Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
188 T. SOMLYÓI TÓTH become visible in it, just as a man might put on a garment and thus present himself to others.26 3. Quaestio de unione Verbi incarnati and Summa theologiae It is not altogether clear whether the Quaestio disputata de unione Verbi incarnati preceded the writing of the Summa’s Tertia pars, or followed later.27 A comparison of the use of the Philippians text in the two works gives no certain indication of the sequence of production although — as we shall see — an argument that is developed in the Quaestio by explicit reference to the Philippians text is presented in the Summa theologiae with an allusion to forma Dei and forma servi as if the implications had been elaborated beforehand. In the Quaestio de unione, Philippians 2,6-7 appears twice: once, in the context of the first article, on whether the union is made in the person or in the nature, and again in the fourth article, on whether there is only one act of existence (actus essendi) in Christ. The fourteenth argument in article one of the Quaestio poses the problem that nothing that is comprehended under another may extend itself to a third — with is to say, that what is in one place cannot a thing-of-nature — is comprehended under one nature, then it cannot extend itself to another nature. It seems, then, that since the person of the Word or Son is a suppositum of the divine nature, he cannot extend himself to be the suppositum of another nature unless one nature is to be produced from two. Thomas’ reply concedes that the person of the Word is, indeed, comprehended under the divine nature, and cannot extend himself to something beyond it. By reason of its infinitude, however, the divine nature comprehends all finite nature. Hence, the person of the Word assuming human nature did not extend himself beyond his divine nature but rather took up what was inferior to it. In support of this explanation, Philippians 2,6-7 is adduced to show that the Son of God, who was in the 26 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib.4, cap.37, vol.3, pp. 324 (3759), the principal culprit in this opinion was Abelard. 27 See WEISHEIPL, Friar Thomas, pp. 365-366.
