|
State of the question. It seems that it is not, because the effect
of the Incarnation is a kind of second creation, which befits the
Father, inasmuch as creative power is appropriated to Him.
Besides, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission of sins, which
is attributed to the Holy Ghost.
Conclusion. Yet it was most fitting that the person of the Son
should become incarnate, and this for three reasons.
|
1) Because of the principle of the union. All things were made by
the Word, as by the exemplary cause. Therefore it was fitting that
ail things be restored by the Word. Thus the craftsman, by the
intelligible form or concept of his art, whereby he fashioned his
handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin.
2) The end of the union. It was fitting that He who is the natural
Son of God, should make us adoptive sons.[679] He received by
eternal generation the whole divine nature without its being multiplied
or divided; but we receive a participation of the divine nature, or
the radical principle of strictly divine operations, and finally a
participation of the beatific vision.[680]
3) Reparation for sin. An inordinate desire for knowledge had
resulted in the sin and spiritual death of man. Hence it was fitting
that reparation be made by Him to whom wisdom is attributed.
|
|
St. Paul says: "[God] predestinated[us] to be made conformable
to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many
brethren."[681] St. Thomas in commenting on this
text[682] shows clearly that adoptive sonship is a participated
likeness of natural and eternal sonship. Adoption is generally known
as the legal acceptance of an unrelated person as son.[683] To
adopt is to admit someone freely as heir to one's estate.[684]
It befits the whole Trinity to adopt men, "although in God, to
beget belongs to the person of the Father, yet to produce any effect
in creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of the oneness
of Their nature; because, where there is one nature, there must be
one power and one operation."[685] The adopted son of God is
not strictly begotten, but made; yet sometimes it may be said that he
is begotten, by reason of spiritual regeneration, which is gratuitous
and not natural. Hence it befits the whole Trinity to adopt men as
sons.
Nevertheless St. Thomas says: "Adoptive sonship is a certain
likeness of the eternal sonship.... Now man is likened to the
splendor of the eternal Son by reason of the light of grace which is
attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though common to
the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as its author; to
the Son as its exemplar, to the Holy Ghost as imprinting on us the
likeness of this exemplar."[686] It is easy to assign
similarities and differences between the divine, natural, eternal
sonship and adoptive sonship; for the Son of God is by nature
begotten, not made; He is light of light, true God of true God;
possesses the whole Deity that can neither be divided nor multiplied.
The adopted son is made, not begotten, but he is spiritually born of
God by grace, which is a participation of the divine nature, and this
radically disposes him for strictly divine acts, namely, to see God
face to face and love Him for all eternity.
Recapitulation. What has been discussed in this third question will
enable us to acquire a better understanding of the hypostatic union in
all its aspects so far considered.
Therefore it has been established that in the strictest sense it befits
a divine person to assume a created nature, that is, take it to
Himself (a. 1 and 2). Nevertheless, God as conceived by Jews
and Monotheists, not consisting of three persons who are related to
one another, could assume a created nature, because He is
omnipotent, and He could terminate this nature by absolute
subsistence, which is common to the three divine persons.
It follows from this, as has been stated, that anyone of the divine
persons could assume the human nature. In fact, the three divine
persons could assume one and the same human nature, just as they have
one and the same divine nature.
Finally, one divine person could assume two human natures, because
the power of the person on the part of the principle and the term of the
assumption is infinite. But although these divers hypotheses are
possible, it was more fitting that the Son of God rather than the
Father or the Holy Ghost should assume the human nature of Christ.
|
|
