Dist. 19, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 19
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: A peccatis per eius mortem soluti sumus, quia per ipsius mortem commendatur nobis caritas Dei. Videtur enim ratio illa nulla esse, quia, cum per beneficia Dei commendetur nobis caritas Dei, sicut per passionem Christi; videtur, quod per beneficia Dei iustificemur a peccatis, sicut per passionem Christi. — Item, Martyres patiendo excitant nos ad credendum et ad amandum Deump412-1: ergo si passio Christi dicitur nos iustificare, quia nos accendit ad caritatem, pari ratione et passio aliorum Martyrum. — Item, si hoc verum est, tunc videtur, quod iustificatio non conveniat passioni Christi nisi solummodo per accidens, videlicet ratione caritatis nostrae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister in praedicta ratione non tangit causam iustificationis totam, sed partem causae. Praesupponit enim in ipsa passione rationem meriti, per quod passio Christi est fons nostrae salutis; per illam enim plenitudo gratiae Christi in nos redundat. Et illa praesupposita, adiungit aliam rationem, videlicet rationem exempli provocantis et excitantis; et haec quidem bona ratio est et sufficiens, priori praesupposita; per se autem non sufficit. Et ideo omnes illae rationes procedunt ex insufficienti. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad illas tres obiectionesp412-2.
culum passionis, sine quorum fide non possumus iustificari: ergo sicut passio Christi dicitur nos iustificare, in quantum est credita, pari ratione et ascensio et adventus ad iudicium. — Item, sicut fides et caritas requiruntur ad iustificationem, ita etiam et aliae virtutes: ergo sicut dicimur iustificari per fidem et caritatem passionis, ita et per humilitatem et alias virtutes, quibus assimilamur Christo patienti.
Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Magister assignet adhuc tertiam rationem, quare dicimur iustificari per passionem, videlicet quod passio iustificat per modum sacrificii oblati; penes quid sumitur sufficientia et distinctio illarum trium rationum?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nec istam rationem assignat Magister tanquam principalem, sed ad istam praesupponit illam, qua passio dicitur iustificare per modum meriti; et illam assignat, cum dicit, quod «Christus morte sua tanquam uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat in nobis, destruxit»; et ita tres rationes innuit, secundum quas passio Christi dicitur iustificare. Iustificat enim ut hostia oblata, ut credita, ut amata. — Et istae tres rationes reducuntur ad illas tres, quae superius dictae sunt, videlicet quod passio Christi iustificat per modum meriti disponentis, et per modum exempli excitantis, et per modum exemplaris dirigentis, ut sit in ea meritum in quantum hostia oblata, directio in quantum credita, et excitatio in quantum amatap412-6, secundum triplex genus causae. Et sic passio dicitur iustificare nos per fidem et caritatem, quia mediantibus his duabus virtutibus unimur ipsi passioni tanquam fonti salutis.
Et sic patet responsio ad illa tria obiecta. Primum enim obiectum procedit ab insufficienti; secundum vero dissolvitur per defectum similitudinis;
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod subiungit: Dicimur per mortem Christi iustificari, quia per fidem mortis eius a peccatis mundamur. Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia multi sunt articuli praeterp412-3 arti-
non enim est simile de fide et caritate et aliis virtutibus; illud vero quod tertio quaerebatur, manifestum est.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Incideramus in principem huius saeculi, qui seduxit Adam et coepit nos quasi vernaculos possidere. Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia «fraus et dolus nemini debent patrocinarip413-2»: ergo si diabolus hominem decepit, videtur, quod ei non debuerit dominari. — Item, diabolus nullum ius habebat in nobis: ergo non videtur, quod aliquo iure nos possederitp413-3. — Item, nos eramus servi Dei: ergo non erat in potestate nostra facere nos servos diaboli. Si igitur nec Deus facit nos servos diaboli, nec nos potuimus nos facere, nec diabolus potuit nos subiugare; non videtur, verbum auctoritatis praedictae verum esse.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio homo iuste detinebatur; sed diabolus nullo eum iusto titulo detinebat nec possidebat, quoniam malae fidei possessor fuit; sed Deus, qui est iustus iudex, iusto iudicio suo hoc permisit. Iustum enim erat, ut ille qui se voluntarie subiecerat suggestioni per culpam, eidem involuntarie subderetur per poenamp413-4.
