Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. That a twofold necessity can be distinguished as regards the present institution: one of the consequent, another of the consequence. The necessity of the consequent is the necessity of something not only by reason of it from some antecedent, but by reason of itself; when, for example, with the antecedent removed, the consequent remains necessary in itself. In this manner it is necessary that man be risible. Whence, when it is said, man is, therefore he is risible, that consequent is judged necessary of itself; although nothing can be risible unless it be man, as the subject of such a property. The necessity of the consequence is the necessity of something solely by reason of the position of the antecedent, in the way that it is necessary that man be moved if he runs; because, given the running, he cannot but be moved; although both of those things — both to be moved and to run — are simply contingent with respect to man. When therefore it is asked whether it was necessary that the human race be redeemed through the passion of Christ, it is deservedly doubted whether the question is instituted concerning the necessity of the consequent and absolute; or rather concerning the necessity of the consequence, or conditional.

Note 2. Or rather to be recalled from Disp. 1, art. 3, sect. 3, quest. 1: the various positions of St. Anselm set forth around the present difficulty, which Doctor Subtilis in 3. dist. 20 quest. 1 reduces to four propositions. The first is: it was necessary that man be redeemed. Second, man could not be redeemed without satisfaction. Third, that satisfaction could not be exhibited by anyone other than the God-Man. Fourth, that that satisfaction ought to have been made through the death of Christ. Saint Anselm proves the first proposition, book 2 Cur Deus homo, c. 1. Because, he says, God does nothing in vain: but He would have created man in vain had He left him in his sin: therefore God ought, by the necessity of His manner of operating, to redeem man. He proves the second, book 1, chapters 21 and 25. Because, he says, unjust is the man who does not render to God what he owes; he is unjust also if he does not render to man what he owes: but no unjust man is admitted to eternal beatitude: therefore he who does not pay God what he owes shall not be saved: but every sinner took away from God the honour due to Him: therefore until he has satisfied, he is debtor and unjust. Nor can it be said, he says, that man could have been excused on account of impotence, or that it could have been pardoned him through mercy. Not the first, because impotence indeed would excuse, if man had not voluntarily cast himself down into fault: nor the second either, because to say that God remits something through mercy because He cannot otherwise is ridiculous: therefore man ought absolutely to be redeemed through satisfaction. He proves the third; because, he says, there is required on the part of the satisfier that he offer more to God than the whole creature is worth. Finally he proves the fourth, because man had sinned through sweetness: therefore he ought to be redeemed through bitterness: but man can suffer nothing more bitter, or difficult, or greater under God, spontaneously and not out of debt, unto the honour of God than death: therefore Christ Man, who was greater than all, ought to satisfy through death.

Note 3. That God was not lacking innumerable other ways of saving men than through the death of His proper Son, as we proved elsewhere, and Saint Bernard excellently declares, epistle 190, chapter 8, in these words:

Who denies that other and yet other modes of our redemption, justification, liberation were at hand for the Omnipotent? Yet this does not prejudice the efficacy of this one, which He chose out of many. And perhaps this one surpasses, whereby in this land of oblivion, of heaviness, of our fall, we should be admonished more strongly and more vividly by so many and so great afflictions concerning the Restorer. But otherwise no man knows, nor can fully know, how much good toward grace, how much congruity toward wisdom, how much comeliness toward glory, how much profit toward salvation the inscrutable depth of this venerable mystery contains of itself; which depth the Prophet considering trembled, did not penetrate: the Precursor of the Lord judged himself unworthy to penetrate it.

These things premised, two things are here to be determined: First, that Christ did not have to redeem us absolutely, but only conditionally, through His death: Second, that nevertheless He truly redeemed us through His death and passion, the price of His sacred blood being paid.

First Conclusion. — IT WAS NOT SIMPLY NECESSARY THAT MAN BE REDEEMED THROUGH THE DEATH OF CHRIST, BUT ONLY NECESSARY WITH THE NECESSITY OF CONSEQUENCE.

The conclusion is evident on both parts from all those things which we said concerning the satisfaction of Christ, where it was demonstrated that God was not lacking other modes of repairing man than through the death of His Son. Which the SS. Fathers splendidly explain, especially Saint Augustine, lib. 13. De Trinitate chapter 10. Against those who say that God lacked any mode whereby He might free men from sin, he says thus: It is little thus to refute them, so that we assert this mode, whereby God deigns to free us through the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, to be good and congruous to divine dignity: it remains also, that we show that God lacked no other possible mode, since all things lie equally subject to His power. But throughout that whole chapter and the following ones he shows only the congruity of this sort. — Then he shows that another was possible, chapter 13, at the beginning, in these words: But the devil was to be overcome not by the power of God, but by justice: for whose power is mightier than the Omnipotent? Or can the power of any creature be compared with the power of the Creator? He feels therefore that God could have freed us in another way, if He had wished to use His power. The same the other Fathers teach. Saint Leo, sermon De Nativitate, chapter 3, where he says: When the mercy of God had ineffably many resources available for repairing the human race, He chose this way of consoling above all, whereby for destroying the work of the devil He used not the power of might, but the plan of justice. And sermon 12 De Passione Domini has the same. To these accords Saint Gregory, book 17 Moral., chapter 18, and likewise the other SS. Fathers commemorated by us in treating of the satisfaction of Christ the Lord.

