Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de unione ex parte personae assumentis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We must now consider the union on the part of the Person assuming, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum assumere conveniat personae divinae. | (1) Whether to assume is befitting to a Divine Person? |
| Secundo, utrum conveniat naturae divinae. | (2) Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature? |
| Tertio, utrum natura possit assumere, abstracta personalitate. | (3) Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can assume? |
| Quarto, utrum una persona possit assumere sine alia. | (4) Whether one Person can assume without another? |
| Quinto, utrum quaelibet persona possit assumere. | (5) Whether each Person can assume? |
| Sexto, utrum plures personae possint assumere unam naturam numero. | (6) Whether several Persons can assume one individual nature? |
| Septimo, utrum una persona possit assumere duas naturas numero. | (7) Whether one Person can assume two individual natures? |
| Octavo, utrum magis fuerit conveniens de persona filii quod assumpsit humanam naturam, quam de alia persona divina. | (8) Whether it was more fitting for the Person of the Son of God to assume human nature than for another Divine Person? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod personae divinae non conveniat assumere naturam creatam. Persona enim divina significat aliquid maxime perfectum. Perfectum autem est cui non potest fieri additio. Cum igitur assumere sit quasi ad se sumere, ita quod assumptum addatur assumenti, videtur quod personae divinae non conveniat assumere naturam creatam. | Objection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies something most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is perfect. Therefore, since to assume is to take to oneself, and consequently what is assumed is added to the one who assumes, it does not seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. |
| Praeterea, illud ad quod aliquid assumitur, communicatur quodammodo ei quod in ipsum assumitur, sicut dignitas communicatur ei qui in dignitatem assumitur. Sed de ratione personae est quod sit incommunicabilis, ut in prima parte dictum est. Ergo personae divinae non convenit assumere, quod est ad se sumere. | Objection 2: Further, that to which anything is assumed is communicated in some degree to what is assumed to it, just as dignity is communicated to whosoever is assumed to a dignity. But it is of the nature of a person to be incommunicable, as was said above (FP, Question [29], Article [1]). Therefore it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume, i.e. to take to Himself. |
| Praeterea, persona constituitur per naturam. Sed inconveniens est quod constitutum assumat constituens, quia effectus non agit in suam causam. Ergo personae non convenit assumere naturam. | Objection 3: Further, person is constituted by nature. But it is repugnant that the thing constituted should assume the constituent, since the effect does not act on its cause. Hence it is not befitting to a Person to assume a nature. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, formam, idest naturam servi in suam accepit Deus ille, scilicet unigenitus, personam. Sed Deus unigenitus est persona. Ergo personae competit accipere naturam, quod est assumere. | On the contrary, Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): "This God, i.e. the only-Begotten one, took the form," i.e. the nature, "of a servant to His own Person." But the only-Begotten God is a Person. Therefore it is befitting to a Person to take, i.e. to assume a nature. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in verbo assumptionis duo importantur, videlicet principium actus, et terminus, dicitur enim assumere quasi ad se aliquid sumere. Huius autem assumptionis persona est et principium et terminus. Principium quidem, quia personae proprie competit agere, huiusmodi autem sumptio carnis per actionem divinam facta est. Similiter etiam persona est huius sumptionis terminus, quia, sicut supra dictum est, unio facta est in persona, non in natura. Et sic patet quod propriissime competit personae assumere naturam. | I answer that, In the word "assumption" are implied two things, viz. the principle and the term of the act, for to assume is to take something to oneself. Now of this assumption a Person is both the principle and the term. The principle---because it properly belongs to a person to act, and this assuming of flesh took place by the Divine action. Likewise a Person is the term of this assumption, because, as was said above (Question [2], Articles [1],2), the union took place in the Person, and not in the nature. Hence it is plain that to assume a nature is most properly befitting to a Person. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum persona divina sit infinita, non potest ei fieri additio. Unde Cyrillus dicit, in epistola synodali Ephesini Concilii, non secundum coappositionem coniunctionis intelligimus modum. Sicut etiam in unione hominis ad Deum quae est per gratiam adoptionis, non additur aliquid Deo, sed id quod divinum est apponitur homini. Unde non Deus, sed homo perficitur. | Reply to Objection 1: Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: "We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition"; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man; hence, not God but man is perfected. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod persona dicitur incommunicabilis inquantum non potest de pluribus suppositis praedicari. Nihil tamen prohibet plura de persona praedicari. Unde non est contra rationem personae sic communicari ut subsistat in pluribus naturis. Quia etiam in personam creatam possunt plures naturae concurrere accidentaliter, sicut in persona unius hominis invenitur quantitas et qualitas. Hoc autem est proprium divinae personae, propter eius infinitatem, ut fiat in ea concursus naturarum, non quidem accidentaliter, sed secundum subsistentiam. | Reply to Objection 2: A Divine Person is said to be incommunicable inasmuch as It cannot be predicated of several supposita, but nothing prevents several things being predicated of the Person. Hence it is not contrary to the nature of person to be communicated so as to subsist in several natures, for even in a created person several natures may concur accidentally, as in the person of one man we find quantity and quality. But this is proper to a Divine Person, on account of its infinity, that there should be a concourse of natures in it, not accidentally, but in subsistence. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, natura humana non constituit personam divinam simpliciter, sed constituit eam secundum quod denominatur a tali natura. Non enim ex natura humana habet filius Dei quod sit simpliciter, cum fuerit ab aeterno, sed solum quod sit homo. Sed secundum naturam divinam constituitur persona divina simpliciter. Unde persona divina non dicitur assumere divinam naturam, sed humanam. | Reply to Objection 3: As was said above (Question [2], Article [1]), the human nature constitutes a Divine Person, not simply, but forasmuch as the Person is denominated from such a nature. For human nature does not make the Son of Man to be simply, since He was from eternity, but only to be man. It is by the Divine Nature that a Divine Person is constituted simply. Hence the Divine Person is not said to assume the Divine Nature, but to assume the human nature. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod naturae divinae non conveniat assumere. Quia, sicut dictum est assumere dicitur quasi ad se sumere. Sed natura divina non sumpsit ad se humanam naturam, quia non est facta unio in natura, sed in persona, sicut supra dictum est. Ergo naturae divinae non competit assumere naturam humanam. | Objection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to assume. Because, as was said above (Article [1]), to assume is to take to oneself. But the Divine Nature did not take to Itself human nature, for the union did not take place in the nature, as was said above (Question [2], Articles [1],3). Hence it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to assume human nature. |
