Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 6 (1/2)
Whether It Is Befitting for a Divine Person to a.s.sume?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine Person to a.s.sume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies something most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is perfect. Therefore, since to a.s.sume is to take to oneself, and consequently what is a.s.sumed is added to the one who a.s.sumes, it does not seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to a.s.sume a created nature.
Obj. 2: Further, that to which anything is a.s.sumed is communicated in some degree to what is a.s.sumed to it, just as dignity is communicated to whosoever is a.s.sumed to a dignity. But it is of the nature of a person to be incommunicable, as was said above (I, Q. 29, A. 1).
Therefore it is not befitting to a Divine Person to a.s.sume, i.e. to take to Himself.
Obj. 3: Further, person is const.i.tuted by nature. But it is repugnant that the thing const.i.tuted should a.s.sume the const.i.tuent, since the effect does not act on its cause. Hence it is not befitting to a Person to a.s.sume a nature.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): ”This G.o.d, i.e. the only-Begotten one, took the form,” i.e. the nature, ”of a servant to His own Person.” But the only-Begotten G.o.d is a Person. Therefore it is befitting to a Person to take, i.e. to a.s.sume a nature.
_I answer that,_ In the word ”a.s.sumption” are implied two things, viz. the principle and the term of the act, for to a.s.sume is to take something to oneself. Now of this a.s.sumption a Person is both the principle and the term. The principle--because it properly belongs to a person to act, and this a.s.suming of flesh took place by the Divine action. Likewise a Person is the term of this a.s.sumption, because, as was said above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2), the union took place in the Person, and not in the nature. Hence it is plain that to a.s.sume a nature is most properly befitting to a Person.
Reply Obj. 1: Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: ”We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition”; just as in the union of man with G.o.d, nothing is added to G.o.d by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man; hence, not G.o.d but man is perfected.
Reply Obj. 2: A Divine Person is said to be incommunicable inasmuch as It cannot be predicated of several supposita, but nothing prevents several things being predicated of the Person. Hence it is not contrary to the nature of person to be communicated so as to subsist in several natures, for even in a created person several natures may concur accidentally, as in the person of one man we find quant.i.ty and quality. But this is proper to a Divine Person, on account of its infinity, that there should be a concourse of natures in it, not accidentally, but in subsistence.
Reply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1), the human nature const.i.tutes a Divine Person, not simply, but forasmuch as the Person is denominated from such a nature. For human nature does not make the Son of Man to be simply, since He was from eternity, but only to be man. It is by the Divine Nature that a Divine Person is const.i.tuted simply. Hence the Divine Person is not said to a.s.sume the Divine Nature, but to a.s.sume the human nature.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 2]
Whether It Is Befitting to the Divine Nature to a.s.sume?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to a.s.sume. Because, as was said above (A. 1), to a.s.sume is to take to oneself. But the Divine Nature did not take to Itself human nature, for the union did not take place in the nature, as was said above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 3). Hence it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to a.s.sume human nature.
Obj. 2: Further, the Divine Nature is common to the three Persons.
If, therefore, it is befitting to the Divine Nature to a.s.sume, it consequently is befitting to the three Persons; and thus the Father a.s.sumed human nature even as the Son, which is erroneous.
Obj. 3: Further, to a.s.sume is to act. But to act befits a person, not a nature, which is rather taken to be the principle by which the agent acts. Therefore to a.s.sume is not befitting to the nature.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Fulgentius) says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): ”That nature which remains eternally begotten of the Father”
(i.e. which is received from the Father by eternal generation) ”took our nature free of sin from His Mother.”
_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), in the word a.s.sumption two things are signified--to wit, the principle and the term of the action. Now to be the principle of the a.s.sumption belongs to the Divine Nature in itself, because the a.s.sumption took place by Its power; but to be the term of the a.s.sumption does not belong to the Divine Nature in itself, but by reason of the Person in Whom It is considered to be. Hence a Person is primarily and more properly said to a.s.sume, but it may be said secondarily that the Nature a.s.sumed a nature to Its Person. And after the same manner the Nature is also said to be incarnate, not that it is changed to flesh, but that it a.s.sumed the nature of flesh. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6): ”Following the blessed Athanasius and Cyril we say that the Nature of G.o.d is incarnate.”
Reply Obj. 1: ”Oneself” is reciprocal, and points to the same suppositum. But the Divine Nature is not a distinct suppositum from the Person of the Word. Hence, inasmuch as the Divine Nature took human nature to the Person of the Word, It is said to take it to Itself. But although the Father takes human nature to the Person of the Word, He did not thereby take it to Himself, for the suppositum of the Father and the Son is not one, and hence it cannot properly be said that the Father a.s.sumes human nature.
Reply Obj. 2: What is befitting to the Divine Nature in Itself is befitting to the three Persons, as goodness, wisdom, and the like.
But to a.s.sume belongs to It by reason of the Person of the Word, as was said above, and hence it is befitting to that Person alone.
Reply Obj. 3: As in G.o.d _what is_ and _whereby it is_ are the same, so likewise in Him _what acts_ and _whereby it acts_ are the same, since everything acts, inasmuch as it is a being. Hence the Divine Nature is both that whereby G.o.d acts, and the very G.o.d Who acts.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 3]
Whether the Nature Abstracted from the Personality Can a.s.sume?
Objection 1: It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by our mind, the Nature cannot a.s.sume. For it was said above (A. 1) that it belongs to the Nature to a.s.sume by reason of the Person. But what belongs to one by reason of another cannot belong to it if the other is removed; as a body, which is visible by reason of color, without color cannot be seen. Hence if the Personality be mentally abstracted, the Nature cannot a.s.sume.