Dist. 18, Art. 2, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/18/q/bon-sent-III-d18-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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: «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: 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 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 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 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: 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, 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, 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, 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.

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 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 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 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]; 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 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, 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 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*: 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. 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 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.