Tertia Pars · The Incarnation

Of the Fitness of the Incarnation

III, q. 1 · Six articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Circa primum tria consideranda occurrunt, primo quidem, de convenientia incarnationis ipsius; secundo, de modo unionis verbi incarnati; tertio, de his quae consequuntur ad hanc unionem. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit Deum incarnari. Secundo, utrum fuerit necessarium ad reparationem humani generis. Tertio, utrum, si non fuisset peccatum, Deus incarnatus fuisset. Quarto, utrum principalius sit incarnatus ad tollendum originale peccatum quam actuale. Quinto, utrum conveniens fuerit Deum incarnari a principio mundi. Sexto, utrum eius incarnatio differri debuerit usque in finem mundi.

Concerning the first, three things occur to be considered: first, the fitness of the Incarnation; secondly, the mode of union of the Word Incarnate; thirdly, what follows this union.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate?

(2) Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race?

(3) Whether if there had been no sin God would have become incarnate?

(4) Whether He became incarnate to take away original sin rather than actual?

(5) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate from the beginning of the world?

(6) Whether His Incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of the world?

  1. 1 Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate?
  2. 2 Whether It Was Necessary for the Restoration of the Human Race That the Word of God Should Become Incarnate?
  3. 3 Whether, If Man Had Not Sinned, God Would Have Become Incarnate? ★
  4. 4 Whether God Became Incarnate in Order to Take Away Actual Sin, Rather Than to Take Away Original Sin?
  5. 5 Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate in the Beginning of the Human Race?
  6. 6 Whether the Incarnation Ought to Have Been Put Off Till the End of the World?

Articulus I

Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Deum incarnari. Cum enim Deus ab aeterno sit ipsa essentia bonitatis, sic optimum est ipsum esse sicut ab aeterno fuit. Sed Deus ab aeterno fuit absque omni carne. Ergo convenientissimum est ipsum non esse carni unitum. Non ergo fuit conveniens Deum incarnari.

It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of goodness, it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity. But from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it was most fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not fitting for God to become incarnate.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, quae sunt in infinitum distantia, inconvenienter iunguntur, sicut inconveniens esset iunctura si quis pingeret imaginem in qua humano capiti cervix iungeretur equina. Sed Deus et caro in infinitum distant, cum Deus sit simplicissimus caro autem composita, et praecipue humana. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod Deus carni uniretur humanae.

Further, it is not fitting to unite things that are infinitely apart, even as it would not be a fitting union if one were "to paint a figure in which the neck of a horse was joined to the head of a man" [Horace, Ars. Poet., line 1]. But God and flesh are infinitely apart; since God is most simple, and flesh is most composite—especially human flesh. Therefore it was not fitting that God should be united to human flesh.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sic distat corpus a summo spiritu sicut malitia a summa bonitate. Sed omnino esset inconveniens quod Deus, qui est summa bonitas, malitiam assumeret. Ergo non est conveniens quod summus spiritus increatus corpus assumeret.

Further, a body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil is from the highest good. But it was wholly unfitting that God, Who is the highest good, should assume evil. Therefore it was not fitting that the highest uncreated spirit should assume a body.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, inconveniens est ut qui excedit magna, contineatur in minimo; et cui imminet cura magnorum, ad parva se transferat. Sed Deum, qui totius mundi curam gerit, tota universitas capere non sufficit. Ergo videtur inconveniens quod intra corpusculum vagientis infantiae lateat cui parum putatur universitas; et tandiu a sedibus suis absit ille regnator, atque ad unum corpusculum totius mundi cura transferatur; ut Volusianus scribit ad Augustinum.

Further, it is not becoming that He Who surpassed the greatest things should be contained in the least, and He upon Whom rests the care of great things should leave them for lesser things. But God—Who takes care of the whole world—the whole universe of things cannot contain. Therefore it would seem unfitting that "He should be hid under the frail body of a babe in swathing bands, in comparison with Whom the whole universe is accounted as little; and that this Prince should quit His throne for so long, and transfer the government of the whole world to so frail a body," as Volusianus writes to Augustine (Ep. cxxxv).

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, illud videtur esse convenientissimum ut per visibilia monstrentur invisibilia Dei, ad hoc enim totus mundus est factus, ut patet per illud apostoli, Rom. I, invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur. Sed sicut Damascenus dicit, in principio III libri, per incarnationis mysterium monstratur simul bonitas et sapientia et iustitia et potentia Dei vel virtus, bonitas quidem, quoniam non despexit proprii plasmatis infirmitatem; iustitia vero, quoniam non alium facit vincere tyrannum, neque vi eripit ex morte hominem; sapientia vero, quoniam invenit difficillimi decentissimam solutionem; potentia vero, sive virtus, infinita, quia nihil est maius quam Deum fieri hominem. Ergo conveniens fuit Deum incarnari.

On the contrary, It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Rom. 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of the Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God—"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod unicuique rei conveniens est illud quod competit sibi secundum rationem propriae naturae, sicut homini conveniens est ratiocinari quia hoc convenit sibi inquantum est rationalis secundum suam naturam. Ipsa autem natura Dei est bonitas, ut patet per Dionysium, I cap. de Div. Nom. Unde quidquid pertinet ad rationem boni, conveniens est Deo. Pertinet autem ad rationem boni ut se aliis communicet, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Unde ad rationem summi boni pertinet quod summo modo se creaturae communicet. Quod quidem maxime fit per hoc quod naturam creatam sic sibi coniungit ut una persona fiat ex tribus, verbo, anima et carne, sicut dicit Augustinus, XIII de Trin. Unde manifestum est quod conveniens fuit Deum incarnari.

I answer that, To each thing, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by "His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three—the Word, a soul and flesh," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod incarnationis mysterium non est impletum per hoc quod Deus sit aliquo modo a suo statu immutatus in quo ab aeterno non fuit, sed per hoc quod novo modo creaturae se univit, vel potius eam sibi. Est autem conveniens ut creatura, quae secundum rationem sui mutabilis est, non semper eodem modo se habeat. Et ideo, sicut creatura, cum prius non esset, in esse producta est, convenienter, cum prius non esset unita Deo, postmodum fuit ei unita.

