Dist. 20
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 20
DISTINCTIO XX.
Cap. I. Quod alio modo potuit liberare.
Si vero quaeritur, utrum alio modo posset Deus hominem liberare quam per mortem Christi; «dicimus, et alium modum fuisse possibilem Deo, cuius potestati cuncta subiacent; sed nostrae miseriae sanandae convenientiorem modum alium non fuisse nec esse oportuisse. Quid enim mentes nostras tantum erigit et ab immortalitatis desperatione liberat, quam quod tanti nos fecit Deus, ut Dei Filius immutabiliter bonus, in se manens quod erat, et a nobis accipiens quod non erat, dignatus nostrum inire consortium, ut mala nostra moriendo perferretp414-1»?
Cap. II. Quare isto modo potius.
Est et alia ratio, quare isto potius modo quam alio liberare voluit: «quia sic et iustitia superatur diabolus, non potentiap414-2». «Et quomodo id factum sit, explicabo, ut potero». «Quadam iustitia Dei in potestatem diaboli traditum est genus humanum, peccato primi hominis in omnes originaliter transeunte et illius debito omnes obligante; unde omnes homines ab origine sunt sub principe diabolo. Unde Apostolusp414-3: Eramus natura filii irae, natura, scilicet ut est depravata peccato, non ut est recta creata ab initio. Modus autem ille, quo traditus est homo in diaboli potestatem, non ita debet intelligi, tanquam Deus hoc fecerit aut fieri iusserit, sed quod tantum permiserit, iuste tamen. Illo enim deserente, peccantem peccati auctor illico invasit. Non tamen Deus continuit in ira sua miserationes suas nec hominem a lege suae potestatis amisit, cum in diaboli potestate esse permisit, quia nec diabolus a potestate Dei est alienus, sicut nec a bonitate. Nam qualicumque vita diabolus vel homo non subsisteret, nisi per eum qui vivificat omnia». Non ergo Deus hominem deseruit, ut non se illi exhiberet Deum, sed inter mala poenalia etiam malis multa praestitit bona; et tandem hominem, quem commissio peccatorum diabolo subdidit, remissio peccatorum, per sanguinem Christi data, a diabolo eruit, ut sic iustitia vinceretur diabolus, non potentia.
Cap. III. Qua iustitia sit victus diabolus.
«Sed qua iustitia? Iesu Christi. Et quomodo victus est ea? Quia in eo nihil dignum morte inveniens, occidit eum tamen. Et utique iustum est, ut debitores, quos tenebat, liberi dimittantur, in eum credentes, quem sine ullo debito occiditp414-4». «Ideo autem potentia vincere noluit, quia diabolus vitio perversitatis suae amator est potentiae et desertor oppugnatorque iustitiae; in quo homines magis eum imitantur, qui, neglecta vel etiam perosa iustitia, potentiae magis student eiusque vel adeptione laetantur, vel cupiditate inflammantur. Ideoque placuit Deo, ut non potentia, sed
iustitia vincens, hominem erueret, in quo homo eum imitari disceret». «Post vero in resurrectione secula est potentia, quia revixit mortuus, nunquam postea moriturus». «Sed nonne iure aequissimo vinceretur diabolus, si potentia tantum Christus cum illo agere voluisset? Utique, sed postposuit Christus quod potuit, ut prius ageret quod oportuit». — Iustitia ergo humilitatis hominem liberavit, quem sola potentia aequissime liberare potuit.
Cap. IV. De causa inter Deum et hominem et diabolum.
«Si enim tres illi in causam venirent, scilicet Deus, homo et diabolus, diabolus et homo quid adversus Deum dicerent, non haberent. Diabolus enim de iniuria convinceretur, quia servum eius, scilicet hominem, et fraudulenter abduxit et violenter tenuit. Homo etiam iniuriusp415-1 Deo convinceretur, quia praecepta eius contempsit et se alieno dominio mancipavit. De hominis etiam iniuria convinceretur diabolus, quia illum et prius fallaci promissione decepit et post mala inferendo laesit. Iniuste igitur diabolus, quantum ad se, tenebat hominem, sed homo iuste tenebatur; quia diabolus nunquam meruit potestatem habere super hominem, sed homo meruit per culpam pati diaboli tyrannidemp415-2». Si igitur Deus, qui utrique praeerat, potentia hominem liberare vellet, sola iussionis virtute hominem poterat rectissime liberare, sed ob causam praemissam iustitia humilitatis uti voluit. Qui dum in carne mortali crucifixus est, iustificati sumus, id est per remissionem peccatorum eruti de potestate diaboli, et ita a Christo iustitia diabolus victus est, non potentia. Quomodo autem in eius sanguine nobis peccata sint dimissa, suprap415-3 expositum est.
