← Back to Distinction 18

Dist. 18

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 18

Textus Latinus
p. 377

DISTINCTIO XVIII.

Cap. I. Si Christus meruit sibi et nobis, et quid sibi et quid nobis.

De merito etiam Christi praetermittendump377-1 non est, de quo quidam dicere solent, quod non sibi, sed membris tantum meruerit. Meruit quidem membris redemptionem a diabolo, a peccato, a poena et regni reserationem, ut, amota ignea romphea, libere pateret introitus; sed et sibi meruit impassibilitatis et immortalitatis gloriam, sicut ait Apostolusp377-2: Christus factus est pro nobis obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Aperte dicit Apostolus, Christum propterea exaltatum per impassibilitatis gloriam, quia est humiliatus per passionis obedientiam; humilitas ergo passionis meritum fuit exaltationis, et exaltatio praemium humilitatis. Unde Augustinusp377-3, exponens praemissum capitulum, ait: «Ut Christus resurrectione clarificaretur, prius humiliatus est passione; humilitas claritatis est meritum, claritas humilitatis est praemium. Sed hoc totum factum est in forma servi; in forma enim Dei semper fuit et erit claritas». Item Ambrosius, idem capitulum tractans, ait: «Quid et quantum humilitas mereatur, hic ostenditur». — His testimoniis evidens fit, quod Christus per humilitatem et obedientiam passionis meruit clarificationem corporis, nec id solum, sed etiam impassibilitatem animae. Anima enim ipsius ante mortem erat passibilis, sicut caro mortalis; sed post mortem merito humilitatis et anima impassibilis facta est, et caro immortalis. Utrum autem anima facta sit impassibilis, quando caro facta est immortalis, scilicet ipso resurrectionis momento, de auctoritate nobis certum non est; sed vel mox post carnis separationem anima impassibilitate donata est, aut in resurrectione, quando caro refloruitp377-4.

Cap. II. Quod a conceptu meruit Christus sibi idem, quod per passionem.

Nec solum hoc meruit Christus, quando Patri obediens crucem subiit, sed etiam ab ipsa conceptione, ex quo homo factus est, per caritatem et iustitiam et alias virtutes, in quarum plenitudine fuit secundum hominem conditus, sibi tantum meruit, quantum post per martyrii tolerantiam. Tanta enim plenitudo spiritualium charismatum in eo fuit, quod in eis proficere non potuit; et ideo melior ipsius anima fieri non potuit, quam ab initio suae conditionis exstitit, quia proficere in meritis non valuit. Unde Gregoriusp377-5 ait: «Non habuit omnino Christus iuxta animae meritum, quo potuisset proficere; in membris autem, quae nos sumus, quotidie proficit». — Non ergo plus meruit sibi per crucis patibulum, quam a conceptione meruit per gratiam virtutum. Non igitur profecit secundum animae meritum quantum ad virtutem meriti; profecit tamen quantum ad numerum meritorum. Plura enim habuit merita in passione quam in conceptione; sed maioris virtutis non exstiterunt in merendo plura, quam ante fuerant pauciora. Meruit ergo a conceptione non modo gloriam impassibilitatis et immortalitatis corporis, sed etiam impassibilitatem animae. Per quid? Per obedientiam et voluntatem perfectam, quam non tunc primo habuit nec maiorem, cum pati coepit et mori. Obediens enim perfectep377-6 et bonus exstitit secundum hominem, ex quo fuit homo. — Habuit igitur anima illa aliquod bonum in se post mortem, quod non habuit ante. Num igitur melior vel beatior fuit quam ante? Absit, quod melior fuerit, quia non sanctior, non gratia cumulatior; nec etiam beatior fuit in Dei contemplatione, in quo praecipue beatitudo consistit. Potest tamen dici in hoc fuisse beatior, quia ab omni

p. 378

miseria immunis; ex quo nequit inferri simpliciter, quod beatior fuerit.

Cap. III. De eo quod scriptum est: Donavit illi nomen, quod est supra omne nomen.

