← Back to Distinction 20

Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 6

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 20

Textus Latinus
p. 430

Quaestio VI. Utrum alio modo potuerit Deus genus humanum salvare.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum alio modo potuerit Deus genus humanum salvare. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per illud quod dicit Leo Papa in quodam sermone in ramis palmarump430-1: « Omnipotentia Filii Dei, quae propter eandem essentiam est aequalis Patri, potuisset liberare genus humanum solo imperio voluntatis suae, nisi divinis operibus maxime congruisset, ut nequitiae hostilis adversitas eo quem vicerat, vinceretur ».

2. Item, hoc ipsum dicit Augustinus de Trinitate, et habetur in litterap430-2: « Dicimus, alium modum possibilem Deo fuisse, cuius potestati cuncta subiacent; sed nostrae miseriae sanandae convenientiorem alium non fuisse ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur expressius auctoritate Gregorii, vigesimo in Moralibusp430-3: « Qui nos fecit existere ex nihilo revocare etiam sine morte et passione sua potuit ».

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per deductionem ad inconveniens: quia, si non potuisset nos alio modo liberare, ergo tunc fuisset divina potentia limitata, et persona Christi passioni subiecta; quod omnino est absurdum: ergo et illud, ex quo sequiturp430-4.

Contra: 1. Super illud ad Hebraeos secundop431-5: Decebat auctorem salutis eorum per passionem consummari; Glossa: « Nisi Christus moreretur, homo non redimeretur, et non redemptus periret, et frustra essent omnia facta »: si ergo hoc est impossibile, restat, quod primum est impossibile, scilicet Christum non mori pro salute generis humani. Et si hoc, impossibile fuit, alio modo genus humanum liberari quam per mortem Christi.

2. Item, Anselmus in libro Cur Deus homop431-6: « Non potuit transire calicem, nisi biberet, non quia non posset vitare mortem, si vellet, sed, sicut dictum est, impossibile fuit aliter salvare mundum »: redit ergo idem quod prius.

p. 431

3. Item, sicut dicit Augustinusp431-1: « Nullus alius modus fuit isto congruentior »: si ergo « optimi est optima adducere », sicut boni est bona facere; videtur, quod necessarium fuit, summam bonitatem istum modum eligere. Si ergo necessarium fuit eligere istum modum, impossibile fuit alio modo salvari.

4. Item, Deus, cum sit summe iustus, negare se ipsum non potestp431-2: ergo si debet reparare genus humanum, necesse est, quod reparet per viam iustitiae; sed reparatio per viam iustitiae non potest esse nisi per satisfactionem, sicut supra fuit ostensum; satisfacere autem pro toto genere humano non potest nisi Deus et homo; modus satisfaciendi sufficiens esse non potest, nisi ut solvatur anima pro anima, et detur vita pro vita: ergo a primo, impossibile fuit, quod Deus humanum genus repararet alia via.

Conclusio. Genus humanum ex parte Dei reparantis et liberantis potuit alia via quam per mortem Christi reparari; licet ex parte generis humani reparati non potuit salvari nisi hac via a Deo determinata.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, utrum alio modo genus humanum potuerit reparari, quam per mortem Christi, potest quaeri vel de potentia Dei reparantis, vel ex parte generis humani reparati. Si ex parte Dei reparantis, sic absque dubio aliter potuit genus humanum liberare et reparare, sicut Sancti dicunt; et magister Hugo de sancto Victore alium modum assignat in Libro de Sacramentisp431-3, et Magister recitat in littera. Non enim est limitanda divina potentia, immo etiam, sicut solo nutu mentis et imperio voluntatis potuit creare, ita etiam potuit reparare. — Si autem quaeratur de potentia ex parte generis humani reparati et liberati; sic dicendum, quod determinatum fuit sibip431-4 posse ad hanc viam; et isto modo intelligendo concedi potest, quod genus humanum non potuit aliter reparari; sicut conceditur, quod nullus homo potest salvari, nisi credat in Christum. Non enim patet nobis alia via salutis, nec est aliud nomen sub caelo, in quo oporteat nos salvos fierip431-5b. Potuisset tamen Deus, si voluisset, aliud nomen dare, in quo salus nostra consisteret. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad primam partem, quoniam ostendunt, alium modum nostrae salutis Deo fuisse possibilem, quantum est ex parte divinae potentiae.

