Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 10 (1/2)
Obj. 2: Further, it is said (1 Cor. 15:50): ”Flesh and blood shall not [Vulg.: 'cannot'] possess the kingdom of G.o.d.” But the kingdom of G.o.d is in Christ chiefly. Therefore there is no flesh or blood in Him, but rather a heavenly body.
Obj. 3: Further, whatever is best is to be attributed to G.o.d. But of all bodies a heavenly body is the best. Therefore it behooved Christ to a.s.sume such a body.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord says (Luke 24:39): ”A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.” Now flesh and bones are not of the matter of heavenly bodies, but are composed of the inferior elements. Therefore the body of Christ was not a heavenly, but a carnal and earthly body.
_I answer that,_ By the reasons which proved that the body of Christ was not an imaginary one, it may also be shown that it was not a heavenly body. First, because even as the truth of the human nature of Christ would not have been maintained had His body been an imaginary one, such as Manes supposed, so likewise it would not have been maintained if we supposed, as did Valentine, that it was a heavenly body. For since the form of man is a natural thing, it requires determinate matter, to wit, flesh and bones, which must be placed in the definition of man, as is plain from the Philosopher (Metaph. vii, 39). Secondly, because this would lessen the truth of such things as Christ did in the body. For since a heavenly body is impa.s.sible and incorruptible, as is proved De Coel. i, 20, if the Son of G.o.d had a.s.sumed a heavenly body, He would not have truly hungered or thirsted, nor would he have undergone His pa.s.sion and death.
Thirdly, this would have detracted from G.o.d's truthfulness. For since the Son of G.o.d showed Himself to men, as if He had a carnal and earthly body, the manifestation would have been false, had He had a heavenly body. Hence (De Eccles. Dogm. ii) it is said: ”The Son of G.o.d was born, taking flesh of the Virgin's body, and not bringing it with Him from heaven.”
Reply Obj. 1: Christ is said in two ways to have come down from heaven. First, as regards His Divine Nature; not indeed that the Divine Nature ceased to be in heaven, but inasmuch as He began to be here below in a new way, viz. by His a.s.sumed nature, according to John 3:13: ”No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, Who is in heaven.”
Secondly, as regards His body, not indeed that the very substance of the body of Christ descended from heaven, but that His body was formed by a heavenly power, i.e. by the Holy Ghost. Hence Augustine, explaining the pa.s.sage quoted, says (Ad Orosium [*Dial. Qq. lxv, qu.
4, work of an unknown author]): ”I call Christ a heavenly man because He was not conceived of human seed.” And Hilary expounds it in the same way (De Trin. x).
Reply Obj. 2: Flesh and blood are not taken here for the substance of flesh and blood, but for the corruption of flesh, which was not in Christ as far as it was sinful; but as far as it was a punishment; thus, for a time, it was in Christ, that He might carry through the work of our redemption.
Reply Obj. 3: It pertains to the greatest glory of G.o.d to have raised a weak and earthly body to such sublimity. Hence in the General Council of Ephesus (P. II, Act. I) we read the saying of St.
Theophilus: ”Just as the best workmen are esteemed not merely for displaying their skill in precious materials, but very often because by making use of the poorest clay and commonest earth, they show the power of their craft; so the best of all workmen, the Word of G.o.d, did not come down to us by taking a heavenly body of some most precious matter, but shewed the greatness of His skill in clay.”
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 3]
Whether the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a Soul?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul.
For John has said, teaching the mystery of the Incarnation (John 1:14): ”The Word was made flesh”--no mention being made of a soul.
Now it is not said that ”the Word was made flesh” as if changed to flesh, but because He a.s.sumed flesh. Therefore He seems not to have a.s.sumed a soul.
Obj. 2: Further, a soul is necessary to the body, in order to quicken it. But this was not necessary for the body of Christ, as it would seem, for of the Word of G.o.d it is written (Ps. 35:10): Lord, ”with Thee is the fountain of life.” Therefore it would seem altogether superfluous for the soul to be there, when the Word was present. But ”G.o.d and nature do nothing uselessly,” as the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 32; ii, 56). Therefore the Word would seem not to have a.s.sumed a soul.