The mystery of the Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself. But it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable, should not always be in one way. And therefore, as the creature began to be, although it had not been before, so likewise, not having been previously united to God in Person, it was afterwards united to Him.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod uniri Deo in unitate personae non fuit conveniens carni humanae secundum conditionem suae naturae, quia hoc erat supra dignitatem ipsius. Conveniens tamen fuit Deo, secundum infinitam excellentiam bonitatis eius, ut sibi eam uniret pro salute humana.

To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man's salvation.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quaelibet alia conditio secundum quam quaecumque creatura differt a creatore, a Dei sapientia est instituta, et ad Dei bonitatem ordinata, Deus enim propter suam bonitatem, cum sit increatus, immobilis, incorporeus, produxit creaturas mobiles et corporeas; et similiter malum poenae a Dei iustitia est introductum propter gloriam Dei. Malum vero culpae committitur per recessum ab arte divinae sapientiae et ab ordine divinae bonitatis. Et ideo conveniens esse potuit assumere naturam creatam, mutabilem, corpoream et poenalitati subiectam, non autem fuit conveniens ei assumere malum culpae.

Every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever differs from the Creator has been established by God's wisdom, and is ordained to God's goodness. For God, Who is uncreated, immutable, and incorporeal, produced mutable and corporeal creatures for His own goodness. And so also the evil of punishment was established by God's justice for God's glory. But evil of fault is committed by withdrawing from the art of the Divine wisdom and from the order of the Divine goodness. And therefore it could be fitting to God to assume a nature created, mutable, corporeal, and subject to penalty, but it did not become Him to assume the evil of fault.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus respondet, in epistola ad Volusianum, non habet hoc Christiana doctrina, quod ita sit Deus infusus carni humanae ut curam gubernandae universitatis vel deseruerit vel amiserit, vel ad illud corpusculum quasi contractam transtulerit, hominum est iste sensus nihil nisi corpus valentium cogitare. Deus autem non mole, sed virtute magnus est, unde magnitudo virtutis eius nullas in angusto sentit angustias. Non est ergo incredibile, ut verbum hominis transiens simul auditur a multis et a singulis totum, quod verbum Dei permanens simul ubique sit totum. Unde nullum inconveniens sequitur, Deo incarnato.

As Augustine replies (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "The Christian doctrine nowhere holds that God was so joined to human flesh as either to desert or lose, or to transfer and as it were, contract within this frail body, the care of governing the universe. This is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal things . . . God is great not in mass, but in might. Hence the greatness of His might feels no straits in narrow surroundings. Nor, if the passing word of a man is heard at once by many, and wholly by each, is it incredible that the abiding Word of God should be everywhere at once?" Hence nothing unfitting arises from God becoming incarnate.

Articulus II

Whether It Was Necessary for the Restoration of the Human Race That the Word of God Should Become Incarnate?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium ad reparationem humani generis verbum Dei incarnari. Verbo enim Dei, cum sit Deus perfectus, ut in primo habitum est, nihil virtutis per carnem assumptam accrevit. Si ergo verbum Dei incarnatum naturam reparavit, etiam absque carnis assumptione eam potuit reparare.

It would seem that it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate. For since the Word of God is perfect God, as has been said (I, Q. 4, AA. 1, 2), no power was added to Him by the assumption of flesh. Therefore, if the incarnate Word of God restored human nature. He could also have restored it without assuming flesh.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ad reparationem humanae naturae, quae per peccatum collapsa erat, nihil aliud requiri videbatur quam quod homo satisfaceret pro peccato. Non enim Deus ab homine requirere plus debet quam possit, et, cum pronior sit ad miserendum quam ad puniendum, sicut homini imputat actum peccati, ita etiam videtur quod ei imputet ad deletionem peccati actum contrarium. Non ergo fuit necessarium ad reparationem humanae naturae verbum Dei incarnari.

Further, for the restoration of human nature, which had fallen through sin, nothing more is required than that man should satisfy for sin. Now man can satisfy, as it would seem, for sin; for God cannot require from man more than man can do, and since He is more inclined to be merciful than to punish, as He lays the act of sin to man's charge, so He ought to credit him with the contrary act. Therefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature that the Word of God should become incarnate.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ad salutem hominis praecipue pertinet ut Deum revereatur, unde dicitur Malach. I, si ego dominus, ubi timor meus? Si pater, ubi honor meus? Sed ex hoc ipso homines Deum magis reverentur quod eum considerant super omnia elevatum, et ab hominum sensibus remotum, unde in Psalmo dicitur, excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, et super caelos gloria eius; et postea subditur, quis sicut dominus Deus noster? Quod ad reverentiam pertinet. Ergo videtur non convenire humanae saluti quod Deus nobis similis fieret per carnis assumptionem.

Further, to revere God pertains especially to man's salvation; hence it is written (Mal. 1:6): "If, then, I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" But men revere God the more by considering Him as elevated above all, and far beyond man's senses, hence (Ps. 112:4) it is written: "The Lord is high above all nations, and His glory above the heavens"; and farther on: "Who is as the Lord our God?" which pertains to reverence. Therefore it would seem unfitting to man's salvation that God should be made like unto us by assuming flesh.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, illud per quod humanum genus liberatur a perditione, est necessarium ad humanam salutem. Sed mysterium divinae incarnationis est huiusmodi, secundum illud Ioan. III, sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Ergo necesse fuit ad humanam salutem Deum incarnari.

