Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

A twofold convenience can be distinguished. One indeed intrinsic to the thing, according to which something is said to be convenient, insofar as it is ordered by God. For, says the Apostle to the Romans 13: Those things that are of God are ordained. The other, however, extrinsic, whereby it consists in a certain relation, or bearing, of the thing itself toward those things to which it is fitting. Now since the Incarnation can be considered with respect either to God its author, or to human nature as its terminus, or to the whole orb of the earth, and like unto an encyclopedia of lands: therefore the convenience thereof must be treated with respect to those three things: namely, whether the Incarnation was convenient, both with respect to God, and with respect to man, and with respect to the other creatures.

Note 2. Since every good is diffusive and communicative of itself: and since God is the most excellent of all goods; diffusion of Himself and communication belong most of all to Him. Now the communication of God is twofold: one indeed ad intra, either through the fecundity of light and knowledge, whereby the eternal Father communicates Himself to the Son, who is God of God, light from light, true God from true God; or through the fecundity of love, whereby the Father and the Son, burning with divine love toward themselves, produce the Holy Spirit, who is the fruit and terminus of the mutual love of the Father and the Son. The other communication, however, is ad extra, whereby those three adorable persons communicate themselves to creatures in the order of nature, grace, glory, and divinity. In the order indeed of nature, by bestowing upon them all natural goods owed to them connaturally for their integrity and perfection. In the order truly of grace, by conferring upon the rational creature those gratuitous gifts by which it can be promoted to the supernatural order and end. In the order of glory, by exhibiting all His excellencies and delights of divinity to be beheld and enjoyed by the purest and most blessed minds. Finally, in the order of divinity, through hypostatic union; whereby one of those adorable persons communicates Himself substantially to human nature through His own proper subsistence, whereby it comes about that God becomes man, and in turn man God: taking upon Himself body and soul in the unity of person, so that in man there dwells the whole fullness of divinity corporally.

Note 3. That this last communication is the most excellent and greatest of all. For some communication can be judged greater than another in two ways: namely, either intensively, or extensively. It is said to be greater indeed in the prior way, when something more noble and more perfect is communicated: but in the second, when it extends itself to more subjects or supposits; by which reasoning the communication of natural goods is greater extensively; but the communication of supernatural goods is greater intensively, inasmuch as supernatural goods excel natural ones. But the communication which comes about through the Incarnation is without doubt the greatest of all communications, not only intensively, because the very uncreated substance of the Word, which is of infinite dignity and perfection, and thereupon surpasses all goods of the order of nature, grace, and glory, communicates itself to humanity: but also extensively; since it contributes not only to the honor and ornament of men and Angels, but also of the other creatures, as will be evident in the following Conclusions.

First Conclusion. — The Incarnation of the Word was most convenient to God.

Proof. That thing is most fitting to God which contributes to manifesting His divine excellencies: but through the Incarnation the perfections and excellency of God shine forth most greatly: therefore it was most convenient to God. The reason of this stands firm; for it is convenient to God to demonstrate His invisible perfections through visible effects. For this purpose indeed He founded the universe, that the invisible things of God may be understood through those things which have been made; His eternal power also, and divinity, says Saint Paul to the Romans 1. But the minor is proved: although the divine excellencies and divine gifts be innumerable, yet especially with respect to God, and to creatures, before all others there shine Goodness,

Goodness, I say, whereby He wills to communicate Himself to them and to bestow on them participation in His being: Power, whereby He performs and executes the same: Wisdom, whereby He weighs, orders, and establishes creatures in due and decent order, and directs them to their convenient end: Justice, whereby He distributes to each what accords with perfection: finally Mercy, whereby He supplies and restores the defects of the rational creature: and all those five divine perfections shine forth most greatly in the Mystery of the Incarnation.

First indeed the divine Goodness shines forth supremely in that mystery: for the divine Word, by bestowing His own person upon humanity, bestows at the same time divinity itself, and pours out upon man as it were all His divine excellencies. Hence that divine communication is called the measure of the divine love toward men; whence Christ Himself, from this ineffable Mystery, commends above all the goodness and charity of God toward men, saying John 3: So God loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son: and the Apostle judges that love so supreme and excellent that he did not blush to call it superexcellent and exceeding, to the Ephesians 2, saying: 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 (by whose grace you are saved), and hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: that He might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of His grace, in goodness towards us in Christ Jesus. Hence the same Apostle, commending that divine goodness toward us, to the Romans 8, says: If God be for us, who is against us? who spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all: how hath He not also, with Him, given us all things? Wherefore to Titus 3 he says: The benignity and humanity of our Savior God appeared. Which Saint Bernard expounds thus, Sermon 1 on the Nativity of the Lord:

There had appeared before, he says, power in the creation of things: wisdom was appearing in their governance: but now the benignity of mercy appeared above all in His humanity. Power had been made known to the Jews in signs and wonders; whence also in the Gospel you will often find: I am the Lord, I am God: to the Philosophers also, abounding in their own sense, majesty was made known, since according to the words of the Apostle, what is known of God is manifest to them. Yet nevertheless the Jews were oppressed by that very power, and the Philosophers, searchers into majesty, were weighed down by the glory. Power exacts subjection, majesty demands admiration, neither imitation. Appear, Lord, O goodness, wherewith man, created to Thine image, may be conformed: for majesty, power, wisdom, we can neither imitate, nor does it profit to emulate.

Omnipotence likewise shines forth in wondrous manner in the Mystery of the Incarnation; whence the Prophet Jeremias 31, to commend this most excellent work, calls it new. New, He says, hath the Lord created upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man. These words Saint Bernard expounds thus, homily 2 super Missus est: There was, he says, a man in Jesus, born not only of wisdom, not of age: of vigor of mind, not strength of body: of maturity of senses, not corpulence of limbs. And a little before: In this new and unheard-of prodigy is recognized length that is brief, breadth that is narrow, height that is subject, depth that is full. There is recognized light not shining, the Word an infant, water thirsting, bread hungering. You may see, if you attend, > power ruled, wisdom instructed, virtue sustained: God at last nursing at the breast, yet refreshing the Angels, groaning, yet consoling the miserable. You may see, if you attend, sadness joyous, the poor confident, salvation given over to pestilence, life dying, fortitude weakened. But what is no less to be wondered at, sadness itself is there seen rejoicing, comforting the poor, passion saving, death vivifying, infirmity strengthening.

Wherefore the Incarnation on account of its excellence is called the Work of God in Habacuc 3: Lord, Thy work, in the midst of the years make it live: and the most Blessed Virgin in her Canticle says it is the work of the omnipotent arm of God: He hath wrought power in His arm. Which truth Saint Bernard commends thus, in Sermon 3 for the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord:

Three works, he says, three mixtures did that omnipotent Majesty make in the assumption of our flesh; so singularly marvelous, and marvelously singular, that such things neither have been done, nor are ever again to be done upon the earth. For there were conjoined one to another God and man, Mother and Virgin, faith and the human heart.

And He commends that first mixture thus:

He wished, He says, to exalt our weaker parts with more abundant glory, and majesty contracted itself, that what it had of better, namely itself, it might join to our mire; so that in one person God and mud might be united to each other, majesty and infirmity, such vileness and sublimity; for nothing is more sublime than God, nothing viler than mud, and yet with such condescension God descended into the mud, and with such dignity the mud ascended unto God, that whatever God did in Him, the mud is believed to have done, whatever the mud endured, God is said to have endured in Him: a sacrament as ineffable as it is incomprehensible. And attend to this: just as in that singularity there is Trinity in persons, unity in substance; so in this special commingling, there is Trinity in substance, unity in persons: and as there the persons do not divide the unity, nor does the unity diminish the Trinity, so here also the person does not confuse the substances, nor do the substances themselves dissipate the unity of the person. That supreme Trinity exhibited to us this trinity, a marvelous work, a singular work among all things, and above all His works. For the Word, and the soul, and the flesh came together into one person, and these three are one, and this one is three, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person; this is the first and superexcellent mixture, and this the first among the three.

The divine Wisdom is celebrated equally, especially in the manner of reconciling divine Justice with His mercy. For St. Augustine says in his book, Cur, quando, et quomodo Deus, etc. chapter 6.