Nec tantum gloriam impassibilitatis et immortalitatis meruit, sed etiam donari sibi nomen, quod est super omne nomen, scilicet honorificentiam, quod vocatur Deus. Hoc tamen nomen ante mortem habuit. Habuit enim hoc nomen Dei, in quantum Deus est, ab aeterno per naturam; in quantum vero homo factus est, habuit ex tempore per gratiam. Verumtamen Augustinusp378-1 dicit, «homini donatum esse illud nomen, non Deo, quia illud nomen habuit, cum in forma Dei tantum erat; sed cum dicitur: Propter quod illum exaltavit et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen, satis apparet, propter quid exaltaverit, id est propter obedientiam, et in qua forma exaltatus sit. In qua enim forma crucifixus est, in ea exaltatus est, et in ea donatum est ei nomen, ut cum ipsa forma servi nominetur unigenitus Filius Dei: hoc illi donatum est ut homini, quod iam habebat idem ipse Deus». Hoc igitur per gratiam accepit, ut ipse ens homo vel subsistens in forma servi, id est in anima et carne, nominetur et sit Deus. — Sed numquid hoc meruit? Suprap378-2 enim dictum est, quia hoc tantum bonum homo ille non meruit; quomodo ergo hic dicitur: Propter obedientiam donatum est ei hoc nomen? Secundum tropum illum in Scriptura creberrimum hoc accipiendum est, quo dicitur res fieri, «quando innotescitp378-3». Post resurrectionem vero quod ante erat in evidenti positum est, ut scirent homines et daemones. Manifestationem ergo illius nominis donavit ei Deus post resurrectionem, sed illam meruit per obedientiam passionis, qui, eo quod obedivit patiendo, exaltatus est resurgendo, et per hoc manifestatum est nomen. Hoc eodem tropo usus est etiam Dominus post resurrectionem dicensp378-4: Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra, non quod tunc primo acceperit, sed quam ante habebat, tunc manifestata est potestas. Ceterum Ambrosiusp378-5 dicit, nomen illud donatum esse Deo, non homini, et videtur secundum verborum superficiem oppositus Augustino; sed intelligentia non obviat, licet diversum sapiat. Nam Ambrosius de naturali donatione id dictum intelligit, qua aeternaliter Pater generando dedit Filio nomen, quod est super omne nomen, scilicet esse Deum per naturam, quia genuit ab aeterno Filium plenum et sibi aequalem Deum; quod tamen nomen Apostolus propter passionis obedientiam Christo donatum dicit; sed praemisso locutionis modo accipiendum est.

Cap. IV. Si Christus sine omni merito habere valuit quod merito obtinuit.

Si vero quaeritur, utrum Christus illam immortalitatis et impassibilitatis gloriam et nominis Dei manifestationem sine omni merito habere potuerit; sane dici potest, quia humanam naturam ita gloriosam suscipere potuit, sicut in resurrectione exstitit, nomenque suum etiam aliter hominibus manifestare potuit; sed homo passibilis esse non potuit, sicut fuit, et ad illam gloriam sine merito pervenire. Potuit quidem pervenire ad illam sine merito passionis, quia potuit, consumta mortalitate, immortalitatis gloria vestiri, sed non sine merito iustitiae et caritatis aliarumque virtutum. Non enim Christus homo esse potuit, in quo plenitudo virtutum et gratiae non fuerit; nec virtutes ei inesse potuerunt, cilicio mortalitatis induto, quin per eas mereretur. Habens igitur has virtutes secundum hominem passibilem ac mortalem, non potuit non mereri gloriam immortalitatis; non igitur potuit, factus mortalis, sine merito gloriam impassibilitatis et immortalitatis ac manifestationem Dei nominis consequi. Potuit tamen haecp378-6 assequi sine merito passionis, quia per passionem nil sibi meruit, quod non ante per virtutes meruerit.

Cap. V. De causa passionis et mortis Christi.

