Aquinas on the Incarnation: Its Timing, the Plan of the Third Part, and Why Christ Has Not One Nature but Two (ST III, q.1 a.6 – q.2 a.1)

Orientation #

Opening prayer; he notes it is the feast of the Guardian Angels. “We’re up to the sixth article in question one”; a.6 answers by reference to “the reasons we gave in the last article” (prev. lecture: a.5, why not at the beginning of the world). The previous class covered q.1 aa.3–5; the next continues q.2 on the hypostatic union.

The class, in order #

1. Objections and sed contra of q.1 a.6 (“deferred to the end of the world”) #

The point: should the Incarnation have been put off until the end of the world?

• Obj. 1: Psalm 91, “my old age in mercy”, glossed as the last day; the time of the Incarnation is most of all a time of mercy; therefore it belongs at the end. His aside: “would that have been so merciful, to have delayed it till then?”
• Obj. 2: the perfect in the same thing is later in time than the imperfect; the highest perfection of human nature is union to the Word (Colossians: all the fullness of divinity dwells in him); so it should be last.
• Obj. 3: don’t do by two what can be done by one; one coming, at the end, suffices for salvation. His aside: the two comings are two of the twelve articles of faith.
• Sed contra: Habakkuk, “in the middle of the years I made known” (“sounds like Dante”).

2. The body: three reasons (“the perfect in one way in time precedes”) #

The point: as it was unsuitable at the beginning, so it is unsuitable at the end.

1. From the union of natures. Distinction: in what goes from imperfect to perfect, the imperfect precedes in time; in the efficient cause of perfection, the perfect precedes (his example: Thomas’s perfect mind precedes our mind going from imperfect to more perfect). In the Incarnation both meet: human nature is brought to its highest perfection (so not at the beginning), but the incarnate Word is also the maker of human perfection, John 1:16 “of his fullness we have all received” (“fullness is another word for perfection”), so not deferred to the end. The perfection of glory, to which human nature is led at last through the Word, is what comes at the end. Thomas “sees some element of truth in the second objection, not the whole truth.”
2. From the effect of human salvation, quoting the Questions of the New and Old Testament (“among the works, I guess, of Augustine”): it is in the power of the giver when and how much to show mercy; when men began to forget God and morals changed, he chose Abraham as a form of renewal; when reverence grew weaker, he gave the Law through Moses in letters; when the nations spurned it and those who received it did not keep it, he sent his Son. Deferred to the end, knowledge, reverence and honesty of morals would have been abolished from the earth.
3. From the manifestation of divine power, which saves men through faith in the future (the prophets), the present, and the past (us). “Some of us are saved by looking forward, and some by looking backwards”; he links it to the Gospel entry into Jerusalem, “those who went before and those who went after” (he thinks Mark).

3. The replies (“the youth of the human race”) #

• Ad 1: the gloss refers the psalm to the mercy leading to glory. But if referred to the Incarnation: Augustine, Retractions, compares the time of the Incarnation to the youth of the human race (vigour and fervour of faith working through love) and to old age, the sixth age (by the number of times); in the body youth and old age cannot coexist, in the soul they can (alacrity and gravity). So the Master by whose imitation the race would be best formed had to come in its youth. He finds it “kind of unusual”, the psalm text obscure; a student notes Thomas dismisses the gloss reading first and then answers anyway. Student asks where the sixth age comes from; discussion is inconclusive: an older way of dividing human life into ages, applied to the world, perhaps by covenants; Augustine may be the first [left open].
• Ad 2: the Incarnation is both the limit of the motion from imperfect to perfect and the beginning of perfection in human nature; so neither at the very beginning (human nature raised at once instead of gradually) nor at the end (the one from whose fullness we all receive would not yet be here). “That’s a very subtle thing that Thomas says.”
• Ad 3: Chrysostom on John 3:17: two comings, the first to remit sins, the second to judge; had he not done the first, all would have been lost. His gloss: the first coming in mercy, the second more in justice; “the second coming is more fearful, the first gives us hope.”

