Chapter 53 — Arguments that would seem to show that it was not fitting that God should be incarnate

Since unbelievers look upon the doctrine of the Incarnation as folly, according to the saying of the Apostle: It pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21), and whereas it is foolish to preach not only what is impossible, but also what is unfitting, they attack the Incarnation not only on the ground that Catholic faith teaches what is impossible, but also because it is unreasonable and unbecoming the divine goodness.

It becomes the divine goodness that all things should retain their order. Now the order of things requires that God should be exalted above all, and that man’s place should be among the lower creatures. Therefore, it becomes not the divine majesty to be united to human nature.

Again. If it were fitting that God should become man, this must have been on account of some consequent benefit. But whatever this benefit was, God could have brought it about by his mere will, since he is almighty. Seeing, then, that whatever is done fittingly should be done as quickly as possible, it was not fitting that God should unite human nature to himself for the sake of that benefit.

Further. Since God is the universal cause of all, he must especially to seek the good of the universe. But the assumption of human nature pertains only to the good of man. Therefore, if God ought to have taken some other nature, it was not fitting that he should take human nature only.

Moreover. The more things are like to each other, the more fittingly are they united together. Now the angelic nature is more like and akin to God than human nature is. Therefore, it was not fitting that God should pass over the angelic nature and be united to human nature.

Again. If God took human nature, this would seem to provide an obstacle to man’s understanding of the truth, which in him is a principle of knowledge. For he would be liable to fall into the error of those who deny that God is exalted above all bodies. Therefore, it was of no profit to human nature that it should be assumed by God.

Moreover. We know by experience that many errors have arisen concerning the Incarnation. Therefore, it would seem that it was not good for man’s salvation that God should become incarnate.

Again. Of all God’s works the Incarnation is apparently the greatest. Now one would expect that the greatest work would be productive of the greatest benefit. Hence if the Incarnation of God was directed to the salvation of all, it would seem fitting that he should have saved the whole human race. In fact, the salvation of all men would seem a fitting result to expect from so great a work.

Further. If God took human nature in order to save mankind, it would seem proper that his divine nature should have been made clear to men by adequate signs. Now this apparently was not the case, since other men, by God’s power alone and without God being united to their nature, worked miracles like those that Christ worked, and even greater. Therefore, God’s Incarnation seemingly did not provide sufficiently for man’s salvation.

Again. If it was necessary for man’s salvation that God should take flesh, seemingly he ought to have taken human nature at the very beginning of the world, and not towards the end of time, seeing that there have been men since the world’s beginning. For it would seem that the salvation of all previous men was neglected.

Further. For the same reason he ought to have continued to dwell with men until the end of the world, so as to teach and guide men by his presence.

Moreover. It is most profitable to man that his hope of future bliss should have a strong foundation. Now God incarnate would have inspired man with this hope much more had he taken an immortal, impassible, and glorious flesh, and shown it to all men. Therefore, it seems unfitting that he took a body subject to death and infirmities.

Moreover. It would seem proper that he should have enjoyed an abundance of worldly possessions, and have lived in the midst of wealth and the highest honors in order to show that all the things in the world come from God. Nevertheless, we are told that the contrary was the case, that he lived the life of a poor and humble man, and suffered a shameful death. Therefore, the teaching of faith concerning God incarnate would seem to be unbecoming.

Further. By suffering humiliations he hid his divinity very considerably, and yet it was most necessary that men should acknowledge his divinity, if he was God incarnate. Therefore, the teaching of faith seems out of keeping with the salvation of mankind.

Someone might reply that the Son of God suffered death out of obedience to his Father; but this does not seem reasonable. Obedience consists in conforming oneself to the will of one who commands. Now the will of God the Father cannot be unreasonable. Consequently, if it was not becoming for God made man to die, since death is seemingly incompatible with the divinity that is life itself, his death is not sufficiently explained by saying that he died out of obedience to the Father.

Again. God’s will is not inclined to the death of men, even of sinners, but rather that they should live: I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezek 33:11). Much less, therefore, could it be God’s will that the most perfect man should die.

Moreover. It seems wicked and cruel to command an innocent man to be put to death, and especially to be put to death for sinners, who deserve themselves to die. Now the man Christ Jesus was innocent. Therefore, it would have been wicked if he had suffered death at the command of God the Father.

Someone might say that this was necessary in order to show forth his humility. Thus the Apostle says: He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). But neither is this reply to the point. In the first place, humility is commended in one who has a superior to whom he can be subject, and this cannot be said of God. Therefore, it was unfitting for the Word of God to be humbled unto death.

Second, men could be sufficiently taught humility by divine words, which they are bound to believe, and by human examples. Therefore, it was not necessary that the Word of God should either take flesh or submit to death as an example of humility.

And if it be replied again that it was necessary for Christ to suffer death and other ignominies, according to the Apostle, who says that he was put to death for our trespasses (Rom 4:25), and that he was offered once to bear the sins of many (Heb 9:28), neither is this to the point. First, because only God’s grace cleanses man from sin.

Second, if any atonement was required, it was proper for the one who had sinned to atone, since, according to God’s just judgment, each man will have to bear his own load (Gal 6:5).

Again, if it was fitting that someone more than a mere man should atone for mankind, it seems that it were enough if an angel had taken flesh and offered satisfaction, since an angel has a higher nature than man.

Further. Sin is not expiated by sin; on the contrary, it is aggravated by it. Hence, if Christ was to atone by his death, his death should have been one in which sin had no part. In other words, he should have died not a violent, but a natural death.

Again. If Christ had to die for the sins of men, he should have died more than once, since men sin often.

Someone, however, might reply that it was especially on account of original sin that Christ had to be born and to suffer, since that was the sin which had infected the whole of the human race on account of the first man’s sin. But this does not seem possible. For if other men do not suffice to atone for original sin, neither, apparently, was Christ’s death sufficient to atone for the sins of mankind, since he died in his human, and not in his divine, nature.

Again. If Christ atoned sufficiently for the sins of mankind, it were surely unjust that men should still suffer punishments which Scripture declares to have been inflicted for sin.

Again. If Christ atoned sufficiently for the sins of mankind, there would be no need to seek further forgiveness of one’s sins. And yet all who have their salvation at heart seek forgiveness. Therefore, Christ did not take away the sins of mankind sufficiently.

These and like arguments might appeal to some as indicating that the doctrine of the Catholic faith about the Incarnation is inconsistent with the majesty and wisdom of God.