Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Here the discourse is not about justification and sanctification from a contrary state, whereby one passes from state of sin to state of adoption of sons of God; for since Christ the Lord never sinned, thus neither could he be sanctified by that kind of sanctification which is made through passage from state of sin to state of grace: but only here we speak of justification and sanctification from a privative state, whereby one can pass from state of pure naturals to state of grace; by which sanctification without doubt Christ was sanctified: for although in fact he existed nowhere without grace, yet it is certain that his natural things, by priority at least of nature, ought to have been presupposed to sanctifying grace. But the difficulty is by what formally Christ is said sanctified and just. — It must moreover be known, that to justification three things are desired: First, that through that justification and sanctification man be rendered grateful to God, and become object of divine dilection, and by that reason be ordered to eternal life and supernatural beatitude. Second, that through it he become holy and unpolluted, not having any stain of sin. Third finally, that he be called just, that is, holding right to eternal life, and behave justly in order to God, himself, and neighbor. But it is certain that these three were in Christ the Lord. For first he was loved of God; for the eternal Father Matt. 3. testifies: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Also he was endowed with all holiness, as testifies the Angel addressing the Virgin Luke 1. For that which shall be born of thee holy, shall be called Son of God. Wherefore he is preannounced by Daniel as Sanctus Sanctorum. Third finally he was just; for under this title he is promised by Prophets, and his advent is sought by most holy men. Thus Isaiah 45. Drop down clouds the Just, etc. But among Theologians it is controverted by what these three belong to Christ, whether namely through some gratuitous created gift infused into his soul; or truly through grace itself of union; so that as Christ was subsisting formally through subsistency of Word, thus also he was sanctified formally through sanctity itself of the Word.

NOTE 2. That sanctity is defined by St. Dionysius, book On Divine Names, cap. 12., thus: Sanctity is free from all wickedness, perfect, and wholly uncontaminated purity. Which definition certainly agrees to a triple sanctity which Theologians distinguish in divine things. For there is in God essential sanctity, which is proper to the divine essence itself, inasmuch as this is distinguished formally from its attributes: which also is called radical, because divine essence, to which it belongs, is root of attributes and all things which belong to them. Second can be called moral or formal sanctity, which is nothing else than the very rectitude of divine will in God, both in loving and in operating freely ad extra. For conformity of affect with eternal law is true sanctity; hence it is that all works of God are called holy and just. It is called moral sanctity because it belongs to acts of divine will, which with respect to objects ad extra are plainly free. Third finally can be called transcendental, whereby whatever from its own reason is divine formally, is also holy; for whatever is divine is maximally pure, wholly uncontaminated, immune from every wickedness and pollution. It is called transcendental, since as thing or entity is something transcendent, belonging to all things which are in God, for nothing in God is which is not really something divine, and consequently some divine entity, whether essential, attributal, or personal: so that sanctity, which is imbibed in such divine entity, is called transcendental. Hence it is that since divine personalities in themselves are something and real entities, inasmuch as they are condistinguished from divine essence and attributes, they vindicate to themselves this transcendental sanctity, and therefore this by another name rightly can be called personal, to distinction of essential and moral sanctity.

NOTE 3. That in Word Incarnate these three can be distinguished: First is Deity or divine essence. Second is proper subsistency, or personality itself of Word, as condistinguished formally from divine essence itself. Third is personal union of Word itself with humanity. — Hence controversy exists among Theologians whereby of these humanity of Christ the Lord is truly sanctified with substantial sanctity. Certain Thomists indeed with Vazquez disp. 41. will that sanctity be sought precisely from Deity itself. Some with Suarez d. 18. sect. 1. contend it arises from mode of union itself, which Suarez judges to be something substantial. Very many of ours teach that personal sanctity becomes formal through personality itself of Word united to humanity. But we shall walk between these extreme opinions in the safest middle, teaching substantial sanctity of Christ to be borrowed neither from union alone, nor from Deity or personality of Word separately, but jointly. But since certain Theologians with Paludanus in 3. d. 3. q. 2. acknowledge no other sanctity in Christ than that which is sought from habitual grace; and therefore will that sanctifying grace, whereby we are justified formally, was absolutely necessary to soul of Christ, that it be holy and pleasing to God; first must be resolved whether soul of Christ the Lord, excluding all other grace both actual and habitual, was by force of hypostatic union singularly holy, pleasing, acceptable to God, with substantial or personal sanctity and gratitude.