Obj. 3: Further, by the union of soul and body is const.i.tuted the common nature, which is the human species. But ”in the Lord Jesus Christ we are not to look for a common species,” as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3). Therefore He did not a.s.sume a soul.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxi): ”Let us not hearken to such as say that only a human body was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d; and take 'the Word was made flesh' to mean that the man had no soul nor any other part of a man, save flesh.”
_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Haeres. 69, 55), it was first of all the opinion of Arius and then of Apollinaris that the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed only flesh, without a soul, holding that the Word took the place of a soul to the body. And consequently it followed that there were not two natures in Christ, but only one; for from a soul and body one human nature is const.i.tuted. But this opinion cannot hold, for three reasons. First, because it is counter to the authority of Scripture, in which our Lord makes mention of His soul, Matt. 26:38: ”My soul is sorrowful even unto death”; and John 10:18: ”I have power to lay down My soul [_animam meam:_ Douay: 'My life'].”
But to this Apollinaris replied that in these words soul is taken metaphorically, in which way mention is made in the Old Testament of the soul of G.o.d (Isa. 1:14): ”My soul hateth your new moons and your solemnities.” But, as Augustine says (Qq. lx.x.xiii, qu. 80), the Evangelists relate how Jesus wondered, was angered, sad, and hungry.
Now these show that He had a true soul, just as that He ate, slept and was weary shows that He had a true human body: otherwise, if these things are a metaphor, because the like are said of G.o.d in the Old Testament, the trustworthiness of the Gospel story is undermined.
For it is one thing that things were foretold in a figure, and another that historical events were related in very truth by the Evangelists. Secondly, this error lessens the utility of the Incarnation, which is man's liberation. For Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis] argues thus (Contra Felician. xiii): ”If the Son of G.o.d in taking flesh pa.s.sed over the soul, either He knew its sinlessness, and trusted it did not need a remedy; or He considered it unsuitable to Him, and did not bestow on it the boon of redemption; or He reckoned it altogether incurable, and was unable to heal it; or He cast it off as worthless and seemingly unfit for any use. Now two of these reasons imply a blasphemy against G.o.d. For how shall we call Him omnipotent, if He is unable to heal what is beyond hope? Or G.o.d of all, if He has not made our soul. And as regards the other two reasons, in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no place is given to merit. Is He to be considered to understand the cause of the soul, Who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful transgression, enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment of the habit of reason? Or how can His generosity be known to any one who says it was despised on account of its ign.o.ble sinfulness? If you look at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than the body: but if at the sin of transgression, on account of its intelligence it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that Christ is perfect wisdom, nor have I any doubt that He is most loving; and because of the first of these He did not despise what was better and more capable of prudence; and because of the second He protected what was most wounded.” Thirdly, this position is against the truth of the Incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man receive their species through the soul. Hence, if the soul is absent, there are no bones nor flesh, except equivocally, as is plain from the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 9; _Metaph._ vii, 34).
Reply Obj. 1: When we say, ”The Word was made flesh,” ”flesh” is taken for the whole man, as if we were to say, ”The Word was made man,” as Isa. 40:5: ”All flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken.” And the whole man is signified by flesh, because, as is said in the authority quoted, the Son of G.o.d became visible by flesh; hence it is subjoined: ”And we saw His glory.” Or because, as Augustine says (Qq. lx.x.xiii, qu. 80), ”in all that union the Word is the highest, and flesh the last and lowest. Hence, wis.h.i.+ng to commend the love of G.o.d's humility to us, the Evangelist mentioned the Word and flesh, leaving the soul on one side, since it is less than the Word and n.o.bler than flesh.” Again, it was reasonable to mention flesh, which, as being farther away from the Word, was less a.s.sumable, as it would seem.
Reply Obj. 2: The Word is the fountain of life, as the first effective cause of life; but the soul is the principle of the life of the body, as its form. Now the form is the effect of the agent. Hence from the presence of the Word it might rather have been concluded that the body was animated, just as from the presence of fire it may be concluded that the body, in which fire adheres, is warm.
Reply Obj. 3: It is not unfitting, indeed it is necessary to say that in Christ there was a nature which was const.i.tuted by the soul coming to the body. But Damascene denied that in Jesus Christ there was a common species, i.e. a third something resulting from the G.o.dhead and the humanity.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 5, Art. 4]