Praeterea, I Ioan. IV dicitur, perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem. Sed in Christo fuit perfectissima caritas, secundum illud Ephes. III, supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi. Ergo in Christo non fuit donum timoris.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 John 4:18) that perfect charity casteth out fear. But in Christ there was most perfect charity, according to Eph. 3:19: The charity of Christ which surpasseth all knowledge. Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XI, replebit eum spiritus timoris domini.
On the contrary, It is written (Isa 11:3): And He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, timor respicit duo obiecta, quorum unum est malum terribile; aliud est ille cuius potestate malum potest inferri, sicut aliquis timet regem inquantum habet potestatem occidendi. Non autem timeretur ille qui habet potestatem, nisi haberet quandam eminentiam potestatis, cui de facili resisti non possit, ea enim quae in promptu habemus repellere, non timemus. Et sic patet quod aliquis non timetur nisi propter suam eminentiam. Sic igitur dicendum est quod in Christo fuit timor Dei, non quidem secundum quod respicit malum separationis a Deo per culpam; nec secundum quod respicit malum punitionis pro culpa; sed secundum quod respicit ipsam divinam eminentiam, prout scilicet anima Christi quodam affectu reverentiae movebatur in Deum, a spiritu sancto acta. Unde Heb. V dicitur quod in omnibus exauditus est pro sua reverentia. Hunc enim affectum reverentiae ad Deum Christus, secundum quod homo, prae ceteris habuit pleniorem. Et ideo ei attribuit Scriptura plenitudinem timoris domini.
I answer that, As was said above (I-II, Q. 42, A. 1), fear regards two objects, one of which is an evil causing terror; the other is that by whose power an evil can be inflicted, as we fear the king inasmuch as he has the power of putting to death. Now whoever can hurt would not be feared unless he had a certain greatness of might, to which resistance could not easily be offered; for what we easily repel we do not fear. And hence it is plain that no one is feared except for some pre-eminence. And in this way it is said that in Christ there was the fear of God, not indeed as it regards the evil of separation from God by fault, nor as it regards the evil of punishment for fault; but inasmuch as it regards the Divine pre-eminence, on account of which the soul of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, was borne towards God in an act of reverence. Hence it is said (Heb 5:7) that in all things he was heard for his reverence. For Christ as man had this act of reverence towards God in a fuller sense and beyond all others. And hence Scripture attributes to Him the fullness of the fear of the Lord.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod habitus virtutum et donorum proprie et per se respiciunt bonum, malum autem ex consequenti, pertinet enim ad rationem virtutis ut opus bonum reddat, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Et ideo de ratione doni timoris non est illud malum quod respicit timor, sed eminentia illius boni, scilicet divini, cuius potestate aliquod malum infligi potest. Spes autem, secundum quod est virtus, respicit non solum actorem boni, sed etiam ipsum bonum inquantum est non habitum. Et ideo Christo, quia iam habebat perfectum beatitudinis bonum, non attribuitur virtus spei, sed donum timoris.
Reply Obj. 1: The habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness properly and of themselves; but evil, consequently; since it pertains to the nature of virtue to render acts good, as is said Ethic. ii, 6. And hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that evil which fear is concerned with, but the pre-eminence of that goodness, viz. of God, by Whose power evil may be inflicted. On the other hand, hope, as a virtue, regards not only the author of good, but even the good itself, as far as it is not yet possessed. And hence to Christ, Who already possessed the perfect good of beatitude, we do not attribute the virtue of hope, but we do attribute the gift of fear.
Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de timore secundum quod respicit obiectum quod est malum.
Reply Obj. 2: This reason is based on fear in so far as it regards the evil object.
Ad tertium dicendum quod perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem servilem, qui respicit principaliter poenam. Sic autem timor non fuit in Christo.
Reply Obj. 3: Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which principally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in Christ.
Utrum in Christo fuerint gratiae gratis datae
Whether the gratuitous graces were in Christ?
Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo non fuerint gratiae gratis datae. Ei enim qui habet aliquid secundum plenitudinem, non competit illud habere secundum participationem. Sed Christus habuit gratiam secundum plenitudinem, secundum illud Ioan. I, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Gratiae autem gratis datae videntur esse quaedam participationes divisim et particulariter diversis attributae, secundum illud I Cor. XII, divisiones gratiarum sunt. Ergo videtur quod in Christo non fuerint gratiae gratis datae.
Objection 1: It would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in Christ. For whoever has anything in its fullness, to him it does not pertain to have it by participation. Now Christ has grace in its fullness, according to John 1:14: Full of grace and truth. But the gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed distributively and particularly upon diverse subjects, according to 1 Cor. 12:4: Now there are diversities of graces. Therefore it would seem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ.