First conclusion. — Soul of Christ the Lord, excluded all grace both actual and habitual, truly was holy, pleasing to God, acceptable in order to beatitude through personal and substantial sanctity. This is the more common and safer.

It is proved 1. By authority of Council of Frankfurt in epistle to Bishops of Spain, where it says thus: Christ anointed by nature, not through grace, because in him was fully Deity. And St. Cyril 1. 4. in John cap. 29. says Christ anointed, not as other Saints and Kings; but because Word was made flesh. Similarly St. Nazianzen Oration 4. On Theology: Christ therefore, he says, on account of humanity, for that humanity was united, not by act and operation, as in others who are named Christians, but by presence of whole Anointer. St. Athanasius, oration against Arians, where he introduces Word speaking thus: I am Chrisma, as unction; but Christ, or anointed, is man, who has been assumed by me. St. Dionysius Alexandrinus, in Epistle against Paul of Samosata, where he says Christ to excel John, Because in John indeed there was work, labor of justice: but in Jesus nature; so that, as explained Turian. Scholio 1. and 2., Christ was Holy, Just, and Anointed, not by labor and exercise of virtue from grace, but by Deity itself, whereby he could not be not good.

It is proved moreover by reason: Every intellectual substantial being by virtue of this is holy and grateful to God, precisely taken by virtue of which it has right to eternal life: but Christ is intellectual substantial being, and has right to eternal life by hypostatic union precisely taken: therefore precisely by such union Christ is holy and grateful to God: but this sanctity is substantial and personal: therefore he claims it for himself. The major stands by similitude: for by no other reason is one called holy through habitual grace, as we said in 2. Notabile, than because he is grateful to God, and has right to eternal life. The minor is proved: Christ by virtue of that has right to eternal life, and is grateful to God, whence he has that he is natural Son of God: but that he has from hypostatic union: therefore from it he has that he is grateful to God, and vindicates right to himself to eternal life. The major is St. Paul's To Galat. 4. saying: And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God; where he founds right to possession of God on reason of filiation. Minor also stands from what was said, where we proved Christ to be natural Son of God. — Next, that is substantially and intrinsically holy which intrinsically and substantially is constituted and completed through something divine: but Christ, as subsisting through subsistency of Word, is constituted, made, completed through suppositum of him, which is divine: therefore as such is substantially and intrinsically holy. The minor is of faith, and more fully proved by us in preceding things. Major also appears true; for everything divine is holy; since divine sanctity is not only poured into divine essence itself, but also into all that which is in God: therefore since every constitutive confers its formal reason on constituted, it follows that suppositum of Word is substantially holy, and confers that sanctity on its constituted.

You will say: If Christ be substantially and intrinsically holy precisely by virtue of hypostatic union, also by same reason he will impeccable: but this sequel militates against doctrine of Subtle Doctor, teaching impeccability of Christ not to be sought precisely from hypostatic union, but either from sanctifying grace, or from beatitude which he enjoyed: therefore etc. — I answer, sequel of major can be denied: since only formal sanctity, at least unamissible, such as was sanctity of Christ, formally conflicts with impeccability; not truly substantial and personal sanctity. And reason of disparity is, that personal sanctity first and per se respects entity and substance of thing, to which impeccability first and per se does not look, because ability to sin is of will, not of nature. That personal entity respects first entity of thing which it sustains is gathered from this, that that sanctity is sanctity of Word, as sustaining and suppositing, and accordingly is conferred on that which is said sustained and supposited; but this properly belongs to entity and assumed nature: but formal sanctity respects first power, namely will, to which immediately and proximately pertains ability or inability to sin; for grace or charity, which is form whereby we are sanctified, is received first and immediately in will. Therefore by reason of such personal sanctity, neither was Christ simply impeccable, nor were his actions precisely meritorious; because that sanctity can equally affect subject incapable of peccability or impeccability, and of meritorious actions; for if Word had assumed wood, or any other nature devoid of reason and liberty, he would have attributed to it that substantial and supposititious sanctity; and nevertheless that assumed nature would neither be peccable or impeccable, nor by reason of that sanctity would be elicitative of meritorious actions: but in intellectual nature, such as that which was truly assumed by Word, personal sanctity confers impeccability and also power of meriting; not indeed de condigno and formally, but de congruo and causally; because namely substantial sanctity through that impressed union was cause and as it were origin of all graces, whereby Christ formally was holy and proximately impeccable.

