|
Objection 2: Further, that which man has in the first instant of
his conception seems to be natural to him: for it is in this that his
natural generation is terminated. But we do not merit by what is
natural to us, as is clear from what has been said in the FS,
Question 109, Article 5; FS, Question 114, Article 2.
Therefore it seems that the use of free-will, which Christ as man
had in the first instant of His conception, was not meritorious.
Objection 3: Further, that which a man has once merited he makes,
in a way, his own: consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same
thing again: for no one merits what is already his. If, therefore,
Christ merited in the first instant of His conception, it follows
that afterwards He merited nothing. But this is evidently untrue.
Therefore Christ did not merit in the first instant of His
conception.
On the contrary, Augustine [Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov.
Test. super Ex. 40] says: "Increase of merit was absolutely
impossible to the soul of Christ." But increase of merit would have
been possible had He not merited in the first instant of His
conception. Therefore Christ merited in the first instant of His
conception.
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), Christ was
sanctified by grace in the first instant of His conception. Now,
sanctification is twofold: that of adults who are sanctified in
consideration of their own act; and that of infants who are sanctified
in consideration of, not their own act of faith, but that of their
parents or of the Church. The former sanctification is more perfect
than the latter: just as act is more perfect than habit; and "that
which is by itself, than that which is by another" [Aristotle,
Phys. viii]. Since, therefore, the sanctification of Christ was
most perfect, because He was so sanctified that He might sanctify
others; consequently He was sanctified by reason of His own movement
of the free-will towards God. Which movement, indeed, of the
free-will is meritorious. Consequently, Christ did merit in the
first instant of His conception.
Reply to Objection 1: Free-will does not bear the same relation to
good as to evil: for to good it is related of itself, and naturally;
whereas to evil it is related as to a defect, and beside nature.
Now, as the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii, text. 18):
"That which is beside nature is subsequent to that which is according
to nature; because that which is beside nature is an exception to
nature." Therefore the free-will of a creature can be moved to good
meritoriously in the first instant of its creation, but not to evil
sinfully; provided, however, its nature be unimpaired.
Reply to Objection 2: That which man has at the first moment of his
creation, in the ordinary course of nature, is natural to him. but
nothing hinders a creature from receiving from God a gift of grace at
the very beginning of its creation. In this way did Christ's soul in
the first instant of its creation receive grace by which it could
merit. And for this reason is that grace, by way of a certain
likeness, said to be natural to this Man, as explained by Augustine
(Enchiridion xl).
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents the same thing belonging to
someone from several causes. And thus it is that Christ was able by
subsequent actions and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality,
which He also merited in the first instant of His conception: not,
indeed, so that it became thereby more due to Him than before, but so
that it was due to Him from more causes than before.
|
|