Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/785

 INCARNATION

715

INCARNATION

thirst, pain, death. Christ hungered (Matt., iv, 2), thirsted (John, xix, 28), was fatigued (John, iv, 6), suffered pain and death. " We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Heb., iv, 1.5). " For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Heb., ii, IS). All these bodily weaknesses were not miraculously brought about liy Jesus; they were the natm"al results of the human nature He assumed. To be sure, they might have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ. They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation. " Wherefore when he Cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and obla- tion thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Heb., x, 5). Tke Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ. St. Athanasius gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (P. G., XX, 1.3:5). Weaknesses due to old age are common to mankind. Had Christ lived to an old age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered the weaknesses that are common to infancy. Death from old age would have come to Jesus, had lie not been violently put to death (see St. Augustine, " De Peccat.", II, 29; P. L., XLIV, ISO). The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy for that nature's sin. Now, to satisfy for the sin of another is to accept the penalty of that sin. Hence it was fitting that Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of Adam that are common to man and be- coming, or at least not unbecoming, to the Hypostatic Union. (See St. Thomas, III,Q. xiv,for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are not common to mankind, were not His. St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), TertuUian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed. They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness" etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, "Christologia", theses Ix, Ixi).

B. On the Human Soul of Christ, (a) In the \Vill. — (a) Sinlessness. — The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hj-postatic Union. The fact that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council, Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of Christ is imphcit in the definition that He did not offer Himself for Himself, but for us). Tills fact of Christ's sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. "There is no sin in Him" (I John, iii, 5). " Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us" i. e. a victim for sin (II Cor., v, 21). The impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all theologians, but variously explained. Giinther defended an impossibiUty consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He 'Would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at all. Christ is God. It is

absolutely impossible, antecedent to the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If God allowed His flesh to sin. He might sin, that is, He might turn away from Himself; and it is abso- lutely impossilile that God should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes. The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to God's prevision, is not tlue to the Hypostatic Union, but is like to the impossiliility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i). St. Thomas (III, q. xv, a. 1) and all Thomists, Suarez (d. xxxiii, §2), Vasquez (d. Ixi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi, §1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach the now almost univer- sally admitted explanation that the absolute impossi- bility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine. (/3) Liberty. — The will of Christ remained free after the Incarnation. This is an article of faith. The Scripture Ls mo.st clear on this point. "When he had tasted, he would not drink" (Matt., xxvii, .34). "I will; be thou made clean" (Matt., viii, 3). The liberty of Christ was such that He merited. "He humbled himself, becoming obedient luito death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him" (Phil., ii, 8). "Who having joy set before him, endured the cross" (Heb., xii, 2). 'That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for us by His death. Just how to reconcile this liberty of Christ with the impossibility of His committing sin has ever been a crux for theologians. Some seventeen explanations are given (see St. Thomas, III, Q. xlvii, a. 3, ad 3"™; Molina, "Concordia", d. liii, membr. 4).

(b) In the Intellect. — The effects of the Hypostatic Union upon the knowledge of Christ will be treated in a special article (see Knowledge of Christ).

(c) Sanctity of Christ. — The Humanity of Christ was holy by a twofold sanctity: the grace of union and sanctifying grace. The grace of union, i. e. the Sub- stantial and Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the Divine Word, is called the substantial sanctity of Christ. St. Augustine says: "Tunc ergo sanctifi- cavit se in se, hoc est hominem se in Verbo se, quia imus est Christus, Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo" (When the Word was made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that is. Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One Person, both Word and Man, and ren- ders His human nature holy in the holiness of the Divine nature) (In Johan. tract. lOS, n. 5, in P. L., XXXV, 1916). Besides this substantial sanctity of the grace of Hypostatic Union, there was in the soul of Christ, the accidental sanctity called sanctifying grace. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. John Chry.so.stom, St. Cyril of Alex- andria, and of the Fathers generally. The Word was " full of grace" (John, i, 14), and "of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace" (Jolin, i, 16). The Word were not full of grace, if any grace were wanting in Him which would be a perfection fitting to His human nature. All theologians teach that sancti- fying grace is a perfection fitting the humanity of Christ. The mystical body of Christ is the Church, whereof Christ is the Head (Rom., xii, 4; I Cor., xii, 11; Eph., i, 20; iv, 4; Col. i, 18; ii, 10). It is espe- cially in this sense that we say the grace of the Head flows through the channels of the sacraments of the Church — through the veins of the body of Christ. Theologians commonly teach that from the very beginning of His existence. He received the fullness of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts (ex- cept faith, hope, and the moral virtue of penance); nor did He ever increase in tnese gifts or this sanctify- ing grace. For so to increase would be to become more pleasing to the Divine Majesty; and this were impossible in Christ. Hence St. Luke meant (ii, 52)