Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 9 (2/2)
QUESTION 5
OF THE PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE WHICH WERE a.s.sUMED (In Four Articles)
We must now consider the a.s.sumption of the parts of human nature; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed a true body?
(2) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed an earthly body, i.e. one of flesh and blood?
(3) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed a soul?
(4) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed an intellect?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 1]
Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed a True Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a true body. For it is written (Phil. 2:7), that He was ”made in the likeness of men.” But what is something in truth is not said to be in the likeness thereof. Therefore the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a true body.
Obj. 2: Further, the a.s.sumption of a body in no way diminishes the dignity of the G.o.dhead; for Pope Leo says (Serm. de Nativ.) that ”the glorification did not absorb the lesser nature, nor did the a.s.sumption lessen the higher.” But it pertains to the dignity of G.o.d to be altogether separated from bodies. Therefore it seems that by the a.s.sumption G.o.d was not united to a body.
Obj. 3: Further, signs ought to correspond to the realities. But the apparitions of the Old Testament which were signs of the manifestation of Christ were not in a real body, but by visions in the imagination, as is plain from Isa. 60:1: ”I saw the Lord sitting,” etc. Hence it would seem that the apparition of the Son of G.o.d in the world was not in a real body, but only in imagination.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. lx.x.xiii, qu. 13): ”If the body of Christ was a phantom, Christ deceived us, and if He deceived us, He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth. Therefore His body was not a phantom.” Hence it is plain that He a.s.sumed a true body.
_I answer that,_ As is said (De Eccles. Dogm. ii). The Son of G.o.d was not born in appearance only, as if He had an imaginary body; but His body was real. The proof of this is threefold. First, from the essence of human nature to which it pertains to have a true body.
Therefore granted, as already proved (Q. 4, A. 1), that it was fitting for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume human nature, He must consequently have a.s.sumed a real body. The second reason is taken from what was done in the mystery of the Incarnation. For if His body was not real but imaginary, He neither underwent a real death, nor of those things which the Evangelists recount of Him, did He do any in very truth, but only in appearance; and hence it would also follow that the real salvation of man has not taken place; since the effect must be proportionate to the cause. The third reason is taken from the dignity of the Person a.s.suming, Whom it did not become to have anything fict.i.tious in His work, since He is the Truth. Hence our Lord Himself deigned to refute this error (Luke 24:37, 39), when the disciples, ”troubled and frighted, supposed that they saw a spirit,”
and not a true body; wherefore He offered Himself to their touch, saying: ”Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.”
Reply Obj. 1: This likeness indicates the truth of the human nature in Christ--just as all that truly exist in human nature are said to be like in species--and not a mere imaginary likeness. In proof of this the Apostle subjoins (Phil. 2:8) that He became ”obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross”; which would have been impossible, had it been only an imaginary likeness.
Reply Obj. 2: By a.s.suming a true body the dignity of the Son of G.o.d is nowise lessened. Hence Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): ”He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that He might become a servant; yet did He not lose the fulness of the form of G.o.d.” For the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a true body, not so as to become the form of a body, which is repugnant to the Divine simplicity and purity--for this would be to a.s.sume a body to the unity of the nature, which is impossible, as is plain from what has been stated above (Q. 2, A. 1): but, the natures remaining distinct, He a.s.sumed a body to the unity of Person.
Reply Obj. 3: The figure ought to correspond to the reality as regards the likeness and not as regards the truth of the thing. For if they were alike in all points, it would no longer be a likeness but the reality itself, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26).
Hence it was more fitting that the apparitions of the old Testament should be in appearance only, being figures; and that the apparition of the Son of G.o.d in the world should be in a real body, being the thing prefigured by these figures. Hence the Apostle says (Col.
2:17): ”Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's.”
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 2]
Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed a Carnal or Earthly Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ had not a carnal or earthly, but a heavenly body. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:41): ”The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly.”
But the first man, i.e. Adam, was of the earth as regards his body, as is plain from Gen. 1. Therefore the second man, i.e. Christ, was of heaven as regards the body.
<script>