M. Thomas, Ratisbon 1887; Pic- ley).

10
140 UNITY IN DUALITY
lacks none of the proper attributes of man, ^° and that the union between Godhead and manhood was formally consummated solely in the Person of the Logos.^^ It seems impossible to square the Thomistic theory with these dogmatic definitions. The sacred humanity of our Lord would not be perfecta humanitas indiminute et sine deminoratione, were it deprived of its own proper exist- ence, for it would then lack an essential property of hu- man nature ; besides, a union consummated in the divine existence would not be purely hypostatic but at the same time an unio secundum divinam exist entiam.^^ Holding as they do, in common with the theologians of other schools, that the Three Divine Persons do not exist by a " threefold relative existence," but by one absolute exist- ence common to all,^^ the Thomists cannot escape the force of this argument. " Dico, non dari in divinis tres existentias relativas, realiter inter se et virtualiter ah exi- stentia absoluta essentiae distinctas," says, e. g., Gonet.** But if the union of Christ's manhood with His Godhead were consummated in the absolute existence of the Tri- une God, then the entire Trinity would become incarnate,
80 Cfr. Concilium Chalcedon. 17, disp. i, art. 2: " Verbum di- (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, vinum supplere cxistentiam humani- n, 148) : " Nusquam sublata natura- tatis nihil est aliud giiam unionem rum differentia propter unitionem humanitatis cum Verba fuisse fac- magisque salva proprietate utriusque tarn in existentia."
naturae." Cone. Lateran. a. 649 sub 83 That the Father has this abso-
Martino I (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. lute existence from Himself, while
262): "Si quis secundum sanctos the Son has it by generation from
Patres non confitetur proprie et se- the Father, and the Holy Ghost by
cundum veritatem naturales proprie- spiration from both the others,
tales deitatis et humanitatis indimi- is irrelevant to the argument here
nute in eo \Chr%sto'\ et sine demino- under consideration.
ratione salvatas, condemnatus sit." 84 Gonet, Clypeus Theol. Thomist.,
81 Cfr. Synod. Tolet. XI, a. 675 tr. VI, disp. 3, art. 6, n. 169. Cfr. (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchir., n. St. Thomas, .S". Tlicol., 3a, qu. 17, 284): "In id quod est proprium art. 2, ad 3: "Tres personae non Filii, non quod commune Trinitati." habent nisi unum esse [i. e., exi- ts Cfr. Ysatnbert, De Incarn., qu. stere}."
CHRIST'S " DOUBLE EXISTENCE " 141
and we should no longer have a strictly Hypostatic Union, but a mere natural synthesis. Gonet and Billuart tried to obviate this difficulty by the remark that the Hypostatic Union is consummated in the absolute existence of the Trinity merely mediate et secundaria. But this is an eva- sion. All the absolute attributes of God, His wisdom, omnipotence, immensity, etc., could be similarly limited. If the uncreated supplies the created existence, it must supply it in precisely the same manner in which the Divine Personality of the Logos supplies the human personality of the Godman, i. e., primarily and immedi- ately. No other mode is conceivable.
Durandus contended that the sacred htmianity of Christ was " primarily and immediately " united with the " absolute subsistence of the Trinity," but only " sec- ondarily and mediately " with the Hypostasis of the Logos.^^ Billuart effectively refuted this theory as fol- lows: "Si Verbum terminaret nattiram humanam for- maliter et proxime per siibsistentiam communem et ab- solutam. Pater ^t Spiritus forent incarnati nan minus quant Filius. Atqui falsum consequens. Ergo et ante- cedens. Prob. sequela. Quod convenit alicui personae Trinitatis ratione alicuius attributi absoluti et comynunis, convenit toti Trinitati. Sic quia creatio, conservatio, gubernatio, into et ipsa actio unitiva iticarnationis con- veniunt uni personae, ratione oninipotentiae convenxunt omnibus." *® By substituting " existentia " for " sub- sistentia" in the above argument, it can be effectively turned against Billuart's own position. Billot attempts to solve the diffiiculty as follows: "Esse quidem est unum in divinis sicut omnia absoluta, sed tribus distinctis modis relativis habetur, ita ut esse Patris personale qua
«5 F. supra, p. 133. 89 De Incarn., diss. 6, art. 2.