Praeterea, quod debetur alicui, non videtur esse gratis ei datum. Sed debitum erat homini Christo quod sermone sapientiae et scientiae abundaret, et potens esset in virtutibus faciendis, et alia huiusmodi quae pertinent ad gratias gratis datas, cum ipse sit Dei virtus et Dei sapientia, ut dicitur I Cor. I. Ergo Christo non fuit conveniens habere gratias gratis datas.
Obj. 2: Further, what is due to anyone would not seem to be gratuitously bestowed on him. But it was due to the man Christ that He should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge, and to be mighty in doing wonderful works and the like, all of which pertain to gratuitous graces: since He is the power of God and the wisdom of God, as is written 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to have the gratuitous graces.
Praeterea, gratiae gratis datae ordinantur ad utilitatem fidelium, secundum illud I Cor. XII, unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem. Non autem videtur ad utilitatem pertinere habitus, aut quaecumque dispositio, si homo non utatur, secundum illud Eccli. XX, sapientia abscondita, et thesaurus invisus, quae utilitas in utrisque? Christus autem non legitur usus fuisse omnibus gratiis gratis datis, praesertim quantum ad genera linguarum. Non ergo in Christo fuerunt omnes gratiae gratis datae.
Obj. 3: Further, gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of the faithful. But it does not seem that a habit which a man does not use is for the benefit of others, according to Ecclus. 20:32: Wisdom that is hid and treasure that is not seen: what profit is there in them both? Now we do not read that Christ made use of these gratuitously given graces, especially as regards the gift of tongues. Therefore not all the gratuitous graces were in Christ.
Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Dardanum, quod sicut in capite sunt omnes sensus, ita in Christo fuerunt omnes gratiae.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that as in the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, gratiae gratis datae ordinantur ad fidei et spiritualis doctrinae manifestationem. Oportet autem eum qui docet, habere ea per quae sua doctrina manifestetur, aliter sua doctrina esset inutilis. Spiritualis autem doctrinae et fidei primus et principalis doctor est Christus, secundum illud Heb. II, cum initium accepisset enuntiari a domino, per eos qui audierunt in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et prodigiis, et cetera. Unde manifestum est quod in Christo fuerunt excellentissime omnes gratiae gratis datae, sicut in primo et principali doctore fidei.
I answer that, As was said above (I-II, Q. 111, AA. 1, 4), the gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and spiritual doctrine. For it behooves him who teaches to have the means of making his doctrine clear; otherwise his doctrine would be useless. Now Christ is the first and chief teacher of spiritual doctrine and faith, according to Heb. 2:3, 4: Which having begun to be declared by the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders. Hence it is clear that all the gratuitous graces were most excellently in Christ, as in the first and chief teacher of the faith.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut gratia gratum faciens ordinatur ad actus meritorios tam interiores quam exteriores, ita gratia gratis data ordinatur ad quosdam actus exteriores fidei manifestativos, sicut est operatio miraculorum, et alia huiusmodi. In utraque autem gratia Christus plenitudinem habuit, inquantum enim divinitati unita erat eius anima, plenam efficaciam habebat ad omnes praedictos actus perficiendos. Sed alii sancti, qui moventur a Deo sicut instrumenta non unita, sed separata particulariter efficaciam recipiunt ad hos vel illos actus perficiendos. Et ideo in aliis sanctis huiusmodi gratiae dividuntur, non autem in Christo.
Reply Obj. 1: As sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious acts both interior and exterior, so likewise gratuitous grace is ordained to certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith, as the working of miracles, and the like. Now of both these graces Christ had the fullness, since inasmuch as His soul was united to the Godhead, He had the perfect power of effecting all these acts. But other saints who are moved by God as separated and not united instruments, receive power in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that act. And hence in other saints these graces are divided, but not in Christ.
Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus dicitur Dei virtus et Dei sapientia, inquantum est aeternus Dei filius. Sic autem non competit sibi habere gratiam, sed potius esse gratiae largitorem. Competit autem sibi gratiam habere secundum humanam naturam.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Son of God. But in this respect it does not pertain to Him to have grace, but rather to be the bestower of grace; but it pertains to Him in His human nature to have grace.
