Part I Chapter I §3: The Predestination of the Redeemer

§3: Predestination of the Redeemer

SECTION i. State of the Question. — Would the Son of God have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not sinned? In other words, was the Incarnation absolutely predetermined ? This is a most interesting question, and the famous theological controversy to which it gave rise, throws so clear a light on the dogma of the Redemption and the sublime dignity of the Redeemer, that we must give an account of it here. The underlying problem may be briefly stated as follows: The Incarnation was dictated by two principal motives, namely, (i) compassion for the misery of mankind, and (2) the glorification of God and His Christ.1 Which of these motives outweighed the other? This question must receive an answer before we can determine whether the fall of Adam was an indispensable condition of the Incarnation, or whether the Divine Logos assumed human flesh irrespective of the existence or non-existence of a sinful race of lCfr. John XVII, 4 sqq.; 2 Thess. I, 12. 24 men. The former view is held by the Thomists, the latter by the Scotists. The Scotists conceive the divine decrees appertaining to the Redemption in the following order. First of all comes the absolute predistination of Christ and His divine kingdom, consisting of angels and men. In the second place, the permission of the sin of Adam ; and in the third place, the mission of Christ in His capacity of passible Redeemer. The Thomists, on the other hand, hold that God created the universe without regard to Christ; that He subsequently decreed to permit sin, and lastly determined on the Incarnation of the Logos for the purpose of redeeming the human race. As may be seen from this enumeration, the Scotists put the Incarnation first, while the Thomists put it last. From the Scotist point of view God’s predominant motive in decreeing the Incarnation was the dignity and glorification of Christ. The universe was created for Christ’s sake. The Thomists, on the other hand, ascribe the Incarnation of the Logos primarily to God’s mercy. In the Scotist hypothesis the Incarnation is altogether independent of the Fall; the Thomists regard the latter as an indispensable condition of the former. Against the Scotist view there lies this objection : If Christ was not predestined to atone for the sins of men, why did He appear on earth as a passible Redeemer rather than, as we should have every reason to expect, in the capacity of an impassible, glorified Godman? The Scotists meet this difficulty by saying that the first and absolute decree touching the Incarnation was modified in view of the Fall ; that after the Fall, Christ, who originally

was to have appeared among men as homo gloriosus, decided to assume human flesh and become homo passibUis. In general terms the two theories may be characterized as follows: The Scotistic theory is inspired by a transcendent idealism, whereas the Thomist view conforms to the facts as we know them. To enable the reader to form his own estimate we will briefly state the leading arguments adduced by both schools. 2. The Thomistic Theory. — That the Fall of Adam was the chief motive which prompted God to decree the Incarnation, is held by all Thomists,2 and also by a large number of theologians belonging to other schools, e. g., Gregory of Valentia, Vasquez, Petavius, Cardinals Toletus and De Lugo, and even by the “ideal” Lessius.3 Among modern theologians this theory has been espoused by Kleutgen,4 Stentrup,5 Tepe,6 and many others. Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist hypothesis. Chr. Pesch7 and L. Janssens? prefer the Thomist view, but admit the other as probable. In this they follow St. Thomas himself 9 and St. Bonaventure.10 The Angelic Doctor both in his Commentary on the Liber Sententiarum and in the Summa Theologica expresses 2 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 3, art. 3. ZDe Praedest. Christi (Opusc, t. II, pp. 483 sqq., Paris 1878). 4 Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, PP. 393 sqq. 5 Soteriologia, thes. 2. einstit. Theol., Vol. Ill, pp. 663 sqq., Paris 1896. 7 Praelect. Dogm., Vol. IV, 3d cd., pp. 216 sqq. 8 De Deo-Homine, II: Soteriologia, pp. 44 sqq. 9 Comment, in Quatuor Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 3. 10 Comment, in Quatuor Libr§s Sent., Ill, dist. 1, art. 2, qu. 2. himself with cautious reserve. St. Bonaventure says: ” He who was made flesh for us alone knows which of the two theories is the better. Which is to be preferred it is difficult to say, because both are Catholic and sustained by Catholic authors.” 11 The Thomistic conception is based upon arguments which, though not cogent, are perfectly sound. a) St. Thomas himself argues as follows: “Some claim that the Son of God would have assumed human flesh even if man had not sinned. Others assert the contrary, and their teaching seems to have a greater claim to our assent. The reason is this. Whatever proceeds solely from the Divine Will, transcending every exigency of nature, must remain unknown to us, except it be revealed by Sacred Scripture… . Now, Sacred Scripture invariably assigns the sin of Adam as the motive of the Incarnation. It is more befitting, therefore, to regard the Incarnation as ordained by God for the cure of sin, so that if there had been no sin there would have been no Incarnation.” 12 As a matter of fact, whenever Sacred Scripture speaks of the motive of the Incarnation, it invariably points to 11 /. c. innotescere non possunt, nisi qua12 S. Theol., 3a, qu. i, art. 3: tenus in S, Scriptura traduntur… . ” Quidam dicunt, quod etiamsi horn* Unde quum in S. Scriptura ubique non peccasset, Dei Filius incarnatus incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi fuisset. Alii vero contrarium as- hominis assignetur, convenientius serunt, quorum assertioni magis as- dicitur, incarnationem opus ordinaseniiendum videtur, Ea enim quae turn esse a Deo in remedium contra a sola Dei voluntate proveniunt peccatum, ita quod peccato non exisupra omne debitum naturae, nobis stente incarnatio non fuisset,”

