C. Whether Divine Worship is due to Christ only as to his Divine Nature

1. Solution

21. As to the third article, where the question is asked whether divine worship is due to Christ only as to this divine nature, I say that the word ‘only’ can be taken in two ways, namely categorematically or syncategorematically.

I concede that in the first way the answer is yes, that a sufficient reason for Christ to be supremely adored only exists in him considered as to his divine nature.

22. But if the term is taken syncategorematically, then it marks, in respect of one extreme, an exclusion from the other extreme. I here draw a distinction, because the exclusion can be either from the term or object of the adoration or from the reason for adoring.

23. In the first way I say that Christ is not to be divinely adored only as to his divine nature, for the human nature should not so be excluded from the term of the adoration that, by this exclusion, the whole could not be adored. The point is made by Damascene (Orthodox Faith ch.54, or 3.8), “Christ, perfect God and perfect man, whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, we adore in a single adoration along with his uncontaminated flesh, a flesh that we deny is incapable of being adored; for what has come to exist in the single hypostasis of the Word is adored in that very hypostasis.” And a little later, “The one person of the Word of God, to which his two natures are reduced.” And he then gives an example, “I fear to touch the wood because of the fire present in it.” In this authority from Damascene the ‘with’ [in the phrase ‘with his uncontaminated flesh’] is taken associatively and not copulatively, so that the sense is, ‘we adore the Word with the flesh, that is, the Word having flesh united to him,’ and not, ‘with the flesh, that is, we adore the flesh as well,’ where the proposition is copulative and the flesh is considered as ‘flesh’ and not as ‘united to the deity.’ So ‘flesh’ should not be excluded from the object or term of adoration in this way, although flesh is not the reason for the adoration.

24. There is an example of this from a king and the king’s purple garment, for though the king is to be adored because of himself and in himself, yet he is to be adored along with the purple he is wearing; and just as the purple is not the cause of the adoration, so the flesh is not adorable in the Word such that it is the reason in the Word for the adoration. Another example is taken from a whole and its parts: if I revere a man because of his wisdom and virtues, I revere the whole of him, namely his body and soul, and do not exclude the body from the person I revere; likewise, when I adore a whole man, I do not adore his head by itself to the exclusion from adoration of the other parts.

25. In the second way [n.22], namely where the ‘only’ excludes something from being the reason for adoring, one can say that Christ is to be adored only as to his divine nature, to the exclusion of some other nature as the reason for adoring; for no other nature is the reason for supreme lordship, and so no other nature is the reason for the adoration due to the supreme Lord, just as neither is the body the reason for adoring someone who is virtuous.

2. An Objection, and Rejection of it

26. But an objection to this [n.25] is that supreme lordship is not immediately consequent to the divine nature, because, according to Augustine On the Trinity 5.16 n.17, God was Lord only in time, just as the creature was servant in time; therefore supreme lordship exists by reason of the creation, whereby the creature received its whole being from God. But as great a reason for lordship seems to belong to God because of the gift of redemption as because of the gift of creation;     therefore the cult of divine worship is due to the Redeemer as Redeemer, and by reason of the redemption, in the same way as it is owed to the Creator by reason of creation.

27. This supposition about the equality of lordship in Creator and Redeemer with respect to the created and redeemed is proved in several ways:

First from the Apostle in Galatians 6 [I Corinthians 6.20], ‘For you were bought at a great price; so glorify etc     .’ Therefore I am a servant for the reason that I am redeemed.a

a.a [Interpolation] The question is whether adoration is due to God because of something intrinsic to God in himself or because of a benefit conferred on us or an intrinsic good qua communicated to us. If the second, the question is whether the adoration due by reason of redemption is equally as great as the adoration due by reason of creation.

28. There is also this confirmation from Gregory in the canticle of blessing the paschal candle, ‘Had it not benefited us to be redeemed, it did not benefit to us to be born;’ as great a good, then, is conferred by redemption as by creation.

29. There is another confirmation, too, in that by redemption is conferred the gift of grace and glory, but by creation only the good of nature;     therefore etc     .

30. Herefrom the conclusion is drawn that, since Christ was redeemer as to his human nature, then the same adoration that is owed also to the Creator is owed to Christ according to his human nature, that is, according to the reason for adoring (not absolutely, but as it was the reason for redemption).

31. I reply that, although no one can be bound to something greater than what is greatest, yet he can, for some reason, be bound to the same thing for a more reasons. An example from a religious who vows chastity and afterwards receives sacred orders: he is bound to the same thing and not to a greater thing, but he is bound to it for a greater reason. In this way one can concede that to be the principle of redemption, or to perfect that very redemption - provided that it confers as great a good on us as creation - does, as a result, demand as much service from us by the work of redemption as by the work of creation. And then he who principally works redemption is, as to the reason itself for adoration, owed supreme adoration; but he is not owed a greater adoration than he is owed by reason of creation, because supreme adoration is owed to him by creation.

32. And this point is true: if some good conferred on a creature, and not the intrinsic good itself of the conferrer, is the reason for worshipping the conferrer as Lord (as, for example, if, per impossibile, there were several gods and one of them created us but not another, and if we were bound to adore the first and not the second) - then one could well say that, if as great a good is conferred on us by the working of redemption as by creation, then as much service is owed by reason of this redemption to the whole Trinity (which works the redemption) as is owed to the Trinity by reason of creation;a and it is plain that these reasons for owing adoration to the Trinity are distinct.

a.a [Interpolation] But if the intrinsic goodness of the conferrer is the only reason for such supreme adoration, then, since there is as much intrinsic goodness in one god as in the other, the first should be adored only as the other is.

33. But if the supreme intrinsic goodness of God is the reason for adoration then, since this goodness is not different according to the different goods conferred on creatures, there are not several reasons for adoring God -however many the benefits are that he confers on us.

34. So if this second position is maintained [n.33], then the argument applied to Christ as redeemer [n.30] does not hold, because the nature in which the work of redemption was carried out does not have infinite intrinsic goodness -however much it may be the reason or the principle of conferring on us a very great good.

35. But if the first position is maintained [n.32], namely that it is not just the intrinsic good or intrinsic goodness that is the reason for adoration, but rather this goodness as it communicates the greatest good to us (and this primarily and freely of itself and not because of some return of payment, according to Psalm 15.2, ‘Thou hast no need of my goods’) - then one can reply that, although Christ was Redeemer according to his human nature, yet he did not effect redemption principally according to that nature, but rather the whole Trinity did; and so Christ as man effected only by way of merit the salvation that has been conferred on us by redemption. But supreme reverence is not owed to one from whom we possess the supreme good, not principally, but secondarily.