← Back to Distinction 11

Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 11

Textus Latinus
p. 243

ARTICULUS I. De Christi praedestinatione.

QUAESTIO I. Utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur1, utrum praedestinatio Christi sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis, ita quod nostra et sua praedestinatio dicatur secundum rationem univocam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per definitionem praedestinationis: « Praedestinatio est praeparatio gratiae et gloriae3 »; sed hoc convenit Christo et nobis: ergo etc.

2. Item, quod convenit Christo secundum humanam naturam convenit uniformiter nobis, cum sit eiusdem naturae et speciei nobiscum4; sed praedestinatio convenit Christo secundum naturam humanam: ergo nobis et sibi competit secundum rationem univocam.

3. Item, conformamur Christo in merito; et si conformamur in merito, necesse est conformari in praemio: ergo pari ratione et in divino proposito. Sed hoc est praedestinatio5: ergo etc.

4. Item, Augustinus de Vocatione Sanctorum6: « Quicumque homo gratia fit Christianus, sicut ille homo ab initio factus est Christus »: ergo si eo modo Deus alios homines Christianos fecit, per quem modum et illum hominem Christum fecit, et omnino eodem modo praedestinavit, quo modo fecit; ergo per eundem modum praedestinavit nos et Christum.

Sed contra: 1. Augustinus de Praedestinatione Sanctorum7: « Praedestinatio est propositum miserendi »; sed respectu eius non est miserendi propositum, in quo nullum contingit reperire peccatum: si ergo talis est Christus, videtur, quod non secundum eandem rationem dicatur praedestinatio de nobis et de Christo.

2. Item, praedestinatio sic notificatur communiter8: « Praedestinatio est praeparatio gratiae in praesenti et gloriae in futuro »; sed in Christo simul fuerunt gratia et gloria: ergo praedestinatio non convenit nobis et Christo secundum unam rationem.

3. Item, praedestinatio est in nobis non tantum ratione naturae, verum etiam ratione personae; sed in Christo est praedestinatio ratione naturae assumtae, non ratione personae, cum illa sit aeterna9: ergo etc.

4. Item, ille homo Christus praedestinatus fuit esse Deus sive Dei filius, secundum quod dicitur ad Romanos primo10: Qui praedestinatus est filius p. 244Dei in virtute etc. — unde et datus est ei spiritus non ad mensuram — nos autem praedestinati sumus ad gratiam creatam et finitam: ergo si creatum et finitum non univocatur in aliquo cum increato et infinito, necessario sequitur, quod praedestinatio secundum aliam et aliam rationem dicatur de nobis et de Christo.

CONCLUSIO.

Praedestinatio Christi quodam modo est conformis nostrae praedestinationi, quodam modo difformis, et non dicitur cum hac univoce, nisi quatenus est ei conformis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod praedestinatio Christi quodam modo habet conformitatem ad nostram praedestinationem, quodam modo difformitatem; quod patet, si attendantur ea quae circa praedestinationem sunt1. Consideratur enim praedestinatio in comparatione ad praedestinantem et ad praedestinatum et ad terminum et ad initialem statum. Si ergo consideretur praedestinatio secundum comparationem ad praedestinantem, unius rationis et conformis modi est praedestinatio Christi nostrae praedestinationi; eodem enim modo, quo Deus praedestinavit Christum, praedestinavit et nos. — Si loquamur in comparatione ad statum a quo, simpliciter est differentia. Nam nos per gratiam praedestinationis eripuit de statu peccati et de massa perditionis, sicut dicit Glossa super illud ad Romanos octavo2: Quos praedestinavit hos et vocavit, et ipse textus indicat; hunc autem statum non est reperire in Christo aliquo modo. Et sic quantum ad primum est simpliciter convenientia, quantum ad ultimum, scilicet quantum ad statum3, differentia.

Quantum vero ad duo intermedia partim est convenientia, partim differentia. In nobis enim est praedestinatio respectu naturae, et etiam respectu personae, et magis proprie respectu personae quam naturae. In Christo autem est praedestinatio ratione naturae assumtae, quae sequitur divinam dispositionem, non ratione personae; et ita quodam modo est convenientia, et quodam modo differentia respectu praedestinati. — Respectu etiam termini consimiliter est4. Nam nos sumus praedestinati ad gratiam et gloriam, similiter et Christus; sed nos sumus praedestinati ad participandam gratiam et gloriam successive, Christus autem simul. Item, nos sumus praedestinati ad gratiam personae singularis, Christus autem ad gratiam unionis et singularis personae5; et ita tantum habet quantum nos et abundat a nobis; ac per hoc quodam modo convenit, quodam modo excedit. Verum est igitur, quod praedestinatio Christi quodam modo est conformis et quodam modo difformis; et si notificetur secundum illud, in quo conformatur, est univocatio; secundum autem quod disconvenit, non.

