Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Deinde considerandum est de his quae consequuntur unionem.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa, Deus est homo. Omnis enim propositio affirmativa in materia aliqua remota est falsa. Sed haec propositio, Deus est homo, est in materia remota, quia formae significatae per subiectum et praedicatum sunt maxime distantes. Cum ergo praedicta propositio sit affirmativa, videtur quod sit falsa. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is false: "God is man." For every affirmative proposition of remote matter is false. Now this proposition, "God is man," is on remote matter, since the forms signified by the subject and predicate are most widely apart. Therefore, since the aforesaid proposition is affirmative, it would seem to be false. |
| Praeterea, magis conveniunt tres personae ad invicem quam humana natura et divina. Sed in mysterio Trinitatis una persona non praedicatur de alia, non enim dicimus quod pater est filius, vel e converso. Ergo videtur quod nec humana natura possit praedicari de Deo, ut dicatur quod Deus est homo. | Objection 2: Further, the three Divine Persons are in greater mutual agreement than the human nature and the Divine. But in the mystery of the Incarnation one Person is not predicated of another; for we do not say that the Father is the Son, or conversely. Therefore it seems that the human nature ought not to be predicated of God by saying that God is man. |
| Praeterea, Athanasius dicit quod, sicut anima et caro unus est homo, ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Sed haec est falsa, anima est corpus. Ergo et haec est falsa, Deus est homo. | Objection 3: Further, Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.) that, "as the soul and the flesh are one man, so are God and man one Christ." But this is false: "The soul is the body." Therefore this also is false: "God is man." |
| Praeterea, sicut in prima parte habitum est, quod praedicatur de Deo non relative sed absolute, convenit toti Trinitati et singulis personis. Sed hoc nomen homo non est relativum, sed absolutum. Si ergo vere praedicatur de Deo, sequitur quod tota Trinitas et quaelibet persona sit homo. Quod patet esse falsum. | Objection 4: Further, it was said in the FP, Question [39], Article [4] that what is predicated of God not relatively but absolutely, belongs to the whole Trinity and to each of the Persons. But this word "man" is not relative, but absolute. Hence, if it is predicated of God, it would follow that the whole Trinity and each of the Persons is man; and this is clearly false. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Philipp. II, qui, cum in forma Dei esset, exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus et habitu inventus ut homo. Et sic ille qui est in forma Dei, est homo. Sed ille qui est in forma Dei, est Deus. Ergo Deus est homo. | On the contrary, It is written (Phil. 2:6,7): "Who being in the form of God . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man, and in habit found as a man"; and thus He Who is in the form of God is man. Now He Who is in the form of God is God. Therefore God is man. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ista propositio, Deus est homo, ab omnibus Christianis conceditur, non tamen ab omnibus secundum eandem rationem. Quidam enim hanc propositionem concedunt non secundum propriam acceptionem horum terminorum. Nam Manichaei verbum Dei dicunt esse hominem, non quidem verum, sed similitudinarium, inquantum dicunt filium Dei corpus phantasticum assumpsisse, ut sic dicatur Deus esse homo sicut cuprum figuratum dicitur homo, quia habet similitudinem hominis. Similiter etiam illi qui posuerunt quod in Christo anima et corpus non fuerunt unita, non posuerunt quod Deus sit verus homo, sed quod dicatur homo figurative, ratione partium. Sed utraque harum opinionum supra improbata est. | I answer that, This proposition "God is man," is admitted by all Christians, yet not in the same way by all. For some admit the proposition, but not in the proper acceptation of the terms. Thus the Manicheans say the Word of God is man, not indeed true, but fictitious man, inasmuch as they say that the Son of God assumed an imaginary body, and thus God is called man as a bronze figure is called man if it has the figure of a man. So, too, those who held that Christ's body and soul were not united, could not say that God is true man, but that He is figuratively called man by reason of the parts. Now both these opinions were disproved above (Question [2], Article [5]; Question [5], Article [1]). |
| Alii vero e converso ponunt veritatem ex parte hominis, sed negant veritatem ex parte Dei. Dicunt enim Christum, qui est Deus homo, esse Deum, non naturaliter, sed participative, scilicet per gratiam, sicut et omnes sancti viri dicuntur dii, excellentius tamen Christus prae aliis, propter gratiam abundantiorem. Et secundum hoc, cum dicitur, Deus est homo, ly Deus non supponit verum et naturalem Deum. Et haec est haeresis Photini, quae supra improbata est. Alii vero concedunt hanc propositionem cum veritate utriusque termini, ponentes Christum et verum Deum esse et verum hominem, sed tamen veritatem praedicationis non salvant. Dicunt enim quod homo praedicatur de Deo per quandam coniunctionem, vel dignitatis, vel auctoritatis, vel etiam affectionis aut inhabitationis. Et sic posuit Nestorius Deum esse hominem, ut per hoc nihil aliud significetur quam quod Deus est homini coniunctus tali coniunctione quod homo inhabitetur a Deo, et uniatur ei secundum affectum, et secundum participationem auctoritatis et honoris divini. Et in similem errorem incidunt qui ponunt duas hypostases vel duo supposita in Christo. Quia non est possibile intelligi quod duorum quae sunt secundum suppositum vel hypostasim distincta, unum proprie praedicetur de alio, sed solum secundum quandam figurativam locutionem, inquantum in aliquo coniunguntur; puta si dicamus Petrum esse Ioannem, quia habent aliquam coniunctionem ad invicem. Et hae etiam opiniones supra reprobatae sunt. | Some, on the contrary, hold the reality on the part of man, but deny the reality on the part of God. For they say that Christ, Who is God and man, is God not naturally, but by participation, i.e. by grace; even as all other holy men are called gods---Christ being more excellently so than the rest, on account of His more abundant grace. And thus, when it is said that "God is man," God does not stand for the true and natural God. And this is the heresy of Photinus, which was disproved above (Question [2], Articles [10],11). But some admit this proposition, together with the reality of both terms, holding that Christ is true God and true man; yet they do not preserve the truth of the predication. For they say that man is predicated of God by reason of a certain conjunction either of dignity, or of authority, or of affection or indwelling. It was thus that Nestorius held God to be man---nothing further being meant than that God is joined to man by such a conjunction that man is dwelt in by God, and united to Him in affection, and in a share of the Divine authority and honor. And into the same error fall those who suppose two supposita or hypostases in Christ, since it is impossible to understand how, of two things distinct in suppositum or hypostasis, one can be properly predicated of the other: unless merely by a figurative expression, inasmuch as they are united in something, as if we were to say that Peter is John because they are somehow mutually joined together. And these opinions also were disproved above (Question [2], Articles [3],6). |
| Unde, supponendo, secundum veritatem Catholicae fidei, quod vera natura divina unita est cum vera natura humana, non solum in persona, sed etiam in supposito vel hypostasi, dicimus esse veram hanc propositionem et propriam, Deus est homo, non solum propter veritatem terminorum, quia scilicet Christus est verus Deus et verus homo; sed etiam propter veritatem praedicationis. Nomen enim significans naturam communem in concreto potest supponere pro quolibet contentorum in natura communi, sicut hoc nomen homo potest supponere pro quolibet homine singulari. Et ita hoc nomen Deus, ex ipso modo suae significationis, potest supponere pro persona filii Dei, ut in prima parte habitum est. De quolibet autem supposito alicuius naturae potest vere et proprie praedicari nomen significans illam naturam in concreto, sicut de Socrate et Platone proprie et vere praedicatur homo. Quia ergo persona filii Dei, pro qua supponit hoc nomen Deus, est suppositum naturae humanae, vere et proprie hoc nomen homo potest praedicari de hoc nomine Deus, secundum quod supponit pro persona filii Dei. | Hence, supposing the truth of the Catholic belief, that the true Divine Nature is united with true human nature not only in person, but also in suppositum or hypostasis; we say that this proposition is true and proper, "God is man"---not only by the truth of its terms, i.e. because Christ is true God and true man, but by the truth of the predication. For a word signifying the common nature in the concrete may stand for all contained in the common nature, as this word "man" may stand for any individual man. And thus this word "God," from its very mode of signification, may stand for the Person of the Son of God, as was said in the FP, Question [39], Article [4]. Now of every suppositum of any nature we may truly and properly predicate a word signifying that nature in the concrete, as "man" may properly and truly be predicated of Socrates and Plato. Hence, since the Person of the Son of God for Whom this word "God" stands, is a suppositum of human nature this word man may be truly and properly predicated of this word "God," as it stands for the Person of the Son of God. