Dist. 19, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 19
Articulus II. De persona redemptoris et mediatoris.
Consequenter quaeritur de persona redemptoris et mediatoris, per quem facta est reconciliatio. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.
Primum est, utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus.
Secundum est, secundum quam naturam est mediator.
Quaestio I. Utrum solus Filius sit redemptor, an etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus.
Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit redemptor.
Argg. pro 1. parte. 1. Apocalypsis quintop408-9: Redemisti nos, Deus, in sanguine tuo ex omni tribu et lingua etc.: ergo si solus Filius pro nobis sanguinem fudit, solus Filius nos redemit.
2. Item, ille solus nos redemit, qui pro nobis satisfecit; sed solus Filius pro nobis satisfecit: ergo etc.
3. Item, redemptio nostra facta est per passionem, ergo ad illam solam personam spectat redemptio, ad quam spectat passio; sed solus Filius est passus: ergo etc.
4. Item, Christusp408-8 redemit nos, aut ergo secundum divinam naturam, aut secundum humanam naturam. Si secundum divinam: ergo frustra ad hoc assumsitp408-10 humanam naturam. Si secundum humanam; sed solus Filius humanam naturam assumsit: ergo solus Filius nos redemit.
Pro 2. parte. Sed contra: 1. « Opera Trinitatis sunt indivisap408-7p409-1 »: ergo si redimere est opus conveniens Filio, necesse est, quod conveniat Patri et Spiritui sancto.
2. Item, illius est redimere, cuius est pro re empta pretium dare; sed Pater dedit Unigenitum suum pro salute generis humani, secundum quod dicitur Ioannis tertiop409-2: Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret: Pater igitur nos redemit: non ergo solus Filius est redemptor.
3. Item, illius est redimere, cuius est redemptos possidere; sed tota Trinitas nos possidet: ergo tota Trinitas nos redemit.
4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur auctoritate Magistri in litterap409-3: « Redemptor aliquando etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus dicitur in Scriptura »: ergo si Scriptura non dicit nisi verum et catholicum, redimere non spectat ad solum Filium.
Conclusio.
Christus solus est noster redemptor quoad exsecutionem et auctoritatem, licet quoad auctoritatem Pater et Spiritus sanctus etiam nos redemerint.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod redemptionis opus dupliciter potest alicui attribui, aut sicut principali auctori, aut sicut exsequenti. Et utroque modo competit Christo: Christo, inquam, Deo competit sicut auctori, Christo vero homini competit sicut exsequenti. — Cum ergo dicitur aliquis redemptor, hoc dupliciter potest dici: aut ab auctoritate redemptionis, aut ab auctoritate simul et exsecutione. Si ab auctoritate, sic non tantum competit Filio, immo etiam Patri et Spiritui sancto, pro eo quod « indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis ». Si autem ab exsecutione, sic respicit humanitatem, quae assumta est a solo Verbo; et hoc modo competit soli Filio, et hoc est quod Magister dicit in litterap409-4: « Redemptor aliquando Pater et Spiritus sanctus dicitur, sed hoc propter usum potestatis, non propter exhibitionem humilitatis. Nam secundum potestatis simul et obedientiae usum Filius proprie redemptor dicitur »; et post concludit: « Est igitur redemptor, in quantum Deus, potestatis usu; in quantum homo, humilitatis effectu ».
Ex his patet, qualiter esse redemptorem convenit Filio, et secundum quam naturam. Quodam enim modo convenit ei secundum humanam naturam, quodam modo secundum divinam; et primo modo competit soli Filio, secundo modo competit Filio una cum Patre et Spiritu sancto. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Patet etiam responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem; procedunt enim secundum has duas vias, sicut aspicienti apparetp409-5.
I. S. Scriptura meritum et satisfactionem Christi non raro exprimit per metaphoram emptionis, vel accuratius redemptionis, quia Christus se ipsum obtulit Patri quasi in pretium, quo genus humanum liberaret ab obligatione, qua obstrictum erat tum ad servitutem sub iugo peccati tum ad reatum poenae (cfr. I. Petr. 1, 18. 19; Gal. 3, 13; et infra d. 20. q. 6. ad 1; IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. q. 2. ad 2; S. Thom., S. III. q. 18. a. 4.). — Ipse titulus quaestionis indicat, auctorem hic, utrum alii sint redemptores, inquirere tantum respectu Patris et Spiritus S., non respectu hominum vel Angelorum; de hac altera quaestione infra d. 20. q. 3. agitur. — In solutione omnes conveniunt.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 17. m. 1. a. 2, q. 18. m. 6. a. 2. § 3. — S. Thom., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.
---
Article II. On the person of the redeemer and mediator.
Next inquiry is made concerning the person of the redeemer and mediator, through whom reconciliation was made. And about this two questions are asked.
The first is whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The second is according to which nature he is the mediator.
Question I. Whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the first the matter is approached thus, and it is shown that the Son alone is the redeemer.
Arguments for the first part. 1. Apocalypse, chapter fivep408-9: Thou hast redeemed us, O God, in thy blood out of every tribe and tongue etc.: therefore if the Son alone shed his blood for us, the Son alone redeemed us.