Ad argumenta: Et per hoc patent rationes ad utramque partem. Nam primae, quae ostendunt, quod sit nostrae praedestinationi conformis, procedunt a parte praedestinantis, vel praedestinati quantum ad naturam, vel ex parte termini quantum ad gratiam et gloriam; et sic verum concludunt. Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de ipsa praedestinatione a parte status initialis, vel a parte praedestinati ratione personae, vel a parte termini ratione unionis divinae; et suis viis concedendae sunt singulae.

SCHOLION

I. Iam supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1–3. plura dicta sunt de praedestinatione respectu Christi; ad quem locum lectorem remittimus. — Haec 1. quaestio dilucide et aptis distinctionibus totam rem explanat. Iisdem distinctionibus utitur S. Thom. in Comment. (III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. quaestiunc. 2.) et easdem conclusiones habet. Generalim autem dicit, praedestinationem Christi ac nostram non esse eiusdem rationis, sed convenire tantum secundum analogiam. Pro quo addit hanc rationem, quod ratio specifica cuiuslibet motus accipitur penes terminum ad quem, qui in Christo est unio in persona, quae non nisi secundum analogiam quandam convenit cum unione per operationem (gratiam et gloriam), quae est terminus ad quem in ceteris praedestinatis. p. 245— De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 3. m. 6. — B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 10. a. 19. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 10. a. 4. q. 1. — Aegid. R., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3. dub. lat. 1. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3, breviter tangit quaestiones huius art.

II. Sequentem (2.) quaestionem S. Thom. (S. III. q. 24. a. 3.) eadem conclusione solvit, sed eam verbis aliquatenus differentibus explicat. Alii explicite ipsam non tractant; sed nonnulli in sequenti (3.) quaestione eam tangunt.

III. Tertia huius articuli quaestio communiter in hoc sensu solvitur, quod praedestinatio Christi non nisi ratione termini possit esse causa nostrae praedestinationis; neque sub hoc respectu potest esse causa efficiens principalis, quae soli Deo convenit, sicut nec causa finalis principalis. Tamen « Deus praeordinavit nostram salutem ab aeterno praedestinando, ut per Iesum Christum compleretur » (S. Thom., S. III. q. 24. a. 4.). — De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. c. m. 5. — S. Thom., Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 20. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. dub. lat. 2. — Durand., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3.

---

English Translation

ARTICLE I. On the predestination of Christ.

QUESTION I. Whether Christ's predestination is conformable to our predestination.

Concerning the first matter one proceeds thus, and it is asked1 whether Christ's predestination is conformable to our predestination, such that our predestination and his are said according to a univocal account. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:

1. First, by the definition of predestination: "Predestination is the preparation of grace and glory3"; but this belongs to Christ and to us: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, what belongs to Christ according to his human nature belongs uniformly to us, since he is of the same nature and species as we are4; but predestination belongs to Christ according to his human nature: therefore it pertains to us and to him according to a univocal account.

3. Likewise, we are conformed to Christ in merit; and if we are conformed in merit, it is necessary to be conformed in reward: therefore by parity of reasoning also in the divine purpose. But this is predestination5: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Augustine, On the Calling of the Saints6: "Whatever man is made a Christian by grace, just as that man was from the beginning made Christ": therefore if God made other men Christians in the same way by which he also made that man Christ, and altogether predestined in the same way in which he made [them]; therefore he predestined us and Christ by the same mode.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints7: "Predestination is the purpose of having mercy"; but with respect to him in whom it is possible to find no sin there is no purpose of having mercy: if, then, such is Christ, it seems that predestination is not said of us and of Christ according to the same account.

2. Likewise, predestination is commonly described thus8: "Predestination is the preparation of grace in the present and of glory in the future"; but in Christ grace and glory existed at the same time: therefore predestination does not belong to us and to Christ according to one account.

3. Likewise, predestination is in us not only by reason of nature, but also by reason of person; but in Christ predestination is by reason of the assumed nature, not by reason of person, since that [person] is eternal9: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that man Christ was predestined to be God, or the Son of God, according to what is said in Romans, chapter one10: Who was predestined the Son p. 244of God in power etc. — whence also the Spirit was given to him not by measure — but we are predestined to created and finite grace: therefore if the created and finite is not univocated in anything with the uncreated and infinite, it necessarily follows that predestination is said of us and of Christ according to one account and another.

CONCLUSION.

Christ's predestination is in a certain way conformable to our predestination, in a certain way unconformable, and it is not said univocally with the latter except insofar as it is conformable to it.

