← Back to Distinction 11

Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 247

Quaestio III. Utrum in praedestinatione Christi respectu nostrae sit vera causalitatis ratio.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum in praedestinatione Christi respectu nostrae sit vera ratio causalitatis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Ephesios primo1: Praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum; sed non nisi per Christum praedestinatum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Gregorius2 dicit, quod praedestinatio iuvatur orationibus Sanctorum: ergo si improportionabiliter plus efficaciae habent circa nos merita Christi quam aliquorum Sanctorum, restat, quod non solum per Christi praedestinationem nostra praedestinatio iuvatur, verum etiam causatur; nam ipsum iuvare quodam modo causare est.

3. Item, sicut se habet Christi resurrectio ad nostram resurrectionem, sic se habet praedestinatio ad praedestinationem; sed resurrectio Christi est causa nostrae, sicut dicitur in Glossa, primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto3: ergo et praedestinatio Christi causa est praedestinationis nostrae.

4. Item, per eum sumus praedestinati, per quem sumus salvati; sed salvati sumus per Christum, ad Titum tertio4: Secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus sancti, quem effudit in nos per Iesum Christum; et ad Ephesios quarto dicitur, quod ascendit, ut adimpleret omnia: restat igitur, quod per Christum sumus praedestinati. Sed Christus non esset, nisi eius praedestinatio praecessisset: ergo praedestinatio Christi est causa nostrae.

Sed contra: 1. Nullum aeternum habet causam; praedestinatio cuiuslibet hominis est aeterna5: ergo a nullo est causata: ergo praedestinatio Christi non potest esse causa nostrae praedestinationis. Si tu dicas, quod hoc est ratione connotati temporalis; sed contra: nihil posterius est causa prioris; sed effectus praedestinationis Christi est posterior effectu praedestinationis Patrum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Christo non convenit praedestinari nisi secundum humanam naturam6; sed secundum humanam naturam non habet super nos causalitatem: ergo praedestinatio Christi non potest esse causa nostrae praedestinationis.

3. Item, si praedestinatio Christi est causa nostrae, aut ratione principalis significati, aut ratione connotati; ratione principalis significati non, hoc constat: ergo ratione connotati. Sed contra: gratia et gloria a solo Deo est tanquam a causa7: non ergo a praedestinatione Christi.

4. Item, contingens non est causa necessarii8; sed ante adventum Christi necessarium fuit, aliquos praedestinatos fuisse, illos videlicet, qui mortui fuerunt cum gratia; Christum autem possibile fuit non incarnari vel nasci, et ita nec esse praedestinatum: ergo praedestinatio eius non potuit esse causa aliarum.

Conclusio.

Praedestinatio Christi ratione connotati dici potest causa nostrae praedestinationis dispositiva per meritum, et excitativa per exemplum, sed non proprie effectiva.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si loquamur de praedestinatione Christi et nostra ratione principalis significati, neutra neutrius est causa, cum utraque sit aeterna, omnesque sint unum in substantia9. — Si autem loquamur ratione connotati, tunc distinguendum10, quod est causa in genere efficientis, quae proprie dicitur causa, de qua nunc loquimur; et haec est in triplici differentia, scilicet dispositiva, excitativa et effectiva. Omne enim, quod efficit disponendo, vel disponit, vel excitat disponentem, vel efficientem, aliquo modo potest dici efficere et causare.

Si ergo loquamur de causa effectiva proprie, sic praedestinatio Christi ratione connotati non potest esse causa nostrae, quoniam effectus praedestinationis a solo Deo est tanquam a principio effectivo; gratiam enim et gloriam dabit Dominus11. Si vero loquamur secundum alios duos modos, scilicet