the sin of Adam. It is because He was sent to redeem the fallen race of men that Christ received the name of “Jesus,* I. e., Saviour or Redeemer (salvator, amrrjp). Cfr. Matth. I, 21 : * Et vocabis nomen eius Iesum; ipse enimiz salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum — And thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins.” 14 Jesus Himself never even hints at any other motive. Cfr. Luke XIX, 10: u Venit enim FUius hominis quaerere et salvum facere, quod perierat — For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” It seems perfectly legitimate to conclude, therefore, that the redemption of man was the main motive which prompted God to send His Son. Had there been a higher and more comprehensive motive, it would be strange to find no hint of it in the Scriptures. The weight of this argument must not, however, be overrated. For, in the first place, the texts upon which it is based are purely affirmative, but not exclusive, so that the argument based upon them is at bottom merely one ex silentio. And, secondly, the Scriptural passages in question all refer to the actual order of salvation, not to its hidden background. Although the Incarnation and the Redemption are causally correlated, Sacred Scripture does not define the nature of their mutual relationship, and tells us nothing at all concerning the question whether the Incarnation is subordinate to the Redemption, or vice versa. b) Owing to their larger knowledge of the writings of the Fathers, modern theologians are i*y&p. Rom. Ill, 25; Gal. IV, 4; 1 Tim. 14 Similarly Matth. IX, 13; Mark I, 15; 1 John III, 5. II, 17; Luke I, 31; John III, 17;

THE THOMISTIC THEORY able to construct a far more convincing Patristic argument than was possible in the time of St. Thomas. Holy Scripture merely intimates by its silence that there would have been no Incarnation if Adam had not sinned. The Fathers enunciate this proposition in explicit terms. ” I am persuaded,” writes Cardinal Toletus, ” that, had the old Scholastic doctors been acquainted with the many Patristic testimonials which I now adduce, they would have admitted that the contrary view is absolutely devoid of probability.” 15 We will cite a few of these testimonials. St. Athanasius says : ” The assumption of human nature [on the part of the Logos] presupposes a necessity, apart from which He would not have put on flesh.” 18 St. Ambrose asks : ” What was the cause of the Incarnation if not this, that the flesh which had sinned by itself, should by itself be redeemed?“17 And St. Augustine declares that ” the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh … for no other reason than … to save, liberate, redeem, and enlighten [those who are engrafted members of His body] .” 18 We may also refer to the Creed : ” Who for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven,” and to the Easter hymn : ” O happy fault, which deserved to have so great and glorious a Redeemer ! * To sum up the argument: Tradition, so far as we 15 In S. Theol., h. I, per se redimereiurt * De Incarn., 16 Or. contr, Arian,, 2, 54. Sim- c. 6, n. 56. ilarly Gregory of Nazianzus (Or., 18 De Pecc. Mer, et Rem., I, 26, 30, n. 3) and Cyril of Alexandria 39. — Additional Patristic texts in (Thesaur., V, 8). Lessius, De Praedest. Christi, sect. 17 ” Quae erat causa incarnationis, 1, n. 5 ; Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. nisi ut caro, quae per se peccaverat, z sq. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., n, 17.