Ad quid ergo voluit pati et mori, si ei virtutes ad merendum illa sufficiebant? Pro te, non pro se. Quomodo pro me? Ut ipsius passio et mors tibi esset forma et causa: forma virtutis et humilitatis, causa gloriae et libertatis; forma Deo usque ad mortem obediendi, et causa tuae liberationis ac beatitudinis. Meruit enim nobis per mortis ac passionis tolerantiam, quod per praecedentia non meruerat, scilicet aditum paradisi et redemptionem a peccato, a poena, a diabolo; et per mortem eius haec nos adepti sumus, scilicet redemptionem et filiorum gloriae adoptionem. Ipse enim moriendo factus est hostia nostrae liberationis. — Sed quomodo per mortem nos a diabolo et a peccato redemit et aditum gloriae aperuit? Decreverat Deus in mysterio, ut ait Ambrosiusp378-7, propter primum peccatum non intromitti hominem in paradisum, id est, ad Dei contemplationem non admitti, nisi in uno homine tanta existeret humilitas, quae omnibus suis proficere posset, sicut in primo homine tanta fuit superbia, quae omnibus suis nocuit. Non est autem inventus inter homines aliquis, qui id posset implere, nisi leo de tribu Iuda, qui aperuit librum et solvit signacula, implendo in se omnem iustitiam, id est consummatissimam hu-

p. 379

militatem, qua maior esse non potest. Nam omnes alii homines debitores erant, et vix unicuique sua virtus sufficiebat et humilitas. Nullus ergo eorum hostiam poterat offerre sufficientem nostrae reconciliationi. Sed Christus homo sufficiens et perfecta fuit hostia, qui multo amplius est humiliatus, amaritudinem mortis gustando, quam ille Adam superbiit, per esum ligni vetiti noxia delectatione perfruendo. Si igitur illius superbia omnium exstitit ruina, ipsum de paradiso mittens foras aliisque occludens ianuam; multo magis Christi humilitas, qua mortem gustavit, ingressum regni caelestis omnibus suis, impleto Dei decreto, aperire valuit atque decreti delere chirographum. Ut enim ait Ambrosiusp379-1: «Tantum fuit peccatum nostrum, ut salvari non possemus, nisi unigenitus Dei Filius pro nobis moreretur, debitoribus mortis, sed sic dignos nos fecit testamenti et promissae hereditatis». Quod non ita est intelligendum, quasi non alio modo salvare nos potuerit quam per mortem suam, sed quodp379-2 per aliam hostiam non potuit nobis aperiri regni aditus et fieri salus nisi per mortem Unigeniti, cuius tanta fuit, ut dictum est, humilitas et patientia, ut eius merito pateret credentibus in eum aditus regni. Magna ergo in morte Unigeniti praestita sunt nobis, ut liceat nobis redire in patriam, sicut olim in morte summi Pontificis his qui ad civitatem refugii confugerant, secure licebatp379-3 ad propria remeare. — Ecce, aliquatenus ostensum est, qualiter per Christi mortem aditus regni sit nobis paratus.

---

English Translation
p. 377

DISTINCTION XVIII.

Chap. I. Whether Christ merited for himself and for us, and what for himself and what for us.

Concerning the merit of Christ also nothing must be passed overp377-1, about which some are wont to say that he merited not for himself, but only for his members. He did indeed merit for his members redemption from the devil, from sin, from punishment, and the opening of the kingdom, so that, the fiery sword being removed, entrance might lie freely open; but he also merited for himself the glory of impassibility and immortality, as the Apostle saysp377-2: Christ was made for us obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also exalted him, and gave him a name which is above every name. The Apostle clearly says that Christ was on this account exalted through the glory of impassibility, because he was humbled through the obedience of the passion; therefore the humility of the passion was the merit of exaltation, and the exaltation the reward of humility. Hence Augustinep377-3, expounding the foresaid chapter, says: «That Christ might be glorified in the resurrection, he was first humbled in the passion; humility is the merit of brightness, brightness is the reward of humility. But all this was done in the form of a servant; for in the form of God there always was and will be brightness». Likewise Ambrose, treating the same chapter, says: «What and how much humility merits, is here shown». — From these testimonies it becomes evident, that Christ through the humility and obedience of the passion merited the glorification of his body, and not that alone, but also the impassibility of his soul. For his soul before death was passible, as his flesh was mortal; but after death, by the merit of humility, both the soul was made impassible, and the flesh immortal. But whether the soul was made impassible when the flesh was made immortal, namely at the very moment of the resurrection, is not certain to us from authority; but either soon after the separation of the flesh the soul was endowed with impassibility, or in the resurrection, when the flesh flowered againp377-4.

