Blessed Odo of Cambrai (Odo Cameracensis), Bishop
Patrologia Latina, vol. 160, cols. 1103–1112
Translated from the Latin
Prologue
Odo, Bishop of Cambrai, to Achard, monk of Phidement.
When I had delivered a discourse in the chapter of Phidement on the eve of the Nativity of the Lord, setting forth the reason for the divine Incarnation, it pleased those who heard it, but the understanding could not be retained in memory—for what pours in swiftly through eager attention is apt to drain away again with the very abundance of its inflow. You therefore asked me to give shape through an orderly written style to the memory that had been overwhelmed by the flood of ideas. At last, overcome by your entreaties, I resolved to do as you asked. But when I went to Poitiers to take counsel, having one day at Silvanus carried out this very matter fittingly against a certain Jew—with God’s help—it seemed fitting to me to pursue this question in the manner of a dialogue, so that the Jew asks and I respond. Since the Jew is called Leo and I am called Odo, the distinction of persons may be made by the initial letters of our names. Now I invoke the Holy Spirit, that what He granted me for the purpose of convincing the Jew, He may grant again for the instruction of a faithful monk. And so, after the midday rest, the Jew came around the ninth hour to our lodging; and when we had sat down, he began to speak thus:
On the Remission of Sins Not Being Sufficient for Glory
Leo. Tell me, O Bishop: what benefit did the coming of your Christ confer upon the world?
Odo. Tell me, O Jew: what benefit do you believe your Messiah, whom you still expect, will bring?
Leo. What we read in the prophets—namely, that all kingdoms shall be subjected to us under him; that under him we shall enjoy perpetual peace; that we shall be gathered with glory from all kingdoms into Jerusalem; that Jerusalem shall hold dominion over all kingdoms; and the rest of the happy things the prophets enumerate. Since we do not see all these things fulfilled in your Christ, we wonder what you expect from him.
Odo. Through Christ we await the kingdom of heaven, and that felicity which is not earthly; through Christ we hope for a celestial happiness.
Leo. You seem to be in error. For we hope both for temporal happiness through the Messiah from that time forward, and for the celestial kingdom after this life through observance of the Law. The prophets promise us temporal goods; we await the heavenly kingdom from the Law. For the Law teaches what sacrifice must be made for each and every sin, and so the sin is remitted. Even to King David, who confessed the sin of adultery and murder, the prophet Nathan said: Your sin is forgiven (2 Sam. 12). If therefore in the Law there is remission of sins without your Christ, it follows also that there is eternal blessedness. For: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered (Ps. 31). What then does your Christ do?
Odo. You are not sufficiently attentive to the rectitude of justice. For one to whom sin is remitted is not thereby immediately advanced to glory. Remission of sin removes punishment; it does not confer glory. From one who is relieved of punishment, glory is not immediately given. Grace is not at once bestowed on one from whom wrath is removed. Even David, when he forgave his son the guilt of fratricide, did not yet permit him to be presented before him, nor did he grant grace to the one whose offense he had pardoned (2 Sam. 14). Man indeed sinned as an individual, but to the one who repents, and who obeys, and who even serves well, punishment is remitted under the Law—yet he has not yet merited the glory to which one cannot arrive justly without a recompense for sin. It is unjust to rank a sinner with those who have not sinned, without satisfaction for sin. In the Law, therefore, remission of sins was given to man. But since in the Law man cannot make satisfaction for sin, he cannot arrive at glory through the Law. Therefore Christ is necessary to the world, because in him we make satisfaction for sin, so that we may arrive at glory.
That the Exercise of Good Works Does Not Suffice to Blot Out Sin
Leo. How man can make satisfaction for sin in your Christ I do not understand. But how sin is amended in the Law I do see. For by prayers and sacrifices, by offerings and almsgiving, and by other exercises of good works, we make satisfaction to God for sin in the Law.
