Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 12
QUAESTIO II. Utrum fuisset congruum assumere Adam.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum congruum fuisset, ipsum Adam assumi. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia Christus debuit esse de genere Adae, ut satisfaceret pro peccato totius generis, quod processit de lumbis Adaep264-1: ergo pari ratione debuit Dei Filius ipsum Adam assumere, ut pro peccato ipsius Adae congruentissime satisfaceret.
2. Item, nullum magis decet sustinere poenam pro culpa, quam eum qui culpam commisit: si ergo homo assumtus puniri debuit pro peccato Adae, sicut et factum est; videtur, quod nullum alium hominem adeo decuit assumerep264-2, sicut primum hominem.
3. Item, efficacius curat morbum qui curat ipsum in sua originep264-3, quam qui in ramo; sed morbus corruptionis humani generis ortum habuit in Adam, et curatus fuit in Christo: ergo perfectius curatus fuisset, si Filius Dei assumsisset primum hominem, quam assumendo aliquem de eius genere. Sed decet summum medicum facere omne quod attestatur perfectioni medicinae: ergo etc.
4. Item, ad hoc, quod anima curetur per adventum Spiritus sancti, necesse est, quod Spiritus sanctus in eandem animam descendat, in qua prius habitavit culpa: ergo pari ratione, si per adventum Filii Dei debuit peccatum primi parentis curari, videtur, quod ipsum debuerit assumere magis quam alium. Quodsi dicas, quod non decuit propter culpam praeambulam; sed contra: Spiritus sanctus sicp264-4 purificat animam, quod nulla est indecentia, ut habitet in anima, in qua prius fuit culpa; sic etiam sanctificavit carnem Verbi, ut in nullo derogaretur Christo, quod fuit de nostra massa: ergo videtur, quod sic anima Adae potuit purificari et caro, quod in ipsius assumtione in nullo derogaretur excellentiae ipsius Filii Dei.
Sed contra: 1. Non decuit Deum facere, ut aliquis de malitia sua reportaret commodum; sed si Adam propter reparationem faciendam de culpa commissa assumeretur a Verbo, reportaret ineffabile commodum: ergo hoc esset contra divinam iustitiamp264-5. Sed hoc non decet Deum: ergo etc.
2. Item, talis debuit satisfacere, qui nullius esset debitor poenae, sicut dicit Anselmusp264-6, quia satisfactio est, cum fit opus alias indebitum, sicut dicitur in libro de Regulis fidei; sed Adam fuit poenae debitor propter culpam, quam commisit: ergo nullatenus decuit, ipsum ad satisfaciendum assumi.
3. Item, quidquid sit de aliis, tamen esse vel dici peccatorem vere nullo modo decet Deum; sed illa unio facit idiomatum communicationem: ergo si Adam assumtus fuisset a Dei Filio, Filius Dei esset et diceretur vere peccator. Si ergo hoc nullo modo decetp264-7, videtur etc.
4. Item, si Adam assumsisset, cum Deus decrevisset genus humanum ex Adam propagare, iuncta sibi Eva, ergo aut decretum suump264-8 sive dispositio non mansisset, aut Christus ex commixtione cum femina generasset; sed utrumque est omnino indecens: ergo omnino indecens fuit, Dei Filium assumere hominem primum.
CONCLUSIO.
Non decuit Dei Filium assumere ipsum Adam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio non sic decuit Dei Filium assumere ipsum Adam, sicut aliquam aliam substantiam eiusdem generis, sicut patet ex ipso opere divino.
Et ratio huius est, quia non conveniebat omniump264-9 Creatori, nec conveniebat primo homini, nec expediebat humano generi. Creatori omnium non competebat, ut persona Dei hominem assumeret peccatorem, cum ipse in forma assumta deberet peccatores ceteros iudicarep264-10, et tamen nullatenus de peccato argui posse, sive secundum naturam assumentem, sive secundum naturam assumtam, secundum quarum utramque competebat ei potestas iudiciaria. — Primo homini non conveniebat, ut ille qui tantum se deiecerat per culpam, tantum exaltaretur, ut Deus esset. Sufficiebat namque sibi et excedebat, ut saltem ei Deus reconciliaretur, nedum quod ille Deus efficeretur. — Generi etiam humano non expediebat, quia, cum ille homo esset poenae debitor, utpote ille qui reus erat omnium animarum nostrarump265-1, non esset eius passio adeo Deo grata, sicut si omnino esset innocens, et vix etiam sufficeret ad satisfaciendum pro se, nedum quod aliis satisfactionem suam posset communicare. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod non decuit Filium Dei assumere primum hominem.
