Quaestio 59 Question 59 De iudiciaria potestate Christi Christ’s Judiciary Power Deinde considerandum est de iudiciaria potestate Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We have now to consider Christ’s judiciary power. Under this head there are six points of inquiry: Primo, utrum iudiciaria potestas sit attribuenda Christo. (1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ? Secundo, utrum conveniat sibi secundum quod est homo. (2) Whether it belongs to Him as man? Tertio, utrum fuerit eam ex merito adeptus. (3) Whether He acquired it by merits? Quarto, utrum eius potestas iudiciaria sit universalis respectu omnium hominum. (4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men? Quinto, utrum, praeter iudicium quod agit in hoc tempore, sit expectandus ad universale iudicium futurum. (5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are to expect Him in the future general judgment? Sexto, utrum eius iudiciaria potestas etiam ad Angelos se extendat. (6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels? De executione autem finalis iudicii convenientius agetur cum considerabimus de his quae pertinent ad finem mundi. Nunc autem sufficit ea sola tangere quae pertinent ad Christi dignitatem. It will be more suitable to consider the execution of the Last Judgment when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world. For the present it will be enough to touch on those points that concern Christ’s dignity. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum iudiciaria potestas sit specialiter attribuenda Christo Whether judiciary power is to be specially attributed to Christ? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudiciaria potestas non sit specialiter attribuenda Christo. Iudicium enim aliquorum videtur pertinere ad dominum, unde dicitur Rom. XIV, tu quis es, qui iudicas alienum servum? Sed esse dominum creaturarum est commune toti Trinitati. Non ergo debet Christo specialiter attribui iudiciaria potestas. Objection 1: It would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to belong to their lord; hence it is written (Rom 14:4): Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? But, it belongs to the entire Trinity to be Lord over creatures. Therefore judiciary power ought not to be attributed specially to Christ. Praeterea, Daniel VII dicitur, antiquus dierum sedit; et postea subditur, iudicium sedit et libri aperti sunt. Sed antiquus dierum intelligitur pater, quia, ut Hilarius dicit, in patre est aeternitas. Ergo iudiciaria potestas magis est attribuenda patri quam Christo. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Dan 7:9): The Ancient of days sat; and further on (Dan 7:10), the judgment sat, and the books were opened. But the Ancient of days is understood to be the Father, because as Hilary says (De Trin. ii): Eternity is in the Father. Consequently, judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the Father than to Christ. Praeterea, eiusdem videtur iudicare cuius est arguere. Sed arguere pertinet ad spiritum sanctum, dicit enim dominus, Ioan. XVI, cum autem venerit ille, scilicet Spiritus Sanctus, arguet mundum de peccato et de iustitia et de iudicio. Ergo iudiciaria potestas magis debet attribui spiritui sancto quam Christo. Obj. 3: Further, it seems to belong to the same person to judge as it does to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Spirit to convince: for our Lord says (John 16:8): And when He is come, i.e., the Holy Spirit, He will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. Therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit rather than to Christ. Sed contra est quod dicitur Act. X de Christo, hic est qui constitutus est a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum. On the contrary, It is said of Christ (Acts 10:42): It is He who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. Respondeo dicendum quod ad iudicium faciendum tria requiruntur. Primo quidem, potestas subditos coercendi, unde dicitur Eccli. VII, noli quaerere fieri iudex, nisi valeas virtute rumpere iniquitates. Secundo, requiritur rectitudinis zelus, ut scilicet aliquis non ex odio vel livore, sed ex amore iustitiae iudicium proferat, secundum illud Proverb. III, quem enim diligit dominus, corripit, et quasi pater in filio complacet sibi. Tertio, requiritur sapientia, secundum quam formatur iudicium, unde dicitur Eccli. X, iudex sapiens iudicabit populum suum. Prima autem duo praeexiguntur ad iudicium, sed proprie tertium est secundum quod accipitur forma iudicii, quia ipsa ratio iudicii est lex sapientiae vel veritatis, secundum quam iudicatur. I answer that, Three things are required for passing judgment: first, the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written (Sir 7:6): Seek not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough to extirpate iniquities. The second thing required is upright zeal, so as to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of justice, according to Prov. 3:12: For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth: and as a father in the son He pleaseth Himself. Third, wisdom is needed, upon which judgment is based, according to Ecclus. 10:1: A wise judge shall judge his people. The first two are conditions for judging; but on the third the very rule of judgment is based, because the standard of judgment is the law of wisdom or truth, according to which the judgment is passed. Et quia filius est sapientia genita, et veritas a patre procedens et ipsum perfecte repraesentans, ideo proprie iudiciaria potestas attribuitur filio Dei. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig., haec est incommutabilis illa veritas quae lex omnium artium recte dicitur, et ars omnipotentis artificis. Ut autem nos, et omnes animae rationales, secundum veritatem de inferioribus recte iudicamus, sic de nobis, quando eidem cohaeremus, sola ipsa veritas iudicat. De ipsa vero nec pater, non enim minus est quam ipse. Et ideo quae pater iudicat, per ipsam iudicat. Et postea concludit, pater ergo non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Now because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from the Father, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary power is properly attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): This is that unchangeable Truth, which is rightly styled the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Craftsman. But even as we and all rational souls judge aright of the things beneath us, so does He who alone is Truth itself pass judgment on us, when we cling to Him. But the Father judges Him not, for He is the Truth no less than Himself. Consequently, whatever the Father judges, He judges through It. Further on he concludes by saying: Therefore the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex illa ratione probatur quod iudiciaria potestas sit communis toti Trinitati, quod et verum est. Sed tamen per quandam appropriationem iudiciaria potestas attribuitur filio, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves that judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity, which is quite true: still by special appropriation such power is attributed to the Son, as stated above. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in VI de Trin., patri attribuitur aeternitas propter commendationem principii, quod etiam importatur in ratione aeternitatis. Ibidem etiam Augustinus dicit quod filius est ars patris. Sic igitur auctoritas iudicandi attribuitur patri inquantum est principium filii; sed ipsa ratio iudicii attribuitur filio, qui est ars et sapientia patris, ut scilicet, sicut pater fecit omnia per filium suum inquantum est ars eius, ita etiam iudicat omnia per filium suum inquantum est sapientia et veritas eius. Et hoc significatur in Daniele, ubi primo dicitur quod antiquus dierum sedit, et postea subditur quod filius hominis pervenit usque ad antiquum dierum, et dedit ei potestatem et honorem et regnum, per quod datur intelligi quod auctoritas iudicandi est apud patrem, a quo filius accepit potestatem iudicandi. Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), eternity is attributed to the Father, because He is the Principle, which is implied in the idea of eternity. And in the same place Augustine says that the Son is the art of the Father. So, then, judiciary authority is attributed to the Father, inasmuch as He is the Principle of the Son, but the very rule of judgment is attributed to the Son who is the art and wisdom of the Father, so that as the Father does all things through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His art, so He judges all things through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His wisdom and truth. And this is implied by Daniel, when he says in the first passage that the Ancient of days sat, and when he subsequently adds that the Son of Man came even to the Ancient of days, who gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and thereby we are given to understand that the authority for judging lies with the Father, from whom the Son received the power to judge. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., ita dixit Christus quod Spiritus Sanctus arguet mundum de peccato, tanquam diceret, ille diffundet in cordibus vestris caritatem. Sic enim, timore depulso, arguendi habebitis libertatem. Sic ergo spiritui sancto attribuitur iudicium, non quantum ad rationem iudicii, sed quantum ad affectum iudicandi quem homines habent. Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xcv in Joan.): Christ said that the Holy Spirit shall convince the world of sin, as if to say ‘He shall pour out charity upon your hearts.’ For thus, when fear is driven away, you shall have freedom for convincing. Consequently, then, judgment is attributed to the Holy Spirit, not as regards the rule of judgment, but as regards man’s desire to judge others aright. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum iudiciaria potestas conveniat Christo secundum quod est homo Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ as man? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudiciaria potestas non conveniat Christo secundum quod est homo. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de vera Relig., quod iudicium attribuitur filio inquantum est ipsa lex primae veritatis. Sed hoc pertinet ad Christum secundum quod est Deus. Ergo iudiciaria potestas non convenit Christo secundum quod est homo, sed secundum quod est Deus. Objection 1: It would seem that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that judgment is attributed to the Son inasmuch as He is the law of the first truth. But this is Christ’s attribute as God. Consequently, judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man but as God. Praeterea, ad iudiciariam potestatem pertinet praemiare bene agentes, sicut et punire malos. Sed praemium bonorum operum est beatitudo aeterna, quae non datur nisi a Deo, dicit enim Augustinus, super Ioan., quod participatione Dei fit anima beata, non autem participatione animae sanctae. Ergo videtur quod iudiciaria potestas non conveniat Christo secundum quod est homo, sed secundum quod est Deus. Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good, just as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is the reward of good works, is bestowed by God alone: thus Augustine says (Tract. xxiii super Joan.) that the soul is made blessed by participation of God, and not by participation of a holy soul. Therefore it seems that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man, but as God. Praeterea, ad iudiciariam Christi potestatem pertinet iudicare occulta cordium, secundum illud I ad Cor. IV, nolite ante tempus iudicare, quousque veniat dominus, qui et illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum et manifestabit consilia cordium. Sed hoc pertinet ad solam virtutem divinam, secundum illud Ierem. XVII, pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus, scrutans corda et probans renes, qui do unicuique iuxta viam suam. Ergo iudiciaria potestas non convenit Christo secundum quod est homo, sed secundum quod est Deus. Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to Christ’s judiciary power to judge secrets of hearts, according to 1 Cor. 4:5: Judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. But this belongs exclusively to the Divine power, according to Jer. 17:9, 10: The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart, and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way. Therefore judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man but as God. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. V, potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. On the contrary, It is said (John 5:27): He hath given Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man. Respondeo dicendum quod Chrysostomus, super Ioan., sentire videtur quod iudiciaria potestas non conveniat Christo secundum quod est homo, sed solum secundum quod est Deus. Unde auctoritatem Ioannis inductam sic exponit, potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere. Quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc. Non enim propterea suscepit iudicium quoniam homo est, sed quia ineffabilis Dei filius est, propterea iudex est. Quia vero ea quae dicebantur erant maiora quam secundum hominem, ideo, hanc opinionem solvens, dixit, ne miremini quia filius hominis est, etenim ipse est etiam filius Dei. Quod quidem probat per resurrectionis effectum, unde subdit, quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. I answer that, Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix in Joan.) seems to think that judiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God. Accordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from John: ‘He gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man: wonder not at this.’ For He received judiciary power, not because He is man; but because He is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore is He judge. But since the expressions used were greater than those appertaining to man, He said in explanation: ‘Wonder not at this, because He is the Son of man, for He is likewise the Son of God.’ And he proves this by the effect of the Resurrection: wherefore He adds: Because the hour cometh when the dead in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. Sciendum tamen quod, quamvis apud Deum remaneat primaeva auctoritas iudicandi, hominibus tamen committitur a Deo iudiciaria potestas respectu eorum qui eorum iurisdictioni subiiciuntur. Unde dicitur Deut. I, quod iustum est iudicate, et postea subditur, quia Dei est iudicium, cuius scilicet auctoritate vos iudicatis. Dictum est autem supra quod Christus, etiam in natura humana, est caput totius Ecclesiae, et quod sub pedibus eius Deus omnia subiecit. Unde et ad eum pertinet, etiam secundum naturam humanam, habere iudiciariam potestatem. Propter quod videtur auctoritatem praedictam Evangelii sic esse intelligendam, potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere quia filius hominis est, non quidem propter conditionem naturae, quia sic omnes homines huiusmodi potestatem haberent, ut Chrysostomus obiicit, sed hoc pertinet ad gratiam capitis, quam Christus in humana natura accepit. But it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is committed to men with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it is written (Deut 1:16): Judge that which is just; and further on (Deut 1:17): Because it is the judgment of God, that is to say, it is by His authority that you judge. Now it was said before (Q. 8, AA. 1, 4) that Christ even in His human nature is Head of the entire Church, and that God has put all things under His feet. Consequently, it belongs to Him, even according to His human nature, to exercise judiciary power. On this account, it seems that the authority of Scripture quoted above must be interpreted thus: He gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of Man; not on account of the condition of His nature, for thus all men would have this kind of power, as Chrysostom objects (Hom. xxxix in Joan.); but because this belongs to the grace of the Head, which Christ received in His human nature. Competit autem Christo hoc modo secundum humanam naturam iudiciaria potestas, propter tria. Primo quidem, propter convenientiam et affinitatem ipsius ad homines. Sicut enim Deus per causas medias, tanquam propinquiores effectibus, operatur; ita iudicat per hominem Christum homines, ut sit suavius