Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

It is certain that Christ from the instant of his conception had habitual grace, whereby he was formally sanctified, as well as the essential glory of the soul, namely the fruition of God through intuitive vision of him and beatific love. It is equally certain that if he had assumed human nature destitute of such habitual grace and essential glory, he could have merited both by good supernatural acts elicited with supernatural aid; since none of the conditions required for merit would fail those acts. Whence only this remains here to be examined, whether Christ through subsequent works merited habitual grace and essential glory, or at least could have merited them de potentia absoluta: since merit need not necessarily precede reward by precedence at least of time, for either merit is compared to the reward, or it is compared to God conferring the reward: but from neither head is precedence of time required with respect to the reward. And indeed that not from the first head is plain, because in those who daily merit the increase of grace there is simultaneously merit and reward; for in the same instant in which they merit God infuses the increase of grace. Nor from the second head, because no repugnance seems to appear why in the same instant in which merit exists God should not accept it for some reward, since he is omnipotent, if nothing else stands in the way. Moreover whenever some way to a term is instantaneous, term and way can be simultaneous, nor is there any repugnance, as appears in generation: but truly merit is instant, and is quasi a way to the reward as to its proper term; therefore it does not conflict that such a term be posited in time with such a way; neither on the part of term and way, nor on the part of God conferring such a term. Moreover it seems not to be so otherwise, namely from something extrinsic; for if any repugnance existed, especially because he who elicits the reward is in a state repugnant to the state of possession of the term — just as for example Peter, being a wayfarer as such, does not straightway attain the reward although he merits, because he merits through faith or through other virtues belonging to the state of wayfarer repugnant to the state of beatific reward. But in our case this repugnance could not be present, because Christ could merit through virtues which have no repugnance with the beatific state.

Note 2. It is certain that Christ merited not only for himself but also for others; indeed he bore the office and function of mystical head of the Church, whose function was to infuse spiritual life into the members; for as in a natural body the head senses both for itself and for all the members; so in the mystical body of the Church Christ ought to provide life, motion, and spiritual sense not only for himself but also for his members. Hence arises the difficulty whether Christ also merited anything for Angels. And whereas men are partly faithful, and among the faithful some preceded Christ and others followed him, the question is what Christ merited for all these, namely whether by his merits he obtained for them not only first sanctifying grace, liberation from guilt, and the unsealing of the heavenly gate, but also predestination itself, understood both for eternal election to glory and for the due ordination of means for attaining it.

Note 3. Among the various errors of Calvin this one was chiefly notable, that, as he teaches, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 17, § 6, Christ the Lord merited nothing for himself, neither the glory of his body nor exaltation of name, but ordered all his merits toward us and conferred upon us every corresponding reward. Wherefore he bitterly assails the scholastic Doctors and accuses them of vain curiosity and damnable temerity because they teach that Christ merited not only for us but also for himself. But how impious, and how opposed to the divine Scriptures this heretical dogma is, will appear below.

First conclusion. — Christ did not de facto merit for himself, nay neither could he merit de potentia ordinaria sanctifying grace and the glory of his soul; although de potentia ultraordinaria he could have merited both. This Conclusion consists of three parts, of which the first is held not only by the Alexandrine, part 3, q. 17, member 3, art. 1., St. Thomas there q. 19, art. 3., St. Bonaventure, d. 19, book 3, a. 2., but also by the Subtle Doctor there n. 12., where he says: I say that he did not merit for himself fruition: because if so, either by an operation elicited concerning those things which are toward the end, or concerning the end itself. Not in the first manner, because he had his first act concerning the end, enjoying, namely, before he had any other act concerning something toward the end. And if merit was concerning something, or certain objects seen in the Word, as was said according to the preceding way, or concerning his mother, or concerning many elect, willing them beatitude: nevertheless naturally the operation concerning the end itself preceded, namely the Trinity, or the essence in the Trinity: nor by the act of fruition, whereby he enjoys the Trinity, did he merit the same fruition, because this would be nothing else to say than that he merited fruition who had fruition: or he merited because God gave the act: which is nothing to say, because no act is meritorious of itself, although it can be of another: therefore God liberally, without any preceding merit, gave the ultimate to the end, and thus he did not merit for himself fruition. Whence Augustine, book 13 On the Trinity, chapter 19, says that the highest grace is that man in the unity of person is joined to God: and although they speak of the grace of union, that is, of the gratuitous uniting will of God, nevertheless to that union there concomitantly follows the grace of fruition of so great a thing, therefore it was the highest grace without preceding merits, says the Doctor. For it signifies that Christ could not have merited that fruition except through some meritorious act, which would be occupied either about God or about some creature, and through the very fruition itself: but neither of these can be affirmed. Not the first, because he had no act whereby he could merit prior to the instant of fruition. Not credibly the second, since his soul could not be occupied about a creature through any act antecedent to that fruition, since he could know creatures in that first instant only in the Word, and consequently he enjoyed the Word before, at least by priority of nature, he saw any creature represented in the Word. Finally not the third, otherwise he would be said to have merited the very fruition because he had fruition, which certainly would be ridiculous: for no act is meritorious of itself, although it can be meritorious of another.