On the contrary, What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod ad finem aliquem dicitur aliquid esse necessarium dupliciter, uno modo, sine quo aliquid esse non potest, sicut cibus est necessarius ad conservationem humanae vitae; alio modo, per quod melius et convenientius pervenitur ad finem, sicut equus necessarius est ad iter. Primo modo Deum incarnari non fuit necessarium ad reparationem humanae naturae, Deus enim per suam omnipotentem virtutem poterat humanam naturam multis aliis modis reparare. Secundo autem modo necessarium fuit Deum incarnari ad humanae naturae reparationem. Unde dicit Augustinus, XIII de Trin., ostendamus non alium modum possibilem Deo defuisse, cuius potestati omnia aequaliter subiacent, sed sanandae miseriae nostrae convenientiorem alium modum non fuisse. Et hoc quidem considerari potest quantum ad promotionem hominis in bono. Primo quidem, quantum ad fidem, quae magis certificatur ex hoc quod ipsi Deo loquenti credit. Unde Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, ut homo fidentius ambularet ad veritatem, ipsa veritas, Dei filius, homine assumpto, constituit atque fundavit fidem. Secundo, quantum ad spem, quae per hoc maxime erigitur. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., nihil tam necessarium fuit ad erigendam spem nostram quam ut demonstraretur nobis quantum diligeret nos Deus. Quid vero huius rei isto indicio manifestius, quam ut Dei filius naturae nostrae dignatus est inire consortium? Tertio, quantum ad caritatem, quae maxime per hoc excitatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de catechizandis rudibus, quae maior causa est adventus domini, nisi ut ostenderet Deus dilectionem suam in nobis? Et postea subdit, si amare pigebat, saltem reamare non pigeat. Quarto, quantum ad rectam operationem, in qua nobis exemplum se praebuit. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone de nativitate domini, homo sequendus non erat, qui videri poterat, Deus sequendus erat, qui videri non poterat. Ut ergo exhiberetur homini et qui ab homine videretur, et quem homo sequeretur, Deus factus est homo. Quinto, quantum ad plenam participationem divinitatis, quae vere est hominis beatitudo, et finis humanae vitae. Et hoc collatum est nobis per Christi humanitatem, dicit enim Augustinus, in quodam sermone de Nativ. domini, factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret Deus. Similiter etiam hoc utile fuit ad remotionem mali. Primo enim per hoc homo instruitur ne sibi Diabolum praeferat, et eum veneretur, qui est auctor peccati. Unde dicit Augustinus, XIII de Trin., quando sic Deo coniungi potuit humana natura ut fieret una persona, superbi illi maligni spiritus non ideo se audeant homini praeponere quia non habent carnem. Secundo, quia per hoc instruimur quanta sit dignitas humanae naturae, ne eam inquinemus peccando. Unde dicit Augustinus, in libro de vera religione, demonstravit nobis Deus quam excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura, in hoc quod hominibus in vero homine apparuit. Et Leo Papa dicit, in sermone de nativitate, agnosce, o Christiane, dignitatem tuam, et divinae consors factus naturae, noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conversatione redire. Tertio quia, ad praesumptionem hominis tollendam, gratia Dei, nullis meritis praecedentibus, in homine Christo nobis commendatur, ut dicitur XIII de Trinitate. Quarto, quia superbia hominis, quae maximum impedimentum est ne inhaereatur Deo per tantam Dei humilitatem redargui potest atque sanari, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem. Quinto, ad liberandum hominem a servitute. Quod quidem, ut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., fieri debuit sic ut Diabolus iustitia hominis Iesu Christi superaretur, quod factum est Christo satisfaciente pro nobis. Homo autem purus satisfacere non poterat pro toto humano genere; Deus autem satisfacere non debebat; unde oportebat Deum et hominem esse Iesum Christum. Unde et Leo Papa dicit, in sermone de Nativ., suscipitur a virtute infirmitas, a maiestate humilitas, ut, quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem Dei et hominum mediator et mori ex uno, et resurgere posset ex altero. Nisi enim esset verus Deus, non afferret remedium, nisi esset homo verus, non praeberet exemplum. Sunt autem et aliae plurimae utilitates quae consecutae sunt, supra comprehensionem sensus humani.

I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): "We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery."

Now this may be viewed with respect to our "furtherance in good." First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): "In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith." Secondly, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?" Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): "What greater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to show God's love for us?" And he afterwards adds: "If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return." Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): "Man who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man." Fifthly, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."

So also was this useful for our withdrawal from evil. First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies." Secondly, because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): "God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man." And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness." Thirdly, because, "in order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went before," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourthly, because "man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great," as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), "ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ," and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: "Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other—for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example."

And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man's apprehension.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit secundum primum modum necessarii, sine quo ad finem perveniri non potest.

This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity, without which we cannot attain to the end.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod aliqua satisfactio potest dici sufficiens dupliciter. Uno modo, perfecte, quia est condigna per quandam adaequationem ad recompensationem commissae culpae. Et sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens esse non potuit, quia tota natura humana erat per peccatum corrupta; nec bonum alicuius personae, vel etiam plurium, poterat per aequiparantiam totius naturae detrimentum recompensare. Tum etiam quia peccatum contra Deum commissum quandam infinitatem habet ex infinitate divinae maiestatis, tanto enim offensa est gravior, quanto maior est ille in quem delinquitur. Unde oportuit, ad condignam satisfactionem, ut actio satisfacientis haberet efficaciam infinitam, ut puta Dei et hominis existens. Alio modo potest dici satisfactio sufficiens imperfecte, scilicet secundum acceptationem eius qui est ea contentus, quamvis non sit condigna. Et hoc modo satisfactio puri hominis est sufficiens. Et quia omne imperfectum praesupponit aliquid perfectum, a quo sustentetur, inde est quod omnis puri hominis satisfactio efficaciam habet a satisfactione Christi.

Satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways—first, perfectly, inasmuch as it is condign, being adequate to make good the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man cannot be sufficient for sin, both because the whole of human nature has been corrupted by sin, whereas the goodness of any person or persons could not be made up adequately for the harm done to the whole of the nature; and also because a sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man. Secondly, man's satisfaction may be termed sufficient, imperfectly—i.e. in the acceptation of him who is content with it, even though it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man is sufficient. And forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes some perfect thing, by which it is sustained, hence it is that satisfaction of every mere man has its efficiency from the satisfaction of Christ.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus, assumendo carnem, suam maiestatem non minuit, et per consequens non minuitur ratio reverentiae ad ipsum. Quae augetur per augmentum cognitionis ipsius. Ex hoc autem quod nobis appropinquare voluit per carnis assumptionem, magis nos ad se cognoscendum attraxit.

By taking flesh, God did not lessen His majesty; and in consequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing Him, which is increased by the increase of knowledge of Him. But, on the contrary, inasmuch as He wished to draw nigh to us by taking flesh, He greatly drew us to know Him.

Articulus III

Whether, If Man Had Not Sinned, God Would Have Become Incarnate?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod, si homo non peccasset, nihilominus Deus incarnatus fuisset. Manente enim causa, manet effectus. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., alia multa sunt cogitanda in Christi incarnatione praeter absolutionem a peccato, de quibus dictum est. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset.