Chap. II. That from conception Christ merited for himself the same thing which [he merited] through the passion.

Nor did Christ merit this only when, obedient to the Father, he underwent the cross, but also from the very conception, from when he was made man, through charity and justice and the other virtues, in the fullness of which he was established according to his humanity, he merited for himself as much as afterward through the endurance of martyrdom. For so great a fullness of spiritual graces was in him, that he could not advance in them; and therefore his soul could not be made better than it was from the beginning of its formation, because it could not advance in merits. Hence Gregoryp377-5 says: «Christ did not at all have, according to the merit of the soul, anything whereby he could have advanced; but in his members, which we are, he advances daily». — Therefore he merited for himself no more through the gibbet of the cross than he had merited from conception through the grace of the virtues. He did not therefore advance according to the merit of the soul as to the power of merit; yet he advanced as to the number of merits. For he had more merits in the passion than in the conception; but they were not, in meriting, more of greater power than they had earlier been fewer. Therefore from conception he merited not only the glory of impassibility and immortality of the body, but also the impassibility of the soul. By what? By obedience and a perfect will, which he did not then first have, nor a greater one, when he began to suffer and to die. For he was obedient perfectlyp377-6 and good according to his humanity, from when he was man. — That soul therefore had some good in itself after death, which it did not have before. Was it then better or more blessed than before? Far be it that it was better, because [it was] not holier, not more heaped with grace; nor was it even more blessed in the contemplation of God, in which beatitude chiefly consists. It can nevertheless be said to have been more blessed in this, that [it was] from all

p. 378

misery immune; from which it cannot be inferred absolutely that it was more blessed.

Chap. III. On that which is written: He gave him a name which is above every name.

He merited not only the glory of impassibility and immortality, but also that there be given to him a name, which is above every name, namely the honor whereby he is called God. Yet he had this name before death. For he had this name of God, inasmuch as he is God, from eternity by nature; but inasmuch as he was made man, he had it from time by grace. Nevertheless Augustinep378-1 says, «that name was given to the man, not to God, because he had that name when he was only in the form of God; but when it is said: For which cause he exalted him and gave him a name, which is above every name, it is sufficiently apparent for what he exalted him, that is, on account of obedience, and in what form he was exalted. For in whatever form he was crucified, in that he was exalted, and in that a name was given to him, so that with the very form of a servant the only-begotten Son of God might be named: this was given to him as to a man, which he himself the same God already had». This therefore he received through grace, that he himself, being a man or subsisting in the form of a servant, that is, in soul and flesh, should be named and be God. — But did he merit this? For abovep378-2 it was said, that that man did not merit so great a good; how then is it here said: On account of obedience this name was given to him? This is to be understood according to that trope most frequent in Scripture, by which a thing is said to be done, «when it becomes knownp378-3». But after the resurrection, what was before was set in evidence, so that men and demons might know. Therefore God gave to him the manifestation of that name after the resurrection, but he merited it through the obedience of the passion, who, because he obeyed by suffering, was exalted by rising again, and through this the name was manifested. The Lord himself also used this same trope after the resurrection, sayingp378-4: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, not that he then first received it, but the power which he had before was then manifested. Moreover Ambrosep378-5 says that that name was given to God, not to man, and he seems, according to the surface of the words, opposed to Augustine; but the understanding is not contrary, although it has a different sense. For Ambrose understands it said of the natural giving, by which the Father, eternally begetting, gave to the Son a name which is above every name, namely to be God by nature, because he begot from eternity the Son full and equal to himself, [as] God; which name nevertheless the Apostle says was given to Christ on account of the obedience of the passion; but it is to be understood according to the manner of speaking premised.

Chap. IV. Whether Christ could have had without any merit that which he obtained by merit.