The same must be said of habitual sanctifying grace, which he could not merit through acts proceeding from it: but every meritorious act of Christ proceeds from habitual grace: therefore he could not merit it. The major stands: for the principle of merit by ordinary law cannot be the reward of works proceeding from itself. The major also is evident, because Christ ought to have merited through acts connaturally meritorious. Indeed we must think that the acts of Christ were elicited conformably to his nature unless revealed otherwise; but by no revelation does it stand that Christ elicited supernatural acts connaturally; and thence we must not assert it: but the connatural mode of a meritorious act is that it proceed from habitual grace, and not that it precede it: therefore it must be asserted that Christ de potentia ordinaria did not merit his sanctifying grace.

The Doctor objects: It is more glorious and more laudable to possess a reward through merits than without merits: but Christ had grace and glory in the noblest manner of all: therefore it was fitting that he have it through merits. — He answers there distinguishing the major: that is more laudable when the reward can be had from merits, he concedes: otherwise, he denies. And similarly, with the minor distinguished, he denies the consequents. Because, he says, the conjunction of the soul of Christ with God through the act of fruition was so great and so excellent that merit could not concur to it, and it is nobler to have an act to which merit cannot precede from the liberality of the giver than to have a less noble act from preceding merits: and this seems reasonable, because just as God created in the order of nature some substance, say the nature of an Angel, to the creating of which the causality of a cause could not cooperate on account of the perfection of such a nature, so in the moral order God created some beatific act to which no meritorious act can be prior; and such was the beatifying act of the soul of Christ, and this on account of the nobility and excellence of the act and of the mode of having the act, because immediately before he had any act concerning those things which are toward the end, he had that beatific act. He offers another solution sufficiently pious and probable, saying that on account of the good of the fatherland and its beauty, which consists in a certain diversity, someone ought to have beatitude without any merit, since others are given there possessing beatitude in various ways through merits. — To that objection the Seraphic Doctor answers, that it is more glorious to have a reward through merits than without merits in those who are united through conformity of affection; because in those grace and glory are quasi accidental by way of acquisition, because those by their nature are born indifferent to being good or evil; but otherwise it is of the man assumed by the Word, who is united to God not only through conformity of affection but even by personal union: whence not the man is said worthy but God, and therefore grace is in a manner natural to him, because it is connaturally required by the hypostatic union, whence it is far more glorious for him to have glory from his first creation than to have it through acquisition.

You will object 2. The will of Christ was prior by nature to fruition: but that priority suffices for merit: therefore Christ could merit fruition. Next, the same act, as prior by nature to itself, can merit itself: therefore Christ could fittingly merit fruition through the very fruition. — The Doctor denies the minor, because for meriting a reward it does not suffice that the will be conceived as prior to the reward, because it itself is not the merit, but the merit itself must precede the reward at least in nature. And secondly he denies that an act can be considered prior by nature to itself, except in consideration of reason without sufficient foundation in the thing; which consideration does not suffice for it to be merit with respect to itself; and he says moreover that if the act were merit of itself, the same would be to elicit, God therefore adds the act as reward because he gave the act. Add that it is evident from the terms that although the same act could be a reward for Christ, that is given to him by reason of the connatural exigency of the hypostatic union, and a merit with respect to other rewards: yet it could not be merit with respect to itself.

You will object 3. As grace stands to glory, so merit stands to reward: but Christ had grace ordained to glory: therefore equally he ought to have merit ordained to reward, namely to beatitude and the fruition of God. — The Seraphic Doctor distinguishes the major: they stand thus as regards the condition of disposing, he concedes: as regards their origin, he denies: because glory is granted by God alone, but merit is an act proceeding from free will informed by grace. In Christ there could be an order of grace to glory saving the order of each to union: but so it is not of the order of merit to reward, for merit signifies ordination to reward as disposition and completion, and as way to term, and therefore it is necessary that merit precede reward, either by priority of time or of nature; but in neither manner ought it to have preceded in Christ.

