|
State of the question. The article concerns condign merit. The
difficulty is that other persons who are in the state of grace cannot
merit condignly, but only congruously, grace for another, as shown in
the treatise on grace.[1482] Moreover, if Christ as the
God-man and the head of the Church condignly merited salvation for
all, then, as stated in the third objection to this article, Christ
would be unjust not to save all, and thus all would be entitled to
grace, and all would have to be saved.
The common statement, indeed, is that "Christ's passion is of
infinite value as regards its sufficiency for the salvation of all
mankind, but it is efficacious only for those to whom it is
applied."[1483] This must be carefully examined.
Reply. Christ's merit extends to others inasmuch as they are His
members, says St. Thomas; and this refers to condign merit.
1) Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: "As by the offense of
one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one unto
all men to justification of life,"[1484] which means: just as
others became partakers of Adam's transgression, so much more did
they become partakers of Christ's merit. Thus he also says:
"Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in
Christ."[1485] So also Christ Himself said: "Without Me
you can do nothing."[1486] And the Evangelist says: "And of
His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace."[1487]
2) The councils of the Church affirmed this truth on several
occasions. The Council of Milevum[1488] against the
Pelagians, and the Second Council of Orange[1489] against the
Semi-Pelagians equivalently affirmed this truth under the metaphor of
the vine and the branches. The truth is expressly declared in the
Council of Trent, in which, discussing the causes of justification,
it says: "The final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus
Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful
God who washes..., but the meritorious cause is His most beloved
only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who when we were
enemies[1490] for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved
us,[1491] merited justification for us by His most holy passion
on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the
Father."[1492] The Council says the same in the corresponding
canon on justification.[1493] In the strict sense, Christ as
man is called the Savior, inasmuch as He merited our salvation.
Likewise the Church in all orations earnestly entreats graces of
salvation, invoking the merits of Christ, when it says: Through our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Theological proof. Merit is co-extensive with the divine plan and
grace. But according to the divine plan, grace was in Christ not
only as in an individual, but as in the head of the whole Church, to
whom all are united as members to the head, who constitute one mystical
person. Therefore Christ's merit extends to others as to His
members. Thus this revealed proposition is explained by something
previously and equally revealed.
Thus, analogically, in our organism the head and the members
harmoniously combine in the processes of sense perception. The
solution of the objections confirms this.
Reply to first objection. "Just as the sin of Adam, who was
appointed by God to be the principle of the whole nature, is
transmitted to others by carnal propagation, so, too, the merit of
Christ... extends to all His members."
Reply to second objection. Other men have only a particular grace and
so they cannot merit for another condignly.
Reply to third objection. Grace that is granted to us by baptism and
any other way, although it is owing to Christ's merits, yet it is
gratuitous with reference to us.
Moreover, Christ's merits, the validity of which is sufficient for
the salvation of all men, are efficacious for the salvation of those to
whom they are applied and until the end of their lives; but several put
an obstacle in the way.
This question receives but a brief comment here by St. Thomas
because he discusses it farther on in this treatise, inquiring whether
Christ's predestination is the cause of ours.
He answers that it is, and in this sense: "For God, by
predestinating from eternity, so decreed our salvation that it should
be achieved through Jesus Christ."[1494]
With reference to Christ's merits several doubts demand an
explanation.
First doubt. Did Christ merit all the effects in the predestination
of the elect, namely, their calling, justification, and
glorification?
Reply. The common teaching of the Thomists is that Christ did not
merit our predestination on the part of God who
predestines.[1495] But He condignly merited all the effects of
our predestination. And this is true only of Christ, not of the
Blessed Virgin, who, nevertheless, congruously merited these
effects.
Thus St. Paul says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in
heavenly places, in Christ,"[1496] which means through Christ
or through Christ's merits; but the highest benediction given to man
is his predestination. The Apostle also says: "God hath
predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus
Christ."[1497] This text also concerns predestination in the
comparative sense, namely, of these in particular in preference to
others in accordance with the Gospel text: "I have called you
friends.... You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen
you."[1498] Thus St. Thomas, following St. Augustine,
says: "It follows from this that our predestination is gratuitous as
regards ourselves, but not as regards Christ."[1499]
Nevertheless the truth remains that the predestination of these in
preference to others depends on God's good pleasure; for Christ
neither chose these and those in preference to others, nor petitioned
and merited that they be chosen, unless He had been directed and moved
to do so by the will of His Father. Hence Christ Himself says:
"Thine they were, and to Me Thou hast given them";[1500]
that is, "Thou hast given them to Me, moving My will by the
offering of My merits to have these chosen in preference to others,
and Thou hast given to Me in time those whom Thou hadst chosen from
eternity in view of My merits."[1501] St. Thomas, too,
inquiring whether Christ's prayer was always heard, says that it
certainly was when it was the result of His consequent
will.[1502]
Second doubt. Whether Christ's merits were predestined before
God's consequent will of efficaciously saving these in preference to
others for example, Peter in preference to Judas.
