Dist. 48, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 48
Articulus I. De iudicis apparitione.
Quaestio I. Utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem an secundum Divinitatem.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts its footnote numbering on every printed page, so the labels here are page-qualified: notes 1–8 of page 984, and note 1 of page 985. Of page 985 this chunk claims only the first note; notes 2 and 3 of that page anchor in Quaestio II and are rendered there.
Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic, et quaeritur, utrum potestas iudiciaria sit Christi secundum humanitatem, an secundum Divinitatem. Et quod secundum Divinitatem, videtur:
1. Quia Danielis septimo1, ubi agitur de iudicio, dicitur, quod throni positi sunt, et Antiquus dierum sedit; et Glossa exponit « de Patre »: sed quod convenit Christo cum Patre convenit ratione Divinitatis; iudicare est huiusmodi, ut probatum est: ergo etc.
2. Item, Ioannis quinto2: Pater omne iudicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut omnes honorificant Patrem; sed Filius non est honorandus ut Pater nisi solum secundum Divinitatem: ergo cum iudicium sit ad hoc datum, ergo secundum Divinitatem.
3. Item, eius est iudicare, cuius est retribuere; sed retribuere est secundum Divinitatem, quia de Deo oportet credere quoniam est et remunerator est, ad Hebraeos undecimo3: ergo et iudiciaria potestas inest ei ratione Divinitatis.
4. Item, a sententia Christi nullus poterit appellare: ergo secundum illam potentiam iudicabit, secundum quam non habet superiorem; sed haec est Divinitas: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Ioannis quinto4: Pater non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio; sed omnis actus, qui convenit Filio secundum Divinitatem, convenit Patri; sed iudicare non: ergo etc.
2. Item, Iob trigesimo sexto5: Causa tua quasi impii iudicata est; Glossa: « a Pilato »; ideo iudicium causamque recipies, « ut iuste iudices »: ergo si iudicatus est secundum humanitatem, potestatem iudicandi habebit secundum humanitatem.
3. Item, Ioannis quinto6 expresse dicitur: Potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est.
4. Item, ratione: constat, quod ipse secundum humanitatem promulgabit sententiam7; et secundum illam naturam promulgabit, secundum quam habet auctoritatem et potestatem ad hoc faciendum, alioquin esset iudicium usurpatum: ergo secundum humanitatem habebit auctoritatem et potestatem.
5. Item, ipse Christus erit iudex secundum humanitatem, aut principalis, aut delegatus. Si delegatus: ergo ab eius sententia poterit appellari, quod nefarium est dicere: erit ergo iudex principalis. Sed iudex principalis in iudicando habet auctoritatem principalem: ergo secundum humanitatem habet praecipuam auctoritatem.
Conclusio
Potestas iudiciaria est Christi secundum Divinitatem principaliter et per naturam, secundum humanitatem per gratiam et commissa; sed latio sententiae fit a Christo secundum humanitatem, non ut iudice delegato, sed principali.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod iudicium sit firmum, concurrit auctoritas et potestas: auctoritas in sententiando et potestas in retribuendo praemium secundum meritum. Si alterum horum deficiat, non est firmum iudicium. Haec duo principaliter sunt in Deo. Nam in ipso est auctoritas ad sententiandum, quia Dominus omnium est, et nos omnes servi eius; est etiam potestas ad retribuendum, quia potentissimus, et non est qui contra eum se valeat erigere vel eius sententiam irritare. — Haec duo communicavit Deus-Trinitas homini Christo: auctoritatem dando dominium, sicut dicitur Actuum secundo8: Dominum fecit Deus hunc Iesum; potestatem etiam sibi cetera subiiciendo, Matthaei ultimo: Data est mihi omnis potestas. Et ideo
ipse est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum, sicut dicitur Actuum decimo.
Quoniam igitur potestas iudiciaria respicit illa duo iam dicta, et illa sunt in Deo per naturam, in Christo homine per gratiam; ideo iudiciaria potestas est Christi secundum Divinitatem per naturam, secundum humanitatem collata per gratiam. Unde secundum utramque naturam habet auctoritatem, sed secundum Divinitatem principalem et naturalem, secundum humanitatem commissam, unde constitutus est.
