Sect. 197Meritoriousness of Christ’s Human ActionsMeritoriousness of Christ’s Human Actions
I. The human actions of Christ, in addition to their eminent power for giving honour and glory to God, possess that peculiar efficacy which, in the wayfaring state (in statu viæ), gives the doer of good a claim to supernatural advantages. This efficacy is “impetratory,” inasmuch as impetration (patrando obtinere) connotes successful striving after a thing or fulfilment of a desire. The term “impetratory,” however, does not sufficiently point out that the success of the striving or wishing is consequence and fruit of the successful action itself. In order to express the congruency or necessity of granting to the author of moral tending or acting the good he wishes to acquire, and to grant it on the ground of the worth (worthiness) he displays in his moral action, we must describe the efficacy in question as “impetratory and meritorious.” Each term connotes a particular form of efficacy; impetration points to wishing and praying; merit to actual work in the service of God. Taken in organic connections, the two terms set forth all intermediate forms or means of efficacious striving after supernatural goods.
Later Schoolmen speak of the “moral” efficacy of Christ’s actions, inasmuch as they appeal to the will of another, and as they imply “moral worth” on the part of their Author. But the worth of the doer of good does not, by itself, imply the success of his actions. The notion of a right or title to success must be added. “Moral and juridical, or ethico-juridical efficacy,” is the adequate expression. The title to success may lie in the acceptance or ratification by God, as in the prayers of Saints; or it may lie in the action itself, as in the case of Christ, whose acts, from their very nature, possess infallible efficacy: for in these the human will works with Divine power.
II. 1. Christ being God, and one God with the Father, is physically the same Person Who merits and rewards, Who prays and answers His prayers. The double function is rendered possible by the coexistence of Christ’s two wills: He acts as Man and as God, virtually as a double Person.
2. Christ, even as Man, has the power to grant all that can be prayed or worked for. Yet this power is not inherent in His Humanity, it only belongs to His Humanity as organ of His Divinity (ministerialiter or instrumentaliter). By an ordinance of God and of Christ Himself, the exercise of such instrumental power may be made dependent on prayer or meritorious work on the part of Christ’s humanity. Thus the possibility of prayer and merit remains intact.
3. Christ’s humanity cannot acquire any greater glory and honour or a better title to these than its Hypostatic Union with the Logos. Hence His meritorious actions can add nothing to His perfection or to His title to it. Their effect is simply to make Him worthy of Divine goods “in a new manner.” And, in order to obtain this result, it was necessary that Christ should act in the form of a servant, praying and serving God after the manner of a mere creature.
4. In Christ there was no necessity of prayer and meritorious works. Whatever these can obtain, is Christ’s own by birthright (Ps. 2:7 sqq.). Nay, by birthright also He could claim the distribution of Divine gifts to others for His own external glory. As Head and member of our race, He was entitled, on the sole ground of His personal dignity, and without any further meritorious work, to claim for us a participation in His Divine privileges.
5. Hence a necessity of meritorious works can only be derived from a positive ordinance of God and of Christ Himself, to the effect that Christ should act as Servant of God (in persona et habitu servi). The direct object of this dispensation was that Christ, as servant of God and as representative of man, should by His merits obtain what mankind was bound but unable to obtain by itself. Hence he had to adopt the form of service natural to man: suffering and suppliant prayer. The indirect object of the same economy was the acquisition by personal merit of those gifts and privileges which Christ renounced in His voluntary abasement. The necessity of meriting, then, was “economical” in a twofold sense: it was a positive dispensation in favour of, and a free accommodation to the position of, others. Even when Christ prayed “for Himself,” He did so partly to set us an example, partly to make us benefit implicitly by His prayer.
6. In fine, the meritorious work of Christ tended to pour out His own Holiness on mankind, and to transfigure and glorify the lower part of His own humanity. Thus His merits tend to spread “the Divine Anointment” from the Head to the body: in Himself from His higher to His lower Being; in mankind, from the mystical Head to subordinate personal members.