Quod ergo obiicit, quod diabolus non potuit possidere, quia nullum ius habebat; dicendum, quod non valet, quia multi possident iniusto titulo, quorum diabolus princeps et dux est, qui est caput fraudis et malitiae. Nec fraus et dolus ei patrocinabatur, quia ad malum suum eum detinebat, sicut fures et latrones ad tempus ea possident, quae furantur.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homo non potuit se facere servum, cum esset in alterius iurisdictione constitutus; dicendum, quod Deus reliquerat hominem in manu consilii suip413-1, et sicut ei permittebat, ut posset se inducere in servitutem peccati, sic etiam ei permittebat, ut posset semetipsum ducere in servitutem diaboli.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Unde ipse vere dicitur mundi redemptor. Videtur enim esse falsum, nemo enim emit quod suum est; si ergo Deus dominium super homines non amiserat, videtur, quod ad eum redemptio hominis non spectabat. — Item quaero: a quo et per quem redemit? Si tu dicas, quod redemit a diabolo; sed contra: ei solvit pretium, a quo redemit; sed redemit nos pretio sanguinis suip413-6: ergo videtur, quod pretium sui sanguinis solverit diabolo. Si tu dicas, quod redemit a Deo; contra: nullus redemit vel emit aliquid a se ipsop413-7.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod homo venundatus erat, ut faceret malum in conspectu Dominip413-8, et se ipsum fecerat servum peccati et supplicii; in his autem omnibus detinebatur auctoritate divinae sententiae et iustitiae. Et ideo pretium redemptionis ei oportebat offerri, qui damnum et iniuriam passus erat; et quoniam hic est Deus, ideo Christus in offerendo sanguinem suum Deo, redemit nos a servitute diaboli, peccati et supplicii, ita quod manus misericordiae redemit hominem de manu severitatisp413-9 et iustitiae. Transierat enim homo per culpam suam de una manu ad aliam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Redemptor dicitur Pater et Spiritus sanctus propter usum potestatis. Si enim Deus ab aeterno habuit potestatem, videtur, quod ab aeterno fuerit noster redemptor. — Item, Augustinusp413-11 dicit, quod in nostra redemptione
non erat utendum potestate, sed potius iustitia: ergo non videtur ratio illa recte assignata.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in redemptione et fuit usus potestatis et usus humilitatis; sed usus humilitatis apparuit in primordio, usus potestatis apparuit in fine. Vicit enim mortem et auctorem mortis patiendo et resurgendop414-1; et licet passio infirmitatis attribuatur soli Christo, tamen operatio virtutis debetur toti Trinitati. Et ideo dicit Magister, quod tota Trinitas est redemptor usu potestatis.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potestas in Deo fuit ab aeterno; dicendum, quod Magister non dicit, quod fuerit redemptor ex potestate, sed ex usu potestatis; et hunc quidem non habuit ab aeterno, sed ex temporep414-2.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Redemptor dicitur secundum humanitatem; quia in ea suscepit illa Sacramenta, quae sunt causa nostrae redemptionis. Sed contra: poenitentia et confirmatio et extrema unctio faciunt ad nostram redemptionem; et tamen Christus ea in se non suscepit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sacramenta hic vocantur non illa quae sunt signa et vasa, in quibus confertur gratia, sicut sunt septem Sacramenta Ecclesiae, sed sacramenta hic dicuntur sacra mysteria sive sacrap414-3 secreta, quae ordinata sunt ad nostram redemptionem, sicut Christi incarnatio, nativitas, passio et resurrectio.
---
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is asked about that which he says: We are released from sins through his death, because through his death the charity of God is commended to us. For that reasoning seems to be void, because, since the charity of God is commended to us through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ; it seems that we are justified from sins through the benefits of God, just as through the passion of Christ. — Likewise, the martyrs by suffering stir us up to believe and to love Godp412-1: therefore if the passion of Christ is said to justify us because it kindles us to charity, then by like reasoning also the passion of the other martyrs. — Likewise, if this is true, then it seems that justification does not belong to the passion of Christ except only accidentally, namely by reason of our charity.