Ad opposita. Ad 1, 2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa et de Anselmo, dicendum, quod auctoritates illae intelliguntur, quantum est ex parte nostra, praesupposita dispositione divina, qua nos sic, et non alio modo, liberare decrevit. Per hunc etiam modum intelligenda est auctoritas Ambrosii, quae posita fuit supra distinctione decima octava, capitulo ultimo. « Tantum, inquit, fuit peccatum nostrum, ut salvari non possemus, nisi unigenitus Dei Filius moreretur pro nobis debitoribus mortis »; hoc, inquam, intelligendum est, quia Deus nos aliter non decrevit salvare. Per hunc etiam modum intelligendae sunt auctoritates consimiles.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod optimi est optima adducerep431-6b; dicendum, quod est optimum simpliciter et optimum in genere. Et optimum in genere potest esse magis et minus bonum; et Deus adducit optima in genere, et ideo sic facit optima, ut etiam possit facere meliora et minus bona. Ideo quamvis iste modus esset nostrae miseriae convenientior, non tamen oportuit, quod ita eligeret istum modum, quod non posset eligere alium modum.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod Deus non potest facere contra suam iustitiam, et iustitia non potest praeter satisfactionem culpam dimittere; responderi potest per interemptionemp431-7 duarum propositionum, quas proponit: quarum prima est haec, quod non potuit liberari genus humanum nisi per viam iustitiae, potuit enim liberare per viam misericordiae; nec in hoc fuisset factum praeiudicium iustitiae, si hoc facere voluisset. Potuisset enim omnia demerita delere et hominem in priori statu constituere; nec remansisset aliquid inordinatum in universo nec etiam impunitum. Peccatum enim fert secum poenam suam, per quam ordinaturp431-8; et ita si sine satisfactione genus humanum liberasset, non propter hoc contra iustitiam fecisset. — Potest etiam responderi per interemptionem illius, quod nullo alio modo potuit satisfacere nisi per mortem. Quamvis enim hoc esset magis congruum, fortassis modicum supplicium in tam nobili persona suffecisset ad humani generis reparationem; sed Dominus in liberando supererogavit, propter quod dicitur: Co-

p. 432

piosa apud eum redemptiop432-1. Esto tamen, quod non alio modo potuisset satisfieri pro genere humano, nec genus humanum aliter redimi, sicut multi concedunt; tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod alio modo non potuerit liberari. De liberatione enim firmiter credo, quod alio modo potuit liberare; de redemptione vero nec nego nec audeo affirmare, quia temerarium est, cum de divina potentia agitur, terminum ei praefigere. Amplius enim potest, quam nos possumusp432-2 cogitare.

Scholion

I. Communiter antiqui doctores cum Alexandro Hal. et S. Bonav. (hic ad 4.) distinguunt redemptionem stricte sumtam, cui proprium est, ut fiat iusto pretio soluto, a liberatione quocumque modo facta, at sine solutione pretii. Simplicem liberationem generis humani sine incarnatione fieri potuisse, si Deo placuisset, omnes confitentur; etiam verba Anselmi aliorumque Patrum, quae contrarium asserere videntur, iidem cum nostro Doctore (hic ad 1. 2.) mitius interpretantur, scilicet quod Anselmus loquatur de eadem, quantum est ex parte nostra, supposita Dei ordinatione (S. Thom., hic a. 4. ad 2.). Item communiter conceditur, ut supra (qq. 3. 4.) dictum est, etiam redemptionem per satisfactionem imperfectam alia via fieri potuisse. Sed quoad redemptionem per condignam satisfactionem et secundum potentiam Dei absolutam, communius oppositum tenetur; cui responsioni negativae contradicitur a Nominalibus et etiam a Scoto, ut supra dictum est in scholiis ad qq. 3. 4. 5. — Ex parte autem hominis alius modus vel redemptionis, vel simplicis liberationis non fuit possibilis, nisi quem Deo placuit hominibus providere.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. unica n. 7. seqq., et Report. hic q. unica n. 4. seq. — S. Thom., hic a. 4; S. III. q. 46. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Durand., hic q. I.

---

English Translation

Question VI. Whether God could have saved the human race in another way.

In the sixth and last place it is asked whether God could have saved the human race in another way. And that He could, it seems:

1. First, by that which Pope Leo says in a certain sermon on Palm Sundayp430-1: "The omnipotence of the Son of God, which on account of the same essence is equal to the Father, could have freed the human race by the sole command of His will, had it not most fully befitted the divine works that the adversity of the hostile wickedness should be overcome by that one whom it had conquered."

