← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus
p. 539

Quaestio II. Utrum eis qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem.

Secundo quaeritur de fidei sufficientia quantum ad eos qui praecesserunt adventum Christi, et quaeritur, utrum eis suffecerit ad salutem credere ea tantum, quae spectant ad Divinitatem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Hebraeos undecimop539-1: Oportet accedentem credere, quia est, et quia remunerator est: si ergo Apostolus determinat sufficienter illud quod erat fidei opportunum, videtur, quod illud sufficiebat eis credere. Sed totum illud credi poterat nihil credendo de humanitate Christi: ergo videtur, quod tunc temporis ad salutem sufficiebat sola fides Divinitatis.

2. Item, fides, quae sufficienter dirigit ad sperandum et amandum, sufficit ad salutemp539-2; sed fides, qua quis credit Deum creatorem et remuneratorem suum, sufficienter dirigit ipsum ad sperandum et amandum: ergo videtur, quod omni fide humanitatis exclusa, fides solius Divinitatis ad salutem sufficiebat.

3. Item, multi salvati sunt sine fide passionis Christi — paucissimi enim praecesserunt in veteri Testamento, qui crederentp539-3 Filium Dei esse crucifigendum pro salute generis humani — si ergo salvari potuerunt sine fide passionis, eadem ratione sine fide incarnationis: ergo et sine fide Mediatoris.

4. Item, nullus homo tenetur nosse quod ignorant Angeli; sed ante Christi adventum ignorabant Angeli Christi incarnationem: ergo homines non tenebantur illam credere. Maior propositio in se manifesta est; minor probatur per illud quod dicitur Isaiae sexagesimo tertiop539-4: Quis est iste qui venit de Edom? ibi Glossa: «Aperte declaratur, quod quidam Angeli, donec impleretur, mysterium incarnationis non cognoverunt». Et ad Ephesios tertio dicitur: Ut innotescat Principatibus et Potestatibus in caelestibus; et ex aliis pluribus locis potest haberi. Unde Chrysostomus in Homilia prima super Ioannem: «Multum honorati sumus, quod nobiscum Angeli per vocem Ioannis didicerunt»; et idem habetur in Glossa super illud ad Ephesios tertio: Quae sit dispensatio mysterii absconditi a saeculis in Deo.

5. Item, qui implet in Lege evangelica quod est de dictamine eius, pervenit ad salutem, et similiter de Lege Mosaica: ergo pari ratione qui implebat, quae erant de dictamine Legis naturae, ad salutem perveniebat, secundum quod innuit Apostolus ad Romanos secundop539-5: ergo tempore Legis naturae non oportebat credere ad salutem, nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae. Sed Deum incarnari et Mediatorem futurum esse non erat de dictamine Le-

p. 540

gis naturae: ergo non videtur, quod oportebat illo tempore credere.

6. Item, nullus tenetur operari illud, ad quod non potest se erigere virtus sua operativa: ergo nullus tenebatur credere illud cuius notitiam non poterat acquirere nec per inventionem nec per doctrinamp540-1. Si ergo tempore legis naturae cognitionem de Mediatore non poterant per se invenire, nec erat qui exterius doceret, nec adhuc erant revelationes propheticae; videtur, quod tunc temporis nihil tenebantur credere de Mediatore: ergo sine fide Mediatoris pervenire poterant ad salutem.

Contra hoc sunt auctoritates multae, quas Magister adducit in litterap540-2, et hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione.

1. Christus est caput totius Ecclesiae, ergo nullus potest salvari, nisi fiat membrum Christi; sed membrum Christi non potest fieri, nisi credat in Christum: ergo sine fide Mediatoris nullus unquam salvari potuit.

2. Item, nullus potuit ingredi in caelum, nisi aperta ianua; sed ianua non potuit aperiri nisi per passionem Christi: ergo nullus potuit salvari nisi merito passionis Christi. Sed meritum passionis Christi non valet nisi eis, in quibus habitat Christus: si ergo Christus habitat per fidem et caritatem, quae habetur ad ipsump540-3; impossibile fuit, aliquem salvari sine fide Mediatoris.

3. Item, nullus potest salvari sine remissione peccati originalis; sed originale peccatum non potest remitti nisi per fidem, vel per aliquod fidei Sacramentum, quod sit ipsius Mediatoris signump540-4: ergo nullus potuit pervenire ad salutem ante adventum Christi, qui non crederet Mediatorem.

4. Item, nullus potest pervenire ad salutem, nisi qui sperat; nullus recte sperat, nisi qui credit, ad salutem se perventurum per merita, quia spes procedit «ex gratia et meritisp540-5»: si ergo illi qui praecesserunt Christi adventum, salvabantur, credebant, se per merita salvari: aut ergo credebant, merita propria sibi sufficere, aut meritis alienis indigere. Si credebant, propria sibi sufficere: ergo efferebantur et decipiebantur, ergo non salvabantur; si credebant, se alienis meritis indigere: ergo habebant fidem de Mediatore: ergo nullus salvari potuit post lapsum absque fide Redemptoris.

