Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. That a varied controversy has existed, and still flourishes, between Catholics and heretics concerning Christ the Mediator; for above all the Arians, who dared to detract from the true divinity of the Son of God and its identity with the Father, said he was named Mediator because of a certain intermediate substance between the true God and men, which while it excelled these latter was yet inferior to him; as St. Cyril of Alexandria testifies in dialogue 1 On the Trinity; to which also pertains that senseless and impure opinion of the same Arians, who asserted that God the Father, desiring to fashion all created things, first brought forth his Word as an instrument, and by it as minister created the universe. Moreover they added this insane reason to increase their blasphemous doctrine: namely that God provided himself such a minister because no created thing could sustain the pure efficiency and power of the supreme artificer, and therefore there was need that a certain intermediate substance and power be first created, which by reason of its excellence should approach nearer to God, but by reason of its creation have some commerce and tempering with the other creatures. Which indeed insane and detestable doctrine Eusebius of Caesarea handed down in book 1 Against Sabellius; there indeed when he had said that the only-begotten Son of God was necessary for the procreation and conservation of the world; he objects this to himself, and answers: but perhaps you say: does not the Father suffice? Not because the Father is insufficient did he beget the Son: but because the things made do not suffice to bear his power, therefore he speaks through a Mediator. Therefore it is necessary here, to refute this perfidy with open texts of Scripture and the continuous doctrine of the Holy Fathers in every age, to demonstrate that Jesus Christ, the Mediator of God and men, unites both natures in his same person, and thus truly is Mediator between God and men according to the state of nature.

Note 2. That another twofold opinion about Christ the Mediator is heretical, both proceeding from heretical authors, from which the Catholic Faith set forth in the midst dissents; for some contend Christ is only Mediator qua man; not however qua he is God: others qua he is both man and God; yet so that his Divinity sometimes usurps the functions of Mediator. The assertor of the former erroneous opinion is held to be Franciscus Stancarus of Mantua, Professor of Theology, or as others will have it, of the Hebrew language, at the Academy of Königsberg in Prussia, who fighting keenly against the error of Osiander acting there as Professor, who that he might plant something new contended that the justice whereby men are accounted just before God is the very justice of God inhering in them, not that justice acquired through the merits of Christ which is imputed to believers in Christ through grace, as Lutherans and Calvinists preached. Whence he asserted Christ to be our justice by reason of his Divinity alone, not his humanity. Stancarus proceeded to such heat of contention that he championed the opposite error on the other side, teaching that by reason not of divine but only of human nature Christ is our justice and the author of salvation. Which he strove to confirm not only by the oracles of Sacred Scripture and of the Holy Fathers, but even by the opinions of Theologians, whom he esteemed so highly that he said in his book On the Stancarists: One Peter Lombard glows more brightly than a hundred Luthers, two hundred Melanchthons, three hundred Bullingers, four hundred Peter Martyrs, and five hundred Calvins; all of whom if they were pounded together in a mortar would yield one ounce of true Theology: rightly said indeed, that thence truth may sometimes burst forth from the parent of error. But when Stancarus raised the banner of his new opinion, there began to fight against it not only Catholic Doctors, but also manifold sects and professors of heresy, especially Philip Melanchthon and Calvin, who against the dogma of Stancarus concerning the Mediator published two letters, one to the Polish Brethren, the other which was issued in the name of the Church of Geneva as a response; in which he demonstrates that Christ according to both natures, divine and human, exercised the office and duty of Mediator. Nor indeed content with this truly Catholic dogma, he went so far as to assert that even the divine Word before assuming man discharged those roles; for in the former letter he says, The name of Mediator fits Christ not only from the time he put on flesh, or from the time he undertook the office of reconciling mankind with God, but from the beginning of creation he already truly was mediator.

Note 3. That Christ has various habits and relations, both toward the Father, toward God, and toward us, which Leontius Byzantinus most beautifully relates and weighs, who flourished in the time of the Emperor Justinian I, book 1 Against Eutyches; where among other things he has this:

