Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 9

_I answer that,_ The nature of man or of any other sensible thing, beyond the being which it has in individuals, may be taken in two ways: first, as if it had being of itself, away from matter, as the Platonists held; secondly, as existing in an intellect either human or Divine. Now it cannot subsist of itself, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vii, 26, 27, 29, 51), because sensible matter belongs to the specific nature of sensible things, and is placed in its definition, as flesh and bones in the definition of man. Hence human nature cannot be without sensible matter. Nevertheless, if human nature were subsistent in this way, it would not be fitting that it should be a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d. First, because this a.s.sumption is terminated in a Person, and it is contrary to the nature of a common form to be thus individualized in a person. Secondly, because to a common nature can only be attributed common and universal operations, according to which man neither merits nor demerits, whereas, on the contrary, the a.s.sumption took place in order that the Son of G.o.d, having a.s.sumed our nature, might merit for us. Thirdly, because a nature so existing would not be sensible, but intelligible. But the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed human nature in order to show Himself in men's sight, according to Baruch 3:38: "Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men."

Likewise, neither could human nature have been a.s.sumed by the Son of G.o.d, as it is in the Divine intellect, since it would be none other than the Divine Nature; and, according to this, human nature would be in the Son of G.o.d from eternity. Neither can we say that the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed human nature as it is in a human intellect, for this would mean nothing else but that He is understood to a.s.sume a human nature; and thus if He did not a.s.sume it in reality, this would be a false understanding; nor would this a.s.sumption of the human nature be anything but a fict.i.tious Incarnation, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11).

Reply Obj. 1: The incarnate Son of G.o.d is the common Saviour of all, not by a generic or specific community, such as is attributed to the nature separated from the individuals, but by a community of cause, whereby the incarnate Son of G.o.d is the universal cause of human salvation.

Reply Obj. 2: Self-existing (_per se_) man is not to be found in nature in such a way as to be outside the singular, as the Platonists held, although some say Plato believed that the separate man was only in the Divine intellect. And hence it was not necessary for it to be a.s.sumed by the Word, since it had been with Him from eternity.

Reply Obj. 3: Although human nature was not a.s.sumed in the concrete, as if the suppositum were presupposed to the a.s.sumption, nevertheless it is a.s.sumed in an individual, since it is a.s.sumed so as to be in an individual.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 5]

Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed Human Nature in All Individuals?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed human nature in all individuals. For what is a.s.sumed first and by itself is human nature. But what belongs essentially to a nature belongs to all who exist in the nature. Therefore it was fitting that human nature should be a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d in all its supposita.

Obj. 2: Further, the Divine Incarnation proceeded from Divine Love; hence it is written (John 3:16): "G.o.d so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son." But love makes us give ourselves to our friends as much as we can, and it was possible for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume several human natures, as was said above (Q. 3, A. 7), and with equal reason all. Hence it was fitting for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume human nature in all its supposita.

Obj. 3: Further, a skilful workman completes his work in the shortest manner possible. But it would have been a shorter way if all men had been a.s.sumed to the natural sonship than for one natural Son to lead many to the adoption of sons, as is written Gal. 4:5 (cf. Heb. 2:10).

Therefore human nature ought to have been a.s.sumed by G.o.d in all its supposita.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the Son of G.o.d "did not a.s.sume human nature as a species, nor did He a.s.sume all its hypostases."

_I answer that,_ It was unfitting for human nature to be a.s.sumed by the Word in all its supposita. First, because the mult.i.tude of supposita of human nature, which are natural to it, would have been taken away. For since we must not see any other suppositum in the a.s.sumed nature, except the Person a.s.suming, as was said above (A. 3), if there was no human nature except what was a.s.sumed, it would follow that there was but one suppositum of human nature, which is the Person a.s.suming. Secondly, because this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of G.o.d, as He is the First-born of many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the First-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all men would be of equal dignity. Thirdly, because it is fitting that as one Divine suppositum is incarnate, so He should a.s.sume one human nature, so that on both sides unity might be found.

Reply Obj. 1: To be a.s.sumed belongs to the human nature of itself, because it does not belong to it by reason of a person, as it belongs to the Divine Nature to a.s.sume by reason of the Person; not, however, that it belongs to it of itself as if belonging to its essential principles, or as its natural property in which manner it would belong to all its supposita.

Reply Obj. 2: The love of G.o.d to men is shown not merely in the a.s.sumption of human nature, but especially in what He suffered in human nature for other men, according to Rom. 5:8: "But G.o.d commendeth His charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners ... Christ died for us," which would not have taken place had He a.s.sumed human nature in all its supposita.

Reply Obj. 3: In order to shorten the way, which every skilful workman does, what can be done by one must not be done by many. Hence it was most fitting that by one man all the rest should be saved.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 6]

Whether It Was Fitting for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume Human Nature of the Stock of Adam?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume human nature of the stock of Adam, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:26): "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest ... separated from sinners." But He would have been still further separated from sinners had He not a.s.sumed human nature of the stock of Adam, a sinner. Hence it seems that He ought not to have a.s.sumed human nature of the stock of Adam.

Obj. 2: Further, in every genus the principle is n.o.bler than what is from the principle. Hence, if He wished to a.s.sume human nature, He ought to have a.s.sumed it in Adam himself.

Obj. 3: Further, the Gentiles were greater sinners than the Jews, as a gloss says on Gal. 2:15: "For we by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Hence, if He wished to a.s.sume human nature from sinners, He ought rather to have a.s.sumed it from the Gentiles than from the stock of Abraham, who was just.

_On the contrary,_ (Luke 3), the genealogy of our Lord is traced back to Adam.