Conclusio.

Nullus post lapsum salvari potuit absque Mediatoris fide saltem implicita.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut multis auctoritatibus probat Magister in litterap540-6, post lapsum Adae nullus salvari potuit absque fide Mediatoris. Nullus enim ab illo peccato poterat liberari, nisi in illum Mediatorem crederet, vel ipse pro se, si esset adultus, vel alius pro ipso, si esset parvulus.

Et ratio huius est: quia, cum gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta sitp540-7, et liberatio ab illo peccato sit per merita Christi, et merita Christi non se extendant nisi ad illos qui efficiuntur eius membra et ei copulantur per fidem; sicut impossibile est, nunc aliquem salvari, nisi eidem copuletur vel per fidem, vel per fidei Sacramentum: sic et impossibile fuit, post lapsum aliquem pervenire ad salutem, qui aliquo modo in Christum mediatorem non crederet. Ideo autem dico aliquo modo, quia fides Mediatoris potest haberi dupliciter, videlicet implicite, vel explicite: explicite, ut si quis crederet, Filium Dei assumpturum nostram humanitatem, nasciturum de Virgine, passurum in Cruce, resurrecturum tertia die etc. Et hoc modo explicite credere non erat omnibus opportunum, sed his solum, quibus a Deo erat revelatum, sicut sanctissimis Patribusp540-8. — Implicite vero credere est exspectare redemptorem futurum, qualiter autem et quomodo hoc debeat esse, credere secundum quod illi credebant, quibus a Domino est revelatum; et hoc quidem erat omnibus opportunum.

Et hoc est quod dicit magister Hugo de sancto Victore in libro de Sacramentisp540-9: «Haec sunt, inquit, quibus ab initio nihil minus recta fides unquam habere potuit, credere videlicet, unum esse Deum, creatorem omnium et rectorem universorum;

p. 541

ipsum quidem non esse mali auctorem, eorum tamen, qui in malis suis misericordiam eius quaererent et exspectarent futurum redemptorem. Hoc simplicium fidei in initio suffecisse credimus; et tamen fidem nativitatis eius, passionis et resurrectionis et ascensionis suae in hoc eos verissime habuisse dicimus, quia credentibus et scientibus hoc fide et devotione adhaeserunt». — Sic igitur concedendum est, quod nullus post lapsum salvari potuit absque fide Mediatoris; qua quia philosophi caruerunt, suis meritis et virtutibus inhaerentes, ideo tanquam superbi et a Christi membris et meritis separati, exclusi sunt a gaudiis paradisip541-1. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad istam partem adductae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de auctoritate Apostoli, dicendum, quod Apostolus praecise non intendit determinare totum, quod est ad salutem necessarium, sed illud, sine quo non potest esse salus. Dicit enim, quod hoc est opportunum, sed non dicit, quod hoc sit sufficiens. Tangit autem illa duo potissime, quia necessaria erant omni statui naturae, non solum statui naturae lapsae, sed etiam statui innocentiaep541-2.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides Creatoris et Remuneratoris sufficienter dirigit ad sperandum et amandum; dicendum, quod falsum est secundum statum naturae lapsae, quia, cum spes procedat ex meritis, sicut in opponendop541-3 tactum est, si quis speraret salvari ex meritis propriis, sine meritis Mediatoris, non recte speraret, sed potius praesumeret. Ideo spes non sufficienter dirigitur per fidem Creatoris et Remuneratoris; similiter nec caritas, quia non tantum debemus amare, quia Creator et Remunerator, sed magis quia Redemptor.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multi salvati sunt sine fide passionis; dicendum, quod si loquamur de fide explicita, verum est; si de fide implicita, non est verum. Omnes enim salvandi exspectaverunt Redemptorem futurum, et etiam in suis sacrificiis et oblationibus hoc praefigurabant, in quibus omnibus significatur Christus offerendus. Unde quodam modo profitebantur facto occulte, quamvis verbo non proferrent manifestep541-4. Similiter non oportebat incarnationem explicite credere, sed sufficiebat credere, quod aliquis veniret, qui genus humanum redimere posset, sciret et vellet.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod homines non tenentur nosse quod ignorant Angeli; dicendum, quod etsi Angeli mysterium incarnationis non cognoverunt ad plenum, tamen nullus fuit Beatorump541-5, qui nesciret, genus humanum esse redimendum; et ideo ex hoc non concluditur, quod non oportuit fidem habere de Mediatore, sed quia non oportuit credere explicite, sed sufficiebat credere implicite.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omni tempore suffecit implere quod fuit de dictamine Legis illius, quae erat in illo statu; dicendum, quod hoc est verum, secundum quod hoc intelligitur de Lege naturae vel de Lege Scripturae, secundum quod est adiuta a dono gratiae. Sine enim dono gratiae in nulla Lege contingit ad salutem pervenirep541-6. Quamvis autem Lex naturae, destituta auxilio gratiae, non possit aliquid dictare de ipso Mediatore; prout tamen est adiuta per gratiam, dum sentiebat infirmitatem suam et miseriam et advertebat Dei iustitiam et misericordiam, satis dictare poterat, quod homo reparatore indigebat, et quod divina bonitas dare disponebat. Unde semper fuerunt aliqui famosi Dei cultores ab initio mundi, qui haec profiterentur suis oblationibus, ad quorum aspectum et exemplum alii poterant erudiri.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod non poterant illud scire per inventionem et doctrinam; iam patet responsio: quia divina gratia omnibus praesto erat, et natura ad hoc manuducere poterat ex consideratione suae miseriae et curvitatis et ex eruditione quadam generali, quam accipere poterant a viris, qui erant in cultu Dei famosi. Unde cum non esset tunc prophetia nec revelatio aperta; non tenebantur omnino ad fidem explicitam. Indubitanter tamen verum est, quod eis praesto erat notitia Mediatoris, quanta opportuna erat secundum exigentiam temporis, tum ex dictamine naturae tum ex aliena instructione tum etiam ex Dei inspiratione, qui se offert omnibus qui eum requirunt humiliterp541-7.

