|
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are several human
operations. For Christ as man communicates with plants by His
nutritive soul, with the brutes by His sensitive soul, and with the
angels by His intellective soul, even as other men do. Now the
operations of a plant as plant and of an animal as animal are
different. Therefore Christ as man has several operations.
Objection 2: Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their
acts. Now in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits;
therefore also divers operations.
Objection 3: Further, instruments ought to be proportioned to their
operations. Now the human body has divers members of different form,
and consequently fitted to divers operations. Therefore in Christ
there are divers operations in the human nature.
On the contrary, As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,
15), "operation is consequent upon the nature." But in Christ
there is only one human nature. Therefore in Christ there is only one
human operation.
I answer that, Since it is by his reason that man is what he is;
that operation is called human simply, which proceeds from the reason
through the will, which is the rational appetite. Now if there is any
operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will,
it is not simply a human operation, but belongs to man by reason of
some part of human nature---sometimes by reason of the nature of
elementary bodies, as to be borne downwards---sometimes by reason of
the force of the vegetative soul, as to be nourished, and to
grow---sometimes by reason of the sensitive part, as to see and
hear, to imagine and remember, to desire and to be angry. Now
between these operations there is a difference. For the operations of
the sensitive soul are to some extent obedient to reason, and
consequently they are somewhat rational and human inasmuch as they obey
reason, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). But
the operations that spring from the vegetative soul, or from the nature
of elemental bodies, are not subject to reason; consequently they are
nowise rational; nor simply human, but only as regards a part of human
nature. Now it was said (Article 1) that when a subordinate agent
acts by its own form, the operations of the inferior and of the
superior agent are distinct; but when the inferior agent acts only as
moved by the superior agent, then the operation of the superior and the
inferior agent is one.
And hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of
the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation, which is
properly human; so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul
inasmuch as it is not moved by reason; but inasmuch as it is moved by
reason, the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the
same. Now there is but one operation of the rational part if we
consider the principle of the operation, which is the reason and the
will; but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to
various objects. And there were some who called this a diversity of
things operated rather than of operations, judging the unity of the
operation solely from the operative principle. And it is in this
respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of
operations in Christ.
Hence in every mere man there is but one operation, which is properly
called human; but besides this there are in a mere man certain other
operations, which are not strictly human, as was said above. But in
the Man Jesus Christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which
was not ordered by reason. Even the natural and bodily operations
pertained in some respects to His will, inasmuch as it was His will
"that His flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it," as stated
above (Question 18, Article 5). Much more, therefore, is
there one operation in Christ, than in any other man whatsoever.
Reply to Objection 1: The operations of the sensitive and nutritive
parts are not strictly human, as stated above; yet in Christ these
operations were more human than in others.
Reply to Objection 2: Powers and habits are diversified by
comparison with their objects. Hence in this way the diversity of
operations corresponds to the divers powers and habits, as likewise to
the divers objects. Now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of
operations from Christ's humanity, nor that which springs from a
diversity of time, but only that which regards the first active
principle, as was said above.
Hence may be gathered the reply to the third objection.
|
|