I respond: It must be said that Christ's predestination in a certain way has conformity to our predestination, in a certain way unconformity; which is evident if one attends to the things that belong to predestination1. For predestination is considered in comparison to the one predestining, and to the one predestined, and to the term, and to the initial state. If, then, predestination be considered according to the comparison to the one predestining, Christ's predestination is of one account and of a conformable mode with our predestination; for in the same way in which God predestined Christ, he also predestined us. — If we speak in comparison to the state from which, there is simply a difference. For he snatched us by the grace of predestination from the state of sin and from the mass of perdition, as the Gloss says on that text of Romans, chapter eight2: Whom he predestined, these also he called, and the text itself indicates [it]; but this state is not to be found in Christ in any way. And thus, as regards the first, there is simply agreement; as regards the last, namely as regards the state3, difference.

But as regards the two intermediate [points] there is partly agreement, partly difference. For in us predestination is with respect to nature, and also with respect to person, and more properly with respect to person than to nature. But in Christ predestination is by reason of the assumed nature, which follows the divine disposition, not by reason of person; and thus there is in a certain way agreement, and in a certain way difference, with respect to the one predestined. — With respect also to the term it is likewise so4. For we are predestined to grace and glory, and likewise also Christ; but we are predestined to partake of grace and glory successively, whereas Christ [partakes] at the same time. Likewise, we are predestined to the grace of a singular person, but Christ to the grace of the union and of the singular person5; and thus he has as much as we and abounds beyond us; and through this he in a certain way agrees, in a certain way exceeds. It is true, therefore, that Christ's predestination is in a certain way conformable and in a certain way unconformable; and if it be described according to that in which it is conformable, there is univocation; but according to that in which it disagrees, there is not.

To the arguments: And through this the arguments for both sides are clear. For the first ones, which show that it is conformable to our predestination, proceed from the side of the one predestining, or of the one predestined as regards nature, or from the side of the term as regards grace and glory; and thus they conclude truly. But the arguments to the opposite proceed concerning predestination itself from the side of the initial state, or from the side of the one predestined by reason of person, or from the side of the term by reason of the divine union; and each is to be conceded along its own paths.

Scholion

I. Already above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1–3, many things were said about predestination with respect to Christ; to which place we refer the reader. — This first question lucidly and with fitting distinctions explains the whole matter. St. Thomas uses the same distinctions in his Commentary (III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, subquestion 2) and has the same conclusions. But in general he says that Christ's predestination and ours are not of the same account, but agree only according to analogy. For which he adds this reason, that the specific account of any motion is taken from the term to which, which in Christ is the union in the person, which agrees only according to a certain analogy with the union by operation (grace and glory), which is the term to which in the rest of the predestined. p. 245— On this first question: Alexander of Hales, Summa, part III, q. 3, m. 6. — Blessed Albert, III Sent., d. 10, a. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, III Sent., d. 10, a. 4, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, lat. dub. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, III Sent., d. 7, q. 3, briefly touches the questions of this article.

II. The following (second) question St. Thomas (Summa III, q. 24, a. 3) solves with the same conclusion, but explains it in somewhat differing words. Others do not treat it explicitly; but some touch on it in the following (third) question.