Scholion

I. In hac et seq. quaestione nec non in toto 2. articulo multa dicuntur de explicatione fidei; quae, ut facilius intelligantur, opportunum videtur commemorare quasdam communiter receptas distinctiones. Sicut «occultum aliquid dicitur dupliciter: vel a parte cognoscentis, vel a parte rei cognitae» (infra a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.); ita etiam explicatio fidei considerari potest vel ex parte credentis, vel ex parte obiecti crediti sive articulorum. De explicatione fidei sumta in sensu secundo quaeritur infra a. 2. q. 1, utrum scilicet fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem; de eadem in primo sensu agitur infra a. 2. q. 2. 3. et etiam, licet alia ratione, in hac et seq. quaestione. Porro duplici modo aliquis potest fidem habere implicite: vel ita, ut implicetur cognitio alicuius articuli in alio articulo explicite cognito, quemadmodum in principiis universalibus scientiae implicantur conclusiones; vel ita, ut habeat scientiam implicatam in cognitione alterius scientis, ut discipulus respectu magistri, a quo per doctrinam potest scientiam accipere. Et bene observat S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 1.), quod in hoc «non est simile de scientia et fide, quia non sunt nobis innata aliqua principia naturalia, ad quae possint reduci articuli fidei, sed tota determinatio fidei est in nobis per doctrinam; et ideo oportet in cognitione hominis habere fidem implicitam». Hoc principio respectu fidei simplicium utitur S. Bonav., hic in corp., et q. 3. praesertim ad 6.

II. In hac 2. quaestione S. Bonav. distinguit statum ante lapsum a statu naturae lapsae; et cum antiqui doctores communius principalem incarnationis rationem a peccato Adami sumerent, multi etiam docebant, quod ante peccatum «sine Mediatore esset devenire in finem, scilicet Deum; ideo sufficiebat regula dirigens in finem, non in Mediatorem. Ad dirigendum vero in finem duo erant necessaria: scire, quod essemus ab ipso, et quod ad ipsum; ideo sufficiebat de Creatore omnium bonorum cum articulo de Remuneratore omnium bonorum. Sed post peccatum non est devenire in finem nisi per Mediatorem; ideo requirebatur regula dirigens in ipsum: oportuit ergo ex tunc, unum esse de Mediatore vel Redemptore articulum» (Pet. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.). — Idem docet S. Thom., in Comment. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.). Sed in Sum. (II. II. q. 2. a. 7. 8.) ipse cum Scoto tenet, Adam ante peccatum habuisse fidem explicitam incarnationis, quatenus ordinabatur ad consummationem gloriae, non ad liberationem a peccato. — Observatione dignae sunt graves rationes, a nostro Doctore hic contra Naturalismum et Rationalismum allatae. Praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. 2. — Scot. hic q. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica. — Biel, de hac et seq. q. hic q. unica.

