Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
194 T. SOMLYÓI TÓTH according as it stands for the person of the Son of God”.40 Within the same question, art. 12 asks whether Christ, according as he is man, is a hypostasis or person. In the first argument, Philippians 2,7 is used to demonstrate the full humanity of Christ, with the implication that he must therefore also be a person of human nature. Thomas’ reply distinguishes between what is appropriate to all men subsisting in human nature — that they are persons — and what is special to Christ, whose person is not caused by the principle of human nature, but is eternal and divine. Only because Christ’s person is divine, does his human nature not have the personality of its own that would be found in an individual of human nature not united to the divine nature.41 Q. 17, like article 4 of the Quaestio disputata de unione, is concerned with the unity in esse of Christ. The first two points of art. 1, asking whether Christ is one or two, allude to Philippians 2,6-7 by way of quotations from Augustine’s De Trinitate and Enchiridion.42 Thomas’ replies make clear that the forma Dei and forma servi are indeed two distinct natures, but that there is only one suppositum or person.43 Q. 20, on Christ’s relationship with the Father, includes the problem of how Christ can be both equal to the Father and less than the Father. Art. 1 asks whether it may be said that Christ is subject to the Father. In his sed contra, Thomas quotes Augustine’s explanation — used previously in his commentary on book three of the Sentences, dist. II, q.l, in the discussion of whether the Son of God is a creature — which shows that the Son of God is equal to the Father in his divine nature, and less than the Father in the forma servi, or human nature. The reply to the article indicates three ways in which Christ’s human nature is less than 40 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 16, a. 1, p. 2527b: “Sed contra est quod dicitur Philipp. 2,6... Resp.: ...Quia ergo persona Filii Dei, pro qua supponit hoc nomen Deus, est suppositum naturae humanae, vere et propriae hoc nomen homo potest praedicari de hoc nomine Deus, secundum quod supponit pro persona Filii Dei”. 41 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 16, a. 12, p. 2538b, 2539a: “1. Illud enim quod convenit cuilibet homo convenit Christo secundum quod est homo; est enim aliis hominibus similis, secundum illud Philipp. 2,7...” 42 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q.17, a.l, p.2539a: “2. Praeterea. Ubicumque est aliud et aliud, sunt duo. Sed Christus est aliud et aliud; dicit enim Augustinus in Enchir.: Cum in forma Dei esset..., formam servi accepit; utrumque unus, sed aliud propter Verbum, aliud propter hominem. Ergo Christus est duo.” 43 AQUINAS, Summa theol., 3a, q. 17, a.l, p.2540-41 a