Therefore it must be gathered with the Doctor,

that it was not necessary that Christ Man redeem man through death except by the necessity of consequence, namely supposing that He ordained to redeem him thus: just as if I run, I die: this is the necessity of consequence: but the antecedent is simply contingent, and likewise the consequent, namely my running and my being moved. Similarly Christ's suffering death was contingent, just as it was contingent that He provide Himself about to suffer: there is therefore no necessity except of consequence, namely if He was provided to suffer, He will suffer: but both the antecedent and the consequent were contingent.

Thus the Subtle Doctor. From which he infers, number 10,

that Christ suffered on account of justice: for he saw the evils of the Jews, who held Him, and how they were afflicted by disordered affection and distortion toward their law, nor did they permit a man to be healed on the sabbath, and yet they drew out an ox or a sheep from a pit on the sabbath, and many other things: therefore Christ, wishing to recall them from that error through deeds and words, preferred to die rather than not to do so, because then truth was to be spoken to the Jews, and thus He died for justice. Yet in fact He ordered His passion by His grace, and offered it to the Father for us, and thus we are much bound to Him: since indeed man could otherwise have been redeemed, and yet out of His liberal will He redeemed him thus, we shall be much bound to Him, and more than if we had been redeemed thus necessarily, and could not have been otherwise; therefore to allure us to His love, as I believe, He did this especially, because He willed man to be more bound to God: just as if someone first begat a man, and afterwards instructed him in discipline and holiness, he would be more obliged to him than if he had only begotten him, and another had instructed him; but this is utility, not necessity.

OBJECTS 1. If Christ's passion had not been absolutely necessary, it ought not to have been ordained by God: but it was ordained: therefore it was absolutely necessary for man's salvation. The major is proved: God ought not to have ordained the privation and loss of so great a good as is the life of Christ, unless He judged this absolutely necessary for attaining the end ordained: for no wise man spends a thing of the highest price to obtain what he could attain that is of lesser utility and price.

I deny the major: God indeed ordained this, not from necessity, but from infinite love toward men, and the exceeding charity wherewith He burned toward the human race, as we declared elsewhere, and as the Doctor declares presently.

OBJECTS 2. Any good act of Christ was sufficient satisfaction: therefore satisfaction and redemption through the death of Christ was not necessary, even with the necessity of consequence. The antecedent is proved: because any act, as act, is something better than a passion. Then, any act of Christ, since it hangs from His person alone, has greater dignity than a passion which is undergone at the hands of others. Finally, that is more acceptable to God which has no crime whatsoever annexed than that which is infected with some consequent crime: but any act whatever of Christ had nothing, neither of itself nor consequently, that savoured of crime; but the passion of Christ had annexed the crimes of those crucifying Him: therefore it seems to have been of less dignity and utility for the redemption of men than any one of His acts.

I deny the consequence: for although an act is more excellent than a passion, yet since God had ordained that men be redeemed rather through a passion than through acts, hence it is that by the necessity of consequence it was more fitting that the human race be redeemed through the passion of Christ than through His acts.

The Doctor adds, number 11. Although any good act is better than a passion, which does not arise from the command of a good act; nevertheless the act whereby some passion is commanded is more praiseworthy than the act of virtue which was exercised about a delightful object; whence, he says, the act of virtue about the sorrowful is more meritorious than the act of virtue about the delightful, and passions voluntarily concurring with the act of virtue are together more meritorious when accepted than the act alone. Hence the Saviour said of Paul, Acts 9: I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake: He did not say: how great things he must do. Therefore Christ's willing thus to suffer proceeded from intense love of the end and of us, whereby He loved us for God's sake.

OBJECTS 3. Christ through His death could not redeem those who themselves inflicted death upon Him: therefore neither the whole human race. The antecedent is proved: because so great an evil was the action depriving Christ of life as so great a good was the life of Christ. Moreover: the hatred of those killing Christ was of malice as great as the friendship of Christ was of goodness: therefore since punishment ought to be greater than fault, Christ could not satisfy for His own crucifiers.