You will object 4. The holy Angels had a reward through merits: but the grace in the Angels was of no lesser excellence than in Christ: therefore Christ also ought to have had a reward through merits. — I deny the parity, because the Angels in the first instant of their formation had no union with God except merely accidental, namely through sanctifying grace: but Christ had personal union with God from the instant of his formation, which personal union required not only sanctifying grace but also the beatific union of the soul of Christ with God through vision and love.

The second part is proved, namely that Christ the Lord de potentia ordinaria could have merited habitual grace and the beatitude of soul which he had from the beginning of his formation: because for the notion of merit a certain priority of nature suffices between the merit and the reward: but although the soul of Christ from the beginning of its formation and union with the Word was endowed with beatitude and sanctifying grace, there could still be a priority of nature between the meritorious act, say between a certain act of charity corresponding to infused science, and the beatitude itself; for although de facto the first act which the created will of Christ elicited was beatific, nevertheless de potentia absoluta it could have been other than beatific, and prior to the beatific act by a certain priority of nature, which would not have prevented that soul from having been blessed by similitude of time, not of nature. And to this opinion favor most strongly all those who hold that Christ de facto merited, or at least could have merited even de potentia ordinaria his own beatitude, as Albertus Magnus, De Bassolis, etc.; which opinion the Recent authors wrongly accuse of temerity, since it has so many grave patrons.

You will say: It conflicts for some subject to be simultaneously at the term and moved toward the term: but the soul of Christ through fruition and beatitude is at the term, while through merit it is moved toward that beatitude as toward its term: therefore it conflicts for it to be blessed in the first instant and at the same time to merit that beatitude. Next, no one can merit except through the mediation of an act of hope of obtaining the reward: but hope of beatitude cannot exist in the same instant as its fruition and possession: therefore it involves Christ, blessed in the same instant, to merit his beatitude at the same time. Finally, no one can merit without dilection of God, which is regulated through an act of intellect: but in that first instant the soul of Christ could not be regulated by any knowledge which sufficed and was not beatific vision: moreover dilection existing simultaneously with blessed vision cannot be regulated by obscure cognition of faith, because obscure cognition cannot exist together with intuitive cognition: therefore that dilection would necessarily have to be regulated by the knowledge of infused or beatific science. But it cannot be regulated by intuitive knowledge, which is posterior to beatific science: therefore the dilection of Christ must needs be regulated by blessed science: but dilection regulated by science cannot be meritorious: therefore through it Christ could not merit. — I answer to the first by distinguishing the major: a subject cannot be simultaneously at the term and in successive motion toward the term, I concede: instantaneous, I deny: but merit does not consist in successive motion but in action and instantaneous change; the same can be simultaneous and in the same instant of time with the reward, as is evident from the increase of sanctifying grace, which is simultaneous and in the same instant with the merit of that grace. To the second I say that the major is true by ordinary law, namely that one cannot merit beatitude without hope of attaining it; nothing however hinders, nor can any repugnance be shown, that de potentia Dei absoluta one could merit without certain and undoubted confidence of obtaining the reward toward which he aspires. And thirdly I say that that dilection of Christ even in this case would have to be regulated by infused science, which although de facto it presupposes beatific knowledge and intuitive vision, yet in that hypothesis glory would be supposed to be infused before the light of glory, and consequently in that case it would pre-exist before intuitive vision of God, and would regulate the dilection of the soul of Christ whereby it would merit that vision and fruition of God.

Second conclusion. — Christ truly merited the glory of his body and the exaltation of his name.

