Introduction

1. The Plan of the Treatise

In treating of the dogma of the Divine Trinity we based our exposition upon the “Athanasian Creed.”¹ According to this same ecclesiastical symbol we will also divide the treatise on Christology, treating first of “Duality in Unity,”² or the constitutive elements of Christ, and second of “Unity in Duality,”³ or the Hypostatic Union.

The significant parallel between the two dogmatic treatises seems to point to an analogical relation between their respective subjects. Such a relation does indeed exist. Both treatises are concerned with transcendental mysteries which revolve about the concepts of “Nature” and “Hypostasis,” and their mutual relations.

It would not, however, be correct to conclude from this analogy that Christ, in respect of the relation of Nature to Person, is a perfect image of the Trinity. There is a very essential distinction. In the Blessed Trinity one Divine Nature subsists in three divine Hypostases (or Persons), who possess a real and identical nature in common; whereas in Christ two distinct and complete natures, one divine, the other human, subsist in one Hypostasis, i.e., the Divine Person of the Logos. Or, to put it somewhat differently, the Blessed Trinity forms a real Trinity of Persons in an absolute Unity of Nature, whereas in Christ there is a duality of Natures in an absolute Unity of Person.

This twofold element in the constitution of the God-man is clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed:

“For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;⁴ God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man: yet He is not two, but one Christ;⁵ one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance: but by unity of Person.”⁶

2. Why the Treatise Is Divided This Way

Defining the essential constitution of man in our treatise on Dogmatic Anthropology⁷ we answered two questions: how many constitutive elements are there in man, and how are these elements united? We ascertained, by the light of Divine Revelation, that there is in man a real “duality in unity,” inasmuch as he is composed of a material body essentially informed by a spiritual soul.

Similarly, though not in precisely the same sense, we may ask the same two questions of Christ. Revelation answers them thus: first, there are two constitutive elements in Christ, a divine nature and a human nature; second, these two natures are united hypostatically. The Athanasian Creed points out this very analogy when it says: “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ.”⁸

According to Cardinal Franzelin, the dogma of the Incarnation may be most effectively expounded from four points of view:⁹ Who assumed human nature? What did the Son of God assume? How are Divinity and humanity united in Christ? And why did the Son of God hypostatically assume a human nature? The answer to the first question (quis?) is: the Divine Logos. The answer to the second (quid?) is: a real and genuine human nature. The answer to the third (quomodo?) is: Godhead and manhood are hypostatically united in Christ. The answer to the fourth (ad quid?) is: the Son of God assumed flesh in order to redeem the human race.

Of these four questions, the first three alone belong to Christology proper; the fourth finds its place in Soteriology.

The division we have chosen coincides materially, though not formally, with Cardinal Franzelin’s. The only difference is that we base our exposition on the Athanasian Creed. Our reasons for doing so are purely didactic: the concept “duality in unity” contains the reply to the questions quis? and quid?, while the answer to quomodo? is supplied by the concept of “unity in duality.”

3. A Note on the Athanasian Creed Itself

It may be objected that the so-called Athanasian Creed is not the work of St. Athanasius and lacks the authority of a primitive symbol. We reply that, though “of Western origin and … composed (probably) during the fifth century in Southern Gaul,”¹⁰ this symbol is “an admirable resume of the doctrine of Athanasius… In the West it was recited at Prime since the ninth century, was used by the clergy in giving popular instruction as a summary of Christian doctrine, and was held in particular esteem as a basis and criterion of ecclesiastical faith.”¹¹ Dr. Künstle holds¹² that the Athanasian Creed was written in Spain against Priscillianism, while H. Brewer¹³ attributes it to St. Ambrose.

We now enter upon the treatment of Christology according to the division already indicated: first, Duality in Unity, or the Constitutive Elements of Christ; second, Unity in Duality, or the Hypostatic Union of the two Natures in Christ.

Further Reading

Among the Fathers: Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi — Cyril of Alexandria — Leontius, Adv. Nest. et Eutych. — Maximus Confessor. Their teaching is summarized by St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, I–III. On Theodoret see A. Bertram, Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis Doctrina Christologica, Hildesheim 1883. On St. Cyril, cfr. A. Rehrmann, Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien, Hildesheim 1902. Also worth consulting: St. Augustine’s Enchiridion; St. Ambrose, De Incarnat. Dominicae Sacram.; Fulgentius, De Incarnatione Filii Dei.

Among the Schoolmen: St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III, qu. 1–26 (summarized in Freddi-Sullivan, Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, St. Louis 1904; A. Vonier, The Personality of Christ, London 1915); St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, IV, 27 sqq. — Billuart, De Incarnatione — Salmanticenses, De Incarn. — Suarez, De Incarn. — Bellarmine, De Christo — De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnationis — Gregory of Valentia, De Incarn. Divini Verbi — Ysambert, De Mysterio Incarnationis.

Later theological writers: Bautz, Einig, Jungmann, Heinrich, Hurter, Hunter, van Noort, in their respective textbooks — Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato — F. A. Stentrup, De Verbo Incarnato, I: Christologia — L. Billot, De Verbo Incarnato — Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. IV — G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol. — L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, I: Christologia — C. v. Schazler, Das Dogma von der Menschwerdung Gottes — Oswald, Die Erlösung in Christo Jesu — Scheeben, Dogmatik (summarized in Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology) — H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Bampton Lectures) — E. C. Minjard, L’Homme-Dieu — I. Souben, Le Verbe Incarné — E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert — W. Drum, art. “Incarnation” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII.

On the history of the dogma: Schwane, Dogmengeschichte — J. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christologischen Standpunkte — H. Kihn, Patrologie — J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas.

Against Modernism: M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel — M. E. Mangenot, Christologie, Commentaire des Propositions XXVII–XXXVIII du Décret du Saint-Office “Lamentabili.” On the Christological teaching of St. Paul, cfr. F. Prat, La Théologie de Saint Paul, Vol. II, pp. 165–243.

Notes