Ad tertium dicendum quod donum linguarum datum est apostolis quia mittebantur ad docendas omnes gentes. Christus autem in una sola Iudaeorum gente voluit personaliter praedicare, secundum quod ipse dicit, Matth. XV, non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel; et apostolus dicit, Rom. XV, dico Iesum Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis. Et ideo non oportuit quod loqueretur pluribus linguis. Nec tamen defuit ei omnium linguarum notitia, cum etiam occulta cordium non essent ei abscondita, ut infra dicetur, quorum voces quaecumque sunt signa. Nec tamen inutiliter hanc notitiam habuit, sicut non inutiliter habet habitum qui eo non utitur quando non est opportunum.
Reply Obj. 3: The gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles, because they were sent to teach all nations; but Christ wished to preach personally only in the one nation of the Jews, as He Himself says (Matt 15:24): I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel; and the Apostle says (Rom 15:8): I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision. And hence it was not necessary for Him to speak several languages. Yet a knowledge of all languages was not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts, of which all words are signs, were not hidden from Him, as will be shown (Q. 10, A. 2). Nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed, just as it is not useless to have a habit, which we do not use when there is no occasion.
Utrum in Christo fuerit prophetia
Whether in Christ there was the gift of prophecy?
Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo non fuerit prophetia. Prophetia enim importat quandam obscuram et imperfectam notitiam, secundum illud Num. XII, si quis fuerit inter vos propheta domini, per somnium aut in visione loquar ad eum. Sed Christus habuit plenam et perfectam notitiam, multo magis quam Moyses, de quo ibi subditur quod palam, et non per aenigmata Deum vidit. Non ergo debet in Christo poni prophetia.
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect knowledge, according to Num. 12:6: If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream. But Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more than Moses, of whom it is subjoined that plainly and not by riddles and figures doth he see God (Num 6:8). Therefore we ought not to admit prophecy in Christ.
Praeterea, sicut fides est eorum quae non videntur, et spes eorum quae non habentur, ita prophetia est eorum quae non sunt praesentia, sed distant, nam propheta dicitur quasi procul fans. Sed in Christo non ponitur fides neque spes, ut supra dictum est. Ergo etiam prophetia non debet poni in Christo.
Obj. 2: Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and hope with what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is not present, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of far-off things. But in Christ there could be neither faith nor hope, as was said above (AA. 3, 4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be admitted in Christ.
Praeterea, propheta est inferioris ordinis quam Angelus, unde et de Moyse, qui fuit supremus prophetarum, ut dictum est in secunda parte, Act. VII dicitur quod locutus est cum Angelo in solitudine. Sed Christus non est minoratus ab Angelis secundum notitiam animae, sed solum secundum corporis passionem, ut dicitur Heb. II. Ergo videtur quod Christus non fuit propheta.
Obj. 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel; hence Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above (II-II, Q. 174, A. 4) is said (Acts 7:38) to have spoken with an angel in the desert. But Christ was made lower than the angels, not as to the knowledge of His soul, but only as regards the sufferings of His body, as is shown Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was not a prophet.
Sed contra est quod de eo dicitur, Deut. XVIII, prophetam suscitabit vobis Deus de fratribus vestris. Et ipse de se dicit, Matth. XIII et Ioan. IV, non est propheta sine honore nisi in patria sua.
On the contrary, It is written of Him (Deut 18:15): Thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren, and He says of Himself (Matt 13:57; John 4:44): A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.
Respondeo dicendum quod propheta dicitur quasi procul fans, vel procul videns, inquantum scilicet cognoscit et loquitur ea quae sunt procul ab hominum sensibus; sicut etiam Augustinus dicit, XVI contra Faustum. Est autem considerandum quod non potest dici aliquis propheta ex hoc quod cognoscit et annuntiat ea quae sunt aliis procul, cum quibus ipse non est. Et hoc manifestum est secundum locum et secundum tempus. Si enim aliquis in Gallia existens cognosceret et annuntiaret aliis in Gallia existentibus ea quae tunc in Syria agerentur, propheticum esset, sicut Elisaeus ad Giezi dixit IV Reg. V, quomodo vir descenderat de curru et occurrerat ei. Si vero aliquis in Syria existens ea quae sunt ibi annuntiaret non esset hoc propheticum. Et idem apparet secundum tempus. Propheticum enim fuit quod Isaias praenuntiavit quod Cyrus, Persarum rex, templum Dei esset reaedificaturus, ut patet Isaiae XLIV, non autem fuit propheticum quod Esdras hoc scripsit, cuius tempore factum est. Si igitur Deus aut Angeli, vel etiam beati, cognoscunt et annuntiant ea quae sunt procul a nostra notitia, non pertinet ad prophetiam, quia in nullo nostrum statum attingunt. Christus autem ante passionem nostrum statum attingebat, inquantum non solum erat comprehensor, sed etiam viator. Et ideo propheticum erat quod ea quae erant procul ab aliorum viatorum notitia, et cognoscebat et annuntiabat. Et hac ratione dicitur in eo fuisse prophetia.
