Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 5
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum in conversione bonorum Angelorum meritum praecesserit praemium, vel e converso.
Secundo quaeritur de conversione bonorum in comparatione ad praemium, et quaeritur, utrum in eorum conversione meritum sequatur praemium, vel praecedat. Et quod praecedat, videtur.
1. Augustinus de Correptione et gratia1: «Angeli sancti, qui cadentibus aliis steterunt, illius vitae mercedem recipere meruerunt»: si ergo meruerunt recipere, meritum praecessit receptionem mercedis.
2. Item, meritum est via ad praemium; sed recto ordine procedendo, prior est status viatoris quam comprehensoris, et viae quam patriae: ergo in Angelis fuit meritum ante praemium.
3. Item, dispositio praecedit illud, ad quod disponit, vel tempore vel natura; sed gratia est dispositio ad gloriam: ergo si Deus dedit Angelis gratiam, qua possent mereri, et gloriam, qua sunt beati, prius habuerunt gratiam quam gloriam. Sed p. 157gratia, quando invenit liberum arbitrium in actu debito, facit illum2 esse meritorium: ergo si liberum arbitrium Angeli in ingressu gratiae et gloriae erat in actu, ergo prius habuit motum meritorium quam gloriosum.
4. Item, per impossibile videtur, quia Deus dedit Angelis gloriam, aut ergo dignis, aut indignis. Si indignis; iniuste et inordinate fecit, quod est impossibile: ergo dedit dignis. Sed nullus est dignus corona3 nisi per merita: ergo etc.
5. Item, si mereri contingit habitum, dum quis servit Deo et bene utitur habito: ergo cum omnis perseverans in gratia bene utatur ea, qui perseverat in gratia meretur eam; sed quod est ex meritis non est gratia: ergo merendo gratiam, desineret esse gratia4.
6. Item, si praemium praecedit meritum, quaero: quod est illud meritum? Aut quantum ad actum contemplationis, aut ministerii. Non contemplationis; sic enim omnes Beati mererentur; si quantum ad actum ministerii, ergo videtur, quod si non esset homo, Angelus non posset mereri, ergo nec dignus esset beatificari; quod falsum est plane.
Contra: 1. Contra hoc est quod Magister dicit in littera5, quod sibi magis placet, quod merentur iam habitum.
2. Item, ratione. Angeli, dum ministrant nobis, aliquid merentur, cum ex magna caritate et liberalitate nobis condescendant, et ministerium non sit actus comprehensoris, sed viatoris potius; aut ergo merentur habitum6, aut habendum. Si habitum, habeo propositum, quod meritum sequitur praemium; si habendum, tunc ergo, cum mereantur beatitudinem, non sunt beati; si aliud quam beatitudinem, ergo non est meritum eorum perfectum nec necessarium. Praeterea, quidquid mereantur, cum spes, quae differtur, affligat animam7, videtur, quod tale meritum respectu rei habendae non possit stare cum statu beatitudinis.
3. Item, magna praemia non debent dari sine magnis meritis, et magna merita non sunt sine magnis obsequiis: ergo cum Angeli magna praemia habeant, et magna obsequia non praecesserint, in quibus meruerint, ergo debent sequi.
4. Item, secundum quod plus dat Deus, plus exigit a creatura: si ergo maius robur virtutis dedit Angelo quam homini, ergo et maiora obsequia requirit. Sed homo non glorificatur nisi per multos labores8: ergo nec Angelus sine operibus debet glorificari; sed opera non praecesserunt, sed solus motus affectionis: ergo oportet sequi.
Conclusio.