But if it is asked whether Christ could have had that glory of immortality and impassibility and the manifestation of the name of God without any merit; it can soundly be said, that he could have taken up human nature so glorious as it was in the resurrection, and could also have manifested his name to men in another way; but he could not be a passible man, as he was, and arrive at that glory without merit. He could indeed arrive at it without the merit of the passion, because he could, mortality being consumed, be clothed with the glory of immortality, but not without the merit of justice and charity and the other virtues. For Christ could not be a man in whom there was not the fullness of virtues and grace; nor could the virtues be in him, clad in the hair-shirt of mortality, without his meriting by them. Having therefore these virtues according to his passible and mortal humanity, he could not but merit the glory of immortality; therefore he could not, having been made mortal, attain without merit the glory of impassibility and immortality and the manifestation of the name of God. Yet he could attain thesep378-6 without the merit of the passion, because through the passion he merited for himself nothing which he had not already merited before through the virtues.

Chap. V. On the cause of the passion and death of Christ.

For what then did he will to suffer and to die, if the virtues sufficed him for meriting those things? For you, not for himself. How for me? That his passion and death might be for you a form and a cause: a form of virtue and humility, a cause of glory and freedom; a form of obeying God unto death, and a cause of your liberation and beatitude. For he merited for us, through the endurance of death and passion, what he had not merited through the preceding things, namely the entrance of paradise and redemption from sin, from punishment, from the devil; and through his death we have obtained these things, namely redemption and the adoption of the glory of sons. For he, by dying, was made the victim of our liberation. — But how, through death, did he redeem us from the devil and from sin and open the entrance of glory? God had decreed in mystery, as Ambrose saysp378-7, that on account of the first sin man should not be brought into paradise, that is, should not be admitted to the contemplation of God, unless in one man there should exist so great a humility, which could profit all his own, just as in the first man there was so great a pride, which harmed all his own. But there was found among men no one who could fulfill this, except the lion of the tribe of Judah, who opened the book and loosed the seals, by fulfilling in himself all justice, that is, the most consummate hu-