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quando formae diversae non possunt convenire in unum suppositum, tunc oportet quod propositio sit in materia remota cuius subiectum significat unam illarum formarum, et praedicatum aliam. Sed quando duae formae possunt convenire in unum suppositum, non est materia remota, sed naturalis vel contingens, sicut cum dico, album est musicum. Natura autem divina et humana, quamvis sint maxime distantes, tamen conveniunt per incarnationis mysterium in uno supposito, cui neutra illarum inest per accidens, sed secundum se. Et ideo haec propositio, Deus est homo, non est neque in materia remota neque in materia contingenti, sed in materia naturali. Et praedicatur homo de Deo, non per accidens, sed per se, sicut de sua hypostasi, non quidem ratione formae significatae per hoc nomen Deus; sed ratione suppositi, quod est hypostasis humanae naturae. | Reply to Objection 1: When different forms cannot come together in one suppositum, the proposition is necessarily in remote matter, the subject signifying one form and the predicate another. But when two forms can come together in one suppositum, the matter is not remote, but natural or contingent, as when I say: "Something white is musical." Now the Divine and human natures, although most widely apart, nevertheless come together by the mystery of the Incarnation in one suppositum, in which neither exists accidentally, but [both] essentially. Hence this proposition is neither in remote nor in contingent, but in natural matter; and man is not predicated of God accidentally, but essentially, as being predicated of its hypostasis---not, indeed, by reason of the form signified by this word "God," but by reason of the suppositum, which is a hypostasis of human nature. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod tres personae divinae conveniunt in natura, distinguuntur tamen in supposito, et ideo non praedicantur de invicem. In mysterio autem incarnationis naturae quidem, quia distinctae sunt, de invicem non praedicantur secundum quod significantur in abstracto, non enim natura divina est humana, sed quia conveniunt in supposito, praedicantur de invicem in concreto. | Reply to Objection 2: The three Divine Persons agree in one Nature, and are distinguished in suppositum; and hence they are not predicated one of another. But in the mystery of the Incarnation the natures, being distinct, are not predicated one of the other, in the abstract. For the Divine Nature is not the human nature. But because they agree in suppositum, they are predicated of each other in the concrete. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod anima et caro significantur ut in abstracto, sicut divinitas et humanitas. In concreto vero dicuntur animatum et carneum, sive corporeum, sicut ex alia parte Deus et homo. Unde utrobique abstractum non praedicatur de abstracto, sed solum concretum de concreto. | Reply to Objection 3: "Soul" and "flesh" are taken in the abstract, even as Godhead and manhood; but in the concrete we say "animate" and "carnal" or "corporeal," as, on the other hand, "God" and "man." Hence in both cases the abstract is not predicated of the abstract, but only the concrete of the concrete. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod hoc nomen homo praedicatur de Deo ratione unionis in persona, quae quidem unio relationem importat. Et ideo non sequitur regulam eorum nominum quae absolute praedicantur de Deo ab aeterno. | Reply to Objection 4: This word "man" is predicated of God, because of the union in person, and this union implies a relation. Hence it does not follow the rule of those words which are absolutely predicated of God from eternity. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa, homo est Deus. Deus enim est nomen incommunicabile. Sed Sap. XIV reprehenduntur idololatrae de hoc quod istud nomen Deus, quod est incommunicabile, lignis et lapidibus imposuerunt. Ergo pari ratione, videtur esse inconveniens quod hoc nomen Deus praedicetur de homine. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is false: "Man is God." For God is an incommunicable name; hence (Wis. 13:10; 14:21) idolaters are rebuked for giving the name of God, which is incommunicable, to wood and stones. Hence with equal reason does it seem unbecoming that this word "God" should be predicated of man. |
| Praeterea, quidquid praedicatur de praedicato, praedicatur de subiecto. Sed haec est vera, Deus est pater, vel, Deus est Trinitas. Si ergo haec sit vera, homo est Deus; videtur etiam quod haec sit vera, homo est pater, vel, homo est Trinitas. Quas quidem patet esse falsas. Ergo et primam. | Objection 2: Further, whatever is predicated of the predicate may be predicated of the subject. But this is true: "God is the Father," or "God is the Trinity." Therefore, if it is true that "Man is God," it seems that this also is true: "Man is the Father," or "Man is the Trinity." But these are false. Therefore the first is false. |
| Praeterea, in Psalmo dicitur, non erit in te Deus recens. Sed homo est quiddam recens, non enim Christus semper fuit homo. Ergo haec est falsa, homo est Deus. | Objection 3: Further, it is written (Ps. 80:10): "There shall be no new God in thee." But man is something new; for Christ was not always man. Therefore this is false: "Man is God." |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. IX, ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Sed Christus secundum carnem est homo. Ergo haec est vera, homo est Deus. | On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 9:5): "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever." Now Christ, according to the flesh, is man. Therefore this is true: "Man is God." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, supposita veritate utriusque naturae, divinae scilicet et humanae, et unione in persona et hypostasi, haec est vera et propria, homo est Deus, sicut et ista, Deus est homo. Hoc enim nomen homo potest supponere pro qualibet hypostasi humanae naturae, et ita potest supponere pro persona filii, quam dicimus esse hypostasim humanae naturae. Manifestum est autem quod de persona filii Dei vere et proprie praedicatur hoc nomen Deus, ut in prima parte habitum est. Unde relinquitur quod haec sit vera et propria, homo est Deus. | I answer that, Granted the reality of both natures, i.e. Divine and human, and of the union in person and hypostasis, this is true and proper: "Man is God," even as this: "God is man." For this word "man" may stand for any hypostasis of human nature; and thus it may stand for the Person of the Son of God, Whom we say is a hypostasis of human nature. Now it is manifest that the word "God" is truly and properly predicated of the Person of the Son of God, as was said in the FP, Question [39], Article [4]. Hence it remains that this is true and proper: "Man is God." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod idololatrae attribuebant nomen deitatis lapidibus et lignis secundum quod in sua natura considerantur, quia putabant in illis aliquid numinis esse. Nos autem non attribuimus nomen deitatis homini secundum humanam naturam, sed secundum suppositum aeternum, quod est etiam per unionem suppositum humanae naturae, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Idolaters attributed the name of the Deity to stones and wood, considered in their own nature, because they thought there was something divine in them. But we do not attribute the name of the Deity to the man in His human nature, but in the eternal suppositum, which by union is a suppositum of human nature, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc nomen pater praedicatur de hoc nomine Deus secundum quod hoc nomen Deus supponit pro persona patris. Sic autem non praedicatur de persona filii, quia persona filii non est persona patris. Et per consequens non oportet quod hoc nomen pater praedicetur de hoc nomine homo, de quo praedicatur hoc nomen Deus, inquantum scilicet homo supponit pro persona filii. | Reply to Objection 2: This word "Father" is predicated of this word "God," inasmuch as this word "God" 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 "God" is predicated, inasmuch as "Man" stands for the Person of the Son. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet humana natura in Christo sit quiddam recens, tamen suppositum humanae naturae non est recens, sed aeternum. Et quia hoc nomen Deus non praedicatur de homine ratione humanae naturae, sed ratione suppositi, non sequitur quod ponamus Deum recentem. Sequeretur autem si poneremus quod homo supponit suppositum creatum, secundum quod oportet dicere eos qui in Christo ponunt duo supposita. | Reply to Objection 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 "God" is predicated of man not on account of the human nature, but by reason of the suppositum, it does not follow that we assert a new God. But this would follow, if we held that "Man" stands for a created suppositum: even as must be said by those who assert that there are two supposita in Christ [*Cf. Question [2], Articles [3],6]. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
[*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 'passio dominica' (Our Lord's Passion),
but not speak of our Lord as 'homo dominicus' (a lordly man)].