Reply. The answer is in the affirmative. Christ's merits were
predestined or efficaciously willed by God, if not before His
antecedent will of saving all men, at least before His consequent will
of saving some and certain persons in preference to others, that is,
before He chose and predestined the elect. Thus our predestination
and salvation is the means ordained for the glory of Christ, the first
predestined, which is the common teaching of the Thomists in their
discussions on the motive of the Incarnation. Thus Christ evidently
was predestined before Peter and Paul, for the latter apostle says:
"He predestinated us to be made conformable to the image of His
Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom
He predestinated, them He also called; and whom He called, them
He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also
glorified."[1503]
Third doubt. Whether Christ merited eternal life for all men.
Reply. Yes, He did; but He merited only for the elect the
attainment of eternal life.[1504] Thus the just person who is
not predestined while remaining just, by means of good works merits
eternal life, but eventually these merits are lost and with them the
attainment of eternal life. The Council of Trent declares: "If
anyone shall say that the good works of one that is justified... do
not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of
that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace and
also an increase of glory, let him be anathema."[1505] Christ
indeed did not lose His merits, but He knew that God permitted the
sin of those not predestined and He consented to this divine permission
for a greater good, namely, the manifestation of God's attributes.
He most deeply grieved at the loss of these souls, but already on this
earth He most clearly saw the higher good for which God permits sins,
even the sin of final impenitence, namely, to manifest the splendor of
divine justice above diabolical and human malice.
Fourth doubt. How did Christ merit efficacious graces which de facto
are not granted, such as would be the grace of a good death for
Judas?
The Thomists answer that Christ merited these graces as offered to
men in sufficient grace that is given, but not as here and now
conferred or to be conferred. For God offers efficacious grace to us
as contained in the sufficient grace, as the fruit is contained in the
flower; but if the sufficient grace is refused, the efficacious grace
is not conferred. So say Lemos, O. P.,[1506] John of
St. Thomas,[1507] and the Salmanticenses.[1508] The
same distinction must be made concerning Christ's prayer, whether it
was always heard. On this subject St. Thomas says: "Our Lord
did not pray for all those who crucified Him, for all those who would
believe in Him, but for those only who were predestinated to obtain
eternal life through Him."[1509]
First corollary. Christ merited for the redemption of man all actual
graces that dispose one for justification, such as the grace itself of
justification, infused virtues, gifts, actual graces, and glory
itself, that is, all the effects of predestination. Thus He could
say: "Without Me you can do nothing"[1510] that concerns
salvation.
The reason is that Christ merited for us all graces necessary for
salvation; for St. Paul says: "Where sin abounded grace did more
abound,"[1511] and this properly belongs to the role of the
perfect Savior and Redeemer as Christ was. As St. Luke says:
"Neither is there salvation in any other."[1512]
First objection. Grace and justification are absolutely gratuitous.
Therefore they are not on account of merits.
Reply. That they are gratuitous on our part, I concede; on
Christ's part, I deny.
Second objection. Merit must precede the reward, since it is the
cause of the reward. But Christ did not precede the fathers of the
Old Testament. Therefore He did not merit grace for them.
Reply. That merit must precede reward as foreknown by the person
rewarding, I concede; that it must actually, I deny. Since merit
is only a moral cause, that it is foreknown by God is sufficient, for
a moral cause moves inasmuch as it is known as the regulation of the
superior advising something to be done, and it can be known by God
from all eternity as destined to exist in some future time.
Second corollary. Christ did not merit essential grace and glory for
the angels, but only accidental graces by which they are His
ministers.[1513]
Third corollary. Christ did not merit the grace that our first
parents had in the state of innocence,[1514] because He was not
their head for that state. But He merited all the effects of
predestination for Adam converted after the sin or as redeemed.