I answer that, A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of far-off things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from men’s senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now we must bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing and announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And this is clear in regard to place and time. For if anyone living in France were to know and announce to others living in France what things were transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus told Giezi (4 Kgs 5:26) how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him. But if anyone living in Syria were to announce what things were there, it would not be prophetical. And the same appears in regard to time. For it was prophetical of Isaias to announce that Cyrus, King of the Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, as is clear from Isa. 44:28. But it was not prophetical of Esdras to write it, in whose time it took place. Hence if God or angels, or even the blessed, know and announce what is beyond our knowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since they nowise touch our state. Now Christ before His passion touched our state, inasmuch as He was not merely a comprehensor, but a wayfarer. Hence it was prophetical in Him to know and announce what was beyond the knowledge of other wayfarers: and for this reason He is called a prophet.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per illa verba non ostenditur esse de ratione prophetiae aenigmatica cognitio, quae scilicet est per somnium et in visione, sed ostenditur comparatio aliorum prophetarum, qui per somnium et in visione perceperunt divina, ad Moysen, qui palam et non per aenigmata Deum vidit; qui tamen propheta est dictus, secundum illud Deut. ult., non surrexit ultra propheta in Israel sicut Moyses. Potest tamen dici quod, etsi Christus habuit plenam et apertam notitiam quantum ad partem intellectivam, habuit tamen in parte imaginativa quasdam similitudines, in quibus etiam poterat speculari divina, inquantum non solum erat comprehensor, sed etiam viator.
Reply Obj. 1: These words do not prove that enigmatical knowledge, viz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy; but the comparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine things in dreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and not by riddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to Deut. 24:10: And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses. Nevertheless it may be said that although Christ had full and unveiled knowledge as regards the intellective part, yet in the imaginative part He had certain similitudes, in which Divine things could be viewed, inasmuch as He was not only a comprehensor, but a wayfarer.
Ad secundum dicendum quod fides est eorum quae non videntur ab ipso credente. Similiter spes est eorum quae non habentur ab ipso sperante. Sed prophetia est eorum quae sunt procul a communi hominum sensu, cum quibus propheta conversatur et communicat in statu viae. Et ideo fides et spes repugnant perfectioni beatitudinis Christi, non autem prophetia.
Reply Obj. 2: Faith regards such things as are unseen by him who believes; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by the one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the sense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this state of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of Christ’s beatitude; but prophecy is not.
Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus, cum sit comprehensor, est supra prophetam qui est purus viator, non autem supra Christum, qui simul fuit viator et comprehensor.
Reply Obj. 3: Angels, being comprehensors, are above prophets, who are merely wayfarers; but not above Christ, Who was both a comprehensor and a wayfarer.
Utrum fuerit in Christo gratiae plenitudo
Whether in Christ there was the fullness of grace?
Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit in Christo gratiae plenitudo. A gratia enim derivantur virtutes, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Sed in Christo non fuerunt omnes virtutes, non enim fuit in eo fides neque spes, ut ostensum est. Ergo in Christo non fuit gratiae plenitudo.
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the fullness of grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 4). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for there was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above (AA. 3, 4). Therefore in Christ there was not the fullness of grace.
Praeterea, sicut patet ex his quae in secunda parte dicta sunt, gratia dividitur in operantem et cooperantem. Operans autem gratia dicitur per quam iustificatur impius. Quod quidem non habuit locum in Christo, qui nunquam subiacuit alicui peccato. Ergo in Christo non fuit plenitudo gratiae.
Obj. 2: Further, as is plain from what was said above (I-II, Q. 111, A. 2), grace is divided into operating and cooperating. Now operating grace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified, which has no place in Christ, Who never lay under any sin. Therefore in Christ there was not the fullness of grace.
Praeterea, Iac. I dicitur, omne datum optimum, et omne donum perfectum, de sursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Sed quod descendit, habetur particulariter, et non plene. Ergo nulla creatura, nec etiam anima Christi, potest habere plenitudinem donorum gratiae.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Jas 1:17): Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights. But what comes thus is possessed partially, and not fully. Therefore no creature, not even the soul of Christ, can have the fullness of the gifts of grace.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, vidimus eum plenum gratiae et veritatis.
On the contrary, It is written (John 1:14): We saw His glory full of grace and truth.