Since therefore we contemplate six relations (namely in the mystery of the Incarnation), two of the Father to the Word, and of the Word to the Father: then two of the Word to flesh, and of flesh to the Word; furthermore two of Christ to us, and ours to him; three general conjunctions are made. And the first indeed order of conjunctions holds such that the third follows from the first, the second truly from the middle. For those things by which middles agree among themselves hold contrariwise, and toward middles, as against middles. For what holds contrariwise toward itself holds fittingly toward extremes; and what again holds fittingly toward itself holds fittingly toward extremes. These things briefly said, I shall endeavour to explain by example: let three things be posited, soul simply, body simply, man composed of soul and body, and their mutual relations, as of soul to soul, of soul to its own body, of man to body simply, and to soul simply: soul indeed holds itself toward soul so that it is united by the same reason of substance, but discrete by differing hypostasis. This is the first and last relation of conjunctions. But soul toward its own body holds itself so that it is discrete by diversity of nature; united truly by reason of hypostasis, which life perfected by mutual receiving and giving back; this keeps the second and same middle relation. But man referred to body simply and to soul simply, as wholly altogether discrete from those, on account of relation to his parts makes according to communion with them. Wherefore Christ referred to us and to the Father, as wholly of parts, on account of his parts is mediate between the extremes, wholly hypostasis referred to the Father, on account of Divinity with humanity: and wholly hypostasis referred to us, on account of humanity with divinity, the habits being mutually exchanged, according to distinction and union, which he has with himself on account of his parts; and which he has with the Father and with us, on account of the conveniency of parts with extremes.

Thus Leontius.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD IS TRULY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, NOT ONLY BY MINISTRY BUT ALSO BY STATE, IN THAT HE COMPRISES THE DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURE IN THE UNITY OF THE SAME PERSON.

It is proved first from the Apostle to the Hebrews chapter 2, who, that he may show the Son of God to be the Mediator of God and men, says it was necessary that he be made partaker of the nature of men and suffer therein: For it became him, he says, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children unto glory, to consummate the author of their salvation by his Passion. And a little after: Because therefore the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise partook of the same, that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude. And further on: Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become merciful and faithful Pontiff before God, that he might reconcile the sins of the people. To which also pertain all those divine oracles of Scripture which assert the Son of God became man and came into the world precisely that he might save sinners, and snatch and deliver the human race from the dire captivity of the devil.

The same truth all the Holy Fathers of both Churches, Greek as well as Latin, taught most constantly in every age, whom Petavius rehearses at length in book 12; but since it would be laborious and perhaps superfluous to enumerate them here, I shall commemorate only those who taught this truth more illustriously and openly and most constantly. First appears Gregory of Nyssa in book 1 against Eunomius, where he explains the offices of the mediator in such wise as also to denote that by reason of the complex of both natures, divine and human, he truly was mediate between God and men:

The deformity once made of the human race deceived by the wickedness of the adversary, says he, and reduced into servitude of sin, alienated from true life. Afterwards the Lord restores the work made by himself, and man becomes with that which already was God; so much so that both the whole now was, and the whole was made. And in this manner human nature is mingled and tempered with God, by the mediator and surety, that man who is in Christ, with whom the mass tempered coalesced with full virtue through the first-fruits assumed for us. Since therefore the Mediator of one is not one, but God is one: and he is in no wise divided into those persons which faith delivers to us; seeing that one divinity inheres in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; therefore the Mediator at once of God and men becomes Lord, joining man through himself to Divinity.

— Irenaeus book 3 chapter 20: It behoved, he says, the Mediator of God and men, by his propinquity to both, to bring both into friendship and concord; presenting indeed to God the man, but communicating to men the knowledge of God. Athanasius in the book On Human Nature Assumed: True, he says, is the Son of God both before he became man, and after he was made the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, united to the Father according to the Holy Spirit, but to us according to the flesh, and so performing the offices of Mediator between God and men, who is not only man but also God.

— To the Greek Fathers and Theologians consent the Latins: above all Tertullian, who in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh speaks thus of Christ the mediator: This surety of God and men, called from the deposit of both, keeping committed to him by the Father, preserves also the deposit of flesh in himself, the pledge of the whole sum. For as he left to us the pledge of the Spirit, so from us he received the pledge of flesh, and carried up to heaven the pledge of the whole sum to be restored thither some time. Tertullian used a most apt term calling him surety who is called mediator, and rightly declaring its force said the deposit of both is kept by him; for the jurists teach this one is properly named surety, with whom several deposit the thing about which there is controversy. Hilary book 9: The Mediator himself, he says, constituted for the salvation of the Church, and by that very sacrament of mediator between God and man, existing one as both, while he himself unites in the selfsame the natures, is the same thing of each nature: yet so that he lacks neither in either, lest perchance ceasing to be God by being born man, and again man not being God by remaining.