You will say 2: There is no stronger reason why suppositum of Christ confer substantial and divine sanctity on humanity than eternity, immensity, and other divine attributes: but those it does not confer; for assumed nature is not said eternal, infinite, immense: therefore neither ought it confer divine and substantial sanctity. — I distinguish the major: there is no stronger reason on part of Word, I concede: on part of assumed nature, I deny. Nor does it repugn, I say, on part of Word, because sustaining nature itself he confers on it all that which is required for complement and ornament thereof, to which it has not from itself incompatibility and repugnance, which truly it has toward infinity, immensity, eternity; because those attributes are thus peculiar to divine nature that they can in no way belong to any created nature; since created nature since finite and limited of itself both in entity and duration, has from itself repugnance to be infinite, immense, eternal: but similar repugnance it has not, to be called holy; for as of itself it has nothing repugnant that it subsist divine subsistency, so likewise it has nothing whereby it repugns to it attributed substantial divine sanctity, which is imbibed in divine suppositum itself.

You will insist: Humanity of Christ has no greater repugnance to divine power and knowledge than to divine sanctity: for as it is capable of sanctity, so it is capable of knowledge and power: but it cannot be made omnipotent or knowing properly through omnipotence and knowledge of Word: therefore neither can it be called holy by sanctity of Word. — I deny the major, because to be holy here is understood nothing else than to be united to something by reason of which conjunction there results in the united dignity, at least moral and of congruence, on account of which he may be judged worthy that he be loved by God, be devoid of sin, and have right to eternal beatitude; all which do not presuppose some form intrinsically existing: but to be omnipotent and knowing not only signifies something conjoined physically with someone having knowledge or omnipotence; but moreover that knowledge and omnipotence inexist intrinsically, whether through identification or through inherence: therefore between both there is no parity.

You will object 3. The Subtle Doctor dist. 10. n. 5. expressly says: That negation of extraneity in Christ is not except on account of habitual grace of Christ, because on account of that alone he has right in eternal inheritance; but not on account of personal union alone: therefore the Doctor judges Christ to have no sanctity to be sought from personal union. — I answer 1. Doctor brought this only against his own response, and did not solve that replica, because he willed elsewhere to examine and solve it; whence he says: seek the response: wherefore as conclusion of that replica is not from proper opinion of Doctor, so neither is major whence that proposition is deduced; for it would be absurd that whenever someone against his doctrine should propose some objection whose solution he deferred, so often should that objection be judged to be at his mind; since it could happen that in solutions which he promises he would solve those propositions and deny them. I answer 2. That although it be gratuitously admitted that Doctor approved that doctrine, thence nevertheless does not follow him willing that Christ precisely by virtue of hypostatic union not have right to eternal life, nor thus be grateful to God that God could deny him eternal life; but that such right he would have by reason of habitual grace whereby suppositing divine acceptation he would vindicate that right for himself; not indeed by reason of itself, but by reason of that divine acceptation; which indeed would also be necessary that personal sanctity might wholly obtain that right, as more fully we shall say in treatise on Grace.

You will object 4. If hypostatic union by reason of nature and personality divine had force of sanctifying, it would follow that wherever such union were present, it would sanctify subject, and make grateful to God and acceptable to eternal beatitude: but this is false: therefore etc. Major is clear: for what is posited by virtue of something is always necessarily admitted by position of that from which it flows: therefore if personal union of Word had force of sanctifying necessarily, it would confer that sanctity on every subject to which it were united. But minor is proved; because simply and absolutely speaking. Word could assume some irrational nature: but this is wholly incapable of sanctity and supernatural gratitude, for these can belong only to rational nature: therefore etc. — I could answer first distinguishing the major: if that subject were capable of sanctity, I concede: otherwise, I deny. For as although divine personality itself, inasmuch as it affects intellectual nature, makes it person; yet it could not make person an irrational nature, if it assumed it; because that nature is not capable of such personality: so neither would it render that irrational nature holy, on account of similar defect of capacity. Which indeed is confirmed: partly because habitual grace, whereby by its reason it otherwise makes men whom it affects adoptive sons of God; yet does not constitute Christ adoptive son of God; so similarly grace of union can make rational nature assumed grateful and holy, although it would not make such irrational nature, if it assumed it: partly because hypostatic union from its own nature confers exigence toward habitual grace and beatitude: but nature of stone or horse would not confer it, if he assumed it: therefore hypostatic union can attribute formal effect to one subject capable of that effect, although it would not attribute same to any other subject not having such capacity. But because soon we said that personal sanctity is not judged distinct from personality and subsistency itself of Word, therefore I answer 2. distinguishing the major: it would render assumed nature holy in that mode wherein it is capable of sanctity, I concede: otherwise, I deny. Since irrational nature is not capable of sanctity which confers right to beatitude, therefore if Word assumed it, he would not confer on it that sanctity; but only substantial, which is no other than subsistency of Word.

