Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus meruerit sui corporis glorificationem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Magistri in littera^p389-3: «Merito humilitatis et anima impassibilis facta est et caro immortalis»: ergo Christus meruit immortalitatem carnis, ergo glorificationem corporis.

2. Item, sicut per humilitatem pervenitur ad exaltationem, sic passio via est perveniendi ad impassibilitatem; sed Christus hoc modo pervenit ad impassibilitatem corporis: ergo illam prius promeruit.

3. Item, efficacius meretur quis sibi quam alii — hoc non habet instantiam de his quae sunt nata cadere sub merito — sed Christus meruit aliis resurrectionem et corporis glorificationem^p389-4: ergo multo fortius meruit sui corporis glorificationem.

4. Item, nihil plus requiritur ad rationem meriti nisi merendi principium et status et ordo meriti ad praemium; sed haec omnia reperiuntur in Christo ex parte glorificationis corporis — habebat enim caritatem, quae erat principium boni operis; habebat etiam statum merendi ex parte inferiori; exspectabat etiam glorificationem corporis de futuro — si ergo omnia illa concurrunt^p389-5, quae requiruntur ad meritum; videtur, quod Christus glorificationem corporis sui merebatur.

Sed contra: 1. Praemium est excellentius merito, quia Deus remunerat supra condignum; sed caritas Christi superexcedebat^p389-6 glorificationem corporis: ergo opus ex caritate illa procedens dignum erat maiori remuneratione: non ergo ordinabatur ad glorificationem corporis sicut ad praemium.

2. Item, anima Christi beatificata fuit absque meritis propter unionem ipsius^p389-7 ad Deitatem: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod corpus Christi absque meritis debuerit effici gloriosum.

3. Item, Christus nunquam habuit debitum mor-

tis^p390-1: ergo videtur, quod ipsi corpori Christi de se deberetur gloria immortalitatis: non ergo videtur, quod eam per merita acquisierit.

4. Item, aut gloriosius erat Christo habere gloriam corporis sine meritis, aut per merita. Si sine meritis, et quod gloriosius est Christo est attribuendum: igitur Christus gloriam illam sibi non meruit. Si per merita, pari ratione erit et de gloria animae. Si ergo illam non meruit^p390-2, videtur, quod nec istam.

5. Item, aut necessarium erat, Christum mereri gloriam corporis, aut non. Si non erat necessarium; cum Christus nulla fecerit praeter necessaria^p390-3, non videtur, quod Christus gloriam illam acquisierit per merita. Si necessarium erat: ergo Christus meritis indigebat ad sui glorificationem. Sed contra: Deus parvulos glorificat per solam gratiam absque meritis suis: ergo si multo maior gratia fuit in Christo, non videtur, quod ad sui glorificationem meritis indiguerit.

6. Item, si Christus meruit sibi gloriam corporis sive stolam secundam^p390-4, ergo patiebatur ad utilitatem suam, non ergo solum patiebatur propter indigentiam nostram: et si hoc verum est, tunc non tenemur ei ad tantas gratias agendas, ad quantas teneremur, si nihil sibi meruisset, sed solum pro nobis crucifixus esset.

Conclusio.

Christus sibi meruit glorificationem corporis, non solum in agendo, sed etiam in patiendo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio Christus sibi meruit glorificationem corporis non solum in agendo, verum etiam in patiendo, sicut Magister expresse dicit in littera^p390-5.

