THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 3]
Whether the Human Action of Christ Could Be Meritorious to Him?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human action of Christ could not be meritorious to Him. For before His death Christ was a comprehensor even as He is now. But comprehensors do not merit: because the charity of the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beat.i.tude, since fruition depends upon it. Hence it does not seem to be the principle of merit, since merit and reward are not the same. Therefore Christ before His pa.s.sion did not merit, even as He does not merit now.
Obj. 2: Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because Christ is the Son of G.o.d by nature, the eternal inheritance is due to Him, which other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from the beginning, was the Word of G.o.d, could not merit anything for Himself.
Obj. 3: Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit what flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the soul, whence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation it was brought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the glory of the body.
Obj. 4: Further, the manifestation of Christ"s excellence is a good, not of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is promised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be manifested to them, according to John 14:21: "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." Therefore Christ did not merit the manifestation of His greatness.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8, 9): "Becoming obedient unto death ... For which cause G.o.d also hath exalted Him."
Therefore by obeying He merited His exaltation and thus He merited something for Himself.
_I answer that,_ To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it from another, for "what is of itself a cause is always more excellent than what is a cause through another," as is said _Phys._ viii, 5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that of which it is to some extent the cause. But of whatever good we possess the first cause by authority is G.o.d; and in this way no creature has any good of itself, according to 1 Cor. 4:7: "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" Nevertheless, in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause, to himself, of having certain good things, inasmuch as he cooperates with G.o.d in the matter, and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a manner, of himself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without merit.
Now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ, consequently He must have by merit what others have by merit; unless it be of such a nature that its want would detract from Christ"s dignity and perfection more than would accrue to Him by merit. Hence He merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beat.i.tude of His soul, nor the G.o.dhead, 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. But the glory of the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of meriting, which pertains to the virtue of charity. Hence we must say that Christ had, by merit, the glory of His body and whatever pertained to His outward excellence, as His Ascension, veneration, and the rest. And thus it is clear that He could merit for Himself.
Reply Obj. 1: Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to the glory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited by charity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the same. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a comprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as was said above (Q. 15, A.
10). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in the state of meriting.
Reply Obj. 2: Because by nature Christ is G.o.d and the Son of G.o.d, the Divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as to the first and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a beatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and partly with merit, as is clear from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 3: It is by Divine appointment that there is an overflow of glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human merit; so that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the body, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing to the body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the glory of the body falls under merit, according to Rom. 8:11: "He ... shall quicken also our [Vulg.: "your"] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: "you"]." And thus it could fall under Christ"s merit.
Reply Obj. 4: The manifestation of Christ"s excellence is His good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others; although in regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly belongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is referred to Christ inasmuch as they are His members.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 4]
Whether Christ Could Merit for Others?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others.
For it is written (Ezech. 18:4): "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die." Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the same shall be recompensed. Therefore it is not possible that Christ merited for others.
Obj. 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ"s grace we all receive, as is written John 1:16. Now other men having Christ"s grace cannot merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) that if "Noe and Daniel and Job be in the city [Vulg.: "the midst thereof"] ... they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice." Hence Christ could not merit anything for us.
Obj. 3: Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to justice [Vulg.: "debt"] and not according to grace," as is clear from Rom. 4:4. Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that our salvation is not by G.o.d"s grace but by justice, and that He acts unjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ"s merit extends to all.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 5:18): "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." But Adam"s demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit of Christ reach others.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 8, AA. 1, 5), grace was in Christ not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the whole Church, to Whom all are united, as members to a head, who const.i.tute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ"s merit extends to others inasmuch as they are His members; even as in a man the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since it perceives not merely for itself alone, but for all the members.
Reply Obj. 1: The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but the sin of Adam, who was appointed by G.o.d to be the principle of the whole nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So, too, the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by G.o.d to be the head of all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members.
Reply Obj. 2: Others receive of Christ"s fulness not indeed the fount of grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be that men merit for others, as Christ did.
Reply Obj. 3: As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ, according to Gal. 3:27, "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ"; and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be incorporated with Christ. And thus man"s salvation is from grace.
_______________________
QUESTION 20
OF CHRIST"S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER (In Two Articles)
We must now consider such things as belong to Christ in relation to the Father. Some of these things are predicated of Him because of His relation to the Father, e.g. that He was subject to Him, that He prayed to Him, that He ministered, to Him by priesthood. And some are predicated, or may be predicated, of Him because of the Father"s relation to Him, e.g. that the Father adopted Him and that He predestined Him.
