Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
192 T. SOMLYÓI TÓTH Damascene’s De fide orthodoxa to point out that it is impossible for similes used in speaking of the divine nature and the incarnation to be exact in every way: human nature was united to Christ as a habitus or garment, not accidentally, but insofar as the Word was made visible through flesh, as a man appears in his clothes. In this way, the human nature assumed by the Word was improved, but the Word himself was not changed. The discussion is by this time very familiar, and, as Thomas notes, was presented initially an Augustine’s De diversis quaestionibus 83.36 After q. 4, on the mode of union from the perspective of the human nature assumed, comes the question on the mode of union from the perspective of the parts of the human nature assumed. Q. 5, art. 1 asks whether the Son of God assumed a true body. The first argument, made on the basis of Philippians 2,7, in similitudinem hominum factus est, suggests that what is secundum veritatem would not be spoken secundum similitudinem, so that it would seem the Son of God assumed only the likeness of a body. Like Hugh of St. Cher, Thomas explains that similitudo in the Philippians text must be understood to express the truth of the human nature in Christ, and goes on to show that the context of the passage, which adds in verse 8, factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, requires that we understand a true human nature, capable of suffering, and not a more phantasm.37 Philippians 2,6-7 is used again to establish Christ’s true humanity in order to describe and characterize it, first in the discussion of his infused knowledge, and then in the question whether the Son of God should have assumed a human nature with corporeal defects. The text is brought into art. 2 of q. 11, on infused knowledge in the soul of Christ, where the question is raised whether Christ could make use of his infused knowledge without the use of mental images. Because, as Philippians 2,7 indicates, he was in similitudinem hominum factus, and had human nature, it would seem that he could not understand without the use of 36 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 5, a. 1, p. 2453b, 2454b: “1. Dicitur enim, Philipp. 2,7, quod ’in similitudinem hominum factus est’. Sed quod est secundum veritatem, non dicitur esse secundum similitudinem... Ad Im. Dicendum, quod similitudo illa exprimit veritatem humanae naturae in Christo... Ad cuius evidentiam Apostolus subiungit quod ’factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis’, quod fieri non potuisset si esset sola similitudo phantastica”. 37 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 5, al, ad lm, p. 2454b.
