Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
“HABITU INVENTUS UT HOMO” 179 Father. Adoptive sonship, however, would imply the acquisition by grace of what is already proper to him by his divine nature, and is therefore a matter of concession.3 The question whether the Son of God is a creature again requires a distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures. The second argument of the article on this problem states that all that is subject to or less than God is a creature, and therefore — as the Arians held — since the Son of God is subject to the Father he must be a creature. Thomas’ reply makes use of Augustine’s De Trinitate, book one, and Philippians 2,6-7 to distinguish between the assumed nature of Christ, in which he is less than the Father, and his divine nature, in which he is equal to the Father. The Son, therefore, is less than, or subject to, the Father only with reference to the assumed human nature or with reference to the Father as generative principle or origin of the Son. The latter relationship does not, however, imply any inequality of nature.4 In the discussion of Christ’s salvific work, his humility in taking on the form of a servant is introduced into the question of whether the passion was necessary to make satisfaction for sin. The third introductory argument holds that the humility of Christ in “emptying himself’ and taking on the “form of a servant” should have been adequate satisfaction for the pride of Adam, who attempted to seize divinity per rapinam. Thomas answers briefly that Adam’s transgression was not only pride, 3 AQUINAS, In Sent. 3, dist. 10, q.2, art. 2, quaestincula 3, pp. 345-346; 348: “Ad 3m dicendum quod Christus cum dicitur servus, important subjectionem tantum. Unde Christus, secundum quod homo, dicitur servus, sicut et minor Patre. Non autem importat acquistionem per gratiam eius quod ei convenit per naturam, sicut filius adoptivus...” 4 AQUINAS, In Sent. 3, dist. 11, q.l, art. 1, p. 357, 360: “Ad 2m dicendum quod sicut Augustinus docet in De Trinitate (c.7-8) omnia quae minoritationem aut subjectionem circa Filium Dei ponere videntur, vel referenda sunt ad naturam assumptam secundum quam minor est Patre, in forma Dei manens aequalis Patri ut dicitur ad Philip. 2,6, vel referendum est ad commendationem principii. Secundum quod Pater dicitur principium Filii, secundum hoc dicitur major, quamvis Filius non sit minor ut dicit Hilarius (De Trinitate, lib. 9, n. 54 et 55; — A Szentháromságról, ford. Gál Ferenc, Budapest, 1985, Ókeresztény írók 10., 224.).