2. Likewise, he alone has redeemed us who made satisfaction for us; but the Son alone made satisfaction for us: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, our redemption was made through the passion; therefore redemption pertains to that person alone to whom the passion pertains; but the Son alone suffered: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, Christp408-8 redeemed us either according to the divine nature or according to the human nature. If according to the divine: then he assumedp408-10 the human nature to this end in vain. If according to the human; but the Son alone assumed the human nature: therefore the Son alone redeemed us.
For the second part. On the contrary: 1. « The works of the Trinity are undividedp408-7p409-1 »: therefore if to redeem is a work befitting the Son, it is necessary that it befit the Father and the Holy Spirit.
2. Likewise, it belongs to him to redeem whose it is to give the price for the thing bought; but the Father gave his Only-begotten for the salvation of the human race, according to what is said in John, chapter threep409-2: So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son: therefore the Father redeemed us: therefore the Son alone is not the redeemer.
3. Likewise, it belongs to him to redeem whose it is to possess the redeemed; but the whole Trinity possesses us: therefore the whole Trinity redeemed us.
4. Likewise, this same thing seems [proved] by the authority of the Master in the textp409-3: « The redeemer is sometimes also called the Father and the Holy Spirit in Scripture »: therefore if Scripture says nothing but what is true and catholic, to redeem does not pertain to the Son alone.
Conclusion.
Christ alone is our redeemer as to execution and authority, although as to authority the Father and the Holy Spirit also have redeemed us.
I respond: It must be said that the work of redemption can be attributed to someone in two ways: either as to the principal author, or as to the one executing it. And in both ways it befits Christ: Christ, I say, as God it befits as author, but Christ as man it befits as the one executing. — When, therefore, someone is called redeemer, this can be said in two ways: either from the authority of the redemption, or from authority together with execution. If from authority, then it befits not only the Son, but indeed also the Father and the Holy Spirit, on account of the fact that « the works of the Trinity are undivided ». But if from execution, then it regards the humanity, which was assumed by the Word alone; and in this way it befits the Son alone, and this is what the Master says in the textp409-4: « The redeemer is sometimes called the Father and the Holy Spirit, but this on account of the use of power, not on account of the exhibition of humility. For according to the use of power together with obedience the Son is properly called redeemer »; and afterward he concludes: « He is therefore redeemer, insofar as he is God, by the use of power; insofar as he is man, by the effect of humility ».
From these things it is plain in what manner it befits the Son to be redeemer, and according to which nature. For in a certain way it befits him according to the human nature, in a certain way according to the divine; and in the first way it befits the Son alone, in the second way it befits the Son together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. — And through this the response to the proposed question is plain. The response to the arguments for either part is also plain; for they proceed according to these two ways, as is apparent to one who attendsp409-5.
I. Holy Scripture not rarely expresses the merit and satisfaction of Christ by the metaphor of purchase, or more accurately of redemption, because Christ offered himself to the Father as it were as a price, by which he might free the human race from the obligation by which it was bound both to servitude under the yoke of sin and to the guilt of punishment (cf. 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Gal. 3:13; and below d. 20, q. 6, ad 1; IV Sent. d. 5, a. 3, q. 2, ad 2; St. Thomas, S. III, q. 18, a. 4). — The very title of the question indicates that the author here is inquiring, whether there are other redeemers, only with respect to the Father and the Holy Spirit, not with respect to men or angels; concerning this other question it is treated below at d. 20, q. 3. — In the solution all agree.
II. Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 17, m. 1, a. 2, q. 18, m. 6, a. 2, § 3. — St. Thomas, here a. 1, articulus 1, 2; S. loc. cit. a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.
---
- Vide scholion ad 2. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion to the 2nd question of this article.
- Edd. ac complures codd. quam. Post pauca cod. A voci Filius addit Dei, et post naturam edd. ex ipsa quaest. (infra) supplent Christus.The editions and several codices read quam. A little after, codex A adds Dei to the word Filius, and after naturam the editions, from the question itself (below), supply Christus.
- Vers. 9, ubi Vulgata (iuxta textum graecum) et edd. 1, 2 pro Deus exhibent Deo, Vat. Domine Deus. — In edd. haec quaestio sic orditur (omissis verbis solitis Circa primum sic etc. et pluribus adiectis): Utrum solus Filius sit Redemptor, aut etiam Pater et Spiritus sanctus. Et ostenditur, quod solus Filius sit Redemptor etc.Verse 9, where the Vulgate (according to the Greek text) and editions 1, 2 read Deo for Deus, the Vatican edition Domine Deus. — In the editions this question begins thus (omitting the usual words Circa primum sic etc. and with several additions): Whether the Son alone is the Redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit. And it is shown that the Son alone is the Redeemer etc.
- Non pauci codd. sumsit.Not a few codices read sumsit.
- Cfr. supra pag. 12, nota 2.Cf. above, page 12, note 2.
- Vers. 16.Verse 16.
- Hic c. 5.Here [in the text of the Master] chapter 5.
- Hic c. 5, ubi et altera sententia. In primo textu post humilitatis in lit. Magistri additur et obedientiae.Here [in the text] chapter 5, where there is also the other sentence. In the first text, after humilitatis the words et obedientiae are added in the text of the Master.
- Cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 2, ubi principia huius quaest. insinuantur, nec non August., Serm. 130. n. 2.Cf. above, d. 1, a. 1, q. 2, where the principles of this question are intimated, as also Augustine, Sermon 130, n. 2.