God had required from man justice, so that he who had offended by sin should make satisfaction through justice. For this the diversity of natures, and the unity of person in Christ availed, and was necessary for the human race, so that what human nature could not do, the divine nature would accomplish, and would exhibit even what in no way befitted human nature: and not one being and another, but that the same self should exist, perfect from both, who through the human nature might pay what He Himself owed, and through the divine nature could accomplish what was expedient. The debt of Adam was such that he ought not to pay it unless he were man, but he could not unless he were God: hence it was necessary that He should be the same man who was God. Wherefore it was necessary, in the unity of person, that God should assume man, so that man, who ought by his nature to pay and could not, might be in the person of Him who could, because satisfaction for sin could not be made except by God; but it was not owed except by man: therefore it stands that, for the restoration of that supernal city to be wrought in men (which could not be brought about unless the aforesaid satisfaction for sins had been made, which none could render unless he were God, nor ought he unless he were man) it was necessary that God made man should accomplish it.

Which reason St. Leo lucidly expounds in Sermon 1. on the Nativity, saying among other things: But by the property of both substances, converging into one person, infirmity is received from power, humility from majesty, mortality from eternity, as befitted the remedy for our body, that one and the same mediator of God and men might be able both to die from the one and to rise again from the other. It shines forth therein especially, that the adversary of the human race, who had conquered our First Parents together with their whole posterity, should be conquered and overcome by God through man. For, says Hugh of St. Victor, book 1. De Sacramentis p. 8. chapter 6: He who had cast out by justice, it was fitting that he be conquered not by fortitude, but by prudence, so that in the very thing wherein he had raised himself up as victor, he should be laid low as vanquished, according to that of Job 26: And his prudence struck down the proud one. Which reason St. Augustine likewise expounds thus, in the book Cur, quando, et quomodo Deus, etc. c. 6.

Subtly God wished to assail the subtle enemy, concealing beneath the bait of humanity the hook of divinity, so that he might find one who owed him nothing: which nature when he unlawfully touched it, he deservedly lost that which in a certain manner he possessed: for thus was the ancient serpent to be deluded, that he who had deluded men should himself be deluded by the God-man. And as he had cunningly subjected unguarded man to himself, so through man divinely guarded he should be subjected, not cunningly, but wisely. Here truly appears the highest wisdom, when that is set before the enemy which is first cast down by the enemy: and as it were, that which had fallen should recover its strength, and assailed by the enemy, should again presume to fight against the enemy. The enemy is therefore provoked again to battle, that he who before rejoiced that he had conquered might afterwards, vanquished, succumb entirely, and thus man would become far more glorious by his resumption than if he had never chanced to fall.

To this St. Leo accords his voice, saying:

According to the fullness of time, which the inscrutable depth of the divine counsel disposed, humanity took upon itself its nature to be reconciled to its leader, and the author of death, the devil, was to be conquered through the very one whom he had cast out: in which conflict undertaken on our behalf he was prostrated by a great and marvelous law of equity, while the omnipotent Lord engages with the most savage enemy not in His own majesty, but in our humility, setting against him a fallible form, and a fallible nature: partaker indeed of our mortality, but wholly without experience of sin.

Hence the Church sings: The order of our salvation required: that the manifold art of the traitor might be deceived by art, and the remedy borne thence whence the enemy had wounded. Finally, the divine wisdom excels chiefly in this, that this Mystery contributes above all to establishing the glory of God; nay, even to increasing it. For, says St. Bernard, Sermon 2. on the Ascension: Christ, since by the nature of His divinity He had nothing whereby He might grow or ascend, because beyond God there is nothing, found how He might grow by descending: coming to be incarnate, to suffer, to die, lest we should die for eternity. Wherefore St. Gregory of Nyssa in his Catechetical Oration chapter 14 calls that descent of the divine Word an overflowing abundance of power: That, he says, which is the abasement of descent, is a certain signal and overflowing abundance of power. To which fits that verse of the Psalm: He ascended above the setting sun; the Lord His name. Whence St. Gregory, Homily 17. on the Gospels: Above the setting sun the Lord ascends, because whence He lay down in His Passion, thence He manifested His greater glory by rising again: namely, above the setting sun He ascends, because the death which He endured He trod underfoot by rising again.

Equally the divine Justice shines forth excellently in this adorable Mystery: since through the passion and death of Christ the Lord He accepted a condign satisfaction for the sins and offenses of men: inasmuch as the God-man offered Himself not only as victim and expiation upon the altar of the cross to the eternal Father, but also exposed Himself like a target to the arrow, and to the most severe vengeance of the divine justice. Hence St. Paul to the Romans 3, expounding most brilliantly the satisfaction and redemption of Christ the Lord, says: Justified freely by His grace: through the redemption, of the preeminent offenses, in the forbearance of God. The divine Justice is commended also especially from this, that it displayed its rigid and exact severity in avenging sins in the Passion and Death of Christ. For if the eternal Father chastised with such severity His most loving Son, who had constituted Himself surety for the sins of men, and who had only put on the likeness of the flesh of sin, what terror and dread must abide in each sinner obstinate in so many and so great crimes, when they stand before that divine justice to judge and to punish? For, says the Savior Himself Luke 23: If in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry? Finally the bitterness of the divine justice appears in that infinite price which He willed to be paid for our redemption. For St. Peter says, 1. Epistle chapter 1: Not with corruptible gold or silver are you redeemed from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers, but with the precious blood as of a lamb immaculate.

Finally, the divine Mercy shines forth supremely in this Mystery. Although it be proper to God always to have mercy and to spare, and all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, whereby He sustains in much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, that He may show the riches of His glory; nevertheless that divine mercy did not so shine forth before as after the Incarnation. Indeed, for complete and perfect mercy two acts are chiefly desired: namely, to repel the misery of another, and to be affected by the miseries of another as if they were one's own: for one is called merciful as it were having a miserable heart, because he is affected by the misery of another as if it were his own misery. The first indeed of those acts befitted God by reason of His goodness and infinite power; but the second was most alien to Him, inasmuch as He is immutable, and enjoys infinite and unchangeable felicity. Wherefore, that the divine mercy might be absolute in every respect, it was necessary that God become man, that He might be able to compassionate our infirmities, or as the Apostle says to the Hebrews 2: In all things He ought to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become merciful. Hence chapter 4 he says: We have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. The divine mercy shines forth also especially in this, that the Son of God assumed a mortal body, and suffered death itself, that He might deliver us from death. Hence the Apostle to the Romans 5: God commendeth His charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us. Commendeth, I say. For St. Anselm says in book 2. Cur Deus homo: what can be understood as more merciful than that, for a sinner destined to eternal punishments and having nothing wherewith he might redeem himself, God the Father should say, receive my only-begotten, and give him for thee: and the Son Himself, take me, and redeem thyself? Which superabundant divine mercy towards us St. Bernard elegantly expounds thus, Sermon 3. on the Nativity of the Lord:

I was playing outside in the street, he says, and in the royal secrecy of the royal bedchamber judgment of death was being passed upon me. His only-begotten heard this, and went forth with little haste, clothed in sackcloth, sprinkled with ashes on His head, bare of foot. Weeping and wailing, because His poor servant had been condemned to death... By consideration of the remedy for my peril I estimate the magnitude. I knew it not; I seemed to myself sound, and behold the Son of the Virgin is sent, the Son of the Most High God, and commanded to be slain, that He might heal my wounds with the balsam of His precious blood. Know, O man, how grievous are the wounds for which it was necessary that the Lord Christ be wounded. If these wounds were not unto death, and unto death everlasting, never for their remedy would the Son of God die. Therefore it is shameful, most beloved, negligently to dissemble our own passion, for which I see such great compassion shown by so great a Majesty.

You will say 1. Whatever is unbecoming to the supreme majesty of God cannot be judged fitting and expedient: but to assume flesh is unbecoming to the supreme majesty of God: therefore, etc.

I answer: The Seraphic Doctor, distinguishing the major: whatsoever is unbecoming to the majesty of God, both by reason of itself and by reason of what is united to it, neither befits nor is expedient: this he grants; by reason only of what is united to it, he denies. Indeed it is unbecoming to the majesty of God in itself to be humbled, since, the divinity being altogether immutable, in itself it covets neither exaltation nor humiliation. But by reason of what is united to it, it can be humbled unto the greater manifestation of its own height: for in this, that God assumed humble and infirm flesh, he crushed the most mighty adversary and strengthened infirm man: and therefore although the work of the Incarnation in itself may not seem to conduce to the honor of the divine majesty, yet it conduces to it most of all when the end and effect, unto which it is ordered, is considered: since it is the highest glory to God that he chose the weak things of this world, that he might confound the strong, and exalt the humble.

You will say 2. As excessive exaltation is blameworthy, so excessive abasement is to be blamed: but just as the exaltation was excessive, when a creature desired to be God: so the abasement is excessive, that God should become man, who is a creature; therefore as that exaltation is to be blamed, so also would the abasement appear blameworthy, whereby God became man: but nothing blameworthy can befit God: therefore etc.