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus possit dici homo dominicus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octogintatrium quaest., monendum est ut illa bona expectentur quae fuerunt in illo homine dominico. Loquitur autem de Christo. Ergo videtur quod Christus sit homo dominicus. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ can be called a lordly man. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut dominium convenit Christo ratione divinae naturae, ita etiam humanitas pertinet ad humanam naturam. Sed Deus dicitur humanatus, ut patet per Damascenum, in III libro, ubi dicit quod humanatio eam quae ad hominem copulationem demonstrat. Ergo pari ratione, potest demonstrative dici quod homo ille sit dominicus. | Objection 2: Further, as lordship belongs to Christ by reason of His Divine Nature, so does manhood belong to the human nature. Now God 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut dominicus denominative dicitur a domino, ita divinus dicitur denominative a Deo. Sed Dionysius Christum nominat divinissimum Iesum. Ergo, pari ratione, potest dici quod Christus sit homo dominicus. | Objection 3: Further, as "lordly" is derived from "lord," so is Divine derived from "Deus" [God]. But Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iv) calls Christ the "most Divine Jesus." Therefore with like reason may Christ be called a lordly man. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro Retract., non video utrum recte dicatur homo dominicus Iesus Christus, cum sit utique dominus. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut, supra dictum est, cum dicitur homo Christus Iesus, designatur suppositum aeternum, quod est persona filii Dei, propter hoc quod unum suppositum est utriusque naturae. De persona autem filii Dei praedicatur Deus et dominus essentialiter. Et ideo non debet praedicari denominative; quia hoc derogat veritati unionis. Unde, cum dominicus dicatur denominative a domino, non potest vere et proprie dici quod homo ille sit dominicus, sed magis quod sit dominus. Si autem per hoc quod dicitur homo Christus Iesus, designaretur suppositum aliquod creatum, secundum illos qui ponunt in Christo duo supposita, posset dici homo ille dominicus, inquantum sumitur ad participationem honoris divini; sicut Nestoriani posuerunt. Et hoc etiam modo humana natura non dicitur essentialiter dea, sed deificata, non quidem per conversionem ipsius in divinam naturam, sed per coniunctionem ad divinam naturam in una hypostasi; ut patet per Damascenum, in III libro. | I answer that, As was said above (Article [2], ad 3), when we say "the Man Christ Jesus," we signify the eternal suppositum, which is the Person of the Son of God, because there is only one suppositum of both natures. Now "God" and "Lord" are predicated essentially of the Son of God; 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 assert two supposita in Christ, this man might be called lordly, inasmuch as he is assumed to a participation 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). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus illa verba, et similia, retractat in libro Retractationum. Unde post praedicta verba libri Retractationum subdit, hoc ubicumque dixi, scilicet quod Christus Iesus sit homo dominicus, dixisse me nollem. Postea quippe vidi non esse dicendum, quamvis nonnulla ratione posset defendi, quia scilicet posset aliquis dicere quod dicitur homo dominicus ratione humanae naturae, quam significat hoc nomen homo, non autem ratione suppositi. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illud unum suppositum quod est divinae et humanae naturae, primo quidem fuit divinae naturae, scilicet ab aeterno, postea autem ex tempore per incarnationem factum est suppositum humanae naturae. Et hac ratione dicitur humanatum, non quia assumpserit hominem; sed quia assumpsit humanam naturam. Non autem sic est e converso quod suppositum humanae naturae assumpserit divinam naturam. Unde non potest dici homo deificatus, vel dominicus. | Reply to Objection 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 assumed a man, but that it assumed human nature. But the converse of this is not true, viz. that a suppositum of human nature assumed the Divine Nature; hence we may not say a "deified" or "lordly" man. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc nomen divinum consuevit praedicari etiam de his de quibus praedicatur essentialiter hoc nomen Deus, dicimus enim quod divina essentia est Deus, ratione identitatis; et quod essentia est Dei sive divina, propter diversum modum significandi; et verbum divinum, cum tamen verbum sit Deus. Et similiter dicimus personam divinam, sicut et personam Platonis, propter diversum modum significandi. Sed dominicus non dicitur de his de quibus dominus praedicatur, non enim consuevit dici quod aliquis homo qui est dominus, sit dominicus. Sed illud quod qualitercumque est domini, dominicum dicitur, sicut dominica voluntas vel dominica manus, vel dominica possessio. Et ideo ipse homo Christus, qui est dominus, non potest dici dominicus, sed potest caro eius dici dominica caro, et passio eius potest dici dominica passio. | Reply to Objection 3: This word Divine is wont to be predicated even of things of which the word God is predicated essentially; thus we say that "the Divine Essence is God," by reason of identity; and that "the Essence belongs to God," or is "Divine," on account of the different way of signifying; and we speak of the "Divine Word," though the Word is God. 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 passion the "lordly passion." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ea quae sunt humanae naturae, de Deo dici non possint. Impossibile est enim opposita de eodem praedicari. Sed ea quae sunt humanae naturae, sunt contraria his quae sunt propria Dei, Deus enim est increatus, immutabilis et aeternus; ad humanam autem naturam pertinet ut sit creata, temporalis et mutabilis. Non ergo ea quae sunt naturae humanae, possunt dici de Deo. | Objection 1: It would seem that what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of God. For contrary things cannot be said of the same. Now, what belongs to human nature is contrary to what is proper to God, since God 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 God. |
| Praeterea, attribuere Deo ea quae ad defectum pertinent, videtur derogare divino honori, et ad blasphemiam pertinere. Sed ea quae sunt humanae naturae, defectum quendam continent, sicut mori, pati, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo videtur quod nullo modo ea quae sunt humanae naturae, possint dici de Deo. | Objection 2: Further, to attribute to God 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 God. |
| Praeterea, assumi convenit humanae naturae. Non autem hoc convenit Deo. Non ergo ea quae sunt humanae naturae, de Deo dici possunt. | Objection 3: Further, to be assumed pertains to the human nature; yet it does not pertain to God. Therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of God. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod Deus suscepit ea quae sunt carnis idiomata, idest proprietates, dum Deus passibilis nominatur, et Deus gloriae crucifixus est. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that "God assumed the idioms," i.e. the properties, "of flesh, since God is said to be passible, and the God of glory was crucified." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod de hac quaestione diversitas fuit inter Nestorianos et Catholicos. Nestoriani enim voces quae dicuntur de Christo dividere volebant hoc modo, ut ea quae pertinent ad humanam naturam, non dicerentur de Deo; nec ea quae pertinent ad divinam naturam, dicerentur de homine. Unde Nestorius dixit, si quis Dei verbo passiones tentat tribuere, anathema sit. Si qua vero nomina sunt quae pertinere possunt ad utramque naturam, de talibus praedicabant ea quae sunt utriusque naturae, sicut hoc nomen Christus, vel dominus. Unde concedebant Christum esse natum de virgine, et fuisse ab aeterno, non tamen concedebant vel Deum natum de virgine, vel hominem ab aeterno fuisse. Catholici vero posuerunt huiusmodi quae dicuntur de Christo, sive secundum divinam naturam sive secundum humanam, dici posse tam de Deo quam de homine. Unde Cyrillus dixit, si quis duabus personis seu substantiis, idest hypostasibus, eas quae in evangelicis et apostolicis sunt conscriptionibus dividit voces, vel ea quae de Christo a sanctis dicuntur, vel ab ipso Christo de semetipso; et aliquas quidem ex his homini applicandas crediderit, aliquas soli verbo deputaverit, anathema sit. Et huius ratio est quia, cum sit eadem hypostasis utriusque naturae, eadem hypostasis supponitur nomine utriusque naturae. Sive ergo dicatur homo, sive Deus, supponitur hypostasis divinae et humanae naturae. Et ideo de homine dici possunt ea quae sunt divinae naturae, et de Deo possunt dici ea quae sunt humanae naturae. | 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 God, and that such as pertained to the Divine Nature should not be predicated of the Man. Hence Nestorius said: "If anyone attempt to attribute sufferings to the Word, let him be anathema" [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 29]. But if there are any words applicable to both natures, of them they predicated what pertained to both natures, as "Christ" or "Lord." Hence they granted that Christ was born of a Virgin, and that He was from eternity; but they did not say that God was born of a virgin, or that the Man was from eternity. Catholics on the other hand maintained that words which are said of Christ either in His Divine or in His human nature may be said either of God or of man. Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: "If anyone ascribes to two persons or substances," i.e. hypostases, "such words as are in the evangelical and apostolic Scriptures, or have been said of Christ by the Saints, or by Himself of Himself, and believes that some are to be applied to the Man, and apportions some to the Word alone---let him be anathema." And the reason of this is that, since there is one hypostasis of both natures, the same hypostasis is signified by the name of either nature. Thus whether we say "man" or "God," the hypostasis of Divine and human nature is signified. And hence, of the Man may be said what belongs to the Divine Nature, as of a hypostasis of the Divine Nature; and of God may be said what belongs to the human nature, as of a hypostasis of human nature. |