Ratio autem huius est, quia Christus, Dei et hominum mediator, simul debuit esse comprehensor et viator: comprehensor propter suam dignitatem, et viator propter nostram necessitatem; et ideo partim debuit esse in statu gloriae, partim in statu miseriae. In statu autem miseriae non debuit esse secundum superiorem partem, sed secundum inferiorem, id est secundum carnem. Et ideo secundum divinam dispositionem necessarium fuit, differri corporis Christi glorificationem, ut Christus esset in statu, in quo pro nobis posset mereri et satisfacere. Dum autem Christus nobis merebatur et pro nobis satisfaciebat, faciebat opus Deo placentissimum, et ita remunerabile secundum aliquam partem gloriae. Cum igitur remunerari non posset quantum ad stolam primam, sed quantum ad stolam secundam; merebatur utique tunc Christus proprii corporis gloriam. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad istam partem.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod praemium est excellentius merito; dicendum, quod illud non habet semper veritatem; etsi enim^p390-6 hoc verum sit de praemio substantiali, quo Deus remunerat hominem supra condignum, non tamen oportet, quod ubique habeat locum; maiori enim bono potest mereri homo minus bonum. Et ideo non valet ista ratio in merito, quod^p390-7 respicit secundam stolam. — Posset tamen aliter dici, quod praemium est excellentius merito, secundum quod fit comparatio ad statum et ad opus, per quod quis meretur; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito. Nam status corporis fuit nobilior post glorificationem quam ante; gloria etiam corporis excedebat in bono labores corporis, quos Christus sustinuit. — Posset etiam tertio modo dici, quod illud habet veritatem de merito, quod ordinatur ad praemium finaliter et cum praecisione; sic autem non est in proposito. Nam Christus principaliter^p390-8 non merebatur propter corporis sui glorificationem, sed propter humani generis reparationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima sine meritis habuit stolam primam; dicendum, quod non est simile; quia unio divinae naturae ad humanam potius patitur imperfectionem ex parte carnis quam ex parte animae, propter hoc quod est ibi carentia minoris boni, ut melius potest haberi ex his quae habita fuerunt in praecedentibus^p390-9; ideo, quamvis gloria animae praecesserit omnia merita, gloria tamen corporis potuit sequi, ac per hoc mediantibus meritis acquiri.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus illud^p390-10 non habebat debitum mortis; dicendum, quod ex hoc non potest concludi, quod Christus gloriam corporis non meruerit, nisi eo modo dicendi meritum, quo quis dicitur de indebito facere debitum. Hoc autem modo Christus sibi non meruit, sicut prius^p390-11 dictum fuit, sed alio modo dicendi, videlicet quo quis de debito uno modo facit debitum alio modo.

Et ideo, licet immortalitas deberetur Christo, nihilominus tamen immortalitas potuit cadere sub eius merito, isto modo accepto.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, si erat magis gloriosum habere per merita quam sine meritis glorificationem corporis; dicendum, quod hoc^p391-1 erat maxime gloriosum, quia conveniebat Christo in quantum redemptor et mediator; quod quidem est officium magnae gloriae et excellentiae, videlicet ut per humilitatem passionis perveniret ipse cum membris suis ad sublimitatem resurrectionis. Et ideo non est simile ex parte animae, quia non sic decet mediatorem Dei et hominum habuisse statum viatoris secundum partem superiorem animae, sicut ex parte carnis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, si erat necessarium mereri gloriam corporis; dicendum, quod necessarium ad praesens dici potest dupliciter, videlicet ex indigentia et ex sufficientia^p391-2: ex indigentia, sicut dicitur, necessarium est alicui comedere ad hoc, quod possit vivere; et isto modo non fuerunt necessaria merita Christo, quasi eis indigeret, sed sunt necessaria nobis. Alio modo dicitur necessarium ex sufficientia, sicut necessarium est, lucem copiosam diffundi per partes diversas; et hoc modo necessarium fuit, Christum mereri, quia, cum esset confirmatus in bono et esset in statu, in quo poterat mereri, necessarium erat, ipsum tunc facere quae essent Deo placita et remuneratione digna^p391-3. Ideo patet, quod non est simile de parvulis, qui propter imperfectionem et impotentiam assequuntur gloriam per merita aliena, utpote per merita Christi, sicut contrahunt culpam propter peccatum primi parentis.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quodsi meruit^p391-4 sui corporis glorificationem, quod passus est pro se; dicendum, quod pati pro se potest aliquis dupliciter: aut ita quod utilitas propria dicat finem principaliter moventem; et hoc modo, si Christus passus fuisset pro se, minus liberaliter passus esset, minusque essemus ei obligati ad gratiarum actiones. Alio modo pati pro se potest dicere utilitatem propriam, non principaliter moventem, sed quodam modo concomitantem et consequentem; et hoc modo non diminuit de liberalitate beneficii. Et sic Christus passus fuit pro se, quia patiendo aliquid meruit sibi, licet non pateretur propter commodum suum, sed propter meritum nostrum. Sine passione enim Christus nihilominus fuisset gloriosus, non solum in anima, sed etiam in corpore; nos vero sine passione defectum habuissemus non solum ex parte animae, verum etiam ex parte corporis, nisi Deus alio modo subvenisset^p391-5.