It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in the Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin"; and these were discussed above (A. 2). Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ad omnipotentiam divinae virtutis pertinet ut opera sua perficiat, et se manifestet per aliquem infinitum effectum. Sed nulla pura creatura potest dici infinitus effectus, cum sit finita per suam essentiam. In solo autem opere incarnationis videtur praecipue manifestari infinitus effectus divinae potentiae, per hoc quod in infinitum distantia coniunguntur, inquantum factum est quod homo esset Deus. In quo etiam opere maxime videtur perfici universum, per hoc quod ultima creatura, scilicet homo, primo principio coniungitur, scilicet Deo. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset.

Further, it belongs to the omnipotence of the Divine power to perfect His works, and to manifest Himself by some infinite effect. But no mere creature can be called an infinite effect, since it is finite of its very essence. Now, seemingly, in the work of the Incarnation alone is an infinite effect of the Divine power manifested in a special manner by which power things infinitely distant are united, inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is God. And in this work especially the universe would seem to be perfected, inasmuch as the last creature—viz. man—is united to the first principle—viz. God. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, humana natura per peccatum non est facta capacior gratiae. Sed post peccatum capax est gratiae unionis, quae est maxima gratia. Ergo, si homo non peccasset, humana natura huius gratiae capax fuisset. Nec Deus subtraxisset naturae humanae bonum cuius capax erat. Ergo, si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset.

Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, praedestinatio Dei est aeterna. Sed dicitur, Rom. I, de Christo, quod praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute. Ergo etiam ante peccatum necessarium erat filium Dei incarnari, ad hoc quod Dei praedestinatio impleretur.

Further, God's predestination is eternal. But it is said of Christ (Rom. 1:4): "Who was predestined the Son of God in power." Therefore, even before sin, it was necessary that the Son of God should become incarnate, in order to fulfil God's predestination.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, incarnationis mysterium est primo homini revelatum, ut patet per hoc quod dixit, hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, etc., quod apostolus dicit esse magnum sacramentum in Christo et Ecclesia, ut patet Ephes. V. Sed homo non potuit esse praescius sui casus, eadem ratione qua nec Angelus, ut Augustinus probat, super Gen. ad Litt. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset.

Further, the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to the first man, as is plain from Gen. 2:23. "This now is bone of my bones," etc. which the Apostle says is "a great sacrament . . . in Christ and in the Church," as is plain from Eph. 5:32. But man could not be fore-conscious of his fall, for the same reason that the angels could not, as Augustine proves (Gen. ad lit. xi, 18). Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis Dom., exponens illud quod habetur Luc. XIX, venit filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat, si homo non peccasset, filius hominis non venisset. Et I ad Tim. I, super illud verbum, Christus venit in hunc mundum ut peccatores salvos faceret, dicit Glossa, nulla causa veniendi fuit Christo domino, nisi peccatores salvos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vulnera, et nulla medicinae est causa.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Tim. 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui circa hoc diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod, etiam si homo non peccasset, Dei filius fuisset incarnatus. Alii vero contrarium asserunt. Quorum assertioni magis assentiendum videtur. Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt, supra omne debitum creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde, cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium peccati, ita quod, peccato non existente, incarnatio non fuisset. Quamvis potentia Dei ad hoc non limitetur, potuisset enim, etiam peccato non existente, Deus incarnari.

I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, the Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes aliae causae quae sunt assignatae, pertinent ad remedium peccati. Si enim homo non peccasset, perfusus fuisset lumine divinae sapientiae, et iustitiae rectitudine perfectus a Deo, ad omnia necessaria cognoscenda. Sed quia homo, deserto Deo, ad corporalia collapsus erat, conveniens fuit ut Deus, carne assumpta, etiam per corporalia ei salutis remedium exhiberet. Unde dicit Augustinus, super illud Ioan. I cap., verbum caro factum est, caro te obcaecaverat, caro te sanat, quoniam sic venit Christus ut de carne vitia carnis exstingueret.

All the other causes which are assigned in the preceding article have to do with a remedy for sin. For if man had not sinned, he would have been endowed with the light of Divine wisdom, and would have been perfected by God with the righteousness of justice in order to know and carry out everything needful. But because man, on deserting God, had stooped to corporeal things, it was necessary that God should take flesh, and by corporeal things should afford him the remedy of salvation. Hence, on John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh," St. Augustine says (Tract. ii): "Flesh had blinded thee, flesh heals thee; for Christ came and overthrew the vices of the flesh."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in ipso modo productionis rerum ex nihilo divina virtus infinita ostenditur. Ad perfectionem etiam universi sufficit quod naturali modo creatura ordinetur sic in Deum sicut in finem. Hoc autem excedit limites perfectionis naturae, ut creatura uniatur Deo in persona.

The infinity of Divine power is shown in the mode of production of things from nothing. Again, it suffices for the perfection of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural manner to God as to an end. But that a creature should be united to God in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod duplex capacitas attendi potest in humana natura. Una quidem secundum ordinem potentiae naturalis. Quae a Deo semper impletur, qui dat unicuique rei secundum suam capacitatem naturalem. Alia vero secundum ordinem divinae potentiae, cui omnis creatura obedit ad nutum. Et ad hoc pertinet ista capacitas. Non autem Deus omnem talem capacitatem naturae replet, alioquin, Deus non posset facere in creatura nisi quod facit; quod falsum est, ut in primo habitum est. Nihil autem prohibet ad aliquid maius humanam naturam productam esse post peccatum, Deus enim permittit mala fieri ut inde aliquid melius eliciat. Unde dicitur Rom. V, ubi abundavit iniquitas, superabundavit et gratia. Unde et in benedictione cerei paschalis dicitur, o felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem.

A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, Q. 105, A. 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Rom. 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod praedestinatio praesupponit praescientiam futurorum. Et ideo, sicut Deus praedestinat salutem alicuius hominis per orationem aliorum implendam, ita etiam praedestinavit opus incarnationis in remedium humani peccati.

Predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future things; and hence, as God predestines the salvation of anyone to be brought about by the prayers of others, so also He predestined the work of the Incarnation to be the remedy of human sin.