Cap. V. De traditione Christi facta a Iuda, a Deo, a Iudaeis.
Christus ergo est sacerdos, idemque hostia et pretiump415-4 nostrae reconciliationis, qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed Deo-Trinitati obtulit pro omnibus quantum ad pretii sufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficientiam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit. De quo et legitur, quod sit traditus a Patre, et quod se ipsum tradidit, et quod Iudas eum tradidit, et Iudaei. Ipse se tradidit, quia sponte ad passionem accessit; et Pater eum tradidit, quia voluntate Patris, immo totius Trinitatis passus est; Iudas tradidit prodendo, et Iudaei instigando. — Et fuit actus Iudae et Iudaeorum malus, et actus Christi vel Patris bonus; opus Christi et Patris bonum, quia bona Patris et Filii voluntas; malum fuit opus Iudae et Iudaeorum, quia mala fuit intentio. Diversa fuerunt ibi facta sive opera, id est diversi actus, et una res sive factum, scilicet passio ipsa. Ideoquep415-5 doctores aliquando uniunt in facto illo Patrem, Filium, Iudam, Iudaeum; aliquando disiungunt. Respicientes enim ad passionem, unum opus illorum dicunt; attendentes intentiones et actus, facta diversa discernunt. Unde Augustinusp415-6: «Facta est, inquit, traditio a Patre, facta est traditio a Filio, facta est traditio a Iuda: una res facta est. Quid ergo discernit inter eos? Quia hoc fecit Pater et Filius in caritate, Iudas vero in proditione. Videtis, quia non quid faciat homo, sed qua voluntate, considerandum est. In eodem facto invenimus Deum, quo Iudam; Deum benedicimus, Iudam detestamur; quia Deus cogitavit salutem nostram, Iudas cogitavit pretium, quo vendidit Dominum, Filius pretium, quod dedit pro nobis. Diversa ergo intentio diversa facta facit, cum tamen sit una res diversis». — Ecce unam rem dicit ibi fuisse et diversa facta, quia una ibi fuit passio, sed diversi actus; et actus quidem Iudae ac Iudaeorum mali, quibus operati sunt Christi passionem, quae bonum est et opus Dei est.
Cap. VI. Utrum Christi passio sit opus Dei, vel Iudaeorum.
Passio ergo Christi et opus Iudaeorum dicitur, quia ex actibus eorum provenit, et opus Dei, quia eo auctore, id est eo volente, fuit. Unde Augustinusp415-7: «Nemo aufert animam Christi ab eo, quia potestatem habet ponendi eam et sumendi; ecce habes auctorem operis. Ponet animam; ecce habes opus auctoris. Et ut generaliter concludam, quoties in carne Christus aliquid patitur, opus auctoris est; quia enimp415-8 sua voluntate, non alio cogente, perpetitur, ipse auctor est operis». — Cum autem passio Christi opus Dei sit, ideo bonum, eamque operati sint Iudas et Iudaei; quaeritur, an concedendum sit, eos operatos ibi esse bonum. Hic distinguendum est: potest enim dici, quod operati sunt bonum, quia ex actibus eorum bonum provenit, id est passio Christi; et item, quod operati non sunt bonum, sed malum, quia actio eorum non fuit bona, sed mala.
---
DISTINCTION XX.
Chap. I. That he could have liberated in another way.
But if it is asked whether God could liberate man in some other way than through the death of Christ, «we say that another way too was possible for God, to whose power all things are subject; but that for the healing of our misery no other more fitting way was, nor ought to have been. For what so raises our minds and frees them from despair of immortality as that God made so much of us, that the Son of God, immutably good, remaining in himself what he was, and taking from us what he was not, deigned to enter into fellowship with us, so as to bear our evils by dyingp414-1»?
Chap. II. Why rather in this way.
There is also another reason why he willed to liberate in this way rather than another: «because thus the devil too is overcome by justice, not by powerp414-2». «And how this was done, I will explain as I am able». «By a certain justice of God the human race was handed over into the power of the devil, since the sin of the first man passes originally into all and binds all by his debt; whence all men are from their origin under the devil as their prince. Whence the Apostlep414-3: We were by nature children of wrath, by nature, that is, as it is depraved by sin, not as it is rightly created from the beginning. But that manner in which man was handed over into the power of the devil must not be so understood as though God did this or commanded it to be done, but that he only permitted it, yet justly. For, when he deserted him, the author of sin straightway invaded the sinner. Yet God did not withhold his mercies in his anger, nor did he lose man from the law of his power when he permitted him to be in the devil's power, since neither is the devil estranged from the power of God, just as not from his goodness. For with whatever life the devil or man might be, he would not subsist save through him who gives life to all things». God therefore did not desert man so as not to show himself God to him, but amid the penal evils he also bestowed many goods even on the wicked; and at last man, whom the commission of sins had subjected to the devil, the remission of sins, given through the blood of Christ, snatched away from the devil, so that thus the devil might be overcome by justice, not by power.