Second conclusion. — SUBSTANTIAL SANCTITY OF CHRIST THE LORD IS NOT SOUGHT IMMEDIATELY FROM UNION ITSELF OF HUMAN NATURE WITH WORD.

It is proved first: That union is not formally and in itself anything substantial and divine, but only respect adventing extrinsically, as proved in first Disputation: but relation in itself formally cannot confer substantial sanctity: therefore humanity of Christ cannot be said substantially sanctified through union itself.

Next: That substantial mode in which Suarez wills hypostatic union to consist formally, is something created, namely inexistent to humanity itself: but nothing created can confer substantial sanctity: partly because it is not sanctity by essence, since it be something finite; nor even through participation, because neither is it participation of divine essence, to which chiefly belongs predicate of sanctity by essence, nor has necessary connexion with divine essence itself after manner of predicate whether essential, attributal, or personal: therefore from that substantial mode substantial sanctity cannot be sought.

Finally: Therefore that union would be said to confer substantial sanctity on humanity of Christ, because unless it united uncreated good, which is substantially and essentially holy: but from this reason it could not be said that that union confers sanctity itself precisely and immediately: as similarly union of habitual grace with soul does not confer per se precisely sanctity itself of soul, which not through that union, but through sanctifying grace adhering to it, is truly and formally said to be sanctified: therefore neither union of humanity of Christ with person of Word, which was made substantially, can be precise and immediate formal reason whence substantial sanctity ought to be sought.

You will object 1. You insist with various authorities of Holy Fathers, from which gathered Christ, as man, formally by virtue of grace itself of union was absolutely and simply holy and grateful to God. Thus Holy Fathers expounding Psal. 44. God thy God hath anointed thee with oil of gladness: and Isaiah 61. and Luc. 4. Spirit of Lord upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me, etc. say this unction whereby Christ man was anointed, and from which Christ is called Christian, to be Deity itself, or Word, through whose presence humanity is sanctified. Thus Nazianzen praised in prior Conclusion, whence there he adds Christ to be besmeared with Deity, for this is unction of humanity. And St. Cyril lib. 3. Thesauri, cap. 3. Himself, he says, anointed himself, for Deity is unction of humanity. And St. Augustine lib. 15. De Trinit. cap. 26. then says human nature anointed by insensible God when divine person joined: wherefore in Enchiridion cap. 10. calls union of humanity to Word highest grace: therefore Holy Fathers judge sanctity of Christ chiefly to be sought from union itself of humanity with Word. — I distinguish the consequent: Holy Fathers judge that sanctity to be sought from union taken formally, or inasmuch as precisely union, I deny: taken materially, or inasmuch as connotes person itself of Word, and through it mediating divine essence joined to humanity itself, I concede: for personality itself of Word per se immediately confers that sanctification on humanity through immediate conjunction of itself with it.

You will object 2. Hypostatic union qua union is formal, and as created thing in humanity, is something more excellent and perfect than habitual grace: but habitual grace per se immediately sanctifies formally subject in which it inheres: therefore that union sanctifies humanity, not only as condition, or way to sanctity, but also of itself immediately, and as form obtaining force of sanctifying, confers that sanctity. — I distinguish the major: is something more perfect in itself and precisely inasmuch as union, I deny: since that union thus regarded is only extrinsic respect, which has lesser perfection than grace itself, which according to its entity is more excellent, and nobler than every extrinsic respect: is something more perfect by reason of personality of Word, which is said united to humanity, I concede: whence dignity thereof is to be sought not from formal reason itself, but only on part of extremes.