| Sciendum tamen quod in propositione in qua aliquid de aliquo praedicatur, non solum attenditur quid sit illud de quo praedicatur praedicatum, sed etiam secundum quid de illo praedicetur. Quamvis igitur non distinguantur ea quae praedicantur de Christo, distinguuntur tamen quantum ad id secundum quod utrumque praedicatur. Nam ea quae sunt divinae naturae, praedicantur de Christo secundum divinam naturam, ea autem quae sunt humanae naturae, praedicantur de eo secundum humanam naturam. Unde Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., distinguamus quod in Scripturis sonat secundum formam Dei et quod secundum formam servi. Et infra, quid propter quid, et quid secundum quid dicatur, prudens et diligens et pius lector intelligit. | Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that in a proposition in which something is predicated of another, we must not merely consider what the predicate is predicated of, but also the reason of its being predicated. Thus, although we do not distinguish things predicated of Christ, yet we distinguish that by reason of which they are predicated, since those things that belong to the Divine Nature are predicated of Christ in His Divine Nature, and those that belong to the human nature are predicated of Christ in His human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. i, 11): "We must distinguish what is said by Scripture in reference to the form of God, wherein He is equal to the Father, and what in reference to the form of a servant, wherein He is less than the Father": and further on he says (De Trin. i, 13): "The prudent, careful, and devout reader will discern the reason and point of view of what is said." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opposita praedicari de eodem secundum idem est impossibile, sed secundum diversa, nihil prohibet. Et hoc modo opposita praedicantur de Christo, non secundum idem, sed secundum diversas naturas. | Reply to Objection 1: It is impossible for contraries to be predicated of the same in the same respects, but nothing prevents their being predicated of the same in different aspects. And thus contraries are predicated of Christ, not in the same, but in different natures. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, si ea quae ad defectum pertinent Deo attribuantur secundum divinam naturam, esset blasphemia, quasi pertinens ad diminutionem honoris ipsius, non autem pertinet ad Dei iniuriam si attribuantur ei secundum naturam assumptam. Unde in quodam sermone Ephesini Concilii dicitur, nihil putat Deus iniuriam quod est occasio salutis hominibus, nihil enim abiectorum quae elegit propter nos, iniuriam facit illi naturae quae non potest esse subiecta iniuriis, propria vero facit inferiora ut salvet naturam nostram. Quando ergo quae abiecta et vilia sunt Dei naturam non iniuriantur, sed salutem hominibus operantur, quomodo dicis ea quae causa nostrae salutis sunt, iniuriae occasionem Deo fuisse? | Reply to Objection 2: If the things pertaining to defect were attributed to God in His Divine Nature, it would be a blasphemy, since it would be derogatory to His honor. But there is no kind of wrong done to God if they are attributed to Him in His assumed nature. Hence in a discourse of the Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. 10] it is said: "God accounts nothing a wrong which is the occasion of man's salvation. For no lowliness that He assumed for us injures that Nature which can be subject to no injury, yet makes lower things Its own, to save our nature. Therefore, since these lowly and worthless things do no harm to the Divine Nature, but bring about our salvation, how dost thou maintain that what was the cause of our salvation was the occasion of harm to God?" |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod assumi convenit humanae naturae non ratione suppositi, sed ratione sui ipsius. Et ideo non convenit Deo. | Reply to Objection 3: To be assumed pertains to human nature, not in its suppositum, but in itself; and thus it does not belong to God. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ea quae sunt humanae naturae, possint dici de natura divina. Ea enim quae sunt humanae naturae, praedicantur de filio Dei, et de Deo. Sed Deus est sua natura. Ergo ea quae sunt naturae humanae, possunt praedicari de divina natura. | Objection 1: It would seem that what belongs to the human nature can be said of the Divine Nature. For what belongs to the human nature is predicated of the Son of God, and of God. But God is His own Nature. Therefore, what belongs to the human nature may be predicated of the Divine Nature. |
| Praeterea, caro pertinet ad naturam humanam. Sed, sicut dicit Damascenus, in III libro, dicimus naturam verbi incarnatam esse, secundum beatos Athanasium et Cyrillum. Ergo videtur quod, pari ratione, ea quae sunt humanae naturae, possint dici de divina natura. | Objection 2: Further, the flesh pertains to human nature. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6), "we say, after the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, that the Nature of the Word was incarnate." Therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human nature may be said of the Divine Nature. |
| Praeterea, ea quae sunt divinae naturae, conveniunt humanae naturae in Christo, sicut cognoscere futura, et habere salutiferam virtutem. Ergo videtur quod, pari ratione ea, quae sunt humanae naturae, possint dici de divina natura. | Objection 3: Further, what belongs to the Divine Nature belongs to Christ's human nature; such as to know future things and to possess saving power. Therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human may be said of the Divine Nature. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, deitatem quidem dicentes, non nominamus de ea quae humanitatis idiomata, idest proprietates, non enim dicimus deitatem passibilem vel creabilem. Deitas autem est divina natura. Ergo ea quae sunt humanae naturae, non possunt dici de divina natura. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4): "When we mention the Godhead we do not predicate of it the idioms," i.e. the properties, "of the humanity; for we do not say that the Godhead is passible or creatable." Now the Godhead is the Divine Nature. Therefore what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae sunt proprie unius, non possunt vere de aliquo praedicari nisi de eo quod est idem illi, sicut risibile non convenit nisi ei quod est homo. In mysterio autem incarnationis non est eadem divina natura et humana, sed est eadem hypostasis utriusque naturae. Et ideo ea quae sunt unius naturae, non possunt de alia praedicari, secundum quod in abstracto significantur. Nomina vero concreta supponunt hypostasim naturae. Et ideo indifferenter praedicari possunt ea quae ad utramque naturam pertinent, de nominibus concretis sive, illud nomen de quo dicuntur det intelligere utramque naturam, sicut hoc nomen Christus in quo intelligitur et divinitas ungens et humanitas uncta; sive solum divinam naturam, sicut hoc nomen Deus, vel filius Dei; sive solum naturam humanam, sicut hoc nomen homo, vel Iesus. Unde Leo Papa dicit, in epistola ad Palaestinos, non interest ex qua Christus substantia nominetur, cum inseparabiliter manente unitate personae, idem sit et totus hominis filius propter carnem, et totus Dei filius propter unam cum patre divinitatem. | I answer that, What belongs to one cannot be said of another, unless they are both the same; thus "risible" can be predicated only of man. Now in the mystery of the Incarnation the Divine and human natures are not the same; but the hypostasis of the two natures is the same. And hence what belongs to one nature cannot be predicated of the other if they are taken in the abstract. Now concrete words stand for the hypostasis of the nature; and hence of concrete words we may predicate indifferently what belongs to either nature---whether the word of which they are predicated refers to one nature, as the word "Christ," by which is signified "both the Godhead anointing and the manhood anointed"; or to the Divine Nature alone, as this word "God" or "the Son of God"; or to the manhood alone, as this word "Man" or "Jesus." Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Palaest. cxxiv): "It is of no consequence from what substance we name Christ; because since the unity of person remains inseparably, one and the same is altogether Son of Man by His flesh, and altogether Son of God by the Godhead which He has with the Father." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in divinis realiter est idem persona cum natura, et ratione huius identitatis, divina natura praedicatur de filio Dei. Non tamen est idem modus significandi. Et ideo quaedam dicuntur de filio Dei quae non dicuntur de divina natura, sicut dicimus quod filius Dei est genitus, non tamen dicimus quod divina natura sit genita, ut in prima parte habitum est. Et similiter in mysterio incarnationis dicimus quod filius Dei est passus, non autem dicimus quod natura divina sit passa. | Reply to Objection 1: In God, Person and Nature are really the same; and by reason of this identity the Divine Nature is predicated of the Son of God. Nevertheless, its mode of predication is different; and hence certain things are said of the Son of God which are not said of the Divine Nature; thus we say that the Son of God is born, yet we do not say that the Divine Nature is born; as was said in the FP, Question [39], Article [5]. So, too, in the mystery of the Incarnation we say that the Son of God suffered, yet we do not say that the Divine Nature suffered. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod incarnatio magis importat unionem ad carnem quam carnis proprietatem. Utraque autem natura est in Christo unita alteri in persona, ratione cuius unionis et natura divina dicitur incarnata, et humana natura deificata, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: Incarnation implies union with flesh, rather than any property of flesh. Now in Christ each nature is united to the other in person; and by reason of this union the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate and the human nature deified, as stated above (Question [2], Article [1], ad 3). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae sunt divinae naturae, dicuntur de humana natura, non secundum quod essentialiter competunt divinae naturae, sed secundum quod participative derivantur ad humanam naturam. Unde ea quae participari non possunt a natura humana, sicut esse increatum aut omnipotentem, nullo modo de humana natura dicuntur. Divina autem natura nihil participative recipit ab humana natura. Et ideo ea quae sunt humanae naturae, nullo modo possunt dici de divina. | Reply to Objection 3: What belongs to the Divine Nature is predicated of the human nature---not, indeed, as it belongs essentially to the Divine Nature, but as it is participated by the human nature. Hence, whatever cannot be participated by the human nature (as to be uncreated and omnipotent), is nowise predicated of the human nature. But the Divine Nature received nothing by participation from the human nature; and hence what belongs to the human nature can nowise be predicated of the Divine Nature. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa, Deus factus est homo. Cum enim homo significet substantiam, fieri hominem est fieri simpliciter. Sed haec est falsa, Deus factus est simpliciter. Ergo haec est falsa, Deus factus est homo. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is false: "God was made man." For since man signifies a substance, to be made man is to be made simply. But this is false: "God was made simply." Therefore this is false: "God was made man." |
| Praeterea, fieri hominem est mutari. Sed Deus non potest esse subiectum mutationis, secundum illud Malach. III, ego dominus, et non mutor. Ergo videtur quod haec sit falsa, Deus factus est homo. | Objection 2: Further, to be made man is to be changed. But God cannot be the subject of change, according to Malachi 3:6: "I am the Lord, and I change not." Hence this is false: "God was made man." |
