|
Objection 1: It would seem that human nature is not more capable of
being assumed by the Son of God than any other nature. For
Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "In deeds wrought
miraculously the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer."
Now the power of God Who wrought the Incarnation, which is a most
miraculous work, is not limited to one nature, since the power of God
is infinite. Therefore human nature is not more capable of being
assumed than any other creature.
Objection 2: Further, likeness is the foundation of the fittingness
of the Incarnation of the Divine Person, as above stated (Question
3, Article 8). But as in rational creatures we find the likeness
of image, so in irrational creatures we find the image of trace.
Therefore the irrational creature was as capable of assumption as human
nature.
Objection 3: Further, in the angelic nature we find a more perfect
likeness than in human nature, as Gregory says: (Hom. de Cent.
Ovib.; xxxiv in Ev.), where he introduces Ezech. 28:12:
"Thou wast the seal of resemblance." And sin is found in angels,
even as in man, according to Job 4:18: "And in His angels He
found wickedness." Therefore the angelic nature was as capable of
assumption as the nature of man.
Objection 4: Further, since the highest perfection belongs to
God, the more like to God a thing is, the more perfect it is. But
the whole universe is more perfect than its parts, amongst which is
human nature. Therefore the whole universe is more capable of being
assumed than human nature.
On the contrary, It is said (Prov. 8:31) by the mouth of
Begotten Wisdom: "My delights were to be with the children of
men"; and hence there would seem some fitness in the union of the Son
of God with human nature.
I answer that, A thing is said to be assumable as being capable of
being assumed by a Divine Person, and this capability cannot be taken
with reference to the natural passive power, which does not extend to
what transcends the natural order, as the personal union of a creature
with God transcends it. Hence it follows that a thing is said to be
assumable according to some fitness for such a union. Now this fitness
in human nature may be taken from two things, viz. according to its
dignity, and according to its need. According to its dignity,
because human nature, as being rational and intellectual, was made for
attaining to the Word to some extent by its operation, viz. by
knowing and loving Him. According to its need---because it stood
in need of restoration, having fallen under original sin. Now these
two things belong to human nature alone. For in the irrational
creature the fitness of dignity is wanting, and in the angelic nature
the aforesaid fitness of need is wanting. Hence it follows that only
human nature was assumable.
Reply to Objection 1: Creatures are said to be "such" with
reference to their proper causes, not with reference to what belongs to
them from their first and universal causes; thus we call a disease
incurable, not that it cannot be cured by God, but that it cannot be
cured by the proper principles of the subject. Therefore a creature is
said to be not assumable, not as if we withdrew anything from the power
of God, but in order to show the condition of the creature, which has
no capability for this.
Reply to Objection 2: The likeness of image is found in human
nature, forasmuch as it is capable of God, viz. by attaining to Him
through its own operation of knowledge and love. But the likeness of
trace regards only a representation by Divine impression, existing in
the creature, and does not imply that the irrational creature, in
which such a likeness is, can attain to God by its own operation
alone. For what does not come up to the less, has no fitness for the
greater; as a body which is not fitted to be perfected by a sensitive
soul is much less fitted for an intellectual soul. Now much greater
and more perfect is the union with God in personal being than the union
by operation. And hence the irrational creature which falls short of
the union with God by operation has no fitness to be united with Him
in personal being.
Reply to Objection 3: Some say that angels are not assumable,
since they are perfect in their personality from the beginning of their
creation, inasmuch as they are not subject to generation and
corruption; hence they cannot be assumed to the unity of a Divine
Person, unless their personality be destroyed, and this does not
befit the incorruptibility of their nature nor the goodness of the one
assuming, to Whom it does not belong to corrupt any perfection in the
creature assumed. But this would not seem totally to disprove the
fitness of the angelic nature for being assumed. For God by producing
a new angelic nature could join it to Himself in unity of Person, and
in this way nothing pre-existing would be corrupted in it. But as was
said above, there is wanting the fitness of need, because, although
the angelic nature in some is the subject of sin, their sin is
irremediable, as stated above (FP, Question 64, Article 2).
Reply to Objection 4: The perfection of the universe is not the
perfection of one person or suppositum, but of something which is one
by position or order, whereof very many parts are not capable of
assumption, as was said above. Hence it follows that only human
nature is capable of being assumed.
|
|