Folia Theologica 9. (1998)
Tibor Somlyói Tóth: "Habitu inventus ut homo"
HABITU INVENTUS UT HOMO” 187 be anointed by the Holy Spirit, the name “Christ” the would apply to the man only. In that case, the words of Philippians 2,5-6 Hoc sentite in vobis quod et in Christo Jesu... would apply only to the man, although the sentence continues,... qui cum informa Dei esset — whiclj refers to the pre-existence of Christ in the nature of God and so also in equality to God. Moreover, just as the man was said to be exalted to the right hand of God, so also Philippians 2,7 indicates that the Son of God “emptied himself’. It is possible to speak of the exaltation of the man and the self-emptying of God only by reason of the union of the two in one hypostasis, subject, or person.24 In his discussion of the error of Eutyches, who held that the union of God and man was in one nature and not in one person or hypostasis, Thomas brings forward the Philippians text to show that the two natures retained their distinctiveness even after the union. The form of God is not to be identified with the forma servi said to have been assumed by Christ, because one cannot assume what one already has, and the person of Christ was in the form of God by nature and prior to the incarnation. Moreover, the form of God could not be said to have been “emptied” or altered by the union of the two natures, since it would then cease to be the form of God — just as the form of servant would also cease to be precisely the form of servant if it were corrupted or changed by the union. The two natures, therefore, must be seen to remain distinct in a union which took place in the person of Christ.25 Subsequently, Thomas addresses the problem posed by those of his predecessors who held that the body and soul of Christ did not constitute one aliquid, a position derived by Thomas from the third opinion or habitus theory of the incarnation. The habitus theory, as we have seen, could suggest that the union of God and man in Christ was accidental, and that the human nature was not something in itself, but a mere qualification of the divine. In order to clarity this, Thomas points out that the habitus of Philippians 2,7 must be understood metaphorically, as if saying that the Word in a certain sense put on human nature so as to 24 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib.4, cap. 34, vol. 3, pp. 316-317 (3718-21). 25 AQUINAS, Summa contra Gent., lib.4, cap.35, vol.3, pp. 319 (3728): “Non autem potest dici quod sit eadem forma Dei, et forma servi, nihil enim accipit quod iam habet, et sic, si eadem est forma Dei et forma servi, sunt iam formam Dei habuisset, non accepisset formam servi... Et sic oportet dicere, secundum verba Apostoli, quod in Christo, etiam post unionem, fuerunt duae formae, Ergo duas naturae.”