p. 379

mility, than which there can be none greater. For all other men were debtors, and his own virtue and humility scarcely sufficed for any one of them. Therefore none of them could offer a victim sufficient for our reconciliation. But Christ, the man, was a sufficient and perfect victim, who was much more humbled, by tasting the bitterness of death, than that Adam was proud, by enjoying with harmful delight the eating of the forbidden tree. If therefore his pride was the ruin of all, casting himself out of paradise and shutting the gate against the others; much more was the humility of Christ, by which he tasted death, able, the decree of God being fulfilled, to open the entrance of the heavenly kingdom to all his own, and to blot out the bond of the decree. For as Ambrose saysp379-1: «So great was our sin, that we could not be saved, unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us, who were debtors of death, but thus he made us worthy of the testament and of the promised inheritance». Which is not to be so understood, as though he could not save us in another way than through his death, but thatp379-2 through another victim the entrance of the kingdom could not be opened to us and salvation come to pass except through the death of the Only-begotten, whose humility and patience were so great, as has been said, that by his merit the entrance of the kingdom might lie open to those believing in him. Great things therefore were furnished to us in the death of the Only-begotten, that it might be permitted us to return into our fatherland, just as formerly, at the death of the high priest, it was permitted with safetyp379-3 to those who had fled to the city of refuge to return to their own. — Behold, it has been in some measure shown how, through the death of Christ, the entrance of the kingdom is prepared for us.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Codd. nostri praetereundum. — Cfr. de hac distinctione Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. I. c. 18. — Infra pro reserationem edd. 1, 8 male resurrectionem, et pro libere ponunt liber. — De ignea romphea cfr. Gen. 3, 24.
    Our codices [read] praetereundum. — Compare, on this distinction, Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum tr. I, c. 18. — Below, for reserationem editions 1, 8 wrongly [read] resurrectionem, and for libere they put liber. — On the fiery sword compare Gen. 3:24.
  2. Phil. 2, 8. 9. — Superius post gloriam edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt secundum carnem.
    Philippians 2:8–9. — Above, after gloriam, editions 1, 8 add secundum carnem.
  3. Tract. 104. in Evang. Ioan. (17, 1.) n. 3. Sequens locus est super Epist. ad Phil. 2, 9. (inter opera Ambrosii).
    Tractate 104 on the Gospel of John (17:1), n. 3. The following passage is on the Letter to the Philippians 2:9 (among the works of Ambrose).
  4. Psal. 27, 7.
    Psalm 27:7.
  5. Libr. I. Homil. in Ezech. hom. 6. n. 8; est etiam in Glossa super Exod. 25, 31, ut insinuant cod. E et ed. 1.
    Book I, Homilies on Ezekiel, hom. 6, n. 8; it is also in the Gloss on Exodus 25:31, as codex E and edition 1 suggest.
  6. Vat. cum pluribus edd. perfectus, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 3, 7, 8.
    The Vatican edition with most editions [reads] perfectus, the codices and editions 1, 3, 7, 8 opposing.
  7. Libr. I. contr. Maximin. c. 5, et II. c. 2, sed verba inde extracta verbotenus leguntur in Glossa ad Phil. 2, 9. — Paulo inferius P. Nicolai in sua editione proprio marte verba nominetur unigenitus mutavit in nominatur, intelligatur unigenitus. Sed Magister suam sententiam paulo inferius satis explicat.
    Book I, Against Maximinus, c. 5, and Book II, c. 2, but the words drawn thence are read word for word in the Gloss on Phil. 2:9. — A little below, P. Nicolai in his edition, on his own initiative, changed the words nominetur unigenitus into nominatur, intelligatur unigenitus. But the Master explains his meaning sufficiently a little below.
  8. Dist. VII. c. 2. fere in fine.
    Distinction VII, c. 2, nearly at the end.
  9. Ita Hugo a S. Vict., Quaestion. in Epist. ad Phil. q. 9, unde Magister etiam sequentem propositionem sumsit. — Paulo inferius post ante erat cod. B addit in obscuro, ed. 6 obscurum.
    So Hugh of St. Victor, Questions on the Letter to the Philippians q. 9, whence the Master also took the following proposition. — A little below, after ante erat, codex B adds in obscuro, edition 6 obscurum.
  10. Matth. 28, 18.
    Matthew 28:18.
  11. Loc. supra cit.
    The place cited above.
  12. Ita codd. A B D E et ed. 6; in aliis hoc. Post per virtutes edd. 1, 8 addunt sibi.
    So codices A B D E and edition 6; in the others hoc. After per virtutes editions 1, 8 add sibi.
  13. Comment. in Epist. Rom. 5, 14. (inter opera Ambrosii), secundum sensum. In quo loco post omnibus suis pro proficere cod. B sufficere. Ibi respiciuntur loci Scripturae Apoc. 5, 5; Matth. 3, 15; Gen. 3, 6; denique Coloss. 2, 14.
    Commentary on the Letter to the Romans 5:14 (among the works of Ambrose), according to the sense. In which place, after omnibus suis, for proficere codex B [reads] sufficere. There the Scripture passages Apoc. 5:5; Matt. 3:15; Gen. 3:6; finally Coloss. 2:14 are referred to.
  14. In Glossa ad Hebr. 9, 15. apud Lyranum, sumta ex Alcuino (ibid.), qui, paucis mutatis, eam sumsit ex S. Chrysostomo (ad eundem locum). Ambrosius autem (in Ps. 47. n. 17.) tantum dicit: «Ut sanguine suo mundum lavaret, cuius peccatum nullo alio modo potuisset aboleri».
    In the Gloss on Hebrews 9:15 in Lyra, taken from Alcuin (ibid.), who, with a few changes, took it from St. Chrysostom (on the same place). But Ambrose (on Psalm 47, n. 17) says only: «That he might wash the world with his blood, whose sin could by no other means have been abolished».
  15. Ita codd. A B C E et edd. 1, 8; in aliis quia.
    So codices A B C E and editions 1, 8; in the others quia.
  16. Deest in pluribus codd. et edd., refragantibus codd. D E et edd. 1, 8. — Hic respicitur Iosue 20, 6.
    It is lacking in most codices and editions, the codices D E and editions 1, 8 opposing. — Here Joshua 20:6 is referred to.
Dist. 18, Divisio Textus→