Cum igitur sit potestas1 primaria in Deo, sed commissa in homine Christo, latio sententiae debet fieri a Christo-homine secundum humanitatem: quia, si fieret secundum potestatem primariam, cum secunda nihil det primae, non esset vere iudex secundum humanitatem; sed quando secunda operatur, cum recipiat a prima, ratio iudicandi residet penes utramque; secunda enim recipit a prima. Ideo latio sententiae fiet a Christo secundum humanitatem. Sed quia Christus est Deus et homo, sententia eius non erit tanquam iudicis delegati, sed tanquam principalis. Et ideo ab ea propter utramque potestatem nullus poterit appellare.
Ad argumenta: Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad utramque partem: primae, quia verum concludunt, quod iudiciaria potestas sit Christi secundum Divinitatem; similiter ad oppositum, quia verum concludunt, quod sit Christi secundum humanitatem, maxime quantum ad sententiae lationem. Robur tamen sententiae, ut dictum est, non principaliter est ex humanitate Christi, sed potius ex eius Divinitate.
I. Christum in forma humana, et quidem gloriosa, iudicaturum mundum, S. Scriptura, consensus Patrum et unanimis sententia doctorum catholicorum testatur. Hoc tamen non ita intelligitur, ut excludatur causa principalis efficiens, quae est ipsa Divinitas; quia « iudicabit quidem in humana natura, sed ex virtute Divinitatis » (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 2; Suppl. q. 90. a. 1. ad 2.); quod praecipue urget Scot. (hic q. 1. n. 1-10.). — De loco iudicii et de aliis iudicium concomitantibus cfr. infra dub. 1-4.
De 1. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 25. m. 4. quaest. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de toto articulo hic q. 1.
II. Conclusio 2. quaestionis unanimiter recipitur, si agitur de facto, licet reprobi, Christum Deum esse, tunc certo cognoscant « per manifestissima Divinitatis indicia » (S. Thom., locis citt. a. 3. ad 1.). Insuper S. Thom. (articulis citt.) quaerit, utrum Divinitas sine gaudio possit videri; et resolvit: « Impossibile est, quod eius essentia apprehensa non delectet ». Sed Scot. (loc. cit. n. 5.) vult, loquendo de potentia Dei absoluta, hoc non esse impossibile (cfr. q. 2. in fine).
De 2. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § ult. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2.
III. Circa 3. quaestionis solutionem Scot. (loc. cit. n. 11.) dubitat, utrum mali nullo modo videant formam gloriosam humanae Christi naturae, an eo modo, quem cum S. Bonav. S. Thom. ponit, scil. ad maiorem confusionem et contristationem.
De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — S. Thom., locis citt. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.
IV. Quoad 4. quaestionem manifestum est, quod saltem respectu viatorum Deus cognitionem temporis, quo finitur mundus, sibi reservavit; unde plurimi hucusque frustra laboraverunt, ut tempus vel proximam instantiam extremi iudicii determinarent. — Locos Scripturae (Matth. 24, 36; Marc. 13, 32.), qui ipsi Filio hanc scientiam denegare videntur, Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. m. 2.) secundum Gregorium sic exponit: « Per hoc non excluditur Christus-homo a notitia illius diei, sed per hoc excluditur, quod non ex virtute humanitatis ipsam habet, sed ex virtute Divinitatis habet ». De eodem loco dicit S. Thom. (supra d. 47. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 88. a. 3.): « Dicitur autem Filius nescire, in quantum nos scire non facit ».
De eadem 4. quaestione praeter citatos: Scot., Report. supra d. 43. q. 5. n. 8. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. ad 5. — Richard. a Med., supra d. 43. a. 6. q. 2, et d. 47. a. 1. q. 8. — Durand., supra d. 47. q. 1. n. 10.
---
Article I. On the appearing of the Judge.
Question I. Whether the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his humanity or according to his divinity.
As to the first, then, one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his humanity or according to his divinity. And that it is according to his divinity, it seems:
1. Because in Daniel the seventh1, where judgement is treated of, it is said that thrones were set, and the Ancient of days sat down; and the Gloss explains it "of the Father": but what belongs to Christ in common with the Father belongs to him by reason of his divinity; to judge is of this sort, as has been proved: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, John the fifth2: The Father has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, as all honour the Father; but the Son is not to be honoured as the Father except only according to his divinity: therefore, since judgement has been given for this purpose, therefore it is according to his divinity.