| Praeterea, homo, secundum quod de Christo dicitur, supponit personam filii Dei. Sed haec est falsa, Deus factus est persona filii Dei. Ergo haec est falsa, Deus factus est homo. | Objection 3: Further, man as predicated of Christ stands for the Person of the Son of God. But this is false: "God was made the Person of the Son of God." Therefore this is false: "God was made man." |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, verbum caro factum est. Et sicut Athanasius dicit, in epistola ad Epictetum, quod dixit verbum caro factum est, simile est ac si diceretur, homo factus est. | On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:14): "The Word was made flesh": and as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epictetum), "when he said, 'The Word was made flesh,' it is as if it were said that God was made man." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque dicitur esse factum illud quod de novo incipit praedicari de ipso. Esse autem hominem vere praedicatur de Deo, sicut dictum est, ita tamen quod non convenit Deo esse hominem ab aeterno, sed ex tempore per assumptionem humanae naturae. Et ideo haec est vera, Deus factus est homo. Diversimode tamen intelligitur a diversis, sicut et haec, Deus est homo, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, A thing is said to be made that which begins to be predicated of it for the first time. Now to be man is truly predicated of God, as stated above (Article [1]), yet in such sort that it pertains to God to be man, not from eternity, but from the time of His assuming human nature. Hence, this is true, "God was made man"; though it is understood differently by some: even as this, "God is man," as we said above (Article [1]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fieri hominem est fieri simpliciter in omnibus his in quibus humana natura incipit esse in supposito de novo creato. Deus autem dicitur factus homo ex eo quod humana natura incoepit esse in supposito divinae naturae ab aeterno praeexistente. Et ideo Deum fieri hominem non est Deum fieri simpliciter. | Reply to Objection 1: To be made man is to be made simply, in all those in whom human nature begins to be in a newly created suppositum. But God is said to have been made man, inasmuch as the human nature began to be in an eternally pre-existing suppositum of the Divine Nature. And hence for God to be made man does not mean that God was made simply. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, fieri importat quod aliquid praedicetur de novo de altero. Unde quandocumque aliquid de novo praedicatur de altero cum mutatione eius de quo dicitur, tunc fieri est mutari. Et hoc convenit omnibus quae absolute dicuntur, non enim potest albedo aut magnitudo de novo advenire alicui nisi per hoc quod de novo mutatur ad albedinem vel magnitudinem. Ea vero quae relative dicuntur, possunt de novo praedicari de aliquo absque eius mutatione, sicut homo de novo fit dexter absque sua mutatione, per motum illius qui fit ei sinister. Unde in talibus non oportet omne quod dicitur fieri, esse mutatum, quia hoc potest accidere per mutationem alterius. Et per hunc modum Deo dicimus, domine, refugium factus es nobis. Esse autem hominem convenit Deo ratione unionis, quae est relatio quaedam. Et ideo esse hominem praedicatur de novo de Deo absque eius mutatione, per mutationem humanae naturae, quae assumitur in divinam personam. Et ideo, cum dicitur, Deus factus est homo, non intelligitur aliqua mutatio ex parte Dei, sed solum ex parte humanae naturae. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, to be made implies that something. is newly predicated of another. Hence, whenever anything is predicated of another, and there is a change in that of which it is predicated, then to be made is to be changed; and this takes place in whatever is predicated absolutely, for whiteness or greatness cannot newly affect anything, unless it be newly changed to whiteness or greatness. But whatever is predicated relatively can be newly predicated of anything without its change, as a man may be made to be on the right side without being changed and merely by the change of him on whose left side he was. Hence in such cases, not all that is said to be made is changed, since it may happen by the change of something else. And it is thus we say of God: "Lord, Thou art made [Douay: 'hast been'] our refuge" (Ps. 89:1). Now to be man belongs to God by reason of the union, which is a relation. And hence to be man is newly predicated of God without any change in Him, by a change in the human nature, which is assumed to a Divine Person. And hence, when it is said, "God was made man," we understand no change on the part of God, but only on the part of the human nature. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod homo supponit personam filii Dei, non nudam, sed prout subsistit in humana natura. Et quamvis haec sit falsa, Deus factus est persona filii, est tamen haec vera, Deus factus est homo, ex eo quod unitus est humanae naturae. | Reply to Objection 3: Man stands not for the bare Person of the Son of God, but inasmuch as it subsists in human nature. Hence, although this is false, "God was made the Person of the Son of God," yet this is true: "God was made man" by being united to human nature. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit vera, homo factus est Deus. Dicitur enim Rom. I, quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Sed Christus secundum quod homo est ex semine David secundum carnem. Ergo homo factus est filius Dei. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is true: "Man was made God." For it is written (Rm. 1:2,3): "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh." Now Christ, as man, is of the seed of David according to the flesh. Therefore man was made the Son of God. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., talis erat illa susceptio quae Deum hominem faceret, et hominem Deum. Sed ratione illius susceptionis haec est vera, Deus factus est homo. Ergo similiter haec est vera, homo factus est Deus. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13) that "such was this assumption, which made God man, and man God." But by reason of this assumption this is true: "God was made man." Therefore, in like manner, this is true: "Man was made God." |
| Praeterea, Gregorius Nazianzenus dicit, in epistola ad Chelidonium, Deus quidem humanatus est, homo autem deificatus, vel quomodolibet aliter nominaverit. Sed Deus ea ratione dicitur humanatus, quia est homo factus. Ergo homo ea ratione dicitur deificatus, quia est factus Deus. Et ita haec est vera, homo factus est Deus. | Objection 3: Further, Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): "God was humanized and man was deified, or whatever else one may like to call it." Now God is said to be humanized by being made man. Therefore with equal reason man is said to be deified by being made God; and thus it is true that "Man was made God." |
| Praeterea, cum dicitur, Deus factus est homo, subiectum factionis vel unitionis non est Deus, sed humana natura, quam significat hoc nomen homo. Sed illud videtur esse subiectum factionis cui factio attribuitur. Ergo haec magis est vera, homo factus est Deus, quam ista, Deus factus est homo. | Objection 4: Further, when it is said that "God was made man," the subject of the making or uniting is not God, but human nature, which the word "man" signifies. Now that seems to be the subject of the making, to which the making is attributed. Hence "Man was made God" is truer than "God was made man." |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, non hominem deificatum dicimus, sed Deum humanatum. Idem autem est fieri Deum quod deificari. Ergo haec est falsa, homo factus est Deus. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "We do not say that man was deified, but that God was humanized." Now to be made God is the same as to be deified. Hence this is false: "Man was made God." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod propositio ista, homo factus est Deus, tripliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo, ita quod hoc participium factus determinet absolute vel subiectum, vel praedicatum. Et in hoc sensu est falsa, quia neque homo ille de quo praedicatur est factus, neque Deus est factus, ut infra dicetur. Et sub eodem sensu haec est falsa, Deus factus est homo. Sed sub hoc sensu non quaeritur hic de istis propositionibus. Alio modo potest intelligi ut ly factus determinet compositionem, ut sit sensus, homo factus est Deus, idest, factum est ut homo sit Deus. Et sub hoc sensu utraque est vera, et, homo factus est Deus, et, Deus factus est homo. Sed hic non est proprius sensus harum locutionum, nisi forte intelligatur quod ly homo non habeat personalem suppositionem, sed simplicem. Licet enim hic homo non sit factus Deus, quia hoc suppositum, persona filii Dei, ab aeterno fuit Deus, tamen homo, communiter loquendo, non semper fuit Deus. Tertio modo, proprie intelligitur, secundum quod hoc participium factus ponit fieri circa hominem in respectu ad Deum sicut ad terminum factionis. Et in hoc sensu, supposito quod in Christo sit eadem persona et hypostasis et suppositum Dei et hominis, ut supra ostensum est, ista propositio falsa est. Quia cum dicitur, homo factus est Deus, ly homo habet personalem suppositionem, non enim esse Deum verificatur de homine ratione humanae naturae, sed ratione sui suppositi. Suppositum autem illud humanae naturae de quo verificatur esse Deum, est idem quod hypostasis seu persona filii Dei, quae semper fuit Deus. Unde non potest dici quod iste homo incoepit esse Deus, vel quod fiat Deus, aut quod factus sit Deus. | I answer that, This proposition, Man was made God, may be understood in three ways. First, so that the participle "made" absolutely determines either the subject or the predicate; and in this sense it is false, since neither the Man of Whom it is predicated was made, nor is God made, as will be said (Articles [8],9). And in the same sense this is false: "God was made man." But it is not of this sense that we are now speaking. Secondly, it may be so understood that the word "made" determines the composition, with this meaning: "Man was made God, i.e. it was brought about that Man is God." And in this sense both are true, viz. that "Man was made God" and that "God was made Man." But this is not the proper sense of these phrases; unless, indeed, we are to understand that "man" has not a personal but a simple supposition. For although "this man" was not made God, because this suppositum, viz. the Person of the Son of God, was eternally God, yet man, speaking commonly, was not always God. Thirdly, properly understood, this participle "made" attaches making to man with relation to God, as the term of the making. And in this sense, granted that the Person or hypostasis in Christ are the same as the suppositum of God and Man, as was shown (Question [2], Articles [2],3), this proposition is false, because, when it is said, "Man was made God," "man" has a personal suppositum: because, to be God is not verified of the Man in His human nature, but in His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human nature, of Whom "to be God" is verified, is the same as the hypostasis or Person of the Son of God, Who was always God. Hence it cannot be said that this Man began to be God, or is made God, or that He was made God. |
| Si vero esset alia persona vel hypostasis Dei et hominis, ita quod esse Deum praedicaretur de homine, et e converso per quandam coniunctionem suppositorum, vel dignitatis personalis, vel affectionis, vel inhabitationis, ut Nestoriani dixerunt, tunc pari ratione posset dici quod homo factus est Deus, idest coniunctus Deo, sicut et quod Deus factus est homo, idest coniunctus homini. | But if there were a different hypostasis of God and man, so that "to be God" was predicated of the man, and, conversely, by reason of a certain conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity, or of affection or indwelling, as the Nestorians said, then with equal reason might it be said that Man was made God, i.e. joined to God, and that God was made Man, i.e. joined to man. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in verbis illis apostoli hoc relativum qui, quod refert pro persona filii, non debet intelligi ex parte praedicati, quasi aliquis existens ex semine David secundum carnem sit factus filius Dei, in quo sensu obiectio procedebat, sed debet intelligi ex parte subiecti, ut sit sensus quod filius Dei factus est ei, (scilicet ad honorem patris, ut Glossa exponit) existens ex semine David secundum carnem; ac si diceret, filius Dei habens carnem ex semine David ad honorem Dei. | Reply to Objection 1: In these words of the Apostle the relative "Who" which refers to the Person of the Son of God ought not to be considered as affecting the predicate, as if someone already existing of the "seed of David according to the flesh" was made the Son of God---and it is in this sense that the objection takes it. But it ought to be taken as affecting the subject, with this meaning---that the "Son of God was made to Him ('namely to the honor of the Father,' as a gloss expounds it), being of the seed of David according to the flesh," as if to say "the Son of God having flesh of the seed of David to the honor of God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Augustini est intelligendum in illo sensu, secundum quod ex illa susceptione incarnationis factum est ut homo esset Deus et Deus esset homo. In quo sensu ambae locutiones sunt verae, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: This saying of Augustine is to be taken in the sense that by the assumption that took place in the Incarnation it was brought about that Man is God and God is Man; and in this sense both sayings are true as stated above. |
| Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium, nam deificari idem est quod fieri Deum. | The same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is the same as to be made God. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod terminus in subiecto positus tenetur materialiter, idest pro supposito, positus vero in praedicato, tenetur formaliter, idest pro natura significata. Et ideo cum dicitur, homo factus est Deus, ipsum fieri non attribuitur humanae naturae, sed supposito humanae naturae, quod est ab aeterno Deus, et ideo non convenit ei fieri Deum. Cum autem dicitur, Deus factus est homo, factio intelligitur terminari ad ipsam humanam naturam. Et ideo, proprie loquendo, haec est vera, Deus factus est homo, sed haec est falsa, homo factus est Deus. Sicut, si Socrates, cum prius fuerit homo, postea factus est albus, demonstrato Socrate, haec est vera, hic homo hodie factus est albus; haec tamen est falsa, hoc album hodie factum est homo. Si tamen ex parte subiecti poneretur aliquod nomen significans naturam humanam in abstracto, posset hoc modo significari ut subiectum factionis, puta si dicatur quod natura humana facta est filii Dei. | Reply to Objection 4: A term placed in the subject is taken materially, i.e. for the suppositum; placed in the predicate it is taken formally, i.e. for the nature signified. Hence when it is said that "Man was made God," the being made is not attributed to the human nature but to the suppositum of the human nature, Which is God from eternity, and hence it does not befit Him to be made God. But when it is said that "God was made Man," the making is taken to be terminated in the human nature. Hence, properly speaking, this is true: "God was made Man," and this is false: "Man was made God"; even as if Socrates, who was already a man, were made white, and were pointed out, this would be true: "This man was made white today," and this would be false; "This white thing was made man today." Nevertheless, if on the part of the subject there is added some word signifying human nature in the abstract, it might be taken in this way for the subject of the making, e.g. if it were said that "human nature was made the Son of God's." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit vera, Christus est creatura. Dicit enim Leo Papa, nova et inaudita conventio, Deus qui est et erat, fit creatura. Sed illud potest praedicari de Christo quod filius Dei factus est per incarnationem. Ergo haec est vera, Christus est creatura. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is true: "Christ is a creature." For Pope Leo says [*Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. xii de Nativ.]: "A new and unheard of covenant: God Who is and was, is made a creature." Now we may predicate of Christ whatever the Son of God became by the Incarnation. Therefore this is true; Christ is a creature. |
| Praeterea, proprietates utriusque naturae possunt praedicari de hypostasi communi utriusque naturae, quocumque nomine significetur, ut supra dictum est. Sed proprietas humanae naturae est esse creaturam, sicut proprietas divinae naturae est esse creatorem. Ergo utrumque potest dici de Christo, scilicet quod sit creatura; et quod sit increatus et creator. | Objection 2: Further, the properties of both natures may be predicated of the common hypostasis of both natures, no matter by what word they are signified, as stated above (Article [5]). But it is the property of human nature to be created, as it is the property of the Divine Nature to be Creator. Hence both may be said of Christ, viz. that He is a creature and that he is uncreated and Creator. |
| Praeterea, principalior pars hominis est anima quam corpus. Sed Christus ratione corporis, quod de virgine traxit, dicitur simpliciter esse natus de virgine. Ergo ratione animae, quae creata est a Deo, debet simpliciter dici quod Christus sit creatura. | Objection 3: Further, the principal part of a man is the soul rather than the body. But Christ, by reason of the body which He took from the Virgin, is said simply to be born of the Virgin. Therefore by reason of the soul which is created by God, it ought simply to be said that He is a creature. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Trin., nunquid dicto factus est Christus? Nunquid mandato creatus est Christus? Quasi dicat, non. Unde subdit, quomodo autem creatura in Deo esse potest? Etenim Deus naturae simplicis est, non coniunctae. Ergo haec non est concedenda, Christus est creatura. | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Trin. i): "Was Christ made by a word? Was Christ created by a command?" as if to say: "No!" Hence he adds: "How can there be a creature in God? For God has a simple not a composite Nature." Therefore it must not be granted that "Christ is a creature." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis. Unde cum haereticis nec nomina debemus habere communia, ne eorum errori favere videamur. Ariani autem haeretici Christum dixerunt esse creaturam, et minorem patre, non solum ratione humanae naturae, sed etiam ratione divinae personae. Et ideo non est absolute dicendum quod Christus sit creatura, vel minor patre, sed cum determinatione, scilicet, secundum humanam naturam. Ea vero de quibus suspicari non potest quod divinae personae conveniant secundum seipsam, possunt simpliciter dici de Christo ratione humanae naturae, sicut simpliciter dicimus Christum esse passum, mortuum et sepultum. Sicut etiam in rebus corporalibus et humanis, ea quae in dubitationem venire possunt an conveniant toti vel parti, si insunt alicui parti, non attribuimus toti simpliciter, idest sine determinatione, non enim dicimus quod Aethiops est albus, sed quod est albus secundum dentem. Dicimus autem absque determinatione quod est Crispus, quia hoc non potest ei convenire nisi secundum capillos. | I answer that, As Jerome [*Gloss, Ord. in Osee 2:16] says, "words spoken amiss lead to heresy"; hence with us and heretics the very words ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their error. Now the Arian heretics said that Christ was a creature and less than the Father, not only in His human nature, but even in His Divine Person. And hence we must not say absolutely that Christ is a "creature" or "less than the Father"; but with a qualification, viz. "in His human nature." But such things as could not be considered to belong to the Divine Person in Itself may be predicated simply of Christ by reason of His human nature; thus we say simply that Christ suffered, died and was buried: even as in corporeal and human beings, things of which we may doubt whether they belong to the whole or the part, if they are observed to exist in a part, are not predicated of the whole simply, i.e. without qualification, for we do not say that the Ethiopian is white but that he is white as regards his teeth; but we say without qualification that he is curly, since this can only belong to him as regards his hair. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquando sancti doctores, causa brevitatis determinatione omissa, nomine creaturae utuntur circa Christum. Est tamen in eorum dictis subintelligenda. | Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, the holy doctors use the word "creature" of Christ, without any qualifying term; we should however take as understood the qualification, "as man." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod omnes proprietates humanae naturae, sicut et divinae, possunt aliqualiter dici de Christo. Unde et Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod Christus, qui Deus et homo dicitur, creabilis est et increabilis, et partibilis et impartibilis. Sed tamen illa quae dubitationem habent circa alterutram naturam, non sunt dicenda absque determinatione. Unde et ipse postea alibi subdit, ipsa una hypostasis, scilicet Christi, et increata est deitate, et creata est humanitate. Sicut et e converso non esset dicendum sine determinatione quod Christus est incorporeus, vel impassibilis, ad evitandum errorem Manichaei, qui posuit Christum verum corpus non habuisse, nec vere passum esse, sed dicendum est cum determinatione quod Christus secundum deitatem est incorporeus et impassibilis. | Reply to Objection 2: All the properties of the human, just as of the Divine Nature, may be predicated equally of Christ. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that "Christ Who God and Man, is called created and uncreated, passible and impassible." Nevertheless things of which we may doubt to what nature they belong, are not to be predicated without a qualification. Hence he afterwards adds (De Fide Orth. iv, 5) that "the one hypostasis," i.e. of Christ, "is uncreated in its Godhead and created in its manhood": even so conversely, we may not say without qualification, "Christ is incorporeal" or "impassible"; in order to avoid the error of Manes, who held that Christ had not a true body, nor truly suffered, but we must say, with a qualification, that Christ was incorporeal and impassible "in His Godhead." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod de nativitate ex virgine nulla dubitatio potest esse quod conveniat personae filii Dei, sicut potest esse de creatione. Et ideo non est similis ratio utrobique. | Reply to Objection 3: There can be no doubt how the birth from the Virgin applies to the Person of the Son of God, as there can be in the case of creation; and hence there is no parity. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ille homo, demonstrato Christo, incoeperit esse. Dicit enim Augustinus, super Ioan., priusquam mundus esset, nec nos eramus, nec ipse mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Sed illud quod non semper fuit, incoepit esse. Ergo ille homo, demonstrato Christo, incoepit esse. | Objection 1: It would seem that this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be. For Augustine says (Tract. cv in Joan.) that "before the world was, neither were we, nor the Mediator of God and men---the Man Jesus Christ." But what was not always, has begun to be. Therefore this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be. |
| Praeterea, Christus incoepit esse homo. Sed esse hominem est esse simpliciter. Ergo ille homo incoepit esse simpliciter. | Objection 2: Further, Christ began to be Man. But to be man is to be simply. Therefore this man began to be, simply. |