Hence we must consider (1) Christ"s subjection to the Father; (2) His prayer; (3) His priesthood; (4) Adoption--whether it is becoming to Him; (5) His predestination.
Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father?
(2) Whether He is subject to Himself?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 1]
Whether We May Say That Christ Is Subject to the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was subject to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a creature, since, as is said in _De Eccles. Dogm._ iv, "in the Trinity there is no dependence or subjection." But we cannot say simply that Christ is a creature, as was stated above (Q. 16, A. 8). Therefore we cannot say simply that Christ is subject to G.o.d the Father.
Obj. 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to G.o.d when it is subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience to the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "We must bear in mind that we may not call it" (i.e. Christ"s human nature) "a servant; for the words "subservience" and "domination" are not names of the nature, but of relations, as the words "paternity" and "filiation."" Hence Christ in His human nature is not subject to G.o.d the Father.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him." But, as is written (Heb.
2:8): "We see not as yet all things subject to Him." Hence He is not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 14:28), "The Father is greater than I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "It is not without reason that the Scripture mentions both, that the Son is equal to the Father and the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on account of the form of G.o.d, and the second on account of the form of a servant, without any confusion." Now the less is subject to the greater. Therefore in the form of a servant Christ is subject to the Father.
_I answer that,_ Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a threefold subjection to G.o.d. The first regards the degree of goodness, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the very essence of goodness as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created nature has a partic.i.p.ation of the Divine goodness, being subject, so to say, to the rays of this goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to G.o.d, as regards G.o.d"s power, inasmuch as human nature, even as every creature, is subject to the operation of the Divine ordinance. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to G.o.d through its proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His command.
This triple subjection to G.o.d Christ professes of Himself. The first (Matt. 19:17): "Why askest thou Me concerning good? One is good, G.o.d." And on this Jerome remarks: "He who had called Him a good master, and had not confessed Him to be G.o.d or the Son of G.o.d, learns that no man, however holy, is good in comparison with G.o.d." And hereby He gave us to understand that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And because "in such things as are great, but not in bulk, to be great is the same as to be good," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this reason the Father is said to be greater than Christ in His human nature. The second subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all that befell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment; hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is subject to the ordinance of G.o.d the Father." And this is the subjection of subservience, whereby "every creature serves G.o.d" (Judith 16:17), being subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The creature serving Thee the Creator." And in this way the Son of G.o.d (Phil. 2:7) is said to have taken "the form of a servant." The third subjection He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): "I do always the things that please Him." And this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that he became "obedient" to the Father "unto death."
Reply Obj. 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this qualification be added or not, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 8), so also we are to understand that Christ is subject to the Father not simply but in His human nature, even if this qualification be not added; and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of Arius, who held the Son to be less than the Father.
Reply Obj. 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and pa.s.sion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to be moved by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to supposita and to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1). Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not properly said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that nature. And in this way nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human nature.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): "Christ will give the kingdom to G.o.d and the Father, when He has brought the faithful, over whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision," i.e. to see the essence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will be totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His members by the full partic.i.p.ation of the G.o.dhead. And then all things will be fully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will concerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as regards His power, according to Matt. 28:18: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth."
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 2]
Whether Christ Is Subject to Himself?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ is not subject to Himself. For Cyril says in a synodal letter which the Council of Ephesus (Part I, ch. xxvi) received: "Christ is neither servant nor master of Himself.
It is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say this." And Damascene says the same (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "The one Being, Christ, cannot be the servant or master of Himself." Now Christ is said to be the servant of the Father inasmuch as He is subject to Him. Hence Christ is not subject to Himself.
Obj. 2: Further, servant has reference to master. Now nothing has a relation to itself, hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that nothing is like or equal to itself. Hence Christ cannot be said to be the servant of Himself, and consequently to be subject to Himself.
Obj. 3: Further, "as the rational soul and flesh are one man; so G.o.d and man are one Christ," as Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.). Now man is not said to be subject to himself or servant to himself or greater than himself because his body is subject to his soul. Therefore, Christ is not said to be subject to Himself because His Manhood is subject to His G.o.dhead.