Christ could have prevented His passion and death. First, by holding His enemies in check, so that they would not have been eager to slay Him, or would have been powerless to do so. Secondly, because His spirit had the power of preserving His fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury, and Christ's soul had this power, because it was united in unity of person with the divine Word, as Augustine says (De Trin., IV, chap. 13). Therefore, since Christ's soul did not repel the injury inflicted on His body, but willed His corporeal nature to succumb to such injury, He is said to have laid down His life, or to have died voluntarily." See also ad 1, 2, 3. Concerning the absolutely infinite value of Christ's merits, see q. 48.

1525Phil. 2:7

1526Ibid., 2:8

1527See Billuart's De incarnatione, Com. in q. 20.

1528Rom. 8:34

1529Heb. 7:25

1530I John 2:1

1531cf. IIa IIae, q. 83, a. 11

1532Concerning this doubt, cf. St. Thomas, Com. in Ep. ad Rom. 8:34; also ad Heb., and the Salmanticenses in their commentaries

1533Matt. 26:39.

1534Ibid.

1535Ibid.

1536John 17:1.

1537Ibid., 11:24

1538Ibid., 11:42

1539Heb. 5:7.

1540Luke 23 34

1541Certain professors of the Duacene theological faculty reviled this reply of St. Thomas as Jansenistic in their censure of August 22, 1722, which censure was condemned by Rome on June 18, 1726. These professors did not understand that St. Thomas in this reply to the second objection has in mind only efficacious prayer that is the result of what is simply willed; he is not speaking of conditional prayer that is in conformity with God's conditional will to save all.

1542See St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chaps. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, in which he states that Christ as priest is more excellent than the angels, Moses, and the priests of the Old Testament. Also Garrigou-Lagrange, Le Sauveur, pp. 282-93; J. M. Voste, Studia paulina, sec. 6: also for Christ the priest, see St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chaps. 5-8, for Christ the victim

1543Heb. 4:14

1544Denz., nos. 122f.

1545Ibid., nos. 938f.

1546Ibid., no. 2195.

1547II Pet. 1:4.

1548Col. 1:19f.

1549Isa. 33:22

1550Eph. 5:2.

1551Denz., nos. 938-40

1552John 10-18

1553Com. in Lev. chap. 1.

1554cf. ad 2, ad 3.

1555cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, Le Sauveur, pp. 284f.

1556Summa theol., IIIa, q. 22, a. 3, ad 3; q. 48, a. 3.

1557Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:14.

1558Isa. 53:4.

1559Denz., nos. 938-40

1560John 1:29

1561Denz., no. 122

1562Heb. 9:26f.

1563Ps. 109:4

1564Heb. 7:25

1565The whole article should be read

1566cf. ad 1, ad 2.

1567John 19:30

1568See Garrigou-Lagrange, Le Sauveur, pp. 289f.

1569Civilta cattolica, 1926, p. 182

1570Ps, 44:8; 9:24

1571Summa theol., IIIa, q. 22, a. 2, ad 3. But this text is perhaps spurious. See Leonine edition

1572Ibid., q. 24, a. 1, ad 2.

1573Ibid., q. 26, a. 2; q. 58, a. 3.

1574Elevations sur les mysteres, elevations I and 6.

1575Ps. 109:4. See also Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17.

1576Gen. 14:18.

1577Heb. 7:3.

1578cf. IIIa, q. 48, a. 3; also q. 83

1579Denz., nos. 2, 143, 1460

1580Ibid., nos. 299, 309f., 344, 462, 3007.

1581Ibid., nos. 210, 313

1582Ibid., no. 282

1583Ibid., nos. 20, 422

1584Ibid., nos. 257, 290, 344

1585Ibid., nos. 309-14

1586Ibid., no. 3007

1587Ibid., no. 462

1588Eph. 1:5

1589cf. IIIa, q. 23, a. 1, c. (end).

1590John 1:13

1591cf. Ia, q. 27, a. 2

1592Rom. 8:29

1593Ibid.

1594cf. Ia, q. 33, a. 3; q. 39, a. 7

1595Nicene Creed

1596John 1:12.

1597Ibid., 1:13

1598Ibid., 20:17.

1599cf. IIIa, q. 23, a. 2, ad 3

1600Ibid., ad 3

1601Ibid., Ia., q. 39, a. 7, 8; q. 45, a. 6, ad 2..

1602Gal., chap. 4; Rom., chap. 8

1603cf. Ia IIae, q. 106, a. 1

1604Denz., nos. 309-14. See also Billuart's De incarnatione

1605Eph. 1:5

1606Rom. 1:3f.

1607The Vulgate has "praedestinatus, " as if the Greek reading were prooristhentos; in the Greek we find horisthentos which has more the meaning of declaratus est, " that is, "He was declared the Son of God, in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, from the resurrection of the dead." This last interpretation is the one proposed by St. John Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and others, as well as by many exegetes.

1608De praed. sanct., chap. 15.

1609Ibid., no. 31

1610Summa theol., Ia, q. 23, a. 1, 5

1611Ibid., IIIa, q. 27, a. 5, c. et ad 2.

1612Ibid., IIa IIae, q. 88, a. 6.

1613Ibid., Ia, q. 23, a. 5

1614I Cor. 4:7.

1615Eph. 1:4

1616De praed. sanct., chap. 15

1617Summa theol., Ia, q. 19, a. 5.

1618Rom. 8:29

1619Summa theol., IIIa, q. 24, a. 3, c.

1620John 1:16

1621I Cor. 3:23.

1622Rom. 8:29