Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above (1.2, Question 110, Article 2). But the union of the human nature to the Divine did not take place accidentally, as was shown above (Article 6). Therefore it seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace.

Objection 2: Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written (Col. 2:9): "In Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Therefore it seems that this union did not take place by grace.

Objection 3: Further, every saint is united to God by grace. If, therefore, the union of the Incarnation was by grace, it would seem that Christ is said to be God no more than other holy men.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): "By the same grace every man is made a Christian, from the beginning of his faith, as this man from His beginning was made Christ." But this man became Christ by union with the Divine Nature. Therefore this union was by grace.

I answer that, As was said above (1.2, Question 110, Article 1), grace is taken in two ways:--first, as the will of God gratuitously bestowing something; secondly, as the free gift of God. Now human nature stands in need of the gratuitous will of God in order to be lifted up to God, since this is above its natural capability. Moreover, human nature is lifted up to God in two ways: first, by operation, as the saints know and love God; secondly, by personal being, and this mode belongs exclusively to Christ, in Whom human nature is assumed so as to be in the Person of the Son of God. But it is plain that for the perfection of operation the power needs to be perfected by a habit, whereas that a nature has being in its own suppositum does not take place by means of a habit.

And hence we must say that if grace be understood as the will of God gratuitously doing something or reputing anything as well-pleasing or acceptable to Him, the union of the Incarnation took place by grace, even as the union of the saints with God by knowledge and love. But if grace be taken as the free gift of God, then the fact that the human nature is united to the Divine Person may be called a grace, inasmuch as it took place without being preceded by any merits---but not as though there were an habitual grace, by means of which the union took place.

Reply to Objection 1: The grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of the Divinity participated by man. But by the Incarnation human nature is not said to have participated a likeness of the Divine nature, but is said to be united to the Divine Nature itself in the Person of the Son. Now the thing itself is greater than a participated likeness of it.

Reply to Objection 2: Habitual grace is only in the soul; but the grace, i.e. the free gift of God, of being united to the Divine Person belongs to the whole human nature, which is composed of soul and body. And hence it is said that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt corporeally in Christ because the Divine Nature is united not merely to the soul, but to the body also. Although it may also be said that it dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. not as in a shadow, as it dwelt in the sacraments of the old law, of which it is said in the same place (Col. 2:17) that they are the "shadow of things to come but the body is Christ" , inasmuch as the body is opposed to the shadow. And some say that the Godhead is said to have dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. in three ways, just as a body has three dimensions: first, by essence, presence, and power, as in other creatures; secondly, by sanctifying grace, as in the saints; thirdly, by personal union, which is proper to Christ.

Hence the reply to the third is manifest, viz. because the union of the Incarnation did not take place by habitual grace alone, but in subsistence or person.

Articulus 10

Argumentum 1

Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unio incarnationis non sit per gratiam. Gratia enim est accidens quoddam, ut in secunda parte habitum est.

Sed unio humanae naturae ad divinam non est facta per accidens, ut supra ostensum est.

Ergo videtur quod unio incarnationis non sit facta per gratiam.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, gratiae subiectum est anima.

Sed sicut dicitur Coloss. II, in christo habitavit plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.

Ergo videtur quod illa unio non sit facta per gratiam.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, quilibet sanctus deo unitur per gratiam. Si igitur unio incarnationis fuit per gratiam, videtur quod non aliter dicatur christus esse deus quam alii sancti homines.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de praedest. Sanctorum, ea gratia fit ab initio fidei suae homo quicumque christianus, qua gratia homo ille ab initio suo factus est christus.

Sed homo ille factus est christus per unionem ad divinam naturam. Ergo unio illa fuit per gratiam.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, gratia dupliciter dicitur, uno modo, ipsa voluntas dei gratis aliquid dantis; alio modo, ipsum gratuitum donum dei. Indiget autem humana natura gratuita dei voluntate ad hoc quod elevetur in deum, cum hoc sit supra facultatem naturae suae. Elevatur autem humana natura in deum dupliciter. Uno modo, per operationem, qua scilicet sancti cognoscunt et amant deum. Alio modo, per esse personale, qui quidem modus est singularis christo, in quo humana natura assumpta est ad hoc quod sit personae filii dei. Manifestum est autem quod ad perfectionem operationis requiritur quod potentia sit perfecta per habitum, sed quod natura habeat esse in supposito suo, non fit mediante aliquo habitu.

Sic igitur dicendum est quod, si gratia accipiatur ipsa dei voluntas gratis aliquid faciens, vel gratum seu acceptum aliquem habens, unio incarnationis facta est per gratiam, sicut et unio sanctorum ad deum per cognitionem et amorem. Si vero gratia dicatur ipsum gratuitum dei donum, sic ipsum quod est humanam naturam esse unitam personae divinae, potest dici quaedam gratia, inquantum nullis praecedentibus meritis hoc est factum, non autem ita quod sit aliqua gratia habitualis qua mediante talis unio fiat.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gratia quae est accidens, est quaedam similitudo divinitatis participata in homine. Per incarnationem autem humana natura non dicitur participasse similitudinem aliquam divinae naturae, sed dicitur esse coniuncta ipsi naturae divinae in persona filii. Maius autem est ipsa res quam similitudo eius participata.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia habitualis est solum in anima, sed gratia, idest gratuitum dei donum quod est uniri divinae personae, pertinet ad totam naturam humanam, quae componitur ex anima et corpore.

Et per hunc modum dicitur plenitudo divinitatis in christo corporaliter habitasse, quia est unita divina natura non solum animae, sed etiam corpori.

Quamvis etiam possit dici quod dicitur habitasse in christo corporaliter, idest non umbraliter, sicut habitavit in sacramentis veteris legis, de quibus ibidem subditur quod sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem est christus, prout scilicet corpus contra umbram dividitur.

Dicunt etiam quidam quod divinitas dicitur in christo habitasse corporaliter, scilicet tribus modis, sicut corpus habet tres dimensiones, uno modo, per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, sicut in ceteris creaturis; alio modo, per gratiam gratum facientem, sicut in sanctis tertio modo, per unionem personalem, quod est proprium sibi.

Ad 3

Unde patet responsio ad tertium, quia scilicet unio incarnationis non est facta solum per gratiam habitualem, sicut alii sancti uniuntur deo; sed secundum subsistentiam, sive personam.