Thomas Aquinas · 2403 of 3516
Article. 5 - Whether each of the Divine Persons could have assumed human nature?
Objection 1: It would seem that no other Divine Person could have assumed human nature except the Person of the Son. For by this assumption it has been brought about that God is the Son of Man. But it was not becoming that either the Father or the should be said to be a Son; for this would tend to the confusion of the Divine Persons. Therefore the Father and could not have assumed flesh.
Objection 2: Further, by the Divine men have come into possession of the of sons, according to Rom. 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit of of sons." But sonship by is a participated likeness of natural sonship which does not belong to the Father nor the ; hence it is said (Rom. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew He also to be made conformable to the image of His Son." Therefore it seems that no other Person except the Person of the Son could have become .
Objection 3: Further, the Son is said to be sent and to be begotten by the temporal nativity, inasmuch as He became . But it does not belong to the Father to be sent, for He is innascible, as was said above (FP, Q[32], A[3]; FP, Q[43], A[4]). Therefore at least the Person of the Father cannot become .
On the contrary, Whatever the Son can do, so can the Father and the , otherwise the power of the three Persons would not be one. But the Son was able to become . Therefore the Father and the were able to become .
I answer that, As was said above (AA[1],2,4), assumption implies two things, viz. the act of the one assuming and the term of the assumption. Now the principle of the act is the Divine power, and the term is a Person. But the Divine power is indifferently and commonly in all the Persons. Moreover, the nature of Personality is common to all the Persons, although the personal properties are different. Now whenever a power regards several things indifferently, it can terminate its action in any of them indifferently, as is plain in rational powers, which regard opposites, and can do either of them. Therefore the Divine power could have united human nature to the Person of the Father or of the , as It united it to the Person of the Son. And hence we must say that the Father or the could have assumed flesh even as the Son.
Reply to Objection 1: The temporal sonship, whereby Christ is said to be the Son of Man, does not constitute His Person, as does the eternal Sonship; but is something following upon the temporal nativity. Hence, if the name of son were transferred to the Father or the in this manner, there would be no confusion of the Divine Persons.
Reply to Objection 2: Adoptive sonship is a certain participation of natural sonship; but it takes place in us, by appropriation, by the Father, Who is the principle of natural sonship, and by the gift of the , Who is the love of the Father and Son, according to Gal. 4:6: "God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father." And therefore, even as by the of the Son we receive adoptive sonship in the likeness of His natural sonship, so likewise, had the Father become , we should have received adoptive sonship from Him, as from the principle of the natural sonship, and from the as from the common bond of Father and Son.
Reply to Objection 3: It belongs to the Father to be innascible as to eternal birth, and the temporal birth would not destroy this. But the Son of God is said to be sent in regard to the , inasmuch as He is from another, without which the would not suffice for the nature of mission.