Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 29 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 2: This word ”Father” is predicated of this word ”G.o.d,”

inasmuch as this word ”G.o.d” stands for the Person of the Father. And in this way it is not predicated of the Person of the Son, because the Person of the Son is not the Person of the Father. And, consequently, it is not necessary that this word ”Father” be predicated of this word ”Man,” of which the Word ”G.o.d” is predicated, inasmuch as ”Man” stands for the Person of the Son.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the human nature in Christ is something new, yet the suppositum of the human nature is not new, but eternal. And because this word ”G.o.d” is predicated of man not on account of the human nature, but by reason of the suppositum, it does not follow that we a.s.sert a new G.o.d. But this would follow, if we held that ”Man” stands for a created suppositum: even as must be said by those who a.s.sert that there are two supposita in Christ [*Cf. Q. 2, AA. 3, 6].

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 3]

Whether Christ Can Be Called a Lordly Man?*

[*The question is hardly apposite in English. St. Thomas explains why we can say in Latin, e.g. _oratio dominica_ (the Lord's Prayer) or _pa.s.sio dominica_ (Our Lord's Pa.s.sion), but not speak of our Lord as _h.o.m.o dominicus_ (a lordly man)].

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ can be called a lordly man.

For Augustine says (Qq. lx.x.xiii, qu. 36) that ”we are to be counseled to hope for the goods that were in the Lordly Man”; and he is speaking of Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ was a lordly man.

Obj. 2: Further, as lords.h.i.+p belongs to Christ by reason of His Divine Nature, so does manhood belong to the human nature. Now G.o.d is said to be ”humanized,” as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth.

iii, 11), where he says that ”being humanized manifests the conjunction with man.” Hence with like reason may it be said denominatively that this man is lordly.

Obj. 3: Further, as ”lordly” is derived from ”lord,” so is ”Divine”

derived from ”Deus” [G.o.d]. But Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iv) calls Christ the ”most Divine Jesus.” Therefore with like reason may Christ be called a lordly man.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 19): ”I do not see that we may rightly call Jesus Christ a lordly man, since He is the Lord Himself.”

_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 2, ad 3), when we say ”the Man Christ Jesus,” we signify the eternal suppositum, which is the Person of the Son of G.o.d, because there is only one suppositum of both natures. Now ”G.o.d” and ”Lord” are predicated essentially of the Son of G.o.d; and hence they ought not to be predicated denominatively, since this is derogatory to the truth of the union. Hence, since we say ”lordly” denominatively from lord, it cannot truly and properly be said that this Man is lordly, but rather that He is Lord. But if, when we say ”the Man Christ Jesus,” we mean a created suppositum, as those who a.s.sert two supposita in Christ, this man might be called lordly, inasmuch as he is a.s.sumed to a partic.i.p.ation of Divine honor, as the Nestorians said. And, even in this way, the human nature is not called ”divine” by essence, but ”deified”--not, indeed, by its being converted into the Divine Nature, but by its conjunction with the Divine Nature in one hypostasis, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 11, 17).

Reply Obj. 1: Augustine retracts these and the like words (Retract.

i, 19); hence, after the foregoing words (Retract. i, 19), he adds: ”Wherever I have said this,” viz. that Christ Jesus is a lordly man, ”I wish it unsaid, having afterwards seen that it ought not to be said although it may be defended with some reason,” i.e. because one might say that He was called a lordly man by reason of the human nature, which this word ”man” signifies, and not by reason of the suppositum.

Reply Obj. 2: This one suppositum, which is of the human and Divine natures, was first of the Divine Nature, i.e. from eternity.

Afterwards in time it was made a suppositum of human nature by the Incarnation. And for this reason it is said to be ”humanized”--not that it a.s.sumed a man, but that it a.s.sumed human nature. But the converse of this is not true, viz. that a suppositum of human nature a.s.sumed the Divine Nature; hence we may not say a ”deified” or ”lordly” man.

Reply Obj. 3: This word Divine is wont to be predicated even of things of which the word G.o.d is predicated essentially; thus we say that ”the Divine Essence is G.o.d,” by reason of ident.i.ty; and that ”the Essence belongs to G.o.d,” or is ”Divine,” on account of the different way of signifying; and we speak of the ”Divine Word,”

though the Word is G.o.d. So, too, we say ”a Divine Person,” just as we say ”the person of Plato,” on account of its different mode of signification. But ”lordly” is not predicated of those of which ”lord” is predicated; for we are not wont to call a man who is a lord, lordly; but whatsoever belongs to a lord is called lordly, as the ”lordly will,” or the ”lordly hand,” or the ”lordly possession.”

And hence the man Christ, Who is our Lord, cannot be called lordly; yet His flesh can be called ”lordly flesh” and His pa.s.sion the ”lordly pa.s.sion.”

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 4]

Whether What Belongs to the Human Nature Can Be Predicated of G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of G.o.d. For contrary things cannot be said of the same. Now, what belongs to human nature is contrary to what is proper to G.o.d, since G.o.d is uncreated, immutable, and eternal, and it belongs to the human nature to be created temporal and mutable.

Therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, to attribute to G.o.d what is defective seems to be derogatory to the Divine honor, and to be a blasphemy. Now what pertains to the human nature contains a kind of defect, as to suffer, to die, and the like. Hence it seems that what pertains to the human nature can nowise be said of G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, to be a.s.sumed pertains to the human nature; yet it does not pertain to G.o.d. Therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that ”G.o.d a.s.sumed the idioms,” i.e. the properties, ”of flesh, since G.o.d is said to be pa.s.sible, and the G.o.d of glory was crucified.”

_I answer that,_ On this question there was a difference of opinion between Nestorians and Catholics. The Nestorians wished to divide words predicated of Christ, in this way, viz. that such as pertained to human nature should not be predicated of G.o.d, and that such as pertained to the Divine Nature should not be predicated of the Man.