|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a
soul. For John has said, teaching the mystery of the Incarnation
(Jn. 1:14): "The Word was made flesh"---no mention being
made of a soul. Now it is not said that "the Word was made flesh"
as if changed to flesh, but because He assumed flesh. Therefore He
seems not to have assumed a soul.
Objection 2: Further, a soul is necessary to the body, in order to
quicken it. But this was not necessary for the body of Christ, as it
would seem, for of the Word of God it is written (Ps.
35:10): Lord, "with Thee is the fountain of life."
Therefore it would seem altogether superfluous for the soul to be
there, when the Word was present. But "God and nature do nothing
uselessly," as the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 32; ii,
56). Therefore the Word would seem not to have assumed a soul.
Objection 3: Further, by the union of soul and body is constituted
the common nature, which is the human species. But "in the Lord
Jesus Christ we are not to look for a common species," as Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3). Therefore He did not assume a
soul.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxi): "Let
us not hearken to such as say that only a human body was assumed by the
Word of God; and take 'the Word was made flesh' to mean that the
man had no soul nor any other part of a man, save flesh."
I answer that, As Augustine says (De Haeres. 69,55), it
was first of all the opinion of Arius and then of Apollinaris that the
Son of God assumed only flesh, without a soul, holding that the
Word took the place of a soul to the body. And consequently it
followed that there were not two natures in Christ, but only one; for
from a soul and body one human nature is constituted. But this opinion
cannot hold, for three reasons. First, because it is counter to the
authority of Scripture, in which our Lord makes mention of His
soul, Mt. 26:38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death";
and Jn. 10:18: "I have power to lay down My soul [animam
meam: Douay: 'My life']." But to this Apollinaris replied
that in these words soul is taken metaphorically, in which way mention
is made in the Old Testament of the soul of God (Is. 1:14):
"My soul hateth your new moons and your solemnities." But, as
Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80), the Evangelists relate
how Jesus wondered, was angered, sad, and hungry. Now these show
that He had a true soul, just as that He ate, slept and was weary
shows that He had a true human body: otherwise, if these things are a
metaphor, because the like are said of God in the Old Testament,
the trustworthiness of the Gospel story is undermined. For it is one
thing that things were foretold in a figure, and another that
historical events were related in very truth by the Evangelists.
Secondly, this error lessens the utility of the Incarnation, which
is man's liberation. For Augustine [Vigilius Tapsensis] argues
thus (Contra Felician. xiii): "If the Son of God in taking
flesh passed over the soul, either He knew its sinlessness, and
trusted it did not need a remedy; or He considered it unsuitable to
Him, and did not bestow on it the boon of redemption; or He reckoned
it altogether incurable, and was unable to heal it; or He cast it off
as worthless and seemingly unfit for any use. Now two of these reasons
imply a blasphemy against God. For how shall we call Him
omnipotent, if He is unable to heal what is beyond hope? Or God of
all, if He has not made our soul. And as regards the other two
reasons, in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no
place is given to merit. Is He to be considered to understand the
cause of the soul, Who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful
transgression, enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment of
the habit of reason? Or how can His generosity be known to any one
who says it was despised on account of its ignoble sinfulness? If you
look at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than the
body: but if at the sin of transgression, on account of its
intelligence it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that
Christ is perfect wisdom, nor have I any doubt that He is most
loving; and because of the first of these He did not despise what was
better and more capable of prudence; and because of the second He
protected what was most wounded." Thirdly, this position is against
the truth of the Incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man
receive their species through the soul. Hence, if the soul is
absent, there are no bones nor flesh, except equivocally, as is plain
from the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 9; Metaph. vii, 34).
Reply to Objection 1: When we say, "The Word was made flesh,"
"flesh" is taken for the whole man, as if we were to say, "The
Word was made man," as Is. 40:5: "All flesh together shall
see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken." And the whole man is
signified by flesh, because, as is said in the authority quoted, the
Son of God became visible by flesh; hence it is subjoined: "And we
saw His glory." Or because, as Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii,
qu. 80), "in all that union the Word is the highest, and flesh
the last and lowest. Hence, wishing to commend the love of God's
humility to us, the Evangelist mentioned the Word and flesh, leaving
the soul on one side, since it is less than the Word and nobler than
flesh." Again, it was reasonable to mention flesh, which, as being
farther away from the Word, was less assumable, as it would seem.
Reply to Objection 2: The Word is the fountain of life, as the
first effective cause of life; but the soul is the principle of the
life of the body, as its form. Now the form is the effect of the
agent. Hence from the presence of the Word it might rather have been
concluded that the body was animated, just as from the presence of fire
it may be concluded that the body, in which fire adheres, is warm.
Reply to Objection 3: It is not unfitting, indeed it is necessary
to say that in Christ there was a nature which was constituted by the
soul coming to the body. But Damascene denied that in Jesus Christ
there was a common species, i.e. a third something resulting from the
Godhead and the humanity.
|
|