Question II. Whether Christ merited the glorification of his body.

Secondly it is asked, whether Christ merited the glorification of his body. And that he did, it seems:

1. By the authority of the Master in the text^p389-3: «By the merit of humility both the soul was made impassible and the flesh immortal»: therefore Christ merited the immortality of the flesh, therefore the glorification of the body.

2. Likewise, just as through humility one arrives at exaltation, so the passion is the way of arriving at impassibility; but Christ in this way arrived at the impassibility of his body: therefore he first merited it.

3. Likewise, one merits more effectually for himself than for another — this has no instance in those things which are apt to fall under merit — but Christ merited for others the resurrection and the glorification of the body^p389-4: therefore much more strongly did he merit the glorification of his own body.

4. Likewise, nothing more is required for the account of merit than the principle of meriting and the state and the order of merit to a reward; but all these are found in Christ on the side of the glorification of the body — for he had charity, which was the principle of a good work; he had also the state of meriting on the lower side; he also awaited the glorification of the body in the future — if therefore all those things concur^p389-5 which are required for merit, it seems that Christ was meriting the glorification of his body.

On the contrary: 1. The reward is more excellent than the merit, because God rewards beyond what is condign; but Christ's charity exceeded^p389-6 the glorification of the body: therefore a work proceeding from that charity was worthy of a greater remuneration: it was not therefore ordered to the glorification of the body as to a reward.

2. Likewise, the soul of Christ was beatified without merits on account of its union^p389-7 to the Deity: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the body of Christ ought to have been made glorious without merits.

3. Likewise, Christ never had any debt of death^p390-1: therefore it seems that the glory of immortality was owed to the very body of Christ of itself: it does not therefore seem that he acquired it through merits.

4. Likewise, either it was more glorious for Christ to have the glory of the body without merits, or through merits. If without merits, then that which is more glorious is to be attributed to Christ: therefore Christ did not merit that glory for himself. If through merits, by parity of reasoning it will be so also concerning the glory of the soul. If therefore he did not merit the latter^p390-2, it seems that neither the former.

5. Likewise, either it was necessary that Christ merit the glory of the body, or not. If it was not necessary; since Christ did nothing beyond the necessary^p390-3, it does not seem that Christ acquired that glory through merits. If it was necessary: then Christ needed merits for his glorification. On the contrary: God glorifies little ones through grace alone without their merits: therefore if much greater grace was in Christ, it does not seem that he needed merits for his glorification.

6. Likewise, if Christ merited for himself the glory of the body, that is, the second robe^p390-4, then he was suffering for his own advantage, therefore he was not suffering only on account of our need: and if this is true, then we are not bound to render him as great thanks as we would be bound to render if he had merited nothing for himself, but had been crucified only for us.

Conclusion.

Christ merited for himself the glorification of the body, not only in acting, but also in suffering.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt Christ merited for himself the glorification of the body not only in acting, but also in suffering, as the Master expressly says in the text^p390-5.

Now the reason for this is that Christ, the mediator of God and men, had at once to be comprehensor and viator: comprehensor on account of his dignity, and viator on account of our need; and therefore he had to be partly in the state of glory, partly in the state of misery. But in the state of misery he had to be not according to the higher part, but according to the lower, that is, according to the flesh. And therefore according to the divine disposition it was necessary that the glorification of Christ's body be deferred, so that Christ might be in the state in which he could merit and make satisfaction for us. But while Christ was meriting for us and making satisfaction on our behalf, he was doing a work most pleasing to God, and so remunerable according to some part of glory. Since therefore he could not be rewarded as to the first robe, but as to the second robe; Christ was indeed then meriting the glory of his own body. — Hence the reasons that are for this side are to be granted.

