|
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all
conceived, and afterwards assumed. Because what is not cannot be
assumed. But Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived.
Therefore it seems that it was assumed by the Word of God after it
was conceived.
Objection 2: Further, Christ's flesh was assumed by the Word of
God, by means of the rational soul. But it received the rational
soul at the term of the conception. Therefore it was assumed at the
term of the conception. But at the term of the conception it was
already conceived. Therefore it was first of all conceived and
afterwards assumed.
Objection 3: Further, in everything generated, that which is
imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect: which is made clear
by the Philosopher (Metaph. ix). But Christ's body is something
generated. Therefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection,
which consisted in the union with the Word of God, at the first
instant of its conception; but, first of all, the flesh was conceived
and afterwards assumed.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii):
"Hold steadfastly, and doubt not for a moment that Christ's flesh
was not conceived in the Virgin's womb, before being assumed by the
Word."
I answer that, As stated above, we may say properly that "God was
made man," but not that "man was made God": because God took to
Himself that which belongs to man---and that which belongs to man
did not pre-exist, as subsisting in itself, before being assumed by
the Word. But if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being
assumed by the Word, it would have had at some time an hypostasis
other than that of the Word of God. And this is against the very
nature of the Incarnation, which we hold to consist in this, that the
Word of God was united to human nature and to all its parts in the
unity of hypostasis: nor was it becoming that the Word of God
should, by assuming human nature, destroy a pre-existing hypostasis
of human nature or of any part thereof. It is consequently contrary to
faith to assert that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and
afterwards assumed by the Word of God.
Reply to Objection 1: If Christ's flesh had been formed or
conceived, not instantaneously, but successively, one of two things
would follow: either that what was assumed was not yet flesh, or that
the flesh was conceived before it was assumed. But since we hold that
the conception was effected instantaneously, it follows that in that
flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the
same instant. So that, as Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad
Petrum xviii] says: "We say that the very Word of God was
conceived in taking flesh, and that His very flesh was conceived by
the Word taking flesh."
From the above the reply to the Second Objection is clear. For in
the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived, its conception
and animation were completed.
Reply to Objection 3: The mystery of the Incarnation is not to be
looked upon as an ascent, as it were, of a man already existing and
mounting up to the dignity of the Union: as the heretic Photinus
maintained. Rather is it to be considered as a descent, by reason of
the perfect Word of God taking unto Himself the imperfection of our
nature; according to Jn. 6:38: "I came down from heaven."
|
|