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod nihil prohibet alicui revelari effectus cui non revelatur causa. Potuit ergo primo homini revelari incarnationis mysterium sine hoc quod esset praescius sui casus, non enim quicumque cognoscit effectum, cognoscit et causam.

Nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one to whom the cause is not revealed. Hence, the mystery of the Incarnation could be revealed to the first man without his being fore-conscious of his fall. For not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause.

Articulus IV

Whether God Became Incarnate in Order to Take Away Actual Sin, Rather Than to Take Away Original Sin?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus principalius incarnatus fuerit in remedium actualium peccatorum quam in remedium originalis peccati. Quanto enim peccatum est gravius, tanto magis humanae saluti adversatur, propter quam Deus est incarnatus. Sed peccatum actuale est gravius quam originale peccatum, minima enim poena debetur originali peccato, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum. Ergo principalius incarnatio Christi ordinatur ad deletionem actualium peccatorum.

It would seem that God became incarnate as a remedy for actual sins rather than for original sin. For the more grievous the sin, the more it runs counter to man's salvation, for which God became incarnate. But actual sin is more grievous than original sin; for the lightest punishment is due to original sin, as Augustine says (Contra Julian. v, 11). Therefore the Incarnation of Christ is chiefly directed to taking away actual sins.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, peccato originali non debetur poena sensus, sed solum poena damni, ut in secundo habitum est. Sed Christus venit pro satisfactione peccatorum poenam sensus pati in cruce, non autem poenam damni, quia nullum defectum habuit divinae visionis aut fruitionis. Ergo principalius venit ad deletionem peccati actualis quam originalis.

Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin, but merely pain of loss, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 87, A. 5). But Christ came to suffer the pain of sense on the Cross in satisfaction for sins—and not the pain of loss, for He had no defect of either the beatific vision or fruition. Therefore He came in order to take away actual sin rather than original sin.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, in II de compunctione cordis, hic est affectus servi fidelis, ut beneficia domini sui quae communiter omnibus data sunt, quasi sibi soli praestita reputet, quasi enim de se solo loquens Paulus ita scribit, ad Galat. II, dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me. Sed propria peccata nostra sunt actualia, originale enim est commune peccatum. Ergo hunc affectum debemus habere, ut aestimemus eum principaliter propter actualia peccata venisse.

Further, as Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 3): "This must be the mind of the faithful servant, to account the benefits of his Lord, which have been bestowed on all alike, as though they were bestowed on himself alone. For as if speaking of himself alone, Paul writes to the Galatians 2:20: 'Christ . . . loved me and delivered Himself for me.'" But our individual sins are actual sins; for original sin is the common sin. Therefore we ought to have this conviction, so as to believe that He has come chiefly for actual sins.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Ioan. I dicitur, ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.

On the contrary, It is written (John 1:29): "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod certum est Christum venisse in hunc mundum non solum ad delendum illud peccatum quod traductum est originaliter in posteros, sed etiam ad deletionem omnium peccatorum quae postmodum superaddita sunt, non quod omnia deleantur (quod est propter defectum hominum, qui Christo non inhaerent, secundum illud Ioan. III, venit lux in mundum, et dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem), sed quia ipse exhibuit quod sufficiens fuit ad omnem deletionem. Unde dicitur Rom. V, non sicut delictum, sic et donum, nam iudicium ex uno in condemnationem, gratia autem ex multis delictis in iustificationem. Tanto autem principalius ad alicuius peccati deletionem Christus venit, quanto illud peccatum maius est. Dicitur autem maius aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, intensive, sicut est maior albedo quae est intensior. Et per hunc modum maius est peccatum actuale quam originale, quia plus habet de ratione voluntarii, ut in secundo dictum est. Alio modo dicitur aliquid maius extensive, sicut dicitur maior albedo quae est in maiori superficie. Et hoc modo peccatum originale, per quod totum genus humanum inficitur, est maius quolibet peccato actuali, quod est proprium singularis personae. Et quantum ad hoc, Christus principalius venit ad tollendum originale peccatum, inquantum bonum gentis divinius est quam bonum unius, ut dicitur in I Ethic.

I answer that, It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it; not that all are taken away (and this is from men's fault, inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ, according to John 3:19: "The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light"), but because He offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins. Hence it is written (Rom. 5:15-16): "But not as the offense, so also the gift . . . For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation, but grace is of many offenses unto justification."

Moreover, the more grievous the sin, the more particularly did Christ come to blot it out. But "greater" is said in two ways: in one way "intensively," as a more intense whiteness is said to be greater, and in this way actual sin is greater than original sin; for it has more of the nature of voluntary, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1). In another way a thing is said to be greater "extensively," as whiteness on a greater superficies is said to be greater; and in this way original sin, whereby the whole human race is infected, is greater than any actual sin, which is proper to one person. And in this respect Christ came principally to take away original sin, inasmuch as "the good of the race is a more Divine thing than the good of an individual," as is said Ethic. i, 2.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de intensiva magnitudine peccati.

This reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod peccato originali in futura retributione non debetur poena sensus, poenalitates tamen quas sensibiliter in hac vita patimur, sicut famem, sitim, mortem et alia huiusmodi, ex peccato originali procedunt. Et ideo Christus, ut plene pro peccato originali satisfaceret, voluit sensibilem dolorem pati, ut mortem et alia huiusmodi in seipso consummaret.

In the future award the pain of sense will not be meted out to original sin. Yet the penalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, and the like, which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for original sin, wished to suffer sensible pain, that He might consume death and the like in Himself.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus ibidem inducit, verba illa dicebat apostolus, non quasi diminuere volens amplissima et per orbem terrarum diffusa Christi munera, sed ut pro omnibus se solum indicaret obnoxium. Quid enim interest si et aliis praestitit, cum quae tibi sunt praestita ita integra sunt et ita perfecta quasi nulli alii ex his aliquid fuerit praestitum? Ex hoc ergo quod aliquis debet sibi reputare beneficia Christi praestita esse, non debet existimare quod non sint praestita aliis. Et ideo non excluditur quin principalius venerit abolere peccatum totius naturae quam peccatum unius personae. Sed illud peccatum commune ita perfecte curatum est in unoquoque ac si in eo solo esset curatum. Et praeterea, propter unionem caritatis, totum quod omnibus est impensum, unusquisque debet sibi adscribere.

Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 6): "The Apostle used these words, not as if wishing to diminish Christ's gifts, ample as they are, and spreading throughout the whole world, but that he might account himself alone the occasion of them. For what does it matter that they are given to others, if what are given to you are as complete and perfect as if none of them were given to another than yourself?" And hence, although a man ought to account Christ's gifts as given to himself, yet he ought not to consider them not to be given to others. And thus we do not exclude that He came to wipe away the sin of the whole nature rather than the sin of one person. But the sin of the nature is as perfectly healed in each one as if it were healed in him alone. Hence, on account of the union of charity, what is vouchsafed to all ought to be accounted his own by each one.

Articulus V

Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate in the Beginning of the Human Race?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod conveniens fuisset Deum incarnari a principio humani generis. Incarnationis enim opus ex immensitate divinae caritatis processit, secundum illud Ephes. II, Deus, qui dives est in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem suam qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos in Christo. Sed caritas non tardat subvenire amico necessitatem patienti, secundum illud Prov. III, ne dicas amico tuo, vade et revertere, cras dabo tibi; cum statim possis dare. Ergo Deus incarnationis opus differre non debuit, sed statim a principio per suam incarnationem humano generi subvenire.

It would seem that it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race. For the work of the Incarnation sprang from the immensity of Divine charity, according to Eph. 2:4, 5: "But God (Who is rich in mercy), for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us . . . even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ." But charity does not tarry in bringing assistance to a friend who is suffering need, according to Prov. 3:28: "Say not to thy friend: Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give to thee, when thou canst give at present." Therefore God ought not to have put off the work of the Incarnation, but ought thereby to have brought relief to the human race from the beginning.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, I Tim. I dicitur, Christus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. Sed plures salvati fuissent si a principio humani generis Deus incarnatus fuisset, plurimi enim, ignorantes Deum, in suo peccato perierunt in diversis saeculis. Ergo convenientius fuisset quod a principio humani generis Deus incarnatus fuisset.

Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." But more would have been saved had God become incarnate at the beginning of the human race; for in the various centuries very many, through not knowing God, perished in their sin. Therefore it was fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, opus gratiae non est minus ordinatum quam opus naturae. Sed natura initium sumit a perfectis, ut dicit Boetius, in libro de consolatione. Ergo opus gratiae debuit a principio esse perfectum. Sed in opere incarnationis consideratur perfectio gratiae, secundum illud, verbum caro factum est, et postea subditur, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Ergo Christus a principio humani generis debuit incarnari.

Further, the work of grace is not less orderly than the work of nature. But nature takes its rise with the more perfect, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii). Therefore the work of Christ ought to have been perfect from the beginning. But in the work of the Incarnation we see the perfection of grace, according to John 1:14: "The Word was made flesh"; and afterwards it is added: "Full of grace and truth." Therefore Christ ought to have become incarnate at the beginning of the human race.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, ubi dicit Glossa quod plenitudo temporis est quod praefinitum fuit a Deo patre quando mitteret filium suum. Sed Deus sua sapientia omnia definivit. Ergo convenientissimo tempore Deus est incarnatus. Et sic non fuit conveniens quod a principio humani generis Deus incarnaretur.

On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law": upon which a gloss says that "the fulness of the time is when it was decreed by God the Father to send His Son." But God decreed everything by His wisdom. Therefore God became incarnate at the most fitting time; and it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, cum opus incarnationis principaliter ordinetur ad reparationem naturae humanae per peccati abolitionem manifestum est quod non fuit conveniens a principio humani generis, ante peccatum, Deum incarnatum fuisse, non enim datur medicina nisi iam infirmis. Unde ipse dominus dicit, Matth. IX, non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus, non enim veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores. Sed non etiam statim post peccatum conveniens fuit Deum incarnari. Primo quidem, propter conditionem humani peccati, quod ex superbia provenerat, unde eo modo erat homo liberandus ut, humiliatus, recognosceret se liberatore indigere. Unde super illud Galat. III, ordinata per Angelos in manu mediatoris, dicit Glossa, magno consilio factum est ut, post hominis casum, non illico Dei filius mitteretur. Reliquit enim Deus prius hominem in libertate arbitrii, in lege naturali, ut sic vires naturae suae cognosceret. Ubi cum deficeret, legem accepit. Qua data, invaluit morbus, non legis, sed naturae vitio, ut ita, cognita sua infirmitate, clamaret ad medicum, et gratiae quaereret auxilium. Secundo, propter ordinem promotionis in bonum, secundum quem ab imperfecto ad perfectum proceditur. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XV, non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale, deinde quod spirituale. Primus homo de terra, terrenus, secundus homo de caelo, caelestis. Tertio, propter dignitatem ipsius verbi incarnati. Quia super illud Galat. IV, ubi venit plenitudo temporis, dicit Glossa, quanto maior iudex veniebat, tanto praeconum series longior praecedere debebat. Quarto, ne fervor fidei temporis prolixitate tepesceret. Quia circa finem mundi refrigescet caritas multorum, et Luc. XVIII dicitur, cum filius hominis veniet, putasne inveniet fidem super terram?

I answer that, Since the work of the Incarnation is principally ordained to the restoration of the human race by blotting out sin, it is manifest that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate at the beginning of the human race before sin. For medicine is given only to the sick. Hence our Lord Himself says (Matt. 9:12, 13): "They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill . . . For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

Nor was it fitting that God should become incarnate immediately after sin. First, on account of the manner of man's sin, which had come of pride; hence man was to be liberated in such a manner that he might be humbled, and see how he stood in need of a deliverer. Hence on the words in Gal. 3:19, "Being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," a gloss says: "With great wisdom was it so ordered that the Son of Man should not be sent immediately after man's fall. For first of all God left man under the natural law, with the freedom of his will, in order that he might know his natural strength; and when he failed in it, he received the law; whereupon, by the fault, not of the law, but of his nature, the disease gained strength; so that having recognized his infirmity he might cry out for a physician, and beseech the aid of grace."

Secondly, on account of the order of furtherance in good, whereby we proceed from imperfection to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46, 47): "Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual . . . The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly."