Chap. III. By what justice the devil was overcome.
«But by what justice? That of Jesus Christ. And how was he overcome by it? Because, finding in him nothing worthy of death, he nevertheless slew him. And it is altogether just that the debtors whom he held should be set free, believing in him whom he slew without any debtp414-4». «But he willed not to conquer by power, because the devil, by the vice of his perversity, is a lover of power and a deserter and assailant of justice; wherein men the more imitate him who, justice being neglected or even hated, are the more zealous for power and rejoice either in its attainment or are inflamed with desire of it. And therefore it pleased God that, not by power, but
by justice prevailing, he should rescue man, wherein man might learn to imitate him». «But afterwards in the resurrection there was power, since he who had died rose again, never thereafter to die». «But would not the devil have been overcome by a most just right, if Christ had willed to deal with him by power alone? Indeed; but Christ set aside what he could do, so as first to do what he ought». — Justice therefore of humility liberated man, whom power alone could most justly have liberated.
Chap. IV. On the case between God and man and the devil.
«For if those three should come into court, namely God, man, and the devil, the devil and man would have nothing to say against God. For the devil would be convicted of injury, because he both fraudulently led away God's servant, that is, man, and held him by violence. Man too would be convicted as injuriousp415-1 to God, because he despised his precepts and bound himself over to an alien dominion. The devil too would be convicted of injury to man, because he both first deceived him by a deceitful promise and afterward harmed him by inflicting evils. Unjustly, therefore, as regards himself, did the devil hold man, but man was justly held; because the devil never merited to have power over man, but man merited through his fault to suffer the devil's tyrannyp415-2». If therefore God, who presided over both, willed to liberate man by power, he could most rightly have liberated man by the virtue of his command alone, but for the reason set forth he willed to use the justice of humility. Who, while he was crucified in mortal flesh, we were justified, that is, through the remission of sins snatched from the power of the devil; and thus by Christ the devil was overcome by justice, not by power. But how in his blood our sins were remitted has been explained abovep415-3.
Chap. V. On the betrayal of Christ done by Judas, by God, by the Jews.
Christ therefore is priest, and likewise victim and pricep415-4 of our reconciliation, who offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the God-Trinity for all as to the sufficiency of the price, but for the elect only as to the efficacy, since he wrought salvation only for the predestined. Of whom it is also read that he was handed over by the Father, and that he handed over himself, and that Judas handed him over, and the Jews. He himself handed himself over, because he came willingly to the passion; and the Father handed him over, because by the will of the Father, indeed of the whole Trinity, he suffered; Judas handed him over by betraying, and the Jews by inciting. — And the act of Judas and the Jews was evil, and the act of Christ or of the Father good; the work of Christ and of the Father was good, because the will of the Father and of the Son was good; the work of Judas and the Jews was evil, because the intention was evil. There were there diverse deeds or works, that is, diverse acts, and one thing or fact, namely the passion itself. And thereforep415-5 the doctors sometimes unite in that fact the Father, the Son, Judas, the Jew; sometimes they distinguish them. For looking to the passion, they call it one work of theirs; attending to the intentions and acts, they discern diverse deeds. Whence Augustinep415-6: «There was made, he says, a betrayal by the Father, there was made a betrayal by the Son, there was made a betrayal by Judas: one thing was done. What then distinguishes among them? That the Father and the Son did this in charity, but Judas in betrayal. You see that it is not what a man does, but with what will, that is to be considered. In the same deed we find God as we find Judas; we bless God, we detest Judas; because God thought of our salvation, Judas thought of the price for which he sold the Lord, the Son of the price which he gave for us. Diverse intention therefore makes diverse deeds, although it be one thing in diverse persons». — Behold, he says that there was there one thing and diverse deeds, because there was there one passion, but diverse acts; and the acts indeed of Judas and the Jews were evil, by which they wrought the passion of Christ, which is good and is the work of God.
Chap. VI. Whether the passion of Christ is the work of God, or of the Jews.
The passion therefore of Christ is called both the work of the Jews, because it came about from their acts, and the work of God, because it was by him as author, that is, by his willing it. Whence Augustinep415-7: «No one takes away Christ's soul from him, because he has the power of laying it down and of taking it up; behold, you have the author of the work. He will lay down his soul; behold, you have the work of the author. And, to conclude generally, as often as Christ in the flesh suffers anything, it is the work of the author; for sincep415-8 by his own will, no other compelling, he undergoes it, he himself is the author of the work». — But since the passion of Christ is the work of God, and therefore good, and Judas and the Jews wrought it; it is asked whether it is to be granted that they wrought good there. Here a distinction must be made: for it can be said that they wrought good, because from their acts good came about, that is, the passion of Christ; and likewise, that they did not work good, but evil, because their action was not good, but evil.
