|
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there is but one
operation of the Godhead and the Manhood. For Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. ii): "The most loving operation of God is made
manifest to us by the supersubstantial Word having taken flesh
integrally and truly, and having operated and suffered whatsoever
befits His human and Divine operation." But he here mentions only
one human and Divine operation, which is written in Greek
theandrike, i.e. God-manlike. Hence it seems that there is but
one composite operation in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, there is but one operation of the principal
and instrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the
instrument of the Divine, as was said above (Question 7, Article
1, ad 3; Question 8, Article 1, ad 1; Question 18,
Article 1, ad 2). Hence the operations of the Divine and human
natures in Christ are the same.
Objection 3: Further, since in Christ there are two natures in one
hypostasis or person, whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person is
one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypostasis or person,
for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates; hence, according
to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to singulars.
Hence in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and the
Manhood.
Objection 4: Further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis,
so also does operation. But on account of the unity of hypostasis
there is only one operation of the Godhead and the (Question 17,
Article 2). Hence, on account of the same unity, there is one
operation in Christ.
Objection 5: Further, as being belongs to a sub-operated there is
one operation. But the same thing was operated by the Godhead and the
Manhood, as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead.
Hence it seems that in Christ there is but one operation of the
Godhead and the Manhood.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 8): "How can the
same operation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate
as the greater? And can there be one operation where there are
different substances?"
I answer that, As was said above (Question 18, Article 1),
the aforesaid heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one
operation in Christ. Now in order better to understand their
erroneous opinion, we must bear in mind that wherever there are several
mutually ordained agents, the inferior is moved by the superior, as in
man the body is moved by the soul and the lower powers by the reason.
And thus the actions and movements of the inferior principle are things
operated rather than operations. Now what pertains to the highest
principle is properly the operation; thus we say of man that to walk,
which belongs to the feet, and to touch, which belongs to the hand,
are things operated by the man---one of which is operated by the soul
through the feet, the other through the hands. And because it is the
same soul that operates in both cases, there is only one indifferent
operation, on the part of the thing operating, which is the first
moving principle; but difference is found on the part of what is
operated. Now, as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul, and
the sensitive by the rational appetite, so in the Lord Jesus Christ
the human nature is moved and ruled by the Divine. Hence they said
that there is one indifferent operation on the part of the Godhead
operating, but divers things operated, inasmuch as the Godhead of
Christ did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things by the word
of His power---and another thing by His human nature, as to walk
in body. Hence the Sixth Council [Third Council of
Constantinople, Act. 10] quotes the words of Severus the
heretic, who said: "What things were done and wrought by the one
Christ, differ greatly; for some are becoming to God, and some are
human, as to walk bodily on the earth is indeed human, but to give
hale steps to sickly limbs, wholly unable to walk on the ground, is
becoming to God. Yet one, i.e. the Incarnate Word, wrought one
and the other---neither was this from one nature, and that from
another; nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct
things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms."
But herein they were deceived, for what is moved by another has a
twofold action---one which it has from its own form---the other,
which it has inasmuch as it is moved by another; thus the operation of
an axe of itself is to cleave; but inasmuch as it is moved by the
craftsman, its operation is to make benches. Hence the operation
which belongs to a thing by its form is proper to it, nor does it
belong to the mover, except in so far as he makes use of this kind of
thing for his work: thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but
not of a smith, except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating
iron. But the operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by
another, is not distinct from the operation of the mover; thus to make
a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman.
Hence, wheresoever the mover and the moved have different forms or
operative faculties, there must the operation of the mover and the
proper operation of the moved be distinct; although the moved shares in
the operation of the mover, and the mover makes use of the operation of
the moved, and, consequently, each acts in communion with the other.
Therefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power
whereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human nature has
its proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely.
Nevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the operation of the
human nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same
way the human nature shares in the operation of the Divine Nature, as
an instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent. And this
is what Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flavian. xxviii): "Both forms"
(i.e. both the Divine and the human nature in Christ) "do what is
proper to each in union with the other, i.e. the Word operates what
belongs to the Word, and the flesh carries out what belongs to
flesh."
