Folia Theologica 9. (1998)

Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"

“HABITU INVENTUS UT HOMO”

185

humana natura. Est ergo Filius in natura divina. Non est igi- 18

tur creatura.

As a further refutation of the Arians’ use of the Johannine text, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14,28), to support their position, Thomas argues from the Philippians text that although the Son is less than the Father by virtue of his assumption of the form of a servant, he remains equal to the Father by virtue of his divine form or nature.18 19

In the section on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (lib. 4, cap. 15-26), Thomas brings Philippians 2,6 into his argument to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Son and the Father. The Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of Christ because he is distinct from Christ by relation only, and not by nature or form. Thomas then makes the same point that he made in the commentary on Philippians 2,6 that, because there is no material distinction of persons, there is only one form or essence in God. It follows that although the persons of the Trinity are distinct according to relation, they are in fact one in nature.20

Aquinas begins the section on Christ’s incarnation (cap. 27-45) with a chapter on the tradition found in scripture, including Philippians 2,6-7, whereby Christ is shown to be truly God and truly man.21 In the next chapter, discussing the error of Photinus, Thomas uses Philippians 2,6-7 to demonstrate the assumption of human nature by the pre-existent

18 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib. 4, cap. 7, vol. 3, p. 254 (3413): “Per formán autem Dei non aliud intelligitur quam natura divina: sicut per formán servi non in- telligitur aliud quam humana natura. Est ergo Filius in natura divina. Non est igitur creatura.”

19 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib. 4, cap. 8, vol. 3, p. 257 (3430): “Ostendit autem Apostolus eum esse minoratum secundum assumptionem formam servilis, ita tamen quod Deo Patri aequalis existât secundum formam divinam: dicit enim, ad Philipp. 2,6...”

20 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib. 4, cap. 24, vol. 3, p. 294 (3612): “Quae quidem differentia divinis personis non convenit, cum earum sit una forma, sicut una essentia: secundum illud Apostoli, Philipp. 2,6 , de Filio dicentis, qui cum in forma Dei essent, scilicet Patris”.

21 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib. 4, cap. 30, vol. 3, p. 305 (3668): “Dicitur igitur Filius Dei descendisse secundum hoc quod terrenum substantiam sibi copulavit: sicut et Apostolus eum ’exinanitium’ dicit, inquantum formam servi accepit...”