| Praeterea, natura divina communis est tribus personis. Si igitur naturae convenit assumere, sequitur quod conveniat tribus personis et ita pater assumpsit humanam naturam, sicut et filius. Quod est erroneum. | Objection 2: Further, the Divine Nature is common to the three Persons. If, therefore, it is befitting to the Divine Nature to assume, it consequently is befitting to the three Persons; and thus the Father assumed human nature even as the Son, which is erroneous. |
| Praeterea, assumere est agere. Agere autem convenit personae, non naturae, quae magis significatur ut principium quo agens agit. Ergo assumere non convenit naturae. | Objection 3: Further, to assume is to act. But to act befits a person, not a nature, which is rather taken to be the principle by which the agent acts. Therefore to assume is not befitting to the nature. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, illa natura quae semper genita manet ex patre, idest, quae est per generationem aeternam accepta a patre, naturam nostram sine peccato suscepit. | On the contrary, Augustine (Fulgentius) says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): "That nature which remains eternally begotten of the Father" (i.e. which is received from the Father by eternal generation) "took our nature free of sin from His Mother." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, in verbo assumptionis duo significantur, scilicet principium actionis, et terminus eius. Esse autem assumptionis principium convenit naturae divinae secundum seipsam, quia eius virtute assumptio facta est. Sed esse terminum assumptionis non convenit naturae divinae secundum seipsam, sed ratione personae in qua consideratur. Et ideo primo quidem et propriissime persona dicitur assumere, secundario autem potest dici quod etiam natura assumit naturam ad sui personam. Et secundum etiam hunc modum dicitur natura incarnata, non quasi sit in carnem conversa; sed quia naturam carnis assumpsit. Unde dicit Damascenus, dicimus naturam Dei incarnatam esse, secundum beatos Athanasium et Cyrillum. | I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), in the word assumption two things are signified---to wit, the principle and the term of the action. Now to be the principle of the assumption belongs to the Divine Nature in itself, because the assumption took place by Its power; but to be the term of the assumption does not belong to the Divine Nature in itself, but by reason of the Person in Whom It is considered to be. Hence a Person is primarily and more properly said to assume, but it may be said secondarily that the Nature assumed a nature to Its Person. And after the same manner the Nature is also said to be incarnate, not that it is changed to flesh, but that it assumed the nature of flesh. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6): "Following the blessed Athanasius and Cyril we say that the Nature of God is incarnate." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ly se est reciprocum, et refert idem suppositum. Natura autem divina non differt supposito a persona verbi. Et ideo, inquantum natura divina sumit naturam humanam ad personam verbi, dicitur eam ad se sumere. Sed quamvis pater assumat naturam humanam ad personam verbi, non tamen propter hoc sumit eam ad se, quia non est idem suppositum patris et verbi. Et ideo non potest dici proprie quod pater assumat naturam humanam. | Reply to Objection 1: "Oneself" is reciprocal, and points to the same suppositum. But the Divine Nature is not a distinct suppositum from the Person of the Word. Hence, inasmuch as the Divine Nature took human nature to the Person of the Word, It is said to take it to Itself. But although the Father takes human nature to the Person of the Word, He did not thereby take it to Himself, for the suppositum of the Father and the Son is not one. and hence it cannot properly be said that the Father assumes human nature. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod convenit divinae naturae secundum se, convenit tribus personis, sicut bonitas, sapientia et huiusmodi. Sed assumere convenit ei ratione personae verbi, sicut dictum est. Et ideo soli illi personae convenit. | Reply to Objection 2: What is befitting to the Divine Nature in Itself is befitting to the three Persons, as goodness, wisdom, and the like. But to assume belongs to It by reason of the Person of the Word, as was said above, and hence it is befitting to that Person alone. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in Deo idem est quod est et quo est, ita etiam in eo idem est quod agit et quo agit, quia unumquodque agit inquantum est ens. Unde natura divina et est id quo Deus agit, et est ipse Deus agens. | Reply to Objection 3: As in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same, so likewise in Him "what acts" and "whereby it acts" are the same, since everything acts, inasmuch as it is a being. Hence the Divine Nature is both that whereby God acts, and the very God Who acts. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod, abstracta personalitate per intellectum, natura non possit assumere. Dictum est enim quod naturae convenit assumere ratione personae. Sed quod convenit alicui ratione alicuius, remoto eo, non potest ei convenire, sicut corpus, quod est visibile ratione coloris, sine colore videri non potest. Ergo, abstracta personalitate per intellectum, natura assumere non potest. | Objection 1: It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by our mind, the Nature cannot assume. For it was said above (Article [1]) that it belongs to the Nature to assume by reason of the Person. But what belongs to one by reason of another cannot belong to it if the other is removed; as a body, which is visible by reason of color, without color cannot be seen. Hence if the Personality be mentally abstracted, the Nature cannot assume. |
| Praeterea, assumptio importat terminum unionis, ut dictum est. Sed unio non potest fieri in natura, sed solum in persona. Ergo, abstracta personalitate, natura divina non potest assumere. | Objection 2: Further, assumption implies the term of union, as was said above (Article [1]). But the union cannot take place in the nature, but only in the Person. Therefore, if the Personality be abstracted, the Divine Nature cannot assume. |
| Praeterea, in prima parte dictum est quod in divinis, abstracta personalitate, nihil manet. Sed assumens est aliquid. Ergo, abstracta personalitate, non potest divina natura assumere. | Objection 3: Further, it has been said above (FP, Question [40], Article [3]) that in the Godhead if the Personality is abstracted, nothing remains. But the one who assumes is something. Therefore, if the Personality is abstracted, the Divine Nature cannot assume. |