Other Special Doubts
First doubt. Did Christ merit from the moment of His conception
until the end of His life? Reply. It is generally affirmed with
St. Thomas[1515] that He did. This answer has its foundation
in the following scriptural text:
"Coming into the world, Christ says: Sacrifice and oblation Thou
wouldst not, but a body Thou hast fitted to Me.... Then I
said: Behold I come; in the head of the book it is written of Me,
that I should do Thy will, O God."[1516]
"Coming into the world" means from the moment of His conception,
for afterward He had already come. But this oblation by which Christ
offered Himself as victim was meritorious at this moment, for it had
everything required for merit.
Theological proof. It explains this merit, for, although Christ
did not have as yet acquired knowledge, He already had from the moment
of His conception until the end of His life infused knowledge, which
He could use independently of reverting to phantasms. Thus He could
from the first moment of His life to the end uninterruptedly elicit
meritorious acts. Thus certain saints had infused knowledge on various
occasions so that they were able sometimes to merit even during sleep,
and several theologians say that the Blessed Virgin Mary probably
enjoyed this privilege.
Thus the very moment Christ's soul was created, He already began to
merit; and so His soul as regards merit had priority of nature, but
not of time. Thus Christ merited neither the Incarnation nor
fullness of grace and glory, but other things He merited for Himself
and for us.
Objection. If Christ had merited from the moment of His
conception, already this merit would have been of infinite value.
Therefore He could not have merited anything afterward.
Reply. If this argument proved anything, it would prove that Christ
could merit only at the last moment of His life. As a matter of
fact, however, it does not prove this. This first merit of Christ
was, indeed, of infinite value, but not separated from the other
merits ordained and accepted for a reward. In fact, already from the
beginning Christ offered His whole life until His death.
Second doubt. Did Christ merit actually the moment of His death in
fact?
Reply. St. Thomas denies this, saying: "Christ's death in the
becoming was the cause of our salvation, considered as His passion,
that is, by way of merit; but Christ's death in fact cannot be the
cause of our salvation, by way of merit, but only by way of
causality."[1517] The reason is that a wayfarer can merit, and
the first moment of ceasing to be a wayfarer is the first moment of
separation of the soul from the body, and already at this moment there
is no longer a wayfarer, but a separated soul. Christ did not give
any indication that He was exempt from this law, for He said: "I
must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day; the night
cometh when no man can work."[1518] The Fathers of the Church
understand by "day" the time of this life. and by "night" the
moment of death.
Third doubt. Were all the free acts of Christ's human will
meritorious?
Reply. The answer is that they were.[1519] The reason is
that, freedom in Christ's human actions as long as He was a wayfarer
being presupposed, there was nothing that prevented them from being
meritorious, as stated above.[1520] They were the actions of a
wayfarer, in every respect good, in fact theandric, and were ordained
by Christ's charity to God's glory and were ordained by God to a
reward.
First corollary. Christ merited by an act of love for God inasmuch
as it was regulated by infused knowledge, for thus this act was the
free act of a wayfarer. Even the act of love for God, inasmuch as it
is the reason for loving creatures, was a free act in that it was
regulated by the beatific vision; yet certain Thomists say that this
act so regulated belonged to Christ as comprehensor but not as
wayfarer, and so they said it was not meritorious.[1521] That
Christ merited by a free act of love for God, inasmuch as it is the
reason for loving creatures is indicated by our Lord in these words:
"'That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the
Father hath given Me commandment, so do I. Arise, let us go
hence."[1522]
Second corollary. Christ, while still a wayfarer, merited by all
acts elicited or commanded by charity, and by all acts of all virtues,
for in these acts He was free.
Third corollary. Christ merited by all acts, even of His sensitive
and vegetative faculties, inasmuch as these were under the dominion of
His will. Thus He merited not only by acts of seeing, hearing,
walking, groaning, and crying, but also by the beating of the heart,
in His sleep, and when He was thirsty.[1523] They note that,
although these actions, especially those that pertain to the vegetative
life, are not in themselves formally free, they were nevertheless
subjected to Christ's will, because of the control He exercised over
His body and His faculties. Hence, inasmuch as they were permitted
for good ends, there was a certain moral goodness in these actions.
Thus he was able not to suffer and not to die under the blows inflicted
upon Him, because He could have miraculously prevented the
suffering, as He did for divers martyrs; but, on the contrary, He
freely and fully delivered Himself up to suffering.[1524]
|
|
