Quaestio 114 Question 114 De merito Of Merit Deinde considerandum est de merito, quod est effectus gratiae cooperantis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur decem. We must now consider merit, which is the effect of cooperating grace; and under this head there are ten points of inquiry: Primo, utrum homo possit aliquid mereri a Deo. (1) Whether a man can merit anything from God? Secundo, utrum aliquis sine gratia possit mereri vitam aeternam. (2) Whether without grace anyone can merit eternal life? Tertio, utrum aliquis per gratiam possit mereri vitam aeternam ex condigno. (3) Whether anyone with grace may merit eternal life condignly? Quarto, utrum gratia sit principium merendi mediante caritate principaliter. (4) Whether it is chiefly through the instrumentality of charity that grace is the principle of merit? Quinto, utrum homo possit sibi mereri primam gratiam. (5) Whether a man may merit the first grace for himself? Sexto, utrum homo possit eam mereri alii. (6) Whether he may merit it for someone else? Septimo, utrum possit sibi aliquis mereri reparationem post lapsum. (7) Whether anyone can merit restoration after sin? Octavo, utrum possit sibi mereri augmentum gratiae vel caritatis. (8) Whether he can merit for himself an increase of grace or charity? Nono, utrum possit sibi mereri finalem perseverantiam. (9) Whether he can merit final perseverance? Decimo, utrum bona temporalia cadant sub merito. (10) Whether temporal goods fall under merit? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum homo possit aliquid mereri a Deo Whether a man may merit anything from God? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non possit aliquid mereri a Deo. Nullus enim videtur mercedem mereri ex hoc quod reddit alteri quod debet. Sed per omnia bona quae facimus, non possumus sufficienter recompensare Deo quod debemus, quin semper amplius debeamus; ut etiam philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic. Unde et Luc. XVII, dicitur, cum omnia quae praecepta sunt, feceritis, dicite, servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere, fecimus. Ergo homo non potest aliquid mereri a Deo. Objection 1: It would seem that a man can merit nothing from God. For no one, it would seem, merits by giving another his due. But by all the good we do, we cannot make sufficient return to God, since yet more is His due, as also the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 14). Hence it is written (Luke 17:10): When you have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. Therefore a man can merit nothing from God. Praeterea, ex eo quod aliquis sibi proficit, nihil videtur mereri apud eum cui nihil proficit. Sed homo bene operando sibi proficit, vel alteri homini, non autem Deo, dicitur enim Iob XXXV, si iuste egeris, quid donabis ei, aut quid de manu tua accipiet? Ergo homo non potest aliquid a Deo mereri. Obj. 2: Further, it would seem that a man merits nothing from God, by what profits himself only, and profits God nothing. Now by acting well, a man profits himself or another man, but not God, for it is written (Job 35:7): If thou do justly, what shalt thou give Him, or what shall He receive of thy hand. Hence a man can merit nothing from God. Praeterea, quicumque apud aliquem aliquid meretur, constituit eum sibi debitorem, debitum enim est ut aliquis merendi mercedem rependat. Sed Deus nulli est debitor, unde dicitur Rom. XI, quis prior dedit ei, et retribuetur ei? Ergo nullus a Deo potest aliquid mereri. Obj. 3: Further, whoever merits anything from another makes him his debtor; for a man’s wage is a debt due to him. Now God is no one’s debtor; hence it is written (Rom 11:35): Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him? Hence no one can merit anything from God. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ierem. XXXI, est merces operi tuo. Sed merces dicitur quod pro merito redditur. Ergo videtur quod homo possit a Deo mereri. On the contrary, It is written (Jer 31:16): There is a reward for thy work. Now a reward means something bestowed by reason of merit. Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God. Respondeo dicendum quod meritum et merces ad idem referuntur, id enim merces dicitur quod alicui recompensatur pro retributione operis vel laboris, quasi quoddam pretium ipsius. Unde sicut reddere iustum pretium pro re accepta ab aliquo, est actus iustitiae; ita etiam recompensare mercedem operis vel laboris, est actus iustitiae. Iustitia autem aequalitas quaedam est; ut patet per philosophum, in V Ethic. Et ideo simpliciter est iustitia inter eos quorum est simpliciter aequalitas, eorum vero quorum non est simpliciter aequalitas, non est simpliciter iustitia, sed quidam iustitiae modus potest esse, sicut dicitur quoddam ius paternum vel dominativum, ut in eodem libro philosophus dicit. Et propter hoc, in his in quibus est simpliciter iustum, est etiam simpliciter ratio meriti et mercedis. In quibus autem est secundum quid iustum, et non simpliciter, in his etiam non simpliciter est ratio meriti, sed secundum quid, inquantum salvatur ibi iustitiae ratio, sic enim et filius meretur aliquid a patre, et servus a domino. I answer that, Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil. Now justice is a kind of equality, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3), and