---
- 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 XIII, c. 14, n. 18, concerning which see the text of the Master, d. XX, c. 3. — Next, with codices A K we prefix to the word licet the word et, and shortly after the editions omit debetur.
- Vide I. Sent. d. 30. per totam. — De hoc dubio cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 8.See I Sent. d. 30 throughout. — On this doubt cf. Blessed Albert, here a. 8.
- Eph. 2, 3; seq. locus Scripturae est Ps. 76, 10. (Vulgata: aut continebit in ira sua etc.) — Paulo superius ante deserente codd. et cd. 1 omittunt enim, refragante etiam originali. Deinde post potestatis Vat. cum edd. 2, 6, 8 emisit pro amisit, refragante etiam originali.Eph. 2, 3; the following scriptural passage is Ps. 76, 10. (Vulgate: or will he withhold his mercies in his anger etc.) — A little above, before deserente the codices and ed. 1 omit enim, the original also disagreeing. Then after potestatis the Vatican edition with edd. 2, 6, 8 reads emisit for amisit, the original also disagreeing.
- August., XIII. de Trin. c. 14. n. 18. Verba nihil dignum morte inveniens respiciunt Luc. 23, 15. Seq. locus ibid. c. 13. n. 17; tertius ibid. c. 14. n. 18; quartus ibid. parum superius.Augustine, On the Trinity XIII, c. 14, n. 18. The words finding nothing worthy of death refer to Luke 23, 15. The next passage is ibid. c. 13, n. 17; the third ibid. c. 14, n. 18; the fourth ibid. a little above.
- Edd. 1, 5 iniuriosus.Editions 1, 5 read iniuriosus.
- Ita Hugo a S. Vict., l. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 4. — Paulo inferius ante rectissime pro poterat Vat. cum cod. E et pluribus edd. potuit.So Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, bk. VIII, c. 4. — A little below, before rectissime, in place of poterat the Vatican edition with codex E and several editions reads potuit.
- Dist. XIX. c. 1.Dist. XIX, c. 1.
- Cfr. Ps. 109, 4; Hebr. 9, 26; Rom. 5, 9. Inferius respicitur Rom. 8, 32; Isai. 53, 7; Gal. 2, 20; Eph. 5, 2; Matth. 26, 25. 47; 27, 18. — Quoad sequentia cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 93. n. 28, et lit. Magistri, l. Sent. d. XLVIII. c. 2.Cf. Ps. 109, 4; Heb. 9, 26; Rom. 5, 9. Below there is reference to Rom. 8, 32; Isa. 53, 7; Gal. 2, 20; Eph. 5, 2; Matt. 26, 25. 47; 27, 18. — As to what follows cf. Augustine, Enarration on Ps. 93, n. 28, and the text of the Master, I Sent. d. XLVIII, c. 2.
- Codd. et cd. 1 Ideo. Deinde pro Iudaeum Vat. et edd. 1, 5, 8 Iudaeos.The codices and ed. 1 read Ideo. Then for Iudaeum the Vatican edition and edd. 1, 5, 8 read Iudaeos.
- In Epist. I. Ioan. (4, 4.) tr. 7, n. 7. In quo textu post Quid ergo codd. A B C E discrevit pro discernit; deinde post in caritate edd. 1, 8 addunt ex caritate. Vat. in fine post diversis addit intentionibus.On the First Epistle of John (4, 4), tr. 7, n. 7. In which text, after Quid ergo, codices A B C E read discrevit for discernit; then after in caritate edd. 1, 8 add ex caritate. The Vatican edition at the end, after diversis, adds intentionibus.
- De Unitate Trinit. contr. Felician. c. 14. (inter opera August., sed probabilius et communiter attribuitur Vigilio). — In isto loco respicitur Ioan. 10, 18. — Paulo superius ante volente codd. omittunt eo.On the Unity of the Trinity against Felician, c. 14 (among the works of Augustine, but more probably and commonly attributed to Vigilius). — In this place there is reference to John 10, 18. — A little above, before volente, the codices omit eo.
- Sola Vat. Sed quia, cd. 8 Quia vero, originale Sed quia id ipsum, sua potestate, non alio cogente etc. Nos sequimur codd. et ceteras edd.The Vatican edition alone reads Sed quia, ed. 8 Quia vero, the original Sed quia id ipsum, sua potestate, non alio cogente etc. We follow the codices and the other editions.