Odo. If a servant, who is already bound to his master by an ancient debt, afterward sins against his master, will the repayment of the old debt cleanse the later sin? Or will the discharge of the prior debt justly be reckoned as satisfaction for the later offense? Will not a just master separately demand both the earlier debt and the later transgression?
Leo. Yes.
Odo. Therefore man could not amend sin by the exercise of good works. For all the good he was able to do before his sin, he owed to God, from whom he had also received it. Let man therefore render back all the good he received—yet the evil he committed is still justly demanded of him. Man therefore cannot, under the Law, by any degree of holiness, redeem what he has sinned.
That Patient Endurance of Hardships Does Not Suffice to Blot Out Sin
Leo. If man could not redeem his sin by what he owed beforehand, granted. But surely he did not owe labors and death beforehand; for who would say he deserved to suffer these, since he had not merited them? We read that God imposed punishments on man for sin: On the day you eat of it, you shall surely die (Gen. 2)—see, death; In the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread; thorns and thistles shall the earth bring forth for you (Gen. 3)—see, labors and tribulations. If God imposed these punishments on man for sin, either they suffice for the expiation of sin, or they do not. If they suffice, it follows that, with sin expiated, we arrive at heavenly glory without your Christ. If they do not suffice, God must be said to have imposed punishments that are insufficient for the expiation of sin—which is impious to say of God.
Odo. You would not say these things if you knew how great the weight of sin is. Let us therefore first inquire what the least sin is, so that from it we may see how great a weight it carries in other cases. Propose something yourself, whatever seems smallest to you.
Leo. Nothing occurs to me as smaller than a brief, idle thought.
Odo. If God were to forbid you to turn your thought from him even for a moment, and another were truly to say to you that unless you quickly turned your thought elsewhere you would perish and return to nothing—do you think you should briefly turn your thought against God, for your own sake, so as not to perish, and commit so small a sin for the sake of your own redemption? Or do you judge it better to live through sin than to perish in the cause of justice?
Leo. Why would it not be better?
Odo. Because almighty God is able to restore you, after you have kept justice, to a better state than you could secure for yourself through sin. And one who would justly make you miserable if you lived through sin, would justly restore you to blessedness if you perished in the cause of justice. The sin you proposed, then—which you ought not to have committed even for your own redemption—outweighs even that thing.
Leo. What you say is pleasing; I had not noticed that a small fault could carry such weight.
Odo. But tell me: ought you to commit the smallest offense against God for the sake of an angel?
Leo. By the reasoning you used of myself, neither for one, nor for all of them, nor for the whole of creation, ought the least thing to be done against God. For almighty God is able to restore to a better state whatever might have perished for the sake of justice; and to those to whom without merit He mercifully gave existence, He could justly give—with merit—a better existence.
Odo. You have understood well. For the whole of creation cannot blot out what is against God in any creature, lest God appear to be overcome by the creature created against him. A servant cannot free a fellow servant; but the least creature of God, being all things to God, can liberate from sin a creature that has subjected itself to sin. For that which subjected itself to sin has departed from God; a creature, therefore, that frees a creature from sin, returns it to God and makes it blessed. But to be blessed is greater than merely to be. Thus what is greater is attributed to the creature, and what is lesser to the Creator—since the Creator makes what simply is, while the creature makes what is blessed. Because this is impossible, no creature can liberate a creature from sin. For the least sin outweighs the whole of creation, because even the least sin is against God, and God is greater than all creation. The whole of creation therefore does not suffice for the recompense of even the least sin.
Why God Imposed on Man a Punishment That Does Not Suffice to Blot Out Sin
Leo. But why did God impose a punishment on the sinner, if that punishment does not suffice for sin?
Odo. For the remission of sins, which the good man could not obtain, since he had sin beforehand. All such things—that is, the patient endurance of every hardship, and the manifold afflictions of soul and body, and all the exercises by which one is trained toward the good—avail without the full recompense of sin only for pardon, not for glory.
