Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

1. For the institution of a good and upright judge, various conditions, but especially four, are required: First indeed supreme piety and religion, lest perhaps that saying of the Apostle be turned into reproach against himself: Inexcusable art thou, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest: whence an incorrupt judge exercises a certain sacred and as it were priestly office, as Theodoricus admirably observes, quoted in Cassiodorus, book 1 of the Varieties, chapter 12. Be a temple of innocence, he says, addressing the judge, a sanctuary of temperance, an altar of justice. Far from judicial minds be anything profane: that service may be rendered to the prince with a kind of priesthood. Whence Probus the prefect, when he delegated to Ambrose the government of Liguria and Aemilia, said to him: Go, act, not as judge, but as Bishop. — The second condition for instituting a perfect and upright judge is that he be free from all perturbation of mind; for, as Philo argues excellently in his book On the Judge:

Just as the force of fire, warming whatever it touches, is itself first hot by its own nature established in itself; and contrariwise the force of snow, precisely because it is cold, chills another; so ought a judge to be full of justice, that those who come to him may be sprinkled with things just, and may, as it were from a fountain of sweet drinkable water, have a stream flowing to them who thirst for equity.

Whence a judge ought not to have a mind defiled and troubled with the mire of passions and cupidity; but like living water, ever and sweetly springing up, limpid, quiet, and tranquil. — The third condition is that he have accurate and clear knowledge of that matter about which he is about to pronounce judgment. Whence Albinus Flaccus, book On Virtues and Vices, chapter 20, admonished excellently: No Prince should appoint foolish or wicked judges, for the fool through ignorance knows not justice: but the wicked through cupidity subverts the very truth which he has learned. Wherefore Christ our Saviour divinely admonished, John 7: Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just judgment. — The fourth condition finally is eminent fortitude of soul, and a mind free from every vice of fear and cupidity. Hence Ecclesiasticus 7 admonished the man aspiring to judicial dignity: Seek not to be made a judge, unless thou hast strength enough to extirpate iniquities; lest perhaps thou fear the person of the powerful, and lay a stumbling-block in thy equity. Whence the aforesaid Albinus, chapter 21: In four ways, he says, is justice subverted in judgments; through fear, cupidity, hatred, love. Through fear, when anyone through dread of some power spares to judge truth. Through cupidity, when the judge is corrupted by reward of some gift. Through hatred, when on account of enmity with someone he desires to harm another. Through love, when he defends friends or kinsmen against justice more powerfully.

These things being premised, two points are here to be determined: First, whether all these four conditions of the most equitable and absolute judgment befit Christ. Second, whether judicial power belongs to him qua God or qua man.

First Conclusion. — JUDICIAL DIGNITY BEFITS CHRIST.

This is of faith, plainly determined in Sacred Scripture by very many testimonies both of the Old and New Testament. Of the Old indeed, for the coming Messias is foretold to be not only King but also future judge, as was said in the prelude of the Section, and moreover it appears from that celebrated prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 23: I will raise up a just branch to David, and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: whence Psalm 71 foretells the exact justice of Christ the Lord in giving judgment, in these words: Judge the people in justice, and thy poor in judgment. And Psalm 97: He shall judge the world in justice, and the peoples in equity. But far more clearly this judicial dignity of Christ appears from the New Testament, especially Matthew 25 and Luke 13, where Christ himself plainly declares the pomp, apparatus, and form of the last and general judgment, over which he must preside. Hence John 5, the adorable Saviour himself said: For neither does the Father judge any one, but hath given all judgment to the Son. And Acts chapter 10, St. Peter declares that Christ was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead.