Thirdly, on account of the dignity of the incarnate Word, for on the words (Gal. 4:4), "But when the fulness of the time was come," a gloss says: "The greater the judge who was coming, the more numerous was the band of heralds who ought to have preceded him."

Fourthly, lest the fervor of faith should cool by the length of time, for the charity of many will grow cold at the end of the world. Hence (Luke 18:8) it is written: "But yet the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find think you, faith on earth?"

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas non differt amico subvenire, salva tamen negotiorum opportunitate et personarum conditione. Si enim medicus statim a principio aegritudinis medicinam daret infirmo, minus proficeret, vel magis laederet quam iuvaret. Et ideo etiam dominus non statim incarnationis remedium humano generi exhibuit, ne illud contemneret ex superbia, si prius suam infirmitatem non cognosceret.

Charity does not put off bringing assistance to a friend: always bearing in mind the circumstances as well as the state of the persons. For if the physician were to give the medicine at the very outset of the ailment, it would do less good, and would hurt rather than benefit. And hence the Lord did not bestow upon the human race the remedy of the Incarnation in the beginning, lest they should despise it through pride, if they did not already recognize their disease.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ad hoc respondet, in libro de sex quaestionibus Paganorum, dicens, qu. II, quod tunc voluit Christus hominibus apparere, et apud eos praedicari suam doctrinam, quando et ubi sciebat esse qui in eum fuerant credituri. His enim temporibus, et his in locis, tales homines in eius praedicatione futuros esse sciebat quales, non quidem omnes, sed tamen multi in eius corporali praesentia fuerunt, qui nec in eum, suscitatis mortuis, credere voluerunt. Sed hanc responsionem reprobans idem Augustinus dicit, in libro de perseverantia, nunquid possumus dicere Tyrios aut Sidonios, talibus apud se virtutibus factis, credere noluisse, aut credituros non fuisse si fierent, cum ipse dominus eis attestetur quod acturi essent magnae humilitatis poenitentiam, si in eis facta essent divinarum illa signa virtutum? Proinde, ut ipse solvens subdit, sicut apostolus ait, non est volentis neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei, qui his quos praevidit, si apud eos facta essent, suis miraculis credituros, quibus voluit subvenit, aliis autem non subvenit, de quibus in sua praedestinatione, occulte quidem sed iuste, aliud iudicavit. Ita misericordiam eius in his qui liberantur, et veritatem in his qui puniuntur sine dubitatione credamus.

Augustine replies to this (De Sex Quest. Pagan., Ep. cii), saying (Q. 2) that "Christ wished to appear to man and to have His doctrine preached to them when and where He knew those were who would believe in Him. But in such times and places as His Gospel was not preached He foresaw that not all, indeed, but many would so bear themselves towards His preaching as not to believe in His corporeal presence, even were He to raise the dead." But the same Augustine, taking exception to this reply in his book (De Perseverantia ix), says: "How can we say the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would not believe when such great wonders were wrought in their midst, or would not have believed had they been wrought, when God Himself bears witness that they would have done penance with great humility if these signs of Divine power had been wrought in their midst?" And he adds in answer (De Perseverantia xi): "Hence, as the Apostle says (Rom. 9:16), 'it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy'; Who (succors whom He will of) those who, as He foresaw, would believe in His miracles if wrought amongst them, (while others) He succors not, having judged them in His predestination secretly yet justly. Therefore let us unshrinkingly believe His mercy to be with those who are set free, and His truth with those who are condemned." [The words in brackets are not in the text of St. Augustine].

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod perfectum est prius imperfecto, in diversis quidem, tempore et natura, oportet enim quod perfectum sit quod alia ad perfectionem adducit, sed in uno et eodem imperfectum est prius tempore, etsi sit posterius natura. Sic ergo imperfectionem naturae humanae duratione praecedit aeterna Dei perfectio, sed sequitur ipsam consummata perfectio in unione ad Deum.

Perfection is prior to imperfection, both in time and nature, in things that are different (for what brings others to perfection must itself be perfect); but in one and the same, imperfection is prior in time though posterior in nature. And thus the eternal perfection of God precedes in duration the imperfection of human nature; but the latter's ultimate perfection in union with God follows.

Articulus VI

Whether the Incarnation Ought to Have Been Put Off Till the End of the World?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod incarnationis opus differri debuerit usque in finem mundi. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, senectus mea in misericordia uberi, idest, in novissimo, ut Glossa dicit. Sed tempus incarnationis est maxime tempus misericordiae, secundum illud Psalmi, quoniam venit tempus miserendi eius. Ergo incarnatio debuit differri usque in finem mundi.

It would seem that the work of the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. For it is written (Ps. 91:11): "My old age in plentiful mercy"—i.e. "in the last days," as a gloss says. But the time of the Incarnation is especially the time of mercy, according to Ps. 101:14: "For it is time to have mercy on it." Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, sicut dictum est, perfectum, in eodem, tempore est posterius imperfecto. Ergo id quod est maxime perfectum, debet esse ultimo in tempore. Sed summa perfectio humanae naturae est in unione ad verbum, quia in Christo complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis inhabitare, ut apostolus dicit, Coloss. I. Ergo incarnatio debuit differri usque in finem mundi.

Further, as has been said (A. 5, ad 3), in the same subject, perfection is subsequent in time to imperfection. Therefore, what is most perfect ought to be the very last in time. But the highest perfection of human nature is in the union with the Word, because "in Christ it hath pleased the Father that all the fulness of the Godhead should dwell," as the Apostle says (Col. 1:19, and 2:9). Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, non est conveniens fieri per duo quod per unum fieri potest. Sed unus Christi adventus sufficere poterat ad salutem humanae naturae, qui erit in fine mundi. Ergo non oportuit quod antea veniret per incarnationem. Et ita incarnatio differri debuit usque in finem mundi.

Further, what can be done by one ought not to be done by two. But the one coming of Christ at the end of the world was sufficient for the salvation of human nature. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to come beforehand in His Incarnation; and hence the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Habacuc III, in medio annorum notum facies. Non ergo debuit incarnationis mysterium, per quod mundo innotuit, usque in finem mundi differri.

