Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 4 (2/2)
Reply Obj. 1: This union is not really in G.o.d, but only in our way of thinking, for G.o.d is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to G.o.d without any change in Him.
Reply Obj. 2: The specific nature of a relation, as of motion, depends on the subject. And since this union has its being nowhere save in a created nature, as was said above, it follows that it has a created being.
Reply Obj. 3: A man is called Creator and is G.o.d because of the union, inasmuch as it is terminated in the Divine hypostasis; yet it does not follow that the union itself is the Creator or G.o.d, because that a thing is said to be created regards its being rather than its relation.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 8]
Whether Union Is the Same As a.s.sumption?
Objection 1: It would seem that union is the same as a.s.sumption. For relations, as motions, are specified by their termini. Now the term of a.s.sumption and union is one and the same, viz. the Divine hypostasis. Therefore it seems that union and a.s.sumption are not different.
Obj. 2: Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the same thing seems to be what unites and what a.s.sumes, and what is united and what is a.s.sumed. But union and a.s.sumption seem to follow the action and pa.s.sion of the thing uniting and the united, of the thing a.s.suming and the a.s.sumed. Therefore union seems to be the same as a.s.sumption.
Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): ”Union is one thing, incarnation is another; for union demands mere copulation, and leaves unsaid the end of the copulation; but incarnation and humanation determine the end of copulation.” But likewise a.s.sumption does not determine the end of copulation. Therefore it seems that union is the same as a.s.sumption.
_On the contrary,_ The Divine Nature is said to be united, not a.s.sumed.
_I answer that,_ As was stated above (A. 7), union implies a certain relation of the Divine Nature and the human, according as they come together in one Person. Now all relations which begin in time are brought about by some change; and change consists in action and pa.s.sion. Hence the _first_ and princ.i.p.al difference between a.s.sumption and union must be said to be that union implies the relation: whereas a.s.sumption implies the action, whereby someone is said to a.s.sume, or the pa.s.sion, whereby something is said to be a.s.sumed. Now from this difference another _second_ difference arises, for a.s.sumption implies _becoming,_ whereas union implies _having become,_ and therefore the thing uniting is said to be united, but the thing a.s.suming is not said to be a.s.sumed. For the human nature is taken to be in the terminus of a.s.sumption unto the Divine hypostasis when man is spoken of; and hence we can truly say that the Son of G.o.d, Who a.s.sumes human nature unto Himself, is man. But human nature, considered in itself, i.e. in the abstract, is viewed as a.s.sumed; and we do not say the Son of G.o.d is human nature. From this same follows a _third_ difference, which is that a relation, especially one of equiparance, is no more to one extreme than to the other, whereas action and pa.s.sion bear themselves differently to the agent and the patient, and to different termini. And hence a.s.sumption determines the term whence and the term whither; for a.s.sumption means a taking to oneself from another. But union determines none of these things.
Hence it may be said indifferently that the human nature is united with the Divine, or conversely. But the Divine Nature is not said to be a.s.sumed by the human, but conversely, because the human nature is joined to the Divine personality, so that the Divine Person subsists in human nature.
Reply Obj. 1: Union and a.s.sumption have not the same relation to the term, but a different relation, as was said above.
Reply Obj. 2: What unites and what a.s.sumes are not the same. For whatsoever Person a.s.sumes unites, and not conversely. For the Person of the Father united the human nature to the Son, but not to Himself; and hence He is said to unite and not to a.s.sume. So likewise the united and the a.s.sumed are not identical, for the Divine Nature is said to be united, but not a.s.sumed.
Reply Obj. 3: a.s.sumption determines with whom the union is made on the part of the one a.s.suming, inasmuch as a.s.sumption means taking unto oneself (_ad se sumere_), whereas incarnation and humanation (determine with whom the union is made) on the part of the thing a.s.sumed, which is flesh or human nature. And thus a.s.sumption differs logically both from union and from incarnation or humanation.
_______________________
NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 9]
Whether the Union of the Two Natures in Christ Is the Greatest of All Unions?
Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the two natures in Christ is not the greatest of all unions. For what is united falls short of the unity of what is one, since what is united is by partic.i.p.ation, but one is by essence. Now in created things there are some that are simply one, as is shown especially in unity itself, which is the principle of number. Therefore the union of which we are speaking does not imply the greatest of all unions.
Obj. 2: Further, the greater the distance between things united, the less the union. Now, the things united by this union are most distant--namely, the Divine and human natures; for they are infinitely apart. Therefore their union is the least of all.
Obj. 3: Further, from union there results one. But from the union of soul and body in us there arises what is one in person and nature; whereas from the union of the Divine and human nature there results what is one in person only. Therefore the union of soul and body is greater than that of the Divine and human natures; and hence the union of which we speak does not imply the greatest unity.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that ”man is in the Son of G.o.d, more than the Son in the Father.” But the Son is in the Father by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by the union of the Incarnation. Therefore the union of the Incarnation is greater than the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless is the greatest union; and thus the union of the Incarnation implies the greatest unity.
_I answer that,_ Union implies the joining of several in some one thing. Therefore the union of the Incarnation may be taken in two ways: first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to that in which they are united. And in this regard this union has a pre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person, in which the two natures are united, is the greatest. But it has no pre-eminence in regard to the things united.
Reply Obj. 1: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a Divine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received into another by partic.i.p.ation. Also, it is complete in itself, having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as in numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by the things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of the Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to it.
Reply Obj. 2: This reason regards the things united, and not the Person in Whom the union takes place.
Reply Obj. 3: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than the unity of person and nature in us; and hence the union of the Incarnation is greater than the union of soul and body in us.
And because what is urged in the argument ”on the contrary” rests upon what is untrue--namely, that the union of the Incarnation is greater than the unity of the Divine Persons in Essence--we must say to the authority of Augustine that the human nature is not more in the Son of G.o.d than the Son of G.o.d in the Father, but much less. But the man in some respects is more in the Son than the Son in the Father--namely, inasmuch as the same suppositum is signified when I say ”man,” meaning Christ, and when I say ”Son of G.o.d”; whereas it is not the same suppositum of Father and Son.
<script>