But if there were only one operation of the Godhead and manhood in
Christ, it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had
not its proper form and power (for this could not possibly be said of
the Divine), whence it would follow that in Christ there was only
the Divine operation; or it would be necessary to say that from the
Divine and human power there was made up one power. Now both of these
are impossible. For by the first the human nature in Christ is
supposed to be imperfect; and by the second a confusion of the natures
is supposed. Hence it is with reason that the Sixth Council (Act.
18) condemned this opinion, and decreed as follows: "We confess
two natural, indivisible, unconvertible, unconfused, and inseparable
operations in the same Lord Jesus Christ our true God"; i.e. the
Divine operation and the human operation.
Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius places in Christ a theandric,
i.e. a God-manlike or Divino-human, operation not by any
confusion of the operations or powers of both natures, but inasmuch as
His Divine operation employs the human, and His human operation
shares in the power of the Divine. Hence, as he says in a certain
epistle (Ad Caium iv), "what is of man He works beyond man; and
this is shown by the Virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the
unstable waters bearing up the weight of bodily feet." Now it is
clear that to be begotten belongs to human nature, and likewise to
walk; yet both were in Christ supernaturally. So, too, He wrought
Divine things humanly, as when He healed the leper with a touch.
Hence in the same epistle he adds: "He performed Divine works not
as God does, and human works not as man does, but, God having been
made man, by a new operation of God and man."
Now, that he understood two operations in Christ, one of the Divine
and the other of the human nature, is clear from what he says, Div.
Nom. ii: "Whatever pertains to His human operation the Father and
the Holy Ghost no-wise share in, except, as one might say, by
their most gracious and merciful will," i.e. inasmuch as the Father
and the Holy Ghost in their mercy wished Christ to do and to suffer
human things. And he adds: "He is truly the unchangeable God, and
God's Word by the sublime and unspeakable operation of God, which,
being made man for us, He wrought." Hence it is clear that the
human operation, in which the Father and the Holy Ghost do not
share, except by Their merciful consent, is distinct from His
operation, as the Word of God, wherein the Father and the Holy
Ghost share.
Reply to Objection 2: The instrument is said to act through being
moved by the principal agent; and yet, besides this, it can have its
proper operation through its own form, as stated above of fire. And
hence the action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from
the action of the principal agent; yet it may have another operation,
inasmuch as it is a thing. Hence the operation of Christ's human
nature, as the instrument of the Godhead, is not distinct from the
operation of the Godhead; for the salvation wherewith the manhood of
Christ saves us and that wherewith His Godhead saves us are not
distinct; nevertheless, the human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it
is a certain nature, has a proper operation distinct from the Divine,
as stated above.
Reply to Objection 3: To operate belongs to a subsisting
hypostasis; in accordance, however, with the form and nature from
which the operation receives its species. Hence from the diversity of
forms or natures spring the divers species of operations, but from the
unity of hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation
of the species: thus fire has two operations specifically different,
namely, to illuminate and to heat, from the difference of light and
heat, and yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one and
the same time is numerically one. So, likewise, in Christ there are
necessarily two specifically different operations by reason of His two
natures; nevertheless, each of the operations at one and the same time
is numerically one, as one walking and one healing.
Reply to Objection 4: Being and operation belong to the person by
reason of the nature; yet in a different manner. For being belongs to
the very constitution of the person, and in this respect it has the
nature of a term; consequently, unity of person requires unity of the
complete and personal being. But operation is an effect of the person
by reason of a form or nature. Hence plurality of operations is not
incompatible with personal unity.
Reply to Objection 5: The proper work of the Divine operation is
different from the proper work of the human operation. Thus to heal a
leper is a proper work of the Divine operation, but to touch him is
the proper work of the human operation. Now both these operations
concur in one work, inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the
other.
|
|