142 UNITY IN DUALITY
tale non sit esse personate Filii nee Spiritus Sancti; est ergo Filius idem esse \i. e., existere] quod Pater et Spiritus Sanctus; sed cum alia relatione." ^'^ But this explanation, too, is unsatisfactory. For the principle upon which it rests could be applied to the Essence and to all the absolute attributes of God with the same force with which it is applied to His existence. Further- more it gives rise to an awkward dilemma: Either the concept of the divine relation of Filiation {filiatio divina), as such, includes or it does not include exist- ence. If it does not include it, the created existence (which is alleged to be lacking) cannot be " supplied " by the divine existence peculiar to the Logos. If the con- cept of divine Filiation does include existence, we are forced to assume " three relative existences," which is repugnant to the common teaching of theologians.®^
P) The Fathers scarcely anticipated the pivotal point at issue in the Scholastic controversy which we are considering. Like the early councils, however, they laid special emphasis on the doctrine that the Divine Logos assumed a human nature (not person) with all the specific determinations and attributes which human nature possessed before the Fall. Thus St. John of Damascus says: " Neque enim Deus Verbum quidquam eorum, quae quiim nos initio reriim fingeret naturae nostrae inseruit, non assumptum omisit, sed omnia assumpsit, puta corpus et animam intelligentem rationabilemque cum eorum proprictatihus." ^^ One of these properties of human nature is human (t. e., created) existence, and consequently this mode of ex-
8T De Verba Incarnato, p. 98, 4th so De Fide Ortlu, III, 6. For
ed., Rome 1904. additional Patristic texts we must
88 Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. refer the student to Petavius, De
III, pp. 528 sqq., Paris 1896. Incarn,, V, 6.
CHRIST'S " DOUBLE EXISTENCE " 143
istence must have formed part of the sacred humanity of Jesus Christ.®"
Some of the Fathers expressly ascribe a human ex- istence to the sacred manhood of our Lord. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria®^ draws a clear-cut distinction be- tween the proper (i. e., divine) existence of the Logos,'^ derived by eternal generation from the Father, and His (human) existence in the flesh.®^ Billuart,®* in his con- troversy with Suarez and Henno, quotes St. Sophronius against this teaching as follows : " In illo itaque [Verbo], et non per semetipsam habuit [nattira humana] existentiam unam; cum conceptione quippe Verbi haec ad siibsistendum prolata sunt." ®^ But this translation does not render the Greek text accurately. The correct translation, as given by Hardouin,®^ is as follows : " Simul enim caro, simul Dei Verbi caro . . . in illo enim et non in se \seorsum\ obtinuit [caro] existen- tiam; ®^ una cum ®* conceptione quippe Verbi haec [i. e., corpus et anima^ humana natura] producta sunt ad exi- stentiam et iinita sunt illi secundum hypostasin eo ipso momenta, quo producta sunt ad existentiam realiter veram et indiznsam." So far from advocating the Tho- mistic theory, St. Sophronius virtually rejects it by attrib- uting a separate created existence to Christ's manhood.®®
In the twelfth century the view which we defend was maintained by Euthymius Zigabenus, a Basilian monk, who flourished during the reign of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118). " Unde de Christo unam hy-
90 Cfr. Leo I, Serm., 63: "Nihil 9* De Incarn., diss. 17, art. 2.
assumpto diz'inum, nihil assumenfi 95 Synod. Oecum. VI. Act., 11.
deest humanum." , 96 Condi., t. Ill, p. 1268.
«i Adv. Nestor., I (Migne, P. G.. 97 virap^LV
LXXVI, 19). 98 5^a.
92 TJ]v idiav virapiiv, 99 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In-
^^ aapKiKTju Cwap^iv, earn., pp. 305 sqq.
144 UNITY IN DUALITY
postasin personalem praedicamus," he says, " eas vero [hypostases], quae existentiam significant, duas afHrmare licet, ne alterutram naturam sine existentia esse dicamus; nam hy postasin, quae existentiam signiUcat, in omni na- tura invenimus, personalem vero non in omni." ^^'^
Both parties to this controversy invoke the authority of St. Thomas. In spite of the learned treatise of J. B. Terrien, S. J./°^ it still remains a matter of dis- pute whether or not the Angelic Doctor taught that there is a real distinction between essence and existence.^''- It is a most difficult undertaking, at any rate, to put a " Thomistic " construction upon such passages as these : " Sicut Christus est unum simpliciter propter unitatem suppositi et duo secundum quid propter duas naturas, ita habet unum esse simpliciter propter unum esse aeter- num aeterni suppositi. Est autem et aliud esse huius suppositi, non inqiiantum est aeternum, s^d inquantum est temporaliter homo factum, quod esse etsi non sit ac- cidental, quia homo non praedicatur accidentaliter de Filio Dei, . . . non tamen est esse principale sui sup- positi, sed secundarium." ^"^ " Esse humanae naturae non est esse divinae; nee tamen simpliciter dicendum est quod Christus sit duo secundum esse, quia non ex aequo respicit utrumque esse suppositum aeternum." ^°*
100 Panopl., tit. :6. Cfr. Chr. Verbi cum Humanitate Amplissime Pesch, Praelect. Dogm., Vol. IV, p. Declarata, Paris 1894.
66, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1909. On Eu- 102 Cfr. A. Lehmen, Lehrbuch der
thymius Zigabenus (more correctly Philosophic, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 388,
Zigadenus or Zygadenus) cfr. Hur- Freiburg 1904.
ter, Nomenclator Literarius Theo- 103 De Unione Verbi, art. 4.
logiae Cath., t. II, 2nd ed., col. 12, 104 Op. cit., ad i. Some more
Innsbruck 1906. texts of the same tenor are quoted
101 S. Thomae Aquinatis Doctrina by Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 36, Sincera de Unione Hypostatica sect. 2, and by Franzelin, De Verba
Incarnato, thes. 34.
"HYPOSTASIS CHRISTI COMPOSITA" 145
5. The Phrase "Hypostasis Christi Com- posita/' — May we speak of the Hypostasis of our Lord as composite? Tiphanus vehemently denounced this phrase as "dangerous." *^^ Nev- ertheless, it was unhesitatingly employed not only by the later Scholastics but also by the Fathers of the Church and several councils since the fifth century/*'*' St. Bonaventure's remark: "Quoniam verbum compositionis calumniabile est, ideo docfores praesentis tern ports sensum . . . retinent, declinantes vocahulum composi- tionis," ^"^ merely proves that the expression "Hypostasis Christi composita/' like St. CyriFs formula "Una natura Verbi incarnata," "^ is open to misconstruction. There is no doubt that it may be used in a perfectly orthodox sense.
The term Hypostasis Christi may be taken either in a material or in a formal sense. Materially it is synony- mous with " Person of Christ " (i. e.. Logos). The Per- son of the Logos, of course, like the Person of the Father and that of the Holy Ghost, is absolutely simple. In its formal sense Hypostasis Christi means Hypostasis Christus, i. e., Christ as such, the Incarnate Word, and in this case it is quite correct to speak of a composite Hypostasis. Tiphanus himself admitted the orthodoxy of the proposition: "Christus est compositus," and conse- quently was guilty of inconsistency in decr>'ing the phrase " Hypostasis Christi composita " as inaccurate.
105 De Hypostasi et Persona, c lOT Comment, in Quatuor Libros 65-66. Sent., Ill, dist. 6, art. i, qu. 2.
106 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verba In- 108 V. supra, p. 108 sqq. camato, thes. 36.
146 UNITY IN DUALITY
Composition is the putting together of several parts or ingredients to form one whole. In the case of crea- tures the ingredients thus combined are " parts " in the strict sense of the word, because they complement and intrinsically perfect one another and the totum which they constitute. In this sense, of course, there can be no com- position in Christ, who, as the Divine Logos, is incapable of being perfected ab extra. Consequently, the humanity of Christ, though perfected and deified by its assumption into the Divine Logos, cannot be conceived strictly as a component part (compars) or ingredient of the Logos, or of the totum which it forms together with the Logos.^"^ For this reason theologians usually designate the sacred humanity of our Redeemer as quasi-pars or conceive it per modum partis, i. e., as a component part in a purely figurative sense. Hence the theological axiom : " Christus est unum ex plurihus, non totum ex parti- bus." "0
Readings : — Clemens, Die spekulative Theologie Anton Gun- thers, Koln 1853. — * J. Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 60 sqq., Miinster 1870. — F. Abert, Die Einheit des Seins in Christus nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, Ratisbon 1889. — * F. Schmid, Quaest. Selectae ex Theol. Dogmat., qu. 5, Pader- born 1891. — J. B. Terrien, S. J., S. Thomae Aquinatis Doc- trina Sincera de Unione Hypostatica Verhi cum Humanitatc Am- plissime Declarata, Paris 1894. — St. Thomas, Quaest. Disput., De Unione Verbi (ed. Paris., 1883, t. II, pp. 532 sqq.) — Wilhelm- Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 91 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901.
109 V. supra, p. 123 sqq.
Franzelin,
De
Verba
Incarnato,
110 Cfr. L. Janssens, De
Deo-
thes. 36.
Homine, Vol. I, pp. 147
sqq.;