Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

WHETHER THE HOLY FATHERS MERITED, OR AT LEAST COULD HAVE MERITED DE CONGRUO, THE INCARNATION AND ITS CIRCUMSTANCES.

NOTE 1. By the name of the holy Fathers are here understood those most holy men who preceded the coming of Christ, whether of the law of nature or of the written law, to whom a special revelation or promise of the future Messiah had been made by God; concerning whom it is asked whether they merited either the Incarnation itself, or some of its circumstances, for instance its acceleration, or that it took place in their times, or that Christ should be born of their stock and propagation, or finally some of its effects, for instance the justification of souls and the reopening of heaven. Around this difficulty there are especially three opinions of Theologians. The first indeed is that of St. Bonaventure, dist. 3, art. 2, q. 2, where he contends that the holy Fathers merited de congruo the substance of the Incarnation, not as regards its principal effect, which is the justification of souls, but as regards the less principal effect, which is the opening of the kingdom of heaven. The second truly is that of Vasquez, disp. 22, cap. 1, and of other Recentiors, who although they concede merit de congruo with respect to the Incarnation as regards its acceleration and other circumstances, nevertheless deny it with respect to the substance of the Incarnation and all its effects. The third finally does not deny the holy Fathers some merit de congruo both with respect to the substance of the Incarnation and with respect to some of its circumstances; to which opinion very many Thomists subscribe.

NOTE 2. The congruity of a reward can be regarded in two ways: first indeed it can be taken for a congruity founded in the pure mercy of God, without any right or debt on the part of the work; secondly, for a congruity founded in the proportion of friendship, and in a work elicited in the state of grace by a friend: for friendship, since it is a potential part of justice, founds some debt: not indeed strict and rigorous, such as is merit de condigno, but only secundum quid, so that it befits the goodness and wisdom of the one rewarding to bestow that reward upon the friend on account of works elicited pleasing to him. But of this merit we inquire only whether the holy Fathers merited the Incarnation, or some of its circumstances.

NOTE 3. All Theologians agree that none of the holy Fathers merited de condigno the mystery of the Incarnation according to the substance of its effect; which indeed St. Paul demonstrates at length in the Epistle to the Romans, in which he chiefly intends to convince the Jews that their Fathers had not deserved, namely by merit de condigno, that Christ should be born of their stock, but that this was only a benefit of God choosing rather the seed of Abraham than any other man. Hence in Titus 3 he says: The goodness and kindness of our Saviour God appeared, not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us: which is also gathered from other texts of Scripture; for in Psalm 88 it is said: But if his children forsake my law... yet my mercy I will not scatter from him. And Luke 1: He has received Israel His child, being mindful of His mercy; where the mystery of the Incarnation is called a work of mercy; but mercy excludes merits, especially condign ones. To these add that the grace of the Saints is only the principle of meriting condignly that to which it is referred by the ordination of God; but the merits of the holy Fathers were referred by the ordination of God only to eternal life; therefore they were only principles of meriting eternal life condignly, not the mystery of the Incarnation.

Single Conclusion. — THE HOLY FATHERS DID NOT MERIT DE CONGRUO THE INCARNATION, AS REGARDS ITS SUBSTANCE, NOR AS REGARDS ITS INTRINSIC CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT ONLY AS REGARDS ITS EXTRINSIC CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY OF TIME, PLACE, AND PROPAGATION FROM THEIR STOCK. This is the opinion of the Doctor in 4, d. 2, q. 1, n. 11, where he says: «In all the works of God there was no work of mere grace except the Incarnation alone of the Son of God, if no merits preceded it». He adds: «Which indeed is true in the divine ordination «of that Incarnation: because if at the time of the conception any merits of Mary preceded, they were not good absolutely with respect to the Incarnation, but perhaps of its acceleration, so that that preordained Incarnation might be fulfilled». Well then, says Augustine 11 De Trinitate, chapter 19: «Among things done in time, that is the supreme grace, such as that man was joined to God in unity of person.» By which the Doctor openly teaches that neither the most blessed Virgin nor the holy Fathers merited the Incarnation itself: but only certain extrinsic circumstances, namely, that the Incarnation should take place at such a time, place, and from such seed.

Both parts are proved: The first indeed, because the principle of congruous merit cannot fall under merit: but the Incarnation as to its substance and intrinsic circumstances is the principle of the merit of the holy Fathers; therefore they could not have merited that principle. The minor is evident: the major likewise; for just as merit de condigno could not meritoriously deserve its own principle, so neither can merit de congruo congruously earn its own principle: because if the principle of merit could fall under merit de congruo, the effect would be the cause of its own cause, as we said above, and first antecedent grace would be given on account of a foreseen good use of it: which however St. Augustine condemns as Pelagianism in the book De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, chapter 19. Which he proves from Ephesians 1: Who predestined us in Christ, that we should be holy: for Augustine notes that it is not said because we were going to be holy, but that we should be holy.