2. Likewise, Augustine says this same thing in On the Trinity, and it is held in the textp430-2: "We say that another mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are subject; but that no other more suited to the healing of our misery existed."

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown more expressly by the authority of Gregory, in the twentieth book of the Moralsp430-3: "He who made us exist out of nothing was able also to recall us without His own death and passion."

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reduction to an unfitting consequence: because, if He could not have freed us in another way, then the divine power would have been limited, and the person of Christ subject to the passion; which is altogether absurd: therefore also that from which it followsp430-4.

On the contrary: 1. Upon that text to the Hebrews, second chapterp431-5: It was fitting that the author of their salvation be perfected through suffering; the Gloss: "Unless Christ died, man would not be redeemed, and not being redeemed would perish, and all things made would be in vain": if therefore this is impossible, it remains that the first is impossible, namely that Christ not die for the salvation of the human race. And if this was impossible, [it was impossible] for the human race to be freed in another way than through the death of Christ.

2. Likewise, Anselm in the book Why God Became Manp431-6: "He could not let the cup pass unless He drank it, not because He could not have avoided death, if He wished, but because, as has been said, it was impossible to save the world otherwise": there returns therefore the same as before.

3. Likewise, as Augustine saysp431-1: "No other mode was more fitting than this one": if therefore "it belongs to the best to bring forth the best things," as it belongs to the good to do good things; it seems that it was necessary for the highest goodness to choose this mode. If therefore it was necessary to choose this mode, it was impossible to be saved in another way.

4. Likewise, God, since He is supremely just, cannot deny Himselfp431-2: therefore if He ought to restore the human race, it is necessary that He restore it through the way of justice; but restoration through the way of justice cannot be except through satisfaction, as was shown above; but to make satisfaction for the whole human race cannot belong to any except one who is God and man; the sufficient mode of making satisfaction cannot be except that soul be paid for soul, and life be given for life: therefore from the first, it was impossible that God should restore the human race by another way.

Conclusion. The human race, on the part of God who restores and frees, could have been restored by another way than through the death of Christ; although on the part of the human race that is restored it could not be saved except by this way determined by God.

I respond: It must be said that when it is asked whether the human race could have been restored in another way than through the death of Christ, it can be asked either concerning the power of God who restores, or on the part of the human race that is restored. If on the part of God who restores, then without doubt He could have freed and restored the human race otherwise, as the Saints say; and master Hugh of Saint Victor assigns another mode in his Book On the Sacramentsp431-3, and the Master recounts it in the text. For the divine power is not to be limited; nay rather, just as by the mere nod of the mind and the command of the will He was able to create, so also He was able to restore. — But if it is asked concerning the power on the part of the human race that is restored and freed, then it must be said that it was determined for itp431-4 to have the power for this way; and understanding it in this manner it can be conceded that the human race could not be restored otherwise; just as it is conceded that no man can be saved unless he believes in Christ. For no other way of salvation lies open to us, nor is there another name under heaven in which it behooves us to be savedp431-5b. Yet God could, if He had willed, have given another name in which our salvation would consist. — The arguments for the first part are therefore to be granted, since they show that another mode of our salvation was possible to God, so far as it is on the part of the divine power.

To the opposing arguments. To 1 and 2. But to that which is objected to the contrary from the Gloss and from Anselm, it must be said that those authorities are understood so far as it is on our part, the divine disposition being presupposed, by which He decreed to free us thus, and not in another way. By this mode also is to be understood the authority of Ambrose, which was set down above in the eighteenth distinction, in the last chapter. "So great," he says, "was our sin, that we could not be saved unless the only-begotten Son of God should die for us, debtors of death"; this, I say, is to be understood as meaning that God did not decree to save us otherwise. By this mode also are similar authorities to be understood.

To 3. To that which is objected, that it belongs to the best to bring forth the best thingsp431-6b; it must be said that there is the best absolutely and the best in its kind. And the best in its kind can be more and less good; and God brings forth the best in its kind, and so He does the best things in such a way that He can also do better and less good things. Therefore although this mode was more suited to our misery, it nevertheless was not necessary that He so choose this mode that He could not choose another mode.

