Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

That sins, as far as concerns the present, can be regarded under a fourfold difference: The first is original sin, insofar as it is considered in the first parent Adam, namely inasmuch as by his sinning we all sinned as in the head of the whole of humanity. Secondly original sin can be considered as it is in each of us, namely inasmuch as at that instant when we are men and posterity of Adam, straightway we are infected by its guilt and sin. The third is actual mortal sin, whereby one loses sanctifying grace: which sin indeed could exist in the state of innocence: since innocent Adam sinned actually, and that sin, which with respect to us was original, with respect to Adam was actual. Finally the fourth is venial sin, whereby indeed sanctifying habit of grace is not lost, but its splendor is diminished and the fervor of charity relaxed.

Note 2. It is certain that Christ our Lord came into this world to destroy all sins both original and actual, or to exhibit a sufficient remedy for the expiation of all sins. Which indeed stands from clear texts of Scripture; for Isaiah 53: He has laid on Him the iniquities of us all. 1 John 1: The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin: and chapter 2: He is a propitiation for our sins: not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. And 1 (4): He sent His Son a propitiation for our sins. With these agrees St. Paul 1 Timothy 1: Jesus came to save sinners. And to Titus 2: Who gave redemption, that He came forth by the secret decree of the Father. Hence St. Ambrose on Psalm 35: Good, he says, is the blood of Christ, rich in price, flowing forth to wash away every sin. Reason also gives support. Since indeed the end of the Incarnation is to lead men to eternal life, to which nothing defiled is admitted, it follows that not only original but also actual sins ought to have been expiated through Christ. Whence there only remains the difficulty to be solved, which of these sins, whether original or actual, was the chief motive of the Incarnation, so that its expiation was the cause why Christ came, which had it been absent He would not have come.

Note 3. All Doctors agree that if only venial sins had existed, there would have been no need of Christ coming as Redeemer: both because Christ came to reconcile us to God, while venial sin does not break off friendship and union with God; and because a pure man enlightened by sanctifying grace could have paid God due satisfaction for venial sin; hence for its expiation the coming of Christ would not have been necessary. But as to the other sins, authors do not so agree: for there is a threefold principal opinion concerning their resolution: The first is that of Valencia q. 1 puncto 5 and of some Recentiors, asserting that with only original sin existing, or conversely with only actual ones existing, Christ our Lord would have come by force of the present decree. The second is that of Nazarius and others affirming that with only original sin existing, or only actual ones existing, the Incarnation, by force of the present decree, would not have been future. The third truly, which is now more common in both schools, the Angelic and the Subtle, teaches that Christ comes by force of the present decree with only original sin existing: but not with only actual ones existing. Therefore two things especially are here to be determined: the first indeed, that Christ came principally to destroy original rather than actual sin. The second, that He so came to destroy original sin that if only actual ones had existed, He would not have come in passible flesh nor as Redeemer.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST OUR LORD CAME MORE CHIEFLY TO DESTROY ORIGINAL SIN THAN ACTUAL.

It is proved: Christ came principally to destroy that sin which is the origin and root of the others, and which is greater and more pernicious than the others; but original sin is the root of the others, and far graver and more pernicious than they; therefore, etc. The major stands; for the graver a sin is, the more it opposes human salvation, for whose working God was made man. But the minor is proved: the sin which of itself infects the whole human nature is absolutely greater than that which of itself infects only a singular person; but original sin infects the whole human nature; actual truly only the person committing it; therefore this is graver than that. The minor is certain: but the major is proved: something can be said greater than another either intensively: thus whiter is that which is more intense and has more degrees; or extensively: thus whiteness which is in a larger surface is said to be the other greater: but original sin although it is not intensively greater than actual sin, because it is less voluntary; nevertheless extensively it is greater, because through it the whole human race is infected. Therefore since Christ came principally to destroy that sin which more opposes the salvation of men, it follows that He came principally to destroy original sin.

You will say: Actual sin is simply graver than original sin both intensively and extensively; therefore if Christ came principally on account of some special one, He ought especially to have come to destroy actual sin. The consequence stands. The antecedent is proved: for all concede that a sin is the graver intensively, the more voluntary it is; but actual sin is more voluntary than original, because the latter only interpretatively voluntary; the former formally voluntary. Extensively too it seems not less grave, because it extends to as many as original sin does; therefore, etc.

I answer, that original sin indeed is less grave intensively since it is less voluntary than actual: but, as we said just now, original is graver extensively: both because actual sin does not infect infants before the use of reason, whom however original stains and makes guilty; and because it is per accidens that actual sin extends itself to all adults, since since it depends on the singular will of each man, of itself it does not demand to infect the whole nature: but original sin of itself from its nature is universal, infecting the whole nature; therefore Christ came principally to expiate it.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST OUR LORD WOULD HAVE COME BY FORCE OF THE PRESENT DECREE WITH ONLY ORIGINAL SIN EXISTING: BUT OTHERWISE IF ONLY ACTUAL SINS EXISTED. This is the more common opinion as to both parts.