III. The third question of this article is commonly solved in this sense, that Christ's predestination can be the cause of our predestination only by reason of the term; nor under this respect can it be the principal efficient cause, which belongs to God alone, just as neither [can it be] the principal final cause. Nevertheless, "God foreordained our salvation from eternity by predestining, that it might be accomplished through Jesus Christ" (St. Thomas, Summa III, q. 24, a. 4). — On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 5. — St. Thomas, Commentary, loc. cit., subquestion 3. — Blessed Albert, loc. cit., a. 20. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit., q. 2. — Giles of Rome, loc. cit., lat. dub. 2. — Durandus, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Codd. quod, sed contra text. Magistri, hic c. 1.
    The codices [read] quod, but against the text of the Master, here c. 1.
  2. De hac definitione vide tom. I. pag. 702, nota 6. et pag. 704, nota 3. — Subinde pro sed hoc edd. sed haec.
    On this definition see vol. I, p. 702, note 6, and p. 704, note 3. — Then, for sed hoc ("but this") the editions [read] sed haec.
  3. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. 1: Univoca vero dicuntur quorum et nomen commune est, et secundum nomen eadem substantiae ratio, ut animal et homo etc. — De minori cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1.
    Aristotle, Categories, c. 1: "Things are called univocal of which both the name is common and the account of substance according to the name is the same, as animal and man," etc. — On the minor [premise] cf. above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1.
  4. Cfr. infra arg. 1. pro parte negat., et l. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. 2.
    Cf. below, argument 1 for the negative side, and I Sent., d. 40, a. 1, q. 2.
  5. Sive de Praedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 15. n. 31: Ea gratia fit ab initio fidei suae homo quicumque Christianus, qua gratia homo ille ab initio suo factus est Christus. — Paulo inferius pro Christianos fecit codd. I L Z aa cc Christianos facit.
    Or [rather] On the Predestination of the Saints, c. 15, n. 31: "By that grace any man whatever becomes a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from his beginning was made Christ." — A little below, for Christianos fecit ("made [them] Christians") the codices I L Z aa cc [read] Christianos facit ("makes [them] Christians").
  6. Cap. 17. n. 34. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 702, nota 3. et pag. 705, nota 3. Vide etiam August., II. Contra duas epist. Pelagian. c. 10. n. 22.
    Chapter 17, n. 34. Cf. vol. I, p. 702, note 3, and p. 705, note 3. See also Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, II, c. 10, n. 22.
  7. Vide hic nota 3. — De minori cfr. d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et d. 14. per totam.
    See here note 3. — On the minor [premise] cf. d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 ff. and d. 14 throughout.
  8. Ut ostensum est supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 1. — Quoad ipsam minorem S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 10. q. 3, speciali quaestione probat, dici posse, naturam in Christo esse praedestinatam, vel personam ratione naturae.
    As was shown above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 1. — As to the minor [premise] itself, St. Thomas, III Sent., d. 10, q. 3, in a special question proves that it can be said that in Christ the nature is predestined, or the person by reason of the nature.
  9. Vers. 4. — Seq. loc. Script. est Ioan. 3, 34. — Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. 3. — Ratio deinde in conclusione adducta ab Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 52. et 64. (c. 6. 7.), sic exprimitur: Ratio [proportio] autem nulla est infiniti ad finitum.
    Verse 4. — The following passage of Scripture is John 3, 34. — Cf. above, d. 7, a. 2, q. 3. — The reasoning then adduced in the conclusion, from Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World, I, texts 52 and 64 (cc. 6, 7), is expressed thus: "There is no ratio [proportion] of the infinite to the finite."
  10. Vers. 30. — Glossa hic adducta ut ordinaria habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum et sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in Ps. 150. n. 3, ubi ad verbum legitur sic: Praedestinatio nostra non in nobis facta est, sed in occulto apud ipsum [Deum] in eius praescientia. Tria vero reliqua in nobis fiunt: vocatio, iustificatio, glorificatio. Vocamur praedicatione poenitentiae... Vocati renuntiamus diabolo per poenitentiam, ne sub iugo eius remaneamus etc. Cfr. Glossa interlinearis, allegata supra pag. 177, nota 8. Animadverte etiam, quod August., de Dono persever. c. 14. n. 35, definita prius praedestinatione (quod sit « praescientia scilicet et praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur quicumque liberantur »), dicit: Ceteri autem ubi nisi in massa perditionis iusto divino iudicio relinquuntur?
    Verse 30. — The Gloss here adduced is held as the ordinary [Gloss] in Strabo and Lyra, and is taken from Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 150, n. 3, where word for word it reads thus: "Our predestination was not made in us, but hidden with him [God] in his foreknowledge. But the three remaining things are done in us: calling, justification, glorification. We are called by the preaching of penance... Being called, we renounce the devil through penance, lest we remain under his yoke," etc. Cf. the interlinear Gloss, cited above p. 177, note 8. Note also that Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, c. 14, n. 35, having first defined predestination (that it is "the foreknowledge, namely, and preparation of God's benefits, by which whoever are freed are most certainly freed"), says: "But the rest — where, except in the mass of perdition, are they left by the just divine judgment?"
  11. Cod. M subtexuit initialem, Vat. est simpliciter.
    Codex M added beneath initialem ("initial"); the Vatican edition [reads] est simpliciter ("there is simply").
  12. Vat. bene supplet quodam modo convenientia, et quodam modo differentia, edd. 1, 2 differentia tantum. Mox plurimi codd. omittunt similiter. Deinde codd. I K L T U V aa bis pro nos sumus substituunt nos fuimus, codd. A F G Q U percipiendam pro participandam, et pro gratiam et gloriam edd. et non pauci codd. gloriam et gratiam.
    The Vatican edition well supplies quodam modo convenientia, et quodam modo differentia ("in a certain way agreement, and in a certain way difference"), [whereas] editions 1, 2 [have] differentia ("difference") only. Then most codices omit similiter ("likewise"). Next, the codices I K L T U V aa twice substitute nos fuimus ("we were") for nos sumus ("we are"), the codices A F G Q U [read] percipiendam for participandam, and for gratiam et gloriam ("grace and glory") the editions and not a few codices [read] gloriam et gratiam ("glory and grace").
  13. Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. et a. 2. q. 2.
    Cf. below, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 ff. and a. 2, q. 2.
← Dist. 11, Divisio TextusDist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 2→