3. Likewise, it belongs to him to judge, to whom it belongs to repay; but to repay is according to the divinity, since concerning God one must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder, Hebrews the eleventh3: therefore the judiciary power also is in him by reason of his divinity.
4. Likewise, from Christ's sentence no one will be able to appeal: therefore he will judge according to that power according to which he has no superior; but this is the divinity: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. John the fifth4: The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son; but every act which belongs to the Son according to his divinity belongs to the Father; but to judge does not: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Job the thirty-sixth5: Thy cause has been judged as that of an impious man; the Gloss: "by Pilate"; therefore thou shalt receive judgement and cause, "that thou mayest judge justly": therefore if he was judged according to his humanity, he will have the power of judging according to his humanity.
3. Likewise, in John the fifth6 it is expressly said: He has given him power to do judgement, because he is the son of man.
4. Likewise, by reason: it is agreed that he will promulgate the sentence according to his humanity7; and he will promulgate it according to that nature according to which he has the authority and the power for doing this, otherwise the judgement would be usurped: therefore according to his humanity he will have the authority and the power.
5. Likewise, Christ himself will be judge according to his humanity, either as principal or as delegate. If as delegate: then from his sentence it will be possible to appeal, which it is wicked to say: he will therefore be a principal judge. But a principal judge has principal authority in judging: therefore according to his humanity he has the chief authority.
Conclusion
The judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his divinity principally and by nature, according to his humanity by grace and as committed to him; but the pronouncing of the sentence is made by Christ according to his humanity, not as by a delegated judge, but as by a principal one.
I respond: It must be said that, for a judgement to be firm, authority and power concur: authority in passing sentence, and power in repaying the reward according to merit. If either of these be lacking, the judgement is not firm. These two are principally in God. For in him is the authority to pass sentence, since he is Lord of all, and we are all his servants; there is also the power to repay, since he is most mighty, and there is none who can raise himself against him or annul his sentence. — These two the Triune God communicated to the man Christ: giving him authority by lordship, as is said in Acts the second8: God has made this Jesus Lord; and also power by subjecting the rest to him, in the last chapter of Matthew: All power is given to me. And therefore
he is the one who has been appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead, as is said in Acts the tenth.
Since, therefore, the judiciary power regards those two things already spoken of, and those are in God by nature, in Christ as man by grace; therefore the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his divinity by nature, and according to his humanity as conferred by grace. Hence according to both natures he has authority, but according to his divinity a principal and natural authority, according to his humanity a committed one, whence he has been appointed.
Since therefore the primary power1 is in God, but committed in the man Christ, the pronouncing of the sentence ought to be made by Christ as man according to his humanity: because, if it were made according to the primary power, since the second gives nothing to the first, he would not truly be judge according to his humanity; but when the second operates, since it receives from the first, the ground of judging resides with both; for the second receives from the first. Therefore the pronouncing of the sentence will be made by Christ according to his humanity. But since Christ is God and man, his sentence will not be as that of a delegated judge, but as that of a principal one. And therefore from it, on account of both powers, no one will be able to appeal.
To the arguments: The reasons on both sides are therefore to be conceded: the first ones, because they conclude what is true, namely that the judiciary power belongs to Christ according to his divinity; and likewise those to the opposite, because they conclude what is true, namely that it belongs to Christ according to his humanity, especially as regards the pronouncing of the sentence. Yet the strength of the sentence, as has been said, is not principally from the humanity of Christ, but rather from his divinity.
I. That Christ will judge the world in his human form, and indeed in his glorious one, Holy Scripture, the consensus of the Fathers and the unanimous judgement of the catholic doctors attest. This, however, is not so understood as to exclude the principal efficient cause, which is the divinity itself; because "he will indeed judge in the human nature, but by the power of the divinity" (St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. ad 2; Suppl. q. 90. a. 1. ad 2.); which Scotus especially urges (here q. 1. nn. 1-10.). — On the place of the judgement and on the other things accompanying the judgement, see below dub. 1-4.