| Sed contra est quod in divinis personalitas dicitur proprietas personalis, quae est triplex, scilicet paternitas, processio et filiatio, ut in prima parte dictum est. Sed, remotis his per intellectum, adhuc remanet Dei omnipotentia, per quam est facta incarnatio, sicut Angelus dixit, Luc. I, non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. Ergo videtur quod, etiam remota personalitate, natura divina possit assumere. | On the contrary, In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal property; and this is threefold, viz. Paternity, Filiation and Procession, as was said above (FP, Question [30], Article [2]). Now if we mentally abstract these, there still remains the omnipotence of God, by which the Incarnation was wrought, as the angel says (Lk. 1:37): "No word shall be impossible with God." Therefore it seems that if the Personality be removed, the Divine Nature can still assume. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod intellectus dupliciter se habet ad divina uno modo, ut cognoscat Deum sicuti est. Et sic impossibile est quod circumscribatur per intellectum aliquid a Deo quod aliud remaneat, quia totum quod est in Deo est unum, salva distinctione personarum; quarum tamen una tollitur, sublata alia, quia distinguuntur solum relationibus, quas oportet esse simul. Alio modo se habet intellectus ad divina, non quidem quasi cognoscens Deum ut est, sed per modum suum, scilicet multipliciter et divisim id quod in Deo est unum. Et per hunc modum potest intellectus noster intelligere bonitatem et sapientiam divinam, et alia huiusmodi, quae dicuntur essentialia attributa, non intellecta paternitate vel filiatione, quae dicuntur personalitates. Et secundum hoc, abstracta personalitate per intellectum, possumus adhuc intelligere naturam assumentem. | I answer that, The intellect stands in two ways towards God. First, to know God as He is, and in this manner it is impossible for the intellect to circumscribe something in God and leave the rest, for all that is in God is one, except the distinction of Persons; and as regards these, if one is removed the other is taken away, since they are distinguished by relations only which must be together at the same time. Secondly, the intellect stands towards God, not indeed as knowing God as He is, but in its own way, i.e. understanding manifoldly and separately what in God is one: and in this way our intellect can understand the Divine goodness and wisdom, and the like, which are called essential attributes, without understanding Paternity or Filiation, which are called Personalities. And hence if we abstract Personality by our intellect, we may still understand the Nature assuming. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia in divinis idem est quo est et quod est, quidquid eorum quae attribuuntur Deo in abstracto secundum se consideretur, aliis circumscriptis, erit aliquid subsistens, et per consequens persona, cum sit in natura intellectuali. Sicut igitur nunc, positis proprietatibus personalibus in Deo, dicimus tres personas, ita, exclusis per intellectum proprietatibus personalibus, remanebit in consideratione nostra natura divina ut subsistens, et ut persona. Et per hunc modum potest intelligi quod assumat naturam humanam ratione suae subsistentiae vel personalitatis. | Reply to Objection 1: Because in God "what is," and "whereby it is," are one, if any one of the things which are attributed to God in the abstract is considered in itself, abstracted from all else, it will still be something subsisting, and consequently a Person, since it is an intellectual nature. Hence just as we now say three Persons, on account of holding three personal properties, so likewise if we mentally exclude the personal properties there will still remain in our thought the Divine Nature as subsisting and as a Person. And in this way It may be understood to assume human nature by reason of Its subsistence or Personality. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, etiam circumscriptis per intellectum personalitatibus trium personarum, remanebit in intellectu una personalitas Dei, ut Iudaei intelligunt, ad quam poterit terminari assumptio, sicut nunc dicimus eam terminari ad personam verbi. | Reply to Objection 2: Even if the personal properties of the three Persons are abstracted by our mind, nevertheless there will remain in our thoughts the one Personality of God, as the Jews consider. And the assumption can be terminated in It, as we now say it is terminated in the Person of the Word. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, abstracta personalitate per intellectum, dicitur nihil remanere per modum resolutionis, quasi aliud sit quod subiicitur relationi, et aliud ipsa relatio, quia quidquid consideratur in Deo, consideratur ut suppositum subsistens. Potest tamen aliquid eorum quae dicuntur de Deo intelligi sine alio, non per modum resolutionis, sed per modum iam dictum. | Reply to Objection 3: If we mentally abstract the Personality, it is said that nothing remains by way of resolution, i.e. as if the subject of the relation and the relation itself were distinct because all we can think of in God is considered as a subsisting suppositum. However, some of the things predicated of God can be understood without others, not by way of resolution, but by the way mentioned above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod una persona non possit assumere naturam creatam, alia non assumente. Indivisa enim sunt opera Trinitatis, ut dicit Augustinus, in Enchirid., sicut enim trium personarum est una essentia, ita una operatio. Sed assumere est operatio quaedam. Ergo non potest convenire uni personae divinae quin conveniat alii. | Objection 1: It would seem that one Person cannot assume a created nature without another assuming it. For "the works of the Trinity are inseparable," as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxviii). But as the three Persons have one essence, so likewise They have one operation. Now to assume is an operation. Therefore it cannot belong to one without belonging to another. |
| Praeterea, sicut dicimus personam filii incarnatam, ita et naturam, tota enim divina natura in una suarum hypostasum incarnata est, ut dicit Damascenus, in III libro. Sed natura communis est tribus personis. Ergo et assumptio. | Objection 2: Further, as we say the Person of the Son became incarnate, so also did the Nature; for "the whole Divine Nature became incarnate in one of Its hypostases," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6). But the Nature is common to the three Persons. Therefore the assumption is. |
| Praeterea, sicut humana natura in Christo assumpta est a Deo, ita etiam et homines per gratiam assumuntur ab ipso, secundum illud Rom. XIV, Deus illum assumpsit. Sed haec assumptio communiter pertinet ad omnes personas. Ergo et prima. | Objection 3: Further, as the human nature in Christ is assumed by God, so likewise are men assumed by Him through grace, according to Rm. 14:3: "God hath taken him to Him." But this assumption pertains to all the Persons; therefore the first also. |
| Sed contra est quod Dionysius, II cap. de Div. Nom., incarnationis mysterium dicit pertinere ad discretam theologiam, secundum quam scilicet aliquid distinctum dicitur de divinis personis. | On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii) that the mystery of the Incarnation pertains to "discrete theology," i.e. according to which something "distinct" is said of the Divine Persons. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, assumptio duo importat, scilicet actum assumentis, et terminum assumptionis. Actus autem assumentis procedit ex divina virtute, quae communis est tribus personis, sed terminus assumptionis est persona, sicut dictum est. Et ideo id quod est actionis in assumptione, commune est tribus personis, sed id quod pertinet ad rationem termini, convenit ita uni personae quod non alii. Tres enim personae fecerunt ut humana natura uniretur uni personae filii. | I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), assumption implies two things, viz. the act of assuming and the term of assumption. Now the act of assumption proceeds from the Divine power, which is common to the three Persons, but the term of the assumption is a Person, as stated above (Article [2]). Hence what has to do with action in the assumption is common to the three Persons; but what pertains to the nature of term belongs to one Person in such a manner as not to belong to another; for the three Persons caused the human nature to be united to the one Person of the Son. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte operationis. Et sequeretur conclusio si solam illam operationem importaret absque termino, qui est persona. | Reply to Objection 1: This reason regards the operation, and the conclusion would follow if it implied this operation only, without the term, which is a Person. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod natura dicitur incarnata, sicut et assumens, ratione personae ad quam terminata est unio, sicut dictum est, non autem prout est communis tribus personis. Dicitur autem tota natura divina incarnata, non quia sit incarnata in omnibus personis, sed quia nihil deest de perfectione divinae naturae personae incarnatae. | Reply to Objection 2: The Nature is said to be incarnate, and to assume by reason of the Person in Whom the union is terminated, as stated above (Articles [1],2), and not as it is common to the three Persons. Now "the whole Divine Nature is" said to be "incarnate"; not that It is incarnate in all the Persons, but inasmuch as nothing is wanting to the perfection of the Divine Nature of the Person incarnate, as Damascene explains there. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod assumptio quae fit per gratiam adoptionis, terminatur ad quandam participationem divinae naturae secundum assimilationem ad bonitatem illius, secundum illud II Pet. I, ut divinae consortes naturae, et cetera. Et ideo huiusmodi assumptio communis est tribus personis et ex parte principii et ex parte termini. Sed assumptio quae est per gratiam unionis, est communis ex parte principii, non autem ex parte termini, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: The assumption which takes place by the grace of adoption is terminated in a certain participation of the Divine Nature, by an assimilation to Its goodness, according to 2 Pt. 1:4: "That you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature"; and hence this assumption is common to the three Persons, in regard to the principle and the term. But the assumption which is by the grace of union is common on the part of the principle, but not on the part of the term, as was said above. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla alia persona divina potuit humanam naturam assumere, praeter personam filii. Per huiusmodi enim assumptionem factum est quod Deus sit filius hominis. Sed inconveniens esset quod esse filium conveniret patri vel spiritui sancto, hoc enim vergeret in confusionem divinarum personarum. Ergo pater et spiritus sanctus carnem assumere non possent. | Objection 1: It would seem that no other Divine Person could have assumed human nature except the Person of the Son. For by this assumption it has been brought about that God is the Son of Man. But it was not becoming that either the Father or the Holy Ghost should be said to be a Son; for this would tend to the confusion of the Divine Persons. Therefore the Father and Holy Ghost could not have assumed flesh. |
| Praeterea, per incarnationem divinam homines sunt assecuti adoptionem filiorum, secundum illud Rom. VIII, non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum adoptionis filiorum. Sed filiatio adoptiva est participata similitudo filiationis naturalis, quae non convenit nec patri nec spiritui sancto, unde dicitur Rom. VIII, quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui. Ergo videtur quod nulla alia persona potuit incarnari praeter personam filii. | Objection 2: Further, by the Divine Incarnation men have come into possession of the adoption of sons, according to Rm. 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit of adoption of sons." But sonship by adoption is a participated likeness of natural sonship which does not belong to the Father nor the Holy Ghost; hence it is said (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." Therefore it seems that no other Person except the Person of the Son could have become incarnate. |
| Praeterea, filius dicitur missus, et genitus nativitate temporali, secundum quod incarnatus est. Sed patri non convenit mitti, qui est innascibilis, ut in prima parte habitum est. Ergo saltem persona patris non potuit incarnari. | Objection 3: Further, the Son is said to be sent and to be begotten by the temporal nativity, inasmuch as He became incarnate. But it does not belong to the Father to be sent, for He is innascible, as was said above (FP, Question [32], Article [3]; FP, Question [43], Article [4]). Therefore at least the Person of the Father cannot become incarnate. |
| Sed contra, quidquid potest filius, potest pater, alioquin, non esset eadem potentia trium. Sed filius potuit incarnari. Ergo similiter pater et spiritus sanctus. | On the contrary, Whatever the Son can do, so can the Father and the Holy Ghost, otherwise the power of the three Persons would not be one. But the Son was able to become incarnate. Therefore the Father and the Holy Ghost were able to become incarnate. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, assumptio duo importat, scilicet ipsum actum assumentis, et terminum assumptionis. Principium autem actus est virtus divina, terminus autem est persona. Virtus autem divina communiter et indifferenter se habet ad omnes personas. Eadem etiam est communis ratio personalitatis in tribus personis, licet proprietates personales sint differentes. Quandocumque autem virtus aliqua indifferenter se habet ad plura, potest ad quodlibet eorum suam actionem terminare, sicut patet in potentiis rationalibus, quae se habent ad opposita, quorum utrumque agere possunt. Sic ergo divina virtus potuit naturam humanam unire vel personae patris vel spiritus sancti, sicut univit eam personae filii. Et ideo dicendum est quod pater vel spiritus sanctus potuit carnem assumere, sicut et filius. | I answer that, As was said above (Articles [1],2,4), assumption implies two things, viz. the act of the one assuming and the term of the assumption. Now the principle of the act is the Divine power, and the term is a Person. But the Divine power is indifferently and commonly in all the Persons. Moreover, the nature of Personality is common to all the Persons, although the personal properties are different. Now whenever a power regards several things indifferently, it can terminate its action in any of them indifferently, as is plain in rational powers, which regard opposites, and can do either of them. Therefore the Divine power could have united human nature to the Person of the Father or of the Holy Ghost, as It united it to the Person of the Son. And hence we must say that the Father or the Holy Ghost could have assumed flesh even as the Son. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod filiatio temporalis, qua Christus dicitur filius hominis, non constituit personam ipsius, sicut filiatio aeterna, sed est quiddam consequens nativitatem temporalem. Unde, si per hunc modum nomen filiationis ad patrem vel spiritum sanctum transferretur, nulla sequeretur confusio divinarum personarum. | Reply to Objection 1: The temporal sonship, whereby Christ is said to be the Son of Man, does not constitute His Person, as does the eternal Sonship; but is something following upon the temporal nativity. Hence, if the name of son were transferred to the Father or the Holy Ghost in this manner, there would be no confusion of the Divine Persons. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod filiatio adoptiva est quaedam participata similitudo filiationis naturalis; sed fit in nobis appropriate a patre, qui est principium naturalis filiationis; et per donum spiritus sancti, qui est amor patris et filii; secundum illud Galat. IV, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda nostra, clamantem, abba, pater. Et ideo sicut, filio incarnato, adoptivam filiationem accipimus ad similitudinem naturalis filiationis eius; ita, patre incarnato, adoptivam filiationem reciperemus ab eo tanquam a principio naturalis filiationis; et a spiritu sancto, tanquam a nexu communi patris et filii. | Reply to Objection 2: Adoptive sonship is a certain participation of natural sonship; but it takes place in us, by appropriation, by the Father, Who is the principle of natural sonship, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost, Who is the love of the Father and Son, according to Gal. 4:6: "God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father." And therefore, even as by the Incarnation of the Son we receive adoptive sonship in the likeness of His natural sonship, so likewise, had the Father become incarnate, we should have received adoptive sonship from Him, as from the principle of the natural sonship, and from the Holy Ghost as from the common bond of Father and Son. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod patri convenit esse innascibilem secundum nativitatem aeternam, quod non excluderet nativitas temporalis. Mitti autem dicitur filius secundum incarnationem, eo quod est ab illo, sine quo incarnatio non sufficeret ad rationem missionis. | Reply to Objection 3: It belongs to the Father to be innascible as to eternal birth, and the temporal birth would not destroy this. But the Son of God is said to be sent in regard to the Incarnation, inasmuch as He is from another, without which the Incarnation would not suffice for the nature of mission. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod duae personae divinae non possunt assumere unam et eandem numero naturam. Hoc enim supposito aut essent unus homo, vel plures. Sed non plures, sicut enim una natura divina in pluribus personis non patitur esse plures deos, ita una humana natura in pluribus personis non patitur esse plures homines. Similiter etiam non possent esse unus homo, quia unus homo est iste homo, qui demonstrat unam personam; et sic tolleretur distinctio trium personarum divinarum, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo duae aut tres personae possunt accipere unam naturam humanam. | Objection 1: It would seem that two Divine Persons cannot assume one and the same individual nature. For, this being granted, there would either be several men or one. But not several, for just as one Divine Nature in several Persons does not make several gods, so one human nature in several persons does not make several men. Nor would there be only one man, for one man is "this man," which signifies one person; and hence the distinction of three Divine Persons would be destroyed, which cannot be allowed. Therefore neither two nor three Persons can take one human nature. |
| Praeterea, assumptio terminatur ad unitatem personae, ut dictum est. Sed non est una persona patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Ergo non possunt tres personae assumere unam naturam humanam. | Objection 2: Further, the assumption is terminated in the unity of Person, as has been said above (Article [2]). But the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one Person. Therefore the three Persons cannot assume one human nature. |
| Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in III libro, et Augustinus, in I de Trin., quod ex incarnatione filii Dei consequitur quod quidquid dicitur de filio Dei, dicitur de filio hominis, et e converso. Si ergo tres personae assumerent unam naturam humanam, sequitur quod quidquid dicitur de qualibet trium personarum, diceretur de illo homine, et e converso ea quae dicerentur de illo homine, possent dici de qualibet trium personarum. Sic ergo id quod est proprium patris, scilicet generare filium ab aeterno, diceretur de illo homine, et per consequens diceretur de filio Dei, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo est possibile quod tres personae divinae assumant unam naturam humanam. | Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4), and Augustine (De Trin. i, 11,12,13), that from the Incarnation of God the Son it follows that whatever is said of the Son of God is said of the Son of Man, and conversely. Hence, if three Persons were to assume one human nature, it would follow that whatever is said of each of the three Persons would be said of the man; and conversely, what was said of the man could be said of each of the three Persons. Therefore what is proper to the Father, viz. to beget the Son, would be said of the man, and consequently would be said of the Son of God; and this could not be. Therefore it is impossible that the three Persons should assume one human nature. |
| Sed contra, persona incarnata subsistit in duabus naturis, divina scilicet et humana. Sed tres personae possunt subsistere in una natura divina. Ergo etiam possunt subsistere in una natura humana, ita scilicet quod sit una natura humana a tribus personis assumpta. | On the contrary, The Incarnate Person subsists in two natures. But the three Persons can subsist in one Divine Nature. Therefore they can also subsist in one human nature in such a way that the human nature be assumed by the three Persons. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ex unione animae et corporis in Christo non fit neque nova persona neque hypostasis, sed fit una natura assumpta in personam vel hypostasim divinam. Quod quidem non fit per potentiam naturae humanae, sed per potentiam personae divinae. Est autem talis divinarum personarum conditio quod una earum non excludit aliam a communione eiusdem naturae, sed solum a communione eiusdem personae. Quia igitur in mysterio incarnationis tota ratio facti est potentia facientis, ut Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Volusianum; magis est circa hoc iudicandum secundum conditionem personae assumentis quam secundum conditionem naturae humanae assumptae. Sic igitur non est impossibile divinis personis ut duae vel tres assumant unam naturam humanam. Esset tamen impossibile ut assumerent unam hypostasim vel unam personam humanam, sicut Anselmus dicit, in libro de conceptu virginali, quod plures personae non possunt assumere unum eundemque hominem. | I answer that, As was said above (Question [2], Article [5], ad 1), by the union of the soul and body in Christ neither a new person is made nor a new hypostasis, but one human nature is assumed to the Divine Person or hypostasis, which, indeed, does not take place by the power of the human nature, but by the power of the Divine Person. Now such is the characteristic of the Divine Persons that one does not exclude another from communicating in the same nature, but only in the same Person. Hence, since in the mystery of the Incarnation "the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer," as Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii), we must judge of it in regard to the quality of the Divine Person assuming, and not according to the quality of the human nature assumed. Therefore it is not impossible that two or three Divine Persons should assume one human nature, but it would be impossible for them to assume one human hypostasis or person; thus Anselm says in the book De Concep. Virg. (Cur Deus Homo ii, 9), that "several Persons cannot assume one and the same man to unity of Person." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, hac positione facta, quod scilicet tres personae assumerent unam humanam naturam, verum esset dicere quod tres personae essent unus homo, propter unam humanam naturam, sicut nunc verum est dicere quod sunt unus Deus, propter unam divinam naturam. Nec ly unus importat unitatem personae, sed unitatem in natura humana. Non enim posset argui ex hoc quod tres personae sunt unus homo, quod essent unus simpliciter, nihil enim prohibet dicere quod homines qui sunt plures simpliciter, sint unus quantum ad aliquid, puta unus populus; sicut Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., diversum est natura spiritus hominis et spiritus Dei, sed inhaerendo fit unus spiritus, secundum illud I Cor. VI, qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est. | Reply to Objection 1: In the hypothesis that three Persons assume one human nature, it would be true to say that the three Persons were one man, because of the one human nature. For just as it is now true to say the three Persons are one God on account of the one Divine Nature, so it would be true to say they are one man on account of the one human nature. Nor would "one" imply unity of person, but unity in human nature; for it could not be argued that because the three Persons were one man they were one simply. For nothing hinders our saying that men, who are many simply, are in some respect one, e.g. one people, and as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 3): "The Spirit of God and the spirit of man are by nature different, but by inherence one spirit results," according to 1 Cor. 6:17: "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, illa positione facta, humana natura esset assumpta in unitate non unius personae, sed in unitate singularum personarum, ita scilicet quod, sicut divina natura habet naturalem unitatem cum singulis personis, ita natura humana haberet unitatem cum singulis per assumptionem. | Reply to Objection 2: In this supposition the human nature would be assumed to the unity, not indeed of one Person, but to the unity of each Person, so that even as the Divine Nature has a natural unity with each Person, so also the human nature would have a unity with each Person by assumption. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod circa mysterium incarnationis fuit communicatio proprietatum pertinentium ad naturam, quia quaecumque conveniunt naturae, possunt praedicari de persona subsistente in natura illa, cuiuscumque naturae nomine significetur. Praedicta ergo positione facta, de persona patris poterunt praedicari et ea quae sunt humanae naturae, et ea quae sunt divinae, et similiter de persona filii et spiritus sancti. Non autem illud quod conveniret personae patris ratione propriae personae, posset attribui personae filii aut spiritus sancti, propter distinctionem personarum, quae remaneret. Posset ergo dici quod, sicut pater est ingenitus, ita homo esset ingenitus, secundum quod ly homo supponeret pro persona patris. Si quis autem ulterius procederet, homo est ingenitus, filius est homo, ergo filius est ingenitus, esset fallacia figurae dictionis vel accidentis. Sicut et nunc dicimus Deum esse ingenitum, quia pater est ingenitus, nec tamen possumus concludere quod filius sit ingenitus, quamvis sit Deus. | Reply to Objection 3: In the mystery of the Incarnation, there results a communication of the properties belonging to the nature, because whatever belongs to the nature can be predicated of the Person subsisting in that nature, no matter to which of the natures it may apply. Hence in this hypothesis, of the Person of the Father may be predicated what belongs to the human nature and what belongs to the Divine; and likewise of the Person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But what belongs to the Person of the Father by reason of His own Person could not be attributed to the Person of the Son or Holy Ghost on account of the distinction of Persons which would still remain. Therefore it might be said that as the Father was unbegotten, so the man was unbegotten, inasmuch as "man" stood for the Person of the Father. But if one were to go on to say, "The man is unbegotten; the Son is man; therefore the Son is unbegotten," it would be the fallacy of figure of speech or of accident; even as we now say God is unbegotten, because the Father is unbegotten, yet we cannot conclude that the Son is unbegotten, although He is God. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod una persona divina non possit assumere duas naturas humanas. Natura enim assumpta in mysterio incarnationis non habet aliud suppositum praeter suppositum personae divinae, ut ex supra dictis patet. Si ergo ponatur esse una persona divina assumens duas humanas naturas, esset unum suppositum duarum naturarum eiusdem speciei. Quod videtur implicare contradictionem, non enim natura unius speciei multiplicatur nisi secundum distinctionem suppositorum. | Objection 1: It would seem that one Divine Person cannot assume two human natures. For the nature assumed in the mystery of the Incarnation has no other suppositum than the suppositum of the Divine Person, as is plain from what has been stated above (Question [2], Articles [3],6). Therefore, if we suppose one Person to assume two human natures, there would be one suppositum of two natures of the same species; which would seem to imply a contradiction, for the nature of one species is only multiplied by distinct supposita. |
| Praeterea, hac suppositione facta, non posset dici quod persona divina incarnata esset unus homo, quia non haberet unam naturam humanam. Similiter etiam non posset dici quod essent plures homines, quia plures homines sunt supposito distincti, et ibi esset unum tantum suppositum. Ergo praedicta positio esset omnino impossibilis. | Objection 2: Further, in this hypothesis it could not be said that the Divine Person incarnate was one man, seeing that He would not have one human nature; neither could it be said that there were several, for several men have distinct supposita, whereas in this case there would be only one suppositum. Therefore the aforesaid hypothesis is impossible. |
| Praeterea, in incarnationis mysterio tota divina natura est unita toti naturae assumptae, idest cuilibet parti eius, est enim Christus perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, totus Deus et totus homo, ut Damascenus dicit, in III libro. Sed duae humanae naturae non possent totaliter sibi invicem uniri, quia oporteret quod anima unius esset unita corpori alterius, et quod etiam duo corpora essent simul, quod etiam confusionem induceret naturarum. Non ergo est possibile quod persona divina duas humanas naturas assumeret. | Objection 3: Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the whole Divine Nature is united to the whole nature assumed, i.e. to every part of it, for Christ is "perfect God and perfect man, complete God and complete man," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 7). But two human natures cannot be wholly united together, inasmuch as the soul of one would be united to the body of the other; and, again, two bodies would be together, which would give rise to confusion of natures. Therefore it is not possibly for one Divine Person to assume two human natures. |
| Sed contra est quod quidquid potest pater, potest filius. Sed pater post incarnationem filii, potest assumere naturam humanam aliam numero ab ea quam filius assumpsit, in nullo enim per incarnationem filii est diminuta potentia patris vel filii. Ergo videtur quod filius, post incarnationem, possit aliam humanam naturam assumere, praeter eam quam assumpsit. | On the contrary, Whatever the Father can do, that also can the Son do. But after the Incarnation the Father can still assume a human nature distinct from that which the Son has assumed; for in nothing is the power of the Father or the Son lessened by the Incarnation of the Son. Therefore it seems that after the Incarnation the Son can assume another human nature distinct from the one He has assumed. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod id quod potest in unum et non in amplius, habet potentiam limitatam ad unum. Potentia autem divinae personae est infinita, nec potest limitari ad aliquid creatum. Unde non est dicendum quod persona divina ita assumpserit unam naturam humanam quod non potuerit assumere aliam. Videretur enim ex hoc sequi quod personalitas divinae naturae esset ita comprehensa per unam humanam naturam quod ad eius personalitatem alia assumi non possit. Quod est impossibile, non enim increatum a creato comprehendi potest. Patet ergo quod, sive consideremus personam divinam secundum virtutem, quae est principium unionis; sive secundum suam personalitatem, quae est terminus unionis, oportet dicere quod persona divina, praeter naturam humanam quam assumpsit possit aliam numero naturam humanam assumere. | I answer that, What has power for one thing, and no more, has a power limited to one. Now the power of a Divine Person is infinite, nor can it be limited by any created thing. Hence it may not be said that a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another. For it would seem to follow from this that the Personality of the Divine Nature was so comprehended by one human nature as to be unable to assume another to its Personality; and this is impossible, for the Uncreated cannot be comprehended by any creature. Hence it is plain that, whether we consider the Divine Person in regard to His power, which is the principle of the union, or in regard to His Personality, which is the term of the union, it has to be said that the Divine Person, over and beyond the human nature which He has assumed, can assume another distinct human nature. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod natura creata perficitur in sua ratione per formam, quae multiplicatur secundum divisionem materiae. Et ideo, si compositio formae et materiae constituat novum suppositum, consequens est quod natura multiplicetur secundum multiplicationem suppositorum. Sed in mysterio incarnationis unio formae et materiae, idest animae et corporis, non constituit novum suppositum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo posset esse multitudo secundum numerum ex parte naturae, propter divisionem materiae, absque distinctione suppositorum. | Reply to Objection 1: A created nature is completed in its essentials by its form, which is multiplied according to the division of matter. And hence, if the composition of matter and form constitutes a new suppositum, the consequence is that the nature is multiplied by the multiplication of supposita. But in the mystery of the Incarnation the union of form and matter, i.e. of soul and body, does not constitute a new suppositum, as was said above (Article [6]). Hence there can be a numerical multitude on the part of the nature, on account of the division of matter, without distinction of supposita. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod posset videri quod, praedicta positione facta, consequeretur quod essent duo homines, propter duas naturas, absque hoc quod essent ibi duo supposita, sicut e converso tres personae dicerentur unus homo, propter unam naturam humanam assumptam, ut supra dictum est. Sed hoc non videtur esse verum. Quia nominibus est utendum secundum quod sunt ad significandum imposita. Quod quidem est ex consideratione eorum quae apud nos sunt. Et ideo oportet, circa modum significandi et consignificandi, considerare ea quae apud nos sunt. In quibus nunquam nomen ab aliqua forma impositum pluraliter dicitur nisi propter pluralitatem suppositorum, homo enim qui est duobus vestimentis indutus, non dicitur duo vestiti, sed unus vestitus duobus vestimentis; et qui habet duas qualitates, dicitur singulariter aliqualis secundum duas qualitates. Natura autem assumpta quantum ad aliquid se habet per modum indumenti, licet non sit similitudo quantum ad omnia, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo, si persona divina assumeret duas naturas humanas, propter unitatem suppositi diceretur unus homo habens duas naturas humanas. Contingit autem quod plures homines dicuntur unus populus, propter hoc quod conveniunt in aliquo uno, non autem propter unitatem suppositi. Et similiter, si duae personae divinae assumerent unam numero humanam naturam, dicerentur unus homo, ut supra dictum est, non propter unitatem suppositi, sed inquantum conveniunt in aliquo uno. | Reply to Objection 2: It might seem possible to reply that in such a hypothesis it would follow that there were two men by reason of the two natures, just as, on the contrary, the three Persons would be called one man, on account of the one nature assumed, as was said above (Article [6], ad 1). But this does not seem to be true; because we must use words according to the purpose of their signification, which is in relation to our surroundings. Consequently, in order to judge of a word's signification or co-signification, we must consider the things which are around us, in which a word derived from some form is never used in the plural unless there are several supposita. For a man who has on two garments is not said to be "two persons clothed," but "one clothed with two garments"; and whoever has two qualities is designated in the singular as "such by reason of the two qualities." Now the assumed nature is, as it were, a garment, although this similitude does not fit at all points, as has been said above (Question [2], Article [6], ad 1). And hence, if the Divine Person were to assume two human natures, He would be called, on account of the unity of suppositum, one man having two human natures. Now many men are said to be one people, inasmuch as they have some one thing in common, and not on account of the unity of suppositum. So likewise, if two Divine Persons were to assume one singular human nature, they would be said to be one man, as stated (Article [6], ad 1), not from the unity of suppositum, but because they have some one thing in common. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod divina et humana natura non eodem ordine se habent ad unam divinam personam, sed per prius comparatur ad ipsam divina natura, utpote quae est unum cum ea ab aeterno; sed natura humana comparatur ad personam divinam per posterius, utpote assumpta ex tempore a divina persona, non quidem ad hoc quod natura sit ipsa persona, sed quod persona in natura subsistat filius enim Dei est sua deitas, sed non est sua humanitas. Et ideo ad hoc quod natura humana assumatur a divina persona, relinquitur quod divina natura unione personali uniatur toti naturae assumptae, idest secundum omnes partes eius. Sed duarum naturarum assumptarum esset uniformis habitudo ad personam divinam, nec una assumeret aliam. Unde non oporteret quod una earum totaliter alteri uniretur, idest, omnes partes unius omnibus partibus alterius. | Reply to Objection 3: The Divine and human natures do not bear the same relation to the one Divine Person, but the Divine Nature is related first of all thereto, inasmuch as It is one with It from eternity; and afterwards the human nature is related to the Divine Person, inasmuch as it is assumed by the Divine Person in time, not indeed that the nature is the Person, but that the Person of God subsists in human nature. For the Son of God is His Godhead, but is not His manhood. And hence, in order that the human nature may be assumed by the Divine Person, the Divine Nature must be united by a personal union with the whole nature assumed, i.e. in all its parts. Now in the two natures assumed there would be a uniform relation to the Divine Person, nor would one assume the other. Hence it would not be necessary for one of them to be altogether united to the other, i.e. all the parts of one with all the parts of the other. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 3 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit magis conveniens filium Dei incarnari quam patrem vel spiritum sanctum. Per mysterium enim incarnationis homines ad veram Dei cognitionem sunt perducti, secundum illud Ioan. XVIII, in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhiberem veritati. Sed ex hoc quod persona filii Dei est incarnata, multi impediti fuerunt a vera Dei cognitione, ea quae dicuntur de filio secundum humanam naturam referentes ad ipsam filii personam, sicut Arius, qui posuit inaequalitatem personarum propter hoc quod dicitur Ioan. XIV, pater maior me est, qui quidem error non provenisset si persona patris incarnata fuisset; nullus enim existimasset patrem filio minorem. Magis ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod persona patris incarnaretur quam persona filii. | Objection 1: It would seem that it was not more fitting that the Son of God should become incarnate than the Father or the Holy Ghost. For by the mystery of the Incarnation men are led to the true knowledge of God, according to Jn. 18:37: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, to give testimony to the truth." But by the Person of the Son of God becoming incarnate many have been kept back from the true knowledge of God, since they referred to the very Person of the Son what was said of the Son in His human nature, as Arius, who held an inequality of Persons, according to what is said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than I." Now this error would not have arisen if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, for no one would have taken the Father to be less than the Son. Hence it seems fitting that the Person of the Father, rather than the Person of the Son, should have become incarnate. |
