|
Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the two natures in
Christ is not the greatest of all unions. For what is united falls
short of the unity of what is one, since what is united is by
participation, but one is by essence. Now in created things there are
some that are simply one, as is shown especially in unity itself,
which is the principle of number. Therefore the union of which we are
speaking does not imply the greatest of all unions.
Objection 2: Further, the greater the distance between things
united, the less the union. Now, the things united by this union are
most distant---namely, the Divine and human natures; for they are
infinitely apart. Therefore their union is the least of all.
Objection 3: Further, from union there results one. But from the
union of soul and body in us there arises what is one in person and
nature; whereas from the union of the Divine and human nature there
results what is one in person only. Therefore the union of soul and
body is greater than that of the Divine and human natures; and hence
the union of which we speak does not imply the greatest unity.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that "man
is in the Son of God, more than the Son in the Father." But the
Son is in the Father by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by
the union of the Incarnation. Therefore the union of the Incarnation
is greater than the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless
is the greatest union; and thus the union of the Incarnation implies
the greatest unity.
I answer that, Union implies the joining of several in some one
thing. Therefore the union of the Incarnation may be taken in two
ways: first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to
that in which they are united. And in this regard this union has a
pre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person,
in which the two natures are united, is the greatest. But it has no
pre-eminence in regard to the things united.
Reply to Objection 1: The unity of the Divine Person is greater
than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity
of a Divine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not
received into another by participation. Also, it is complete in
itself, having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and
therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as in
numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by
the things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of the
Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of
the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is
not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to it.
Reply to Objection 2: This reason regards the things united, and
not the Person in Whom the union takes place.
Reply to Objection 3: The unity of the Divine Person is greater
than the unity of person and nature in us; and hence the union of the
Incarnation is greater than the union of soul and body in us.
And because what is urged in the argument "on the contrary" rests
upon what is untrue---namely, that the union of the Incarnation is
greater than the unity of the Divine Persons in Essence---we must
say to the authority of Augustine that the human nature is not more in
the Son of God than the Son of God in the Father, but much less.
But the man in some respects is more in the Son than the Son in the
Father---namely, inasmuch as the same suppositum is signified when
I say "man," meaning Christ, and when I say "Son of God";
whereas it is not the same suppositum of Father and Son.
|
|