← Back to Distinction 5

Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 5

Textus Latinus
p. 130

Quaestio II. Utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata.

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ante resurrectionem enim dicit, Matthaei nono1: Ut autem sciatis, quia Filius hominis habet potestatem dimittendi peccata; post resurrectionem etiam dicit, Matthaei ultimo: Data est mihi omnis potestas etc.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia Christus est redemptor, secundum quod homo, et mediator, sicut dicitur in libro tertio Sententiarum distinctione decima nona2; sed maius est redimere genus humanum quam peccata dimittere: ergo etc.

3. Item, humana natura est unita divinae in unitate personae3, ergo multo fortius in unitate operationis: ergo quamvis sit Dei solius, est tamen hominis Christi etiam dimittere peccata.

Contra: 1. Ille solus potest peccata dimittere, qui potest animas vivificare; sed solius Dei, et non alterius, est animas vivificare, sicut dicit Augustinus4: ergo etc. Fundamenta.

2. Item, quamvis homo ille sit Deo unitus, tamen homo est et creatura, ergo finitae potentiae; sed animam recreare, cum sit facta nihil per peccatum5, est infinitae potentiae: ergo illud non potest Christus, secundum quod homo.

Conclusio. Christo, secundum quod est homo, competit potestas dimittendi peccata dispositive sive per modum meriti, non vero effective.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, si hoc intelligatur de potestate effectiva dimittendi peccata, sic solius Dei est, non hominis, quia Christus interius baptizat, non secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus6. Si autem de potestate dispositiva, utpote per modum meriti; sic Christus meruit nobis dimittere peccata et quantum ad poenam et quantum ad culpam. Unde quia Deus dedit dona hominibus7 et condonavit culpam; quia vero homo innocens, accepit in nobis dona, id est meruit, ut nos acciperemus.

Meruit autem Christus nobis remissionem culpae et relaxationem poenae sua passione, quae fuit Deo gratissima et in se fuit acerbissima, nullo modo ex delicto suo, immo propter solvenda debita nostra8, et in hoc habet Christus excellere, in quantum homo, in potestate dimittendi poenam, quia per se potest totum condonare; sicut et fecit mulieri in adulterio deprehensae, et nunc etiam potest sine clave aliqua. Alii autem homines si possunt, hoc est potestate, per quam Dominus eis commisit suae passionis thesaurum et meritum dispensandum, quasi custodibus thesauri. Ideo ampliori modo nobilitatis attribuitur Christo, etiam secundum quod homo, potestas dimittendi peccata quam aliis; non quod ipse deleat culpam, sicut ostendunt rationes, quia, sicut probatum est in primo libro et in praecedenti problemate, talis deletio fit per gratiae infusionem et creationem, et iste est actus potentiae infinitae: creatura autem potentiae infinitae non est capax, nec per potentiam finitam potest continuari potentiae agentis actu infinito: et ideo nullo modo nec unitae nec non unitae creaturae alicui convenit potestas baptizandi interius sive remittendi peccata effective, sed solum dispositive, et hoc competit merito Christi; vel tantum formaliter, et hoc competit gratiae, quam impetrat Christus.

p. 131

1. Ex his patent obiecta. Quod enim dicitur in Matthaeo, intelligitur secundum idiomatum communicationem, non quod, secundum quod homo, hoc possit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de redemptione, dicendum, quod in redemptione duo sunt: est enim ibi solutio pretii, pro quo eramus obligati, et donatio gratiae, per quam sumus reconciliati. Primum quidem est minoris potentiae, secundum maioris; et ratione primi dicitur Redemptor, scilicet ratione humanitatis, ratione secundi quantum ad divinitatem; nec humanitas suffecisset, nisi Deitati unita esset.

3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod unitas operationis non sequitur unitatem personae, sed naturae. Et quia Patris et Filii una est natura, quamvis duae sint personae, ideo unam habent operationem. Quia vero humanitas et divinitas in Christo sunt diversae naturae, ideo diversas operationes habent.

English Translation

Question II. Whether the power of forgiving sins was given to Christ.

