|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought to have
assumed human nature in all individuals. For what is assumed first and
by itself is human nature. But what belongs essentially to a nature
belongs to all who exist in the nature. Therefore it was fitting that
human nature should be assumed by the Word of God in all its
supposita.
Objection 2: Further, the Divine Incarnation proceeded from
Divine Love; hence it is written (Jn. 3:16): "God so loved
the world as to give His only-begotten Son." But love makes us
give ourselves to our friends as much as we can, and it was possible
for the Son of God to assume several human natures, as was said above
(Question 3, Article 7), and with equal reason all. Hence it
was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature in all its
supposita.
Objection 3: Further, a skilful workman completes his work in the
shortest manner possible. But it would have been a shorter way if all
men had been assumed to the natural sonship than for one natural Son to
lead many to the adoption of sons, as is written Gal. 4:5 (cf.
Heb. 2:10). Therefore human nature ought to have been assumed
by God in all its supposita.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that
the Son of God "did not assume human nature as a species, nor did
He assume all its hypostases."
I answer that, It was unfitting for human nature to be assumed by the
Word in all its supposita. First, because the multitude of supposita
of human nature, which are natural to it, would have been taken away.
For since we must not see any other suppositum in the assumed nature,
except the Person assuming, as was said above (Article 3), if
there was no human nature except what was assumed, it would follow that
there was but one suppositum of human nature, which is the Person
assuming. Secondly, because this would have been derogatory to the
dignity of the incarnate Son of God, as He is the First-born of
many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the
First-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all
men would be of equal dignity. Thirdly, because it is fitting that as
one Divine suppositum is incarnate, so He should assume one human
nature, so that on both sides unity might be found.
Reply to Objection 1: To be assumed belongs to the human nature of
itself, because it does not belong to it by reason of a person, as it
belongs to the Divine Nature to assume by reason of the Person;
not, however, that it belongs to it of itself as if belonging to its
essential principles, or as its natural property in which manner it
would belong to all its supposita.
Reply to Objection 2: The love of God to men is shown not merely
in the assumption of human nature, but especially in what He suffered
in human nature for other men, according to Rm. 5:8: "But God
commendeth His charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners
. . . Christ died for us," which would not have taken place had
He assumed human nature in all its supposita.
Reply to Objection 3: In order to shorten the way, which every
skilful workman does, what can be done by one must not be done by
many. Hence it was most fitting that by one man all the rest should be
saved.
|
|