In Angelis meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc, sicut dicit Magister9, duplex fuit opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt, quod in Angelis praemium praecedit meritum, et huius positionis fuit Magister; et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt rationabiliter et quantum ad motivum, et quantum ad modum. Quantum ad motivum: quia enim intellexerunt, quod non est meritum sine gratia, nec magnum meritum, ubi non est magnum obsequium, et in Angelis propter naturae velocitatem et idoneitatem simul duratione datur gratia et gloria; dixerunt, quod in Angelis meritum non potuit praecedere praemium, meritum inquam condigni, sed solum, si aliquid praecedit, hoc est meritum congrui, sed sequitur meritum condigni. Hos10 etiam ad hoc ponendum instigavit, quod meritum rei habendae sonat in indigentiam, quae non videtur posse stare cum gloria. — Modum autem huius meriti satis advertere possumus in militibus, qui bene pugnando merentur equum ante merita datum. — Haec autem opinio, quamvis sit probabilis, tamen plura habet sibi adversantia, quae in opponendo tacta sunt.
Propter quod fuit alia positio, quod in Angelis meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura. Et rationem huius assignant: quia gratia naturaliter praecedit gloriam, et gratia, cum invenit motum in libero arbitrio ordinatum, facit meritorium, et pensatur meritum secundum quantitatem gratiae, non secundum multitudinem operum; ideo, cum Angelis data sit perfecta gratia, et liberum arbitrium omnino sit cooperatum gratiae, dicunt, quod in sua conversione sufficienter meruerunt glorificationem. — Et haec positio rationabilior est et melius habet fundamentum, quia meritum requirit et fundatur in perfectione voluntatis, non in multitudine operationis. Hanc communiter tenent moderni doctores; ideo huic adhaerendum est.
Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Magistro, dicendum, quod in hac opinione sicut et in pluribus aliis non assentitur ei11. p. 158
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod merentur; dicendum, quod est praemium substantiale, et hoc meruerunt per conversionem sui in Deum; et est praemium accidentale, et hoc merentur per ministerium, quod faciunt homini. Et quia accidit beatitudini, ideo sine tali praemio cum eius merito potest stare beatitudo; nec affliguntur ex exspectatione, sicut nec animae beatae de secundae stolae perceptione, et adhuc minus, quia minus inclinantur12.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna praemia requirunt magna merita; dicendum, quod magnitudo meriti non consistit in opere13 exteriori principaliter, sed in interiori. Unde sicut diabolus multum peccavit propter improbam voluntatem, etsi nihil exterius fecerit; sic e contrario multum meruerunt Angeli boni.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de homine, dicendum, quod homo non ita cito movetur, ut Angelus; ideo tempus meriti habet diuturnius. Et ideo non est simile; sed hoc melius patebit infra, distinctione septima14.
I. Opinio Magistri, cuius fit mentio in corp. et ad 1, communiter reiicitur; et etiam S. Bonav. contrariae sententiae adhaerendum esse dicit. Hinc patet, ipsum dictam opinionem non aestimasse vere probabilem, licet propter reverentiam erga Magistrum inter alia dicat, patronos huius opinionis motos «rationabiliter» i. e. aliquibus rationibus in se non falsis. — Verba: «Meritum praecessit praemium, non tempore, sed natura» a multis antiquis doctoribus approbantur, ut a B. Alberto, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R.; et etiam S. Thom. in Comment. hanc opinionem defendit, in hypothesi, quod Angeli non sint creati cum gratia sanctificante. In Summa theolog. autem tenet cum Scoto, Durando aliisque posterioribus, merita etiam duratione praecessisse gloriam.
II. Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. I. q. 62. a. 4. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 4. q. 19. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. unica.
---
QUESTION II.
Whether in the conversion of the good Angels merit preceded the reward, or conversely.
Secondly it is asked about the conversion of the good [Angels] in comparison to the reward, and it is asked whether in their conversion the merit follows the reward, or precedes [it]. And that it precedes, it seems.
1. Augustine, On Correction and Grace1: «The holy Angels, who stood while the others were falling, merited to receive the reward of that life»: if therefore they merited to receive [it], the merit preceded the receiving of the reward.
2. Likewise, merit is the way to the reward; but, proceeding in right order, the state of the wayfarer is prior to that of the comprehensor, and the way [prior] to the fatherland: therefore in the Angels there was merit before the reward.