p. 248

de causa dispositiva per rationem meriti et excitativa secundum efficaciam exempli; praedestinatio Christi quantum ad connotatum est causa nostrae. Christus enim per suam gratiam meruit nobis gratiam et gloriam. Christus etiam per suae gratiae et gloriae eminentiam manifestam excitavit nos ad currendum ad patriam supernam, ad quam praeordinati sumus secundum electionem aeternam. — Et hac via procedunt rationes, quae ostendunt, praedestinationem Christi nostrae praedestinationis esse causam; et ideo concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod praedestinatio nostra est aeterna etc.; dicendum, quod verum est ratione principalis significati, non tamen ratione connotati. Et si obiiciat, quod effectus praedestinationis aliquorum praecedat praedestinationem Christi; respondendum est sicut in praecedenti problemate1, quod etsi praecedat quantum ad effectum gratiae, non tamen quantum ad effectum gloriae. Rursus, quamvis praecedat re, non tamen merito et credulitate. Meritum enim Christi non tantum ad praesentes, vel futuros, sed etiam ratione fidei se extendit ad praeteritos; quod melius infra2 manifestabitur suo loco.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus secundum humanam naturam non est causa gratiae, vel gloriae; dicendum, quod etsi non est causa effectiva, est tamen dispositiva et excitativa; et hoc modo dictum est, praedestinationem Christi nostrae praedestinationis esse causam3. — Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicitur, quod gratia et gloria a Deo est tanquam a causa. Verum est, si dicatur de effectiva; aliis autem modis non habet veritatem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod contingens non est causa necessarii; dicendum, quod verum est, si intelligatur de causa efficiente et conservante, non tamen oportet esse verum de causa excitante4. — Potest tamen et aliter dici, quod est necessarium dupliciter: uno modo quod est necessarium per se et simpliciter; alio modo quod est necessarium propter hoc, quod transit in praeteritum, sicut me scripsisse hodie; et illud de sui natura est contingens, et propter hoc nihil impedit, ipsum habere causam contingentem. — Potest etiam distingui in5 contingente, quod quoddam est contingens, quod pendet a vertibilitate voluntatis humanae et causae creatae; quoddam propter libertatem et indifferentiam divinae voluntatis, quae potest facere et non facere. Et quamvis primum contingens non possit esse causa necessarii, nihil tamen impedit de secundo.

Medius autem modus dicendi videtur rationabilior. Et si tu obiicias, quod illud non solvit, quia, posito quod Christus non esset incarnatus, adhuc alius modus erat Deo possibilis, per quem genus humanum esset liberatum6: ergo remota praedestinatione Christi, adhuc salva esset praedestinatio nostra: ergo non est causa; dicendum, quod hoc non cogit, quod non sit causa, sed quod non sit causa tota et per omnem modum causandi, est tamen per aliquem modum; sicut Deus facit per aliquem hominem aliquod bonum, et si ille homo non esset, nihilominus faceret; et tamen non sequitur propter hoc, quod ille non sit causa. Non enim valet hic modus arguendi in voluntariis7. — Et haec sufficiant de praedestinatione Christi a parte rei. Supra enim distinctione septima8 quaesitum fuit de ipsa a parte sermonis9.

English Translation

Question III. Whether in Christ's predestination there is a true account of causality in relation to ours.

Thirdly it is asked whether in Christ's predestination there is a true account of causality in relation to ours. And that it is so, it seems.

1. To the Ephesians, chapter one1: He predestined us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ; but [this is] only through Christ as predestined: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Gregory2 says that predestination is aided by the prayers of the Saints: therefore if the merits of Christ have disproportionately more efficacy concerning us than [the merits] of any of the Saints, it remains that our predestination is not only aided by Christ's predestination, but is even caused [by it]; for to aid is in some way to cause.

3. Likewise, as Christ's resurrection stands to our resurrection, so predestination stands to predestination; but Christ's resurrection is the cause of ours, as is said in the Gloss, on the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen3: therefore Christ's predestination too is the cause of our predestination.

4. Likewise, we are predestined through him through whom we are saved; but we are saved through Christ, to Titus, chapter three4: According to his mercy he saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured forth upon us through Jesus Christ; and to the Ephesians, chapter four, it is said that he ascended, that he might fill all things: it remains therefore that we are predestined through Christ. But Christ would not be, unless his predestination had preceded: therefore Christ's predestination is the cause of ours.

On the contrary: 1. Nothing eternal has a cause; the predestination of any man is eternal5: therefore it is caused by nothing: therefore Christ's predestination cannot be the cause of our predestination. If you should say that this is by reason of the temporal connoted; on the contrary: nothing posterior is the cause of something prior; but the effect of Christ's predestination is posterior to the effect of the predestination of the Fathers: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it does not belong to Christ to be predestined except according to his human nature6; but according to his human nature he does not have causality over us: therefore Christ's predestination cannot be the cause of our predestination.

3. Likewise, if Christ's predestination is the cause of ours, [it is so] either by reason of the principal signified, or by reason of the connoted; that it is not by reason of the principal signified, this is established: therefore by reason of the connoted. But on the contrary: grace and glory are from God alone as from a cause7: therefore not from Christ's predestination.

