|
State of the question. The difficulty is, as stated in the second
objection, that by the divine Incarnation, men acquired the adoption
of sons, which is a participated likeness of natural sonship, which
applies only to the Son. Therefore it seems that only the Son could
be incarnate. Moreover, to be incarnate is to be sent, which cannot
apply to the Father, who cannot be sent by any person, since the
other two persons proceed from Him.
Reply. Nevertheless it is affirmed, that each of the persons could
have assumed human nature. For to assume another nature is befitting
to God because of His omnipotence, as the principle of the
assumption, and because of His person, as the term of the
assumption. But each of the divine persons is omnipotent and has His
own personality. Therefore each of the divine persons could have
assumed human nature.
Reply to first objection. It was fitting, if the Father became
incarnate, for Him as man to have been the Son of man, for example,
the son of David; for this would be according to difference of
natures, and would not result in confusion of realities, but at most
of names.
Reply to second objection. It contains a beautiful scriptural text
concerning adoptive sonship, which is a certain participated likeness
of natural sonship. But if the Father became incarnate, we would
have received this adoptive sonship from Him, as coming from the
principle of natural sonship;[674] but farther on in this
question, it is shown that it was more fitting for the Son to have
become incarnate.[675]
Reply to third objection. The Father, who is innascible as to
eternal birth, could have been born temporally as man if He had become
incarnate. In such case the Incarnation would not have been a
mission. Thus the Father dwells in the just, as the Son and the
Holy Ghost do, but He is not sent, and so He comes without being
sent; whereas the other two persons are sent by Him. So the pope
sends His legate, but he himself is not sent, but comes.
|
|