III. Respectu seq. (3.) quaestionis notandum, quod recentiores theologi communiter distinguunt credenda necessitate medii et necessitate praecepti; sed inter se controvertunt, utrum etiam necessitate medii post promulgatum Evangelium requiratur fides explicita mysterii Trinitatis et incarnationis. De sententia affirmativa dicit S. Alphonsus (Theolog. Moral. libr. II. n. 2.): «Est communior et videtur probabilior»; sed satis probabilem censet etiam negativam sententiam multorum et insignium theologorum, qui docent, fidem de hoc non nisi implicitam necessitate medii requiri. Ss. Bonav. et Thom. cum aliis antiquis sustinent quidem necessitatem explicite credendi saltem quatuor principales articulos de redemptione, quos Magister (hic c. 3. et cfr. hic dub. 2.) commemorat; sed non loquuntur praecise de necessitate medii; insuper potius respiciunt simplices Christianos, non eos quibus Evangelium non est praedicatum; respectu quorum verba eorum interpretari licet de fide implicita, ut insinuare videtur S. Thom., S., II. II. q. 2. a. 7. ad 3. — De hac (3.) quaestione praeter supra laudatos cfr. S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. 4; S. III. q. 69. a. 4. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether for those who came before the advent of Christ it sufficed for salvation to believe only those things which pertain to the Divinity.

Secondly there is inquiry concerning the sufficiency of faith as to those who came before the advent of Christ, and the question is whether for them it sufficed for salvation to believe only those things which pertain to the Divinity. And that it is so, it seems.

1. To the Hebrews, chapter elevenp539-1: It is necessary that one approaching believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder: if therefore the Apostle determines sufficiently that which was fitting for faith, it seems that it sufficed for them to believe that. But all that could be believed while believing nothing concerning the humanity of Christ: therefore it seems that at that time for salvation faith in the Divinity alone sufficed.

2. Likewise, faith which sufficiently directs to hoping and loving suffices for salvationp539-2; but the faith by which one believes God to be his creator and rewarder sufficiently directs him to hoping and loving: therefore it seems that, with all faith of the humanity excluded, faith in the Divinity alone sufficed for salvation.

3. Likewise, many were saved without faith in the passion of Christ — for very few came before in the Old Testament who believedp539-3 that the Son of God was to be crucified for the salvation of the human race — if therefore they could be saved without faith in the passion, by the same reasoning [also] without faith in the incarnation: therefore also without faith in the Mediator.

4. Likewise, no man is bound to know what the Angels are ignorant of; but before the advent of Christ the Angels were ignorant of the incarnation of Christ: therefore men were not bound to believe it. The major proposition is manifest in itself; the minor is proved through that which is said in Isaiah, chapter sixty-threep539-4: Who is this who comes from Edom? there the Gloss: «It is openly declared that certain Angels, until it was fulfilled, did not know the mystery of the incarnation». And to the Ephesians, chapter three, it is said: That it may be made known to the Principalities and Powers in the heavenly places; and it can be had from several other passages. Hence Chrysostom in the first Homily on John: «We are greatly honored, in that together with us the Angels learned through the voice of John»; and the same is had in the Gloss on that passage to the Ephesians, chapter three: What is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from the ages in God.

5. Likewise, he who fulfills in the evangelical Law that which is of its dictate attains to salvation, and likewise of the Mosaic Law: therefore by parity of reasoning he who fulfilled those things which were of the dictate of the Law of nature attained to salvation, according as the Apostle intimates to the Romans, chapter twop539-5: therefore in the time of the Law of nature it was not necessary to believe for salvation, except what was of the dictate of nature. But that God should become incarnate and that there should be a future Mediator was not of the dictate of the Law

of nature: therefore it does not seem that it was necessary to believe at that time.

6. Likewise, no one is bound to do that to which his operative power cannot raise itself: therefore no one was bound to believe that whose knowledge he could not acquire either through discovery or through teachingp540-1. If therefore in the time of the law of nature they could not by themselves discover knowledge of the Mediator, nor was there one who might teach externally, nor were there as yet prophetic revelations; it seems that at that time they were bound to believe nothing concerning the Mediator: therefore without faith in the Mediator they could attain to salvation.

Against this there are many authorities, which the Master adduces in the textp540-2, and this same thing is shown by reason.

1. Christ is the head of the whole Church, therefore no one can be saved unless he be made a member of Christ; but one cannot be made a member of Christ unless he believe in Christ: therefore without faith in the Mediator no one could ever be saved.

2. Likewise, no one could enter heaven unless the gate were open; but the gate could not be opened except through the passion of Christ: therefore no one could be saved except by the merit of the passion of Christ. But the merit of the passion of Christ does not avail except for those in whom Christ dwells: if therefore Christ dwells through faith and charity, which is had toward himp540-3; it was impossible for anyone to be saved without faith in the Mediator.

3. Likewise, no one can be saved without the remission of original sin; but original sin cannot be remitted except through faith, or through some Sacrament of faith, which is a sign of the Mediator himselfp540-4: therefore no one could attain to salvation before the advent of Christ who did not believe in the Mediator.

