|
Objection 1: It would seem that it was not more fitting that the
Son of God should become incarnate than the Father or the Holy
Ghost. For by the mystery of the Incarnation men are led to the true
knowledge of God, according to Jn. 18:37: "For this was I
born, and for this came I into the world, to give testimony to the
truth." But by the Person of the Son of God becoming incarnate
many have been kept back from the true knowledge of God, since they
referred to the very Person of the Son what was said of the Son in
His human nature, as Arius, who held an inequality of Persons,
according to what is said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is
greater than I." Now this error would not have arisen if the Person
of the Father had become incarnate, for no one would have taken the
Father to be less than the Son. Hence it seems fitting that the
Person of the Father, rather than the Person of the Son, should
have become incarnate.
Objection 2: Further, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to
be, as it were, a second creation of human nature, according to
Gal. 6:15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." But the power of
creation is appropriated to the Father. Therefore it would have been
more becoming to the Father than to the Son to become incarnate.
Objection 3: Further, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission
of sins, according to Mt. 1:21: "Thou shalt call His name
Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." Now the
remission of sins is attributed to the Holy Ghost according to Jn.
20:22,23: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you
shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore it became the
Person of the Holy Ghost rather than the Person of the Son to
become incarnate.
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1):
"In the mystery of the Incarnation the wisdom and power of God are
made known: the wisdom, for He found a most suitable discharge for a
most heavy debt; the power, for He made the conquered conquer."
But power and wisdom are appropriated to the Son, according to 1
Cor. 1:24: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of
God." Therefore it was fitting that the Person of the Son should
become incarnate.
I answer that, It was most fitting that the Person of the Son
should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such
as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son,
Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all
creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is
an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of
God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all
creatures. And therefore as creatures are established in their proper
species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by
the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature,
it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its
eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the
intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork,
restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a
particular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept of
the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And
hence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as
he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is
instructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said
(Ecclus. 1:5): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of
wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was
fitting that the very Word of God should be personally united to human
nature.
Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the
union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as
are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on
sons, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." Hence
it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share
this likeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same
chapter (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also
predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son."
Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our
first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the
first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of
the serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence
it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back
to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst for
knowledge.
Reply to Objection 1: There is nothing which human malice cannot
abuse, since it even abuses God's goodness, according to Rm.
2:4: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness?" Hence,
even if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, men would have
been capable of finding an occasion of error, as though the Son were
not able to restore human nature.
Reply to Objection 2: The first creation of things was made by the
power of God the Father through the Word; hence the second creation
ought to have been brought about through the Word, by the power of
God the Father, in order that restoration should correspond to
creation according to 2 Cor. 5:19: "For God indeed was in
Christ reconciling the world to Himself."
Reply to Objection 3: To be the gift of the Father and the Son is
proper to the Holy Ghost. But the remission of sins is caused by the
Holy Ghost, as by the gift of God. And hence it was more fitting
to man's justification that the Son should become incarnate, Whose
gift the Holy Ghost is.
|
|