3. Likewise, a disposition precedes that to which it disposes, either in time or in nature; but grace is the disposition to glory: therefore if God gave the Angels grace, by which they could merit, and glory, by which they are blessed, they had grace before glory. But p. 157grace, when it finds the free will in due act, makes it2 meritorious: therefore if the free will of the Angel at the entrance of grace and glory was in act, then it had a meritorious motion before a glorious one.
4. Likewise, it seems by an impossibility, because God gave the Angels glory, then either to the worthy or to the unworthy. If to the unworthy; he acted unjustly and inordinately, which is impossible: therefore he gave [it] to the worthy. But no one is worthy of a crown3 except through merits: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, if one merits a habit while he serves God and uses well what he has: therefore, since everyone persevering in grace uses it well, he who perseveres in grace merits it; but what is from merits is not grace: therefore by meriting grace, it would cease to be grace4.
6. Likewise, if the reward precedes the merit, I ask: what is that merit? Either with respect to the act of contemplation, or of ministry. Not of contemplation; for thus all the Blessed would merit; if with respect to the act of ministry, then it seems that, if there were no man, the Angel could not merit, therefore neither would he be worthy to be beatified; which is plainly false.
On the contrary: 1. Against this is what the Master says in the text5, that it pleases him more, that they merit the habit already had.
2. Likewise, by reason. The Angels, while they minister to us, merit something, since out of great charity and liberality they condescend to us, and ministry is not the act of a comprehensor, but rather of a wayfarer; then either they merit the habit6, or what is to be had. If the habit, I have [my] thesis, that the merit follows the reward; if what is to be had, then therefore, since they merit beatitude, they are not blessed; if something other than beatitude, then their merit is not perfect nor necessary. Moreover, whatever they merit, since hope that is deferred afflicts the soul7, it seems that such a merit with respect to a thing to be had cannot stand with the state of beatitude.
3. Likewise, great rewards ought not to be given without great merits, and great merits are not without great services: therefore, since the Angels have great rewards, and great services did not precede, in which they merited, then [the merits] ought to follow.
4. Likewise, according as God gives more, he exacts more from the creature: if therefore he gave a greater strength of virtue to the Angel than to man, then he requires also greater services. But man is not glorified except through many labors8: therefore neither ought the Angel to be glorified without works; but works did not precede, but only the motion of the affection: therefore [the merits] must follow.
Conclusion.
In the Angels merit preceded the reward, not in time, but in nature.
I respond: It must be said that concerning this, as the Master says9, there was a twofold opinion. For some said that in the Angels the reward precedes the merit, and of this position was the Master; and to posit this they were moved reasonably both as to the motive and as to the manner. As to the motive: because they understood that there is no merit without grace, nor a great merit where there is not a great service, and in the Angels, on account of the swiftness and fitness of [their] nature, grace and glory are given simultaneously in duration; they said that in the Angels merit could not precede the reward — the merit, I say, of condignity — but only, if anything precedes, this is the merit of congruity, but the merit of condignity follows. This10 also instigated them to posit it, that merit of a thing to be had sounds of an indigence, which does not seem able to stand with glory. — The manner of this merit we can sufficiently advert to in soldiers, who by fighting well merit the horse given before the merits. — But this opinion, although it is probable, yet has many things adverse to it, which were touched in objecting.
On account of which there was another position, that in the Angels merit preceded the reward, not in time, but in nature. And they assign the reason for this: because grace naturally precedes glory, and grace, when it finds a motion ordered in the free will, makes [it] meritorious, and merit is weighed according to the quantity of grace, not according to the multitude of works; therefore, since perfect grace was given to the Angels, and the free will wholly cooperated with grace, they say that in their conversion they sufficiently merited glorification. — And this position is more reasonable and has a better foundation, because merit requires and is founded in the perfection of the will, not in the multitude of operation. This the modern doctors commonly hold; therefore this is to be adhered to.
To 1. To that which is objected concerning the Master, it must be said that in this opinion, as also in many others, he does not assent to him11. p. 158
To 2. To that which is objected, that they merit; it must be said that there is a substantial reward, and this they merited by the conversion of themselves into God; and there is an accidental reward, and this they merit by the ministry which they perform to man. And because it is accidental to beatitude, therefore without such a reward beatitude can stand together with its merit; nor are they afflicted by the expectation, just as neither are the blessed souls by the reception of the second stole, and still less, because they are less inclined [to it]12.
