|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a
soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. For nothing is a medium
between itself and another. But the spirit is nothing else in essence
but the soul itself, as was said above (FP, Question 77,
Article 1, ad 1). Therefore the Son of God did not assume a
soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.
Objection 2: Further, what is the medium of the assumption is
itself more assumable. But the spirit or mind is not more assumable
than the soul; which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are
not assumable, as was said above (Question 4, Article 1).
Hence it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul through the
medium of the spirit.
Objection 3: Further, that which comes later is assumed by the
first through the medium of what comes before. But the soul implies
the very essence, which naturally comes before its power---the
mind. Therefore it would seem that the Son of God did not assume a
soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii):
"The invisible and unchangeable Truth took a soul by means of the
spirit, and a body by means of the soul."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the Son of God is
said to have assumed flesh through the medium of the soul, on account
of the order of dignity, and the congruity of the assumption. Now
both these may be applied to the intellect, which is called the
spirit, if we compare it with the other parts of the soul. For the
soul is assumed congruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for
God, being in His likeness: which is in respect of the mind that is
called the spirit, according to Eph. 4:23: "Be renewed in the
spirit of your mind." So, too, the intellect is the highest and
noblest of the parts of the soul, and the most like to God, and hence
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "the Word of God
is united to flesh through the medium of the intellect; for the
intellect is the purest part of the soul, God Himself being an
intellect."
Reply to Objection 1: Although the intellect is not distinct from
the soul in essence, it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as
a power; and it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium.
Reply to Objection 2: Fitness for assumption is wanting to the
angelic spirits, not from any lack of dignity, but because of the
irremediableness of their fall, which cannot be said of the human
spirit, as is clear from what has been said above (FP, Question
62, Article 8; FP, Question 64, Article 2).
Reply to Objection 3: The soul, between which and the Word of
God the intellect is said to be a medium, does not stand for the
essence of the soul, which is common to all the powers, but for the
lower powers, which are common to every soul.
|
|