I answer: The same Seraphic Doctor replies that there is no parity: both because the divine nature was not humbled by any abasement of itself, seeing that the Divine Word, in assuming the human, lost nothing of the divine; whereas when the creature desired to be God, it was inflated with some elation, whereby it wished to be carried beyond its natural lot and its own state, and therefore on this side that excess and overflowing of elation tended into vice: and because the emptying, which was wrought in the assumption of humanity, proceeded from an excess of love and charity: but the elation, whereby man wished to be like unto God, was from an excess of presumption. Now every presumption is confessedly to be blamed, not so love and charity: and thereupon the emptying of Christ was not blameworthy, but praiseworthy, even as the elation of the first parent was blameworthy.

You will say 3. Injury is done to God when he is thought to have some created effigy. For, saith St. Paul, Acts 17: We ought not to think that gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art and thought of man, is to be likened to the divine: therefore the greatest injury would be done to God, if a human effigy were attributed to him: but this would have to be attributed to him, if he were truly man: therefore, etc.

I answer: The same Seraphic Doctor replies that it is true and must be maintained when one believes that God truly has, according to his deity, some bodily effigy, as the idolatrous Gentiles thought: but otherwise when one judges that God indeed has not in himself any created effigy, but only by reason of the assumed humanity, as comes about through the Mystery of the Incarnation.

You will say 4. That rather conduces to the glory of God which more illustriously commends his mercy alone. For, as St. James saith, ch. 2: Mercy exalteth itself above judgment: and the Church testifies on the 10th Sunday after Pentecost: O God, who dost manifest thine omnipotence chiefly by pardoning and showing mercy: but far greater would have been the mercy in freely remitting to man his debt, than in exacting satisfaction: therefore it would have been more fitting for God freely to forgive the offense of men, than to exact satisfaction for it through the Incarnation of his Son.

I deny the major: for that work is more perfect in which, together with the highest mercy, the highest justice also shines forth, than that in which mercy alone is chiefly commended; because all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, since he himself is supremely just and merciful:

And therefore, saith the Seraphic Doctor, in the reparation of mankind, which is the most excellent of the ways of the Lord, it is fitting that mercy and justice run together, and therefore it was seemly that God should exact satisfaction for the injury done to him: which if man could not render, then mercy would give a Mediator, who should pay the debt: for if God had not remitted the fault, but had exercised vengeance alone, mercy would not appear: if truly he had not exacted satisfaction, justice would not be manifested: therefore it was fitting that out of mercy a Mediator should be furnished, who should pay the debt out of justice, for thus Mercy and Truth met each other, Justice and Peace kissed.

You will say 5. It seems unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty: but that takes place in the Mystery of the Incarnation: therefore it befits not the divine justice.

I distinguish the major: if that be done by way of punishment and vengeance, I grant it: if by way of satisfaction and reparation, I deny it. For although in punishing sin he must be chastised who sinned, nevertheless in making satisfaction one can bear the punishment for another; for in vengeance the iniquity of the sinner is regarded: but in satisfaction for another the charity of him who satisfies is beheld.

You will say 6. Whatsoever offends the divine equity is unbecoming to God: but it conflicts with the divine equity that the life of the Son of God, since it is most precious, should be exposed to be poured out for a thing most vile, such as the redemption of sinful men: therefore, etc.

I deny the minor: both because Christ subjected himself not to death, that he should be swallowed up by it, but that, death being cast down, he should rise again immortal: and because the salvation of man is only an effect of the death of Christ, but not its end: and moreover because both the life of Christ and of men is ordered to the glory of God, which is more excellent than the life of Christ.

Second Conclusion. — The Incarnation of the Word is most fitting for human nature.

Proof. That thing is most fitting for human nature which conduces in an eminent degree to its being recalled from evil and advanced toward good: but the Incarnation serves both purposes to the highest degree.

First indeed, that man be recalled from evil; for every fount and origin of evil arises either from the devil instigating, or from the flesh alluring, or from the spirit growing proud: but this threefold fount and root of all transgression is removed and torn up by the Incarnation. Indeed through it the devil has been cast down from his authority: for 1 John 3. the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil, and Christ our God says that the prince of this world would be cast out, and the Apostle says to the Colossians 1. He has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins: seeing that, as St. Augustine adds, book 18. On the Trinity, chapter 15, for this redemption the blood of Christ was given as the price for us: upon receiving which price, the devil was not loosed, but bound, that we might be loosed from our sins. He adds in chapter 17 that by this mystery the pride of the demons was dragged down and the abjection of men raised up. It was shown to man, he says, what place he held among the things which God created: since human nature could be so joined to God as to become one person out of two substances: and thereby the same out of three, namely God, soul, and flesh; so that those proud wicked spirits, who interpose themselves as a middle term for suspending, as it were for adjuring, should not dare to propose themselves to man on the ground that they have no flesh: and especially because the Son of God deigned even to die in that same flesh, lest those same spirits, who are believed to be immortal, persuade themselves to be adored as gods. Likewise the flesh, vitiated in its origin, was healed and consecrated through the assumption and union with the Word. For since in Christ dwelt the whole fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Apostle says, whence it came about that our bodies were made members of Christ, and temples of the Holy Spirit: therefore that flesh, which was an incentive to sin, became a stimulus to salvation and justice: for, as Tertullian says in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 8, The flesh is the hinge of salvation; for the flesh is washed, that the soul may be made spotless; the flesh is signed, and the soul is illuminated; the flesh is shadowed over by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be preserved; the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of the Lord, that the soul may be fattened on God. Finally the exaltation and pride of mind is broken; for, as St. Augustine says above, The pride of man, which is the greatest hindrance to clinging to God, can by so great a humility of God be reproved and healed: and let man learn how far he has departed from God, and what is owed him for medicinal sorrow, when for our salvation there came a Mediator, who as God aids men by his divinity, as man suits them by his infirmity. Hence St. Bernard, in Sermon 3. on the Nativity of Christ, says: What is more unworthy, what more detestable, what more deserving of punishment, than that man, seeing the little one who is God of heaven, should still go on to magnify himself above the earth? Intolerable impudence it is, that where Majesty has emptied itself, a little worm should puff himself up and swell.

Secondly, this mystery also conduced most greatly to the advancing of man toward good. For first human nature is raised up in the supreme degree; for, as St. Augustine says in the book On the Predestination of the Saints chapter 15.

This is that singular assumption of man by God the Word, effected ineffably, that he might at once be called Son of God and Son of man: Son of man on account of the assumed man, and Son of God improperly, and properly on account of the assuming, the only-begotten God; lest not a Trinity but a quaternity be believed. There was predestinated for this human nature so great, and so lofty, and so supreme an elevation, that it had nothing higher to which it might be raised, just as for our sakes the divinity itself had nothing lower to which it might humble itself, than the assumed nature of man with the infirmity of the flesh even unto the death of the cross.

Whence it is no wonder if the Angels, who before that divine exaltation of human nature suffered themselves to be adored by men, as Abraham and Loth adored them, Genesis 18. and 19., afterward refused such honor to be paid them by a man; for St. John the Evangelist, when he wished to adore the Angel who was speaking to him, immediately heard him saying, Apocalypse 19. See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren who hold the name of Jesus. Hence St. Leo admirably admonishes in Sermon 1. on the Nativity, Know, O Christian, thy dignity, and having been made a sharer of the divine nature, do not return to thy former baseness by a degenerate manner of life, etc.

Thirdly, through the Incarnation man had the most excellent exemplar of all virtues whatsoever, which before he lacked. For, as St. Augustine says in Sermon 52. on Diverse Subjects: Man was not to be followed who could be seen. God was to be followed, who could not be seen: that therefore there might be exhibited to man one who could be seen by man, and whom man might follow, God was made man. For an exemplar, that it be complete in every respect, ought to be at once upright and perceptible to sense. Indeed God was upright by reason of holiness; but invisible by reason of his infinite majesty: man truly, who was visible, on account of the many defects with which he was stained, deflected from the upright rule of virtue: wherefore it was necessary that a union intervene between both, that thence a perfect exemplar of virtue might be granted to man. Wherefore Christ also admonished, John 13. I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also may do. For he who was invisible in the majesty of his divinity presented himself visible in the infirmity of his humanity: as Paul speaks most excellently in 1. to Timothy 3., where he calls the Incarnation a great sacrament of piety, which was manifested in the flesh. For all the actions of Christ were truly the acts of the God-man, or, as St. Ambrose speaks, the acts of the Lord's flesh are an exemplar of the divinity, and things invisible concerning him are shown to us through those things which are visible. Hence he names himself, John 11. the way, the truth, and the life: indeed the way in example, the truth in promise, the life in reward, as St. Bernard says in Sermon 2. on the Ascension.