_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 18): "G.o.d was able to a.s.sume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of Adam, who by his sin had fettered the whole human race; yet G.o.d judged it better to a.s.sume human nature from the vanquished race, and thus to vanquish the enemy of the human race." And this for three reasons: First, because it would seem to belong to justice that he who sinned should make amends; and hence that from the nature which he had corrupted should be a.s.sumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made for the whole nature. Secondly, it pertains to man's greater dignity that the conqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered by the devil. Thirdly, because G.o.d's power is thereby made more manifest, since, from a corrupt and weakened nature, He a.s.sumed that which was raised to such might and glory.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ ought to be separated from sinners as regards sin, which He came to overthrow, and not as regards nature which He came to save, and in which "it behooved Him in all things to be made like to His brethren," as the Apostle says (Heb. 2:17). And in this is His innocence the more wonderful, seeing that though a.s.sumed from a ma.s.s tainted by sin, His nature was endowed with such purity.

Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1) it behooved Him Who came to take away sins to be separated from sinners as regards sin, to which Adam was subject, whom Christ "brought out of his sin," as is written (Wis. 10:2). For it behooved Him Who came to cleanse all, not to need cleansing Himself; just as in every genus of motion the first mover is immovable as regards that motion, and the first to alter is itself unalterable. Hence it was not fitting that He should a.s.sume human nature in Adam himself.

Reply Obj. 3: Since Christ ought especially to be separated from sinners as regards sin, and to possess the highest innocence, it was fitting that between the first sinner and Christ some just men should stand midway, in whom certain forecasts of (His) future holiness should shine forth. And hence, even in the people from whom Christ was to be born, G.o.d appointed signs of holiness, which began in Abraham, who was the first to receive the promise of Christ, and circ.u.mcision, as a sign that the covenant should be kept, as is written (Gen. 17:11).

_______________________

QUESTION 5

OF THE PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE WHICH WERE a.s.sUMED (In Four Articles)

We must now consider the a.s.sumption of the parts of human nature; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the Son of G.o.d ought to have a.s.sumed a true body?

(2) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed an earthly body, i.e. one of flesh and blood?

(3) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed a soul?

(4) Whether He ought to have a.s.sumed an intellect?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 1]

Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed a True Body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a true body. For it is written (Phil. 2:7), that He was "made in the likeness of men." But what is something in truth is not said to be in the likeness thereof. Therefore the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a true body.

Obj. 2: Further, the a.s.sumption of a body in no way diminishes the dignity of the G.o.dhead; for Pope Leo says (Serm. de Nativ.) that "the glorification did not absorb the lesser nature, nor did the a.s.sumption lessen the higher." But it pertains to the dignity of G.o.d to be altogether separated from bodies. Therefore it seems that by the a.s.sumption G.o.d was not united to a body.

Obj. 3: Further, signs ought to correspond to the realities. But the apparitions of the Old Testament which were signs of the manifestation of Christ were not in a real body, but by visions in the imagination, as is plain from Isa. 60:1: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. Hence it would seem that the apparition of the Son of G.o.d in the world was not in a real body, but only in imagination.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. lx.x.xiii, qu. 13): "If the body of Christ was a phantom, Christ deceived us, and if He deceived us, He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth. Therefore His body was not a phantom." Hence it is plain that He a.s.sumed a true body.

_I answer that,_ As is said (De Eccles. Dogm. ii). The Son of G.o.d was not born in appearance only, as if He had an imaginary body; but His body was real. The proof of this is threefold. First, from the essence of human nature to which it pertains to have a true body.

Therefore granted, as already proved (Q. 4, A. 1), that it was fitting for the Son of G.o.d to a.s.sume human nature, He must consequently have a.s.sumed a real body. The second reason is taken from what was done in the mystery of the Incarnation. For if His body was not real but imaginary, He neither underwent a real death, nor of those things which the Evangelists recount of Him, did He do any in very truth, but only in appearance; and hence it would also follow that the real salvation of man has not taken place; since the effect must be proportionate to the cause. The third reason is taken from the dignity of the Person a.s.suming, Whom it did not become to have anything fict.i.tious in His work, since He is the Truth. Hence our Lord Himself deigned to refute this error (Luke 24:37, 39), when the disciples, "troubled and frighted, supposed that they saw a spirit,"

and not a true body; wherefore He offered Himself to their touch, saying: "Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have."

Reply Obj. 1: This likeness indicates the truth of the human nature in Christ--just as all that truly exist in human nature are said to be like in species--and not a mere imaginary likeness. In proof of this the Apostle subjoins (Phil. 2:8) that He became "obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross"; which would have been impossible, had it been only an imaginary likeness.

Reply Obj. 2: By a.s.suming a true body the dignity of the Son of G.o.d is nowise lessened. Hence Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that He might become a servant; yet did He not lose the fulness of the form of G.o.d." For the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a true body, not so as to become the form of a body, which is repugnant to the Divine simplicity and purity--for this would be to a.s.sume a body to the unity of the nature, which is impossible, as is plain from what has been stated above (Q. 2, A. 1): but, the natures remaining distinct, He a.s.sumed a body to the unity of Person.

Reply Obj. 3: The figure ought to correspond to the reality as regards the likeness and not as regards the truth of the thing. For if they were alike in all points, it would no longer be a likeness but the reality itself, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26).

Hence it was more fitting that the apparitions of the old Testament should be in appearance only, being figures; and that the apparition of the Son of G.o.d in the world should be in a real body, being the thing prefigured by these figures. Hence the Apostle says (Col.

2:17): "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's."

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 2]

Whether the Son of G.o.d Ought to Have a.s.sumed a Carnal or Earthly Body?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ had not a carnal or earthly, but a heavenly body. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:41): "The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly."

But the first man, i.e. Adam, was of the earth as regards his body, as is plain from Gen. 1. Therefore the second man, i.e. Christ, was of heaven as regards the body.