4. Likewise, no one can attain to salvation except one who hopes; no one rightly hopes except one who believes that he will attain to salvation through merits, because hope proceeds «from grace and meritsp540-5»: if therefore those who came before the advent of Christ were saved, they believed that they were saved through merits: either therefore they believed their own merits to suffice for themselves, or [believed themselves] to need the merits of another. If they believed their own [merits] to suffice for themselves: therefore they were puffed up and deceived, therefore they were not saved; if they believed themselves to need the merits of another: therefore they had faith concerning the Mediator: therefore no one could be saved after the fall without faith in the Redeemer.

Conclusion.

No one after the fall could be saved without faith in the Mediator, at least implicit.

I respond: It must be said that, as the Master proves by many authorities in the textp540-6, after the fall of Adam no one could be saved without faith in the Mediator. For no one could be freed from that sin unless he believed in that Mediator, either he himself for himself, if he were an adult, or another for him, if he were a little child.

And the reason of this is: that, since grace and truth were made through Jesus Christp540-7, and the liberation from that sin is through the merits of Christ, and the merits of Christ do not extend except to those who are made his members and are joined to him through faith; just as it is impossible that anyone now be saved, unless he be joined to him either through faith, or through the Sacrament of faith: so also it was impossible, after the fall, for anyone to attain to salvation who in no way believed in Christ the mediator. But I say in some way, because faith in the Mediator can be had in two ways, namely implicitly, or explicitly: explicitly, as if someone believed that the Son of God would assume our humanity, would be born of the Virgin, would suffer on the Cross, would rise again on the third day, etc. And to believe in this manner explicitly was not fitting for all, but only for those to whom it had been revealed by God, as for the most holy Fathersp540-8. — But to believe implicitly is to await a future redeemer, but in what manner and how this ought to be, to believe according as those believed to whom it has been revealed by the Lord; and this indeed was fitting for all.

And this is what master Hugh of St. Victor says in the book On the Sacramentsp540-9: «These are, he says, the things which right faith from the beginning could never have any less of, namely to believe that there is one God, the creator of all things and the ruler of the universe;

that he indeed is not the author of evil, yet [is the author of good things] of those who in their evils sought his mercy and awaited a future redeemer. This we believe to have sufficed for the faith of the simple in the beginning; and yet we say that they most truly had in this [implicit faith] faith in his nativity, passion, resurrection, and ascension, because they clung [to it] with faith and devotion, believing and knowing this». — Thus therefore it must be granted that no one after the fall could be saved without faith in the Mediator; of which, because the philosophers lacked it, clinging to their own merits and virtues, therefore as proud and separated from the members and merits of Christ, they were excluded from the joys of paradisep541-1. — The reasons adduced for this side are therefore to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected first concerning the authority of the Apostle, it must be said that the Apostle does not precisely intend to determine the whole that is necessary for salvation, but that without which there can be no salvation. For he says that this is fitting, but he does not say that this is sufficient. And he touches upon those two especially, because they were necessary for every state of nature, not only for the state of fallen nature, but also for the state of innocencep541-2.

2. To that which is objected, that faith in the Creator and Rewarder sufficiently directs to hoping and loving; it must be said that this is false according to the state of fallen nature, because, since hope proceeds from merits, as was touched upon in the [arguments] opposingp541-3, if someone were to hope to be saved by his own merits, without the merits of the Mediator, he would not rightly hope, but rather presume. Therefore hope is not sufficiently directed through faith in the Creator and Rewarder; likewise neither is charity, because we ought to love not only because [he is] Creator and Rewarder, but more because [he is] Redeemer.

3. To that which is objected, that many were saved without faith in the passion; it must be said that if we speak of explicit faith, it is true; if of implicit faith, it is not true. For all who were to be saved awaited a future Redeemer, and also in their sacrifices and oblations prefigured this, in all of which Christ to be offered is signified. Hence in a certain way they professed it by deed secretly, although by word they did not utter it openlyp541-4. Likewise it was not necessary to believe the incarnation explicitly, but it sufficed to believe that someone would come who could, would know how, and would will to redeem the human race.

4. To that which is objected, that men are not bound to know what the Angels are ignorant of; it must be said that even if the Angels did not know the mystery of the incarnation fully, yet there was none of the Blessedp541-5 who did not know that the human race was to be redeemed; and therefore from this it is not concluded that it was not necessary to have faith concerning the Mediator, but that it was not necessary to believe explicitly, but it sufficed to believe implicitly.

5. To that which is objected, that in every time it sufficed to fulfill what was of the dictate of that Law which was in that state; it must be said that this is true, according as this is understood of the Law of nature or of the Law of Scripture, according as it is aided by the gift of grace. For without the gift of grace it does not befall [anyone] in any Law to attain to salvationp541-6. But although the Law of nature, destitute of the help of grace, cannot dictate anything concerning the Mediator himself; yet insofar as it is aided through grace, when it perceived its own infirmity and misery and noticed the justice and mercy of God, it could sufficiently dictate that man needed a repairer, and that the divine goodness was disposed to give [it]. Hence there were always certain renowned worshippers of God from the beginning of the world, who professed these things by their oblations, at whose sight and example others could be instructed.