That Man Was Made to Obtain Celestial Glory
Leo. How then can man make satisfaction, or what can he offer in recompense for sin, if the whole of creation is too small and cannot suffice to blot it out?
Odo. In no way by himself.
Leo. Then our disputation arrives at this conclusion: if man, by suffering the punishments for sin, arrives at pardon but not at glory, let him have his own intermediate state in which to rest for eternity; let the angels who did not sin remain in glory; let man, who has received remission of sin, obtain his own modest rest; and let him who is without remission incur eternal punishments. And you have now proved that your Christ is in no way necessary to the world—for that state of rest can be obtained without Christ through the Law, in which remission of sins is read. And you who proposed to show the virtues of your Christ have proved that man can by no means arrive at glory.
Odo. This I am pressing to prove to you—not only that it is possible for man to arrive at the glory of the angels, but that it is necessary. When I shall have done this, with Christ’s help, I pray that you abandon your error and become a Christian.
Leo. Leave that aside, and continue what you have promised.
Odo. It will be established that glory for man is possible, if it can be proved to be necessary—for what is necessary to exist is possible to exist.
Leo. So it is.
Odo. I believe you will not deny that what is read in many places of your Scripture about God is true: Whatever He willed, He made (Ps. 113/115/135).
Leo. It is absolutely true.
Odo. God willed to make the celestial city, whose citizens He created as angels. But God, who is good, did not create all the angels good only to be cast out justly—as those were who did not remain in goodness. The city being in part empty, the work that God had begun remained unfinished. But God’s purpose cannot be annulled, and the city He had begun must be completed; otherwise God would be said to have willingly begun something that He afterward did not will or was not able to finish. But it is impious to ascribe to God either mutability of will or impotence. Therefore God will complete what He began. He therefore made man and gave him a preparation, so as to complete what had been begun. It is therefore necessary that God’s purpose concerning man be accomplished—for He made all things for the salvation of the elect.
That the Number of the Celestial City to Be Completed Is Greater Than the Number of the Angels at the First Creation
Leo. Since the matter of the first creation has come up: I ask whether the number in which the angels were made sufficed for the perfection of the city before the angels became evil.
Odo. It seems it did not. For if the number of angels as created had sufficed only for those who fell, man would have value only through their fall, and would rejoice at the ruin of those whose glory he received. But since no one enters celestial glory except the just, how can one be just who rejoices at another’s sin? Therefore we say that with God there exists a number for the completing of the city that is greater than the number of the angels at the first creation; and that man was so made that if all the angels had remained in justice, man would have supplied what remained for the city; but if they fell away, man would complete the whole.
That God Alone Can Make Satisfaction for Sin
Leo. If God’s purpose cannot be annulled, it is necessary for man to be transferred into the glory of the angels. But God is omnipotent; therefore He can do all that He has purposed; therefore it is necessary for man to be transferred into glory. But the arguments above have proved this to be impossible. How, then, is what is impossible necessary? What a contradiction of arguments! When I consider God’s purpose, it is necessary for man to pass into glory; when I consider man’s powerlessness and God’s justice, it is altogether impossible for man to come to glory. What is more contradictory than the impossible and the necessary?
Odo. Let our Savior come, and dissolve this contradiction. How? Listen. If you have grasped well what was said above, the sole thing that impedes man’s glory is satisfaction for sin. For if man could make satisfaction for sin, he could certainly arrive at glory; but man cannot. What then? Is what man cannot do altogether impossible? Can God not do what man cannot? Otherwise God is not omnipotent. God, therefore, can make satisfaction for sin.
Leo. How does God make satisfaction, to whom it does not pertain? How shall one who has not sinned make satisfaction for sin? It is the sinner who ought to make satisfaction; God is not obliged.