Augustine above all instructs: and copiously expounds this truth in several places, but especially in book 1 On the Harmony of the Evangelists, last chapter:

Because, he says, all things rightly tend toward contraries, they are reduced through some medium; temporal iniquity alienated us from eternal justice. Therefore there was need of a mediator of temporal justice, which temporal mean would be mixed from lowest and highest: and thus neither breaking itself off from the highest, and contemplating the lowest, it might render the lowest the highest. Wherefore Christ was called mediator of God and men between immortal God and mortal man, God and man, reconciling man to God, remaining what he was, made what he was not.

Again in the tractate on Tobias 8 and Psalm 6, he says Christ Jesus is mediator between God and men for this purpose, that he may reconcile to himself those who have departed: for a middle is only between two; we had withdrawn from the Majesty of God, and by our sin had offended him. The Son was sent as mediator, who by his blood should pay our sins, whereby we are separated from God, and being interposed restore us to him, and reconcile us to him from whom averted in our sins and debts we were held. Then in sermon 120 on divers subjects: But that there might be a mediator, he says, between God and men, between the just and the unjust, between the immortal and mortals, he assumed something from the unjust and mortals, keeping something with the just and immortal. For keeping justice with the just and immortal: assuming mortality from the unjust and mortals, he was made a mediator between, casting down the wall of our sins.

Fulgentius also most beautifully and accurately in book 1 Ad Trasimundum, and chapter 15, described the nature of the Mediator:

All moreover who desire to be partakers of eternal salvation ought equally to acknowledge and hold, nor in vain is the man Jesus Christ called mediator of God and men, except because the same God took into himself the whole nature of man, and the same man has in himself the whole substance of Deity. For because man through sin was separated from God, between God wrathful and man sinning such a mediator's person must needs intervene, which for propitiating God to man should have in itself safe and true God born of God: and for reconciling man to God should contain safe man born of man: and thus of both and in both Christ should be one, so that the fulness of Deity protecting should not consume the assumed man; and the fulness of humanity neither diminish the immense nor change the impassible Deity, as if the nature of man, which had been changed into worse, were wholly restored through him than whom nothing is better. Wherefore he deigned to show himself mediate of God and men, full God, and full man.

Finally Rupertus in book 10 On the Divine Offices, chapter 6 writes thus:

Before, between Creator and creature there was no medium. For whatever was, was either Creator or creature. That therefore a medium might be found, the bond of perfect fellowship, here came this one between (intraluctus est), who might more firmly annex Creator and creature; because one and the same Christ is both, namely Creator and creature: Creator, because God; creature, because man.

From all these weighty authorities it is established against the Arians and other plagues of this kind that Christ the Lord truly has the character of mediator, who joins in himself both natures divine and human, and by reason of both sustains and fulfils the office of mediator perfect and absolutely complete in every respect.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD WAS MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN BY OFFICE, BY REASON OF HIS HUMAN NATURE INDEED, CONSIDERED NOT SIMPLY AND ABSOLUTELY, BUT AS SUBSISTING IN A DIVINE SUPPOSIT.

It is proved, because a mediator must be distinguished by some reason at least from him toward whom that mediation is directed, as toward the principal part: but Christ the Lord is not distinguished from the divine Father toward whom that mediation tended except by reason of human nature: therefore Christ is mediator by reason of human nature. Yet since that nature had need of borrowing a certain dignity from elsewhere than from herself, that she might be the more perfect mediator, therefore he is said to be mediator not simply by reason of human nature: this remains sufficiently proved from what precedes.

Stancarus objected: No one can be mediator of himself: but if Christ were mediator according to his divine nature, he would be mediator of himself, since he is one with the Father and Holy Spirit: therefore he cannot be mediator according to the divine nature, but only according to the human.

I answer first, that the minor is false, as Stancarus proposes it: for it is not true that the Son is one with the Father in person, but one, that is, he is not one person, but one nature or substance. I answer secondly to the major, that if Christ is considered not as God only, but as God and man at once, he stands as far from God as from man, and agrees with both equally, wherein consists the character of middle or mediator. Whence since the Son is not wholly himself he who is Father or Holy Spirit, being distinct from each by proper relation and hypostasis, thence it comes that by this reason he is not mediator of himself even qua he is God, because this office of mediator belongs to his person not only qua it terminates the divine nature, but also qua it terminates and affects the human.

