Reply Obj. 2: This saying of Damascene may be taken in two ways:
First, as referring to human nature, which, as it is in one individual alone,
has not the nature of a common species, but only inasmuch as either it is
abstracted from every individual, and considered in itself by the mind, or
according as it is in all individuals. Now the Son of God did not assume human
nature as it exists in the pure thought of the intellect, since in this way He
would not have assumed human nature in reality, unless it be said that human
nature is a separate idea, just as the Platonists conceived of man without matter.
But in this way the Son of God would not have assumed flesh, contrary to what
is written (Luke 24:39), A spirit hath
not flesh and bones as you see Me to have. Neither can it be said that the
Son of God assumed human nature as it is in all the individuals of the same
species, otherwise He would have assumed all men. Therefore it remains, as
Damascene says further on (De Fide Orth.
iii, 11) that He assumed human nature in atomo,
i.e., in an individual; not, indeed, in
another individual which is a suppositum or a person of that nature, but in the
Person of the Son of God.
Second, this saying of Damascene
may be taken not as referring to human nature, as if from the union of soul and
body one common nature (viz. human) did not result, but as referring to the
union of the two natures Divine and human: which do not combine so as to form a
third something that becomes a common nature, for in this way it would become
predicable of many, and this is what he is aiming at, since he adds: For there was not generated, neither will
there ever be generated, another Christ, Who from the Godhead and manhood, and
in the Godhead and manhood, is perfect God and perfect man. STh., III q.2 a.5 ad 2 in (Saint Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae [trans. Laurence Shapcote; The Works of St.
Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas Institute; Steubenville, Ohio:
Emmaus Academic, 2018], 26-27)
Latin:
Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Damasceni potest intelligi
dupliciter. Uno modo, ut referatur ad humanam naturam. Quae quidem non habet
rationem communis speciei secundum quod est in uno solo individuo, sed secundum
quod est abstracta ab omni individuo, prout in nuda contemplatione
consideratur; vel secundum quod est in omnibus individuis. Filius autem Dei non
assumpsit humanam naturam prout est in sola consideratione intellectus, quia
sic non assumpsisset ipsam rem humanae naturae. Nisi forte diceretur quod
humana natura esset quaedam idea separata, sicut Platonici posuerunt hominem
sine materia. Sed tunc filius Dei non assumpsisset carnem, contra id quod
dicitur Luc. ult., spiritus carnem et
ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Similiter etiam non potest dici
quod filius Dei assumpsit humanam naturam prout est in omnibus individuis
eiusdem speciei, quia sic omnes homines assumpsisset. Relinquitur ergo, ut
Damascenus postea dicit in eodem libro, quod assumpserit naturam humanam in
atomo, idest in individuo, non quidem in
alio individuo, quod sit suppositum vel hypostasis illius naturae, quam in
persona filii Dei.
Alio modo potest intelligi dictum
Damasceni ut non referatur ad naturam humanam, quasi ex unione animae et
corporis non resultet una communis natura, quae est humana, sed est referendum
ad unionem duarum naturarum, divinae scilicet et humanae, ex quibus non
componitur aliquid tertium, quod sit quaedam natura communis; quia sic illud
esset natum praedicari de pluribus. Et hoc ibi intendit. Unde subdit, neque enim generatus est, neque unquam
generabitur alius Christus, ex deitate et humanitate, in deitate et humanitate,
Deus perfectus, idem et homo perfectus. (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae [The Works of St. Thomas Aquinas 19; Green Bay, Wis.: Aquinas
Institute; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2018], 26--27)
Quoting Luke 24:39 again, St. Thomas
records that Christ said He had flesh and bones. Now, flesh and bones are
formed of corruptible elements. Therefore Christ had a fleshly and earthly
body. A heavenly body would be incorruptible, whereas Christ suffered His
Passion and death in His earthly body. (Mauro Gagliardi, The Mystery of
Christ our Savior: The Person, Life, and Redemption of Jesus According to St.
Thomas Aquinas [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2025], 41)