Odo. Because it is necessary for man to come to glory, which is impossible without satisfaction; and God can make satisfaction but is not obliged; while man is obliged but cannot—therefore let the God-man come and dissolve this contradiction. If he who is to make satisfaction must be God, and must be man, then let properties of both natures be united in him, and let God become man, and let there be one Jesus Christ, God and man—not one person God and another person man, but entirely one; not by a confusion of natures, as if one were absorbed into the other, but with the proper integrity of each nature remaining in one true person. Jesus Christ therefore is not two but entirely one and undivided in person. He who, by virtue of being almighty God, can make satisfaction for sin; and by virtue of being man, ought to do so. He can as God; he ought as man.
That It Pertains to Christ to Make Satisfaction for Sin, Though He Did Not Sin
Leo. How is he obliged, even though he is a man, since—as you say—he is not a sinful man?
Odo. By compassion and mercy. Because we could not amend our sin, he amended it for us—as a brother for brothers, and as one of the same nature as ourselves. For it is not alien to anyone to condescend to those of his own nature and to make satisfaction on behalf of those who share his nature. Hence, on account of the identity of our nature, he bore our sins, willingly enduring for our sins stripes and death which he did not owe—for he had not merited them. He feeds us with his flesh and blood, to incorporate us with himself, that we might be one with him and he one with us. Therefore he makes our miseries his own; he attributes our sins to himself; he places our words in his own person in the Psalms and the prophets—as in: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my transgressions (Ps. 21/22)—even though in his own person he was neither forsaken by God nor had those transgressions; but because he has taken us into himself, he says about himself what we have.
That Christ Willed to Give for Sin Something Greater Than All Sin
Leo. How does he make satisfaction for man? How did he make recompense for the sin of man, for which the whole world does not suffice?
Odo. He gave a price: his life; he endured death, an unowed punishment.
Leo. How does the life and death of one man make recompense for sin, for which the whole world does not suffice?
Odo. You cannot deny that nothing can be compared to God, but that God incomparably surpasses all things. Human sin therefore cannot be compared to God, for God is incomparably more good than sin is evil. When therefore God gave his life, he gave a price that surpasses all sin. This price, if it merely equaled sin, would suffice to blot it out. But since it far outweighs sin, it satisfies all the more. Furthermore, if the life of God is better than all things, then his death is worse than all things—for it is necessary that the corruption of that which has a better generation be worse. But the life of Christ is good above all things; therefore his death is evil beyond all sin. When therefore Christ suffered death, he endured a punishment greater than all sin, and greater than all sin deserves. He has therefore paid for all the sin of the world, having both suffered the greater punishment—namely, death—and given the greater price—namely, his own life—than is the sin of the entire world.
This is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1). This is the sacrifice which, offered once, blots out the sins of all the just—past sins from the beginning, present sins, and future sins unto the end. This sacrifice delivers itself to us mercifully, so that what perpetually offers itself to the Father for us in heaven, we may continually sacrifice to the Father on earth—not by inflicting death again, but by devoutly commemorating his death for the remission of sins, both of the living and of the dead.
It remains therefore that by manifold acts of justification, having received the remission of sins, we proceed by the straight path to heaven—the satisfaction for sin having now been accomplished through Christ—so that this satisfaction avails only for those to whom remission is granted, with the cooperation of their own merits or those of their neighbors. For he to whom remission cannot be given, for him the satisfaction of Christ profits nothing. Therefore, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven (Ps. 31). For he to whom sin is remitted has no reason to be kept from the kingdom, once satisfaction has been accomplished through Christ. Therefore our Christ is supremely necessary to the world, without whom man cannot come to glory, for which he was made. Nor is the remission of sin in the Law sufficient, unless the satisfaction of Christ in the Gospel follows. Therefore, although sins were forgiven to the ancient fathers and prophets, they were not yet in glory until the satisfaction for sin was fulfilled through the Passion of Christ.
Leo. Where were they then?
Odo. In a place fitting for the just at that time, but not glorious.
Leo. To one speaking reasonably, I have nothing reasonable to object. Yet I do not believe—lest, deceived by the subtlety and dexterity of your words, I fade away from the most firm foundation of the holy Law.
