Article 6 — Whether Christ was able to merit

Sixth, it is asked whether Christ was able to merit. (Parallel texts: In III Sent., d. 18, a. 2; ST III.19.3; Compendium Theologiae ch. 231.)

Obj. 1: It seems not: for all merit proceeds from the freedom of choice, which is indeterminately related to many things; but free choice in Christ is related determinately to goodness; therefore, he was not able to merit.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the comparison of a recipient to what is received is the same as the comparison of one who merits to the reward, for someone merits so that he might receive what he merits; but the recipient must be empty of what is received, as is clear in the book On the Soul; (Aristotle, On the Soul, 3.7, 429a20; Averroes, On the Soul, bk. 3, comm. 4; cf. Aquinas, In II Sent., d. 17, q. 2, a. 1, ad 4.) therefore, he who merits should be without the reward, which cannot be said of Christ, since he was a true possessor; therefore, it seems that Christ was not able to merit.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is owed to another must not be merited; but impassibility of mind and body was due to Christ from the fact that he was a possessor; therefore, Christ did not merit these.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, merit is not in respect of those things that follow necessarily as though by a natural order, for merit is with respect to what is rendered from another's will as a wage; but the body's glory follows from the soul's glory by a natural order, as seems to be the case from Augustine in the Letter to Dioscorus; (Augustine, Letter to Dioscorus, epist. 118, ch. 3 (PL 33:439).) therefore, since Christ is blessed with respect to the soul, inasmuch as it enjoyed the divinity, it seems that he was not able to merit the body's glory.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, just as Christ possessed glory of the soul and not of the body before the Passion, so also do the saints who are now in glory; but the saints do not merit the body's glory now; therefore, neither did Christ merit it.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, the principle and term of merit cannot be the same, and so the reward and the principle of meriting cannot be the same; but the charity that was in Christ pertained to his reward, for it belonged to the perfection of blessedness since he experience enjoyment by means of it; therefore, it cannot be the principle of meriting: however, every merit comes from charity; therefore, there could not be merit in Christ.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, what follows after is removed by removing what comes before; (Cf. Peter of Spain, Summulae logicales, tract. 5, n. 31.) but merit regards the soul's blessedness, which Christ did not merit, for he possessed it from the moment of his conception; therefore, neither was he able to merit something else.

On the contrary (1), it is what the Gloss*,* (Glossa interlin..et Glossa Petri Lomb. (PL 191, 172 B).) commenting on Psalm 15:1, save me Lord, says: behold the reward, 'for I have hoped in you,' behold the merit; therefore, Christ did merit.

Furthermore (2), whoever is given a reward for his own works merits; but Christ was given the reward of exaltation because of the humility of the Passion, as is clear in Philippians 2:9: and for this reason, God exalted him and so on; therefore Christ did merit.

Furthermore (3), just as enjoyment is an act of a possessor, so also is merit of a wayfarer; but Christ enjoyed inasmuch as he was a possessor; and so he also merited inasmuch as he was a wayfarer.

I answer that it must be said that Christ merited before the Passion when he was both a wayfarer and a possessor; this is clear from the following. For two things are needed for merit, namely the condition of the one meriting and the capability of meriting. The condition of one meriting requires that what is merited be lacking from oneself, even though some say (Pinio iam allegata a Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 2, d. 5, ch. 6.) that one can merit what one possesses now, as when they say of the angels that they merited the blessedness, which they received together with grace, by the following works which they perform in regard to us. But this does not seem to be true for two reasons: first, because it is contrary to the proof of Augustine, (Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, ch. 2.) by which he proves against the Pelagians that grace cannot fall under merit, for there are no merits before grace except evil ones, for man was wicked before grace, and grace is not due to the merits of a wicked man, but punishment; (Augustine, Epistle 194, ch. 3, n. 7 (PL 33:877).) for it can be said that someone merits grace by works which one performs after having received grace. Second, because this is against the definition of merit, for merit is the cause of reward, not indeed in the manner of a final cause, for in that sense the reward is more the cause of merit, but rather according to a reduction to an efficient cause, inasmuch as merit makes one worthy of the reward and disposes for the reward by means of it. However, what is a cause in the manner of an efficient cause can in no way be after in time that of which it is the cause; and so one cannot merit what one already has. However, that someone serves his lord in human affairs for a received benefit has more the notion of thanksgiving than of merit.

But the faculty for meriting is needed both on the part of nature and on the part of grace. On the part of nature, indeed, since one cannot merit by one's own act unless one is in control of one's own act, for in this way one can give one's own act as a price for the reward; and one is in control of one's own act by free choice; and so the natural faculty of free choice is needed for meriting. But, on the side of grace, since the reward of beatitude exceeds the ability of human nature, man's natural capabilities cannot be sufficient for meriting it, and so it is necessary that there be grace, by which it is able to be merited. However, all of this was in Christ; there was only lacking something of what is necessary for perfect beatitude, namely impassibility of soul and glory of the body, and for this reason he was a wayfarer. There also existed in him an ability of nature by reason of the created will, and an ability of grace on account of the fullness of graces, and therefore he was able to merit.

Reply Obj. 1: To the first it must be said that although Christ's soul was determined to one thing with respect to the genus of moral conduct, namely to goodness, yet it was not determined to one thing simply speaking, for he was able to do or not to do this or that thing; and so freedom remained within him, which is necessary for meriting.

Reply Obj. 2: To the second it must be said that he did not merit the soul's blessedness, by reason of which he was a possessor, but only the body's blessedness and the soul's impassibility, which were lacking to him.

Reply Obj. 3: To the third it must be said that Christ did not merit something as though not his due, but which became his due, as when men merit in their first meritorious act; and neither in such a way that what was due, became more due, as in those whose grace is increased; but rather in such a way that what was due by reason of grace in one way became due to him in another way by reason of merit.

Reply Obj. 4: To the fourth it must be said that the body's glory follows from the soul's glory when the soul is glorified in every way, both with respect to an order toward God and with respect to an order toward the body; however, Christ's soul was not glorified in this way, but only in the order toward God; but inasmuch as it was the form of a body, it was passable.

Reply Obj. 5: To the fifth it must be said that the souls of the saints in heaven are completely outside the condition of wayfarers, for they are already blessed both by enjoyment and by impassibility, which was not the case for Christ's soul; and so the argument is not similar.

Reply Obj. 6: To the sixth it must be said that charity, in respect of itself, is always such as to be a principle of meriting; but sometimes it is not the principle of meriting because of the one who, possessing it, is outside the state of meriting, as is clear for the saints in heaven. However, Christ was not outside the state of meriting, since he was a wayfarer; and so he enjoyed and merited by the same charity as well as by the same will. Yet the principle of merit and reward was not the same, for he did not merit the soul's glory, to which charity pertains, but the body's glory, as has been said. (Above: in the body of the article and in reply to objection 2.)

Reply Obj. 7: To the seventh it must be said that the objection would follow if it happened that the soul's glory could not be merited from a failure in Christ, which appears to be false from what was mentioned.