Fourthly, it was most fitting that God become incarnate, that man might be made perfectly blessed. For therefore, says the Author of the book On the Spirit and the Soul, chapter 9. (among the works of St. Augustine), God was made man, that he might beatify the whole man in himself, and that the whole conversion of man might be toward him, and the whole deferral of man might be in him, since with the ascent of the flesh he would be seen through the flesh, and with the ascent of the mind seen through the contemplation of the divinity. Whence each of the Blessed can say with Job, chapter 19. In my flesh I shall see

my God: whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold; or with the same Seer: My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God.

Finally, to this end did the Incarnation of the divine Word conduce most greatly, that we might have whatsoever we need, both for the health of the body and of the soul. For, as St. Bernard says most excellently in Sermon 3. on the Circumcision: He was given whole to me, he was spent whole for my uses. Indeed he says in Sermon 24. on the Passion: What do you seek in him that you may not find? If you are sick, he is the physician: if you faint, he is the fountain: if you are assailed, he is the champion: if you thirst, he is drink: if you are cold, he is a garment: if you are sad, he is joy: if you are darkened, he is light: if you are an orphan, he is Father. In one word, as Ambrose says in book 3. On Virgins: Christ is all things to us, and he has given all things to us. To these add, that through the Incarnation the faith of man is especially illustrated, hope is strengthened, charity enkindled.

Faith, I say, is illustrated: for, as St. Augustine says in book 11. Of the City of God, chapter 2. ⟦uncertain⟧ That man might walk more confidently in faith toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, assuming man, joined us to God, and strengthened faith, that the way to God might be for man through the God-man. Hope also is raised up and strengthened: for, as the same St. Augustine says in book 13. of the City of God chapter 10.

What was so necessary for the raising up of our hope, as that, weighed down by the condition of mortals through the abjection of mortality itself, in order to deliver us unto immortality from despair, there should be shown to us how much God loved us, and how dearly he loved?

Finally, Charity is kindled in a wondrous manner: for, as Saint Augustine says in book 1 of his de Catechizandis Rudibus, cap. 1: What greater cause is there of the coming of the Lord, than that God might show forth His love toward us? And further on: If it grieved us to be loved, at least let it not grieve us to be loved in return.

You will say 1. It seems unfitting that by so great a price as is Christ so few men are saved: and it seems more fitting that God should have assumed some other means whereby all men would be saved: therefore the Incarnation of the Word was not most fitting for human nature.

I answer 1, the salvation of each elect soul is of such worth that God judged it not unworthy to be wrought at the expense of His own Son: whence, although few attain salvation, this ought not on that account to be judged incongruous to the divine wisdom. I add that if all men had been saved, this would redound less to the glory of God: since He would not have displayed His Justice and Mercy so perfectly toward us: whence Saint Augustine, Epist. 105: If both were delivered, it would be hidden to whom the punishment of sin was due; if no one, what would grace have to bestow?

I answer 2. The failure of salvation in the reprobate is not to be charged against the Incarnation itself, but against the perverse will of men: since the Incarnation of Christ was a means all-sufficient for the salvation of all men; for Christ the Lord is the true light which enlighteneth every man coming into this world: He is also the mediator of God and of men, who wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You will say 2. That manner of repairing human nature is more fitting by reason of which nature itself is the more bound to God, and owes Him ampler thanks: but man would be more bound to God if He had freely forgiven him his offence; for he owes greater thanks to one whose debt a judge freely remits than to one from whom satisfaction is exacted: therefore etc.

I deny the minor, and in proof I say that the ground of the disparity is that God, in exacting satisfaction from us, gave us His own Son, who might satisfy for us, and thereby merited and bestowed most abundant thanks, whereby we also, after our measure, could make satisfaction together with Him, our adored Redeemer. But it seems more honorable to be able to pay one's own debt than to ascribe its remission solely to the clemency of the judge.

Third Conclusion. — The Incarnation of the Word was fitting also for the whole universe.

First, indeed, whatsoever creatures there are in the universe have received something of sublimity in the very promotion of man to fellowship with the divine: for since man is a microcosm, and the epitome of the whole universe, his dignity and excellence overflow upon the other creatures. Hence the Apostle, Ephes. 1, says: The eternal Father, namely, purposed in the dispensation of the fulness of times to renew all things in Christ, which are in the heavens, and which are on the earth, in Him.

Next, the supreme perfection of the whole universe was that there should be in it the greatest and most perfect grade of being, which should unite God and creature together: for the more excellent and the more numerous the grades of being throughout the whole world, the more excellent and perfect is it accounted: and this has been granted through the mystery of the Incarnation, wherein we have God and man subsisting in one person.

Finally, it was fitting that all the differences of things be found in the universe, so that just as in us there is one nature in one person, and in God one nature in several persons, so likewise there should be several natures in one person: which indeed came to pass through the Incarnation, for three natures, namely, the Divine, the Spiritual, and the Corporal, are united in the one person of Christ.

From our Alensis, part 3, question 1, member 6: that the similitude of man to God appears far greater and more manifold than that of the Angel. For in the soul of man there shines forth the image of God in nature, in person, and in power. In nature indeed, as St. Augustine says in sermon 21, which is on the Image, just as God is everywhere whole, vivifying, moving, and governing all things: so the soul is everywhere whole in its body, animating, moving, and governing it: which does not befit an Angel, because he is not a substance ordered to the vivifying of a body. Moreover, in man there is a similitude according to the reason of person, because man proceeds from man, as one Person in the divinity proceeds from another: but one Angel does not proceed from another. Finally, there is a similitude in power, because in man there is a power responding wholly to the exemplar: for since in the divine exemplar there exists eminently the reason both of corporeal and of spiritual being, the soul attains to both these reasons, inasmuch as it is ordered to spiritual and corporeal actions; which an Angel cannot have, for since he is simply spiritual, he is not ordered by his nature to corporeal actions: from which it appears that man has a greater affinity with God than the Angel.

Note 2. Truly the Angelic nature, and the human, would have seemed unworthy to be united to the divinity, especially had the fallen Angels been considered. For the Angels no less, indeed more gravely, provoked the divine attention and vengeance than men did: since the prevaricating Angel no less than man aspired to the divinity: the former indeed by emulating the supreme majesty and power of God, according to that of Isaiah 14, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the testament, etc. The latter, however, pursued the divine wisdom promised him by the serpent, Genesis 3. Whence it was the supreme mercy of God, and that pure mercy, that He undertook to redeem men rather than Angels: yet since the divine wisdom undertakes nothing without reason, hence we inquire what those reasons may be, which stood forth as so many incentives of the divine love toward men, such that He relieved us rather than the Angels from eternal misery.

Note 3. That God could have become man in various ways: namely, either by creating for Himself body and soul, and assuming each independently from any commerce with any creature, nor deriving His origin and birth from a Mother: or if He had wished to have a Mother on earth, as He had a Father in the heavens, He could have formed her outside the line and propagation of Adam: so that she, formed by His alone extraordinary power, and not begotten of men, would not be reckoned among the posterity of Adam, nor would she in any way pertain to his progeny. Whether, however, either of these modes would have been more fitting than that by which in fact the Divine Word assumed flesh, must be determined in the present Question, to be resolved by two Conclusions: whereof the First will show that it was more fitting for God to assume and repair the human nature than the Angelic. Second, that it was more expedient to assume a nature propagated from Adam than one formed from elsewhere.

First Conclusion. — It was more fitting to assume and repair the human nature than the Angelic.

That this indeed is abundantly proved by the very operation of God, since His divine wisdom weighs and works all things in weight, number, and measure. Nowhere did He apprehend Angels, but He apprehended the seed of Abraham, says St. Paul to the Hebrews 2.

Moreover the reason of this greater fittingness can be sought, partly on the side of the very constitution of human nature itself, partly on the side of its greater capacity for reparation. On the side indeed of its constitution, and this for a threefold cause, which the Seraphic Doctor assigns and examines in Book 2, dist. 2, qu. 2; whereof the first is sought from the reason of origin and propagation of one man from another: for since one man takes his origin from another, which does not befit an Angel, it was the more becoming that the Person of the Son, who is distinguished from the Person of the Father according to origin, should receive that nature in which the property of filiation resides. And this indeed was done in the assumption of human nature: for He Himself, who was eternally the Son of the Father, in time was made the Son of the Virgin Mother. The second reason is, on account of the greater similitude of man with God by reason of the rational soul itself, which, as we said in the first Notable, emulates, as it were, the immensity of God, being whole undivided in its whole body, as God is whole in each single part of the world. Hence, says the Seraphic Doctor, the rational soul represents God not only as He is considered in Himself, but inasmuch as it is united to the body, which it rules, and in which it inhabits, as God fills heaven and earth. Thirdly finally, the reason of greater congruity is sought from the manifold composition of man; for since man is composed of corporeal and spiritual nature, and in a certain manner is every creature: for he has being with the elements and inanimate things, life with plants, sense with animals, understanding with Angels: hence it is, that when human nature is assumed and deified, in a certain manner every nature is exalted in it, while in a part like to itself it is hypostatically united to the deity: whence the assumption of human nature would contribute far better to the perfection of the universe than the Angelic could have contributed, if it had been assumed.