Whether There Is Grace Where There Is Necessity
Leo. But what gratitude is owed to God for your salvation, if he was led to it by necessity? Surely human salvation is needed by him, since the power of his purpose depends upon it. For if he does not save man, he shows impotence and falsity in his purpose. Lest so great an inconvenience occur in him, it is necessary for him to secure human salvation.
Odo. It is indeed necessary to render what was not necessary to promise. For one who promises freely binds himself by the necessity of fulfillment—so that, although the ensuing fulfillment is a matter of necessity, the prior promise is a matter of will and grace. This necessity, which proceeds from grace, is not separate from grace itself; and what was first promised out of great grace may rightly be called a gracious act.
Why God, Who Gave Every Good, Is Not Obliged to Make Satisfaction for Sin
Leo. What troubles me is what you said earlier—that God was not obliged to make satisfaction for sin unless he became man. For satisfaction for sin is a great good. But every good comes from him who is supremely good. How then is it said that God was not obliged to do what is his own? Who is more obliged to do good than he from whom all good comes? God therefore owes the good of satisfaction, since he owes all good.
Odo. God both owes and does not owe—for the word “debt” is used in two senses: the debt of grace, and the debt of merit. Perhaps I ought to help one person on account of his merits, and another from my grace alone. Accordingly, God was not obliged to make satisfaction for sin by debt of merit—neither because he himself had incurred guilt, nor because man had earned it by his own justice—yet he was obliged to do so by grace alone. Thus God was not obliged to make satisfaction by the debt of merit, and was obliged to make satisfaction by the debt of grace.
When therefore it was said above that God alone could make satisfaction but was not obliged, and that man was obliged but could not—in both cases “obliged” is to be understood as the debt of merit: for God was not obliged by merit, nor was man obliged by merit. And it is true in this sense that God was not obliged to make satisfaction for man’s sin unless he became man. But since he did become God-man—though it is to be attributed to his ineffable grace—yet in the satisfaction itself the debt of merit is clearly present: because he had been made man and the brother of men, it was fitting that he should not despise his own nature in men, but that as a brother he should aid his brothers, and by merit make satisfaction for his brothers.
How God Became Man of a Virgin without Injury from Female Impurity
Leo. In one matter we greatly mock you and judge you to be mad. You say that God was enclosed in the obscene prison of a foul womb in his mother’s entrails, suffering nine months, and then at last in the tenth month proceeding by a shameful exit (which cannot even be admitted in speech without confusion)—bringing upon God so great a disgrace as we ourselves, though it be true, cannot speak of without great embarrassment.
Odo. God fills all things and is wholly everywhere. When therefore he fills us—though we are sinners—and is wholly within us, yet he is not touched by the impurity of our sins, but remains uncontaminated and pure. He sees all things, and nothing harms him. He sees darkness while remaining pure from darkness, for the light shines in the darkness (John 1), and the night shall be illumined as the day (Ps. 138/139). He sees sins while remaining wholly pure, and sees injustices while remaining wholly just, for he justly orders all the evil that he sees. For the illumination of sinners does not choke the flame of justice—as the light of this material world illuminates a foul body without being fouled itself. Why then are you troubled if God is conceived in a virgin, he who preserves his purity everywhere?
