Cap. 4 Mem. 1 Rat. 3: Sufficient for humans as denied for fallen angels — objection and reply

3. Christ is acknowledged to have died sufficiently for all human beings in that sense in which he is denied to have died for the fallen angels. This is clear and confessed among all the orthodox, who often recall this discrimination between evil angels and any evil human beings, at least while they are wayfarers. To this look those words of Ambrose on that text of Psalm 118, The earth is full of the Lord’s mercy, Sermon 8: That mystical Sun of righteousness has risen for all, come for all, suffered for all, risen for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he defrauds himself of the general benefit. A little later: Perhaps you may say, Why was it not said, THE HEAVEN IS FULL OF THE LORD’S MERCY? Because there are also spiritual wickednesses in the heavenly places, but those do not pertain to the common right of God’s indulgence and the remission of sins. From which it is plain that Christ so suffered for the whole human race that all human beings thence have a common right of obtaining indulgence by faith, which the demons do not have, because he in no way died for them. Certain of our own, who fight hard for restricting Christ’s death, yet freely grant this: that there is not the same ratio for any human beings that there is for the diaboli, as to the sufficiency of Christ’s death. For to any human beings, but not to the diaboli, he paid a lytron apt enough, if only they were willing to embrace it. This discrimination in the payment of this lytron is worth observing: It was so paid to God that it cannot redeem the diaboli, even if they are supposed to believe — namely because it was not paid for them; but it was so exhibited and given to God that it can redeem any human beings, if they are willing to believe; whence this, unless because it was offered and paid for all of them? For it would not avail to free any human beings, even if they believed, unless it is supposed to have been given and offered to God for them, in the common cause of the human race, even when they did not believe. This discrimination between the sufficiency of Christ’s death as to human beings and as to demons being established — that Christ’s death is understood as sufficient for all human beings in that sense in which it is rightly denied for the angels — let us pass from this Major proposition to the minor. I say, then, that if we acknowledge no other sufficiency in Christ’s death for redeeming any human beings than that which we have called mere sufficiency, which depends on the intrinsic value of the lutron, the offerer’s ordination to persons being removed, no discrimination is set up between such persons and the demons themselves as to that right of obtaining indulgence and remission by the benefit of this lutron, which was recalled above from Ambrose and granted universally to human beings, excluded from angels. It is plain; because the value of Christ’s passion is estimated from the dignity of the suffering Person. It had therefore in itself and in its intrinsic price not only sufficiency but infinite superabundance, even if against it are weighed the sins not only of all human beings but of angels. There must therefore be granted, with respect to human beings, not only that mere sufficiency which depends on the inherent dignity of the thing offered, but that ordained one which arises from Christ’s mind and act referring this his passion to all human beings, not referring it to angels. This being posited, Christ is truly said to have died sufficiently for all human beings, by that sufficiency which has no place in relation to the apostate angels, and of which it is truly said, Christ died for the fallen angels neither efficaciously nor sufficiently.

Objection. But perhaps someone may meet this argument and assert that a mere sufficiency of the thing offered, considered in itself, as to human beings makes it that Christ is rightly said to have suffered sufficiently for all human beings; yet does not make it as to the Diaboli, because that is not sufficient which is not apt and suitable. But a great part of the aptitude in Christ for taking away human sins was that he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh. Since therefore he did not assume the nature of angels, he had neither a suitable state nor a sufficient passion for taking away the sins of evil angels. Solution. But this subtlety limps on both sides. For that mere sufficiency, even with aptitude and congruence however great added, if some ordination and action of offering related to persons has not accompanied it, does not yet make it that Christ is said to have suffered at all for such persons, much less that he is affirmed to have suffered sufficiently. In vain, then, is the assumption of human nature urged, so that from it those who contend he died for the elect alone may deduce that Christ died for all human beings, whether sufficiently or insufficiently. On the other side also the aforesaid exception wavers, because although between Christ and the Angels there did not intervene that likeness of nature which is between Christ and human beings, yet this cannot hinder the lytron paid by Christ — that is, the blood of God — from having been in itself and in its value most sufficient for taking away even the sins of angels. For what crime of any creature can be so great that the poured blood of God would not suffice to expiate it? — which has infinite value from the dignity of the Divine Person, and therefore, the dissimilarity of human nature notwithstanding, if God had deigned to indulge the angels this right in Christ’s passion, it would be applicable even to redeeming angels. God indeed willed to pity the human race, not to pity the angels; he willed the Redeemer to assume not an angelic nature but the seed of Abraham: From this we can conclude that Christ’s death is not a lytron ordained for the redemption of angels, but we neither can nor ought to conclude that it is not a lytron of sufficient dignity, value, and efficacy in itself, if that ordination had been. An argument can be made the other way: that Christ, nature’s dissimilarity notwithstanding, is a sufficient and suitable Head for pouring grace even into the angels themselves; whence the most learned Theologians assert that he merited gifts of grace and glory for the good angels themselves. But that Christ’s merits do not profit the evil angels is to be referred not to insufficiency of the thing but to the will of God alone: and consequently, if we posit many human beings to whom Christ’s passion and merit are in no way ordained, their ratio and condition as to the sufficiency of Christ’s death will be no other than that of the Diaboli.