4. Likewise, the contingent is not the cause of the necessary8; but before Christ's coming it was necessary that some had been predestined, namely those who died in grace; but it was possible that Christ should not be incarnate or born, and thus not be predestined either: therefore his predestination could not be the cause of others.

Conclusion.

Christ's predestination, by reason of the connoted, can be called a dispositive cause of our predestination through merit, and an excitative [cause] through example, but not properly an effective [cause].

I respond: It must be said that if we speak of the predestination of Christ and ours by reason of the principal signified, neither is the cause of the other, since each is eternal, and all are one in substance9. — But if we speak by reason of the connoted, then it must be distinguished10 that there is a cause in the genus of efficient [cause], which is properly called a cause, of which we now speak; and this is found in a threefold difference, namely dispositive, excitative, and effective. For everything that effects by disposing either disposes, or rouses the one disposing, or [rouses] the one effecting, can in some way be said to effect and to cause.

If therefore we speak of an effective cause properly, then Christ's predestination by reason of the connoted cannot be the cause of ours, since the effect of predestination is from God alone as from an effective principle; for the Lord will give grace and glory11. But if we speak according to the other two modes, namely

of a dispositive cause through the ground of merit and an excitative [cause] according to the efficacy of example; Christ's predestination as regards the connoted is the cause of ours. For Christ by his grace merited grace and glory for us. Christ also, by the manifest eminence of his grace and glory, roused us to run to the supernal homeland, to which we have been preordained according to the eternal election. — And by this route proceed the arguments which show that Christ's predestination is the cause of our predestination; and therefore they are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected first on the contrary, that our predestination is eternal etc.; it must be said that this is true by reason of the principal signified, not however by reason of the connoted. And if it be objected that the effect of the predestination of some precedes Christ's predestination; the response must be as in the preceding problem1, that although it precedes as to the effect of grace, it does not however [precede] as to the effect of glory. Again, although it precedes in actuality, it does not however [precede] in merit and belief. For Christ's merit extends not only to those present, or future, but also by reason of faith to those past; which will better be made manifest below2 in its place.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that Christ according to his human nature is not the cause of grace, or of glory; it must be said that although he is not an effective cause, he is nevertheless a dispositive and excitative [cause]; and in this way it has been said that Christ's predestination is the cause of our predestination3. — And through this is evident the next [point] that is objected, that grace and glory are from God as from a cause. It is true, if it be said of the effective [cause]; but in the other modes it does not hold the truth.

4. To that which is objected, that the contingent is not the cause of the necessary; it must be said that it is true, if it be understood of an efficient and conserving cause, yet it need not be true of an excitative cause4. — Yet it can also be said otherwise, that "necessary" is twofold: in one way that which is necessary per se and absolutely; in another way that which is necessary on account of this, that it passes into the past, as my having written today; and that is of its own nature contingent, and on account of this nothing prevents it from having a contingent cause. — One can also distinguish within5 the contingent, that one kind is contingent which depends on the changeableness of the human will and of a created cause; another [is contingent] on account of the freedom and indifference of the divine will, which can act and not act. And although the first contingent cannot be the cause of the necessary, nothing nevertheless prevents [it] in regard to the second.