To 4. To that which is objected last, that God cannot act against His own justice, and justice cannot remit guilt apart from satisfaction; it can be answered by the destructionp431-7 of the two propositions which he sets forth: of which the first is this, that the human race could not be freed except through the way of justice, for He was able to free it through the way of mercy; nor in this would prejudice have been done to justice, if He had willed to do this. For He could have blotted out all the demerits and established man in his former state; nor would anything disordered have remained in the universe, nor even anything unpunished. For sin bears with it its own punishment, by which it is set in orderp431-8; and so if He had freed the human race without satisfaction, He would not on this account have acted against justice. — It can also be answered by the destruction of that [proposition], that there was no other mode by which He could make satisfaction except through death. For although this was more fitting, perhaps a slight punishment in so noble a person would have sufficed for the reparation of the human race; but the Lord in freeing us did more than was required, on account of which it is said: Co-

pious is redemption with Himp432-1. Yet granted that He could not have made satisfaction for the human race in another way, nor the human race be redeemed otherwise, as many concede; nevertheless from this it does not follow that He could not have freed it in another way. For concerning the freeing I firmly believe that He could have freed it in another way; but concerning the redemption I neither deny nor dare to affirm, because it is rash, when one treats of the divine power, to set a limit to it. For He can do more than we are ablep432-2 to conceive.

Scholion

I. Commonly the ancient doctors, together with Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure (here at reply 4), distinguish redemption taken strictly, whose proper character is that it be done by a just price paid, from a freeing done in any way whatsoever, but without the payment of a price. That a simple freeing of the human race could have come about without the incarnation, had it pleased God, all confess; even the words of Anselm and of the other Fathers, which seem to assert the contrary, these same [doctors], with our Doctor (here at replies 1 and 2), interpret more gently, namely that Anselm speaks of the same, so far as it is on our part, the ordination of God being supposed (St. Thomas, here a. 4 ad 2). Likewise it is commonly conceded, as was said above (qq. 3 and 4), that redemption too, through imperfect satisfaction, could have come about by another way. But as for redemption through condign satisfaction and according to the absolute power of God, the opposite is more commonly held; to which negative response contradiction is made by the Nominalists and also by Scotus, as was said above in the scholia to qq. 3, 4, 5. — But on the part of man no other mode either of redemption or of simple freeing was possible, except that which it pleased God to provide for men.

II. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. III q. 18 m. 3 a. 2. — Scotus, here q. unica n. 7 ff., and Report. here q. unica n. 4 f. — St. Thomas, here a. 4; Summa III q. 46 a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 1, 2, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Serm. 63. (serm. 12. vel 14. in Passione Domini) c. I: Omnipotentia... potuisset humanum genus a dominatu diaboli solo imperio suae voluntatis eruere, nisi... adversitas de eo quod vicerat, vinceretur.
    Sermon 63 (sermon 12 or 14 On the Passion of the Lord) c. 1: The omnipotence... could have rescued the human race from the dominion of the devil by the sole command of His will, had not... the adversity been overcome by that which it had conquered.
  2. Hic c. I. — Paulo inferius pro sed nostrae edd. 1, 2 cum non paucis codd. et nostrae.
    Here c. 1. — A little below, for sed nostrae ("but... of our"), editions 1, 2 together with not a few codices read et nostrae ("and... of our").
  3. Cap. 36. n. 69. In textu origin. sic legitur: Qui nos... revocare videlicet etiam sine sua morte potuit a passione.
    Chapter 36, n. 69. In the original text it reads thus: He who... was able, namely, to recall us even without His own death from the passion.
  4. Etiam Bernard., Tract. de errorib. Abaelardi, c. 8. n. 19, de hoc inconvenienti ait: Porro ratio huius facti fuit dignatio facientis. Quis negat, Omnipotenti ad manum fuisse alios et alios modos nostrae redemptionis, iustificationis, liberationis? — Ante passioni subiecta cod. aa (La secunda manu) interiicit necessario, cod. K et (i. e. etiam).
    Bernard too, Treatise on the Errors of Abelard, c. 8 n. 19, says of this unfitting consequence: Moreover the reason for this deed was the gracious condescension of the doer. Who denies that the Omnipotent had at hand other and other modes of our redemption, justification, freeing? — Before passioni subiecta codex aa (by a second hand) inserts necessario, codex K et (that is, "even").
  5. Vers. 10. — Glossa est ordinaria. Apud Strabum nec non apud Petr. Lombard., in hunc loc. Tamen ibi post periret omisso et, eiusque loco posito puncto, sic pergitur: Quod si esset, frustra facta essent omnia etc. Cfr. testimonium supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. S. sub Ambrosii nomine allegatum. — Paulo inferius inter Et si hoc et impossibile fuit edd. interiiciunt est impossibile.
    Verse 10. — The Gloss is the Ordinary one. In Strabo and also in Peter Lombard, on this passage. Yet there, after periret, with et omitted and a period put in its place, it proceeds thus: And if it were so, all things would have been made in vain, etc. Compare the testimony cited above in the Master's text, d. XVIII c. S under the name of Ambrose. — A little below, between Et si hoc and impossibile fuit the editions insert est impossibile.
  6. Libr. I. c. 10: Non autem potuisse calicem transire, nisi biberet illum, dixit: non quia... sed quoniam, sicut dictum est, mundum erat impossibile aliter salvari. — Pro Non potuit Vat. Non voluit, et dein pro non posset cod. D non potuisset, cod. U non potuit. Lectio transire calicem (Matth. 26, 42: hic calix transire) est in codd. et ex citatis verbis Anselmi fluxisse videtur.
    Book I c. 10: But He said that the cup could not pass unless He drank it: not because... but because, as has been said, it was impossible for the world to be saved otherwise. — For Non potuit the Vatican reads Non voluit ("He would not"), and then for non posset codex D reads non potuisset, codex U non potuit. The reading transire calicem (Matt. 26:42: let this cup pass) is in the codices and seems to have flowed from the cited words of Anselm.
  7. Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 10. n. 13. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. I. — Seq. testimonium est Dionysii, de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 19. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 113, nota 7. — Deinde cod. A bis elicere pro eligere.
    Book XIII On the Trinity c. 10 n. 13. See here the Master's text, c. 1. — The following testimony is that of Dionysius, On the Divine Names c. 4 § 19. Compare tom. II p. 113, note 7. — Then codex A twice reads elicere for eligere.
  8. Epist. II. Tim. 2, 13. — De minori vide supra q. 2. seq. — Paulo inferius post modus codd. AKV subdunt autem, Vat. etiam. Subinde pro esse non potest cod. U non est.
    Epistle, 2 Tim. 2:13. — Concerning the minor [premise] see above, q. 2 and following. — A little below, after modus codices AKV add autem, the Vatican etiam. Thereafter for esse non potest codex U reads non est.
  9. Libr. I. p. VIII. c. 10. — Magistri sententia invenitur hic in lit. c. 4; cfr. supra d. XVIII. c. I. seq. — Paulo superius codd. omittunt aliter, pro quo solus cod. Z substituit aliquo (alio?) modo; et subinde edd. passive liberari et reparari.
    Book I p. VIII c. 10. — The Master's opinion is found here in the text, c. 4; compare above d. XVIII c. 1 and following. — A little above, the codices omit aliter, for which codex Z alone substitutes aliquo (alio?) modo ("by some [other?] mode"); and thereafter the editions read passively liberari and reparari.
  10. Cod. U determinavit sibi, cod. A determinatum supra fuit, scil. quaest. 2.
    Codex U reads determinavit sibi ("He determined for Himself"), codex A determinatum supra fuit ("it was determined above"), namely q. 2.
  11. Act. 4, 12. Cfr. supra pag. 236, nota 10. — Paulo inferius pro quoniam codd. K L aa quae.
    Acts 4:12. Compare above p. 236, note 10. — A little below, for quoniam codices K L aa read quae.
  12. Plurimi codd. producere. — Eodem modo explicatur hoc dictum Dionysii etiam I. Sent. d. 44. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1, et II. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.
    Very many codices read producere ("to produce"). — This saying of Dionysius is explained in the same manner also in I Sent. d. 44 a. 1 q. 2 ad 1, and II Sent. d. 23 a. 1 q. 1 ad 1.
  13. Sive negationem. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 87, nota 4. — Post pauca pro quod non potuit liberari cod. K quia non potuit liberare.
    That is, by negation. Compare tom. I p. 87, note 4. — A little after, for quod non potuit liberari codex K reads quia non potuit liberare.
  14. Vide II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 1.
    See II Sent. d. 36 a. 2 q. 1.
  15. Psalm. 129, 7. — Mox pro satisfieri codd. A U satisfacere.
    Psalm 129:7. — Presently, for satisfieri codices A U read satisfacere.
  16. Codd. A H L aa bb possimus. Paulo superius pro potuit liberare edd. potuit liberari.
    Codices A H L aa bb read possimus. A little above, for potuit liberare the editions read potuit liberari.
← Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 5Dist. 20, Dubia→