This is gathered from Sacred Scripture, which plainly signifies that truth. Thus Luke 24, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? namely of his body, for the glory of his soul he had from his first conception. He ascended, what is it, but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? where ascent into heaven is attributed to descent through humility. Likewise the same Apostle, for which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, etc. In which words the Apostle (as St. Thomas observes there) commends the reward of the humility of Christ, through which he merited exaltation for himself as regards three things: namely as regards the glory of resurrection, as denoted by those words, for which cause God also hath exalted him: as regards the manifestation of his divinity, as the following words designate, and hath given him a name which is above all names: and as regards the reverence of the whole creation, wherewith it ought to repay him honor, as the following words signify, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, etc. — But that exaltation of name consists most especially in those various testimonies whereby his divinity and holiness were attested while he was born, baptized, transfigured, and died. The glory of the body indeed consists in the glorious dowers with which that divine body was illumined at the instant of resurrection, as well as in the very resurrection, which St. Augustine teaches him to have merited: nay rather he humbled himself, therefore God exalted him from death. Hence the same, tractate 104 on John: Humility is the merit of brightness, he says, brightness is the reward of humility: which brightness indeed Christ sought from the Father John 17 in these words: I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do: and now glorify thou me, O Father. The same truth is confirmed by the authority of the holy Fathers. There came forth first St. Chrysostom, who thus writes, homily on Philippians: We say, did not Christ perform obedience in a manner beyond measure? Therefore he snatched the supreme honor. Was he not made a servant? Wherefore he is Lord of all, both of Angels and men. There follows St. Virgil martyr, book 5 against Eutyches: Did the divine nature of Christ, he says, need to be raised up to honors and increased with prerogatives of dignity, that by the merit of humility and obedience and death it might hold the summit of lofty merits and deserve to receive power over heaven and earth, as though it had not possessed these before? Let them read the Apostle teaching concerning this very thing: He humbled himself becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, etc. In these words the blessed Martyr plainly denies that the exaltation of which the Apostle speaks belongs to the divine nature of Christ. Then he hands down that it was given to the human nature, because through humiliation, obedience, and suffering death he had deserved to receive it. Afterward too he confirms the same by other testimonies of Scripture. For he subjoins: And David writes: He shall drink of the torrent in the way, therefore shall he lift up the head. Of the torrent, that is, of the river of human death: therefore shall he lift up the head who tasted death. And he himself in the Gospel: Therefore, he says, doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life for my brethren. And a little after: Let us pursue, he says, the gifts of his beatitude acquired by the merit of his passion. The prophet Isaiah says: If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be directed in his hand, etc. Finally he concludes: Behold how great things the prophetic word describes him as about to attain on account of the merit of his passion. From which clear Scriptures of both Testaments it is made certain that Christ on account of the merit of his passion received the glory of his own body and the exaltation of his name. To these subscribes St. Cyril writing in the book On the True Faith in God, to Regina, book 3, Sent. dist. 18: On account of that death and suffering he merited the crown of highest glory. There follows St. Fulgentius, book 3 to Euthymius, in these words: The Son of God did not despise to take upon himself our flesh, that is our lowest part, because he had come to liberate the whole man: nor could he become lowest in our lowest part, through whom our innermost part merited to be exalted into that name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend, etc. With these agrees Rupert, book 2 on Habakkuk, ps. 68, when explaining those words of David: They gave me gall for my food: and of Wisdom: Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: thus, he says, filled with such great ignominy, he suffered, for glory, namely knowing that thence there would come to him that already from it he should sit at the right hand of power in the glory of God the Father: for on account of this, says the Apostle, God also hath exalted him, etc. I might add many other opinions of the holy Fathers on this matter, but lest I seem more diffuse, those suffice me quite abundantly for confuting the blasphemy of Calvin, who expounding the aforesaid words of the Apostle, For which cause he exalted him, etc., did not blush to write: Frivolous is what the sophists attempt to elicit from this place, namely that Christ first merited for himself, then for others. But he goes further: who does not see that this is suggested by Satan, that Christ suffered on the cross that he might acquire by the merit of his work what he did not possess? Who denies that these cry out by the instinct of Satan that Christ merited glory for himself before salvation for us? Such are his words.

You will say: The reward is more excellent than the merit, because God rewards above condignity: but the charity of Christ superabounded over the glorification of his body: therefore the work proceeding from that charity was worthy of greater remuneration: therefore it was not ordained to the glorification of his body as merit to reward. — The Seraphic Doctor answers, question 2, that the major is true indeed of substantial reward, wherewith God remunerates man above condignity, but not of accidental reward, or of a lesser good than the substantial; for man can merit a lesser good by a major: and therefore that major proposition is not universally true. He will answer secondly to the minor, that it can be said that the reward of the body of Christ was more excellent than the merit if the comparison be made to the state and to the work through which he merited; for the state of the body was nobler after glorification than before: also the glory of the body exceeded the labors of the body which Christ sustained.