III. The intrinsic value of Christ’s actions being infinite, their power of meriting is necessarily infinite also: no Divine gift is possible which Christ cannot by His merits purchase at its full value (i.e. merit de condigno); no other merit is possible which is not surpassed by, and virtually contained in, the merit of Christ. No finite reward can adequately remunerate His merit; no amount of other merit, not even that possible to all possible creatures, can equal it. This doctrine was opposed by Scotists and Nominalists, but has been for centuries universally admitted.
1. It is the intrinsic value or power for merit which is infinite: the reward actually obtained is finite.
2. The infinitude of Christ’s merits does not imply that they at once “bind” God to grant them a commensurate reward, or to accept them as title to such reward. God is only bound by His own promise. Yet, independently of the Divine promise, works which Christ wishes to be rewarded, receive their reward infallibly, thanks to the excellence of His personal dignity and to the organic co-operation of His two wills. No opposition is possible between the unconditional intentions of the will which merits and the will which rewards. Christ’s human will cannot unconditionally desire a reward except on the knowledge that God has decreed to grant such reward. We may, then, sum up Christ’s power for merit in the formula: “Christ effectively obtains all that He wishes to obtain and all that God has decreed should be effectively obtained.”
3. Although a reward actually infinite is not necessarily connected with Christ’s infinite merit, yet such infinite reward, specifically commensurate with the merit, is assigned to them. Holy Scripture points out, as reward of the Saviour’s work, His exaltation to Divine honours given Him by God and man (Phil. 2:9 sqq.); a privilege which can only be bought by infinite merit. Again, sanctifying grace, acquired by Christ for others, is of infinite value, because it gives a claim to the immediate possession and fruition of God Himself. No mere creature can merit it adequately (de condigno); even when possessed, it merely entitles its holder to an increase and to the completion of itself. But Christ adequately merits sanctifying grace for creatures entirely unable to merit it themselves, and hence His meritorious work is remunerated by a good of infinite value.
4. The infinitude of Christ’s meritorious actions, being based upon the excellence of their Author, is not restricted either to any one of them or to their sum total; it belongs to each and all. Hence the same reward can be merited by several separate acts. Moreover, as the reward depends upon a Divine ordination and Christ’s own intention, it is possible for the reward to be granted only to a certain number of acts organically connected. As a matter of fact the merit of the whole work of Christ was made dependent on its supreme act, the sacrifice on the Cross.
An almost perfect analogy for the infinite meriting power of Christ and its effects is found in the Divine omnipotence and its creations.
IV. The infinitude of Christ’s merit implies that He can adequately merit all things whatsoever mere creatures, and also Himself, may pray for; and further, that His prayer itself is an act of merit sufficient to obtain whatsoever is prayed for. There is, however, another point of view from which the impetratory power of His prayer appears infinite. The infinite lovableness of the Son of God requires that the Father should not refuse to His prayers any of the gifts which He, to a certain extent, grants to the prayers of the just and even of sinners. Many Greek Fathers corroborate this view from Heb. 5:7, “He was heard for His reverence” (ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας). They take “His reverence” to mean the esteem which God the Father has for His Son; for prayer is answered in proportion to the esteem which God has for him who prays, whereas merit derives its value from the esteem which he who merits shows to God, and the prayer of creatures only appeals to God’s Love and Mercy. Christ’s unconditional (absolute) prayers are infallibly answered: otherwise the constant assertions of Scripture that Christ’s prayers are certain of success would have no sense; and Christ’s Divine will would oppose His human will. His prayer in the Garden was conditional: “My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me” (Matt. 26:39).
V. Another consequence of the infinite value of Christ’s merit is that it can obtain for any number of other persons all the privileges of supernatural grace and glory. In this respect it is “the merit of the Mediator,” inasmuch as Christ obtains privileges for others in His quality of Mediator, and transfers His own rights to His clients. The merit of the Mediator is often described as “Merit of the Head” (meritum capitis), to point out how and why the superabundant merits of the Head of mankind overflow upon the members of His mystical Body.