6. To that which is objected last, that they could not know that through discovery and teaching; the response is already evident: because divine grace was at hand for all, and nature could lead them to this by the consideration of its own misery and crookedness and by a certain general instruction, which they could receive from the men who were renowned in the worship of God. Hence since there was not then prophecy nor open revelation; they were not bound altogether to explicit faith. Yet it is undoubtedly true that knowledge of the Mediator was at hand for them, as much as was fitting according to the exigency of the time, both from the dictate of nature and from instruction by another and also from the inspiration of God, who offers himself to all who seek him humblyp541-7.

Scholion

I. In this and the following question, as also in the whole second article, many things are said concerning the explication of faith; which, that they may be more easily understood, it seems fitting to recall certain commonly received distinctions. Just as «something is said to be hidden in two ways: either on the side of the knower, or on the side of the thing known» (below a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.); so also the explication of faith can be considered either on the side of the believer, or on the side of the object believed, that is, of the articles. Concerning the explication of faith taken in the second sense there is inquiry below a. 2. q. 1, namely whether faith grew as to the multitude of things to be believed; concerning the same in the first sense it is treated below a. 2. q. 2. 3. and also, though by another reasoning, in this and the following question. Furthermore, in two ways can someone have faith implicitly: either so that the knowledge of one article is implied in another article explicitly known, just as in universal principles the conclusions of a science are implied; or so that he have a knowledge implied in the knowledge of another who knows, as a disciple with respect to a master, from whom through teaching he can receive knowledge. And St. Thomas well observes (here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 1.) that in this «it is not the same with science and faith, because there are not innate in us any natural principles to which the articles of faith can be reduced, but the whole determination of faith is in us through teaching; and therefore it is necessary in the knowledge of man to have implicit faith». St. Bonaventure uses this principle with respect to the faith of the simple, here in the body, and q. 3, especially ad 6.

II. In this second question St. Bonaventure distinguishes the state before the fall from the state of fallen nature; and since the ancient doctors more commonly took the principal reason of the incarnation from the sin of Adam, many also taught that before sin «there was the attaining of the end, namely God, without a Mediator; therefore a rule directing to the end, not to the Mediator, sufficed. But for directing to the end two things were necessary: to know that we were from him, and that [we were ordered] to him; therefore [the article] concerning the Creator of all good things together with the article concerning the Rewarder of all good things sufficed. But after sin there is no attaining to the end except through the Mediator; therefore a rule directing to him was required: it was necessary therefore from then on that there be an article concerning the Mediator or Redeemer» (Pet. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 1.). — The same St. Thomas teaches in the Commentary (here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.). But in the Summa (II–II q. 2. a. 7. 8.) he himself with Scotus holds that Adam before sin had explicit faith of the incarnation, insofar as it was ordered to the consummation of glory, not to the liberation from sin. — Worthy of note are the weighty arguments brought forward here by our Doctor against Naturalism and Rationalism. Besides those already cited: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., Summa p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. 2. — Scotus here q. 1. — B. Albert here a. 2. — Richard of Middleton here a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Durand., on this and the following q., here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q., here q. unica. — Biel, on this and the following q., here q. unica.