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether the power of forgiving sins was given to Christ. And that it was so, it seems.

1. For before the resurrection He says, in Matthew nine1: But that you may know that the Son of Man has the power of forgiving sins; and after the resurrection He also says, in the last [chapter] of Matthew: All power is given to me etc.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because Christ is the redeemer, according as He is man, and the mediator, as is said in the third book of the Sentences, distinction nineteen2; but it is greater to redeem the human race than to forgive sins: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, human nature is united to the divine in the unity of person3, therefore much more strongly in the unity of operation: therefore, although it belongs to God alone, it nevertheless belongs also to Christ the man to forgive sins.

On the contrary: 1. He alone can forgive sins who can vivify souls; but to vivify souls belongs to God alone, and not to another, as Augustine says4: therefore etc. Fundamenta.

2. Likewise, although that man is united to God, nevertheless He is man and a creature, therefore of finite power; but to recreate the soul, since it has been made nothing through sin5, is [a work] of infinite power: therefore Christ cannot [do] that, according as He is man.

Conclusion. To Christ, according as He is man, belongs the power of forgiving sins dispositively or by way of merit, but not effectively.

I respond: It must be said that, if this is understood of the effective power of forgiving sins, then it belongs to God alone, not to man, because Christ baptizes interiorly not according as He is man, but according as He is God6. But if [it is understood] of the dispositive power, namely by way of merit; then Christ merited for us the forgiving of sins both as to punishment and as to fault. Hence, because God gave gifts to men7 and condoned the fault; and because [as] innocent man He received in us gifts, that is, He merited that we should receive [them].

Now Christ merited for us the remission of fault and the relaxation of punishment by His passion, which was most pleasing to God and in itself was most bitter, in no way from His own offense, but rather on account of debts to be paid for us8, and in this Christ has [the power] to excel, inasmuch as He is man, in the power of forgiving punishment, because by Himself He can condone the whole; just as He also did to the woman caught in adultery, and even now He can [do it] without any key. But if other men can [do it], this is by a power through which the Lord committed to them the treasure of His passion and merit to be dispensed, as it were to guardians of the treasure. Therefore the power of forgiving sins is attributed to Christ, even according as He is man, in a fuller mode of nobility than to others; not that He Himself blots out the fault, as the reasons show, because, as was proved in the first book and in the preceding problem, such a blotting-out comes about through the infusion of grace and through creation, and this is an act of infinite power: but a creature is not capable of infinite power, nor through finite power can it be made continuous with the power of an agent [acting] by an infinite act: and therefore in no way does the power of baptizing interiorly or of remitting sins effectively belong to any creature, whether united [to God] or not united, but only dispositively, and this belongs to the merit of Christ; or only formally, and this belongs to the grace which Christ obtains [for us].

1. From these things the objections are plain. For what is said in Matthew is understood according to the communication of idioms, not that, according as He is man, He could [do] this.

2. To that which is objected concerning the redemption, it must be said that in the redemption there are two things: for there is the payment of the price for which we were obligated, and the gift of grace through which we are reconciled. The first indeed is of lesser power, the second of greater; and by reason of the first He is called Redeemer, namely by reason of His humanity, by reason of the second as to His divinity; nor would the humanity have sufficed, had it not been united to the Deity.