4. Dividing the six articles (“would you divide them into two or three”) #

The point: the six articles fall into three pairs. A student proposes 1 against 5; he prefers: aa.5–6 both on time (earlier or later); aa.3–4 both on sin (would he have come without sin; original or actual sin more, and original more because it affects the whole race and the common good); aa.1–2 two sides of one question (suitable on God’s side, from his goodness; useful on man’s side). So six into three, each into two; the first pair most important, the second pair “rather important”, the last two most particular. Aside: a student reports Francis de Sales (Love of God) says the opposite of Thomas on a.3; the footnote says it is also in Albert.

5. Where we are: the plan of the Tertia Pars (“so we don’t get lost”) #

The point: locate q.2 within the whole. Prologue divides the Third Part into three: the Saviour himself; his sacraments, by which we obtain salvation; the end of immortal life. The same three in the same order in Summa Contra Gentiles IV (Saviour and sacraments in its second part, the end in its third). Sacraments are instruments of Christ: sensible and spiritual, fitting both man (an animal with reason) and the Word made flesh; likewise the priest must be sensible and spiritual, so angels cannot be priests. In the Catechism the sacraments are in the second part but follow on the mysteries of faith. Thomas did not finish the Tertia Pars; the rest is filled in from the Sentences. The first part divides into two: the mystery of the Incarnation, and what the Saviour did and suffered (a summary of Gospel history, not in the SCG). The first of these into three (q.1 prologue): suitability (q.1); the mode of the union (qq.2–15); what follows on the union (q.16 on). “Some days it’s good to just review where you are.”

6. The prologue of q.2 and its twelve articles (“whether the union of the incarnate word was made”) #

The point: q.2 concerns the union itself (then the assuming person, then the nature assumed), in twelve articles.

1. Union in the nature? Eutyches: two natures before, one after; or the divine turned into human.
2. In the person: two natures joined in one person; some said the divine nature stood in place of the soul.
3. In the suppositum or hypostasis. On the word: hypostasis should stand for any individual substance, in a rational nature the same as person; the Greeks say three hypostases; some said two hypostases in one person. Etymology “stand under”, same as substantia, and substantia in Latin is also used for the nature, so “three substances” sounded like three natures; his English parallel: “three understandings in God.” Thomas cites Jerome: “there’s poison under this word.”
4. Whether the person or hypostasis is composed after the Incarnation (“that’s going to get you in trouble too”). Articles 2–4 subordinate to a.2.
5. Union of soul and body in Christ: some (SCG, the six heresies) said they were united to the person but not to each other, to avoid a human person.
6. Accidentally, as by being clothed, or God dwelling in a man as in a temple; then he would not really become man. “Clothes make the man.”
7. Whether the union is something created (“a frightening topic”).
8. Same as the assumption (he took human nature to himself from Mary).
9. The greatest of unions; he is “very interested”: if greater than our union with God in beatific vision, then, as SCG makes the first reason for suitability, it raises our hope of that lesser union.
10. Made by grace; 11. merits preceding; 12. grace natural to the man Christ. He defers dividing the twelve until they are read.

7. q.2 a.1, objections and sed contra (“one nature of the incarnate Word”) #

• Obj. 1: Cyril, taken into the text of Chalcedon: “not two natures, but the one nature of the incarnate Word.” “Serious things, Cyril… Thomas, you’ll have to explain.”
• Obj. 2: the Athanasian Creed: as rational soul and flesh make one human nature, so God and man make one nature. Aside on editions: some students’ texts lack this objection though they have the reply; a “not” is missing in some texts; a story of nuns who would not restore the “not” because it changes the text.
• Obj. 3: one nature is not denominated from another unless changed into it; but Cyril says the divine nature was made incarnate, Gregory Nazianzus that the human was deified (via Damascene). “It’s dangerous to read the Eastern Fathers.”
• Sed contra: Chalcedon: the Son of God in the last days recognized without confusion, unchanged, undivided, inseparable; the difference of natures never taken away by the union.