You will say 2: The soul of Christ was endowed with beatitude on account of its union with the Word, but not on account of any merits: but his body also was united to the Word: therefore by equal reason glory and beatitude ought to have been given without any merits. — The Seraphic Doctor answers there, that there is no parity between the beatitude of the body and of the soul in Christ, because since Christ had come to make satisfaction for our offenses, it was fitting for that end that some portion of him lie subject to penalities, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice and merit glory for us; but the inner portion was more fitting for that than the higher, therefore it was fitting that the higher portion be endowed with beatitude, while the lower would merit it both for itself and for us.

You will say 3: No one can merit what is owed to him by right: but the glory of the body was owed to Christ by right, for it naturally follows from the beatitude of the soul: therefore Christ could not merit it. — The Doctor answers, n. 5, that Christ indeed did not merit simply and directly the glory of his body, but only indirectly, namely by the removal of the impediment whereby the glory of the soul was suspended and prevented from overflowing into the body. It can be said, he says, piously thinking with the Master, and piously glossing, that although he did not merit directly impassibility of either, he nevertheless merited the removal of the impediment, wherefore they were not straightway, namely the cessation of the miracle preventing the overflow of glory into the inner portion and into the body. By which words the Doctor signifies that Christ merited and obtained from God that this miracle, whereby the glory of the soul was suspended and prevented from overflowing into the body, should no longer continue.

Nor does it avail to say with Gonet, and other Recent authors, that the doctrine of Scotus in this part seems less consistent, because thence it would follow that Christ did not properly merit the glory of his body. That indeed I deny to be gathered from the doctrine of the Doctor, for the Doctor does not deny that Christ did not merit the glory of his body, but only that indirectly this glory fell under merit.

You will say finally: The sole cause of the advent of Christ into the world is the salvation of men: therefore he spent all his merit for our utility, not for his own glory. Calvin proves the antecedent from John 3, For God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son. John 17, For them I sanctify myself. Romans 8, He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.

I answer, that by all these texts of Scripture is signified that Christ intended our salvation firstly and principally; this nevertheless does not prevent that less principally and secondarily he could intend the glory of his body and the exaltation of his name, which indeed St. Cyril signified, book 3 of the Thesaurus, chapter 2, who arguing against the Arians teaching that Christ is not true God and had not before the Incarnation a name above every name, but obtained it by his merits, demonstrates that error from this, that thence it would follow that Christ was incarnate more for his own utility than for ours:

For if, he says, according as they say, the Son of God was exalted after the Incarnation and made sublime in what he previously had not, he would have been incarnate more for himself than for men, for he profited himself more according to ⟦greek: ζῶν⟧ than men: thus not more for our salvation than that he himself be exalted and attain the greatest name, would he have been made man.

Third conclusion. — CHRIST MERITED FOR US NOT ONLY FIRST AND SECOND GRACE, WHEREBY WE ARE JUSTIFIED, BUT ALSO LIBERATION FROM GUILT AND FROM PUNISHMENT, AS WELL AS THE OPENING OF THE HEAVENLY GATE AND INTRODUCTION INTO PARADISE.

This Conclusion consists chiefly of three parts, of which

The first the Apostle signifies to the Ephesians 1 when he says: Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. On which place Ambrose: Every gift of grace is in Christ, and if anyone despising Christ thinks himself blessed, he shall know that he errs. Likewise 2 Tim. 1, He called us by his holy calling, which is given to us in Christ Jesus. Likewise Philippians 1, Unto you it is given for Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him.

It is confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 5. It is declared further that the beginning of justification itself in adults is to be taken from God through Christ Jesus preventing him with his grace, that is, that of his vocation, whereby they are called without any merits of theirs existing. The same truth is gathered from John 1, Of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. In which place, as Chrysostom observes there Homily 13, and Augustine tractate 3 on John, it is denoted that all supernatural goods are in us through Christ. And indeed this is gathered from those words, grace for grace; for according to the Hebraic idiom they signify every grace, as appears from Job 2, Skin for skin — man shall give skin for his life, that is, every skin: as if it were said: from first good even to last, and from least even to greatest and most precious, man will permit himself to be despoiled that he may protect his life. Thence most excellently Bernard, sermon 13 on the Canticles: Whatever of wisdom, whatever of virtue you trust yourself to have, attribute to the virtue of God, to the wisdom of God, Christ. And earlier at the beginning of the sermon he had said: The origin of fountains and rivers is the sea; of virtues and sciences the Lord Jesus Christ. This truth will appear more evidently in the Treatise On Grace, where it will be demonstrated that all grace whatsoever is derived from Christ into men.

