Breviloquium

Regarding the incarnate Word itself, three things present themselves for our consideration, namely, the union of natures, the fullness of charisms, and the suffering of passions for the redemption of the human race¹. — Regarding the union of natures, these three things must be considered in order to understand the mystery of the incarnation, namely, the work, the mode, and the time.

Concerning the work of the incarnation, these things are to be held according to the Christian faith: that the incarnation is the operation of the Trinity, through which the assumption of flesh by the Deity and the union of Deity with flesh take place; so that the assumption is not only of sensible flesh, but also of rational spirit according to the power of vegetating, sensing, and understanding; likewise, that the union is made not in the unity of nature, but of person, not human but divine, not assumed but assuming; not of just any person, but of the person of the Word alone; in whom so great a union is made that whatever is said of the Son of God is said of the son of man, and conversely, except for those things in which the union is expressed or a negation is enclosed².

The reason for understanding the aforesaid is this: the work of the incarnation is not only from the first principle insofar as it is effective in producing, but also insofar as it is reparative by healing, satisfying, and reconciling. Since, therefore, the incarnation, insofar as it signifies some effect, is from the first principle, which does all things by reason of its highest virtue³; and substance, virtue, and operation are wholly united and undivided in the three persons: hence it is necessary that the operation of the incarnation emanate from the whole Trinity.

But because it is from the first principle insofar as it is reparative by healing, and the whole human race had fallen and been corrupted, not only as regards the soul but also the flesh, hence it was necessary that the whole be assumed so that the whole might be healed⁴. — And since the part consisting of flesh is more known to us and farther from God, so that the naming might be more explicit, the greater humiliation more clearly expressed, and the deeper condescension more fully explained, hence that work is called not ensoulment but incarnation.

Again, because it is from the first principle insofar as it is reparative by satisfying, and satisfaction is not made except by one who both owes and can render it—and only man owes, while only God can—it was necessary that in satisfaction there be at once the concurrence of both natures, namely, divine and human. And because it is impossible for the divine nature to concur with another as a part in constituting a third, or for it to pass into another nature, or for another nature to pass into it, on account of its most perfect simplicity and immutability, hence Deity and humanity are united neither in the unity of nature nor of accident; they are united, therefore, in the unity of person and hypostasis. And since the divine nature cannot subsist in any supposit except in its own hypostasis, that union cannot be in the hypostasis or person of man, but of God; and thereby, through that union, the first principle in one of its hypostases made itself the supposit of human nature: and thus there is there only one personality and one personal unity, namely, on the part of the one assuming.

Finally, because it is from the first principle insofar as it is reparative by reconciling, and the reconciler is the mediator, while mediation properly belongs to the Son of God, therefore, also, incarnation. For it belongs to the mediator to be a mean between man and God in order to lead man back to divine knowledge, to divine conformity, and to divine filiation. But none is more fitting to be a mean than the person who produces and is produced, who is the mean of the three persons; nor is anyone more fitting to lead man back to divine knowledge than the Word, by which the Father declares himself, which is capable of union with flesh, just as a word is capable of union with the voice⁵; nor is anyone more fitting to lead man back to divine conformity than he who is the image of the Father; none is more fitting to lead him back to adoptive filiation than the natural Son: and thereby none is more fitting to become the son of man than the Son of God himself⁶.

Since, therefore, the Son of man and the Son of God are altogether the same by reason of the incarnation, and “whatever are the same to one and the same are the same among themselves⁷”: hence the communication of idioms necessarily takes place, unless it is a word in which some contradiction is included; such are those in which the relation of the union of one nature to another is included, such as to unite, to be incarnate, to assume, and to be assumed; or the negation of something whose opposite belongs to the other, such as to begin to be, to be created, and the like, in which an objection is brought against the foregoing rule on account of the aforesaid cause.