CHAPTER I

THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
We shall base our exposition of the Hypostatic Union on the decrees of the Fourth General Council of Chal- cedon (A. D. 451). Its definition of the dogma is more explicit even than that of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), which is generally utilized for this purpose.
Here is the canon of Chalcedon : " Sequentes igittir s. Patres, umim eundemqiie confiteri Filium et Dominum nostrum lesum Christum consonanter omnes docemus, . . . unum eundemque Christum Filium Dominum uni- genitum, in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutahiliter, in- divise, inseparabiliter agnoscendum,^ nusqiiam sublatd differentiq naturarum propter unitionem magisque salvd proprietate utriusque naturae, et in unam personam atque siibsistentiam concurrente,^ non in duas personas partitum aut dimsum, sed unum eundemque Filium et unigenitum Deum Verburn Dominum lesum Christum ^ — Following, therefore, the holy Fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we do with one voice teach one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten, acknowledged to be in two na-
1 '£;» Svo (pvaeaiv [aliter: ^k Sio 2 Ka2 els ev vpoffajiroi/ Kal (liav
^vaewv ; on this incorrect reading vir6aTa cfr. Petavius, £>« /ncarn.. Ill, 6, ii] ^ Ovk ei's 5io vpoffwira fxepi^o-
aavyxvTios^ dTpewrws^ ddiatperus, fievov ^ diaipovfievov, d\X' iva Kal dxwpt'ffTwj. rbv aiirbv viby fiovoyev^ Qeby
A670J', Kvpiov 'Ivaovv 'KpuTToy.
87
88 THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
tures, without confusion, change, division, separation; the distinction of natures being by no means destroyed by their union ; but rather the distinction of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person and one Hypostasis; not in something that is parted or divided into two persons, but in one and the same and Only- Begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." * A careful analysis of this dogmatic definition shows that the Hypostatic Union may be regarded either (i) as the personal unity of Christ in two natures, or (2) as a union of two natures which remain distinct ; this union may again be regarded (3) as absolutely inseparable.
General Readings : — * St. Thomas Aquinas, 5". TheoL, 3a, qu. 2-15, and the Commentators. — C. von Schatzler, Das Dogma von der Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes, § 3 sqq., Freiburg 1870. — * Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, §§ 215-227, Freiburg 1878 (summarized in Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic The- ology, Vol, II, pp. 70 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901). — * Card. Fran- zelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 16-40, Rome 1893. — Oswald, Christologie, §§ 5-6, Paderborn 1887. — * Stentrup, Christologia, Vol. I, thes. 16-38, Innsbruck 1882. — *Maranus, De Divinitate Christi, etc., Wiirzburg 1859. •
On the teaching of the Fathers see * Petavius, De Incarnatione, III-IX, Antwerp 1700. — ^ Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., §§ 29-51, Freiburg 1895. — J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, EngHsh tr.. Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; Vol. II, 1914; Vol. Ill, 1916.
4 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 148.