Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 11

_I answer that,_ A medium is in reference to a beginning and an end.

Hence as beginning and end imply order, so also does a medium. Now there is a twofold order: one, of time; the other, of nature. But in the mystery of the Incarnation nothing is said to be a medium in the order of time, for the Word of G.o.d united the whole human nature to Himself at the same time, as will appear (Q. 30, A. 3). An order of nature between things may be taken in two ways: first, as regards rank of dignity, as we say the angels are midway between man and G.o.d; secondly, as regards the idea of causality, as we say a cause is midway between the first cause and the last effect. And this second order follows the first to some extent; for as Dionysius says (Coel.

Hier. xiii), G.o.d acts upon the more remote substances through the less remote. Hence if we consider the rank of dignity, the soul is found to be midway between G.o.d and flesh; and in this way it may be said that the Son of G.o.d united flesh to Himself, through the medium of the soul. But even as regards the second order of causality the soul is to some extent the cause of flesh being united to the Son of G.o.d. For the flesh would not have been a.s.sumable, except by its relation to the rational soul, through which it becomes human flesh.

For it was said above (Q. 4, A. 1) that human nature was a.s.sumable before all others.

Reply Obj. 1: We may consider a twofold order between creatures and G.o.d: the first is by reason of creatures being caused by G.o.d and depending on Him as on the principle of their being; and thus on account of the infinitude of His power G.o.d touches each thing immediately, by causing and preserving it, and so it is that G.o.d is in all things by essence, presence and power. But the second order is by reason of things being directed to G.o.d as to their end; and it is here that there is a medium between the creature and G.o.d, since lower creatures are directed to G.o.d by higher, as Dionysius says (Eccl.

Hier. v); and to this order pertains the a.s.sumption of human nature by the Word of G.o.d, Who is the term of the a.s.sumption; and hence it is united to flesh through the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: If the hypostasis of the Word of G.o.d were const.i.tuted simply by human nature, it would follow that the body was nearest to it, since it is matter which is the principle of individuation; even as the soul, being the specific form, would be nearer the human nature. But because the hypostasis of the Word is prior to and more exalted than the human nature, the more exalted any part of the human nature is, the nearer it is to the hypostasis of the Word. And hence the soul is nearer the Word of G.o.d than the body is.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the apt.i.tude and congruity of another, and yet if it be taken away the other remains; because although a thing's becoming may depend on another, yet when it is in being it no longer depends on it, just as a friends.h.i.+p brought about by some other may endure when the latter has gone; or as a woman is taken in marriage on account of her beauty, which makes a woman's fittingness for the marriage tie, yet when her beauty pa.s.ses away, the marriage tie still remains. So likewise, when the soul was separated, the union of the Word with flesh still endured.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 2]

Whether the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed a Soul Through the Medium of the Spirit or Mind?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. For nothing is a medium between itself and another. But the spirit is nothing else in essence but the soul itself, as was said above (I, Q. 77, A. 1, ad 1).

Therefore the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.

Obj. 2: Further, what is the medium of the a.s.sumption is itself more a.s.sumable. But the spirit or mind is not more a.s.sumable than the soul; which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are not a.s.sumable, as was said above (Q. 4, A. 1). Hence it seems that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit.

Obj. 3: Further, that which comes later is a.s.sumed by the first through the medium of what comes before. But the soul implies the very essence, which naturally comes before its power--the mind.

Therefore it would seem that the Son of G.o.d did not a.s.sume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii): "The invisible and unchangeable Truth took a soul by means of the spirit, and a body by means of the soul."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the Son of G.o.d is said to have a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul, on account of the order of dignity, and the congruity of the a.s.sumption. Now both these may be applied to the intellect, which is called the spirit, if we compare it with the other parts of the soul. For the soul is a.s.sumed congruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for G.o.d, being in His likeness: which is in respect of the mind that is called the spirit, according to Eph. 4:23: "Be renewed in the spirit of your mind." So, too, the intellect is the highest and n.o.blest of the parts of the soul, and the most like to G.o.d, and hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "the Word of G.o.d is united to flesh through the medium of the intellect; for the intellect is the purest part of the soul, G.o.d Himself being an intellect."

Reply Obj. 1: Although the intellect is not distinct from the soul in essence, it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as a power; and it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium.