But the middle way of speaking seems more reasonable. And if you object that it does not solve [the difficulty], because, granted that Christ were not incarnate, still another mode was possible to God, by which the human race might be liberated6: therefore, Christ's predestination being removed, our predestination would still be safe: therefore it is not the cause; it must be said that this does not compel [the conclusion] that it is not a cause, but [only] that it is not the whole cause and [a cause] in every mode of causing, it is nevertheless [a cause] in some mode; just as God does some good through some man, and if that man were not, he would nonetheless do it; and yet it does not follow on account of this that that [man] is not a cause. For this mode of arguing does not hold in voluntary matters7. — And let these things suffice concerning Christ's predestination on the side of the reality. For above, in distinction seven8, it was inquired concerning it on the side of expression9.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 5. — De minori cfr. q. praeced.
    Verse 5. — On the minor [premise] cf. the preceding question.
  2. Libr. I. Dialog. c. 8. Verba ipsius vide tom. I. pag. 728, nota 3. — Mox pro aliquorum Sanctorum edd. et aliquot codd. aliorum Sanctorum.
    Book I of the Dialogues, c. 8. See his words in tome I, page 728, note 3. — Soon, for of any of the Saints, the editions and some codices [read] of other Saints.
  3. Vers. 12. — Glossa allegata apud Lyranum habetur ut interlinearis. Petr. Lombardus eam cum vers. cit. coniunctam sic exhibet: « Si autem hoc est, scilicet si Christus resurrexit a mortuis, qui est efficiens causa resurrectionis mortuorum » etc. Huic similis est Glossa haec, quam idem Petr. Lombardus in Ps. 29, 6. affert: Dominus mane resurrexit, idem promittens nobis per suam resurrectionem, quae est efficiens causa resurrectionis et animae in praesenti et corporis in futuro. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. I. q. 6. — In maiori cum fere omnibus codd. omisimus nostram ante praedestinationem.
    Verse 12. — The Gloss alleged is found in Lyra as interlinear. Peter Lombard, joining it with the cited verse, presents it thus: "But if this is [so], namely if Christ rose from the dead, who is the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead" etc. Like this is the following Gloss, which the same Peter Lombard adduces on Psalm 29, 6: The Lord rose early, promising us the same through his resurrection, which is the efficient cause of the resurrection both of the soul in the present and of the body in the future. Cf. IV Sent. d. 43, a. I, q. 6. — In the major [premise], with almost all codices, we have omitted our before predestination.
  4. Vers. 5. seq. In textu cit. Vulgata post effudit in nos addit abunde. Loc. ex Eph. 4. allegatus est v. 10, ubi Vulgata pro adimpleret habet impleret. — In prima conclus. post praedestinati codd. K M O repetunt per quem sumus salvati.
    Verse 5 ff. In the cited text the Vulgate, after poured forth upon us, adds abundantly. The passage alleged from Ephesians 4 is verse 10, where the Vulgate, for that he might fill, has that he might fulfil. — In the first conclusion, after predestined, codices K M O repeat through whom we are saved.
  5. Vide I. Sent. d. 40. a. I. q. I.
    See I Sent. d. 40, a. I, q. I.
  6. Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 2. q. I.
    Cf. above, d. 7, a. 2, q. I.
  7. Psalm. 83, 12: Gratiam et gloriam dabit Dominus.
    Psalm 83, 12: "The Lord will give grace and glory."
  8. Cfr. Aristot., I. Prior. c. 12.
    Cf. Aristotle, Prior [Analytics] I, c. 12.
  9. Cfr. hic q. 2. conclusio I.
    Cf. here, q. 2, conclusion I.
  10. Edd. adiiciunt est. Subinde vocula quod desideratur in cod. Z, et mox pro de qua cod. G exhibet et de qua.
    The editions add is. Thereupon the little word quod is wanting in codex Z, and soon for of which codex G presents and of which.
  11. Psalm. 83, 12. — Paulo superius voci praedestinationis Vat. praemittit nostrae.
    Psalm 83, 12. — A little above, the Vatican edition prefixes our to the word predestination.
  12. Ad 4.
    To [argument] 4.
  13. Dist. 25. a. I. q. 2.
    Distinction 25, a. I, q. 2.
  14. Cfr. infra d. 19. a. I. q. 1, ubi idem, quod hic de praedestinatione Christi dicitur, praedicatur de Christi passione. Ibid. etiam habetur solutio seq. obiect.
    Cf. below, d. 19, a. I, q. 1, where the same thing that is said here of Christ's predestination is predicated of Christ's passion. There too is found the solution of the following objection.
  15. Vide I. Sent. d. 41. a. 1. q. 1, ubi de praedestinationis causa meritoria agitur.
    See I Sent. d. 41, a. 1, q. 1, where the meritorious cause of predestination is treated.
  16. Vat. de. Mox pro vertibilitate cod. aa virtute.
    The Vatican edition [reads] de. Soon, for changeableness codex aa [reads] virtue.
  17. Cfr. infra d. 20. q. 6. et supra pag. 236, nota 2.
    Cf. below, d. 20, q. 6, and above, page 236, note 2.
  18. Vide I. Sent. d. 38. a. 1. q. I. in corp.; d. 40. a. 2. q. I. et d. 45. a. 2. q. 2.
    See I Sent. d. 38, a. 1, q. I, in the corpus; d. 40, a. 2, q. I, and d. 45, a. 2, q. 2.
  19. Art. 2. q. I. seqq.
    Article 2, q. I ff.
  20. Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to the first question of this article.
← Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 11, Art. 2, Q. 1→