VI. When Christ acts with a view of meriting for Himself or others, He acts in the person of servant, and His claim to reward is, after all, like that of mere creatures, founded upon the Divine promise of acceptance of His work; technically, on a pactum divinum. Christ, however, acts not only in the person of a servant; He acts also as “minister of God,” and as such in the person of Lord. His position is that of a steward or minister, with special powers to administer his master’s goods, who acts at the same time as representative of the master to the servants, and as representative of the servants to the master. Hence Christ’s meritorious works bear a twofold character: they call for a reward as works of a servant; and their success is guaranteed as works approved and accepted by the Lord. Again, Christ being the representative and organ of the “Lord” in such a way as to be also Lord Himself, His guarantee of success is tantamount to a disposition of His own goods, made by the owner himself. St. Paul insinuates this when he connects the acquisition of heavenly goods by Christ with the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was like the death of the testator, who disposes of his own goods (Heb. 9:16). From this point of view, the “merit of the Mediator and Head” appears in a new light. It is a merit sufficient in itself to obtain supernatural goods, not only because the Mediator, as representative of His clients, makes them perfectly worthy of the said goods, but also because the Mediator and Head, in the name and power of God, grants and gives full legal possession of the acquired goods to His clients and members. It is the substantial anointing of Christ through the Grace of Union which constitutes Him, not merely a Servant holy and pleasing to God, but likewise a participator in the power and lordship of God Himself, a Holy Lord and a Royal High-priest, and thus secures the perfection of His merit as Mediator and Head. We are therefore justified in saying that the efficacy of Christ’s work is not due to the Divine promise or pact alone, but that it has its root and origin in the Hypostatic Union. “Christ did not glorify Himself to be made a high priest, but He that said to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee” (Heb. 5:5). See St. Thomas, 3, qq. 19, 21.
I. The human actions of Christ, in addition to their eminent power for giving honour and glory to God, possess that peculiar efficacy which, in the wayfaring state (in statu viæ), gives the doer of good a claim to supernatural advantages. This efficacy is “impetratory,” inasmuch as impetration (patrando obtinere) connotes successful striving after a thing or fulfilment of a desire. The term “impetratory,” however, does not sufficiently point out that the success of the striving or wishing is consequence and fruit of the successful action itself. In order to express the congruency or necessity of granting to the author of moral tending or acting the good he wishes to acquire, and to grant it on the ground of the worth (worthiness) he displays in his moral action, we must describe the efficacy in question as “impetratory and meritorious.” Each term connotes a particular form of efficacy; impetration points to wishing and praying; merit to actual work in the service of God. Taken in organic connections, the two terms set forth all intermediate forms or means of efficacious striving after supernatural goods.
Later Schoolmen speak of the “moral” efficacy of Christ’s actions, inasmuch as they appeal to the will of another, and as they imply “moral worth” on the part of their Author. But the worth of the doer of good does not, by itself, imply the success of his actions. The notion of a right or title to success must be added. “Moral and juridical, or ethico-juridical efficacy,” is the adequate expression. The title to success may lie in the acceptance or ratification by God, as in the prayers of Saints; or it may lie in the action itself, as in the case of Christ, whose acts, from their very nature, possess infallible efficacy: for in these the human will works with Divine power.
II. 1. Christ being God, and one God with the Father, is physically the same Person Who merits and rewards, Who prays and answers His prayers. The double function is rendered possible by the coexistence of Christ’s two wills: He acts as Man and as God, virtually as a double Person.
2. Christ, even as Man, has the power to grant all that can be prayed or worked for. Yet this power is not inherent in His Humanity, it only belongs to His Humanity as organ of His Divinity (ministerialiter or instrumentaliter). By an ordinance of God and of Christ Himself, the exercise of such instrumental power may be made dependent on prayer or meritorious work on the part of Christ’s humanity. Thus the possibility of prayer and merit remains intact.