are able to ascertain it, is against the absolute predestination of Christ, but holds that, if man had not sinned, the Son of God’ would never have become incarnate. To escape this argument, the Scotists urge their abovementioned distinction between ” Christus gloriosus ” and ” Christus passibilis” God’s original decree concerning the Incarnation, they say, was from all eternity modified by the Fall of man, which necessitated a passible redeemer; and it is to this particular aspect of the Incarnation alone that the Patristic texts apply; at least it is possible so to interpret them. But even if they could be interpreted in the wider sense in which they are understood by the Thomists, we should still be dealing with a mere theory, which no rule of faith constrains us to adopt. In support of this view the Scotist theologians point to the modification which the Patristic theory of ” satisfaction ” has experienced in course of time without detriment to its substance. 3. The Scotistic Theory. — If the question at issue had to be decided purely on the authority of theologians, we should be unable to arrive at a unanimous decision, so evenly is authority balanced against authority. The Scotistic theory originated with Abbot Rupert of Deutz.19 It was adopted by Albert the Great 20 and developed by Duns Scotus,21 in whose school it eventually obtained the upper hand.22 It has also found many ardent defenders outside the Scotistic l» De Gloria et Hon, Filii Hominis 21 Comment, in Quatuor Libros Libri XIII; De Trinit,, III, 20. Sent,, III, dist. 7, qu. 3. 20 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 22 Cfr. Mastrius, Disp, TheoL, Sent., Ill, dist. 20, art. 4. disp. 4, qu. 1. camp, among them Ambrose Catharinus,23 Ysambert, St. Bernard of Siena, St. Francis de Sales,24 and especially Suarez.25 For a while its defenders were few, but of late the theory is again coming into favor. Among its modern champions we may mention: Faber, Gay, Bougaud, Schell, Fr. Risi, and Du Cappucce.26 The arguments for the Scotist position are undeniably strong. a) Their Scriptural basis is the oft-repeated statement of St. Paul that the Incarnation of Christ was pre-ordained by an eternal and absolute divine decree without regard to the Fall. The Apostle declares that all things are by Christ and for Christ, i. e., tend towards Him as their final end and object. Cfr. Heb. II, 10: Propter quern omnia et per quern omnia — For whom are all things and by whom are all things. 27 Col. I, 16 sqq. : ” Omnia per ipsum et in ipso28 creata sunt … et ipse est ante omnes29 et omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium,30 primogenitus ex mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens 81 — In him were all things created … and he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the 2ZDe Praedestin. Eximia Christi, Lugduni 1542. 24 De V Amour de Dieu, II, 4. 25 De Incarn., disp. 5. 26 * Primaut6 de Notre-Seigncur Jesus-Christ,* in the fttudes Franciscaines, 1890, 1900. 27 fa* $p tA ir&vra koX 6Y off r£ ir&vra. 28 els aMv. 2» irpb ir&vrup, so dpxt 81 irpwreiW. primacy.” If Christ holds first place in the divine economy of the universe, and the world of angels and men was reserved to the last, so runs the Scotist argument, the Incarnation cannot have been subordinate to the Creation and Redemption, but, on the contrary, must rank far above it. Without Christ there could have been no creation. Hence Christ is ” before all,” ” the first-born of every creature.” 82 He is the centre and pivot of the universe, not in consequence of the Fall, but absolutely and from all eternity. He has not been added to the created universe by accident, but rules it as wpwrcvuv, and is the Alpha and Omega of all things from the beginning.88 b) Though this theory cannot be strictly demonstrated from the writings of the Fathers, yet the Patristic interpretation of several passages in the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament seems to lend it weight. The fact that the Fathers were unable to gauge the full bearing of their interpretation does not forbid us to push to their legitimate conclusions the principles which they asserted. We have pointed out in our treatise on the Trinity M that certain of the Fathers applied Proverbs VIII, 22: * The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning,* 35 to the temporal birth of the Logos, that is, the Incarnation. This can only mean that Christ was predestined to be 82 Col. I, 15; cfr. Rom. VIII, 29. 88 The objections urged against this interpretation may be read in De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 7, sect. 2. 84 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, P. 157. 85 ” Dominus possedit ($/cTt

the First and that all things were created for His sake.86 On the strength of Gen. II, 24 and Eph. V, 31 sqq. several Fathers held that the nature of matrimony, as an image of ” Christ’s union with His Church,” was revealed to Adam in Paradise. If this be true, our Lord’s appearance on earth cannot be conceived as conditioned by the Fall. Even if man had not sinned, but had remained in the state of innocence, says St. Augustine,37 ” matrimony would still be the symbol of Christ’s union with His Church.” 88 When it comes to theological arguments, the Scotists can allege in their favor all the reasons which we have given above for the congruity of the Incarnation as such, especially the fact that, in the words of Lessius,39 “by the assumption of man the whole universe was, after a fashion, assumed into and united with the Godhead.” Strangely enough, Lessius subsequently undermined his own position by saying: “If any created nature was to be assumed primarily for the sake of perfecting the universe, it would have been the most perfect, i. e., that of the highest angel.” 40 This conclusion does not follow. Unlike man, an angel is not a “microcosm.* Besides, there is something sublime and over86 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 5, sect. 2. 37 * Coniugium etiam in statu innocentiae, si homo non peccasset, futurum sacramentum coniunctionis Christi cum Ecclesia.” {De Nupt. et Concup., I, 21.) 88 For the Thomist reply to this argument see Lessius, De Praedest, Christi, n. 23 sqq. 80 De Perfect. Mor. Div., XII, 4. 40 De Praedest, Christi, n. 9. THE WORK OF REDEMPTION whelming in the thought that, as Scotism consistently teaches, not only all men but all angels, not only fallen and sinful man, but likewise man as constituted in Paradise, owe their original sanctity entirely to the merits of an absolutely predestined Redeemer; that all grace radiates from Christ, the “sun of justice,” who sanctifies angels and men and disperses the shadows of death. Perhaps the weightiest argument adduced for the Scotist position is the one developed by Suarez: The end cannot be inferior to the means devised for its attainment. This would be the case if the Incarnation merely served the purpose of the Redemption. No sensible hunter would shoot a cannon to bring down a sparrow. Christ is not only the crown of the created universe, He is also the climax of divine glorification. Without Him the universe would be meaningless. He who is highest and most perfect in the order of being, must also be first in the plan of creation, and the fulness of divine glory cannot have been dependent on the accident of the Fall. The Scotistic theory recommends itself by its sublimity. It groups angels and men around the Godman as the center of the universe, the highest and final revelation, the beginning and end of all things.41 41 Cfr. Jos. Pohle in the Katholik, Mainz 1886, II, 461 sqq., 578 sqq.