|
State and difficulty of the question. It is certain that the soul of
Christ was endowed with free will, which means not only freedom from
internal compulsion, but also from external constraint. The Catholic
Church defined against Calvin, Luther, and Jansenius, that free
will implies these two kinds of freedom. The third condemned
proposition of Jansenius reads: "For meriting and demeriting in the
state of man's fallen nature, freedom from internal compulsion is not
required; it is sufficient to be free from external
constraint."[1400] This means that the contradictory
proposition is true, namely, for meriting and demeriting in the state
of man's fallen nature, not only freedom from external constraint or
spontaneity is required, which is found in the irrational animal, but
also freedom from internal compulsion, or a dominating indifference of
choice, under the direction of free judgment, as St. Thomas
explains.[1401] He also says: "The will of Christ, though
determined to good, is not determined to this or that good. Hence it
pertains to Christ, even as to the blessed, to choose with a free
will confirmed in good."[1402]
Where there is no command there is no difficulty, and so Christ
freely chose Peter as His vicar in preference to John.
It is of faith that Christ had free will, because it was defined that
there are two inconfused natures in Christ, and that each nature
retains its own properties, faculties of understanding and willing,
and each its own operations.[1403]
The Catholic Church likewise defined that Christ freely merited and
satisfied for us.[1404] But, as already stated, against the
Jansenists, free will is required for meriting, and freedom from
internal compulsion.
All Catholic theologians are agreed on these declarations and they
reject the teaching of Jansenius, who said that Christ was interiorly
compelled to observe the command of His Father, since freedom from
external constraint was, in the opinion of Jansenius, sufficient for
meriting.
Likewise it is certain that there never was the stain of either
original sin or actual sin in Christ, and this statement is of faith,
as was shown above.[1405] In fact, the Second Council of
Constantinople declared that Christ was impeccable even before the
Resurrection.[1406]
All theologians maintain that Christ was thus impeccable at least by
God's ordinary law, and this for three reasons, namely, because of
the hypostatic union, the plenitude of inamissible habitual grace, and
the beatific vision. In fact, as stated above,[1407] the
Thomists contend against the Scotists that, if God were to take away
habitual grace and the beatific vision from Christ, He would still be
impeccable and not merely sinless, because of the hypostatic union.
In any other case, sin would be charged to the Word itself, since
actions belong to the supposita or are elicited by the suppositum.
Thus Christ even in this life was absolutely impeccable, and this for
three reasons: (1) because He had the grace of union; (2)
because He had the fullness of inamissible habitual grace; (3)
because He had the beatific vision. He was also de facto sinless
since He always received efficacious grace to do what is right, and
this befitted Him as it did the Blessed Virgin Mary.
These facts being admitted, there arises the great difficulty about
how we shall reconcile Christ's freedom from internal compulsion, in
the acts commanded, with His absolute impeccability, which is more
than sinlessness. For either Christ could refuse to perform the act
commanded, and then He could sin, or He could not refuse, and then
He was not free, with freedom from internal compulsion, and hence
His act was not meritorious. It seems that Christ's impeccability
and the freedom required in Him for meriting are irreconcilable. But
our faith tells us that these two properties most certainly belonged to
Christ even in this life. Christ's impeccability and His merits are
underlying principles of all Christianity.
Scriptural proof. On the one hand, the Gospels and epistles state
it to be an established fact that Christ's death was a truly free
act. Thus Jesus says: "Therefore doth the Father love Me,
because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No man taketh
it away from Me; but I lay it down of Myself and I have power to
lay it down and I have power to take it up again. This commandment I
have received of My Father."[1408] These words express
Christ's liberty and the divine command. Christ reaffirms this in
His discourse at the Last Supper: "The prince of this world cometh
and in Me he hath not anything. But that the world may know that I
love the Father, and as the Father hath given Me commandment, so do
I."[1409] It is also evident that Christ's death was truly
meritorious.[1410] On the other hand, it is certain that
Christ was not only sinless but absolutely impeccable. Therefore He
could not disobey. Then how was it possible for Him to obey or
disobey as He chose?