3. Christ’s humanity cannot acquire any greater glory and honour or a better title to these than its Hypostatic Union with the Logos. Hence His meritorious actions can add nothing to His perfection or to His title to it. Their effect is simply to make Him worthy of Divine goods “in a new manner.” And, in order to obtain this result, it was necessary that Christ should act in the form of a servant, praying and serving God after the manner of a mere creature.
4. In Christ there was no necessity of prayer and meritorious works. Whatever these can obtain, is Christ’s own by birthright (Ps. 2:7 sqq.). Nay, by birthright also He could claim the distribution of Divine gifts to others for His own external glory. As Head and member of our race, He was entitled, on the sole ground of His personal dignity, and without any further meritorious work, to claim for us a participation in His Divine privileges.
5. Hence a necessity of meritorious works can only be derived from a positive ordinance of God and of Christ Himself, to the effect that Christ should act as Servant of God (in persona et habitu servi). The direct object of this dispensation was that Christ, as servant of God and as representative of man, should by His merits obtain what mankind was bound but unable to obtain by itself. Hence he had to adopt the form of service natural to man: suffering and suppliant prayer. The indirect object of the same economy was the acquisition by personal merit of those gifts and privileges which Christ renounced in His voluntary abasement. The necessity of meriting, then, was “economical” in a twofold sense: it was a positive dispensation in favour of, and a free accommodation to the position of, others. Even when Christ prayed “for Himself,” He did so partly to set us an example, partly to make us benefit implicitly by His prayer.
6. In fine, the meritorious work of Christ tended to pour out His own Holiness on mankind, and to transfigure and glorify the lower part of His own humanity. Thus His merits tend to spread “the Divine Anointment” from the Head to the body: in Himself from His higher to His lower Being; in mankind, from the mystical Head to subordinate personal members.
III. The intrinsic value of Christ’s actions being infinite, their power of meriting is necessarily infinite also: no Divine gift is possible which Christ cannot by His merits purchase at its full value (i.e. merit de condigno); no other merit is possible which is not surpassed by, and virtually contained in, the merit of Christ. No finite reward can adequately remunerate His merit; no amount of other merit, not even that possible to all possible creatures, can equal it. This doctrine was opposed by Scotists and Nominalists, but has been for centuries universally admitted.
1. It is the intrinsic value or power for merit which is infinite: the reward actually obtained is finite.
2. The infinitude of Christ’s merits does not imply that they at once “bind” God to grant them a commensurate reward, or to accept them as title to such reward. God is only bound by His own promise. Yet, independently of the Divine promise, works which Christ wishes to be rewarded, receive their reward infallibly, thanks to the excellence of His personal dignity and to the organic co-operation of His two wills. No opposition is possible between the unconditional intentions of the will which merits and the will which rewards. Christ’s human will cannot unconditionally desire a reward except on the knowledge that God has decreed to grant such reward. We may, then, sum up Christ’s power for merit in the formula: “Christ effectively obtains all that He wishes to obtain and all that God has decreed should be effectively obtained.”
3. Although a reward actually infinite is not necessarily connected with Christ’s infinite merit, yet such infinite reward, specifically commensurate with the merit, is assigned to them. Holy Scripture points out, as reward of the Saviour’s work, His exaltation to Divine honours given Him by God and man (Phil. 2:9 sqq.); a privilege which can only be bought by infinite merit. Again, sanctifying grace, acquired by Christ for others, is of infinite value, because it gives a claim to the immediate possession and fruition of God Himself. No mere creature can merit it adequately (de condigno); even when possessed, it merely entitles its holder to an increase and to the completion of itself. But Christ adequately merits sanctifying grace for creatures entirely unable to merit it themselves, and hence His meritorious work is remunerated by a good of infinite value.