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod de genere humano debuit satisfacere; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia potuit aliquis esse de genere hominum, qui communicaret cum hominibus in natura et non communicaret in culpa. Non sic autem est de Adam, quia, ex quo peccavit, necessarium fuit, ipsum peccasse; et si Filius Dei ipsum assumsisset, eum qui poenae debitor erat, assumeretp265-2; ideo non est simile.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullum magis decet puniri, quam eum qui peccavit; dicendum, quod verum est de poena divinae ultionis; sed non est verum de poena divinae placationis. Magis enim Deus placari potuit per poenam innocentis quam per poenam rei et iniusti; et taliter punitus est Christus pro peccatis nostris. Nullius enim alterius poena poterat esse sufficiens meritum satisfactionis, quamvis esset aequum instrumentum divinae ultionis.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de curatione morbi in radice, dicendum, quod verum est, quod perfectior est curatio, ubi radix ita potest purificari, sicut ramus; sic autem non est in proposito. Nam etsi Adam adeo purificari posset, ut nullam culpam actu haberet, nunquam tamen sic purificari potuit, ut nullam culpam habuisset. Et hoc quidem decebat habere Dei et hominum mediatorem, ut sua oblatione sufficienter placaret severitatem divinae iustitiae. — Aliae etiam rationes sunt, quare morbus in sua origine curari non debuit; sed illae assignatae sunt in secundo libro in tractatu de peccato originalip265-3, et aliquae in quarto, in tractatu de Sacramento baptismi.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non purificantur per Spiritum sanctum nisi animae, quibus unitur per amorem; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia aliter purificantur per Christum, aliter per Spiritum sanctum. Per Spiritum sanctum namque purificantur sicut per causam effectivam, sed per Christum tanquam per causam meritoriamp265-4. Et quia aliquis potest mereri alii diverso a se; hinc est, quod non oportet, mediatorem Dei et hominum sic cuilibet uniri, sicut Spiritus sanctus. — Est etiam differentia in unione, quia Spiritus sanctus illabitur nobis, ita tamen, quod non unitur nobis unione personali, quae facit, idiomata communicari; unde non est peccator, quamvis illabatur peccatori. Sed Filius unitur unione personali, in qua est idiomatum communicatio; et ideo non sic decuit ipsum uniri animae peccatrici, sicut decet Spiritum sanctum mitti in eam animam, quae prius fuit peccatrix. Et sic patet totump265-5.
---
QUESTION II. Whether it would have been fitting to assume Adam.
Secondly it is asked whether it would have been fitting that Adam himself be assumed. And that it would, it seems:
1. Because Christ had to be of the race of Adam, in order to satisfy for the sin of the whole race, which proceeded from the loins of Adamp264-1: therefore by parity of reasoning the Son of God ought to have assumed Adam himself, so as most fittingly to satisfy for the sin of Adam himself.
2. Likewise, none is more fitting to undergo punishment for a fault than he who committed the fault: if therefore the assumed man had to be punished for the sin of Adam, as indeed was done, it seems that it was fitting to assume no other man so muchp264-2 as the first man.
3. Likewise, he cures a disease more effectively who cures it in its originp264-3 than he who [cures it] in the branch; but the disease of the corruption of the human race took its origin in Adam, and was cured in Christ: therefore the cure would have been more perfect, if the Son of God had assumed the first man, than by assuming someone of his race. But it befits the highest physician to do everything that attests to the perfection of the cure: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, in order that the soul be healed through the coming of the Holy Spirit, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit descend into the same soul in which fault previously dwelt: therefore by parity of reasoning, if through the coming of the Son of God the sin of the first parent had to be cured, it seems that he ought to have assumed him rather than another. But if you say that it was not fitting on account of antecedent fault; on the contrary: the Holy Spirit sop264-4 purifies the soul that there is no unfittingness in his dwelling in a soul in which fault previously was; so too he sanctified the flesh of the Word, so that in nothing was it derogatory to Christ that it was of our mass: therefore it seems that thus the soul of Adam could be purified, and the flesh, so that in his being assumed nothing would be derogatory to the excellence of the Son of God himself.