III. With respect to the following (third) question it must be noted that more recent theologians commonly distinguish things to be believed by necessity of means and by necessity of precept; but they dispute among themselves whether even by necessity of means, after the Gospel has been promulgated, explicit faith of the mystery of the Trinity and of the incarnation is required. Of the affirmative opinion St. Alphonsus says (Theologia Moralis libr. II. n. 2.): «It is more common and seems more probable»; but he judges sufficiently probable also the negative opinion of many and distinguished theologians, who teach that faith of this is required by necessity of means only as implicit. Sts. Bonaventure and Thomas with the other ancients indeed maintain the necessity of explicitly believing at least the four principal articles concerning the redemption, which the Master (here c. 3 and cf. here dub. 2) recalls; but they do not speak precisely of the necessity of means; moreover they rather regard simple Christians, not those to whom the Gospel has not been preached; with respect to whom it is permitted to interpret their words of implicit faith, as St. Thomas seems to insinuate, Summa II–II q. 2. a. 7. ad 3. — On this (third) question, besides those cited above, cf. St. Thomas, here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. 4; Summa III. q. 69. a. 4. ad 2. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 1. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 6: Credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum, quia est et inquirentibus se remunerator sit. — In fine arg. pro temporis ad salutem codd. A K ipsis.
    Verse 6: For it is necessary that one approaching God believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him. — At the end of the argument, for temporis ad salutem codices A K read ipsis.
  2. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq., et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. ac dub. 3. — Post amandum edd. supplent Deum.
    Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq., and the Commentary a. 1. q. 1. and dub. 3. — After amandum the editions supply Deum.
  3. Edd. crediderunt.
    The editions read crediderunt ("believed").
  4. Vers. 1. — De Glossa, quae est ordinaria et sumta ex Hieronymo, vide supra pag. 57, nota 7. — Seq. Scripturae locus est Eph. 3, 10. — Verba Chrysostomi habentur in homil. allegata (codd. et edd. homilia 5.) n. 2. — Glossa, quae deinde affertur super Eph. 3, 9, apud Petr. Lombard. sic sonat: Et videte, quantum hoc est, quia per hoc aliquid accrevit Angelis, qui multa secreta in his didicerunt. Strabus hanc Glossam exhibet ad vers. 10. — Pro mysterii Vat. et nonnulli codd. ministerii, Vulgata sacramenti.
    Verse 1. — Concerning the Gloss, which is the ordinary [Gloss] and taken from Jerome, see above, page 57, note 7. — The following Scripture passage is Eph. 3, 10. — The words of Chrysostom are had in the homily cited (codices and editions: homily 5) n. 2. — The Gloss, which is then adduced on Eph. 3, 9, in Peter Lombard reads thus: And see how great this is, because through this something accrued to the Angels, who learned many secrets in these things. Strabo presents this Gloss at verse 10. — For mysterii the Vatican edition and some codices [read] ministerii, the Vulgate sacramenti.
  5. Vers. 14. seq. — In initio arg. edd. pro in Lege posuerunt de Lege, et infra nisi quod erat de dictamine Legis naturae pro nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae. Deinde circa finem arg. edd. post quod oportebat inseruerunt hoc.
    Verse 14. seq. — At the beginning of the argument the editions, for in Lege, put de Lege, and below nisi quod erat de dictamine Legis naturae for nisi quod erat de dictamine naturae. Then near the end of the argument the editions, after quod oportebat, inserted hoc.
  6. Vide supra pag. 329, nota 10. — Maior innititur regulae 6. iuris (libr. V. Sexti Decret. in fine): Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari.
    See above, page 329, note 10. — The major [premise] rests on the 6th rule of law (book V of the Sext, at the end): No one can be obligated to the impossible.
  7. Hic c. 1. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 236, nota 10. — De arg. seq., in cuius minori edd. post non potest subdunt quis, vide supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 3.
    Here c. 1. Cf. also above, page 236, note 10. — Concerning the following argument, in whose minor [premise] the editions add quis after non potest, see above, d. 13. a. 2. q. 3.
  8. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. De praecedentibus cfr. supra d. 18. a. 2. p. 3; d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. nec non ibid. dub. 2.
    See above, the text of the Master, d. XXIII. c. 3. Concerning the preceding [arguments] cf. above, d. 18. a. 2. p. 3; d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. and also there, dub. 2.
  9. Cfr. supra d. 20. q. 4.
    Cf. above, d. 20. q. 4.
  10. Ut Magister ait infra d. XXVI. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. dub. 2.
    As the Master says below, d. XXVI. c. 1. Cf. there, dub. 2.
  11. Hic c. 1. — Utrum fides parentum sufficiat ad delendum originale peccatum in parvulis, an non; haec quaestio fusius tractatur IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Inferius Vat. bis voci peccato adiungit originali.
    Here c. 1. — Whether the faith of the parents suffices for blotting out original sin in little children, or not; this question is treated more fully IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Below the Vatican edition twice adds originali to the word peccato.
  12. Ioan. 1, 17. — Paulo inferius pro nunc aliquem plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 nunc aliter (cod. lv a secunda manu nunc aliquem). Deinde post sic et impossibile fuit edd. inserunt tunc.
    John 1, 17. — A little below, for nunc aliquem very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] nunc aliter (codex lv, by a second hand, nunc aliquem). Then after sic et impossibile fuit the editions insert tunc.
