|
State of the question. St. Thomas presupposes that Christ could
have merited,[1470] and in the present article he teaches what
He merited for Himself, and in the subsequent article what He
merited for us.
Reply. The Council of Trent in its sixth session, the seventh
chapter, defined it to be of faith that Christ truly and properly
merited, and in the tenth canon of this session expressly stated that
Christ was the meritorious cause of our justification.[1471]
Scriptural proof. The New Testament establishes clearly the fact
that Christ merited something for Himself. St. Paul says that
Christ's exaltation is the reward of His humility and obedience, as
in the following text: "He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto
death... for which cause God also hath exalted Him."[1472]
Therefore He merited His exaltation by obeying, and so He merited
something for Himself. Similarly St. Paul says: "We see
Jesus..., for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and
honor."[1473] The Evangelist quotes Jesus as saying:
"Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into
His glory?"[1474] namely, glory of the body. At the Last
Supper Jesus said: "I have finished the work... and now glorify
Me, O Father."[1475] From these texts it is evident that
Christ merited for Himself glory of the body, exaltation of His
name, His ascension, and the adoration of the faithful.
Theological proof. It is nobler to merit anything than not to merit
it, when there is parity in other respects, namely, when it does not
detract from the greater dignity of another. But Christ could merit
glory of the body, and other extrinsic good things, for He did not
have these from the beginning, and these do not seem at all to have
detracted from His greater dignity.
Therefore Christ merited for Himself this glory of His body and
other extrinsic good things. Calvin unwarrantedly denied this merit to
Christ, so that he might praise more His love for us, as if Christ
willed to merit only for us.
Contrary to this, Christ did not merit for Himself either grace, or
knowledge, or beatitude of soul, or the divine nature, because,
since merit regards only what is not yet possessed, it would be
necessary that Christ should have been without these at some time; and
to be without them would have diminished Christ's dignity more than
His merit would have increased it.[1476] Moreover, the
principle of merit, namely, habitual grace, does not come under
merit.[1477] Consequently Christ did not merit for Himself the
infused virtues and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, for these are
quasi-properties of habitual grace.
For the same reason Christ did not merit His incarnation, for this
was in Him the principle of merit; for merit presupposes a constituted
person who produces the meritorious act.
The principal conclusion of this article becomes more evident when we
consider that the six conditions required for merit, as explained in
the treatise on grace, were verified in Christ: (1) the acts of
His will were free; (2) they were good on the part of the object
and the circumstances; (3) they were the acts of a person who is
just and pleasing to God; (4) they were ordered by the virtue of
charity for the glory of God; (5) they were the acts of a
wayfarer, for Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor; (6) it
was in accordance with the divine plan that they should be rewarded.
Objection. Christ was indeed a wayfarer as regards His passible and
mortal body, but not as regards His soul that enjoyed the beatific
vision; but it is the soul that must merit, not the body.
Reply. I distinguish the antecedent. That Christ was not a
wayfarer as regards His soul considered in itself and as directed to
God clearly seen, this I concede; considered as the form of the
body, this I deny.
It suffices that the subject be still a wayfarer so that his acts,
even those more sublime, be free and meritorious. Thus all Thomists
maintain that Christ's acts of charity, which were regulated by His
infused knowledge, were both free and meritorious, although the
infused knowledge did not belong to the soul inasmuch as it is the form
of the body. For the same reason it seems correct to say that
Christ's acts of charity for the salvation of mankind, even as
regulated by the beatific knowledge, were not only free but also
meritorious, as stated above.[1478]
Reply to first objection. Christ merited as a wayfarer and therefore
by charity not inasmuch as it was the charity of the comprehensor, but
of the wayfarer.
Here it must be noted that Christ's merit could not be regulated by
faith, which He did not have, but it was regulated either by the
beatific knowledge or the infused knowledge, this latter presupposing
the beatific knowledge and following from it as a property.
Thus the truth is established that Christ could not merit for Himself
essential glory, or the beatific vision, which was in Him the
principle of His merits; but the principle of merit does not come
under merit.
Corollary. Christ obtained the glory of the body on two grounds,
namely, that it was connatural to Him, and so it was already due to
Him, as being a redundance of glory from the soul; it was also due to
Him on the grounds of merit. Thus the king's son can possess the
kingdom on two grounds, namely, of inheritance and of
merit.[1479]
Solution Of Objections
First objection. If Christ had merited anything for Himself, He
would have died for Himself, which is condemned by the Council of
Ephesus.[1480]
Reply. The council condemned the proposition that Christ suffered
for His own sins. It would be false to say that the primary purpose
of Christ's sufferings was for Himself, for He came down from
heaven for us men and for our salvation. Yet He could as a
consequence of this and in a secondary sense merit something for
Himself, and also for the angels, since He merited accidental graces
for them, that they may be His servants in the kingdom of God.
Second objection. On the contrary, it is more perfect to merit glory
of soul than not to merit it. But we must attribute to Christ what is
more perfect. Therefore He merited glory of soul.
Reply. I distinguish the major: it is more perfect when glory is the
terminus of merit, this I concede; but if glory is the principle of
merit in anyone, then I deny it. In Christ, however, glory of
soul is the principle of merit, for in Him the regulating principle of
the meritorious act was not faith, but the beatific vision or infused
knowledge which followed from the beatific vision as a property.
But I insist. There is no repugnance in the notion that Christ's
merit be regulated by His infused knowledge and that He merited His
beatific knowledge.
Reply. The notion is repugnant because Christ's infused knowledge
was a quasi-property following from the beatific vision, just as
habitual grace in some way followed from the grace of union; for
infused grace was given to Christ on this earth as a consequence of the
mystery of the Incarnation, for the perfection of the human nature
assumed by the Word, and Christ enjoyed the beatific vision prior to
this consequence of the grace of union. Thus we shall see farther
on[1481] that Christ was predestined first to be the natural Son
of God, then to glory, namely, to the beatific vision which He at
once received as a consequence of the grace of union, and then to the
graces of His life as a wayfarer.
|
|