I respond: It must be said that the Master in the aforesaid reasoning does not touch the whole cause of justification, but a part of the cause. For he presupposes in the passion itself the account of merit, by which the passion of Christ is the fount of our salvation; for through it the fullness of Christ's grace overflows into us. And that being presupposed, he adds another reason, namely the reason of the example that provokes and stirs up; and this indeed is a good and sufficient reason, the prior one being presupposed; but of itself it does not suffice. And therefore all those reasonings proceed from what is insufficient. — And by this the response to those three objections is plainp412-2.
…of the passion, without faith in which we cannot be justified: therefore just as the passion of Christ is said to justify us, inasmuch as it is believed, by like reasoning also the ascension and the coming to judgment. — Likewise, just as faith and charity are required for justification, so also are the other virtues: therefore just as we are said to be justified through the faith and charity of the passion, so also through humility and the other virtues, by which we are made like to Christ in his suffering.
Alongside this it is asked, since the Master assigns yet a third reason why we are said to be justified through the passion, namely that the passion justifies after the manner of a sacrifice offered; on what basis is the sufficiency and distinction of those three reasons taken?
I respond: It must be said that the Master does not assign this reason either as the principal one, but to this he presupposes that by which the passion is said to justify after the manner of merit; and he assigns it, when he says that «Christ by his death, as by one most true sacrifice, destroyed whatever of faults was in us»; and thus he intimates three reasons, according to which the passion of Christ is said to justify. For it justifies as a victim offered, as believed, as loved. — And these three reasons are reduced to those three which were said above, namely that the passion of Christ justifies after the manner of disposing merit, and after the manner of stirring example, and after the manner of directing exemplar, so that in it there is merit inasmuch as it is a victim offered, direction inasmuch as it is believed, and stirring up inasmuch as it is lovedp412-6, according to the threefold kind of cause. And thus the passion is said to justify us through faith and charity, because by the mediation of these two virtues we are united to the passion itself as to the fount of salvation.
And thus the response to those three objections is plain. For the first objection proceeds from what is insufficient; the second indeed is dissolved through a defect of likeness;
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about that which he adds: We are said to be justified through the death of Christ, because through faith in his death we are cleansed from sins. For this seems false, because there are many articles besidesp412-3 the ar-
…for it is not alike concerning faith and charity and the other virtues; but that which was asked in the third place is manifest.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: We had fallen into the prince of this world, who seduced Adam and began to possess us as his bondservants. For this seems false, because «fraud and deceit ought to protect no onep413-2»: therefore if the devil deceived man, it seems that he ought not to have lordship over him. — Likewise, the devil had no right in us: therefore it does not seem that he possessed us by any rightp413-3. — Likewise, we were the servants of God: therefore it was not in our power to make ourselves servants of the devil. If therefore neither does God make us servants of the devil, nor could we make ourselves so, nor could the devil subjugate us; the word of the aforesaid authority does not seem to be true.
I respond: It must be said that without doubt man was justly held; but the devil held and possessed him by no just title, since he was a possessor in bad faith; but God, who is a just judge, by his just judgment permitted this. For it was just that he who had voluntarily subjected himself to the suggestion through fault, should be involuntarily subjected to the same through punishmentp413-4.
As for what he objects, that the devil could not possess, because he had no right; it must be said that this does not hold, because many possess by an unjust title, of whom the devil is the prince and leader, who is the head of fraud and malice. Nor did fraud and deceit protect him, because he held him for his own evil, just as thieves and robbers for a time possess the things which they steal.
To that which is objected, that man could not make himself a servant, since he was constituted under another's jurisdiction; it must be said that God had left man in the hand of his own counselp413-1, and just as he permitted him to be able to bring himself into the servitude of sin, so also he permitted him to be able to lead himself into the servitude of the devil.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Whence he is truly called the redeemer of the world. For this seems false, since no one buys what is his own; if therefore God had not lost dominion over men, it seems that the redemption of man did not pertain to him. — Likewise I ask: from whom and through whom did he redeem? If you say that he redeemed from the devil; but on the contrary: he pays a price to him from whom he redeems; but he redeemed us by the price of his bloodp413-6: therefore it seems that he paid the price of his blood to the devil. If you say that he redeemed from God; on the contrary: no one redeems or buys anything from himselfp413-7.
