|
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ comprehended and
comprehends the Word or Divine Essence. For Isidore says (De
Summo Bono i, 3) that "the Trinity is known only to Itself and
to the Man assumed." Therefore the Man assumed communicates with
the Holy Trinity in that knowledge of Itself which is proper to the
Trinity. Now this is the knowledge of comprehension. Therefore the
soul of Christ comprehends the Divine Essence.
Objection 2: Further, to be united to God in personal being is
greater than to be united by vision. But as Damascene says (De
Fide Orth. iii, 6), "the whole Godhead in one Person is united
to the human nature in Christ." Therefore much more is the whole
Divine Nature seen by the soul of Christ; and hence it would seem
that the soul of Christ comprehended the Divine Essence.
Objection 3: Further, what belongs by nature to the Son of God
belongs by grace to the Son of Man, as Augustine says (De Trin.
i, 13). But to comprehend the Divine Essence belongs by nature
to the Son of God. Therefore it belongs by grace to the Son of
Man; and thus it seems that the soul of Christ comprehended the
Divine Essence by grace.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 14):
"Whatsoever comprehends itself is finite to itself." But the
Divine Essence is not finite with respect to the soul of Christ,
since It infinitely exceeds it. Therefore the soul of Christ does
not comprehend the Word.
I answer that, As is plain from Question 2, Articles 1,6, the
union of the two natures in the Person of Christ took place in such a
way that the properties of both natures remained unconfused, i.e.
"the uncreated remained uncreated, and the created remained within the
limits of the creature," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,
3,4). Now it is impossible for any creature to comprehend the
Divine Essence, as was shown in the FP, Question 12, Articles
1,4,7, seeing that the infinite is not comprehended by the
finite. And hence it must be said that the soul of Christ nowise
comprehends the Divine Essence.
Reply to Objection 1: The Man assumed is reckoned with the Divine
Trinity in the knowledge of Itself, not indeed as regards
comprehension, but by reason of a certain most excellent knowledge
above the rest of creatures.
Reply to Objection 2: Not even in the union by personal being does
the human nature comprehend the Word of God or the Divine Nature,
for although it was wholly united to the human nature in the one Person
of the Son, yet the whole power of the Godhead was not circumscribed
by the human nature. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian.
cxxxvii): "I would have you know that it is not the Christian
doctrine that God was united to flesh in such a manner as to quit or
lose the care of the world's government, neither did Ne narrow or
reduce it when He transferred it to that little body." So likewise
the soul of Christ sees the whole Essence of God, yet does not
comprehend It; since it does not see It totally, i.e. not as
perfectly as It is knowable, as was said in the FP, Question
12, Article 7.
Reply to Objection 3: This saying of Augustine is to be understood
of the grace of union, by reason of which all that is said of the Son
of God in His Divine Nature is also said of the Son of Man on
account of the identity of suppositum. And in this way it may be said
that the Son of Man is a comprehensor of the Divine Essence, not
indeed by His soul, but in His Divine Nature; even as we may also
say that the Son of Man is the Creator.
|
|