FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 62, Art. 4]

Whether an Angel Merits His Beatitude?

Objection 1: It would seem that the angel did not merit his beatitude.

For merit arises from the difficulty of the meritorious act. But the

angel experienced no difficulty in acting rightly. Therefore righteous

action was not meritorious for him.

Obj. 2: Further, we do not merit by merely natural operations. But it

was quite natural for the angel to turn to God. Therefore he did not

thereby merit beatitude.

Obj. 3: Further, if a beatified angel merited his beatitude, he did

so either before he had it, or else afterwards. But it was not

before; because, in the opinion of many, he had no grace before

whereby to merit it. Nor did he merit it afterwards, because thus he

would be meriting it now; which is clearly false, because in that

case a lower angel could by meriting rise up to the rank of a higher,

and the distinct degrees of grace would not be permanent; which is

not admissible. Consequently the angel did not merit his beatitude.

_On the contrary,_ It is stated (Apoc. 21:17) that the "measure of

the angel" in that heavenly Jerusalem is "the measure of a man."

Therefore the same is the case with the angel.

_I answer that,_ Perfect beatitude is natural only to God, because

existence and beatitude are one and the same thing in Him. Beatitude,

however, is not of the nature of the creature, but is its end. Now

everything attains its last end by its operation. Such operation

leading to the end is either productive of the end, when such end is

not beyond the power of the agent working for the end, as the healing

art is productive of health; or else it is deserving of the end, when

such end is beyond the capacity of the agent striving to attain it;

wherefore it is looked for from another's bestowing. Now it is

evident from what has gone before (AA. 1, 2; Q. 12, AA. 4, 5),

ultimate beatitude exceeds both the angelic and the human nature. It

remains, then, that both man and angel merited their beatitude.

And if the angel was created in grace, without which there is no

merit, there would be no difficulty in saying that he merited

beatitude: as also, if one were to say that he had grace in any way

before he had glory.

But if he had no grace before entering upon beatitude, it would then

have to be said that he had beatitude without merit, even as we have

grace. This, however, is quite foreign to the idea of beatitude; which

conveys the notion of an end, and is the reward of virtue, as even the

Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9). Or else it will have to be said, as

some others have maintained, that the angels merit beatitude by their

present ministrations, while in beatitude. This is quite contrary,

again, to the notion of merit: since merit conveys the idea of a means

to an end; while what is already in its end cannot, properly speaking,

be moved towards such end; and so no one merits to produce what he

already enjoys. Or else it will have to be said that one and the same

act of turning to God, so far as it comes of free-will, is

meritorious; and so far as it attains the end, is the fruition of

beatitude. Even this view will not stand, because free-will is not the

sufficient cause of merit; and, consequently, an act cannot be

meritorious as coming from free-will, except in so far as it is

informed by grace; but it cannot at the same time be informed by

imperfect grace, which is the principle of meriting, and by perfect

grace, which is the principle of enjoying. Hence it does not appear to

be possible for anyone to enjoy beatitude, and at the same time to

merit it.

Consequently it is better to say that the angel had grace ere he was

admitted to beatitude, and that by such grace he merited beatitude.

Reply Obj. 1: The angel's difficulty of working righteously does not

come from any contrariety or hindrance of natural powers; but from

the fact that the good work is beyond his natural capacity.

Reply Obj. 2: An angel did not merit beatitude by natural movement

towards God; but by the movement of charity, which comes of grace.

The answer to the Third Objection is evident from what we have said.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 397 / 722 题