8. What nature means (“the name of nature is taken from being born”) #

The point: Thomas, like Boethius, first sets out the senses of “nature.”

• First imposed on the generation of living things, nativity or pullulatio (sprouting); “inborn.”
• Then translatum, carried over, to the source of that generation. Digression on translatio nominis: English “translation” carries over the meaning, “metaphor” (Greek metaphora, etymologically the same) carries over the name (“you rat, you pig”); Thomas’s translatio is the second. The carrying over is not by chance but by the relation of the hidden source to the striking, outward birth. Aristotle orders the senses in “the fifth book of wisdom” [ed.: Metaphysics V].
• Then to any intrinsic source of motion, the sense defined in Physics II (“Natural Hearing”): a beginning of motion in that in which it is, as such and not by happening; the added words exclude the doctor who cures himself by the art within him, which is accidental.
• Active (form) or passive (matter). His harassed-mother examples: tree grows, stone does not, though sun, rain, soil are the same, so the cause is within (nature as form, “the tree builds itself up”); log burns, stone does not, in the same flames, so something within lets wood be acted on (nature as matter, passive).
• Since the end of generation is the essence of the species, which the definition signifies, the essence too is called nature; Boethius, On the Two Natures: nature is the specific difference informing each thing. This is the sense used here: the essence, the quiddity, “what it is.” His count wavers (“fifth… at least sixth”); a student recounts: birth, source within the mother, any intrinsic source, matter and form, then what-it-is; left as it stands.
• Shakespeare moves “birth” from the first to the last sense: “revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse” means revolting from true nature. Aside: English philosophers stuck at the first sense of “infused” mock infused virtue, “a bucket for grace.”

9. Three ways one thing comes from many (“in three ways something one is constituted”) #

The point: the union cannot be in the nature, argued by dividing the ways of composition.

1. From perfect things remaining, possible only where the form is composition, order or figure: stones merely put together make a pile; stones and lumber ordered and figured make a house (union by confusion, without order, or commensuration, with order). Against: such a form is accidental, so the union would be per accidens (disproved below); the result is one only secundum quid, many remaining in act; the form is art, not nature.
2. From perfect things changed, as a mixed body from the elements (union by complexion). Mixtio in ancient physics is real substantial change, stronger than English “mixture.” Against: the divine nature is altogether unchangeable (shown in the First Part; “you’ve got to understand God to see why this cannot be”), incorruptible and ingenerable; in a mixture none of the ingredients keeps its species (flesh is neither earth nor fire), so Christ would be neither of the Father’s nor his Mother’s nature; things that differ much cannot mix, a drop of water in an amphora of wine is dissolved, and the divine nature infinitely exceeds the human, so only the divine would remain. Burning bush: the fire is the divine nature (light for understanding, warmth for love, power to transform), the bush the human nature, and the fire not consuming the bush shows the divine does not swallow up the human. Aside on why Thomas stops at three arguments: a fourth makes you forget the first. Illustration from Confession: to cure the soul you remove all the evils of sin, and these are three: disorder (turning from God to a creature), being worthy of punishment, being weakened for doing good and avoiding evil. Sometimes three is all there is; even if not, it is enough for the mind.
3. From imperfect things unchanged, as soul and body make a man, or diverse members. Against: each nature is perfect in its own definition; they cannot be quantitative parts (the divine nature is incorporeal) nor form and matter (the divine nature cannot be the form of anything, least of all a body, from the treatise on God), with the footnote that the resulting species would be communicable to many, many Christs; Christ would be neither human nor divine, since any added difference varies the species, as unity does numbers (Metaphysics VIII, “the eighth book of wisdom”). He illustrates: body plus life is plant, plus sense animal, plus reason man; subtract and you change the nature. Aristotle takes what is true in Plato’s “natures are numbers”: not numbers but like numbers. A good student is like the earth: humble, listens, has judgment, is fruitful. Shakespeare, “what is a man if his chief good… be but to sleep and feed, a beast, no more”: as three that is half of four is a two, no more, so a man whose chief good is a beast’s is a beast; “there’s some precision there.” Conclusion: no way the union can be made in nature. Some read “the Word was made flesh” as union in nature, “but that don’t make no sense.”