On the contrary, It is written (Hab. 3:2): "In the midst of the years Thou shalt make it known." Therefore the mystery of the Incarnation which was made known to the world ought not to have been put off till the end of the world.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut non fuit conveniens Deum incarnari a principio mundi, ita non fuit conveniens quod incarnatio differretur usque in finem mundi. Quod quidem apparet, primo, ex unione divinae et humanae naturae. Sicut enim dictum est, perfectum uno modo tempore praecedit imperfectum, in eo enim quod de imperfecto fit perfectum, imperfectum tempore praecedit perfectum; in eo vero quod est perfectionis causa efficiens, perfectum tempore praecedit imperfectum. In opere autem incarnationis utrumque concurrit. Quia natura humana in ipsa incarnatione est perducta ad summam perfectionem, et ideo non decuit quod a principio humani generis incarnatio facta fuisset. Sed ipsum verbum incarnatum est perfectionis humanae causa efficiens, secundum illud Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, et ideo non debuit incarnationis opus usque in finem mundi differri. Sed perfectio gloriae, ad quam perducenda est ultimo natura humana per verbum incarnatum, erit in fine mundi. Secundo, ex effectu humanae salutis. Ut enim dicitur in libro de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test., in potestate dantis est quando vel quantum velit misereri. Venit ergo quando et subveniri debere scivit, et gratum futurum beneficium. Cum enim languore quodam humani generis obsolescere coepisset cognitio Dei inter homines et mores immutarentur, eligere dignatus est Abraham, in quo forma esset renovatae notitiae Dei et morum. Et cum adhuc reverentia segnior esset, postea per Moysen legem litteris dedit. Et quia eam gentes spreverunt non se subiicientes ei, neque hi qui acceperunt servaverunt, motus misericordia dominus misit filium suum, qui, data omnibus remissione peccatorum, Deo patri illos iustificatos offerret. Si autem hoc remedium differretur usque in finem mundi, totaliter Dei notitia et reverentia et morum honestas abolita fuisset in terris. Tertio apparet quod hoc non fuisset conveniens ad manifestationem divinae virtutis, quae pluribus modis homines salvavit, non solum per fidem futuri, sed etiam per fidem praesentis et praeteriti.

I answer that, As it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the world, so also it was not fitting that the Incarnation should be put off till the end of the world. And this is shown first from the union of the Divine and human nature. For, as it has been said (A. 5, ad 3), perfection precedes imperfection in time in one way, and contrariwise in another way imperfection precedes perfection. For in that which is made perfect from being imperfect, imperfection precedes perfection in time, whereas in that which is the efficient cause of perfection, perfection precedes imperfection in time. Now in the work of the Incarnation both concur; for by the Incarnation human nature is raised to its highest perfection; and in this way it was not becoming that the Incarnation should take place at the beginning of the human race. And the Word incarnate is the efficient cause of the perfection of human nature, according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we have all received"; and hence the work of the Incarnation ought not to have been put off till the end of the world. But the perfection of glory to which human nature is to be finally raised by the Word Incarnate will be at the end of the world.

Secondly, from the effect of man's salvation; for, as is said Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 83, "it is in the power of the Giver to have pity when, or as much as, He wills. Hence He came when He knew it was fitting to succor, and when His boons would be welcome. For when by the feebleness of the human race men's knowledge of God began to grow dim and their morals lax, He was pleased to choose Abraham as a standard of the restored knowledge of God and of holy living; and later on when reverence grew weaker, He gave the law to Moses in writing; and because the gentiles despised it and would not take it upon themselves, and they who received it would not keep it, being touched with pity, God sent His Son, to grant to all remission of their sin and to offer them, justified, to God the Father." But if this remedy had been put off till the end of the world, all knowledge and reverence of God and all uprightness of morals would have been swept away from the earth.

Thirdly, this appears fitting to the manifestation of the Divine power, which has saved men in several ways—not only by faith in some future thing, but also by faith in something present and past.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa illa exponit de misericordia perducente ad gloriam. Si tamen referatur ad misericordiam exhibitam humano generi per incarnationem Christi, sciendum est quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro Retractationum, tempus incarnationis potest comparari iuventuti humani generis, propter vigorem fervoremque fidei, quae per dilectionem operatur, senectuti autem, quae est sexta aetas, propter numerum temporum, quia Christus venit in sexta aetate. Et quamvis in corpore non possit esse simul iuventus et senectus, potest tamen simul esse in anima, illa propter alacritatem, ista propter gravitatem. Et ideo in libro octogintatrium quaest., alicubi dixit Augustinus quod non oportuit divinitus venire magistrum, cuius imitatione humanum genus in mores optimos formaretur, nisi tempore iuventutis alibi autem dixit Christum in sexta aetate humani generis, tanquam in senectute, venisse.

This gloss has in view the mercy of God, which leads us to glory. Nevertheless, if it is referred to the mercy shown the human race by the Incarnation of Christ, we must reflect that, as Augustine says (Retract. i), the time of the Incarnation may be compared to the youth of the human race, "on account of the strength and fervor of faith, which works by charity"; and to old age—i.e. the sixth age—on account of the number of centuries, for Christ came in the sixth age. And although youth and old age cannot be together in a body, yet they can be together in a soul, the former on account of quickness, the latter on account of gravity. And hence Augustine says elsewhere (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 44) that "it was not becoming that the Master by Whose imitation the human race was to be formed to the highest virtue should come from heaven, save in the time of youth." But in another work (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 23) he says: that Christ came in the sixth age—i.e. in the old age—of the human race.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod opus incarnationis non solum est considerandum ut terminus motus de imperfecto ad perfectum, sed ut principium perfectionis in humana natura, ut dictum est.

The work of the Incarnation is to be viewed not as merely the terminus of a movement from imperfection to perfection, but also as a principle of perfection to human nature, as has been said.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super illud Ioan., non misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, duo sunt Christi adventus, primus quidem, ut remittat peccata; secundus, ut iudicet. Si enim hoc non fecisset, universi simul perditi essent, omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Unde patet quod non debuit adventum misericordiae differre usque in finem mundi.

As Chrysostom says on John 3:11, "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world" (Hom. xxviii): "There are two comings of Christ: the first, for the remission of sins; the second, to judge the world. For if He had not done so, all would have perished together, since all have sinned and need the glory of God." Hence it is plain that He ought not to have put off the coming in mercy till the end of the world.

Showing Thomas's answers only.