That greater fittingness also appears on the side of reparation, and this for three causes: First indeed, because human nature stood more in need of reparation: Second, because it was less unworthy thereof: Third, because reparation would have profited men more than the prevaricating Angels.

Human nature indeed stood more in need of reparation than the Angelic, for Alensis says, qu. 1, memb. 2, that in the first man was the whole human nature; therefore, by his sinning and perishing, at once all his progeny perished: but it is otherwise concerning the fallen Angels, since none of them comprised the whole Angelic nature, but their sins were personal; nor on account of the fallen prevaricating Angels did the whole Angelic nature perish; since very many remained faithful and obedient to God; and therefore there was not so much need for them of remedy and reparation: otherwise with humanity, which through the sin of one man had been corrupted and lost in all; moreover it did not befit the divine mercy, and the supreme goodness of God, to consign the rational nature most akin and similar to Himself to eternal ruin and perpetual damnation. For that was unworthy of the goodness of God, that things created by Him should pass away into destruction on account of the fraud of the devil against men, says St. Athanasius, in the book De Incarnatione Verbi Dei.

Second, man was less unworthy of the divine mercy; since human sin was not so grave as Angelic sin, whether you consider the genus of the sin, or the circumstance, or the occasion. Considering indeed the genus of the sin: for although man and Angel sinned through pride; yet far disparate is the guilt of each, since, says Alensis, man sinned by coveting all the knowledge of God, but the Angel His omnipotence: now God in no wise wills to communicate His omnipotence to any creature in any state whatever, because by reason of that omnipotence He is the principle of all creatures, which pre-eminence He wills to be common to none; but knowledge He wills to communicate to a creature in the state of glory, for He demonstrates Himself, and all things that are in Him, to the blessed minds, upon whom He bestows the light of all His knowledge. Since therefore it is supreme inordinateness to covet that to which no creature is ordained: hence it is that the Angel sinned more gravely by coveting omnipotence, than man by emulating knowledge, to which he was ordained.

Graver also was the sin of the Angel than of man by reason of circumstance, since man sinned by reason of some nescience: for he deemed the divine threat made to him to be intended rather for trial than for punishment: but the Angel sinned from certain knowledge, and therefore from malice; and thus his sin was against the Holy Spirit, and consequently irremissible. Finally also less was the sin of man than of the Angel by reason of occasion, for man did not sin by his own propensity and determination to evil, but instigated and importuned by his wife, who, deceived by the serpent, led her husband into deception. It was just therefore that he who had fallen through another should also be raised up through another, since he could not rise by himself: but it was otherwise concerning the Angel, who had fallen not by the cunning of another, but by his own malice. Finally less profitable would redemption have been for the lost Angels than for men, since the Angels, once fallen, possess a will hardened in evil, nor are they further capable of doing penance. Add to these, that the ruin of the Angels could have been repaired by men, namely by promoting them to the seats of the fallen Angels, as St. Anselm excellently demonstrates in book 1, Cur Deus homo, chapters 16 and 17; but the fall of men could not fittingly have been supplied by substituting another nature in place of the human: since no creature inferior to man appears capable of the divine glory.

All these reasons St. Bernard passes over luminously and divinely in the first sermon on Advent, in these words:

Let it be known that the higher Angels passed over into an affection of malice and wickedness, nor did they sin from any ignorance or infirmity; wherefore it is necessary that those unwilling to be punished perish: for the love of the Father and the honor of the king loves judgment. On this account He also created men from the beginning, who might fill up that place and restore its ruins. It is written to me that no redemption lies open to the Angels: namely, the pride of the Devil dies, which pride is the root of pride, and the pride of the Devil admits no remedy of penance, and therefore is not redeemed; nevertheless He afterward created no creature from his light: hinting by this very fact that man was yet to be redeemed, since he had been tripped up by another's malice, so that another's charity might profit him. Thus, Lord, I beseech Thee, may it please Thee to care for me, because I am weak: because out of my land I was secretly taken away and not without guilt was cast into the pit: not wholly guiltless indeed, but as regards him who seduced me, in some measure guiltless.

You will say 1. That nature appears more unible with God which has a greater affinity with Him: but the Angelic nature has a greater and more intimate affinity with God than the human: therefore etc. The major is evident, for things to be united must have a certain proportion to one another. Likewise the minor, because, says St. Isidore in the books De Trinitate, the more subtle a nature is, the more fully does it stand forth in expression toward a likeness of the divine unity: but the Angelic nature is subtler than the human, being devoid of all commerce and society with body: therefore it approaches more closely to the likeness of the divine nature than the human does: and consequently is more unible with it.

I distinguish the major: that they have a greater affinity with the divine nature under that aspect by which it is unible with itself, I concede: otherwise I deny: but the human nature has a greater likeness and proportion with the divine nature under the aspect by which it is unible with it than the Angelic nature; because the notion of person, through which God is unible to man, is more expressed by man, who draws origin from another, than by an Angel, who does not proceed from another Angel in such a way: therefore although the Angel, by reason of his simplicity, expresses the divine essence more fully under the aspect of essence, because he is wholly spiritual; yet he does not so perfectly express the divine persons and the mode of procession, whereby one draws origin from another, as men do; and hence he does not have a greater, but rather a lesser affinity with the divine nature, under that aspect by which God is unible with a creature.

You will say 2. That nature must be said to be more unible with God which on account of its excellence is worthier and more apt to be raised up and exalted: but the Angelic nature, since it is far more excellent than the human, is also worthier and more apt to be raised up through incarnation: therefore it was more fitting that it be assumed than the human. — The Seraphic Doctor answers dist. 2 q. 2 ad 2, that although the Angel is higher in nature than man; yet it befitted man rather than the Angel to be exalted through the grace of union, both for the confutation of the pride of Lucifer, who wished to make himself equal to God, and for the commending of the grace of God, that it may appear that elevation in glory comes not from nature, but rather from divine grace: wherefore the Savior, associating to Himself, chose the poor and lowly rather than the rich and powerful, that He might break the pride of men, and that no creature might glory in His sight.

You will say 3. The major appears from mercy, where misery is greater: but far greater is the misery of the lost Angels, since their sin was graver than that of men: therefore it beseemed the divine mercy more to redeem them than men.

I deny the minor: for far greater was the misery of lost men than of Angels, seeing that not all the Angels fell, as men did, nor did the whole Angelic nature perish, as did the human; wherefore it was more fitting that men be repaired than Angels. Add to this, that the lost Angels were less worthy of mercy on account of their pride and hardened malice: for since they are universally obstinate in malice, says the Seraphic Doctor ad 1., they would not be inflamed toward humility, nor would they be kindled to charity by the exhibition of so great a benefit and example; for we see this today in many sinners, for whom on account of their habitual perversity the Passion of Christ the Lord profits but little.

You will say 4. From him should redemption congruously have begun, from whom the transgression took its beginning: but this has its origin from an Angel, who was the author of the whole transgression: therefore reparation ought likewise to have been begun from him. — The Seraphic Doctor answers, that

The transgression of the human race took its beginning from the devil, and from man, but with this difference, that it proceeded from man as from the principal author, but from the devil as suggester and instigator: since however Christ is the author of our redemption, it was more fitting that He inaugurate it from the author of the transgression, inasmuch as restoration directly corresponds to perdition: and as in the first Adam the consummation of our transgression was made, so through the second Adam the perfection of our redemption would be wrought.

You will say finally. The sin of man was as mortal as that of the Angel: but mortal sin is irremediable: for it is called mortal for this reason, that it brings eternal death and devours one guilty unto perpetual damnation: therefore both man and Angel were unworthy of and incapable of redemption; and hence it was not more fitting that man be repaired than the Angel. — Alensis answers q. 1 memb. 2. To the first argument,

that irremediable is said in three ways, as also invisible: namely, negatively, privatively, contrarily. Irremediable negatively is that which can in no way be remitted: irremediable privatively is that which has nothing worthy whereby it ought to be remitted: irremediable contrarily is that which has a contrary disposition to remission, without which it can in no way be remitted. In the first way the sin of the Angel is called irremediable, and the sin of the damned: in the second way sins against the Holy Spirit are called irremissible, namely despair, presumption, etc., because they are under dispositions contrary to remission. In the third way every mortal sin is said to be irremissible, because no mortal sin has anything whereby it is worthy of remission. By this last reason the sin of man was irremissible, but not by the two first ways, and hence there is not the same reason concerning the reparation of man as of the Angel.