hence justice is simply between those that are simply equal; but where there is no absolute equality between them, neither is there absolute justice, but there may be a certain manner of justice, as when we speak of a father’s or a master’s right (Ethic. v, 6), as the Philosopher says. And hence where there is justice simply, there is the character of merit and reward simply. But where there is no simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, insofar as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord. Manifestum est autem quod inter Deum et hominem est maxima inaequalitas, in infinitum enim distant, et totum quod est hominis bonum, est a Deo. Unde non potest hominis ad Deum esse iustitia secundum absolutam aequalitatem, sed secundum proportionem quandam, inquantum scilicet uterque operatur secundum modum suum. Modus autem et mensura humanae virtutis homini est a Deo. Et ideo meritum hominis apud Deum esse non potest nisi secundum praesuppositionem divinae ordinationis, ita scilicet ut id homo consequatur a Deo per suam operationem quasi mercedem, ad quod Deus ei virtutem operandi deputavit. Sicut etiam res naturales hoc consequuntur per proprios motus et operationes, ad quod a Deo sunt ordinatae. Differenter tamen, quia creatura rationalis seipsam movet ad agendum per liberum arbitrium, unde sua actio habet rationem meriti; quod non est in aliis creaturis. Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo inquantum propria voluntate facit illud quod debet, meretur. Alioquin actus iustitiae quo quis reddit debitum, non esset meritorius. Reply Obj. 1: Man merits, inasmuch as he does what he ought, by his free-will; otherwise the act of justice whereby anyone discharges a debt would not be meritorious. Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus ex bonis nostris non quaerit utilitatem, sed gloriam, idest manifestationem suae bonitatis, quod etiam ex suis operibus quaerit. Ex hoc autem quod eum colimus, nihil ei accrescit, sed nobis. Et ideo meremur aliquid a Deo, non quasi ex nostris operibus aliquid ei accrescat, sed inquantum propter eius gloriam operamur. Reply Obj. 2: God seeks from our goods not profit, but glory, i.e., the manifestation of His goodness; even as He seeks it also in His own works. Now nothing accrues to Him, but only to ourselves, by our worship of Him. Hence we merit from God, not that by our works anything accrues to Him, but inasmuch as we work for His glory. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia actio nostra non habet rationem meriti nisi ex praesuppositione divinae ordinationis, non sequitur quod Deus efficiatur simpliciter debitor nobis, sed sibi ipsi, inquantum debitum est ut sua ordinatio impleatur. Reply Obj. 3: Since our action has the character of merit, only on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, it does not follow that God is made our debtor simply, but His own, inasmuch as it is right that His will should be carried out. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum aliquis sine gratia possit mereri vitam aeternam Whether anyone without grace can merit eternal life? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis sine gratia possit mereri vitam aeternam. Illud enim homo a Deo meretur ad quod divinitus ordinatur, sicut dictum est. Sed homo secundum suam naturam ordinatur ad beatitudinem sicut ad finem, unde etiam naturaliter appetit esse beatus. Ergo homo per sua naturalia, absque gratia, mereri potest beatitudinem, quae est vita aeterna. Objection 1: It would seem that without grace anyone can merit eternal life. For man merits from God what he is divinely ordained to, as stated above (A1). Now man by his nature is ordained to beatitude as his end; hence, too, he naturally wishes to be blessed. Hence man by his natural endowments and without grace can merit beatitude which is eternal life. Praeterea, idem opus quanto est minus debitum, tanto est magis meritorium. Sed minus debitum est bonum quod fit ab eo qui minoribus beneficiis est praeventus. Cum igitur ille qui habet solum bona naturalia, minora beneficia sit consecutus a Deo quam ille qui cum naturalibus habet gratuita; videtur quod eius opera sint apud Deum magis meritoria. Et ita, si ille qui habet gratiam, potest mereri aliquo modo vitam aeternam, multo magis ille qui non habet. Obj. 2: Further, the less a work is due, the more meritorious it is. Now, less due is that work which is done by one who has received fewer benefits. Hence, since he who has only natural endowments has received fewer gifts from God, than he who has gratuitous gifts as well as nature, it would seem that his works are more meritorious with God. And thus if he who has grace can merit eternal life to some extent, much more may he who has no grace. Praeterea, misericordia et liberalitas Dei in infinitum excedit misericordiam et liberalitatem humanam. Sed unus homo potest apud alium mereri, etiam si nunquam suam gratiam ante habuerit. Ergo videtur quod multo magis homo absque gratia vitam aeternam possit a Deo mereri. Obj. 3: Further, God’s mercy and liberality infinitely surpass human mercy and liberality. Now a man may merit from another, even though he has not hitherto had his grace. Much more, therefore, would it seem that a man without grace may merit eternal life. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VI, gratia Dei vita aeterna. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 6:23): The grace of God, life everlasting. Respondeo dicendum quod hominis sine gratia duplex status considerari potest sicut supra dictum est, unus quidem naturae integrae, qualis fuit in Adam ante peccatum; alius autem naturae corruptae, sicut est in nobis ante reparationem gratiae. Si ergo loquamur de homine quantum ad primum statum, sic una ratione non potest mereri absque gratia vitam aeternam per pura naturalia. Quia scilicet meritum hominis dependet ex praeordinatione divina. Actus autem cuiuscumque rei non ordinatur divinitus ad aliquid excedens proportionem virtutis quae est principium actus, hoc enim est ex institutione divinae providentiae, ut nihil agat ultra suam virtutem. Vita autem aeterna est quoddam bonum excedens proportionem naturae creatae, quia etiam excedit cognitionem et desiderium eius, secundum illud I ad Cor. II, nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit. Et inde est quod nulla natura creata est sufficiens principium actus meritorii vitae aeternae, nisi superaddatur aliquod supernaturale donum, quod gratia dicitur. Si vero loquamur de homine sub peccato existente, additur cum hac secunda ratio, propter impedimentum peccati. Cum enim peccatum sit quaedam Dei offensa excludens a vita aeterna, ut patet per supradicta; nullus in statu peccati existens potest vitam aeternam mereri, nisi prius Deo reconcilietur, dimisso peccato, quod fit per gratiam. Peccatori enim non debetur vita, sed mors; secundum illud Rom. VI, stipendia peccati mors. I answer that, Man without grace may be looked at in two states, as was said above (Q109, A2): the first, a state of perfect nature, in which Adam was before his sin; the second, a state of corrupt nature, in which we are before being restored by grace. Therefore, if we speak of man in the first state, there is only one reason why man cannot merit eternal life without grace, by his purely natural endowments, viz., because man’s merit depends on the Divine pre-ordination. Now no act of anything whatsoever is divinely ordained to anything exceeding the proportion of the powers which are the principles of its act; for it is a law of Divine providence that nothing shall act beyond its powers. Now everlasting life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its knowledge and desire, according to 1 Cor. 2:9: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man. And hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural gift, which we call grace. But if we speak of man as existing in sin, a second reason is added to this, viz., the impediment of sin. For since sin is an offense against God, excluding us from eternal life, as is clear from what has been said above (Q71, A6; Q113, A2), no one existing in a state of mortal sin can merit eternal life unless first he be reconciled to God, through his sin being forgiven, which is brought about by grace. For the sinner deserves not life, but death, according to Rm. 6:23: The wages of sin is death. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus ordinavit humanam naturam ad finem vitae aeternae consequendum non propria virtute, sed per auxilium gratiae. Et hoc modo eius actus potest esse meritorius vitae aeternae. Reply Obj. 1: God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal life, not by its own strength, but by the help of grace; and in this way its act can be meritorious of eternal life. Ad secundum dicendum quod homo sine gratia non potest habere aequale opus operi quod ex gratia procedit, quia quanto est perfectius principium actionis, tanto est perfectior actio. Sequeretur autem ratio, supposita aequalitate operationis utrobique. Reply Obj. 2: Without grace a man cannot have a work equal to a work proceeding from grace, since the more perfect the principle, the more perfect the action. But the objection would hold good, if we supposed the operations equal in both cases. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quantum ad primam rationem inductam, dissimiliter se habet in Deo et in homine. Nam homo omnem virtutem benefaciendi habet a Deo, non autem ab homine. Et ideo a Deo non potest homo aliquid mereri nisi per donum eius, quod apostolus signanter exprimit, dicens, quis prior dedit ei, et retribuetur illi? Sed ab homine potest aliquis mereri antequam ab eo acceperit, per id quod accepit a Deo. Reply Obj. 3: With regard to the first reason adduced, the case is different in God and in man. For a man receives all his power of well-doing from God, and not from man. Hence a man can merit nothing from God except by His gift, which the Apostle expresses aptly saying (Rom 11:35): Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him? But man may merit from man, before he has received anything from him, by what he has received from God. Sed quantum ad secundam rationem, sumptam ex impedimento peccati, simile est de homine et de Deo, quia etiam homo ab alio mereri non potest quem offendit prius, nisi ei satisfaciens reconcilietur. But as regards the second proof taken from the impediment of sin, the case is similar with man and God, since one man cannot merit from another whom he has offended, unless he makes satisfaction to him and is reconciled. Articulus 3 Article 3