Third conclusion. — PERSONAL OR SUBSTANTIAL SANCTITY IS NOT TO BE SOUGHT PRECISELY FROM DEITY NOR FROM PERSONALITY OF WORD SEPARATELY, BUT JOINTLY. This Conclusion has three parts, which converge into one.

The first part indeed stands, because humanity of Christ cannot precisely be sanctified substantially immediately through that which is not judged immediately conjoined to it: but Deity is united to humanity only mediatedly through personality; since union of divine nature with human is only hypostatic and personal: therefore that sanctification is not made except mediatedly through personality itself.

Second part also stands: For personality of Word, as formally distinct from divine nature, is not sanctity, neither essential nor formal: therefore as such cannot sanctify humanity of Christ. The consequence is open. The antecedent is proved: if personality of Word, as formally distinct from divine essence, were sanctity, or this belonged to it from its peculiar concept; or by reason of divine entity identified with it: but neither can be said. Not indeed the first, for no reason appears why personality of Word should rather be sanctity formally than personality of Father or Holy Spirit, or any other divine attribute whatever. Nor yet the second, since divine entity itself is identified not only with personality of Word, but also with other personalities, and likewise with all divine attributes; it is consequent that if by reason of that identification personality of Word were formally sanctity, then personalities of Father and Holy Spirit, and any divine attribute whatever, would formally be sanctity; but thus humanity of Christ would be holy not only from the personality immediately united to it and from the divine nature, but also from intellect, from divinity, from omnipotence, and other attributes and perfections of God, which is absurd. — It is confirmed from this, that divine relations constituting persons say no perfection in their formal concept: because otherwise (as we taught in treatise on Trinity) there would be given in God three relative perfections really distinct mutually; whence further consequent would be that divine perfections compared among themselves were unequal, and to each of divine persons some perfection lacking, since one person has not personality of another: but if personality of Word from itself formally were sanctity, it would follow that it had peculiar perfection distinct from perfection of Father: it would follow moreover that in divine persons there were three sanctities, as three personalities are; which certainly no Scotist or Thomist will admit: therefore he ought not admit personality of Word to be formally sanctity.

Finally the third part is proved, namely that substantial sanctity ought to be sought from Deity itself to humanity conjoined mediated through person. This indeed indicate the Holy Fathers praised above, while openly they teach humanity of Christ to be sanctified through divinity itself. Thus especially openly speaks St. Nazianzen Orat. 2. at Easter, where after he brought the figure of paschal lamb, writes thus of Christ: Perfect truly not only on account of humanity besmeared with Deity and made the same as that by which anointed, and as many speak, companion of Deity, or according to another version, at once God. So that man be denoted sanctified in Christ, not only because associated to Deity, but chiefly because he was at once God and man. Therefore that sanctification chiefly from Deity, hypostatically joined to humanity, is to be sought.

Also reason supports; because substantial sanctity of Christ ought to be sought from that which of itself is formally and essentially holy and sanctifying: but Deity, under concept of divine nature united to humanity, is essentially and formally holy and sanctifying: therefore from it precisely substantial sanctity of Christ is to be sought. The major stands. The minor likewise: for divine nature in itself is essentially holy, has also formal sanctity formally convenient to itself, which is an attribute proper to it: therefore since it of itself and in itself has all sanctity whether essential or formal, it follows that through union of itself with humanity it sanctifies it: and accordingly from it sanctification substantial of that humanity is to be sought. Nor does it matter that Deity is not immediately conjoined to humanity, but only mediated through person: for this does not oppose that personal sanctity of union be sanctifying per se of humanity itself to which finally through mediation of person is joined. As whitening of wall is chiefly sought from whiteness conjoined to it, although whiteness inhere in it only mediated through inherence: so divine nature has more principal force of sanctifying humanity, although union thereof with personality be required, whereby immediately joined to humanity as condition sine qua non: as inherence of whiteness to wall is required that wall become white. To these add that personality of Word is not distinguished really but only formally from divine essence: whence mediation of union does not hinder that Deity immediately with real immediation sanctify humanity; although it performs not with formal immediation.