4. The infinitude of Christ’s meritorious actions, being based upon the excellence of their Author, is not restricted either to any one of them or to their sum total; it belongs to each and all. Hence the same reward can be merited by several separate acts. Moreover, as the reward depends upon a Divine ordination and Christ’s own intention, it is possible for the reward to be granted only to a certain number of acts organically connected. As a matter of fact the merit of the whole work of Christ was made dependent on its supreme act, the sacrifice on the Cross.
An almost perfect analogy for the infinite meriting power of Christ and its effects is found in the Divine omnipotence and its creations.
IV. The infinitude of Christ’s merit implies that He can adequately merit all things whatsoever mere creatures, and also Himself, may pray for; and further, that His prayer itself is an act of merit sufficient to obtain whatsoever is prayed for. There is, however, another point of view from which the impetratory power of His prayer appears infinite. The infinite lovableness of the Son of God requires that the Father should not refuse to His prayers any of the gifts which He, to a certain extent, grants to the prayers of the just and even of sinners. Many Greek Fathers corroborate this view from Heb. 5:7, “He was heard for His reverence” (ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας). They take “His reverence” to mean the esteem which God the Father has for His Son; for prayer is answered in proportion to the esteem which God has for him who prays, whereas merit derives its value from the esteem which he who merits shows to God, and the prayer of creatures only appeals to God’s Love and Mercy. Christ’s unconditional (absolute) prayers are infallibly answered: otherwise the constant assertions of Scripture that Christ’s prayers are certain of success would have no sense; and Christ’s Divine will would oppose His human will. His prayer in the Garden was conditional: “My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me” (Matt. 26:39).
V. Another consequence of the infinite value of Christ’s merit is that it can obtain for any number of other persons all the privileges of supernatural grace and glory. In this respect it is “the merit of the Mediator,” inasmuch as Christ obtains privileges for others in His quality of Mediator, and transfers His own rights to His clients. The merit of the Mediator is often described as “Merit of the Head” (meritum capitis), to point out how and why the superabundant merits of the Head of mankind overflow upon the members of His mystical Body.
VI. When Christ acts with a view of meriting for Himself or others, He acts in the person of servant, and His claim to reward is, after all, like that of mere creatures, founded upon the Divine promise of acceptance of His work; technically, on a pactum divinum. Christ, however, acts not only in the person of a servant; He acts also as “minister of God,” and as such in the person of Lord. His position is that of a steward or minister, with special powers to administer his master’s goods, who acts at the same time as representative of the master to the servants, and as representative of the servants to the master. Hence Christ’s meritorious works bear a twofold character: they call for a reward as works of a servant; and their success is guaranteed as works approved and accepted by the Lord. Again, Christ being the representative and organ of the “Lord” in such a way as to be also Lord Himself, His guarantee of success is tantamount to a disposition of His own goods, made by the owner himself. St. Paul insinuates this when he connects the acquisition of heavenly goods by Christ with the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was like the death of the testator, who disposes of his own goods (Heb. 9:16). From this point of view, the “merit of the Mediator and Head” appears in a new light. It is a merit sufficient in itself to obtain supernatural goods, not only because the Mediator, as representative of His clients, makes them perfectly worthy of the said goods, but also because the Mediator and Head, in the name and power of God, grants and gives full legal possession of the acquired goods to His clients and members. It is the substantial anointing of Christ through the Grace of Union which constitutes Him, not merely a Servant holy and pleasing to God, but likewise a participator in the power and lordship of God Himself, a Holy Lord and a Royal High-priest, and thus secures the perfection of His merit as Mediator and Head. We are therefore justified in saying that the efficacy of Christ’s work is not due to the Divine promise or pact alone, but that it has its root and origin in the Hypostatic Union. “Christ did not glorify Himself to be made a high priest, but He that said to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee” (Heb. 5:5). See St. Thomas, 3, qq. 19, 21.
Seção 67% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.