|
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no will of
sensuality besides the will of reason. For the Philosopher says (De
Anima iii, text. 42) that "the will is in the reason, and in the
sensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts." Now
sensuality signifies the sensitive appetite. Hence in Christ there
was no will of sensuality.
Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii,
12,13) the sensuality is signified by the serpent. But there was
nothing serpent-like in Christ; for He had the likeness of a
venomous animal without the venom, as Augustine says (De Pecc.
Merit. et Remiss. i, 32). Hence in Christ there was no will
of sensuality.
Objection 3: Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said
(Article 1). But in Christ there was only one nature besides the
Divine. Hence in Christ there was only one human will.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 7): "Mine is the
will which He calls His own; because as Man He assumed my
sorrow." From this we are given to understand that sorrow pertains to
the human will of Christ. Now sorrow pertains to the sensuality, as
was said in the FS, Question 23, Article 1; FS, Question
25, Article 1. Therefore, seemingly, in Christ there is a will
of sensuality besides the will of reason.
I answer that, As was said (Question 9, Article 1), the Son
of God assumed human nature together with everything pertaining to the
perfection of human nature. Now in human nature is included animal
nature, as the genus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have
assumed together with the human nature whatever belongs to animal
nature; one of which things is the sensitive appetite, which is called
the sensuality. Consequently it must be allowed that in Christ there
was a sensual appetite, or sensuality. But it must be borne in mind
that sensuality or the sensual appetite, inasmuch as it naturally obeys
reason, is said to be "rational by participation," as is clear from
the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). And because "the will is in
the reason," as stated above, it may equally be said that the
sensuality is "a will by participation."
Reply to Objection 1: This argument is based on the will,
essentially so called, which is only in the intellectual part; but the
will by participation can be in the sensitive part, inasmuch as it
obeys reason.
Reply to Objection 2: The sensuality is signified by the
serpent---not as regards the nature of the sensuality, which Christ
assumed, but as regards the corruption of the "fomes," which was not
in Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: "Where there is one thing on account of
another, there seems to be only one" (Aristotle, Topic. iii);
thus a surface which is visible by color is one visible thing with the
color. So, too, because the sensuality is called the will, only
because it partakes of the rational will, there is said to be but one
human will in Christ, even as there is but one human nature.
|
|