On the 1st question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 25. m. 4. quaest. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, on the whole article, here q. 1.
II. The conclusion of the 2nd question is unanimously received, if it is a matter of fact, that the reprobate, granted that Christ is God, then know it with certainty "by the most manifest signs of the divinity" (St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 3. ad 1.). Moreover St. Thomas (in the articles cited) asks whether the divinity can be seen without joy; and he resolves: "It is impossible that its essence, once apprehended, should not delight." But Scotus (loc. cit. n. 5.) holds, speaking of the absolute power of God, that this is not impossible (cf. q. 2. at the end).
On the 2nd question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § ult. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2.
III. Concerning the solution of the 3rd question, Scotus (loc. cit. n. 11.) doubts whether the wicked see the glorious form of Christ's human nature in no way, or in that way which St. Thomas, along with St. Bonaventure, posits, namely for their greater confusion and sorrow.
On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2.
IV. As to the 4th question, it is manifest that at least with respect to wayfarers God has reserved to himself the knowledge of the time at which the world is ended; whence very many have hitherto laboured in vain to determine the time, or the nearest instant, of the last judgement. — The places of Scripture (Matt. 24, 36; Mark 13, 32.) which seem to deny this knowledge to the Son himself, Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. m. 2.) expounds thus, following Gregory: "By this Christ as man is not excluded from the knowledge of that day, but by this it is excluded that he has it from the power of his humanity; rather he has it from the power of his divinity." On the same place St. Thomas says (above d. 47. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 3; Suppl. q. 88. a. 3.): "But the Son is said not to know, inasmuch as he does not make us to know."
On the same 4th question, besides those cited: Scotus, Report. above d. 43. q. 5. n. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 4. ad 5. — Richard of Middleton, above d. 43. a. 6. q. 2, and d. 47. a. 1. q. 8. — Durandus, above d. 47. q. 1. n. 10.
---
- 1Vers. 9. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Lyranum. — Quod iudicare sit Divinitatis, insinuatur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2.Verse 9. — The Gloss is the ordinary one, in Lyra. — That to judge belongs to the divinity is intimated here in the letter of the Master, c. 2.
- 2Vers. 22. seq.: Neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium... sicut honorificant Patrem.Verse 22 and following: For neither does the Father judge anyone, but all judgement... as they honour the Father.
- 3Vers. 6: Credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum, quia est et inquirentibus se remunerator sit.Verse 6: For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him.
- 4Vers. 22.Verse 22.
- 5Vers. 17. — Glossa, quae etiam a S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1.) allegatur, non exhibetur a Glossariis (in hunc loc.), quae prae manibus habemus. August., Serm. 127. (alias 64. de Verbis Domini) c. 7. n. 10: Forma illa hic iudicabit, quae iudicata est... Sedebit iudex, qui stetit sub iudice. Damnabit veros reos qui factus est falsus reus. Cfr. in Ioan. Evang. tr. 19. n. 16.Verse 17. — The Gloss, which is also alleged by St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1.), is not exhibited by the Glossaries (on this passage) which we have at hand. Augustine, Sermon 127 (elsewhere 64, On the Words of the Lord) c. 7. n. 10: That form will judge here which was judged... He will sit as judge who stood beneath a judge. He will condemn true culprits, who was made a false culprit. Cf. on the Gospel of John, tract 19. n. 16.
- 6Vers. 27.Verse 27.
- 7Cfr. Matth. 25, 31. seqq. — Superius post ratione in codd. O S U additur videtur (cod. X a secunda manu videtur, quia).Cf. Matt. 25, 31 and following. — Above, after ratione, in codices O S U there is added videtur (codex X, by a second hand, videtur, quia).
- 8Vers. 36: Quia et Dominum eum et Christum fecit Deus hunc Iesum. — Seq. textus est Matth. 28, 18; tertius est Act. 10, 42. — Edd. ponunt et ante dominium.Verse 36: That God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ. — The following text is Matt. 28, 18; the third is Acts 10, 42. — The editions place et before dominium.
- 1Cod. E potestas iudiciaria.Codex E reads potestas iudiciaria. ---