On the contrary: 1. It was not fitting for God to bring it about that anyone should derive benefit from his own malice; but if Adam, for the sake of making the reparation, were assumed by the Word for the fault he had committed, he would derive an unspeakable benefit: therefore this would be against the divine justicep264-5. But this does not befit God: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, such a one had to make satisfaction as would be a debtor of punishment to no one, as Anselm saysp264-6, because satisfaction occurs when a work is done that is otherwise not owed, as is said in the book On the Rules of Faith; but Adam was a debtor of punishment on account of the fault which he committed: therefore in no way was it fitting that he be assumed for making satisfaction.
3. Likewise, whatever may be the case concerning others, yet to be or to be truly called a sinner in no way befits God; but that union brings about a communication of idioms: therefore if Adam had been assumed by the Son of God, the Son of God would be and would truly be called a sinner. If therefore this in no way befitsp264-7, it seems etc.
4. Likewise, if he had assumed Adam, since God had decreed to propagate the human race from Adam, Eve being joined to him, then either his decreep264-8 or arrangement would not have stood, or Christ would have generated by intercourse with a woman; but each is wholly unbecoming: therefore it was wholly unbecoming for the Son of God to assume the first man.
CONCLUSION.
It was not fitting for the Son of God to assume Adam himself.
I respond: It must be said that, without doubt, it was not fitting for the Son of God to assume Adam himself in the way [he assumed] some other substance of the same race, as is plain from the divine work itself.
And the reason for this is that it was not suitable for the Creator of allp264-9, nor was it suitable for the first man, nor was it expedient for the human race. It was not fitting for the Creator of all that the person of God should assume a sinful man, since he himself in the assumed form would have to judge the rest of the sinnersp264-10, and yet could in no way be arraigned for sin, neither according to the assuming nature nor according to the assumed nature, according to each of which judiciary power belonged to him. — It was not suitable for the first man that he who had cast himself down so far through fault should be exalted so far as to be God. For it was enough for him and beyond his due that God should at least be reconciled to him, far less that he should be made God. — Nor was it expedient for the human race, because, since that man was a debtor of punishment, inasmuch as he was guilty of all our soulsp265-1, his passion would not be so pleasing to God as if he were wholly innocent, and would scarcely even suffice to make satisfaction for himself, far less be able to communicate his satisfaction to others. — Therefore the reasons proving that it was not fitting for the Son of God to assume the first man are to be granted.
1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that he ought to make satisfaction from the human race; it must be said that there is no parallel, because someone could be of the race of men who would share with men in nature and not share in fault. But it is not so with Adam, because, from the moment he sinned, it was necessary that he had sinned; and if the Son of God had assumed him, he would assume one who was a debtor of punishmentp265-2; therefore there is no parallel.
2. To that which is objected, that none is more fitting to be punished than he who sinned; it must be said that this is true of the punishment of divine vengeance; but it is not true of the punishment of divine appeasement. For God could be more appeased through the punishment of an innocent one than through the punishment of one guilty and unjust; and in this manner was Christ punished for our sins. For the punishment of no other could be a sufficient merit of satisfaction, although it would be a just instrument of divine vengeance.
3. To that which is objected concerning the curing of the disease in the root, it must be said that it is true that the cure is more perfect where the root can be purified just as the branch; but it is not so in the case at hand. For even if Adam could be so purified as to have no fault in act, yet he could never be so purified as not to have had any fault. And this indeed it befitted the Mediator of God and men to have, so that by his offering he might sufficiently appease the severity of the divine justice. — There are also other reasons why the disease ought not to be cured in its origin; but those have been set down in the second book in the treatise on original sinp265-3, and some in the fourth, in the treatise on the Sacrament of baptism.
4. To that which is objected, that none are purified through the Holy Spirit except souls to which he is united through love; it must be said that there is no parallel, because [souls] are purified in one way through Christ, in another through the Holy Spirit. For through the Holy Spirit they are purified as by an effective cause, but through Christ as by a meritorious causep265-4. And because someone can merit for another different from himself; hence it is that the Mediator of God and men need not be united to each one in the way the Holy Spirit [is]. — There is also a difference in the union, because the Holy Spirit glides into us, yet in such a way that he is not united to us by a personal union, which causes idioms to be communicated; whence he is not a sinner, although he glides into a sinner. But the Son is united by a personal union, in which there is a communication of idioms; and therefore it was not fitting for him to be united to a sinful soul, as it befits the Holy Spirit to be sent into that soul which previously was sinful. And thus the whole is clearp265-5.
---
- Cfr. quaest. praeced.Cf. the preceding question.