3. To the other [it] must be said that the unity of operation does not follow the unity of person, but of nature. And because the nature of the Father and of the Son is one, although there are two persons, therefore they have one operation. But because the humanity and the divinity in Christ are diverse natures, therefore they have diverse operations.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vers. 6. — Seq. textus est ibid. 28, 18.
    [Matthew 9,] verse 6. — The following text is the same [gospel], 28, 18.
  2. 2
    In lit. Magistri, c. 5. seqq. Cfr. ibid. Comment. a. 2. q. I. seq. — Post mediator cod. F addit secundum quod homo; cod. II perperam secundum quod Deus.
    In the text of the Master, c. 5 and following. Cf. ibid. the Commentary, a. 2, q. I and following. — After mediator codex F adds according as He is man; codex II wrongly according as He is God.
  3. 3
    Vide III. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. I. — Arg. fundatur in axiomate: Operari sequitur esse, et: Actiones sunt suppositorum.
    See III Sentences d. 6, a. 2, q. I. — The argument is founded on the axiom: Acting follows being, and: Actions belong to supposits.
  4. 4
    In Ioan. Evang. tr. 19. n. 15: Animas ergo resuscitat Deus per Christum Filium Dei, corpora suscitat Deus per eundem Christum filium hominis. Et infra n. 16: Hora nunc est, ut resurgant mortui, hora erit in fine saeculi, ut resurgant mortui; sed resurgant nunc in mente, tunc in carne; resurgant nunc in mente per Verbum Dei, Filium Dei, resurgant tunc in carne per Verbum Dei carnem factum, filium hominis. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in Ioan. 5, 25. Vide etiam August., Enarrat. in Ps. 70. serm. 2. n. 3.
    On the Gospel of John, tract 19, n. 15: God therefore raises up souls through Christ the Son of God, God raises up bodies through the same Christ the son of man. And below, n. 16: The hour now is, that the dead should rise, the hour will be at the end of the age, that the dead should rise; but let them rise now in the mind, then in the flesh; let them rise now in the mind through the Word of God, the Son of God, let them rise then in the flesh through the Word of God made flesh, the son of man. Cf. the ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyra on John 5, 25. See also Augustine, Commentary on the Psalms, on Ps. 70, sermon 2, n. 3.
  5. 5
    August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. I, n. 13: Peccatum quidem non per ipsum [Verbum] factum est; et manifestum est, quia peccatum nihil est, et nihil fiunt homines, cum peccant. Et de Verbis Apostoli, serm. 176. (alias 20.) c. 5. n. 5: Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat; nemo reficit, nisi qui fecit. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 633, nota 3.
    Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tract 1, n. 13: Sin indeed was not made through Him [the Word]; and it is manifest that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin. And On the Words of the Apostle, sermon 176 (otherwise 20), c. 5, n. 5: No one recreates except him who creates; no one remakes except him who made. Cf. tome II, p. 633, note 3.
  6. 6
    Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum in Marc. 2, 10. (secundum Bedam in hunc loc.): Solus Deus dimittit peccata; et Filius hominis habet potestatem dimittendi peccata: ergo idem Deus et filius hominis est. Ita homo Christus per divinitatem dimittit peccata, per humanitatem pro peccatoribus potest mori.
    The ordinary Gloss in Strabus on Mark 2, 10 (according to Bede on this passage): God alone forgives sins; and the Son of Man has the power of forgiving sins: therefore the same is God and the son of man. Thus the man Christ forgives sins through His divinity, [and] through His humanity He can die for sinners.
  7. 7
    Eph. 4, 8. — Ps. 67, 19: Accepisti dona in hominibus.
    Ephesians 4, 8. — Ps. 67, 19: You have received gifts among men.
  8. 8
    Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — De muliere in adulterio deprehensa vide Ioan. 8, 3-11. — De clavibus agitur infra d. 18. p. I. per totam et d. 19. a. I. et 2. — Pro immo non pauci codd. et ideo, cod. F sed.
    Cf. III Sentences d. 20, q. 5. — On the woman caught in adultery see John 8, 3-11. — On the keys it is treated below at d. 18, p. I throughout, and d. 19, a. I and 2. — For immo not a few codices [read] et ideo, codex F sed.
Cited by

6 places in the Opera Omnia citethis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether this is to be admitted: that Christ, as man, is God
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 10
IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. q. 2.
Whether this is true: Christ, as man, is a person
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 10 · via ibid.
ibid.
Whether the Son alone is the redeemer, or also the Father and the Holy Spirit
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 19
IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 3. q. 2.
Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XVIII, Part II)
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18
supra pag. 130, nota 5
What is the cause of our resurrection
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 43 · 4×
pag. 130, nota 4
Doubts concerning the text of the Master
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 43
supra pag. 130, nota 4

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 1Dist. 5, Dubia→