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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de intensiva magnitudine peccati. Reply Obj. 1: This reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin. Ad secundum dicendum quod peccato originali in futura retributione non debetur poena sensus, poenalitates tamen quas sensibiliter in hac vita patimur, sicut famem, sitim, mortem et alia huiusmodi, ex peccato originali procedunt. Et ideo Christus, ut plene pro peccato originali satisfaceret, voluit sensibilem dolorem pati, ut mortem et alia huiusmodi in seipso consummaret. Reply Obj. 2: In the future award the pain of sense will not be meted out to original sin. Yet the penalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, and the like, which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for original sin, wished to suffer sensible pain, that He might consume death and the like in Himself. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus ibidem inducit, verba illa dicebat apostolus, non quasi diminuere volens amplissima et per orbem terrarum diffusa Christi munera, sed ut pro omnibus se solum indicaret obnoxium. Quid enim interest si et aliis praestitit, cum quae tibi sunt praestita ita integra sunt et ita perfecta quasi nulli alii ex his aliquid fuerit praestitum? Ex hoc ergo quod aliquis debet sibi reputare beneficia Christi praestita esse, non debet existimare quod non sint praestita aliis. Et ideo non excluditur quin principalius venerit abolere peccatum totius naturae quam peccatum unius personae. Sed illud peccatum commune ita perfecte curatum est in unoquoque ac si in eo solo esset curatum. Et praeterea, propter unionem caritatis, totum quod omnibus est impensum, unusquisque debet sibi adscribere. Reply Obj. 3: Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 6): The Apostle used these words, not as if wishing to diminish Christ’s gifts, ample as they are, and spreading throughout the whole world, but that he might account himself alone the occasion of them. For what does it matter that they are given to others, if what are given to you are as complete and perfect as if none of them were given to another than yourself? And hence, although a man ought to account Christ’s gifts as given to himself, yet he ought not to consider them not to be given to others. And thus we do not exclude that He came to wipe away the sin of the whole nature rather than the sin of one person. But the sin of the nature is as perfectly healed in each one as if it were healed in him alone. Hence, on account of the union of charity, what is vouchsafed to all ought to be accounted his own by each one. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum conveniens fuisset Deum incarnari a principio humani generis Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod conveniens fuisset Deum incarnari a principio humani generis. Incarnationis enim opus ex immensitate divinae caritatis processit, secundum illud Ephes. II, Deus, qui dives est in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem suam qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos in Christo. Sed caritas non tardat subvenire amico necessitatem patienti, secundum illud Prov. III, ne dicas amico tuo, vade et revertere, cras dabo tibi; cum statim possis dare. Ergo Deus incarnationis opus differre non debuit, sed statim a principio per suam incarnationem humano generi subvenire. Objection 1: It would seem that it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race. For the work of the Incarnation sprang from the immensity of Divine charity, according to Eph. 2:4, 5: But God (Who is rich in mercy), for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us . . . even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ. But charity does not tarry in bringing assistance to a friend who is suffering need, according to Prov. 3:28: Say not to thy friend: Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give to thee, when thou canst give at present. Therefore God ought not to have put off the work of the Incarnation, but ought thereby to have brought relief to the human race from the beginning. Praeterea, I Tim. I dicitur, Christus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere. Sed plures salvati fuissent si a principio humani generis Deus incarnatus fuisset, plurimi enim, ignorantes Deum, in suo peccato perierunt in diversis saeculis. Ergo convenientius fuisset quod a principio humani generis Deus incarnatus fuisset. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim 1:15): Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners. But more would have been saved had God become incarnate at the beginning of the human race; for in the various centuries very many, through not knowing God, perished in their sin. Therefore it was fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race. Praeterea, opus gratiae non est minus ordinatum quam opus naturae. Sed natura initium sumit a perfectis, ut dicit Boetius, in libro de consolatione. Ergo opus gratiae debuit a principio esse perfectum. Sed in opere incarnationis consideratur perfectio gratiae, secundum illud, verbum caro factum est, et postea subditur, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Ergo Christus a principio humani generis debuit incarnari. Obj. 3: Further, the work of grace is not less orderly than the work of nature. But nature takes its rise with the