Nor does it avail to reply, that the Incarnation was not only the efficient cause of all grace and merit, but also final with respect to the Fathers of the Old Testament, and as such could have fallen under merit: that response, I say, does not break the force of the argument, because those Fathers did not receive grace in order that the Incarnation might come about, but on the contrary the Incarnation was predestined in order that they might receive grace from it. Yet the Incarnation had a certain likeness of a final cause, because it operated when it was still only future; it operated, however, as a meritorious cause, because, as non-existing, it can move the agent to confer a reward, as the Doctor just now praised teaches, n. 10, where he says: That even if the Passion of Christ is not now in effect, it is nevertheless in divine acceptance, and this suffices that it be a meritorious cause: for it is evident that we confer many things on account of some good not present in itself, but present in our memory, if it be past, or in opinion, if it be future.

The second part is proved by all those texts of Scripture in which the future Incarnation is promised to the Fathers of the Old Testament, either from their stock, or in their country, or in a shorter time. Thus Psalm 11: Because of the groaning of the poor, now will I arise. Daniel 9: Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, etc. Which testimonies very many Fathers expound of the shortening of the coming of the Messiah. It is likewise evident from the promises made by God to those most holy men that the Messiah would arise from their stock on account of the illustrious works which they had wrought in the service of God. Thus Genesis 22 God promises Abraham a Messiah to be born of his seed in these words: By myself have I sworn: because thou hast done this thing, I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, that is in Christ, as the Apostle expounds to the Galatians 3.

It stands likewise from all those prayers by which they earnestly besought God to send the Messiah into the world. Thus Isaiah 16:

Send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth: and 45: Drop down dew, O ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just: and 64 (61): O that thou wouldst rend the heavens, and wouldst come down! David also, Psalm 85, seems to pray for the Messiah when he says: Give us thy salvation, and Psalm 105: Visit us in thy salvation; by which the holy Patriarchs and Fathers of the Old Testament besought, not indeed that God should decree the Incarnation of His Son, which they had already received through divine revelation; but only that He might fulfill that mystery in a brief time and in their sight; but those prayers and desires had the character of merit de congruo, so that God would hear them, who themselves obeyed Him in all things: then also because prayers for things necessary to salvation merit de congruo the things requested: finally because those urgent prayers and pious desires disposed those holy Fathers to receive Christ: but those moral dispositions had the character of merit de congruo as to the substance of the Incarnation, or the coming of the Son of God into the world; hence in Malachi we read: Behold, suddenly there shall come to His temple the Dominator whom you seek, and the Angel of the Testament whom you desire. By which the Prophet signifies that therefore the Messiah was about to come in a brief time because the most holy men were seeking Him and longing for Him with the highest vows.

You will say: The extrinsic circumstances of the Incarnation were decreed from eternity just as much as the intrinsic ones: but the intrinsic ones were not decreed dependently upon any merit of men; therefore neither the extrinsic ones. The major is evident; for the same reason seems to hold of the extrinsic circumstances as of the intrinsic ones, since they concern the same humanity to be assumed in individuo. The minor also is evident, because the intrinsic circumstances of some work, formally considered as such, are of the same order with it itself: whence the intrinsic circumstances of the Incarnation pertain to the hypostatic union as its substance does; therefore if the holy Fathers could not merit de condigno the substance of the Incarnation, because their works pertained to the order of grace, which is inferior to the hypostatic, by the same reason they could not merit de condigno its intrinsic circumstances.

I deny the major, for it can be said that the divine decree concerned only the substance of the Incarnation, without prevision of the merit of the circumstances, even if those extrinsic circumstances could have been decreed by an absolute decree with a view to the merits of the holy Fathers, since those extrinsic circumstances in no way regard the entity and order of the hypostatic union, but are altogether extrinsic; for the Word could equally have become incarnate from another stock, and been born in another place or at another time, than that He took origin from the seed of Abraham and had His rise in Palestine.

From these gather, that just as the ancient Fathers did not merit the mystery itself of the Incarnation, in the same way they did not deserve the effects of that mystery, namely that the merits and satisfaction of Christ our Lord be applied both for themselves and for the whole human race. The same must be said of the other effects; for if the ancient Fathers had merited that Christ should suffer and satisfy for the whole human race, they would also have merited the salvation of the whole human race, and consequently their own redemption, which is most absurd: both because to assert this is the same as to say that they merited their first grace, which they obtained through the merits of Christ for their redemption, seeing that they merited to have the merits of Christ for themselves; and because if the most holy Fathers had deserved the death of Christ for their own redemption, the work of the Incarnation and death of Christ would already have been for the ancient Fathers not a work of mercy and first grace, but of gratitude and second grace, which is grace for grace: whereas for others, who were after Christ, it would have been a work of mercy alone; for if on account of the merits of the ancient Fathers God had granted Christ and His Passion and its fruits, the merits of Christ themselves, insofar as they would have been benefits of the ancient Fathers, would have had the character of remuneration, and consequently would have been given to them out of gratitude: which is indeed far removed from the doctrine and manner of speaking of the holy Fathers.