iudicium hominibus. Unde apostolus dicit, Heb. IV, non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia per similitudinem, absque peccato. Adeamus ergo cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae eius. Secundo, quia in finali iudicio, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan., erit resurrectio corporum mortuorum, quae suscitat Deus per filium hominis, sicut per eundem Christum suscitat animas inquantum est filius Dei. Tertio quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini, rectum erat ut iudicandi viderent iudicem. Iudicandi autem erant boni et mali. Restabat ut in iudicio forma servi et bonis et malis ostenderetur, forma Dei solis bonis servaretur. Now judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to His human nature on three accounts. First, because of His likeness and kinship with men; for, as God works through intermediary causes, as being closer to the effects, so He judges men through the Man Christ, that His judgment may be sweeter to men. Hence (Heb 4:15) the Apostle says: For we have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities; but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of His grace. Second, because at the last judgment, as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.), there will be a resurrection of dead bodies, which God will raise up through the Son of Man; just as by the same Christ He raises souls, inasmuch as He is the Son of God. Third, because, as Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii): It was but right that those who were to be judged should see their judge. But those to be judged were the good and the bad. It follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the judgment to both good and wicked, while the form of God should be kept for the good alone. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod iudicium pertinet ad veritatem sicut ad regulam iudicii, sed ad hominem qui est veritate imbutus pertinet secundum quod est unum quodammodo cum ipsa veritate, quasi quaedam lex et quaedam iustitia animata. Unde et ibidem Augustinus introduxit quod dicitur I Cor. II, spiritualis iudicat omnia. Anima autem Christi prae ceteris creaturis magis fuit unita veritati et magis ea repleta, secundum illud Ioan. I, vidimus eum plenum gratiae et veritatis. Et secundum hoc, ad animam Christi maxime pertinet omnia iudicare. Reply Obj. 1: Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while it belongs to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were one with truth, as a kind of law and living justice. Hence Augustine quotes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii) the saying of 1 Cor. 2:15: The spiritual man judgeth all things. But beyond all creatures Christ’s soul was more closely united with truth, and more full of truth; according to John 1:14: We saw Him . . . full of grace and truth. And according to this it belongs principally to the soul of Christ to judge all things. Ad secundum dicendum quod solius Dei est sui participatione animas beatas facere. Sed adducere homines ad beatitudinem, inquantum est caput et auctor salutis eorum, Christi est, secundum illud Heb. II, qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat, auctorem salutis eorum per passionem consummari. Reply Obj. 2: It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon souls by a participation with Himself; but it is Christ’s prerogative to bring them to such beatitude, inasmuch as He is their Head and the author of their salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: Who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by His Passion. Ad tertium dicendum quod cognoscere occulta cordium et diiudicare per se quidem pertinet ad solum Deum, sed ex refluentia divinitatis ad animam Christi, convenit ei etiam cognoscere et diiudicare occulta cordium, ut supra dictum est, cum de scientia Christi ageretur. Et ideo dicitur Rom. II, in die cum iudicabit Deus occulta hominum per Iesum Christum. Reply Obj. 3: To know and judge the secrets of hearts, of itself belongs to God alone; but from the overflow of the Godhead into Christ’s soul it belongs to Him also to know and to judge the secrets of hearts, as we stated above (Q. 10, A. 2), when dealing with the knowledge of Christ. Hence it is written (Rom 2:16): In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Christus ex meritis fuerit adeptus iudiciariam potestatem Whether Christ acquired his judiciary power by his merits? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non ex meritis fuerit adeptus iudiciariam potestatem. Iudiciaria enim potestas assequitur regiam dignitatem, secundum illud Proverb. XX, rex qui sedet in solio iudicii, dissipat omne malum intuitu suo. Sed regiam dignitatem Christus obtinuit absque meritis, competit enim ei ex hoc ipso quod est unigenitus Dei; dicitur enim Luc. I, dabit ei dominus Deus sedem David, patris eius, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum. Ergo Christus iudiciariam potestatem non obtinuit ex meritis. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary power by His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal dignity: according to Prov. 20:8: The king that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look. But it was without merits that Christ acquired royal power, for it is His due as God’s Only-begotten Son: thus it is written (Luke 1:32): The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. Therefore Christ did not obtain judiciary power by His merits.