The first part is proved: First from the common manner of speaking of the holy Fathers, who conformably to the mind of St. Paul call Christ the second Adam, who came to restore all those things which the first had lost by his hostility. Whence St. Gregory book 1 on Kings, c. 1: If Adam had not sinned, our Redeemer would not have needed to take our flesh. Hence the Church sings in the blessing of the Paschal candle: O truly necessary sin of Adam, which was blotted out by the death of Christ! O happy fault, which merited to have such and so great a Redeemer! Wherefore Christ is called John 1 the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Expounding which, the glossa ordinaria taken from Bede says: The sin of the world is called original sin, which is common to the whole world. Nor does it stand in the way that the Vulgate has "sins" of the world: for besides that the Greek and Complutensian have "sin" in the singular, and so read the holy Fathers Irenaeus book 3 Contra haereses, chapter 11, and Augustine book 22 Contra Faustum, chapter 3 — sin can be said plurally as several sins, because it virtually contains all sins, since there is none which does not take origin from it as from a virulent fountain; wherefore David Psalm 50 calls original sin, in which he had been conceived, sins and iniquities; for he says: Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother conceived me.

It is proved also by reason: Christ especially clothed Himself in human flesh that He might repair the whole collapsed human nature: but if there had been no other sin besides original, the whole nature had perished even if other actual sins were absent; therefore no less with only original sin existing ought He to have become incarnate. Then, Christ therefore for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven, namely that He might open and unlock for us the closed Heaven: but through original sin Heaven was so closed to each man that none, however just, could be received into it unless prior due satisfaction had been shown to God, to be paid only through the merits and Passion of Christ; therefore although there had been only original sin, Christ would no less have needed to come, that He might unlock Heaven for us and pay due satisfaction to God the Father. Finally, Christ was to come that He might dissolve the works of the devil and free men from his captivity: but through original sin men are especially subjected to the empire of the demon and are held his captives. Therefore, etc.

You will say: The total motive of the Incarnation was that what recalled man from God might be solved; for this reason the Son of God was made man, that men might become sons of God and be constituted heirs of His perpetual inheritance: but not only original sin but all actual ones recalled men from God; therefore He did not come primarily and principally on account of original sin.

I distinguish the major: The total motive of the Incarnation was that which removed men from God especially and principally, and as it were as head, to which the other removers are reduced — I concede: that which removes less principally, and only secondarily — I deny. And in like manner I distinguish the minor, I deny the consequence. But it is certain, since original sin is the fountain and root of the others, that it keeps men far more from God than any actual one whatsoever; whence Christ comes more principally to destroy it than the others: although He also consequently came to remove them. And thus original sin was indeed the principal motive of the coming of Christ: but actual sins were only impulsive. This will be made clear by this example: For instance someone decreed to visit a friend, that with him he may transact certain business: but when about to undertake the journey he hears the wife of his friend gravely ill. Having heard which with a more prompt mind he proceeds to the friend, both that he may complete the business and heal the sick woman: but his motivating causes why he goes to the friend, without which he would not go, are the business to be transacted: but impulsive is the curing of the sick wife of the friend, without which he would indeed visit the friend, but not with equal promptitude of mind.

The second part follows from the preceding: for if original sin is the primary motive of the Incarnation, it follows that it not existing Christ would not have come by force of the present decree: for the primary and principal cause of any operation ceasing, it is necessary that that operation also cease.

You will say: Christ would have come even if only one man had sinned; therefore much more He would have come to destroy the sins of many men even if no original sin existed. The consequence is evident. The antecedent is proved, both from that passage of St. Paul to the Galatians 2 where he says of Christ: He loved me, and delivered Himself for me, by which He signifies that Christ died for individual sinners, and consequently He would come dying for any sinner whatever, although others did not sin; and from chapter 2 to the Hebrews, where each sinner is said to crucify Christ in himself: that is each sinner offers sufficient occasion that Christ be crucified again; finally from St. Chrysostom Homily 3 on Acts of the Apostles, where expounding those words they gave lots, he says: For whose loss is so great that no reason could estimate it: for if the salvation of one soul is of such worth that on its account the Son of God became man, and suffered so much, etc. — I answer by denying the antecedent, and to all its proofs I say that by these is manifested only the supreme love of Christ our Lord toward men to be saved, by reason of which He was so disposed that although one man alone were a sinner, nevertheless if God so decreed, He most willingly would clothe Himself in human flesh and suffer death for saving him. But thence it does not follow that by force of the present decree He would have come into the world if only a single man among the posterity of Adam had sinned.