You will say. Habitual grace sanctifies soul formally because quasi deifies it, promotes consortium of divine nature: but personality of Word, as formally distinct from divine nature, deifies human nature in more perfect manner than habitual grace; since that deifies substantially, this accidentally: therefore substantial sanctity is chiefly sought from personality of Word. — I distinguish the major: habitual grace sanctifies soul formally through participation of divine nature: Since indeed St. Peter says, God bestowed great and precious gifts upon us, whereby we are made partakers of divine nature, I concede: sanctifies through communication or imitation of any perfection divine, I deny. Similarly distinguish minor: personality of Word, as formally distinct from divine nature, deifies more perfect manner than habitual grace through imitation of divine nature as nature is, I deny: through application of something divine, namely personality of Word, I concede. And deny consequence.

You will say 2: Through that precisely humanity of Christ is sanctified, to which more immediately united: but more immediately united to subsistency of Word than divine nature: since to latter only mediated through person joined: therefore humanity of Christ principally and more immediately sanctified through personality of Word than nature. — I distinguish major: if that to which more immediately united be formally sanctity, or have sanctity formally, I concede: otherwise, I deny. Whence since personality of Word of itself is not formally holy, nor has divine sanctity formally to itself, but only conveniently really, thence it is that itself precisely not have force of sanctifying separate from Deity, but only jointly.

You will say 3: That immediately sanctifies humanity of Christ which by communication of itself so elevates it to divine being, that it be positive first radix founding in it some right of supernatural beatitude to obtain (for thus habitual grace, since in us and Angels positive first radix eternal life to obtain, name glory supposes it, us and Angels sanctifies): but personality of Word, as virtually condistinct from divine essence, so immediately united to humanity that by virtue of immediate union itself positive first radix founding in it right obtaining supernatural beatitude: for this, as taught within, was owed positively to it by virtue of union: and if per impossibile personality of divine Word were realiter distinct from essence divine, and nevertheless union of humanity to divine Word made, above which cannot sublimari, would have some right eternal life: therefore personality of Word, as condistinct from essence divine, quasi form sanctifying immediately and formally humanity of Christ Lord. — I distinguish major: if that elevating nature to divine being be of itself either essentially or formally holy, confer right proximate beatitude supernatural, concede: if only holy transcendental sanctity, confer only remote and inchoate right beatitude, deny. Similarly distinct minor, deny consequence. Since suppositum Word not of itself formal sanctity, but only transcendental; nor of itself precisely confers right beatitude, but only with divine nature, which through him mediating united to humanity, tributes complete right beatitude obtaining.

You will insist. Whatever of itself is divine is formally holy and sanctifying: but personality of Word of itself, as condistinct from Deity, is something divine: therefore also of itself formally holy and sanctifying. — I distinguish the major: formally holy and sanctifying, that sanctity it vindicates, concede: any other sanctity, deny. Minor also distinguish: suppositum of Word holy with formal sanctity, I deny: transcendental sanctity, I concede. Therefore can indeed of itself precisely confer on humanity transcendental sanctity, but this not sufficient that it have right to beatitude.

You will press: That is precisely formally holy with formal sanctity, which in itself can be adored with absolute adoration of latria; since then adored only on account of peculiar excellence and proper sanctity: but personality of divine Word, as condistinct formally from essence divine, is adorable with absolute adoration of latria, as Church teaches, while in Preface of Mass of Holy Trinity sings: In confession of true and sempiternal Deity, and in persons propriety, and in essence unity, and Majesty equal adored: words signify adoration latria owed divine personalities, as condistinct from essence, as owed deity condistinct from personalities. — I distinguish the major: adored with adoration latria on account of itself precisely, abstracto, I deny: on account of self, and divine nature realiter identified, concrete taken, that is inasmuch as connotes not only personality but also divine nature with personality constituting divine person, I concede. Thus distinct minor, I deny consequence. Nor Church aforesaid words signify divine personalities abstract taken precisely adorable, but only teaches in God maximally adorable unique essence in three Persons subsisting, whence Majesty equal peers. If contend Church understood of personalities abstract accepted, major denied: for necessary not what in itself adorable latria absolute, be formally holy, have force conferring right beatitude of itself precisely separately from any other, but suffices transcendental sanctity, imbibed everything divine.