|
Objection 1: It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by
our mind, the Nature cannot assume. For it was said above (Article
1) that it belongs to the Nature to assume by reason of the Person.
But what belongs to one by reason of another cannot belong to it if the
other is removed; as a body, which is visible by reason of color,
without color cannot be seen. Hence if the Personality be mentally
abstracted, the Nature cannot assume.
Objection 2: Further, assumption implies the term of union, as was
said above (Article 1). But the union cannot take place in the
nature, but only in the Person. Therefore, if the Personality be
abstracted, the Divine Nature cannot assume.
Objection 3: Further, it has been said above (FP, Question
40, Article 3) that in the Godhead if the Personality is
abstracted, nothing remains. But the one who assumes is something.
Therefore, if the Personality is abstracted, the Divine Nature
cannot assume.
On the contrary, In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal
property; and this is threefold, viz. Paternity, Filiation and
Procession, as was said above (FP, Question 30, Article
2). Now if we mentally abstract these, there still remains the
omnipotence of God, by which the Incarnation was wrought, as the
angel says (Lk. 1:37): "No word shall be impossible with
God." Therefore it seems that if the Personality be removed, the
Divine Nature can still assume.
I answer that, The intellect stands in two ways towards God.
First, to know God as He is, and in this manner it is impossible
for the intellect to circumscribe something in God and leave the rest,
for all that is in God is one, except the distinction of Persons;
and as regards these, if one is removed the other is taken away, since
they are distinguished by relations only which must be together at the
same time. Secondly, the intellect stands towards God, not indeed
as knowing God as He is, but in its own way, i.e. understanding
manifoldly and separately what in God is one: and in this way our
intellect can understand the Divine goodness and wisdom, and the
like, which are called essential attributes, without understanding
Paternity or Filiation, which are called Personalities. And hence
if we abstract Personality by our intellect, we may still understand
the Nature assuming.
Reply to Objection 1: Because in God "what is," and "whereby
it is," are one, if any one of the things which are attributed to
God in the abstract is considered in itself, abstracted from all
else, it will still be something subsisting, and consequently a
Person, since it is an intellectual nature. Hence just as we now say
three Persons, on account of holding three personal properties, so
likewise if we mentally exclude the personal properties there will still
remain in our thought the Divine Nature as subsisting and as a
Person. And in this way It may be understood to assume human nature
by reason of Its subsistence or Personality.
Reply to Objection 2: Even if the personal properties of the three
Persons are abstracted by our mind, nevertheless there will remain in
our thoughts the one Personality of God, as the Jews consider. And
the assumption can be terminated in It, as we now say it is terminated
in the Person of the Word.
Reply to Objection 3: If we mentally abstract the Personality, it
is said that nothing remains by way of resolution, i.e. as if the
subject of the relation and the relation itself were distinct because
all we can think of in God is considered as a subsisting suppositum.
However, some of the things predicated of God can be understood
without others, not by way of resolution, but by the way mentioned
above.
|
|