| Praeterea, homo importat suppositum humanae naturae. Sed Christus non fuit semper suppositum humanae naturae. Ergo homo ille incoepit esse. | Objection 3: Further, "man" implies a suppositum of human nature. But Christ was not always a suppositum of human nature. Therefore this Man began to be. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Heb. ult., Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula. | On the contrary, It is written (Heb. 13:8): "Jesus Christ yesterday and today: and the same for ever." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod non est dicendum quod ille homo, demonstrato Christo, incoeperit esse, si nihil addatur. Et hoc duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia locutio est simpliciter falsa, secundum sententiam Catholicae fidei, qua ponimus in Christo unum suppositum et unam hypostasim, sicut et unam personam. Secundum hoc enim oportet quod in hoc quod dicitur, ille homo, demonstrato Christo, designetur suppositum aeternum, cuius aeternitati repugnat incipere esse. Unde haec est falsa, hic homo incoepit esse. Nec obstat quod incipere esse convenit humanae naturae, quae significatur per hoc nomen homo, quia terminus in subiecto positus non tenetur formaliter pro natura, sed magis materialiter pro supposito, ut supra dictum est. Secundo quia, etiam si esset vera, non tamen esset ea utendum absque determinatione, ad evitandum haeresim Arii, qui, sicut personae filii Dei attribuit quod esset creatura et quod esset minor patre, ita attribuit ei quod esse incoeperat, dicens quod erat quando non erat. | I answer that, We must not say that "this Man"---pointing to Christ---"began to be," unless we add something. And this for a twofold reason. First, for this proposition is simply false, in the judgment of the Catholic Faith, which affirms that in Christ there is one suppositum and one hypostasis, as also one Person. For according to this, when we say "this Man," pointing to Christ, the eternal suppositum is necessarily meant, with Whose eternity a beginning in time is incompatible. Hence this is false: "This Man began to be." Nor does it matter that to begin to be refers to the human nature, which is signified by this word "man"; because the term placed in the subject is not taken formally so as to signify the nature, but is taken materially so as to signify the suppositum, as was said (Article [1], ad 4). Secondly, because even if this proposition were true, it ought not to be made use of without qualification; in order to avoid the heresy of Arius, who, since he pretended that the Person of the Son of God is a creature, and less than the Father, so he maintained that He began to be, saying "there was a time when He was not." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa est intelligenda cum determinatione, ut si dicamus quod homo Christus Iesus non fuit antequam mundus esset, secundum humanitatem. | Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted must be qualified, i.e. we must say that the Man Jesus Christ was not, before the world was, "in His humanity." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod cum hoc verbo incoepit non sequitur argumentum ab inferiori ad superius, non enim sequitur, hoc incoepit esse album, ergo incoepit esse coloratum. Et hoc ideo quia incipere importat nunc esse et non prius, non autem sequitur, hoc non erat prius album, ergo non erat prius coloratum. Esse autem simpliciter est superius ad esse hominem. Unde non sequitur, Christus incoepit esse homo, ergo incoepit esse. | Reply to Objection 2: With this word "begin" we cannot argue from the lower species to the higher. For it does not follow if "this began to be white," that therefore "it began to be colored." And this because "to begin" implies being now and not heretofore: for it does not follow if "this was not white hitherto" that "therefore it was not colored hitherto." Now, to be simply is higher than to be man. Hence this does not follow: "Christ began to be Man---therefore He began to be." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc nomen homo, secundum quod accipitur pro Christo, licet significet humanam naturam, quae incoepit esse, tamen supponit suppositum aeternum, quod esse non incoepit. Et ideo, quia, secundum quod ponitur in subiecto, tenetur pro supposito, secundum autem quod ponitur in praedicato, refertur ad naturam, et ideo haec est falsa, homo Christus incoepit esse; sed haec est vera, Christus incoepit esse homo. | Reply to Objection 3: This word "Man," as it is taken for Christ, although it signifies the human nature, which began to be, nevertheless signifies the eternal suppositum which did not begin to be. Hence, since it signifies the suppositum when placed in the subject, and refers to the nature when placed in the predicate, therefore this is false: "The Man Christ began to be": but this is true: "Christ began to be Man." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec sit falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura; vel, incoepit esse. Nihil enim in Christo est creatum nisi humana natura. Sed haec est falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est humana natura. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. | Objection 1: It would seem that this is false: "Christ as Man is a creature," or "began to be." For nothing in Christ is created except the human nature. But this is false: "Christ as Man is the human nature." Therefore this is also false; Christ as Man is a creature. |
| Praeterea, praedicatum magis praedicatur de termino in reduplicatione posito quam de ipso subiecto propositionis, sicut, si dicatur, corpus, secundum quod coloratum, est visibile, sequitur quod coloratum sit visibile. Sed haec non est absolute, sicut dictum est, concedenda, homo Christus est creatura. Ergo etiam neque haec, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. | Objection 2: Further, the predicate is predicated of the term placed in reduplication, rather than of the subject of the proposition; as when I say: "A body as colored is visible," it follows that the colored is visible. But as stated (Articles [8],9) we must not absolutely grant that "the Man Christ is a creature"; nor consequently that "Christ as Man is a creature." |
| Praeterea, quidquid praedicatur de quocumque homine secundum quod homo, praedicatur de eo per se et simpliciter, idem enim est per se, et secundum quod ipsum, ut dicitur in V Metaphys. Sed haec est falsa, Christus est per se et simpliciter creatura. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. | Objection 3: Further, whatever is predicated of a man as man is predicated of him "per se" and simply, for "per se" is the same as "inasmuch as itself," as is said Metaph. v, text. 23. But this is false: "Christ as Man is per se and simply a creature." Hence this, too, is false; "Christ as Man is a creature." |
| Sed contra, omne quod est, vel est creator vel creatura. Sed haec est falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creator. Ergo haec est vera, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. | On the contrary, Whatever is, is either Creator or creature. But this is false: "Christ as Man is Creator." Therefore this is true: "Christ as Man is a creature." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, cum dicitur, Christus secundum quod homo, hoc nomen homo potest resumi in reduplicatione vel ratione suppositi, vel ratione naturae. Si quidem resumatur ratione suppositi, cum suppositum humanae naturae in Christo sit aeternum et increatum, haec erit falsa, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. Si vero resumatur ratione humanae naturae, sic est vera, quia ratione humanae naturae, sive secundum humanam naturam, convenit sibi esse creaturam, ut supra dictum est. | I answer that, When we say "Christ as Man" this word "man" may be added in the reduplication, either by reason of the suppositum or by reason of the nature. If it be added by reason of the suppositum, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is eternal and uncreated, this will be false: "Christ as Man is a creature." But if it be added by reason of the human nature, it is true, since by reason of the human nature or in the human nature, it belongs to Him to be a creature, as was said (Article [8]). |
| Sciendum tamen quod nomen sic resumptum in reduplicatione magis proprie tenetur pro natura quam pro supposito, resumitur enim in vi praedicati, quod tenetur formaliter; idem enim est dictu, Christus secundum quod homo, ac si diceretur, Christus secundum quod est homo. Et ideo haec est magis concedenda quam neganda, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. Si tamen adderetur aliquid per quod pertraheretur ad suppositum, esset propositio magis neganda quam concedenda, puta si diceretur, Christus, secundum quod hic homo, est creatura. | It must however be borne in mind that the term covered by the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, since it is added as a predicate, which is taken formally, for it is the same to say "Christ as Man" and to say "Christ as He is a Man." Hence this is to be granted rather than denied: "Christ as Man is a creature." But if something further be added whereby [the term covered by the reduplication] is attracted to the suppositum, this proposition is to be denied rather than granted, for instance were one to say: "Christ as 'this' Man is a creature." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet Christus non sit humana natura, est tamen habens humanam naturam. Nomen autem creaturae natum est praedicari non solum de abstractis, sed etiam de concretis, dicimus enim quod humanitas est creatura, et quod homo est creatura. | Reply to Objection 1: Although Christ is not the human nature, He has human nature. Now the word "creature" is naturally predicated not only of abstract, but also of concrete things; since we say that "manhood is a creature" and that "man is a creature." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ly homo, secundum quod ponitur in subiecto, magis respicit suppositum, secundum autem quod ponitur in reduplicatione, magis respicit naturam, ut dictum est. Et quia natura est creata, suppositum vero increatum, ideo, licet non concedatur ista simpliciter, iste homo est creatura, conceditur tamen ista, Christus, secundum quod homo, est creatura. | Reply to Objection 2: Man as placed in the subject refers to the suppositum---and as placed in the reduplication refers to the nature, as was stated above. And because the nature is created and the suppositum uncreated, therefore, although it is not granted that "this man is a creature," yet it is granted that "Christ as Man is a creature." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod cuilibet homini qui est suppositum solius naturae humanae, competit quod non habeat esse nisi secundum naturam humanam. Et ideo de quolibet tali supposito sequitur, si secundum quod est homo est creatura, quod sit creatura simpliciter. Sed Christus non solum est suppositum humanae naturae, sed etiam divinae, secundum quam habet esse increatum. Et ideo non sequitur, si secundum quod homo est creatura, quod simpliciter sit creatura. | Reply to Objection 3: It belongs to every man who is a suppositum of human nature alone to have his being only in human nature. Hence of every such suppositum it follows that if it is a creature as man, it is a creature simply. But Christ is a suppositum not merely of human nature, but also of the Divine Nature, in which He has an uncreated being. Hence it does not follow that, if He is a creature as Man, He is a creature simply. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 11 [<< | >>]
| Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, sit Deus. Christus enim est Deus per gratiam unionis. Sed Christus, secundum quod homo, habet gratiam unionis. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ, as Man, is God. For Christ is God by the grace of union. But Christ, as Man, has the grace of union. Therefore Christ as Man is God. |
| Praeterea, dimittere peccata est proprium Dei, secundum illud Isaiae XLIII, ego ipse sum qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me. Sed Christus, secundum quod homo, dimittit peccata, secundum illud Matth. IX, ut autem sciatis quod filius hominis habet potestatem in terra dimittendi peccata, et cetera. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus. | Objection 2: Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to Is. 43:25: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake." But Christ as Man forgives sin, according to Mt. 9:6: "But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," etc. Therefore Christ as Man is God. |