- Vat. assumi.The Vatican edition reads assumi [to be assumed].
- Pro origine edd. hic, sicut et infra in solut. recurrit, radice. Subinde post quam qui edd. repetunt curat et cod. I pro in ramo substituit in fine, cod. Z in ultimo.For origine [origin] the editions here, as it recurs also below in the solution, [read] radice [root]. Then after quam qui the editions repeat curat, and codex I substitutes for in ramo [in the branch] in fine, codex Z in ultimo.
- Edd. sicut et dein pro sanctificavit exhibent purificavit. Mox pro Christo, quod Vat. Christo, qui.The editions [read] sicut, and then for sanctificavit [sanctified] they present purificavit [purified]. Presently for Christo, quod the Vatican edition [reads] Christo, qui.
- Cod. D divinam naturam et iustitiam.Codex D [reads] divinam naturam et iustitiam [the divine nature and justice].
- Libr. I. Cur Deus homo, c. 20. et II. c. 11. — Definitio satisfactionis hic memorata habetur in Alani ab Insul. libro de Articul. cathol. fidei, II. in princip., et sonat ibi sic: Satisfactio peccati est [ad] honorem eius contra quem peccatum est, aliquid sufficienter factum, alias indebitum. — Pro qui nullius esset debitor poenae cod. S qui immunis esset debito poenae. In fine arg. pro satisfaciendum cod. K satisfactionem.Book I, Cur Deus homo, c. 20, and II, c. 11. — The definition of satisfaction mentioned here is found in Alan of Lille's book On the Articles of the Catholic Faith, II, at the beginning, and it runs there thus: Satisfaction for sin is something done sufficiently [to] the honor of him against whom the sin is, [something] otherwise not owed. — For qui nullius esset debitor poenae [who would be a debtor of punishment to none] codex S [reads] qui immunis esset debito poenae [who would be exempt from the debt of punishment]. At the end of the argument, for satisfaciendum codex K [reads] satisfactionem.
- Pro confirmatione dicitur Hebr. 7, 26: Talis enim decebat, ut nobis esset pontifex sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus etc.In confirmation it is said in Hebrews 7, 26: For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, etc.
- Codd. G R S et edd. 1, 2 omittunt suum, pro quo codd. A P Dei. In princip. arg. post Item, si edd. supplent Deus.Codices G R S and editions 1, 2 omit suum [his], in place of which codices A P [read] Dei [of God]. At the beginning of the argument, after Item, si the editions supply Deus [God].
- Pro omnium cod. A hic et paulo inferius hominum.For omnium [of all] codex A here and a little below [reads] hominum [of men].
- Respicitur illud Ioan. 5, 22. seqq.: Omne iudicium dedit [Pater] Filio... et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est — nec non illud Ioan. 5, 46: Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Cfr. ibid. 9, 39. et 12, 31. — Pro et tamen Vat. et ita.Reference is made to that passage of John 5, 22 ff.: [The Father] has given all judgment to the Son... and has given him power to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man — and also that of John 5, 46: Which of you shall convict me of sin? Cf. ibid. 9, 39 and 12, 31. — For et tamen the Vatican edition [reads] et ita.
- Respicitur illud I. Reg. 22, 22: Ego sum reus omnium animarum patris tui. Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 23, ubi docet, per redemptorem iustificari debere omnes homines, ait: «Sed hoc facere nullatenus potest homo peccator, quia peccator peccatorem iustificare nequit». — Paulo inferius pro nedum quod... posset Vat. nec tunc... posset, edd. 1, 2 non.. potuit.Reference is made to that passage of 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 22, 22: I am guilty of all the souls of thy father. Anselm, I, Cur Deus homo, c. 23, where he teaches that all men must be justified through the Redeemer, says: «But this a sinful man can in no way do, because a sinner cannot justify a sinner». — A little below, for nedum quod... posset the Vatican edition [reads] nec tunc... posset, editions 1, 2 non.. potuit.
- Edd. assumsisset.The editions [read] assumsisset [he would have assumed].
- Dist. 32. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. et dub. 1, nec non IV. Sent. d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.Distinction 32, art. 1, q. 2, in the body and dubium 1, and also IV Sent., d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 2.
- Vide supra d. 10. a. 2. q. 2, d. 11. a. 1. q. 3, d. 19.See above, d. 10, a. 2, q. 2; d. 11, a. 1, q. 3; d. 19.
- Cod. bb patet primum. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.Codex bb [reads] patet primum. — See the scholion to the preceding question.