  13. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi etiam seq. propos. explicatur, quam Vat., a codd. recedens, sic immutavit: Implicite vero credere, est credere Redemptorem venturum taliter et eo modo, qualiter et quo modo illi credebant etc. Etiam edd. 1, 2 hanc propos. aliquantulum mutarunt. Etenim post Redemptorem futurum posito puncto, sic prosequuntur: Quaeritur autem, qualiter et quomodo debeat esse hoc credere; dico, quod hoc credere esse debet, secundum quod illi credebant etc. Post hoc debeat [codd. A K debebat] esse cod. C interiicit sufficiebat, cod. bb est. Subinde pro secundum quod codd. A Q (N a secunda manu) scilicet quod, et post pauca pro est revelatum cod. A K erat revelatum. In lectione codd. exspectare etc. et credere secundum etc. sunt membra coordinata.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where the following proposition is also explained, which the Vatican edition, departing from the codices, thus altered: But to believe implicitly is to believe that the Redeemer will come in such a way and in that manner, in which way and in what manner those believed, etc. The editions 1, 2 also altered this proposition somewhat. For after Redemptorem futurum, having placed a period, they continue thus: But it is asked in what way and how this believing ought to be; I say that this believing ought to be according as those believed, etc. After hoc debeat [codices A K debebat] esse codex C interjects sufficiebat, codex bb est. Then for secundum quod codices A Q (N by a second hand) [read] scilicet quod, and after a little, for est revelatum codices A K [read] erat revelatum. In the reading of the codices, exspectare etc. and credere secundum etc. are coordinate members.
  14. Libr. I. p. X. c. 7. In textu origin. post suffecisse credimus plura inveniuntur, quae hic desunt; simulque ibi pro ascensionis suae habetur ascensionis eius, et locus sic terminatur: et scientibus haec fide et devotione sub spe et exspectatione eiusdem redemptionis adhaeserunt.
    Book I. p. X. c. 7. In the original text after suffecisse credimus several things are found which are lacking here; and at the same time there for ascensionis suae there is ascensionis eius, and the passage ends thus: and they clung [to it], knowing these things with faith and devotion, under the hope and expectation of the same redemption.
  15. August., Epist. 164. (alias 99.) c. 2. n. 4: Quae quidem omnia [parcimonia, continentia etc.], quando non referuntur ad finem rectae veraeque pietatis, sed ad fastum inanem humanae laudis et gloriae, etiam ipsi inanescunt quodam modo steriliaque redduntur; verumtamen quadam indole animi ita delectant, ut eos, in quibus haec fuerunt, vellemus vel praecipue vel cum ceteris ab inferni cruciatibus liberari, nisi aliter se haberet sensus humanus, aliter iustitia Creatoris.
    Augustine, Epist. 164 (alias 99) c. 2. n. 4: All which things indeed [frugality, continence, etc.], when they are not referred to the end of right and true piety, but to the empty pride of human praise and glory, even themselves become empty in a certain way and are rendered sterile; yet by a certain quality of mind they so delight that we would wish those in whom these things were, either especially or along with the rest, to be freed from the torments of hell, were not the human sense disposed one way, the justice of the Creator another.
  16. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1. ad eandem obiectionem respondet sic: Dicendum, quod Apostolus ista duo ponit sicut principia ad omnes articulos, scil. oportet credere, quia est et quia remunerator est; omnes enim articuli reducuntur ad fidem, qua creditur ἀ et ω, principium et finis (Apoc. 1, 8.). Et haec duo sunt, quae propinquiora sunt nobis quantum ad cognitionem, et per quorum cognitionem manuducimur et elevamur ad cognitionem aeternorum, sicut patet conferenti singulos. Hinc ergo est, quod Apostolus ponit hos principaliter quia est, id est principium conditionis, et quia est remunerator, hoc est finis beatitudinis.
    Alex. of Hales, Summa p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 1, responds to the same objection thus: It must be said that the Apostle sets down those two as principles for all the articles, namely it is necessary to believe that he is and that he is a rewarder; for all the articles are reduced to faith, by which is believed the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Apoc. 1, 8). And these are the two things which are nearer to us as to knowledge, and through the knowledge of which we are led and elevated to the knowledge of eternal things, as is evident to one comparing them individually. Hence therefore it is that the Apostle sets these down principally [as] that he is, that is, the beginning of [our] making, and that he is a rewarder, that is, the end of [our] beatitude.
  17. In fundamento 4. Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — Paulo inferius pro et Remuneratoris edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. perperam et Mediatoris.
    In fundamentum 4. Cf. above, d. 24. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — A little below, for et Remuneratoris the editions 1, 2 with many codices wrongly [read] et Mediatoris.
  18. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Aliquanto superius pro si de fide codd. A F H I K L T V aa bb sed de fide, et deinde pro significatur codd. A N U significabatur, edd. figuratur.
    Cf. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Somewhat above, for si de fide codices A F H I K L T V aa bb [read] sed de fide, and then for significatur codices A N U [read] significabatur, the editions figuratur.
  19. Codd. H I L Z bonorum.
    Codices H I L Z read bonorum ("of the good").
  20. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Mox pro possit codd. A K U posset. — Aliquanto inferius pro famosi cod. Z famosissimi.
    Cf. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Soon, for possit codices A K U read posset. — Somewhat below, for famosi codex Z reads famosissimi ("most renowned").
  21. Psalm. 144, 18: Prope est Dominus omnibus invocantibus eum etc.
    Psalm 144, 18: The Lord is near to all who call upon him, etc.
← Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 3→