To 3. To that which is objected, that great rewards require great merits; it must be said that the magnitude of merit does not consist principally in the exterior work13, but in the interior. Whence, just as the devil sinned much on account of [his] wicked will, even though he did nothing exteriorly; so, on the contrary, the good Angels merited much.
To 4. To that which is objected concerning man, it must be said that man is not moved so quickly as the Angel; therefore he has a longer time of meriting. And therefore it is not similar; but this will be clearer below, in distinction seven14.
I. The opinion of the Master, of which mention is made in the body and ad 1, is commonly rejected; and St. Bonaventure too says that the contrary opinion is to be adhered to. Hence it is clear that he did not esteem the said opinion truly probable, although out of reverence toward the Master he says among other things that the patrons of this opinion were moved «reasonably», i. e. by some reasons in themselves not false. — The words: «Merit preceded the reward, not in time, but in nature» are approved by many ancient doctors, as by B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, Giles of Rome; and St. Thomas too in the Commentary defends this opinion, on the hypothesis that the Angels were not created with sanctifying grace. But in the Summa theologica he holds, with Scotus, Durandus, and other later [doctors], that the merits preceded glory even in duration.
II. Scotus, in each Scriptum, here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; S. I, q. 62, a. 4, 5. — B. Albert, here a. 7; S. p. II, tr. 4, q. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3. — Biel, here q. unica.
- Cap. 11. n. 32: Angeli sancti, qui, cadentibus aliis per liberum arbitrium, per idem liberum arbitrium steterunt, ipsi et huius permansionis debitam mercedem recipere meruerunt. — Paulo inferius post si ergo Vat. repetit mercedem.Chapter 11, n. 32: The holy Angels, who, while the others were falling through free choice, by the same free choice stood, they also merited to receive the due reward of this perseverance. — A little below, after si ergo, the Vatican edition repeats mercedem.
- Cod. Y addit motum, Vat. motum sive actum. Paulo inferius post in actu cod. L repetit debito, et in fine argumenti cod. aa post quam interserit praemium.Codex Y adds motum, the Vatican edition motum sive actum. A little below, after in actu, codex L repeats debito, and at the end of the argument codex aa inserts praemium after quam.
- Cod. U corona aeterna.Codex U [reads] corona aeterna.
- Cfr. Rom. 11, 6.Cf. Romans 11:6.
- Hic c. 6.Here, chapter 6.
- Cod. aa hic bene addit aliquid (vel supple: praemium), et paulo inferius post propositum adiungit scilicet. In secunda parte argumenti non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 modo singulari pro plurali tunc ergo, cum mereatur beatitudinem, non est beatus... meritum eius perfectum... quidquid mereatur etc.; incongrue.Codex aa here well adds aliquid (or supply: praemium), and a little below, after propositum, adds scilicet. In the second part of the argument not a few codices, with edition 1, [read] in the singular mode for the plural tunc ergo, cum mereatur beatitudinem, non est beatus... meritum eius perfectum... quidquid mereatur etc.; incongruously.
- Prov. 13, 12.Proverbs 13:12.
- Vat. cum nonnullis mss. subiungit et magnos.The Vatican edition, with some manuscripts, subjoins et magnos.
- Hic c. 6.Here, chapter 6.
- Non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 Hoc; inter quos cod. Z dein post instigavit addit eos.Not a few codices, with editions 1, 2, [read] Hoc; among which codex Z then adds eos after instigavit.
- Vide supra in Praelocutione pag. 2.See above, in the Prefatory note, p. 2.
- Fusius de hoc infra d. 11. a. 2. q. 2. seq.More diffusely on this below, d. 11, a. 2, q. 2 ff.
- Nonnulli codd. ut F K Y operatione.Some codices such as F K Y [read] operatione.
- Parte I. a. 1. q. 1.Part I, a. 1, q. 1.