Respondeo dicendum quod plene dicitur haberi quod totaliter et perfecte habetur. Totalitas autem et perfectio potest attendi dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad quantitatem eius intensivam, puta si dicam aliquem plene habere albedinem, si habeat eam quantumcumque nata est haberi. Alio modo, secundum virtutem, puta si aliquis dicatur plene habere vitam, quia habet eam secundum omnes effectus vel opera vitae. Et sic plene habet vitam homo, non autem brutum animal, vel planta. Utroque autem modo Christus habuit gratiae plenitudinem. Primo quidem, quia habuit eam in summo, secundum perfectissimum modum qui potest haberi. Et hoc quidem apparet primo, ex propinquitate animae Christi ad causam gratiae. Dictum est enim quod, quanto aliquod receptivum propinquius est causae influenti, abundantius recipit. Et ideo anima Christi, quae propinquius coniungitur Deo inter omnes creaturas rationales, recipit maximam influentiam gratiae eius. Secundo, ex comparatione eius ad effectum. Sic enim recipiebat anima Christi gratiam ut ex ea quodammodo transfunderetur in alios. Et ideo oportuit quod haberet maximam gratiam, sicut ignis, qui est causa caloris in omnibus calidis, est maxime calidus.
I answer that, To have fully is to have wholly and perfectly. Now totality and perfection can be taken in two ways: First as regards their intensive quantity; for instance, I may say that some man has whiteness fully, because he has as much of it as can naturally be in him; second, as regards power; for instance, if anyone be said to have life fully, inasmuch as he has it in all the effects or works of life; and thus man has life fully, but senseless animals or plants have not. Now in both these ways Christ has the fullness of grace. First, since He has grace in its highest degree, in the most perfect way it can be had. And this appears, first, from the nearness of Christ’s soul to the cause of grace. For it was said above (A. 1) that the nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause, the more it receives. And hence the soul of Christ, which is more closely united to God than all other rational creatures, receives the greatest outpouring of His grace. Second, in His relation to the effect. For the soul of Christ so received grace, that, in a manner, it is poured out from it upon others. And hence it behooved Him to have the greatest grace; as fire which is the cause of heat in other hot things, is of all things the hottest.
Similiter etiam quantum ad virtutem gratiae, plene habuit gratiam, quia habuit eam ad omnes operationes vel effectus gratiae. Et hoc ideo, quia conferebatur ei gratia tanquam cuidam universali principio in genere habentium gratias. Virtus autem primi principii alicuius generis universaliter se extendit ad omnes effectus illius generis, sicut sol, qui est universalis causa generationis, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., eius virtus se extendit ad omnia quae sub generatione cadunt. Et sic secunda plenitudo gratiae attenditur in Christo, inquantum se extendit eius gratia ad omnes gratiae effectus, qui sunt virtutes et dona et alia huiusmodi.
Likewise, as regards the virtue of grace, He had grace fully, since He had it for all the operations and effects of grace; and this, because grace was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in the genus of such as have grace. Now the virtue of the first principle of a genus universally extends itself to all the effects of that genus; thus the force of the sun, which is the universal cause of generation, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), extends to all things that come under generation. Hence the second fullness of grace is seen in Christ inasmuch as His grace extends to all the effects of grace, which are the virtues, gifts, and the like.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fides et spes nominant effectus gratiae cum quodam defectu qui est ex parte recipientis gratiam, inquantum scilicet fides est de non visis, et spes de non habitis. Unde non oportet quod in Christo, qui est auctor gratiae, fuerint defectus quos important fides et spes. Sed quidquid est perfectionis in fide et spe, est in Christo multo perfectius. Sicut in igne non sunt omnes modi caloris defectivi ex defectu subiecti, sed quidquid pertinet ad perfectionem caloris.
Reply Obj. 1: Faith and hope signify effects of grace with certain defects on the part of the recipient of grace, inasmuch as faith is of the unseen, and hope of what is not yet possessed. Hence it was not necessary that in Christ, Who is the author of grace, there should be any defects such as faith and hope imply; but whatever perfection is in faith and hope was in Christ most perfectly; as in fire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the subject’s defect, but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat.
Ad secundum dicendum quod ad gratiam operantem per se pertinet facere iustum, sed quod iustum faciat ex impio, hoc accidit ei ex parte subiecti, in quo peccatum invenitur. Anima Christi igitur iustificata est per gratiam operantem, inquantum per eam facta est iusta et sancta a principio suae conceptionis, non quod ante fuerit peccatrix, aut etiam non iusta.
Reply Obj. 2: It pertains essentially to operating grace to justify; but that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it on the part of the subject, in which sin is found. Therefore the soul of Christ was justified by operating grace, inasmuch as it was rendered just and holy by it from the beginning of His conception; not that it was until then sinful, or even not just.