I respond: It must be said that man had been sold, that he might do evil in the sight of the Lordp413-8, and had made himself a servant of sin and of punishment; and in all these he was held by the authority of the divine sentence and justice. And therefore the price of redemption had to be offered to him who had suffered the loss and the injury; and since this is God, therefore Christ, in offering his blood to God, redeemed us from the servitude of the devil, of sin, and of punishment, so that the hand of mercy redeemed man from the hand of severityp413-9 and of justice. For man had passed through his own fault from one hand to the other. — And by this the response to the objections is plain.
Doubt V.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: The Father and the Holy Spirit are called redeemer on account of the use of power. For if God had power from eternity, it seems that from eternity he was our redeemer. — Likewise, Augustinep413-11 says that in our redemption
power was not to be used, but rather justice: therefore that reasoning does not seem to be rightly assigned.
I respond: It must be said that in the redemption there was both a use of power and a use of humility; but the use of humility appeared in the beginning, the use of power appeared at the end. For he conquered death and the author of death by suffering and by rising againp414-1; and although the passion of infirmity is attributed to Christ alone, nevertheless the operation of power is owed to the whole Trinity. And therefore the Master says that the whole Trinity is redeemer by the use of power.
To that which is objected, that power was in God from eternity; it must be said that the Master does not say that he was redeemer from power, but from the use of power; and this indeed he did not have from eternity, but from timep414-2.
Doubt VI.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: He is called redeemer according to his humanity; because in it he took up those Sacraments which are the cause of our redemption. But on the contrary: penance and confirmation and extreme unction make for our redemption; and yet Christ did not take them up in himself.
I respond: It must be said that sacraments are here called not those which are signs and vessels in which grace is conferred, as are the seven Sacraments of the Church, but sacraments are here called sacred mysteries or sacredp414-3 secrets, which are ordained to our redemption, such as Christ's incarnation, nativity, passion, and resurrection.
---
- Sub textu deest indicatio fontis; cfr. de hoc dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.No source-indication is given beneath the text; cf. on this doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Cfr. supra a. I. q. I, et de ipso dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. above, art. I, q. I, and on this very doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Edd. post.Later editions [read thus].
- Hic c. I: Morte quippe sua uno verissimo sacrificio, quidquid culparum erat... Christus exstinxit. — Paulo inferius pro sufficientia et distinctio edd. sufficiens distinctio.Here, c. 1: For by his death, by one most true sacrifice, Christ extinguished whatever of faults there was... — A little below, for sufficiency and distinction the editions read sufficient distinction.
- Art. I. q. I. in corp.Art. I, q. I, in the body [of the response].
- Edd. verba male sic permutarunt: excitatio, in quantum credita, et directio, in quantum amata.The editions have wrongly transposed the words thus: stirring up, inasmuch as believed, and direction, inasmuch as loved.
- Pro vero codd. F G H I L N U V Z aa enim. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic n. 2; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.For vero (truly) the codices F G H I L N U V Z aa read enim (for). — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here n. 2; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Vide II. Decretal. Gregor. tit. 14. c. 2. Ex litteris, et IV. tit. 11. c. 2. Si vir. Cfr. ibid. I. tit. 3. c. 20. Super litteris.See Gregory's Decretals, Bk. II, tit. 14, c. 2, Ex litteris, and Bk. IV, tit. 11, c. 2, Si vir. Cf. ibid. Bk. I, tit. 3, c. 20, Super litteris.
- Vide supra pag. 403, nota 6. — Pro possederit permulti codd. et edd. 1. 2 possedit, cod. G possidet.See above, p. 403, note 6. — For possederit (had possessed) very many codices and editions 1 and 2 read possedit (possessed), codex G possidet (possesses).
