Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/4/q/bon-sent-III-d4-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace.*

Consequently it is asked concerning the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace. And concerning this three things are asked.

First, it is asked concerning that grace in comparison to the merits of the Church.

Second, in comparison to the merit of the Virgin Mary.

Third, in comparison to the dignity of the assumed nature.

### Question I. *Whether Christ's incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained it.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked whether Christ's conception or incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained this. And that it was from *pure grace,* it seems.

1. (*Foundations.*) To Titus, chapter three: *The kindness and humanity of our Savior appeared, not from works of righteousness;* but that appearing of kindness and humanity is the becoming-human of the Son of God, as is said in the Gloss: « When our God, kind and made-human, appeared »: therefore it seems that the becoming-human of the Son of God was not through the mediation of our merits.

2. Likewise, upon that of Psalm 4: *Look upon thy holy testament;* the Gloss: « He calls to mind the promise, because merits fail »; and it speaks of the promise of the incarnation: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, for that which is acquired through merits, we are not bound to thanksgivings as much as for that which is given freely; but for the gift of Christ we are bound to thanksgivings of every kind: therefore it seems that the merits of the Church did not obtain it.

4. Likewise, that which is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church cannot be rendered by its merits; but Christ's incarnation is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church, because through him, however many there are, they have been reconciled to God and the Father, nor is anyone saved except through him: therefore it does not seem that the incarnation of Christ could be obtained through the merits of the Fathers or of the Church itself.

**On the contrary:** (*To the opposite.*) 1. upon that of Psalm 6: *Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor;* the Gloss, there: « I will arise, that is, I will send the Son, because of the groaning of the poor, who groan over evils and are contrite for sins; for otherwise they would not be worthy of help »: therefore if because of their groaning they were made worthy of the sending of the Son of God, it seems that the incarnation or conception of the Son of God was obtained by their merits.

2. Likewise, he who merits the principal merits also the accessory; but the incarnation of the Son of God was ordered to our glorification; but the Saints were able to merit our glorification: therefore also the conception of Christ.

3. Likewise, he who merits what is greater can also merit what is lesser; but our beatification is greater than the incarnation of the Son of God, because the latter is the end of it: therefore since the holy Fathers merited their own beatitude, they therefore merited the conception of the Son of God.

4. Likewise, he who asks for something in prayer *from charity, perseveringly, piously,* and *unto salvation,* merits that which he asks, especially when the asking of such a thing pleases God; but the ancient Fathers asked for the incarnation of the Son of God with the greatest desire, and this perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, and it was pleasing to God that they should ask for such a thing: therefore it seems that they merited the incarnation of the Son of God.

> ### Conclusion
> The incarnation of Christ, as to its essence, does not fall under merit; as to the circumstance of time it in some way falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; as to its efficacy it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning the benefit of the incarnation, as concerning the other divine benefits, one may speak (*Distinction.*) in three ways; namely as to its *substance* or *essence,* and as to its *efficacy,* and as to its *circumstance*. If we speak of it as to (*Conclusion 1.*) its essence, then it must be said that that benefit was above the merits of the holy Fathers, for the reason that it is not of just retribution, but of a most eminent condescension; and it does not follow upon the merits of fallen man, but rather is the foundation of all merit, because no one was able to please God after the fall without faith in this benefit, either in general or in particular. (*Note.*) Along this way proceed the reasons and authorities adduced for the first side.

But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (*Subdistinction.*) as to its *efficacy;* then, since its efficacy was twofold, namely that it was ordered to liberation *from the servitude of sin,* and *from the guilt of the lack of the vision of God,* it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — (*Conclusion 2, twofold.*) As to liberation *from the guilt of the lack of the divine vision* and from the captivity of the devil, the holy Fathers merited this, and it falls under merit; but as to deliverance from the *state of sin,* it does not fall under merit, unless one takes merit broadly for the merit of congruity and of condignity.

But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (*Conclusion 3.*) as to the *circumstance of time;* it can be granted without cavil that it falls under the merit of the preceding Church. For the holy Fathers by their most ardent desires merited the hastening of the incarnation; in whose person Isaiah says, in the sixty-fourth [chapter]: *Would that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down* etc. — And thus it is clear that the benefit of the incarnation, as to its *essence,* does not fall under merit; but as to the *circumstance of time* it falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; but as to its *efficacy,* the middle one, it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — And since the reasons brought forward for the first side run as to that *which is* or as to its excellence in itself, they show that it does not fall under the merit of the preceding Church; therefore they are to be granted.

**To the things which are objected to the contrary:**

(*Solution of the objections.*) 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the Gloss on the Psalm: *Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor;* it must be said that that Gloss is understood of the benefit of the incarnation as to the *efficacy* of our liberation from punishment, as is clear from the Gloss itself; or as to the *hastening of the time,* as is gathered from the text itself. *If thou objectest* that God was not incarnated sooner than he had disposed from eternity, on account of the merits of the Fathers; it must be said that on account of the merits of the Fathers God had foreseen that he would hasten; and thus he did, as he had foreseen.

2. To that which is objected, that he who merits the principal merits also the accessory; it must be said that (*Note.*) this has an instance, when that accessory not only prepares for the *reward,* but also prepares for *merit.* And since Christ's incarnation provided for the holy Fathers a way of meriting through faith in it, hence it is that that proposition does not hold true in the matter at hand. — One can also in another way (*Another instance.*) make an instance against the aforesaid statement. For it does not hold true when that accessory does not necessarily adhere to the principal; and such is the incarnation of the Son of God. For God could have glorified and saved the human race in another way than through the incarnation of the Son: on account of this it does not follow that if the holy Fathers merited their own glorification, they therefore merited the incarnation of Christ. — It could however be granted that as to the *efficacy* of liberation the holy Fathers were able to merit the benefit of the incarnation, yet not *simply,* as was shown before.

3. To that which is objected, that he who merits what is greater merits also what is lesser; it must be said that (*Note.*) the aforesaid proposition has an instance in grace and glory; because glory falls under merit, but grace does not; so too it can have an instance in the matter at hand. — One could also reply through (*Another solution.*) the *destruction of the assumption*. For when one assumes that glorification is greater than the incarnation; it must be said that it is false, unless *glorification* be understood with the presupposition of the incarnation, or unless it be understood *with respect to some particular person,* as with respect to Peter or Paul — for it is better for Peter to see God in glory than that the human nature be assumed by the Word — yet speaking *simply,* it is better that the Son of God be incarnated than that Peter be glorified; because the incarnation of the Son of God avails for the whole human race, but Peter's

glorification for himself alone. And therefore it does not follow that if someone can merit for himself his own glorification, he therefore merits the conception of Christ.

4. To that which is objected, that he who asks perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, merits; it must be said that it is true, if he asks *for himself;* but no one asked that the Son of God should assume *himself,* and therefore no one merited this; yet by asking *for others* they were meriting eternal life for themselves; and therefore they did not pray fruitlessly. — It could also be said that that [proposition] still has (*Otherwise.*) an instance: when someone should ask of God the excellence of the glory of Peter, being of little charity, he does not merit this, because what he asks exceeds his merits. In this manner too an instance can be inferred in the matter at hand.