FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 1]

Whether the Son of God Assumed Flesh Through the Medium of the Soul?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume flesh

through the medium of the soul. For the mode in which the Son of God

is united to human nature and its parts, is more perfect than the

mode whereby He is in all creatures. But He is in all creatures

immediately by essence, power and presence. Much more, therefore, is

the Son of God united to flesh without the medium of the soul.

Obj. 2: Further, the soul and flesh are united to the Word of God in

unity of hypostasis or person. But the body pertains immediately to

the human hypostasis or person, even as the soul. Indeed, the human

body, since it is matter, would rather seem to be nearer the

hypostasis than the soul, which is a form, since the principle of

individuation, which is implied in the word "hypostasis," would seem

to be matter. Hence the Son of God did not assume flesh through the

medium of the soul.

Obj. 3: Further, take away the medium and you separate what were

joined by the medium; for example, if the superficies be removed

color would leave the body, since it adheres to the body through the

medium of the superficies. But though the soul was separated from the

body by death, yet there still remained the union of the Word to the

flesh, as will be shown (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3). Hence the Word was not

joined to flesh through the medium of the soul.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvi): "The

greatness of the Divine power fitted to itself a rational soul, and

through it a human body, so as to raise the whole man to something

higher."

_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 God 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 God;

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), God 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 God and flesh; and in this way it may be

said that the Son of God 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

God. For the flesh would not have been assumable, 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 assumable

before all others.

Reply Obj. 1: We may consider a twofold order between creatures and

God: the first is by reason of creatures being caused by God and

depending on Him as on the principle of their being; and thus on

account of the infinitude of His power God touches each thing

immediately, by causing and preserving it, and so it is that God is

in all things by essence, presence and power. But the second order is

by reason of things being directed to God as to their end; and it is

here that there is a medium between the creature and God, since lower

creatures are directed to God by higher, as Dionysius says (Eccl.

Hier. v); and to this order pertains the assumption of human nature

by the Word of God, Who is the term of the assumption; and hence it

is united to flesh through the soul.

Reply Obj. 2: If the hypostasis of the Word of God were constituted

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 God than the body is.

Reply Obj. 3: Nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the

aptitude 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 friendship 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 passes away, the marriage tie still remains. So

likewise, when the soul was separated, the union of the Word with

flesh still endured.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 51 / 654 题