Reply Obj. 2: Fitness for a.s.sumption is wanting to the angelic spirits, not from any lack of dignity, but because of the irremediableness of their fall, which cannot be said of the human spirit, as is clear from what has been said above (I, Q. 62, A. 8; First Part, Q. 64, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 3: The soul, between which and the Word of G.o.d the intellect is said to be a medium, does not stand for the essence of the soul, which is common to all the powers, but for the lower powers, which are common to every soul.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 3]

Whether the Soul Was a.s.sumed Before the Flesh by the Son of G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was a.s.sumed before the flesh by the Word. For the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul, as was said above (A. 1). Now the medium is reached before the end. Therefore the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the soul before the body.

Obj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ is n.o.bler than the angels, according to Ps. 96:8: "Adore Him, all you His angels." But the angels were created in the beginning, as was said above (I, Q. 46, A.

3). Therefore the soul of Christ also (was created in the beginning).

But it was not created before it was a.s.sumed, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2, 3, 9), that "neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any hypostasis save the hypostasis of the Word."

Therefore it would seem that the soul was a.s.sumed before the flesh, which was conceived in the womb of the Virgin.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (John 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] full of grace and truth," and it is added afterwards that "of His fulness we have all received" (John 1:16), i.e. all the faithful of all time, as Chrysostom expounds it (Hom. xiii in Joan.). Now this could not have been unless the soul of Christ had all fulness of grace and truth before all the saints, who were from the beginning of the world, for the cause is not subsequent to the effect. Hence since the fulness of grace and truth was in the soul of Christ from union with the Word, according to what is written in the same place: "We saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," it would seem in consequence that from the beginning of the world the soul of Christ was a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 6): "The intellect was not, as some untruthfully say, united to the true G.o.d, and henceforth called Christ, before the Incarnation which was of the Virgin."

_I answer that,_ Origen (Peri Archon i, 7, 8; ii, 8) maintained that all souls, amongst which he placed Christ's soul, were created in the beginning. But this is not fitting, if we suppose that it was first of all created, but not at once joined to the Word, since it would follow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the Word; and thus, since it was a.s.sumed by the Word, either the union did not take place in the subsistence, or the pre-existing subsistence of the soul was corrupted. So likewise it is not fitting to suppose that this soul was united to the Word from the beginning, and that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin; for thus His soul would not seem to be of the same nature as ours, which are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies.

Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian. x.x.xv) that "Christ's flesh was not of a different nature to ours, nor was a different soul infused into it in the beginning than into other men."

Reply Obj. 1: As was said above (A. 1), the soul of Christ is said to be the medium in the union of the flesh with the Word, in the order of nature; but it does not follow from this that it was the medium in the order of time.

Reply Obj. 2: As Pope Leo says in the same Epistle, Christ's soul excels our soul "not by diversity of genus, but by sublimity of power"; for it is of the same genus as our souls, yet excels even the angels in "fulness of grace and truth." But the mode of creation is in harmony with the generic property of the soul; and since it is the form of the body, it is consequently created at the same time that it is infused into and united with the body; which does not happen to angels, since they are substances entirely free from matter.

Reply Obj. 3: Of the fulness of Christ all men receive according to the faith they have in Him; for it is written (Rom. 3:22) that "the justice of G.o.d is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe in Him." Now just as we believe in Him as already born; so the ancients believed in Him as about to be born, since "having the same spirit of faith ... we also believe," as it is written (2 Cor. 4:13). But the faith which is in Christ has the power of justifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of G.o.d, according to Rom. 4:5: "But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the unG.o.dly, his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of G.o.d." Hence because this purpose is eternal, there is nothing to hinder some from being justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, even before His soul was full of grace and truth.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 4]

Whether the Flesh of Christ Was a.s.sumed by the Word Before Being United to the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was a.s.sumed by the Word before being united to the soul. For Augustine [*Fulgentius]

says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii): "Most firmly hold, and nowise doubt that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin without the G.o.dhead before it was a.s.sumed by the Word." But the flesh of Christ would seem to have been conceived before being united to the rational soul, because matter or disposition is prior to the completive form in order of generation. Therefore the flesh of Christ was a.s.sumed before being united to the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, as the soul is a part of human nature, so is the body. But the human soul in Christ had no other principle of being than in other men, as is clear from the authority of Pope Leo, quoted above (A. 3). Therefore it would seem that the body of Christ had no other principle of being than we have. But in us the body is begotten before the rational soul comes to it. Therefore it was the same in Christ; and thus the flesh was a.s.sumed by the Word before being united to the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, as is said (De Causis), the first cause excels the second in bringing about the effect, and precedes it in its union with the effect. But the soul of Christ is compared to the Word as a second cause to a first. Hence the Word was united to the flesh before it was to the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "At the same time the Word of G.o.d was made flesh, and flesh was united to a rational and intellectual soul." Therefore the union of the Word with the flesh did not precede the union with the soul.