This truth is proved moreover by the fact that Christ the Lord contains most eminently everything desirable in a judge: for this is he who did no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth: and straightway shines with highest probity and eminent sanctity: whence deservedly Clement of Alexandria, book of the Pedagogue, chapter 2: The only-begotten Son of God alone is judge, since he cannot sin, and is wholly free from human perturbations of mind. This is he whom nothing escapes, for he is God, whose eyes are brighter than the sun. Whence St. Ambrose, book On the Calling of All Nations (De Interpellatione), chapter 2: Whoever thinks himself unseen by him who sees all things, and believes his deeds can be hidden by darkness, puts forth a shadow: but in vain does he think himself hidden, since the eye of the Lord, brighter than the sun, detects all hidden things, illuminates dark ones, penetrates the conscience of the inner heart, and descends into high and deep things: this at length is he of whom Isaiah prophesies chapter 11: He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears: but he shall judge the poor in justice, and shall reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. Wherefore the eternal Father, speaking through the same Isaiah chapter 42 concerning the Incarnate Son, says: I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor take away his voice, nor shall his voice be heard abroad. The bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: in truth he shall bring forth judgment.

From all these things it is most firmly established that judicial dignity befits Christ the Lord; but whether it is attributed to him as he is man, or as he is God, must now be determined.

Second Conclusion. — JUDICIAL DIGNITY AND POWER BELONGS TO CHRIST THE LORD PRINCIPALLY AS HE IS GOD: BUT SECONDARILY AS HE IS MAN.

The Doctor in book 4, distinction 48, question 1, number 7 proves that he must judge principally inasmuch as he is God, from the fact that principal judgment is the perfect and first determination of what is to be rendered to someone according to merits; which perfect determination includes the complete dictation of the intellect that this is to be rendered, and the complete determination of the will efficacious by willing, sufficient of itself for execution of that determined thing: but Christ, according to human nature, cannot have such willing with respect to the first object of judgment itself, because he cannot have a principal efficacious empire of joining any soul to the beatific object, because according to St. Augustine in the book On Seeing God: It is in his power to be seen: if he wills, he is seen, etc.

— He confirms it: If Christ, as man, could judge principally, especially since as Redeemer he has dominion over men, and also because as Redeemer he admits them to the kingdom: yet this twofold reason does not convince. Not indeed the first, because, he says, by the act of redemption he did not merit principal dominion over man. It is proved: for inasmuch as Redeemer he had the character of meritorious cause for us: but a cause which is only meritorious cannot be principal; for it causes nothing unless it is accepted by some more principal cause, which on account of that acceptance causes principally: therefore even granted that we were bound to the Trinity on account of redemption, as to a supreme Lord with a certain new right beyond the right of dominion which he has from creation (which would be true if redemption accepted by the Trinity were as great a good to us as creation): still it does not follow that we are bound to Christ according to human nature by reason of Redemption as to a supreme Lord. Nor even the second, because, the Doctor says, Christ leads the blessed into the kingdom of heaven not as principal inducer, but only as meritorious cause.

Whence some of the ancient Theologians said that Christ would be judge, not qua man, but qua God, as Cyril in the Epistle to Valerianus: God, he says, the Word made man, and reckoned among men, namely thus named with us: nevertheless he will judge qua God, and Lord, and only Son, in whom also then God and Father is present. Hence in book 2 on John, chapter 1, he proves Christ to be God from the fact that to no other than God does it belong to judge the world: and afterwards says that God the Father exercises the function of judging through the Son: For indeed, he says, since he has in himself the power to create all things, he creates through the Son, as through his power and strength: so having, that he may be able to judge, he effects this through the Son, as through his proper justice: just as if fire were said to grant to the efficiency which is from it according to nature, that it should burn. Which indeed is true, if you regard the principal and authoritative power of judging.

The second part also is established, namely that Christ, as man, has the power of judging divinely committed to himself:

For the will of Christ, the Doctor says at number 9, determines sub-authentically or commissively with such commission, that although that will does not command principally, just as it does not rule principally; yet it commands well as having empire with respect to what is commanded: but it commands commissively, because it commands as having an empire subordinated to the supreme dominion of God; and still thus it commands, that its empire has complete efficacy from the same person.

Whence he concludes that if anyone attributes another authority of judging to the soul of Christ, it seems blasphemy, attributing to created nature what is proper to the Creator.