Second Conclusion. — It was fitting that the human nature be assumed sprung from the stock of Adam, rather than formed elsewhere. This Conclusion follows from what precedes, and St. Anselm proves it in the second book of Cur Deus homo, chapter eight, by a threefold argument:

First, it is just that he who makes satisfaction be either the same one who sinned, or someone from his origin: otherwise he who offended would not devote satisfaction: but it was just that satisfaction be made to God for the fault of man: therefore equally it is just that the man making satisfaction either be Adam, who offended, or someone from his offspring.

Second, if Adam had not sinned, the whole human race would have stood of itself in innocence, without the help and sustenance of another creature: therefore if it must rise again, it is more fitting that it rise through the help and aid of someone who is of the same genus: but if the man assumed were formed from elsewhere than the offspring of Adam, he would not be of the same state with the human race: therefore the human race would not rise through the help of one of its own genus.

Finally, when God first formed human nature, He produced only Adam, and from him drew forth the woman; by which He signified that He willed all men to be propagated from him as from one principle: wherefore Adam was the head and prince of all men before sin: therefore if that dignity must be repaired by the Incarnation of the Word, it was necessary that it be repaired either by Adam himself assumed, or by another man formed from his offspring: but Adam could not be assumed, because the properties of the man assumed are attributed to the divine person assuming: and consequently just as it would be true to say of Adam that he sinned, so also it would be true to say of the divine person that he had sinned: but this absolutely conflicts with the divine holiness: therefore it also conflicts that Adam himself be assumed by the Word: hence it is necessary that another man be assumed, who although he be from the offspring of Adam, nevertheless has had no sin.

You will say 1. It was fitting that the man who had to make satisfaction for the guilt of all should be most estranged from all sin: but such a one would not be, if he were from the offspring of Adam: therefore it was more fitting that the man making satisfaction be formed from elsewhere than from the stock of Adam. Proof of the minor: he who has no similarity of sinful flesh, nor any commerce with sinners, is more estranged from sin than he who is marked with those characters: but such would be the man formed from elsewhere than the blood of Adam; and such a one would not be he who was propagated from him: therefore it was more expedient that the man be created anew, to be assumed, than that he be propagated from Adam.

I distinguish the minor, and its proof: if that similarity of sinful flesh be by reason of guilt, I concede: if only by reason of the punishment due, I deny: but in the man assumed by the Word, that is, in Christ, there is no similarity of sinful flesh by reason of guilt; but only by reason of punishment, because the divine Word assumed a mortal body, that by His most bitter passion, and the frequent straits of His whole laborious life, He might expiate and discharge the punishment due to our sins.

You will say 2. It was more fitting that he who contracted the debt should pay it: but Adam himself contracted the debt of sin: therefore it was fitting that he himself pay it, and accordingly that his individual be assumed by the divine Word. —

I distinguish the major: if he can pay that debt of himself alone, or by the benefit and help of him with whom he has no absolute incompossibility, I concede: otherwise, I deny. But Adam could neither pay the debt of himself, nor by the help of any divine person with whom he might be united: because he was of limited entity and operation, and consequently could not exactly make satisfaction for the debt, which held the sum of indignity by reason of the Divinity offended. Nor indeed could he be joined with God in the unity of person, because since he was a sinner, it would follow also that the divine Person could be called sinful, which is altogether absurd: therefore this could neither be done nor ought to have been done.

You ask. Whether it was more fitting for Christ to be born of a Virgin than of a man and a woman. — I affirm: both because it was seemly that he who has the Father a Virgin in heaven should also have a Virgin Mother on earth: and because, says St. Anselm above:

In four ways can God make a man, namely, either of a man and of a woman, as constant usage shows; or neither of a man nor of a woman, as He created Adam: or of a man without a woman, as He created Eve: or of a woman without a man, in which way He may assume that man whom we seek.

Finally, because this more commended and illustrated the purity and integrity of the Incarnate Word.

It is certain that any one of the divine persons can assume human nature, whether propagated from Adam, or formed from elsewhere; since if another person than the Son were to assume human nature from the Virgin, it would not follow, in point of fact, that there would be a diminution of equality among the divine persons, nor a confusion of persons: for there is no confusion in the fact that one person bears several appellations mutually opposed; or that he who is Father should also be Son; since we now believe that one and the same person is temporal and eternal, immortal and dead, immense and circumscribed. Nor indeed is there any diminution of equality, seeing that the divine Word, when he took flesh, although he is less than the Father according to his humanity, is nevertheless equal to the Father according to his divinity, for in assuming what is human he did not lose what is divine. Hence the present question does not concern possibility, but only fittingness; namely, whether it would have been more congruent that the Son, rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit, become incarnate.

Note 2. That although the Incarnation, insofar as it is an effect ad extra, is the work of the whole Trinity: nevertheless it is certain that it is attributed peculiarly to one divine person alone. Because, as St. Bonaventure says in 3 dist. 1 q. 2:

a creature can be compared to the Creator in two ways; just as the Creator can be compared to the creature. For a creature can be compared to the Creator either according to its reception of some perfection, or according to the relation of a habit of dependence. The first comparison necessarily regards three persons indistinctly and indivisely; since in them there is one and indivisely the same essential perfection. But the second comparison can be made with respect to some determinate and distinct person, without regarding another, because the divine persons are distinguished among themselves by relations, and really. Similarly God can be compared to a creature in two ways: namely, in the character of a causative principle, and in the character of the supposit subsistifying it. According to the first comparison the three persons agree together and communicate with one another, because in them there is one nature, and one productive power of creatures: but according to the other comparison a creature can have a distinct relation to one divine person alone; because although one person agrees with another in nature and power, it is nevertheless distinguished from that other in supposit and personal property.

Since therefore in the union of natures, or incarnation, the divine person is the supposit, or hypostasis, of the human nature; so that union, or incarnation, signifies not merely a habitude of God to the creature by way of cause, but also by way of supposit; hence it comes about that, from the comparison of God to creatures, one person can be united to human nature without another being similarly united. On the part of the creature the same holds; since since the creature signifies a comparison to God, not only with respect to the reception of its complement, but also with respect to the habitude of relation; hence it follows that the Incarnation can belong to one person without belonging to another.

Note 3. That although the divine persons agree among themselves so indivisibly in the unity of essence as to be one God; nevertheless certain things are proper to them peculiarly, either according to their own properties, or according to appropriated attributes. According to their own properties, paternity is attributed to the first person, filiation to the second, and passive spiration to the third. But according to appropriated attributes, power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness and love to the Holy Spirit. For this reason a triple operation is likewise attributed peculiarly to these divine persons, namely creation to the Father, re-creation to the Son, glorification and justification to the Holy Spirit; because creation is the work of power; re-creation, or restoration, the work of wisdom; and justification and glorification the work of divine goodness. Now those three divine excellencies shone forth in a wondrous manner in the Incarnation of the Word. Power indeed, for, as St. Damascene says, book 3, chapter 1, God being made perfect man is perfected, which is the greatest of all modes: which alone knows itself through that alone by which the infinite power of God is shown forth: for what is greater than that God should become man? Goodness likewise shines forth in a wondrous manner in this, that God did not despise man, miserable and condemned by his own fault, but his divine bowels of Mercy were moved over his infirmities, that he might deliver him from them. Finally wisdom, on account of that manifold reason assigned in Question 1 of this Section. But it is asked whether it was more fitting that the Incarnation be reckoned the work of infinite wisdom rather than of goodness or of power: or, which amounts to the same thing, whether it was more expedient that the Incarnation be wrought by the Son rather than by the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Single Conclusion. — Truly it was more fitting that the Son become incarnate than the Father or the Holy Spirit.

The Seraphic Doctor praised above proves this conclusion in question 3, in almost the following way: the Incarnation can be considered either in itself, or inasmuch as it is ordered to the redemption of the human race: but under both considerations it was more congruent that the person of the Son become incarnate than the others.