The second part also appears from the same Apostle there, where he says: He hath graced us in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption. As if he would say, that God through the merit of Christ not only filled us with all grace but also redeemed us from all guilt and punishment. Hence Sacred Scripture so often indicates that Christ came as redeemer and to redeem us from all iniquity. See 1 Timothy 2, Christ is said to have given himself a redemption for many.

Finally the third part also stands: for, says the Doctor, although very many Patriarchs and most holy men departed this life before the ascension of Christ, nevertheless none of them possessed eternal glory, wherewith infants recently baptized are now endowed: which is a sign that none had been possessed of heavenly glory before the ascension of Christ into heaven.

Last conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD MERITED GRACE AND GLORY ALSO FOR THE HOLY ANGELS.

It is proved first from the Apostle to the Ephesians 1, where God is said to have purposed to restore all things in Christ, both those in the heavens and those on the earth in him. Likewise from the epistle to the Colossians 1, In whom all things are asserted to be reconciled through Christ, and pacified through the blood of his Cross, whether those on earth or those in heaven. The other testimonies of the sacred Books adduced by some do not seem sufficiently clear.

The holy Fathers also support it. First of all St. Augustine, who in the book On the Harmony of the Evangelists, chapter 35, thus writes:

Wherefore since Christ himself is the wisdom of God through whom all things were created, and since no rational minds either of angels or of men become wise except by participation in that wisdom itself, to which we must adhere through the Holy Spirit through whom charity is poured forth in our hearts, which Trinity is one God: it was provided by divine Providence for mortals, whose temporal life is held bound up in things rising and falling, that the same wisdom of God itself, by the assumption of man into the unity of his person, in whom he would be born temporally, live, merit, rise again, might say, doing, suffering, and enduring, things congruous to our salvation, and would become below an example to men of returning, and to the Angels who are above an example of remaining.

— Fulgentius subscribes, book 2 To Trasamund, chapter 2.

Nothing else, he says, could keep the Angel standing from ruin but that which could repair fallen man after his fall. The same grace wrought in both: in this one that he might rise; in that one lest he should fall: in that one lest he be wounded: in this one that he might be healed: from this one it repelled infirmity: it did not suffer that one to be weakened. Of this one he is the food; of that one the medicine.

— Gregory subscribes, book 2 of the Dialogues, chapter 2.

He who without the gift of the Only-begotten could not, so he says, enable anyone to have the spirit of sanctification — not only of men but also of Angels: for it is written Psalm 18, The lands of the Lord, the heavens are established. If therefore even the Angels are believed to be in the heavens by sanctification, much more is it believed of men, who cannot merit outside that grace of sanctification.

— From the Greek Fathers one may adduce Cyril, from book 9 On Adoration, who interprets those words of 1 John, Of his fullness we all have received, concerning Christ thus:

For every creature, both visible and not subject to sight, is a partaker of Christ. Namely both Angels and Archangels, and whatever there is beyond these, or even the very Cherubim, do not stand otherwise than through Christ alone in the Holy Spirit. But of Christ himself, who is God, and of what he was made before the Incarnation, he speaks plainly.

— Similarly Hippolytus of Portus in fragment 2, which is in the Collectanea of Anastasius, where concerning the Incarnation of the Word he thus writes:

Therefore for this reason the God of all things became man, that having taken possession of passible flesh he might redeem our whole lost race: and that working wonders in flesh through his impassible divinity, he might lead us to incorrupt and blessed life, not as he seduced those orders of intelligible substances which are in heaven into gods, he would establish them firm against change by the mystery of his Incarnation: whose proper work is the recapitulation of all men.

There also supports it a reason: for the Angels were adopted to glory as strangers: but it is not fitting that anyone be adopted to the inheritance of a natural son except mediately through the natural son, who is Christ.

You will say: The Angels attained beatitude before Christ was incarnate: therefore independently of him. — I deny the consequence: for this benefit befell them because they were immune from so great a sin, whence their beatitude did not have to be deferred: thence nevertheless it is not consequent that they obtained it not in respect of the merits of Christ, since the Fathers of the Old Testament who preceded the Incarnation of Christ were endowed with very many graces and benefits solely in respect of the merits of Christ: therefore by equal reason the Angels could obtain their beatitude dependently on the merits of Christ, although they had attained it before his Incarnation.