To the arguments for the affirmative side:

1. To that which is objected, that the reward is more excellent than the merit; it must be said that this does not always hold true; for although^p390-6 this is true of the substantial reward, by which God rewards man beyond what is condign, yet it need not hold everywhere; for by a greater good a man can merit a lesser good. And therefore this reasoning does not hold in a merit which^p390-7 regards the second robe. — It could, however, be said otherwise, that the reward is more excellent than the merit insofar as a comparison is made to the state and to the work by which one merits; and thus it has no instance in the matter at hand. For the state of the body was nobler after glorification than before; the glory also of the body exceeded in goodness the labors of the body which Christ endured. — It could also be said in a third way, that this holds true of a merit which is ordered to a reward finally and with exclusivity; but it is not so in the matter at hand. For Christ principally^p390-8 was not meriting on account of the glorification of his own body, but on account of the reparation of the human race.

2. To that which is objected, that the soul without merits had the first robe; it must be said that it is not similar; because the union of the divine nature to the human suffers imperfection rather from the side of the flesh than from the side of the soul, on account of the fact that there is in it a lack of a lesser good, as can better be gathered from those things which were had in the preceding [questions]^p390-9; therefore, although the glory of the soul preceded all merits, the glory of the body could nonetheless follow, and through this be acquired by the mediation of merits.

3. To that which is objected, that that body^p390-10 did not have a debt of death; it must be said that from this it cannot be concluded that Christ did not merit the glory of the body, except in that mode of speaking of merit by which one is said to make of the undue a debt. But in this mode Christ did not merit for himself, as was said before^p390-11, but in another mode of speaking, namely that by which one makes of a debt in one mode a debt in another mode.

And therefore, although immortality was owed to Christ, nevertheless immortality could still fall under his merit, taken in this mode.

4. To that which is asked, whether it was more glorious to have the glorification of the body through merits than without merits; it must be said that this^p391-1 was most glorious, because it befitted Christ inasmuch as he was redeemer and mediator; which is indeed an office of great glory and excellence, namely that through the humility of the passion he himself with his members might arrive at the sublimity of resurrection. And therefore it is not similar on the side of the soul, because it is not thus fitting that the mediator of God and men should have had the state of a wayfarer according to the higher part of the soul, as on the side of the flesh.

5. To that which is objected, whether it was necessary to merit the glory of the body; it must be said that necessary for the present can be said in two ways, namely from indigence and from sufficiency^p391-2: from indigence, as it is said, it is necessary for someone to eat in order that he may live; and in this mode merits were not necessary to Christ, as though he needed them, but they are necessary to us. In another mode something is said to be necessary from sufficiency, as it is necessary that abundant light be diffused through diverse parts; and in this mode it was necessary that Christ merit, because, since he was confirmed in good and was in the state in which he could merit, it was necessary that he then do the things which were pleasing to God and worthy of remuneration^p391-3. Therefore it is clear that it is not similar concerning little ones, who on account of imperfection and incapacity attain glory through the merits of another, as it were through the merits of Christ, just as they contract guilt on account of the sin of the first parent.

6. To that which is objected, that if he merited^p391-4 the glorification of his body, then he suffered for himself; it must be said that to suffer for oneself can be understood in two ways: either in such a way that one's own advantage names the end moving principally; and in this mode, if Christ had suffered for himself, he would have suffered less liberally, and we would be less obligated to him for acts of thanksgiving. In another mode to suffer for oneself can mean one's own advantage not moving principally, but in a certain way concomitantly and consequently; and in this mode it does not diminish from the liberality of the benefit. And thus Christ suffered for himself, because by suffering he merited something for himself, although he did not suffer on account of his own advantage, but on account of our merit. For without the passion Christ would nonetheless have been glorious, not only in soul, but also in body; whereas we without the passion would have had a defect not only on the side of the soul, but also on the side of the body, unless God had come to our aid in another way^p391-5.