Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 8 (2/2)
_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be a.s.sumed inasmuch as it is taken into another. Hence, what is a.s.sumed must be presupposed to the a.s.sumption, as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion.
Now a person in human nature is not presupposed to a.s.sumption; rather, it is the term of the a.s.sumption, as was said (Q. 3, AA. 1, 2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been corrupted--in which case it was useless; or it remains after the union--and thus there would be two persons, one a.s.suming and the other a.s.sumed, which is false, as was shown above (Q. 2, A. 6). Hence it follows that the Son of G.o.d nowise a.s.sumed a human person.
Reply Obj. 1: The Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed human nature _in atomo,_ i.e. in an individual, which is no other than the uncreated suppositum, the Person of the Son of G.o.d. Hence it does not follow that a person was a.s.sumed.
Reply Obj. 2: Its proper personality is not wanting to the nature a.s.sumed through the loss of anything pertaining to the perfection of the human nature but through the addition of something which is above human nature, viz. the union with a Divine Person.
Reply Obj. 3: Absorption does not here imply the destruction of anything pre-existing, but the hindering what might otherwise have been. For if the human nature had not been a.s.sumed by a Divine Person, the human nature would have had its own personality; and in this way is it said, although improperly, that the Person ”absorbed the person,” inasmuch as the Divine Person by His union hindered the human nature from having its personality.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 3]
Whether the Divine Person a.s.sumed a Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Divine Person a.s.sumed a man. For it is written (Ps. 64:5): ”Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee,” which a gloss expounds of Christ; and Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): ”The Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a man, and in him bore things human.”
Obj. 2: Further, the word ”man” signifies a human nature. But the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a human nature. Therefore He a.s.sumed a man.
Obj. 3: Further, the Son of G.o.d is a man. But He is not one of the men He did not a.s.sume, for with equal reason He would be Peter or any other man. Therefore He is the man whom He a.s.sumed.
_On the contrary,_ Is the authority of Felix, Pope and Martyr, which is quoted by the Council of Ephesus: ”We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, because He is the Eternal Son and Word of G.o.d, and not a man a.s.sumed by G.o.d, in such sort that there is another besides Him. For the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a man, so that there be another besides Him.”
_I answer that,_ As has been said above (A. 2), what is a.s.sumed is not the term of the a.s.sumption, but is presupposed to the a.s.sumption.
Now it was said (Q. 3, AA. 1, 2) that the individual to Whom the human nature is a.s.sumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is the term of the a.s.sumption. Now this word ”man” signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4, 11), this word G.o.d signifies Him Who has human nature.
And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son a.s.sumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was a.s.sumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Q. 2, A.
6).
Reply Obj. 1: These phrases are not to be taken too literally, but are to be loyally explained, wherever they are used by holy doctors; so as to say that a man was a.s.sumed, inasmuch as his nature was a.s.sumed; and because the a.s.sumption terminated in this--that the Son of G.o.d is man.
Reply Obj. 2: The word ”man” signifies human nature in the concrete, inasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we cannot say a suppositum was a.s.sumed, so we cannot say a man was a.s.sumed.
Reply Obj. 3: The Son of G.o.d is not the man whom He a.s.sumed, but the man whose nature He a.s.sumed.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 4]
Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed Human Nature Abstracted from All Individuals?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed human nature abstracted from all individuals. For the a.s.sumption of human nature took place for the common salvation of all men; hence it is said of Christ (1 Tim. 4:10) that He is ”the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.” But nature as it is in individuals withdraws from its universality. Therefore the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed human nature as it is abstracted from all individuals.
Obj. 2: Further, what is n.o.blest in all things ought to be attributed to G.o.d. But in every genus what is of itself is best. Therefore the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed self-existing (_per se_) man, which, according to Platonists, is human nature abstracted from its individuals. Therefore the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed this.
Obj. 3: Further, human nature was not a.s.sumed by the Son of G.o.d in the concrete as is signified by the word ”man,” as was said above (A.
3). Now in this way it signifies human nature as it is in individuals, as is plain from what has been said (A. 3). Therefore the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed human nature as it is separated from individuals.
_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): ”G.o.d the Word Incarnate did not a.s.sume a nature which exists in pure thought; for this would have been no Incarnation, but a false and fict.i.tious Incarnation.” But human nature as it is separated or abstracted from individuals is ”taken to be a pure conception, since it does not exist in itself,” as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11).
Therefore the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume human nature, as it is separated from individuals.
<script>