|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Union of the Word Incarnate
took place in the nature. For Cyril says (he is quoted in the acts
of the Council of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1): "We must
understand not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word of
God"; and this could not be unless the union took place in the
nature. Therefore the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the
nature.
Objection 2: Further, Athanasius says that, as the rational soul
and the flesh together form the human nature, so God and man together
form a certain one nature; therefore the union took place in the
nature.
Objection 3: Further, of two natures one is not denominated by the
other unless they are to some extent mutually transmuted. But the
Divine and human natures in Christ are denominated one by the other;
for Cyril says (quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon,
part ii, act. 1) that the Divine nature "is incarnate"; and
Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. i ad Cledon.) that the human nature
is "deified," as appears from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii,
6,11). Therefore from two natures one seems to have resulted.
On the contrary, It is said in the declaration of the Council of
Chalcedon: "We confess that in these latter times the only-begotten
Son of God appeared in two natures, without confusion, without
change, without division, without separation---the distinction of
natures not having been taken away by the union." Therefore the union
did not take place in the nature.
I answer that, To make this question clear we must consider what is
"nature." Now it is to be observed that the word "nature" comes
from nativity. Hence this word was used first of all to signify the
begetting of living beings, which is called "birth" or "sprouting
forth," the word "natura" meaning, as it were, "nascitura."
Afterwards this word "nature" was taken to signify the principle of
this begetting; and because in living things the principle of
generation is an intrinsic principle, this word "nature" was further
employed to signify any intrinsic principle of motion: thus the
Philosopher says (Phys. ii) that "nature is the principle of
motion in that in which it is essentially and not accidentally." Now
this principle is either form or matter. Hence sometimes form is
called nature, and sometimes matter. And because the end of natural
generation, in that which is generated, is the essence of the
species, which the definition signifies, this essence of the species
is called the "nature." And thus Boethius defines nature (De
Duab. Nat.): "Nature is what informs a thing with its specific
difference,"---i.e. which perfects the specific definition. But
we are now speaking of nature as it signifies the essence, or the
"what-it-is," or the quiddity of the species.
Now, if we take nature in this way, it is impossible that the union
of the Incarnate Word took place in the nature. For one thing is
made of two or more in three ways. First, from two complete things
which remain in their perfection. This can only happen to those whose
form is composition, order, or figure, as a heap is made up of many
stones brought together without any order, but solely with
juxtaposition; and a house is made of stones and beams arranged in
order, and fashioned to a figure. And in this way some said the union
was by manner of confusion (which is without order) or by manner of
commensuration (which is with order). But this cannot be. First,
because neither composition nor order nor figure is a substantial form,
but accidental; and hence it would follow that the union of the
Incarnation was not essential, but accidental, which will be
disproved later on (Article 6). Secondly, because thereby we
should not have an absolute unity, but relative only, for there remain
several things actually. Thirdly, because the form of such is not a
nature, but an art, as the form of a house; and thus one nature would
not be constituted in Christ, as they wish.
Secondly, one thing is made up of several things, perfect but
changed, as a mixture is made up of its elements; and in this way some
have said that the union of the Incarnation was brought about by manner
of combination. But this cannot be. First, because the Divine
Nature is altogether immutable, as has been said (FP, Question
9, Articles 1,2), hence neither can it be changed into something
else, since it is incorruptible; nor can anything else be changed into
it, for it cannot be generated. Secondly, because what is mixed is
of the same species with none of the elements; for flesh differs in
species from any of its elements. And thus Christ would be of the
same nature neither with His Father nor with His Mother. Thirdly,
because there can be no mingling of things widely apart; for the
species of one of them is absorbed, e.g. if we were to put a drop of
water in a flagon of wine. And hence, since the Divine Nature
infinitely exceeds the human nature, there could be no mixture, but
the Divine Nature alone would remain.
Thirdly, a thing is made up of things not mixed nor changed, but
imperfect; as man is made up of soul and body, and likewise of divers
members. But this cannot be said of the mystery of the Incarnation.
First, because each nature, i.e. the Divine and the human, has
its specific perfection. Secondly, because the Divine and human
natures cannot constitute anything after the manner of quantitative
parts, as the members make up the body; for the Divine Nature is
incorporeal; nor after the manner of form and matter, for the Divine
Nature cannot be the form of anything, especially of anything
corporeal, since it would follow that the species resulting therefrom
would be communicable to several, and thus there would be several
Christs. Thirdly, because Christ would exist neither in human
nature nor in the Divine Nature: since any difference varies the
species, as unity varies number, as is said (Metaph. viii, text.
10).
Reply to Objection 1: This authority of Cyril is expounded in the
Fifth Synod (i.e. Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 8)
thus: "If anyone proclaiming one nature of the Word of God to be
incarnate does not receive it as the Fathers taught, viz. that from
the Divine and human natures (a union in subsistence having taken
place) one Christ results, but endeavors from these words to
introduce one nature or substance of the Divinity and flesh of
Christ, let such a one be anathema." Hence the sense is not that
from two natures one results; but that the Nature of the Word of God
united flesh to Itself in Person.
Reply to Objection 2: From the soul and body a double unity, viz.
of nature and person---results in each individual---of nature
inasmuch as the soul is united to the body, and formally perfects it,
so that one nature springs from the two as from act and potentiality or
from matter and form. But the comparison is not in this sense, for
the Divine Nature cannot be the form of a body, as was proved
(FP, Question 3, Article 8). Unity of person results from
them, however, inasmuch as there is an individual subsisting in flesh
and soul; and herein lies the likeness, for the one Christ subsists
in the Divine and human natures.
Reply to Objection 3: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,
6,11), the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate because It is
united to flesh personally, and not that It is changed into flesh.
So likewise the flesh is said to be deified, as he also says (De
Fide Orth. 15,17), not by change, but by union with the
Word, its natural properties still remaining, and hence it may be
considered as deified, inasmuch as it becomes the flesh of the Word of
God, but not that it becomes God.
|
|