Moreover, there are two faculties by which we judge all things: sense and reason. But reason judges differently from sense. Sense judges by usage and by desire, by appetite and by its contraries. We prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar, the useful to the harmful, that which is sweet to that which is unpleasant. Reason, however, inquires more subtly into the nature of a thing. For reason prefers the animate to the inanimate, the sentient to the insensient, the celestial to the earthly. A rustic would rather let a serpent perish from its hole in the rock than lose the rock from his wall—following appetite and the pleasure of sight, for a serpent is horrible to look upon and a stone is not. But reason prefers any serpent to any precious stone. Sense prefers the best house to a fruit-bearing tree, and would rather have the tree cut down than the house burned. But reason prefers an animate tree to an inanimate house. A rustic would rather lose many stars from the sky than one little tree from his field, even though reason rightly places celestial things above earthly. Thus sense despises our private parts, our entrails, and our excrement, and judges them impure. But reason judges nothing impure except sin, because God created all things good (Gen. 1). This the Gospel of the Lord Jesus confirms: Not what enters the mouth defiles a man. Everything that enters the mouth goes into the stomach and passes out into the drain; but what comes out of the heart—thefts, murders, adulteries—these are what defile a man (Matt. 15). With this agrees our Apostle—first your Jew, formerly learned in the Law, now rising against you who judge certain foods impure according to the Law: Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4).
Now while the Law judges many things impure according to sense, behold—the Gospel of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of his Apostles, by the judgment of reason, declare every creature good and pure. Reason is preferred to sense and judges the senses. Sense, however, cannot aspire to reason, and often counts reason’s subtle judgment as foolish and mad. We, however, setting aside the sense of the flesh, consider through human reasoning what is universally true: that the human body, united to a person and destined to have eternal union with it, always sharing in honor or dishonor, surpassing all bodies—purer than the moon, more precious than the sun—is destined for judgment, and with its own soul will undergo glory or punishments; bearing in itself eternally either God’s mercy or his justice; now animal, but to be spiritual at the judgment. What in all of nature is elevated with so great a privilege among bodies? If I compare it to heaven, it does not match. If I consider the beauty of the sun and stars precious to the eyes, it comes short. But what does sense say? In this great matter it does not fear to condemn vilely what displeases it. It shrinks from the shape of private parts; the nostrils curl at the smell; touch flees from filth. Behold the judgment of sense—concerning a thing to which not even heaven can be compared.
If our body, though we are sinners, is so great, what shall we say of the body of the Virgin, of whom the Lord was born? Certainly the holy angel Gabriel said of her: Full of grace (Luke 1). If full, nothing of hers was at all empty of grace. Nothing of hers was therefore vacant for sin, since grace filled the whole of her. Therefore glorious was her sex, glorious her womb, glorious her entrails, glorious in all things—for grace filled the whole. Truly that woman transcended sense; she was wise who said: Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts you sucked (Luke 11). Where now is what you said—female impurity, obscene prison, fetid womb? I pity your foolishness. Was she acting with brute animals, without reason among men? This Virgin was made, in her conception, the bridal chamber of almighty God, the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit—in whom God dwelt in a singular and different manner than even in the spirits of the highest heavenly virtues. The secrets of her blessed womb were all the holier—or rather the more divine—the more intimately the divine mysteries budded within. Blessed Virgin, from whose womb were taken the seeds that would become God. What in all creation is holier, purer, more undefiled than the Virgin from whom was taken what would become God? O womb, O entrails, in which and from which the Creator was created, God was made flesh! Certainly we have placed the rest of human bodies above all other bodies. But this most blessed Virgin’s body I place even above the angelic spirits—since God willed to take from her what he would take, so that what he began from her, he would unite inseparably to himself; whence he would redeem the earth, restore heaven; whence the infernal regions would be despoiled, the earth healed, the celestial things completed—to which he chose none among the celestial spirits.
Leo. I hear what I have never heard before; I did not know until now that you were supported by such great arguments.
Odo. Why then do you not believe?
Leo. Because I do not dare to commit the truth of our faith to your words.
Epilogue
Odo. Achard, my friend, I am returning these arguments about the coming of Christ to the Jew—compelled by certain Catholics who were present, on behalf of the Jew‘s case, to dispute somewhat more subtly.
Here ends the Disputatio contra Iudaeum Leonem nomine de Adventu Christi Filii Dei.
Source. Patrologia Latina – Translated by Claude.AI. Odo of Cambrai, Disputation against the Jew Named Leo, concerning the Coming of Christ the Son of God. Migne, PL 160. 1854.