First indeed, if the Incarnation be considered in itself, and with respect to the person who becomes incarnate, this is openly evident: because the second person can be considered either inasmuch as he is Son, or inasmuch as he is Image, or inasmuch as he is Word: and by this threefold reason it was more expedient that he himself become incarnate. — First indeed, inasmuch as he is Image; since the image of God, worn away by sin in man, had to be restored: therefore that natural image and likeness of God had to be applied, after whose likeness man, formed, could be restored, and emulate and reproduce the lineaments of the first divine perfection. — Secondly, inasmuch as he is Word, because as the Word of the Father he proceeds from the Father, that the Father may manifest himself through him; and therefore just as for the manifestation of thought our intellectual word is joined to sensible voice, so for the revelation of divinity it was congruent that the Word of the Father take flesh: wherefore St. Paul says to the Hebrews 1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by his Son. — Lastly, because he is Son, it was fitting that he assume flesh, that he might be of the race of men, and thus the Son of man: for, as St. Anselm says, in book 2 of Cur Deus homo, chapter 9, if any other person were incarnate,

there would be two in the Sacred Trinity, namely the Son of God, who is Son even before the Incarnation, and he who through the Incarnation would be the Son of the Virgin, and thus there would be in persons, which must always remain equal, an inequality according to the dignity of natures: for he born of God would have a more noble nature than he born of the Virgin.

This same reason Saint Augustine also proves in book De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, chapter 2, saying:

Not the Father assumed flesh, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son alone, so that he who was in the divinity the Son of God might become in man the Son of man, lest the name of Son pass to another who would not be Son by eternal generation. The Son of God therefore was made the Son of man, born according to the divinity of nature from God the Son of God, and according to the truth of nature from man the Son of man; and the truth of the begotten one not by adoption, not by appellation, but in both births he should have the name of Son by being born, so that he might be true God and true man, one Son.

The second argument, suggesting this same truth, is drawn from the very comparison of the Incarnation with the Redemption of the human race. For on this account it was more fitting that the Son become incarnate than the Father or the Holy Spirit, whether we consider the fall of man, the manner of repairing him, or the fruit of that reparation.

First, I say, if we consider the fall of man, this appears: for man fell by desiring the likeness and equality of God, which in divine things is attributed especially to the Son: hence he himself was as it were the occasion of man's fall; and therefore man ought to take his reparation from that whence he had taken the occasion of his fall. This reason Saint Bernard weighs out no less elegantly than piously, Sermon 1 De Adventu, in these words, wherein he introduces the Son speaking thus:

Behold, on my occasion the Father loses his creatures. My height the first Angel coveted, and he had a people that believed him: but straightway the zeal of the Father avenged himself upon him, striking him together with all his followers with a plague past cure, with cruel chastisement. Knowledge also, which nevertheless is mine, man wished to steal: and neither did his eye pity him nor spare: he had made only two noble creatures partakers of reason, capable of beatitude: namely, the Angel and man: but behold, because of me he lost many Angels, and all men. Therefore, that they may know that I also love the Father, let him receive through me those whom he seems in a certain way to have lost: if because of me this tempest has arisen, take me, and cast me into the sea: all envy me, behold I come, and show myself to them of such a kind, that whoever strives to imitate me, there may be wrought in him a change into good.

To these things add, that since men sinned specially against the Son, it belonged to him to pardon and remit the sin against whom the offense had been committed. This reason Saint Anselm brings forward in the place just praised. Quasi specialius, he says, adversus personam Filii peccaverant, qui vera Patris similitudo creditur: illi itaque cui specialius fit iniuria, convenientius attribuitur culpae vindicta, cui indulgentia.

Second, if we consider the manner of reparation, that befitted the Son more than the other persons: for we are repaired through the obedience and supplication of the Mediator: now the role of Mediator befitted the Son rather than the other persons; for it was becoming that he who is middle among the divine persons should also set himself forth as a mediator between God and man, so that he might exist as the mediator of God and of men. Likewise it befitted the Son more to supplicate the Father and to obey: For, says Saint Anselm in the same place, Convenientius erat Filium supplicare Patri, quam aliam personam. — Lastly, if we consider the fruit or effect of reparation, it was more congruous that the Son become incarnate; because the Incarnation is ordered to this, that we be sons of God: but it was fitting that we attain the dignity of sons through him who is the natural Son. Hence Saint Augustine lib. 8. De Trinitate, chapter 9: Ut homo ex Deo nasceretur, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus: for it was necessary that through him we be made adopted sons, who is the natural Son.

You will say 1. To recreate and repair man belongs to him to whom it belongs to create and form him: but creation is attributed especially to and befits the power of the Father: therefore also to him should be attributed the restoration and reparation of man through the Incarnation. —

I answer. The Incarnation can be regarded either effectively or formally: in the first way it equally befits the three adorable persons; not so in the second way. —

I distinguish the major: to repair belongs to him to whom it belongs to form effectively; I concede; formally, I deny. Effectively, I say, the Incarnation is attributed especially to the Father, who so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son; and he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all: formally, however, it is attributed uniquely to the Son, since the personality of the Word alone terminates the dependence of human nature, and by formally affecting it makes it subsistent and personated.

You will say 2. To him belongs the adopting of sons into whom belongs the begetting of sons: but to the Father alone belongs to beget: therefore to him alone belongs to adopt men into sons through the Incarnation. —

I distinguish the major: authoritatively, and principally, I concede: sub-authoritatively and according to mission, I deny. Therefore there belongs to the Father the authority of adopting principally, because, as the Apostle says to the Galatians 1, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

You will say 3. It is more fitting for the Father to have something which the Son has not, than for the Son to have something which the Father has not, because what the Son has, he has from the Father: but through the Incarnation one person has something which the other has not: therefore it is more expedient that the Father, rather than the Son, become incarnate. —

I distinguish the major: it is more fitting for the Father to have something which the Son has not, according to eternal origin, I concede: according to hypostatic union, I deny. Indeed the Father ought to have, according to eternal origin, something which the Son has not, because the Father has the generative power of the Son, but in turn the Son has not the generative power of the Father. But it is otherwise concerning hypostatic union, for since through it one person is subjected to another, it is more fitting that the Son have that by which he can be subjected to the Father, than that by which the Father would be deemed inferior to the Son; and forthwith it is more expedient that the Son have the human nature by which he is less than the Father, than that the Father by reason of it would be subjected to the Son.

You will say 4. The Incarnation most accords with him to whom it belongs to confer upon man the highest grace, for that is the highest of all graces: but the bestowal of the highest grace belongs especially to the Holy Spirit: therefore the Incarnation must also be attributed to him more fittingly. —

I distinguish the major: to whom the bestowal of the highest grace is attributed, whether effectively, or formally, I concede: effectively only, I deny. Indeed the Incarnation is appropriated effectively to the Holy Spirit, because the supreme work of the love and goodness of God toward men, such as is the Incarnation, is appropriated especially to that person which is called the love and goodness of God: formally, however, it belongs to the Word alone, inasmuch as only the Word by his own personality made human nature subsistent.

The present difficulty is raised chiefly concerning the threefold circumstance of the time at which the Incarnation ought to have taken place, namely at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the world's duration: for since Adam fell at the world's outset, it seems to have been more fitting that relief be brought to his misery a little after he fell from the state of his felicity: for that medicine appears healthier and more opportune which is prepared and administered not after a long illness, but at its beginning. Since, however, divine Wisdom weighs all its acts and motions with a just and even balance, and disposes all things sweetly, the reasons must be investigated why it deferred so long, and so late, that wholesome and saving medicine being bestowed upon the human race.

Note 2. The time in which the Incarnation was accomplished is designated by various names in sacred Scripture. First it is called the last day. Thus Isaiah 2: It shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord shall be prepared. Second, the fulness of time: thus to the Galatians 4: When the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son. Third, it is called the midst of years, thus Habakkuk 3: Thy work, in the midst of the years thou shalt quicken it; in the midst of the years thou shalt make it known. It is called the midst of years not as though by that name the middle of the world's duration were signified — otherwise we could know at what time the day of judgment would be: which directly conflicts with that oracle of Christ: But of that day no man knoweth, etc. — but so that the time appointed by God might be declared: for it is familiar in Scripture to call that thing "in the midst" of something which lies within it. Thus Psalm 100: He that worketh pride shall not dwell in the midst of my house. Jeremiah 51: Flee out of the midst of Babylon. It is called the fulness of time, moreover, to signify either the time in which God willed to fulfil what he had promised and destined, or in which the figures were to be fulfilled, or especially that in which the fulness of grace was to be bestowed and made manifest. Finally it is called the last day: since this inestimable Mystery was accomplished in the last age of the world, through which the law of grace is to endure, nor is it to have any further age succeeding to itself: that this may be declared more fully and more fully