The Doctor denies the antecedent, and to its proof says: First according to the doctrine of Saint Anselm, that perhaps the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not graver than other sins, because perhaps they did not know Christ to be God. For, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Corinthians 2: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. — But since the Doctor judges the Apostle not to speak of the Jews, but of the demons, who if they had known Christ to be God would never have instigated men to inflict death upon Him, lest through it the human race be redeemed, and lest their power be made void, he answers secondly the same,

that there is no sin even of Christ's crucifiers which was not expiable even through His passion, because none could be so abominable or odious to God but that the voluntary offering of Christ for expiating the sins of men was more pleasing to Him: because that action had perfection from supernatural charity, from which it proceeded, and moreover from the circumstance of the person of Christ, by reason of which any sin whatsoever ought rather to displease more than please. And if it had not such goodness of itself, it could nevertheless be accepted by God as satisfaction; just as a more meritorious act of eternal life, which does not attain its dignity, would still be accepted by God as a condign merit.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST TRULY REDEEMED US THROUGH HIS DEATH AND PASSION, AND ASSERTED OUR SPIRITUAL AND HEAVENLY LIBERTY.

Saint the Apostle hands down and commends this truth above all others, especially to Romans 5, where he says: But God commendeth his charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners according to the time, Christ died for us. Much more therefore being justified now by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him. And to Ephesians 1: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins. And to Colossians 1: It hath pleased him... by him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things on earth, and the things that are in heaven. And you whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind in evil works, yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.

The dignity of that price of infinite worth whereby we have been redeemed Saint Peter thus explains, Epistle 1, chapter 1: You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.

The same truth the SS. Fathers illustrate in a wondrous manner. Especially indeed Saint Chrysostom, who weighing that passage of the Apostle to Romans 5: If by one man's offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one Jesus Christ: after he had observed that Paul did not say grace simply, but abundance of grace: for, he says, we received only so much from grace as was needed to extinguish sin, but far more; then subjoins this: Just as therefore, if someone cast into prison one owing ten obols: not him alone, but together with him also cast his wife, and children, and servants on his account; then another coming should count out not ten obols only, but lavish innumerable talents of gold, and lead that captive into the Palace, and seat him upon the throne of the supreme Magistrate, and make him partaker of the highest honour and of all remaining splendour, so that the moneylender could no longer make mention of those ten obols; so has it been done in us. Did Christ pay back far more than we owed, and so much more, as an insignificant drop exceeds an immense sea.

Speaking of that same price of the blood of Christ Gregory Nazianzen says: Yet none is to be compared with the miracle of my salvation (he says); a few little drops of blood reforming the whole world, made like the rennet of milk to all men, gathering and congregating us into one. And Basil, in Homily on Psalm 48, splendidly and magnificently preaches much concerning the condescension of this Redeemer on these

words of the Psalm: He shall not fear when his own house shall be enriched, and when his glory shall be increased. For where he says: What indeed can so great a thing find man, that he give for the redemption of his soul? But one thing is found for liberating all men together, which is expended as the price of the redemption of our souls: namely the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He shed for us all. Whence we are redeemed with a price. If therefore a brother redeem not, shall a man redeem? Wherefore since man cannot redeem us, He who redeemed us is not man.

The same truth Saint Augustine preaches luminously, sermon 122 De Tempore: Thou hast paid, he says, for me the price of redemption: O precious price of the lost! etc. Let the redeemed earth say to Him, earth irrigated, redeemed by blood, irrigated by baptism: Great is my iniquity: but greater is thy redemption. Let therefore the adversary of my human race hear the voice of my Lord, and no longer applaud himself in his pride; because for the crime of the whole world our Lord Jesus Christ lost himself upon the cross. And in that sermon which was numbered 114 De Tempore and banished to the appendix of the rejected: Today our Lord weighed upon the balance of the cross the price of our salvation, and by one death absolved the whole world, as He was the creator of all, so also the restorer of all. For let us believe without doubt that He redeemed the whole world who gave more than the whole world was worth. For the merit of the ransom surpassed the dignity of the outstanding price; between the redeemed and the redeemer there was a dispensation, there was no compensation. — Leo also I, sermon 12 De Passione Domini: With the blood of Christ shed forth, he says, the dominion of liberty was more firmly established than the debt of servitude. And in sermon 1 De Ascensione: We have gained more, he says, through the ineffable grace of Christ than we had lost through the envy of the devil. — Thus Peter the Venerable in that little book inscribed against Peter Abaelardus: for the eternal torment of man, he says, the temporal torment of God and man was offered; for the eternal death of man the temporal death of God and man, which is known to be of such weight in the scale of His very justice, that for justly ordering the sins of the world the transitory death of the Son of God far outweighed the eternal death of the sons of men. Plainly more was rendered to justice when Christ died than is compensated when man is damned. Justice therefore has whatever is its own, because the Son of God died for the sins of men. — Anselm likewise, book 2 Cur Deus homo, chapter 19, says that Christ spontaneously gave to God something of such a kind for His honour, with which nothing that God is not can be compared, and which can compensate for the debts of all men. And in the following chapter: What more just, than that he, to whom is given a price greater than every debt, if it be given with affection of debt, remit every debt?