He urged: Christ was mediator by reason of that nature through which he reconciled us to God: but he reconciled us to God only by reason of human nature; for we are reconciled to God through the death of Christ, as the Apostle says Romans 5; whence the Master of the Sentences, distinction 19, teaches Christ is mediator by reason of human nature; which indeed he proves from the authorities of St. Augustine saying in the exposition of the third chapter of Galatians: That Jesus Christ is called Mediator according to man, from that sentence of the same Apostle, is made fuller, when he says: One is God, and one mediator of God and men, man Christ Jesus, etc. There remains therefore that he who was cast down by a proud mediator, pride persuading, be raised up by a humble mediator, humility persuading. And book 10 of the Confessions, chapter 13: Inasmuch as he is man, so far mediator: inasmuch as Word, he is not less than equal God, and God with God, and together with the Holy Spirit one God. And on Psalm 103, Christ mediator between man and God; not because God, but because man: not because God equal to the Father; but were he not equal to the Father he would not be mediator. To these Tractate 62 on John: Mediator, he says, of God and men, not qua God, but qua he is man Jesus Christ.

These authorities also Stancarus objected.

— Yet from those authorities of both the Apostle and St. Augustine nothing can be gathered that does not militate against the erroneous opinion of Stancarus; we are indeed reconciled to God through the death of Christ, because the death of that supreme and morally infinite victim was of value and price, not on account of human nature only, but on account of its union and personal society with the divine, as we said elsewhere. But to St. Augustine I say he means nothing else than that the Son of God qua God was not mediator before the incarnation; but then only did he undergo the state and office of mediator when he became man; seeing that through the incarnation he emerged as mediator, both by reason of state, because he was mediate between human and divine nature, not by reason of human nature only, nor of divine only, but of both subsisting in the same person; and by reason of office and ministry, seeing that he administered the work and office of mediator through his humanity. Whence the Seraphic Doctor, distinction 19, article 2, question 2, teaches that must be distinguished the character of Christ as medium and as mediator:

For a medium, he says, differs from a mediator: for medium denotes conveniency with extremes; but mediator denotes not only conveniency but also the office of reconciliation. Then he teaches that a medium between two natures can be taken threefold: either so that two natures concur therein, as in a third nature; or so that two natures concur therein as in one person; or so that there concur therein properties conforming to two natures. Taking medium in the first way, nothing can be medium between human nature, neither Christ nor anything else; because no third thing can be constituted from human nature. Taking medium in the second way, thus Christ is medium between human nature and divine, inasmuch as he is one person in two natures, not by reason of human nature only, nor of divine only, but of both. Taking medium in the third way, Christ is medium between God and men according to his humanity, inasmuch as he has mortality simultaneously with beatitude. Mortality, I say, in which he communicates with men: beatitude, in which he communicates most with God. But if it be asked how, and according to what nature, Christ is mediator, since mediator denotes the office of reconciliation, and a mediator must differ from those whom he reconciles, and Christ according to the divine nature is he with whom reconciliation is made, it must be said that he cannot be mediator according to the divine nature, but according to the human nature, in which he can reconcile according to diverse properties, in which he communicates with God and with man. For he had justice and innocence, in which he communicates with God, and mortality, in which he communicates with man: and while death is joined to justice, sinful mortal man is allied in the same to God just and immortal, for we are reconciled to God through the death of an innocent man.

He pressed: A medium must be between extremes: therefore the mediator of God and men must be below God and above men: but Christ according to the divine nature is not inferior to God: therefore according to the divine nature he cannot be mediator, and consequently he is only mediator according to human nature.

I distinguish the antecedent: a medium must be between extremes by reason of state or person, I concede: by reason of nature, I deny. Therefore Christ is indeed mediate between God and men by reason of his state or person, because he is at once God and man; but not by reason of the other nature, because according to the divine nature he is essentially identical with the Father and Holy Spirit, but according to human nature he is of the same lot and nature with men.

He urged: Christ is mediator by that reason whereby he rendered satisfaction to God for our debts: but he did not satisfy for our sins according to the divine nature, because according to that he was identical with the Father, and consequently had he satisfied according to that nature, it would follow that he had exhibited satisfaction to himself: but no one can satisfy himself: therefore it is necessary that he have been mediator only according to human nature.

I deny the minor: for nothing hinders, as we said when treating of the satisfaction of Christ the Lord, that one and the same man be debtor and creditor under different titles: and consequently that he can satisfy himself, as appears from the case of tutor and actor (procurator), who qua particular man can owe something to his ward, and qua tutor pay it to himself.