| Praeterea, incarnationis effectus videtur esse recreatio quaedam humanae naturae, secundum illud Galat. ult., in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque praeputium, sed nova creatura. Sed potentia creandi appropriatur patri. Ergo magis decuisset patrem incarnari quam filium. | Objection 2: Further, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to be, as it were, a second creation of human nature, according to Gal. 6:15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." But the power of creation is appropriated to the Father. Therefore it would have been more becoming to the Father than to the Son to become incarnate. |
| Praeterea, incarnatio ordinatur ad remissionem peccatorum, secundum illud Matth. I, vocabis nomen eius Iesum, ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Remissio autem peccatorum attribuitur spiritui sancto, secundum illud Ioan. XX, accipite spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur eis. Ergo magis congruebat personam spiritus sancti incarnari quam personam filii. | Objection 3: Further, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission of sins, according to Mt. 1:21: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." Now the remission of sins is attributed to the Holy Ghost according to Jn. 20:22,23: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore it became the Person of the Holy Ghost rather than the Person of the Son to become incarnate. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, in mysterio incarnationis manifestata est sapientia et virtus Dei, sapientia quidem, quia invenit difficillimi solutionem pretii valde decentissimam; virtus autem, quia victum fecit rursus victorem. Sed virtus et sapientia appropriantur filio, secundum illud I Cor. I, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Ergo conveniens fuit personam filii incarnari. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1): "In the mystery of the Incarnation the wisdom and power of God are made known: the wisdom, for He found a most suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; the power, for He made the conquered conquer." But power and wisdom are appropriated to the Son, according to 1 Cor. 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." Therefore it was fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod convenientissimum fuit personam filii incarnari. Primo quidem, ex parte unionis. Convenienter enim ea quae sunt similia, uniuntur. Ipsius autem personae filii, qui est verbum Dei, attenditur, uno quidem modo, communis convenientia ad totam creaturam. Quia verbum artificis, idest conceptus eius, est similitudo exemplaris eorum quae ab artifice fiunt. Unde verbum Dei, quod est aeternus conceptus eius, est similitudo exemplaris totius creaturae. Et ideo, sicut per participationem huius similitudinis creaturae sunt in propriis speciebus institutae, sed mobiliter; ita per unionem verbi ad creaturam non participativam sed personalem, conveniens fuit reparari creaturam in ordine ad aeternam et immobilem perfectionem, nam et artifex per formam artis conceptam qua artificiatum condidit, ipsum, si collapsum fuerit, restaurat. Alio modo, habet convenientiam specialiter cum humana natura, ex eo quod verbum est conceptus aeternae sapientiae a qua omnis sapientia hominum derivatur. Et ideo homo per hoc in sapientia proficit, quae est propria eius perfectio prout est rationalis, quod participat verbum Dei, sicut discipulus instruitur per hoc quod recipit verbum magistri. Unde et Eccli. I dicitur, fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis. Et ideo, ad consummatam hominis perfectionem, conveniens fuit ut ipsum verbum Dei humanae naturae personaliter uniretur. | I answer that, It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And therefore as creatures are established in their proper species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a particular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept of the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And hence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is instructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said (Ecclus. 1:5): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that the very Word of God should be personally united to human nature. |
| Secundo potest accipi ratio huius congruentiae ex fine unionis, qui est impletio praedestinationis, eorum scilicet qui praeordinati sunt ad hereditatem caelestem, quae non debetur nisi filiis, secundum illud Rom. VIII, filii et heredes. Et ideo congruum fuit ut per eum qui est filius naturalis, homines participarent similitudinem huius filiationis secundum adoptionem, sicut apostolus ibidem dicit, quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imagini filii eius. | Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on sons, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." Hence it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this likeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same chapter (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." |
| Tertio potest accipi ratio huius congruentiae ex peccato primi parentis, cui per incarnationem remedium adhibetur. Peccavit enim primus homo appetendo scientiam, ut patet ex verbis serpentis promittentis homini scientiam boni et mali. Unde conveniens fuit ut per verbum verae sapientiae homo reduceretur in Deum, qui per inordinatum appetitum scientiae recesserat a Deo. | Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of the serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst for knowledge. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil est quo humana malitia non posset abuti, quando etiam ipsa Dei bonitate abutitur, secundum illud Rom. II, an divitias bonitatis eius contemnis? Unde et, si persona patris fuisset incarnata, potuisset ex hoc homo alicuius erroris occasionem assumere, quasi filius sufficere non potuisset ad humanam naturam reparandam. | Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing which human malice cannot abuse, since it even abuses God's goodness, according to Rm. 2:4: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness?" Hence, even if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, men would have been capable of finding an occasion of error, as though the Son were not able to restore human nature. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod prima rerum creatio facta est a potentia Dei patris per verbum. Unde et recreatio per verbum fieri debuit a potentia Dei patris, ut recreatio creationi responderet, secundum illud II Cor. V, Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. | Reply to Objection 2: The first creation of things was made by the power of God the Father through the Word; hence the second creation ought to have been brought about through the Word, by the power of God the Father, in order that restoration should correspond to creation according to 2 Cor. 5:19: "For God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritus sancti proprium est quod sit donum patris et filii. Remissio autem peccatorum fit per spiritum sanctum tanquam per donum Dei. Et ideo convenientius fuit ad iustificationem hominum quod incarnaretur filius, cuius spiritus sanctus est donum. | Reply to Objection 3: To be the gift of the Father and the Son is proper to the Holy Ghost. But the remission of sins is caused by the Holy Ghost, as by the gift of God. And hence it was more fitting to man's justification that the Son should become incarnate, Whose gift the Holy Ghost is. |