Hence all the authorities of Sacred Scripture by which it seems proved that Christ as man has supreme authority for judging the living and the dead; as John 5: For neither does the Father judge any one, but hath given all judgment to the Son: and shortly after: He hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man: and Romans 14: To this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living; and Acts 10: He it is, says Peter the Apostle, who was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead; and chapter 17: St. Paul speaking among the Areopagites: Because he hath appointed a day, he says, wherein he will judge the world in equity by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, raising him up from the dead; these, I say, and similar texts of Scripture, the Doctor says are to be understood of a judicial authority or power, not indeed principal, but subordinate: yet most eminent, such as can be under the principal.

The same truth the Seraphic Doctor proves by almost the same reasoning in book 4, distinction 48, article 1, question 1, where having said that two things are required for complete judicial power, namely authority in pronouncing sentence, and power in bestowing reward according to merits, and having said that both belong principally to God, he adds:

These two things God the Trinity communicated to the man Christ, giving him authority and dominion, as it is said: God hath made this same Jesus Lord: he gave him also power by subjecting other things to him: All power is given to me. And therefore he is he who was appointed by God judge of the living and of the dead, as is said. Since therefore judicial power regards those two things already mentioned, and those are in God by nature, and in Christ man by grace: therefore judicial power is Christ's according to Divinity by nature, according to humanity conferred by grace. Whence according to both natures he has authority, but according to Divinity principal and natural, according to humanity committed, whence he was appointed.

Therefore since there is primary power in God, but committed power in the man Christ, the issuing of sentence must take place by Christ the man according to his humanity, because if it took place according to 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 reason of judging resides in both; for the second receives from the first. Therefore the issuing of sentence will take place through Christ according to his humanity: but because Christ is God and man, his sentence will not be as that of a delegated judge, but as principal, and therefore on account of both powers no one can appeal from him.

Thus far the Seraphic Doctor.

You will say. Christ himself dismisses from himself judicial dignity and power: therefore it ought not to be attributed peculiarly to him. The antecedent appears from John 12, where Christ says: If any one hear my words, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world: he that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him.

I deny the consequence. And to the antecedent I say, Christ is to be understood to mean that in his first coming into the world he indeed came not to judge, but to be judged. Whence so long as he lived among mortals he willed not to arrogate to himself the dignity of judge, as appears from Luke chapter 12, where when a certain man of the crowd had said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me, Christ answered: Man, who hath appointed me judge or divider over you? But he does not speak of his second advent to judge men at the last day of all: of this advent he speaks Matthew 27 and Luke 13. Then he is to be understood to mean that he will not judge qua Son of God as visible judge and in sensible form, which form he will have only qua man. Thus St. Augustine interprets it, book 1 On the Trinity, chapter 13, where he admirably reconciles all the texts of Scripture concerning the future judgment of men which seem mutually to conflict:

We say, he says, that he judges according to that whereby he is God: that is, by divine power, not human: and yet the man himself is about to judge, just as the Lord of glory was crucified, etc. Wherefore the Son of man is about to judge, yet not by human power, but by that whereby he is Son of God. And again: The Son of God is about to judge, yet not appearing in that form in which he is God equal to the Father. Therefore both things can be said, and the Son of man shall judge, and not the Son of man shall judge: because the Son of man shall judge, that what he says may be true, Matthew 25: When the Son of man shall come, then shall all nations be gathered together before him. And not the Son of man shall judge, that again what he says may hold, John 12: I judge not, and John 5: I seek not my own glory, there is one that seeketh and judgeth. For according to that, that in judgment not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear, neither will he himself judge as judge: for according to this it was said, John 5: The Father judgeth not any one, but hath given all judgment to his Son.

So likewise in Tractate 21 on John he expounds this passage thus: that the Father be said not to be about to judge anyone, as a judge visible and exercising jurisdiction with judicial apparatus, such as session upon tribunal, examination of the cause, citation of the accused, and the like: as if it were said, no one will see the Father in the judgment of the living and the dead, but all will see the Son: because he is also Son of man, that he may be seen by the impious; with Zechariah 12: And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.