|
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.
Objection 2: Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin,
but merely pain of loss, as has been shown (FS, Question 87,
Article 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:29): "Behold the
Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins of the world."
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 Jn. 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 (Rm. 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."
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 (FS,
Question 81, Article 1). In another way a thing is said to be
greater "extensively," as whiteness on a greater superficies 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.
Reply to Objection 1: This reason looks to the intensive greatness
of sin.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
|
|