more perfect, as Boethius says (De Consol. iii). Therefore the work of Christ ought to have been perfect from the beginning. But in the work of the Incarnation we see the perfection of grace, according to John 1:14: The Word was made flesh; and afterwards it is added: Full of grace and truth. Therefore Christ ought to have become incarnate at the beginning of the human race. Sed contra est quod dicitur Galat. IV, at ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, ubi dicit Glossa quod plenitudo temporis est quod praefinitum fuit a Deo patre quando mitteret filium suum. Sed Deus sua sapientia omnia definivit. Ergo convenientissimo tempore Deus est incarnatus. Et sic non fuit conveniens quod a principio humani generis Deus incarnaretur. On the contrary, It is written (Gal 4:4): But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law: upon which a gloss says that the fullness of the time is when it was decreed by God the Father to send His Son. But God decreed everything by His wisdom. Therefore God became incarnate at the most fitting time; and it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum opus incarnationis principaliter ordinetur ad reparationem naturae humanae per peccati abolitionem manifestum est quod non fuit conveniens a principio humani generis, ante peccatum, Deum incarnatum fuisse, non enim datur medicina nisi iam infirmis. Unde ipse dominus dicit, Matth. IX, non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus, non enim veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores. I answer that, Since the work of the Incarnation is principally ordained to the restoration of the human race by blotting out sin, it is manifest that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate at the beginning of the human race before sin. For medicine is given only to the sick. Hence our Lord Himself says (Matt 9:12, 13): They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill . . . For I am not come to call the just, but sinners. Sed non etiam statim post peccatum conveniens fuit Deum incarnari. Primo quidem, propter conditionem humani peccati, quod ex superbia provenerat, unde eo modo erat homo liberandus ut, humiliatus, recognosceret se liberatore indigere. Unde super illud Galat. III, ordinata per Angelos in manu mediatoris, dicit Glossa, magno consilio factum est ut, post hominis casum, non illico Dei filius mitteretur. Reliquit enim Deus prius hominem in libertate arbitrii, in lege naturali, ut sic vires naturae suae cognosceret. Ubi cum deficeret, legem accepit. Qua data, invaluit morbus, non legis, sed naturae vitio, ut ita, cognita sua infirmitate, clamaret ad medicum, et gratiae quaereret auxilium. Nor was it fitting that God should become incarnate immediately after sin. First, on account of the manner of man’s sin, which had come of pride; hence man was to be liberated in such a manner that he might be humbled, and see how he stood in need of a deliverer. Hence on the words in Gal. 3:19, Being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, a gloss says: With great wisdom was it so ordered that the Son of Man should not be sent immediately after man’s fall. For first of all God left man under the natural law, with the freedom of his will, in order that he might know his natural strength; and when he failed in it, he received the law; whereupon, by the fault, not of the law, but of his nature, the disease gained strength; so that having recognized his infirmity he might cry out for a physician, and beseech the aid of grace. Secundo, propter ordinem promotionis in bonum, secundum quem ab imperfecto ad perfectum proceditur. Unde apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XV, non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale, deinde quod spirituale. Primus homo de terra, terrenus, secundus homo de caelo, caelestis. Second, on account of the order of furtherance in good, whereby we proceed from imperfection to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor 15:46, 47): Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual . . . The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly. Tertio, propter dignitatem ipsius verbi incarnati. Quia super illud Galat. IV, ubi venit plenitudo temporis, dicit Glossa, quanto maior iudex veniebat, tanto praeconum series longior praecedere debebat. Third, on account of the dignity of the incarnate Word, for on the words (Gal 4:4), But when the fullness of the time was come, a gloss says: The greater the judge who was coming, the more numerous was the band of heralds who ought to have preceded him. Quarto, ne fervor fidei temporis prolixitate tepesceret. Quia circa finem mundi refrigescet caritas multorum, et Luc. XVIII dicitur, cum filius hominis veniet, putasne inveniet fidem super terram? Fourth, lest the fervor of faith should cool by the length of time, for the charity of many will grow cold at the end of the world. Hence (Luke 18:8) it is written: But yet the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find think you, faith on earth? Ad primum ergo dicendum quod caritas non differt amico subvenire, salva tamen negotiorum opportunitate et personarum conditione. Si enim medicus statim a principio aegritudinis medicinam daret infirmo, minus proficeret, vel magis laederet quam iuvaret. Et ideo etiam dominus non statim incarnationis remedium humano generi exhibuit, ne illud contemneret ex superbia, si prius suam infirmitatem non cognosceret. Reply Obj. 1: Charity does not put off bringing assistance to a friend: always bearing in mind the circumstances as well as the state of the persons. For if the physician were to give the medicine at the very outset of the ailment, it would do less good, and would hurt rather than benefit. And hence the Lord did not bestow upon the human race the remedy of the Incarnation in the beginning, lest they should despise it through pride, if they did not already recognize their disease. Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ad hoc respondet, in libro de sex quaestionibus Paganorum, dicens, qu. II, quod tunc voluit Christus hominibus apparere, et apud eos praedicari suam doctrinam, quando et ubi sciebat esse qui in eum fuerant credituri. His enim temporibus, et his in locis, tales homines in eius praedicatione futuros esse sciebat quales, non quidem omnes, sed tamen multi in eius corporali praesentia fuerunt, qui nec in eum, suscitatis mortuis, credere voluerunt. Sed hanc responsionem reprobans idem Augustinus dicit, in libro de perseverantia, nunquid possumus dicere Tyrios aut Sidonios, talibus apud se virtutibus factis, credere noluisse, aut credituros non fuisse si fierent, cum ipse dominus eis attestetur quod acturi essent magnae humilitatis poenitentiam, si in eis facta essent divinarum illa signa virtutum? Proinde, ut ipse solvens subdit, sicut apostolus ait, non est volentis neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei, qui his quos praevidit, si apud eos facta essent, suis miraculis credituros, quibus voluit subvenit, aliis autem non subvenit, de quibus in sua praedestinatione, occulte quidem sed iuste, aliud iudicavit. Ita misericordiam eius in his qui liberantur, et veritatem in his qui puniuntur sine dubitatione credamus. Reply Obj. 2: Augustine replies to this (De Sex Quest. Pagan., Ep. cii), saying (Q. 2) that Christ wished to appear to man and to have His doctrine preached to them when and where He knew those were who would believe in Him. But in such times and places as His Gospel was not preached He foresaw that not all, indeed, but many would so bear themselves towards His preaching as not to believe in His corporeal presence, even were He to raise the dead. But the same Augustine, taking exception to this reply in his book (De Perseverantia ix), says: How can we say the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would not believe when such great wonders were wrought in their midst, or would not have believed had they been wrought, when God Himself bears witness that they would have done penance with great humility if these signs of Divine power had been wrought in their midst? And he adds in answer (De Perseverantia xi): Hence, as the Apostle says (Rom 9:16), ‘it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy’; Who (succors whom He will of) those who, as He foresaw, would believe in His miracles if wrought amongst them, (while others) He succors not, having judged them in His predestination secretly yet justly. Therefore let us unshrinkingly believe His mercy to be with those who are set free, and His truth with those who are condemned. Ad tertium dicendum quod perfectum est prius imperfecto, in diversis quidem, tempore et natura, oportet enim quod perfectum sit quod alia ad perfectionem adducit, sed in uno et eodem imperfectum est prius tempore, etsi sit posterius natura. Sic ergo imperfectionem naturae humanae duratione praecedit aeterna Dei perfectio, sed sequitur ipsam consummata perfectio in unione ad Deum. Reply Obj. 3: Perfection is prior to imperfection, both in time and nature, in things that are different (for what brings others to perfection must itself be perfect); but in one and the same, imperfection is prior in time though posterior in nature. And thus the eternal perfection of God precedes in duration the imperfection of human nature; but the latter’s ultimate perfection in union with God follows. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum incarnationis opus differri debuerit usque in finem mundi Whether the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod incarnationis opus differri debuerit usque in finem mundi. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, senectus mea in misericordia uberi, idest, in novissimo, ut Glossa dicit. Sed tempus incarnationis est maxime tempus misericordiae, secundum illud Psalmi, quoniam venit tempus miserendi eius. Ergo incarnatio debuit differri usque in finem mundi. Objection 1: It would seem that the work of the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. For it is written (Ps 91:11): My old age in plentiful mercy—i.e., in the last days, as a gloss says. But the time of the Incarnation is especially the time of mercy, according to Ps. 101:14: For it is time to have mercy on it. Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. Praeterea, sicut dictum est, perfectum, in eodem, tempore est posterius imperfecto. Ergo id quod est maxime perfectum, debet esse ultimo in tempore. Sed summa perfectio humanae naturae est in unione ad verbum, quia in Christo complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis inhabitare, ut apostolus dicit, Coloss. I. Ergo incarnatio debuit differri usque in finem mundi. Obj. 2: Further, as has been said (A. 5, ad 3), in the same subject, perfection is subsequent in time to imperfection. Therefore, what is most perfect ought to be the very last in time. But the highest perfection of human nature is in the union with the Word, because in Christ it hath pleased the Father that all the fullness of the Godhead should dwell, as the Apostle says (Col 1:19, and 2:9). Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. Praeterea, non est conveniens fieri per duo quod per unum fieri potest. Sed unus Christi adventus sufficere poterat ad salutem humanae naturae, qui erit in fine mundi. Ergo non oportuit quod antea veniret per incarnationem. Et ita incarnatio differri debuit usque in finem mundi. Obj. 3: Further, what can be done by one ought not to be done by two. But the one coming of Christ at the end of the world was sufficient for the salvation of human nature. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to come beforehand in His Incarnation; and hence the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. Sed contra est quod dicitur Habacuc III, in medio annorum notum facies. Non ergo debuit incarnationis mysterium, per quod mundo innotuit, usque in finem mundi differri. On the contrary, It is written (Hab. 3:2): In the midst of the years Thou shalt make it known. Therefore the mystery of the Incarnation which was made known to the world ought not to have been put off till the end of the world. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut non fuit conveniens Deum incarnari a principio mundi, ita non fuit conveniens quod incarnatio differretur usque in finem mundi. Quod quidem apparet, primo, ex unione divinae et humanae naturae. Sicut enim dictum est, perfectum uno modo tempore praecedit imperfectum, in eo enim quod de imperfecto fit perfectum, imperfectum tempore praecedit perfectum; in eo vero quod est perfectionis causa efficiens, perfectum tempore praecedit imperfectum. In opere autem incarnationis utrumque concurrit. Quia natura humana in ipsa incarnatione est perducta ad summam perfectionem, et ideo non decuit quod a principio humani generis incarnatio facta fuisset. Sed ipsum verbum incarnatum est perfectionis humanae causa efficiens, secundum illud Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, et ideo non debuit incarnationis opus usque in finem mundi differri. Sed perfectio gloriae, ad quam perducenda est ultimo natura humana per verbum incarnatum, erit in fine mundi. I answer that, As it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the world, so also it was not fitting that the Incarnation should be put off till the end of the world. And this is shown first from the union of the Divine and human nature. For, as it has been said (A. 5, ad 3), perfection precedes imperfection in time in one way, and contrariwise in another way imperfection precedes perfection. For in that which is made perfect from being imperfect, imperfection precedes perfection in time, whereas in that which is the efficient cause of perfection, perfection precedes imperfection in time. Now in the work of the Incarnation both concur; for by the Incarnation human nature is raised to its highest perfection; and in this way it was not becoming that the Incarnation should take place at the beginning of the human race. And the Word incarnate is the efficient cause of the perfection of human nature, according to John 1:16: Of His fullness we have all received; and hence the work of the Incarnation ought not to have been put off till the end of the world. But the perfection of glory to which human nature is to be finally raised by the Word Incarnate will be at the end of the world. Secundo, ex effectu humanae salutis. Ut enim dicitur in libro de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Test., in potestate dantis est quando vel quantum velit misereri. Venit ergo quando et subveniri debere scivit, et gratum futurum beneficium. Cum enim languore quodam humani generis obsolescere coepisset cognitio Dei inter homines et mores immutarentur, eligere dignatus est Abraham, in quo forma esset renovatae notitiae Dei et morum. Et cum adhuc reverentia segnior esset, postea per Moysen legem litteris dedit. Et quia eam gentes spreverunt non se subiicientes ei, neque hi qui acceperunt servaverunt, motus misericordia dominus misit filium suum, qui, data omnibus remissione peccatorum, Deo patri illos iustificatos offerret. Si autem hoc remedium differretur usque in finem mundi, totaliter Dei notitia et reverentia et morum honestas abolita fuisset in terris. Second, from the effect of man’s salvation; for, as is said Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 83, it is in the power of the Giver to have pity when, or as much as, He wills. Hence He came when He knew it was fitting to succor, and when His boons would be welcome. For when by the feebleness of the human race men’s knowledge of God began to grow dim and their morals lax, He was pleased to choose Abraham as a standard of the restored knowledge of God and of holy living; and later on when reverence grew weaker, He gave the law to Moses in writing; and because the gentiles despised it and would not take it upon themselves, and they who received it would not keep it, being touched with pity, God sent His Son, to grant to all remission of their sin and to offer them, justified, to God the Father. But if this remedy had been put off till the end of the world, all knowledge and reverence of God and all uprightness of morals would have been swept away from the earth.