Various Opinions Proposed For The Solution Of This
Doubt[1411]
These may be reduced to the following three:
|
1) Some said that
Jesus did not receive from the Father a true command to die. So said
Lorca, who quotes Paludanus. Afterward Petavius and Franzelin
held this view, and among more recent theologians was Father
Billot.[1412] To these must be added, with some modification,
Father de la Taille,[1413] as we shall state farther on.
According to this opinion, Christ was not free in things that are
commanded, either by the natural law or the positive law, because it
is physically impossible for the comprehensor to will not to obey.
2) Others said that Christ received from the Father a command that
determined only the substance of the death, but not circumstances of
time, manner of death, and other conditions. Tournely said that
Christ could have been dispensed by His Father from this command to
die. Vasquez,[1414] de Lugo,[1415] and
Lessius[1416] held this view. This second opinion is eclectic
and holds with the first opinion that Christ was not free in things
commanded, though it maintains with the third opinion that Christ
received the command to die. On seeking to reconcile the command with
free will it restricts the command to the substance of the work.
3) There are those who say that Christ received a true and strict
command to die, and it determined both the substance and the
circumstances of His death. Nevertheless Christ offered Himself
freely on the cross, because He was free not only from external
constraint, but also from internal compulsion. This third opinion
maintains, contrary to the two other opinions, that Christ was free
even in things strictly commanded, both of the natural law and of the
positive law. So say the Thomists; and also, with some
qualification, St. Robert Bellarmine,[1417] and Suarez;
who explain their view by means of the scientia media, which the
Thomists do not admit. The Thomists maintain that Christ's
impeccable freedom of will is like God's freedom, whose will is both
absolutely free and absolutely impeccable, inasmuch as God loves His
own good, but He most freely loves it as the reason for loving
creatures.[1418] But there can be no command for God.
|
|
The secondary subject of dispute among Thomists, however, concerns
the regulation of Christ's free choice, as to whether it was also
possibly regulated by the beatific vision, or only by the infused
knowledge. This will be examined afterward.
Thus the fundamental difference between these opinions is clearly
seen, inasmuch as the first two opinions assert that Christ was not
free in things commanded, whereas the third opinion declares that He
was free.
Importance of this discussion. Thomists believe that it is a grave
matter to deny Christ's freedom of will in things commanded, because
Christ is the exemplar of all virtues, and especially in the
conformity of His will with the divine will that commands. The denial
of this freedom appears to them to be an entirely rash statement and
somewhat of an insult to Christ. They are generally chary of
detracting from the sublimity of mysteries in seeking for apparent
clarity, which, instead of disposing a person for the contemplation of
divine things, has rather the opposite effect. First of all, we must
bear in mind that faith is of things not seen, and so too is
contemplation that proceeds from living faith, illumined by the gifts
of the Holy Ghost.
Hence, concerning the method to be followed by the theologian in these
things, it must be noted first of all that most certain truths must not
be either denied or minimized, as in the present question Christ's
impeccability and His freedom from internal compulsion. This freedom
of Christ must not be restricted, because it is the exemplar for our
life and undoubtedly the most sublime image of God's freedom, which
is both supreme and impeccable.
But no wonder that there must be for us obscurity in the intimate
reconciliation of these most certain truths. It is not obscurity of
the lower order, namely, of incompatibility or absurdity, but it is
the higher obscurity of the mystery itself which is the object of faith
and contemplation. Thus in the question of predestination, on the one
hand it is certain that God does not command the impossible, and He
makes salvation really possible for all. On the other hand, it is
certain that, although God's love is the cause of goodness in
things, nobody would be better than another unless that person were
loved more by God, as St. Thomas shows.[1419] But the
intimate reconciliation of these two truths is hidden from us, because
it is the reconciliation of supreme mercy, supreme justice, and
supreme freedom in the Godhead. This intimate reconciliation can be
seen only by seeing God Himself through the beatific vision.
Thomism does not fear either logic or mystery, for logic leads us to
the most sublime of God's mysteries. Thus the beauty of the
chiaroscuro in these mysteries is apparent.
The first two opinions that declare Christ was not free in things
commanded must now be examined.
|
|