His words #

• “fullness”: another word for perfection (John 1:16).
• “efficient cause”: “the maker of perfection.”
• “conveniencia” [ed.: convenientia]: suitability of the Incarnation.
• “suppositum, hypostasis”: individual substance; in a rational nature, person; etymology “stand under,” same as substantia.
• “nativity, pullulatio”: birth, sprouting; first sense of “nature.”
• “translatum, translatio nominis”: carrying over a name with a new meaning; his gloss: English “metaphor” [ed.: Greek metaphora].
• “Natural Hearing” [ed.: Aristotle’s Physics].
• “fifth/eighth book of wisdom” [ed.: Metaphysics V, VIII].
• “quiddity, whatness”: the essence of the species.
• “confusion / commensuration”: union of perfect things without / with order.
• “complexion, mixtio, commixtio”: union by substantial change of the elements; “much stronger than our word mixture.”
• “secundum quid”: one only in a qualified way.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 1, a. 6 (objections, body, replies).
• Summa Theologiae III, prologue; q. 1 prologue; q. 2 prologue (twelve articles).
• Summa Theologiae III, q. 2, a. 1 (objections, sed contra, body).
• Psalm 91 (as cited in a.6); Colossians (fullness of divinity); Habakkuk (in the middle of the years); John 1:16; John 3:17 with Chrysostom.
• Augustine, Retractions (youth and sixth age); Questions of the New and Old Testament (attributed to Augustine).
• Council of Chalcedon, determination (footnote: Part II, Act V); Cyril; Athanasian Creed; Gregory Nazianzus via Damascene.
• Boethius, On the Two Natures (definition of nature).
• Aristotle, Physics II (definition of nature); Metaphysics V (senses of nature); Metaphysics VIII (natures like numbers).
• Shakespeare: “revolts from true birth” (inferred: Romeo and Juliet, Friar Laurence); “what is a man if his chief good…” (inferred: Hamlet). Mentioned
• Summa Contra Gentiles IV (order of Saviour, sacraments, end; six heresies; hope of union with God as first reason of suitability).
• Thomas on the priesthood and on Confession (loci not given); the Sentences; Catechism of the Catholic Church (sacraments in the second part).
• Francis de Sales, Love of God; Albert (on a.3); Jerome (“poison under this word”); Dante; Mark’s Gospel (entry into Jerusalem); Peter’s confession of faith; Exodus, burning bush.

His questions #

• Would it have been so merciful to have delayed it till the end? No; the third reason: deferred, the knowledge and reverence of God and honesty of morals would have been abolished.
• Why these two comings? Chrysostom: the first to remit sins, the second to judge; first in mercy, second more in justice.
• Would you divide the six articles into two or three? Three pairs: suitability and usefulness; sin; time.
• Did he come more for original sin or actual sin? Both, but original more, because it affects the whole race and the common good.
• Where does the notion of the sixth age come from? Left open (an older division of human life applied to the world; perhaps Augustine first).
• Are there three understandings in God? No; the parallel shows how “three substances” for three hypostases misled people by etymology.
• What does “translation” mean in English, and what does Thomas mean by translatio? English: carrying over the meaning; Thomas: carrying over the name to a new meaning, what English calls metaphor.
• Why does the tree grow and the stone not? Why does the log burn and the stone not? Everything outside is the same, so the cause is within: nature as form (active), nature as matter (passive).
• What is the symbolism of the burning bush? Fire is the divine nature, bush the human; the fire not consuming the bush shows the divine does not swallow up the human.
• What is the three if it be half of four? A two, no more; natures are like numbers, and a man whose chief good is a beast’s is a beast.