|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Divine Person assumed a man.
For it is written (Ps. 64:5): "Blessed is he whom Thou hast
chosen and taken to Thee," which a gloss expounds of Christ; and
Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "The Son of God
assumed a man, and in him bore things human."
Objection 2: Further, the word "man" signifies a human nature.
But the Son of God assumed a human nature. Therefore He assumed a
man.
Objection 3: Further, the Son of God is a man. But He is not
one of the men He did not assume, for with equal reason He would be
Peter or any other man. Therefore He is the man whom He assumed.
On the contrary, Is the authority of Felix, Pope and Martyr,
which is quoted by the Council of Ephesus: "We believe in our Lord
Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, because He is the Eternal
Son and Word of God, and not a man assumed by God, in such sort
that there is another besides Him. For the Son of God did not
assume a man, so that there be another besides Him."
I answer that, As has been said above (Article 2), what is
assumed is not the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the
assumption. Now it was said (Question 3, Articles 1,2) that
the individual to Whom the human nature is assumed is none other than
the Divine Person, Who is the term of the assumption. Now this
word "man" signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum,
because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4,11), this
word God signifies Him Who has human nature. And hence it cannot
properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be,
in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one
hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two
hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly
be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion
quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But
this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Question 2, Article
6).
Reply to Objection 1: These phrases are not to be taken too
literally, but are to be loyally explained, wherever they are used by
holy doctors; so as to say that a man was assumed, inasmuch as his
nature was assumed; and because the assumption terminated in
this---that the Son of God is man.
Reply to Objection 2: The word "man" signifies human nature in
the concrete, inasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we
cannot say a suppositum was assumed, so we cannot say a man was
assumed.
Reply to Objection 3: The Son of God is not the man whom He
assumed, but the man whose nature He assumed.
|
|