| Praeterea, Christus non est homo communis, sed est iste homo particularis. Sed Christus, secundum quod est iste homo, est Deus, quia in isto homine designatur suppositum aeternum, quod naturaliter est Deus. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus. | Objection 3: Further, Christ is not Man in common, but is this particular Man. Now Christ, as this Man, is God, since by "this Man" we signify the eternal suppositum which is God naturally. Therefore Christ as Man is God. |
| Sed contra, illud quod convenit Christo secundum quod homo, convenit cuilibet homini. Si ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus, sequitur quod omnis homo sit Deus. Quod patet esse falsum. | On the contrary, Whatever belongs to Christ as Man belongs to every man. Now, if Christ as Man is God, it follows that every man is God---which is clearly false. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod iste terminus homo, in reduplicatione positus, potest dupliciter accipi. Uno modo, quantum ad naturam. Et sic non est verum quod, secundum quod homo, sit Deus, quia humana natura est distincta a divina secundum differentiam naturae. Alio modo potest accipi ratione suppositi. Et sic, cum suppositum naturae humanae in Christo sit persona filii Dei, cui per se convenit esse Deum, verum est quod Christus, secundum quod homo, sit Deus. Quia tamen terminus in reduplicatione positus magis proprie tenetur pro natura quam pro supposito, ut supra dictum est, ideo magis est ista neganda, Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus, quam sit affirmanda. | I answer that, This term "man" when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this way it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human nature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature. Secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is the Person of the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is true that Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, as stated above (Article [10]), hence this is to be denied rather than granted: "Christ as Man is God." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non secundum idem convenit alicui moveri ad aliquid, et esse illud, nam moveri convenit alicui ratione materiae vel subiecti, esse autem in actu ratione formae. Et similiter non secundum idem convenit Christo ordinari ad hoc quod sit Deus per gratiam unionis, et esse Deum, sed convenit primum sibi secundum humanam naturam; secundum vero secundum divinam. Et ideo haec est vera, Christus secundum quod homo, habet gratiam unionis, non tamen ista, Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus. | Reply to Objection 1: It is not with regard to the same, that a thing moves towards, and that it is, something; for to move belongs to a thing because of its matter or subject---and to be in act belongs to it because of its form. So too it is not with regard to the same, that it belongs to Christ to be ordained to be God by the grace of union, and to be God. For the first belongs to Him in His human nature, and the second, in His Divine Nature. Hence this is true: "Christ as Man has the grace of union"; yet not this: "Christ as Man is God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod filius hominis habet in terra potestatem dimittendi peccata, non virtute humanae naturae, sed divinae, in qua quidem divina natura consistit potestas dimittendi peccata per auctoritatem; in humana autem natura consistit instrumentaliter et per ministerium. Unde Chrysostomus, super Matth., hoc exponens, dicit, signanter dixit, in terra dimittendi peccata, ut ostenderet quod humanae naturae potestatem divinitatis univit indivisibili unione. Quia, etsi factus est homo, tamen Dei verbum permansit. | Reply to Objection 2: The Son of Man has on earth the power of forgiving sins, not by virtue of the human nature, but by virtue of the Divine Nature, in which Divine Nature resides the power of forgiving sins authoritatively; whereas in the human nature it resides instrumentally and ministerially. Hence Chrysostom expounding this passage says [*Implicitly. Hom. xxx in Matth; cf. St. Thomas, Catena Aurea on Mk. 2:10]: "He said pointedly 'on earth to forgive sins,' in order to show that by an indivisible union He united human nature to the power of the Godhead, since although He was made Man, yet He remained the Word of God." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum dicitur iste homo, pronomen demonstrativum trahit hoc nomen homo ad suppositum. Et ideo magis est haec vera, Christus, secundum quod iste homo, est Deus, quam ista, Christus, secundum quod homo, est Deus. | Reply to Objection 3: When we say "this man," the demonstrative pronoun "this" attracts "man" to the suppositum; and hence "Christ as this Man, is God, is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 16 [<< | >>]
Article: 12 [<< | >>]
| Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus, secundum quod homo, sit hypostasis vel persona. Illud enim quod convenit cuilibet homini, convenit Christo secundum quod est homo, est enim aliis hominibus similis, secundum illud Philipp. II, in similitudinem hominum factus. Sed omnis homo est persona. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as Man is a hypostasis or person. For what belongs to every man belongs to Christ as Man, since He is like other men according to Phil. 2:7: "Being made in the likeness of men." But every man is a person. Therefore Christ as Man is a person. |
| Praeterea, Christus, secundum quod homo, est substantia rationalis naturae. Non autem substantia universalis. Ergo substantia individua. Sed nihil aliud est persona quam rationalis naturae individua substantia, ut dicit Boetius, in libro de duabus naturis. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona. | Objection 2: Further, Christ as Man is a substance of rational nature. But He is not a universal substance: therefore He is an individual substance. Now a person is nothing else than an individual substance of rational nature; as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.). Therefore Christ as Man is a person. |
| Praeterea, Christus, secundum quod homo, est res humanae naturae, et suppositum et hypostasis eiusdem naturae. Sed omnis hypostasis et suppositum et res naturae humanae est persona. Ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona. | Objection 3: Further, Christ as Man is a being of human nature, and a suppositum and a hypostasis of the same nature. But every hypostasis and suppositum and being of human nature is a person. Therefore Christ as Man is a person. |
| Sed contra, Christus, secundum quod homo, non est persona aeterna. Si ergo, secundum quod homo, sit persona, sequetur quod in Christo sint personae duae, una temporalis et alia aeterna. Quod est erroneum, ut supra dictum est. | On the contrary, Christ as Man is not an eternal person. Therefore if Christ as Man is a person it would follow that in Christ there are two persons---one temporal and the other eternal, which is erroneous, as was said above (Question [2], Article [6]; Question [4], Article [2]). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, iste terminus homo, in reduplicatione positus, potest accipi vel ratione suppositi, vel ratione naturae. Cum ergo dicitur, Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona, si accipiatur ratione suppositi, manifestum est quod Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona, quia suppositum humanae naturae nihil est aliud quam persona filii Dei. Si autem accipiatur ratione naturae, sic potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, quod intelligatur quod naturae humanae competat esse in aliqua persona. Et hoc etiam modo verum est, omne enim quod subsistit in humana natura, est persona. Alio modo potest intelligi ut naturae humanae in Christo propria personalitas debeatur, causata ex principiis humanae naturae. Et sic Christus, secundum quod homo, non est persona, quia humana natura non est per se seorsum existens a divina natura, quod requirit ratio personae. | I answer that, As was said (Articles [10],11), the term "Man" placed in the reduplication may refer either to the suppositum or to the nature. Hence when it is said: "Christ as Man is a person," if it is taken as referring to the suppositum, it is clear that Christ as Man is a person, since the suppositum of human nature is nothing else than the Person of the Son of God. But if it be taken as referring to the nature, it may be understood in two ways. First, we may so understand it as if it belonged to human nature to be in a person, and in this way it is true, for whatever subsists in human nature is a person. Secondly it may be taken that in Christ a proper personality, caused by the principles of the human nature, is due to the human nature; and in this way Christ as Man is not a person, since the human nature does not exist of itself apart from the Divine Nature, and yet the notion of person requires this. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omni homini convenit esse personam secundum quod omne subsistens in humana natura est persona. Sed hoc est proprium homini Christo, quod persona subsistens in humana natura eius non sit causata ex principiis humanae naturae, sed sit aeterna. Et ideo uno modo est persona secundum quod homo, alio modo non, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: It belongs to every man to be a person, inasmuch as everything subsisting in human nature is a person. Now this is proper to the Man Christ that the Person subsisting in His human nature is not caused by the principles of the human nature, but is eternal. Hence in one way He is a person, as Man; and in another way He is not, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod substantia individua quae ponitur in definitione personae, importat substantiam completam per se subsistentem separatim ab aliis. Alioquin, manus hominis posset dici persona cum sit substantia quaedam individua, quia tamen est substantia individua sicut in alio existens, non potest dici persona. Et eadem ratione nec natura humana in Christo, quae tamen potest dici individuum vel singulare quoddam. | Reply to Objection 2: The "individual substance," which is included in the definition of a person, implies a complete substance subsisting of itself and separate from all else; otherwise, a man's hand might be called a person, since it is an individual substance; nevertheless, because it is an individual substance existing in something else, it cannot be called a person; nor, for the same reason, can the human nature in Christ, although it may be called something individual and singular. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut persona significat quid completum et per se subsistens in natura rationali, ita hypostasis, suppositum et res naturae in genere substantiae significant quiddam per se subsistens. Unde, sicut humana natura non est per se seorsum a persona filii, ita etiam non est per se hypostasis vel suppositum vel res naturae. Et ideo in sensu in quo negatur ista, Christus, secundum quod homo, est persona, oportet etiam negari omnes alias. | Reply to Objection 3: As a person signifies something complete and self-subsisting in rational nature, so a hypostasis, suppositum, and being of nature in the genus of substance, signify something that subsists of itself. Hence, as human nature is not of itself a person apart from the Person of the Son of God, so likewise it is not of itself a hypostasis or suppositum or a being of nature. Hence in the sense in which we deny that "Christ as Man is a person" we must deny all the other propositions. |