NOTE 3. The whole duration of the world is wont to be distributed through six ages, according to the notable variations and most celebrated events which befell in the world, but especially among the people of Judah. The first is reckoned from Adam as far as Noe, or the flood: the second from Noe as far as Abraham; the third from Abraham as far as David; the fourth from David as far as the Babylonian captivity: the fifth from the captivity as far as Christ: the sixth finally from Christ the Lord as far as the end of the world. On which account Christ the Lord is said to have come in the last days, because he came in the last age, and at the world's eventide. The first age lasted one thousand six hundred fifty-six years, as is clearly gathered from Genesis 5 and 7, according to the old Hebrew edition and the new. The second seems to have lasted 322 years, for although from Genesis 11 only 292 years are gathered, nevertheless since there the generation of Cainan was passed over, which the Seventy Interpreters added, and also S. Luke chapter 3, therefore at least thirty years must be added to that number, by which Cainan lived before he begat sons. The third seems to have lasted 941 years: for from the birth of Abraham down to the promise made to him there flowed 75 years, Genesis 12; but from that promise down to the end of the people's captivity in Egypt, or down to the giving of the law, which happened three months after that exodus, there flowed 430; but from the giving of the law down to the beginning of the kingdom of David there were 436, as is evidently taken from book 3 of Kings chapter 6; which 436 added above five hundred make the said number 941, through which this third age seems to have lasted. The fourth age, moreover, in which the kingdom of the Jews endured, from the beginning of David's reign down to the captivity

Babylonian, was completed in 170 years, as is to be gathered from book 3 of Kings chapter 2 verse 11 and chapter 22, and book 1 from chapter 5. The fifth age is of all the most difficult as regards its duration; for sacred Historians and Chronologists are torn into various opinions on this matter. For Genebrard, book 2 of the Chronologia, assigns to this age 501 years. Bede, however, in the book De sex aetatibus, numbers 560. Driedo, book 3 De Dogmatibus, chapter 5, computes 596. Eusebius, in the Chronica, wills it to be 785. Certain others, with Suarez in 3 part. q. 1 disp. 6 sect. 1, assign six hundred years to this age; from which he gathers that the Incarnation took place about the fourth thousandth year from the creation of the world: whether that opinion be the truer is not the business of this place to resolve, but only to open up the reasons which can persuade that it was accomplished at a fitting time.

Single Conclusion. — It was fitting that the incarnation of Christ the Lord neither be sought from the beginning of the world, nor deferred to its end, but be wrought as it were about the middle of the ages. This Conclusion consists of three parts, of which

The first S. Bonaventure thus proves in 3 dist. 1 q. 1, and that by a fourfold reason: the first indeed is sought from the side of divine justice. For in this, he says,

the severity of divine vengeance is made manifest, in that for so long a time it endured so many cries and so many lamentations of men, whereby they besought the Saviour, and did not hear them sooner: and that there might appear to Adam himself exiling in tears, and to all his posterity, how great was the gravity of his offence, and with how bitter a vengeance God chastised him.

The second is sought from the curing of the disease; for man ought first to know his own impotence to provide for himself the necessary remedy, before he received it divinely, that thus convicted of his infirmity he might take refuge in divine grace, and thus taking refuge might be cured. The third it repeats from the order of the universe: for because, he says, this was the plenary and greatest benefaction, it ought to be deferred even to the fulness of days. The fourth reason was on account of commending the benefit of the Incarnation; which, since it is the most precious among the benefits of God, ought first to be desired and expected, than exhibited. Therefore it was fitting, for the commendation of so excellent a mystery, that most many ages precede its execution: that namely through the course of so many centuries Christ the Saviour should be sought by the Patriarchs, foretold by the Prophets, prefigured by the shadows of the Mosaic law, and be desired by all nations: for, as S. Aug. says, tract. 31 on John, The greater the judge who was coming, the longer the series of heralds that ought to precede him. — S. Thomas adds, q. 1 art. 5, that it was not fitting for the Word to become incarnate immediately after sin was committed: First on account of the condition of sin, which drew its origin from pride; for man had to be humbled before he was delivered; wherefore the Lord left him first in the liberty of free choice under the natural law, and under the written law, that thus by his own nature he might acknowledge his infirmity; which known, he might cry out to the physician, and seek the help of grace. Second, that befitted it on account of the order of promotion into good, for man ought to be promoted from the animal state to the spiritual state, according to that of 1 Corinthians 15: Not first that which is spiritual, but that which is animal; afterwards that which is spiritual. The first man of earth earthy: the second man from heaven heavenly. Third, on account of the dignity of the Word becoming incarnate: for, as Tertullian says, book 3 against Marcion, chapter 2: So great a work was preparing for man's salvation, inasmuch as it was about to be believed, that it might profit, in so much did it desire to be prepared, that it might be able to be believed, laid beneath the foundations of disposition and preaching, by which order faith being informed, it was deservedly both enjoined upon man by God, and God exhibited in man.

The second part also holds: both because, whereas Christ came to merit grace and glory for us, and glory ought to be bestowed chiefly at the end of the world, it seems fitting that he come first bestowing grace, before glory: and because if he had deferred the advent of his Word into the world even to the end of the world, while the sins of men grew strong day by day, the knowledge and reverence of God, and the honesty of morals, would have been utterly spent upon the earth: wherefore as he delegated Abraham, that he might restore the knowledge of God among men, among whom it had already begun to be extinguished: as afterwards he delegated Noe, that he might restore the worship and reverence due to himself, which had well nigh been spent: so also it was congruous that when he saw the Jews and the gentiles to have shaken off all fear and law of God, he should delegate his Son to the lands, that he might reform the morals of men: and finally, that through the more abundant largition of grace very many might be saved.

From these, therefore, the third part is gathered, namely that the Incarnation took place at a fitting time, around the fullness and middle of time; so that just as the Sun, placed in the midst of the planets, illumines those above and those below it: so Christ, that true sun of justice, coming in the midst of the ages and manifesting himself to the world, would enlighten and illume the ages that went before through faith and hope in his future advent, and would sanctify and consecrate those that followed through evangelical doctrine and the Sacraments.

You will say 1. To one who is sick, laboring perilously and at the point of death, aid must be brought as soon as possible, and more effective remedies prepared: but as soon as man fell into mortal sin, he labored under a most dangerous disease: therefore it was fitting that God should come to his aid through the Incarnation, which is the remedy and most efficacious means of removing the sickness of sin. —

I distinguish the major: if it be thus expedient for curing the sickness, I concede; otherwise, I deny. Now it was not expedient for healing man's infirmity that he should cure him by the Incarnation as soon as he fell into sin: lest he either despise that remedy out of pride, or consider it owed to him: he ought therefore first to acknowledge his own infirmity, poverty, and weakness, and thus more effectually implore the charity of the physician.

You will say 2. From 1 Timothy 1: Christ came into this world to save sinners: but more would have been saved if from the very beginning of the world they had been enlightened by his doctrine, grace, and examples: therefore, etc. —

The Seraphic Doctor answers, that divine wisdom, and the chief order of providence, require that the common good be preferred to the private good, and the perfection of the whole universe to the perfection of any single person: and therefore it pleased the Creator of the universe to reserve the benefit of the Incarnation for the last age, that he might show forth in some the benignity of mercy, preserve in others the severity of justice, yet pour out his grace upon all more abundantly. Where sin abounded, grace did more abound. Whence it is that he furnished sufficient means to men in every age of the world, whereby, if they wished, they could merit their salvation.

You will say 3. And that against the second part: things done through many are done in vain which can be accomplished through fewer: but men could have been saved through the last advent of Christ the Lord: therefore the prior advent was superfluous for the salvation of men. —

I distinguish the major: if they be thus opportunely done, I concede; otherwise, I deny. To the minor I say, that although indeed men could have been saved through a single advent of Christ, had God so ordained that whoever placed in him their faith, hope, and love would straightway have been predestined, even as the holy Angels were predestined because of the obedience rendered to God by man in a single moment of time, as St. Bernard holds; nevertheless it was more fitting that men, who are subject to time and succeed one another in their operations, should have various advents of Christ, inasmuch as through them they might advance themselves more diligently and more excellently toward the later one. Hence the same St. Bernard, in Sermon 3 De Adventu, says:

We know a threefold advent of Christ: to men, in men, against men: to men indeed indifferently, not so in men or against men. The first was through the Incarnation: the second takes place through the infusion of sanctifying grace: the third will be through the last appearing of Christ in his majesty. The first in the humility of the flesh: the second in the consecration of the mind: the third in the retribution of the reward. The first was unto the good and the evil, that they might become just: the second only unto the just, that they might persevere in holiness: the third unto the elect and the reprobate, that unchangeably they may pay the penalty, or be illustrious with crowns.

Now it was more fitting that the two prior advents go before, in order that by a just ordination the third might follow.