_I answer that,_ The human flesh is a.s.sumable by the Word on account of the order which it has to the rational soul as to its proper form.

Now it has not this order before the rational soul comes to it, because when any matter becomes proper to any form, at the same time it receives that form; hence the alteration is terminated at the same instant in which the substantial form is introduced. And hence it is that the flesh ought not to have been a.s.sumed before it was human flesh; and this happened when the rational soul came to it. Therefore since the soul was not a.s.sumed before the flesh, inasmuch as it is against the nature of the soul to be before it is united to the body, so likewise the flesh ought not to have been a.s.sumed before the soul, since it is not human flesh before it has a rational soul.

Reply Obj. 1: Human flesh depends upon the soul for its being; and hence, before the coming of the soul, there is no human flesh, but there may be a disposition towards human flesh. Yet in the conception of Christ, the Holy Ghost, Who is an agent of infinite might, disposed the matter and brought it to its perfection at the same time.

Reply Obj. 2: The form actually gives the species; but the matter in itself is in potentiality to the species. And hence it would be against the nature of a form to exist before the specific nature. And therefore the dissimilarity between our origin and Christ's origin, inasmuch as we are conceived before being animated, and Christ's flesh is not, is by reason of what precedes the perfection of the nature, viz. that we are conceived from the seed of man, and Christ is not. But a difference which would be with reference to the origin of the soul, would bespeak a diversity of nature.

Reply Obj. 3: The Word of G.o.d is understood to be united to the flesh before the soul by the common mode whereby He is in the rest of creatures by essence, power, and presence. Yet I say "before," not in time, but in nature; for the flesh is understood as a being, which it has from the Word, before it is understood as animated, which it has from the soul. But by the personal union we understand the flesh as united to the soul before it is united to the Word, for it is from its union with the soul that it is capable of being united to the Word in Person; especially since a person is found only in the rational nature.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 5]

Whether the Whole Human Nature Was a.s.sumed Through the Medium of the Parts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the whole human nature through the medium of its parts. For Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii) that "the invisible and unchangeable Truth a.s.sumed the soul through the medium of the spirit, and the body through the medium of the soul, and in this way the whole man." But the spirit, soul, and body are parts of the whole man. Therefore He a.s.sumed all, through the medium of the parts.

Obj. 2: Further, the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed flesh through the medium of the soul because the soul is more like to G.o.d than the body. But the parts of human nature, since they are simpler than the body, would seem to be more like to G.o.d, Who is most simple, than the whole.

Therefore He a.s.sumed the whole through the medium of the parts.

Obj. 3: Further, the whole results from the union of parts. But the union is taken to be the term of the a.s.sumption, and the parts are presupposed to the a.s.sumption. Therefore He a.s.sumed the whole by the parts.

_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 16): "In our Lord Jesus Christ we do not behold parts of parts, but such as are immediately joined, i.e. the G.o.dhead and the manhood." Now the humanity is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts.

Therefore the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed the parts through the medium of the whole.

_I answer that,_ When anything is said to be a medium in the a.s.sumption of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time, because the a.s.sumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous.

For it has been shown (AA. 3, 4) that the soul and body were mutually united at the same time in order to const.i.tute the human nature of the Word. But it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what is prior in nature, that is a.s.sumed which is posterior in nature. Now a thing is prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the agent, secondly on the part of the matter; for these two causes precede the thing. On the part of the agent--that is simply first, which is first included in his intention; but that is relatively first, with which his operation begins--and this because the intention is prior to the operation. On the part of the matter--that is first which exists first in the trans.m.u.tation of the matter. Now in the Incarnation the order depending on the agent must be particularly considered, because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cx.x.xvii), "in such things the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer." But it is manifest that, according to the intention of the doer, what is complete is prior to what is incomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it must be said that the Word of G.o.d a.s.sumed the parts of human nature, through the medium of the whole; for even as He a.s.sumed the body on account of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He a.s.sumed a body and soul on account of their relation to human nature.