- Sic August., XIII. de Trin. c. 12. n. 16; verba eius videsis infra d. XX. lit. Magistri, c. 2. Similiter Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 7: Quamvis enim homo iuste a diabolo torqueretur, ipse tamen illum iniuste torquebat. Homo namque meruerat, ut puniretur, nec illo ullo convenientius, quam ab illo cui consenserat, ut peccaret. Diaboli vero meritum nullum erat, ut puniret; immo hoc tanto faciebat iniustius, quanto non ad hoc amore iustitiae trahebatur, sed instinctu malitiae impellebatur etc. Cfr. Iren., V. de Haeres. c. 1. n. 1. et c. 2. n. 1; Bernard., Capitula haeres. Petri Abaelardi, n. 4, et Tract. de errorib. Abael. (alias Epist. 190.), c. 6, ubi Abaelardi sententia refellitur, quod Christus non incarnatus esset, ut hominem liberaret de potestate satanae. — In principio solut. post sed diabolus nullo codd. IL aa inserunt modo, et mox post Iustum enim cod. W subiungit iudicium. Subinde pro eidem (cod. O eidem etiam) involuntarie edd. eidem in voluntate. Aliquanto inferius pro qui est caput codd. A K quia est caput.Thus Augustine, On the Trinity Bk. XIII, c. 12, n. 16; you may see his words below, d. XX, the Master's text, c. 2. Similarly Anselm, Why God Became Man Bk. I, c. 7: For although man was justly tormented by the devil, yet the devil tormented him unjustly. For man had deserved to be punished, nor [could he be punished] by any more fittingly than by him to whom he had consented in sinning. But the devil had no merit such that he should punish; indeed he did this all the more unjustly, in that he was drawn to it not by love of justice but driven by the instinct of malice, etc. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Bk. V, c. 1, n. 1, and c. 2, n. 1; Bernard, Chapters against the Heresies of Peter Abelard, n. 4, and Treatise on the Errors of Abelard (otherwise Epistle 190), c. 6, where Abelard's opinion is refuted, that Christ was not incarnate in order to free man from the power of Satan. — At the beginning of the solution, after but the devil by no [title] the codices IL aa insert manner, and soon after For it was just codex W subjoins judgment. Thereafter for to the same (codex O to the same also) involuntarily the editions read to the same in [his] will. Somewhat below, for who is the head the codices A K read because it is the head.
- Eccli. 13, 14. Cfr. Serm. 103. (alias 47. de Tempore, in Appendice serm. August. n. 3. seqq. — Proxime post edd. omittunt sicut ei permittebat... peccati, et subinde post sic voculam quoque etiam. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Ecclus. 13:14. Cf. Sermon 103 (otherwise 47, On the Seasons, in the Appendix of Augustine's sermons), n. 3 ff. — Just after [this] the editions omit just as he permitted him... of sin, and thereupon after so [omit] the little word also. — Cf. on this doubt Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Cfr. I. Petr. 1, 18. seq., et Apoc. 5, 9. — Mox pro pretium non pauci codd. per pretium.Cf. 1 Pet. 1:18 f., and Rev. 5:9. — Soon, for price not a few codices read by a price.
- His similes obiectiones etiam Sociniani fecerunt (cfr. Socinus, lib. de Christo Salvatore) contendentes, redemptionem per Christum factam non fuisse nisi metaphoricam.Objections similar to these the Socinians also made (cf. Socinus, the book On Christ the Savior), contending that the redemption made through Christ was nothing but metaphorical.
- Libr. III. Reg. 21, 25. — Subinde pro fecerat codd. ILOU aa faceret, cod. G fecerit.3 Kings (1 Kings) 21:25. — Thereupon for had done the codices ILOU aa read might do, codex G has done.
- Pro severitatis codd. A K O Y servitutis, et pro iustitiae cod. Y miseriae.For of severity the codices A K O Y read of servitude, and for of justice codex Y of misery.
- Cfr. Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 23; nec non S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 1. quaestiunc. I; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I.Cf. Anselm, Why God Became Man Bk. I, c. 23; also St. Thomas, here q. I, a. 1, little-question I; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. I.
- Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 13. n. 17: Non autem diabolus potentia Dei, sed iustitia superandus fuit.On the Trinity Bk. XIII, c. 13, n. 17: But the devil was to be overcome not by the power of God, but by his justice.
- Cfr. August., XIII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 18, de quo vide lit. Magistri, d. XX. c. 3. — Subinde cum codd. A K verbo licet praefigimus et, ac mox edd. omittunt debetur.Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity Bk. XIII, c. 14, n. 18, on which see the Master's text, d. XX, c. 3. — Thereupon, with codices A K, we prefix and to the word although, and soon the editions omit is owed.
- Vide I. Sent. d. 30. per totam. — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 8.See Bk. I of the Sentences, d. 30, throughout. — On this doubt cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 8.
- Pro sacra edd. facta. Proxime ante pro sacra mysteria codd. V Z pura mysteria. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.For sacred the editions read made. Just before, for sacred mysteries the codices V Z read pure mysteries. — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. ---