Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum fuerit necessarium ad reparationem humani generis verbum Dei incarnari Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium ad reparationem humani generis verbum Dei incarnari. Verbo enim Dei, cum sit Deus perfectus, ut in primo habitum est, nihil virtutis per carnem assumptam accrevit. Si ergo verbum Dei incarnatum naturam reparavit, etiam absque carnis assumptione eam potuit reparare. Objection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate. For since the Word of God is perfect God, as has been said (I, Q. 4, AA. 1, 2), no power was added to Him by the assumption of flesh. Therefore, if the incarnate Word of God restored human nature, He could also have restored it without assuming flesh. Praeterea, ad reparationem humanae naturae, quae per peccatum collapsa erat, nihil aliud requiri videbatur quam quod homo satisfaceret pro peccato. Non enim Deus ab homine requirere plus debet quam possit, et, cum pronior sit ad miserendum quam ad puniendum, sicut homini imputat actum peccati, ita etiam videtur quod ei imputet ad deletionem peccati actum contrarium. Non ergo fuit necessarium ad reparationem humanae naturae verbum Dei incarnari. Obj. 2: Further, for the restoration of human nature, which had fallen through sin, nothing more is required than that man should satisfy for sin. Now man can satisfy, as it would seem, for sin; for God cannot require from man more than man can do, and since He is more inclined to be merciful than to punish, as He lays the act of sin to man’s charge, so He ought to credit him with the contrary act. Therefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature that the Word of God should become incarnate. Praeterea, ad salutem hominis praecipue pertinet ut Deum revereatur, unde dicitur Malach. I, si ego dominus, ubi timor meus? Si pater, ubi honor meus? Sed ex hoc ipso homines Deum magis reverentur quod eum considerant super omnia elevatum, et ab hominum sensibus remotum, unde in Psalmo dicitur, excelsus super omnes gentes dominus, et super caelos gloria eius; et postea subditur, quis sicut dominus Deus noster? Quod ad reverentiam pertinet. Ergo videtur non convenire humanae saluti quod Deus nobis similis fieret per carnis assumptionem. Obj. 3: Further, to revere God pertains especially to man’s salvation; hence it is written (Mal 1:6): If, then, I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? But men revere God the more by considering Him as elevated above all, and far beyond man’s senses, hence (Ps 112:4) it is written: The Lord is high above all nations, and His glory above the heavens; and farther on: Who is as the Lord our God? which pertains to reverence. Therefore it would seem unfitting to man’s salvation that God should be made like unto us by assuming flesh. Sed contra, illud per quod humanum genus liberatur a perditione, est necessarium ad humanam salutem. Sed mysterium divinae incarnationis est huiusmodi, secundum illud Ioan. III, sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Ergo necesse fuit ad humanam salutem Deum incarnari. On the contrary, What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Therefore it was necessary for man’s salvation that God should become incarnate. Respondeo dicendum quod ad finem aliquem dicitur aliquid esse necessarium dupliciter, uno modo, sine quo aliquid esse non potest, sicut cibus est necessarius ad conservationem humanae vitae; alio modo, per quod melius et convenientius pervenitur ad finem, sicut equus necessarius est ad iter. Primo modo Deum incarnari non fuit necessarium ad reparationem humanae naturae, Deus enim per suam omnipotentem virtutem poterat humanam naturam multis aliis modis reparare. Secundo autem modo necessarium fuit Deum incarnari ad humanae naturae reparationem. Unde dicit Augustinus, XIII de Trin., ostendamus non alium modum possibilem Deo defuisse, cuius potestati omnia aequaliter subiacent, sed sanandae miseriae nostrae convenientiorem alium modum non fuisse. I answer that, A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Second, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery. Et hoc quidem considerari potest quantum ad promotionem hominis in bono. Primo quidem, quantum ad fidem, quae magis certificatur ex hoc quod ipsi Deo loquenti credit. Unde Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, ut homo fidentius ambularet ad veritatem, ipsa veritas, Dei filius, homine assumpto, constituit atque fundavit fidem. Secundo, quantum ad spem, quae per hoc maxime erigitur. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., nihil tam necessarium fuit ad erigendam spem nostram quam ut demonstraretur nobis quantum diligeret nos Deus. Quid vero huius rei isto indicio manifestius, quam ut Dei filius naturae nostrae dignatus est inire consortium? Tertio, quantum ad caritatem, quae maxime per hoc excitatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de catechizandis rudibus, quae maior causa est adventus domini, nisi ut ostenderet Deus dilectionem suam in nobis? Et postea subdit, si amare pigebat, saltem reamare non pigeat. Quarto, quantum ad rectam operationem, in qua nobis exemplum se praebuit. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone de nativitate domini, homo sequendus non erat, qui videri poterat, Deus sequendus erat, qui videri non poterat. Ut ergo exhiberetur homini et qui ab homine videretur, et quem homo sequeretur, Deus factus est homo. Quinto, quantum ad plenam participationem divinitatis, quae vere est hominis beatitudo, et finis humanae vitae. Et hoc collatum est nobis per Christi humanitatem, dicit enim Augustinus, in quodam sermone de Nativ. domini, factus est Deus homo, ut homo fieret Deus. Now this may be viewed with respect to our furtherance in good. First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith. Second, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature? Third, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): What greater cause is there of the Lord’s coming than to show God’s love for us? And he afterwards adds: If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return. Fourth, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): Man who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man. Fifth, with regard to the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): God was made man, that man might be made God. Similiter etiam hoc utile fuit ad remotionem mali. Primo enim per hoc homo instruitur ne sibi Diabolum praeferat, et eum veneretur, qui est auctor peccati. Unde dicit Augustinus, XIII de Trin., quando sic Deo coniungi potuit humana natura ut fieret una persona, superbi illi maligni spiritus non ideo se audeant homini praeponere quia non habent carnem. Secundo, quia per hoc instruimur quanta sit dignitas humanae naturae, ne eam inquinemus peccando. Unde dicit Augustinus, in libro de vera religione, demonstravit nobis Deus quam excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura, in hoc quod hominibus in vero homine apparuit. Et Leo Papa dicit, in sermone de nativitate, agnosce, o Christiane, dignitatem tuam, et divinae consors factus naturae, noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conversatione redire. Tertio quia, ad praesumptionem hominis tollendam, gratia Dei, nullis meritis praecedentibus, in homine Christo nobis commendatur, ut dicitur XIII de Trinitate. Quarto, quia superbia hominis, quae maximum impedimentum est ne inhaereatur Deo per tantam Dei humilitatem redargui potest atque sanari, ut Augustinus dicit ibidem. Quinto, ad liberandum hominem a servitute. Quod quidem, ut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., fieri debuit sic ut Diabolus iustitia hominis Iesu Christi superaretur, quod factum est Christo satisfaciente pro nobis. Homo autem purus satisfacere non poterat pro toto humano genere; Deus autem satisfacere non debebat; unde oportebat Deum et hominem esse Iesum Christum. Unde et Leo Papa dicit, in sermone de Nativ., suscipitur a virtute infirmitas, a maiestate humilitas, ut, quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem Dei et hominum mediator et mori ex uno, et resurgere posset ex altero. Nisi enim esset verus Deus, non afferret remedium, nisi esset homo verus, non praeberet exemplum. So also was this useful for our withdrawal from evil. First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies. Second, because we are thereby taught how great is man’s dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man. And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness. Third, because, in order to do away with man’s presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went before, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourth, because man’s pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great, as Augustine says in the same place. Fifth, in order to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ, and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other—for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example. Sunt autem et aliae plurimae utilitates quae consecutae sunt, supra comprehensionem sensus humani. And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man’s apprehension. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit secundum primum modum necessarii, sine quo ad finem perveniri non potest. Reply Obj. 1: This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity, without which we cannot attain to the end. Ad secundum dicendum quod aliqua satisfactio potest dici sufficiens dupliciter. Uno modo, perfecte, quia est condigna per quandam adaequationem ad recompensationem commissae culpae. Et sic hominis puri satisfactio sufficiens esse non potuit, quia tota natura humana erat per peccatum corrupta; nec bonum alicuius personae, vel etiam plurium, poterat per aequiparantiam totius naturae detrimentum recompensare. Tum etiam quia peccatum contra Deum commissum quandam infinitatem habet ex infinitate divinae maiestatis, tanto enim offensa est gravior, quanto maior est ille in quem delinquitur. Unde oportuit, ad condignam satisfactionem, ut actio satisfacientis haberet efficaciam infinitam, ut puta Dei et hominis existens. Alio modo potest dici satisfactio sufficiens imperfecte, scilicet secundum acceptationem eius qui est ea contentus, quamvis non sit condigna. Et hoc modo satisfactio puri hominis est sufficiens. Et quia omne imperfectum praesupponit aliquid perfectum, a quo sustentetur, inde est quod omnis puri hominis satisfactio efficaciam habet a satisfactione Christi. Reply Obj. 2: Satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways—first, perfectly, inasmuch as it is condign, being adequate to make good the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man cannot be sufficient for sin, both because the whole of human nature has been corrupted by sin, whereas the goodness of any person or persons could not make up adequately for the harm done to the whole of the nature; and also because a sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man. Second, man’s satisfaction may be termed sufficient, imperfectly—i.e., in the acceptation of him who is content with it, even though it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man is sufficient. And forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes some perfect thing, by which it is sustained, hence it is that satisfaction of every mere man has its efficiency from the satisfaction of Christ. Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus, assumendo carnem, suam maiestatem non minuit, et per consequens non minuitur ratio reverentiae ad ipsum. Quae augetur per augmentum cognitionis ipsius. Ex hoc autem quod nobis appropinquare voluit per carnis assumptionem, magis nos ad se cognoscendum attraxit. Reply Obj. 3: By taking flesh, God did not lessen His majesty; and in consequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing Him, which is increased by the increase of knowledge of Him. But, on the contrary, inasmuch as He wished to draw nigh to us by taking flesh, He greatly drew us to know Him. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum si homo peccasset, nihilominus Deus incarnatus fuisset Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod, si homo non peccasset, nihilominus Deus incarnatus fuisset. Manente enim causa, manet effectus. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., alia multa sunt cogitanda in Christi incarnatione praeter absolutionem a peccato, de quibus dictum est. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset. Objection 1: It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): Many other things are to be considered in the Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin; and these were discussed above (A. 2). Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. Praeterea, ad omnipotentiam divinae virtutis pertinet ut opera sua perficiat, et se manifestet per aliquem infinitum effectum. Sed nulla pura creatura potest dici infinitus effectus, cum sit finita per suam essentiam. In solo autem opere incarnationis videtur praecipue manifestari infinitus effectus divinae potentiae, per hoc quod in infinitum distantia coniunguntur, inquantum factum est quod homo esset Deus. In quo etiam opere maxime videtur perfici universum, per hoc quod ultima creatura, scilicet homo, primo principio coniungitur, scilicet Deo. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset. Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the omnipotence of the Divine power to perfect His works, and to manifest Himself by some infinite effect. But no mere creature can be called an infinite effect, since it is finite of its very essence. Now, seemingly, in the work of the Incarnation alone is an infinite effect of the Divine power manifested in a special manner by which power things infinitely distant are united, inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is God. And in this work especially the universe would seem to be perfected, inasmuch as the last creature—viz. man—is united to the first principle—viz. God. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. Praeterea, humana natura per peccatum non est facta capacior gratiae. Sed post peccatum capax est gratiae unionis, quae est maxima gratia. Ergo, si homo non peccasset, humana natura huius gratiae capax fuisset. Nec Deus subtraxisset naturae humanae bonum cuius capax erat. Ergo, si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset. Obj. 3: Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. Praeterea, praedestinatio Dei est aeterna. Sed dicitur, Rom. I, de Christo, quod praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute. Ergo etiam ante peccatum necessarium erat filium Dei incarnari, ad hoc quod Dei praedestinatio impleretur. Obj. 4: Further, God’s predestination is eternal. But it is said of Christ (Rom 1:4): Who was predestined the Son of God in power. Therefore, even before sin, it was necessary that the Son of God should become incarnate, in order to fulfill God’s predestination. Praeterea, incarnationis mysterium est primo homini revelatum, ut patet per hoc quod dixit, hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, etc., quod apostolus dicit esse magnum sacramentum in Christo et Ecclesia, ut patet Ephes. V. Sed homo non potuit esse praescius sui casus, eadem ratione qua nec Angelus, ut Augustinus probat, super Gen. ad Litt. Ergo, etiam si homo non peccasset, Deus incarnatus fuisset. Obj. 5: Further, the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to the first man, as is plain from Gen. 2:23. This now is bone of my bones, etc. which the Apostle says is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and in the Church, as is plain from Eph. 5:32. But man could not be fore-conscious of his fall, for the same reason that the angels could not, as Augustine proves (Gen ad lit. xi, 18). Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis Dom., exponens illud quod habetur Luc. XIX, venit filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat, si homo non peccasset, filius hominis non venisset. Et I ad Tim. I, super illud verbum, Christus venit in hunc mundum ut peccatores salvos faceret, dicit Glossa, nulla causa veniendi fuit Christo domino, nisi peccatores salvos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vulnera, et nulla medicinae est causa. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost; Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come. And on 1 Tim. 1:15, Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, a gloss says, There was no cause of Christ’s coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine. Respondeo dicendum quod aliqui circa hoc diversimode opinantur. Quidam enim dicunt quod, etiam si homo non peccasset, Dei filius fuisset incarnatus. Alii vero contrarium asserunt. Quorum assertioni magis assentiendum videtur. I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion. Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt, supra omne debitum creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde, cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in remedium peccati, ita quod, peccato non existente, incarnatio non fuisset. Quamvis potentia Dei ad hoc non limitetur, potuisset enim, etiam peccato non existente, Deus incarnari. For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, the Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes aliae causae quae sunt assignatae, pertinent ad remedium peccati. Si enim homo non peccasset, perfusus fuisset lumine divinae sapientiae, et iustitiae rectitudine perfectus a Deo, ad omnia necessaria cognoscenda. Sed quia homo, deserto Deo, ad corporalia collapsus erat, conveniens fuit ut Deus, carne assumpta, etiam per corporalia ei salutis remedium exhiberet. Unde dicit Augustinus, super illud Ioan. I cap., verbum caro factum est, caro te obcaecaverat, caro te sanat, quoniam sic venit Christus ut de carne vitia carnis exstingueret. Reply Obj. 1: All the other causes which are assigned in the preceding article have to do with a remedy for sin. For if man had not sinned, he would have been endowed with the light of Divine wisdom, and would have been perfected by God with the righteousness of justice in order to know and carry out everything needful. But because man, on deserting God, had stooped to corporeal things, it was necessary that God should take flesh, and by corporeal things should afford him the remedy of salvation. Hence, on John 1:14, And the Word was made flesh, St. Augustine says (Tract. ii): Flesh had blinded thee, flesh heals thee; for Christ came and overthrew the vices of the flesh. Ad secundum dicendum quod in ipso modo productionis rerum ex nihilo divina virtus infinita ostenditur. Ad perfectionem etiam universi sufficit quod naturali modo creatura ordinetur sic in Deum sicut in finem. Hoc autem excedit limites perfectionis naturae, ut creatura uniatur Deo in persona. Reply Obj. 2: The infinity of Divine power is shown in the mode of production of things from nothing. Again, it suffices for the perfection of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural manner to God as to an end. But that a creature should be united to God in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature. Ad tertium dicendum quod duplex capacitas attendi potest in humana natura. Una quidem secundum ordinem potentiae naturalis. Quae a Deo semper impletur, qui dat unicuique rei secundum suam capacitatem naturalem. Alia vero secundum ordinem divinae potentiae, cui omnis creatura obedit ad nutum. Et ad hoc pertinet ista capacitas. Non autem Deus omnem talem capacitatem naturae replet, alioquin, Deus non posset facere in creatura nisi quod facit; quod falsum est, ut in primo habitum est. Nihil autem prohibet ad aliquid maius humanam naturam productam esse post peccatum, Deus enim permittit mala fieri ut inde aliquid melius eliciat. Unde dicitur Rom. V, ubi abundavit iniquitas, superabundavit et gratia. Unde et in benedictione cerei paschalis dicitur, o felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem. Reply Obj. 3: A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfill all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, Q. 105, A. 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Rom 5:20): Where sin abounded, grace did more abound. Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer! Ad quartum dicendum quod praedestinatio praesupponit praescientiam futurorum. Et ideo, sicut Deus praedestinat salutem alicuius hominis per orationem aliorum implendam, ita etiam praedestinavit opus incarnationis in remedium humani peccati. Reply Obj. 4: Predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future things; and hence, as God predestines the salvation of anyone to be brought about by the prayers of others, so also He predestined the work of the Incarnation to be the remedy of human sin. Ad quintum dicendum quod nihil prohibet alicui revelari effectus cui non revelatur causa. Potuit ergo primo homini revelari incarnationis mysterium sine hoc quod esset praescius sui casus, non enim quicumque cognoscit effectum, cognoscit et causam. Reply Obj. 5: Nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one to whom the cause is not revealed. Hence, the mystery of the Incarnation could be revealed to the first man without his being fore-conscious of his fall. For not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum Deus principalius incarnatus fuerit in remedium actualium peccatorum quam in remedium originalis peccati Whether God became incarnate in order to take away actual sin, rather than to take away original sin? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus principalius incarnatus fuerit in remedium actualium peccatorum quam in remedium originalis peccati. Quanto enim peccatum est gravius, tanto magis humanae saluti adversatur, propter quam Deus est incarnatus. Sed peccatum actuale est gravius quam originale peccatum, minima enim poena debetur originali peccato, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Iulianum. Ergo principalius incarnatio Christi ordinatur ad deletionem actualium peccatorum. Objection 1: It would seem that God became incarnate as a remedy for actual sins rather than for original sin. For the more grievous the sin, the more it runs counter to man’s salvation, for which God became incarnate. But actual sin is more grievous than original sin; for the lightest punishment is due to original sin, as Augustine says (Contra Julian. v, 11). Therefore the Incarnation of Christ is chiefly directed to taking away actual sins. Praeterea, peccato originali non debetur poena sensus, sed solum poena damni, ut in secundo habitum est. Sed Christus venit pro satisfactione peccatorum poenam sensus pati in cruce, non autem poenam damni, quia nullum defectum habuit divinae visionis aut fruitionis. Ergo principalius venit ad deletionem peccati actualis quam originalis. Obj. 2: Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin, but merely pain of loss, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 87, A. 5). But Christ came to suffer the pain of sense on the Cross in satisfaction for sins—and not the pain of loss, for He had no defect of either the beatific vision or fruition. Therefore He came in order to take away actual sin rather than original sin. Praeterea, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, in II de compunctione cordis, hic est affectus servi fidelis, ut beneficia domini sui quae communiter omnibus data sunt, quasi sibi soli praestita reputet, quasi enim de se solo loquens Paulus ita scribit, ad Galat. II, dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me. Sed propria peccata nostra sunt actualia, originale enim est commune peccatum. Ergo hunc affectum debemus habere, ut aestimemus eum principaliter propter actualia peccata venisse. Obj. 3: Further, as Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 3): This must be the mind of the faithful servant, to account the benefits of his Lord, which have been bestowed on all alike, as though they were bestowed on himself alone. For as if speaking of himself alone, Paul writes to the Galatians 2:20: ‘Christ . . . loved me and delivered Himself for me.’ But our individual sins are actual sins; for original sin is the common sin. Therefore we ought to have this conviction, so as to believe that He has come chiefly for actual sins. Sed contra est quod Ioan. I dicitur, ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. On the contrary, It is written (John 1:29): Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins of the world. Respondeo dicendum quod certum est Christum venisse in hunc mundum non solum ad delendum illud peccatum quod traductum est originaliter in posteros, sed etiam ad deletionem omnium peccatorum quae postmodum superaddita sunt, non quod omnia deleantur (quod est propter defectum hominum, qui Christo non inhaerent, secundum illud Ioan. III, venit lux in mundum, et dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem), sed quia ipse exhibuit quod sufficiens fuit ad omnem deletionem. Unde dicitur Rom. V, non sicut delictum, sic et donum, nam iudicium ex uno in condemnationem, gratia autem ex multis delictis in iustificationem. I answer that, It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it; not that all are taken away (and this is from men’s fault, inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ, according to John 3:19: The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light), but because He offered what was sufficient for blotting out all sins. Hence it is written (Rom 5:15–16): But not as the offense, so also the gift . . . For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation, but grace is of many offenses unto justification. Tanto autem principalius ad alicuius peccati deletionem Christus venit, quanto illud peccatum maius est. Dicitur autem maius aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, intensive, sicut est maior albedo quae est intensior. Et per hunc modum maius est peccatum actuale quam originale, quia plus habet de ratione voluntarii, ut in secundo dictum est. Alio modo dicitur aliquid maius extensive, sicut dicitur maior albedo quae est in maiori superficie. Et hoc modo peccatum originale, per quod totum genus humanum inficitur, est maius quolibet peccato actuali, quod est proprium singularis personae. Et quantum ad hoc, Christus principalius venit ad tollendum originale peccatum, inquantum bonum gentis divinius est quam bonum unius, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Moreover, the more grievous the sin, the more particularly did Christ come to blot it out. But greater is said in two ways: in one way intensively, as a more intense whiteness is said to be greater, and in this way actual sin is greater than original sin; for it has more of the nature of voluntary, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1). In another way a thing is said to be greater extensively, as whiteness on a greater surface is said to be greater; and in this way original sin, whereby the whole human race is infected, is greater than any actual sin, which is proper to one person. And in this respect Christ came principally to take away original sin, inasmuch as the good of the race is a more Divine thing than the good of an individual, as is said Ethic. i, 2.