Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 11 (1/2)

_I answer that,_ A medium is in reference to a beginning and an end.

Hence as beginning and end imply order, so also does a medium. Now there is a twofold order: one, of time; the other, of nature. But in the mystery of the Incarnation nothing is said to be a medium in the order of time, for the Word of G.o.d united the whole human nature to Himself at the same time, as will appear (Q. 30, A. 3). An order of nature between things may be taken in two ways: first, as regards rank of dignity, as we say the angels are midway between man and G.o.d; secondly, as regards the idea of causality, as we say a cause is midway between the first cause and the last effect. And this second order follows the first to some extent; for as Dionysius says (Coel.

Hier. xiii), G.o.d acts upon the more remote substances through the less remote. Hence if we consider the rank of dignity, the soul is found to be midway between G.o.d and flesh; and in this way it may be said that the Son of G.o.d united flesh to Himself, through the medium of the soul. But even as regards the second order of causality the soul is to some extent the cause of flesh being united to the Son of G.o.d. For the flesh would not have been a.s.sumable, except by its relation to the rational soul, through which it becomes human flesh.

For it was said above (Q. 4, A. 1) that human nature was a.s.sumable before all others.

Reply Obj. 1: We may consider a twofold order between creatures and G.o.d: the first is by reason of creatures being caused by G.o.d and depending on Him as on the principle of their being; and thus on account of the infinitude of His power G.o.d touches each thing immediately, by causing and preserving it, and so it is that G.o.d is in all things by essence, presence and power. But the second order is by reason of things being directed to G.o.d as to their end; and it is here that there is a medium between the creature and G.o.d, since lower creatures are directed to G.o.d by higher, as Dionysius says (Eccl.

Hier. v); and to this order pertains the a.s.sumption of human nature by the Word of G.o.d, Who is the term of the a.s.sumption; and hence it is united to flesh through the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: If the hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d were const.i.tuted simply by human nature, it would follow that the body was nearest to it, since it is matter which is the principle of individuation; even as the soul, being the specific form, would be nearer the human nature. But because the hypostasis of the Word is prior to and more exalted than the human nature, the more exalted any part of the human nature is, the nearer it is to the hypostasis of the Word. And hence the soul is nearer the Word of G.o.d than the body is.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the apt.i.tude and congruity of another, and yet if it be taken away the other remains; because although a thing's becoming may depend on another, yet when it is in being it no longer depends on it, just as a friends.h.i.+p brought about by some other may endure when the latter has gone; or as a woman is taken in marriage on account of her beauty, which makes a woman's fittingness for the marriage tie, yet when her beauty pa.s.ses away, the marriage tie still remains. So likewise, when the soul was separated, the union of the Word with flesh still endured.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 2]

Whether the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a Soul Through the Medium of the Spirit or Mind?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. For nothing is a medium between itself and another. But the spirit is nothing else in essence but the soul itself, as was said above (I, Q. 77, A. 1, ad 1).

Therefore the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.

Obj. 2: Further, what is the medium of the a.s.sumption is itself more a.s.sumable. But the spirit or mind is not more a.s.sumable than the soul; which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are not a.s.sumable, as was said above (Q. 4, A. 1). Hence it seems that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit.

Obj. 3: Further, that which comes later is a.s.sumed by the first through the medium of what comes before. But the soul implies the very essence, which naturally comes before its power--the mind.

Therefore it would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii): ”The invisible and unchangeable Truth took a soul by means of the spirit, and a body by means of the soul.”

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the Son of G.o.d is said to have a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul, on account of the order of dignity, and the congruity of the a.s.sumption. Now both these may be applied to the intellect, which is called the spirit, if we compare it with the other parts of the soul. For the soul is a.s.sumed congruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for G.o.d, being in His likeness: which is in respect of the mind that is called the spirit, according to Eph. 4:23: ”Be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” So, too, the intellect is the highest and n.o.blest of the parts of the soul, and the most like to G.o.d, and hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that ”the Word of G.o.d is united to flesh through the medium of the intellect; for the intellect is the purest part of the soul, G.o.d Himself being an intellect.”

Reply Obj. 1: Although the intellect is not distinct from the soul in essence, it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as a power; and it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium.

Reply Obj. 2: Fitness for a.s.sumption is wanting to the angelic spirits, not from any lack of dignity, but because of the irremediableness of their fall, which cannot be said of the human spirit, as is clear from what has been said above (I, Q. 62, A. 8; First Part, Q. 64, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: The soul, between which and the Word of G.o.d the intellect is said to be a medium, does not stand for the essence of the soul, which is common to all the powers, but for the lower powers, which are common to every soul.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether the Soul Was a.s.sumed Before the Flesh by the Son of G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was a.s.sumed before the flesh by the Word. For the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul, as was said above (A. 1). Now the medium is reached before the end. Therefore the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the soul before the body.

Obj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ is n.o.bler than the angels, according to Ps. 96:8: ”Adore Him, all you His angels.” But the angels were created in the beginning, as was said above (I, Q. 46, A.

3). Therefore the soul of Christ also (was created in the beginning).

But it was not created before it was a.s.sumed, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2, 3, 9), that ”neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any hypostasis save the hypostasis of the Word.”

Therefore it would seem that the soul was a.s.sumed before the flesh, which was conceived in the womb of the Virgin.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (John 1:14): ”We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] full of grace and truth,” and it is added afterwards that ”of His fulness we have all received” (John 1:16), i.e. all the faithful of all time, as Chrysostom expounds it (Hom. xiii in Joan.). Now this could not have been unless the soul of Christ had all fulness of grace and truth before all the saints, who were from the beginning of the world, for the cause is not subsequent to the effect. Hence since the fulness of grace and truth was in the soul of Christ from union with the Word, according to what is written in the same place: ”We saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” it would seem in consequence that from the beginning of the world the soul of Christ was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 6): ”The intellect was not, as some untruthfully say, united to the true G.o.d, and henceforth called Christ, before the Incarnation which was of the Virgin.”