Part I Chapter II §1: The Reality and Integrity of Christ's Sacred Humanity

Chapter II: The Humanity of Christ

§1: Reality and Integrity of Christ’s Sacred Humanity

SECTION i REALITY AND INTEGRITY OF CHRIST’S SACRED HUMANITY

Article 1: The Reality of Christ’s Sacred Humanity, as Defined Against the Docetae

THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S SACRED HUMANITY, AS DEFINED AGAINST THE DOCETAE i. Docetism and the Church. — In the course of the first four centuries of the Christian era sundry heretics asserted that our Blessed Redeemer was not a real man, but merely bore the semblance of a man, and that His body was a mere phantasm (WyM»

4* DUALITY IN UNITY Manichaeans and Priscillianists of the third and fourth. These heretics were at one in contending that matter (hyle) is the seat of evil and that God would have subjected Himself to contamination by assuming a material body.8 b) In the early days of Christianity the Church simply bound her children to her official form of Baptism (now called the Apostles’ Creed), which in its articles on the conception, birth, and crucifixion of Christ plainly debars the illusionist theory. We have no authentic record of any formal definition of the faith against the Priscillianists. The anti-Priscillianist profession of faith erroneously attributed to a Council of Toledo (A. D. 447) is in reality the work of an anonymous Spanish bishop.4 ” Credimus,” we read therein, ”… nec imaginarium corpus out phantasmatis alicuius in eo [sett. Christo] fuisse, sed solidum et verum; hunc et esuriisse et sitiisse et doluisse et flevisse et omnes corporis iniurias pertulisse — We believe that the body of Christ was not imaginary, nor a mere phantasm, but real and substantial, and that He experienced hunger, and thirst, and pain, and grief, and all the sufferings of the body.” 5 The Docetic heresy was repeatedly condemned. At the Second Council of Lyons (A. D. 1274) a profession of faith was submitted by a number of bishops who represented the Greek Emperor Michael Palaeologus.6 This document contains the following passage: “Credimus ipsum Filium Dei … Deutn verum et hominem verum, 8 Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of 6 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, EnChurch History, Vol. I, pp. 83 sqq., chiridion, n. 19. 90 sqq., London 19 10. 6 Cfr. Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Man4 See K. Kunstle, Antipriscilliana, ual of Universal Church ■ History, pp. 30 sqq., Freiburg 1905. Vol. II, pp. 814 sqq. propriutn in utraque natura atque perfectum, non adoptivum, nec phantasticum, sed unum et unicum filium Dei — We believe that the Son of God [is] true God and true man, proper and perfect in both natures, not an adoptive or fantastic, but the one and only-begotten Son of God.” 7 A very important dogmatic definition is the famous Decretum pro Iacobitis, promulgated by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439. This decree condemns seriatim all Christological heresies, beginning with those of Ebion, Cerinthus, and Marcion, down to the Monothelite vagaries of Macarius of Antioch. Against Docetism it says: ” Anathematizat [Ecclesia] etiatn Manichceum cum sectatoribus suis, qui Dei Filium non verum corpus, sed phantasticum sumpsisse somniantes humanitatis in Christo veritatem penitus sustulerunt, necnon Valentinum asserentem Dei Filium nihil de Virgine Maria cepisse, sed corpus coeleste sumpsisse atque transiisse per uterum Virginis, sicut per aquaeductum defluens aqua transcurrit — [The Church] anathematizes also Mani, together with his followers, who, imagining that the Son of God assumed not a true but an apparitional body, utterly deny Christ’s manhood. [She likewise condemns] Valentinus, who asserts that the Son of God took naught from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a celestial body and passed through the Virgin’s womb as water flows through an aqueduct.” 8 2. The Teaching of Divine Revelation. — The ecclesiastical definitions just quoted are firmly grounded in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 7 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchi- 8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 462. ridion, n. 710. 4 a) Christ’s manhood is so manifestly in evidence throughout the Synoptic Gospels that we can content ourselves with citing but a few of the many available texts. Again and again He speaks of Himself as the “Son of Man.” 9 While it may be readily allowed that in the mouth of the Redeemer this title means far more than a mere assertion of His humanity,10 it can surely not be reconciled with the assumption of a merely fictitious or apparitional body; for else He could not have told the Jews: 11 “Now you seek to kill 12 me, a man who have spoken the truth to you.” In manifesting Himself to the two disciples at Emmaus, after the Resurrection, He showed them His glorified body, which bore the marks of the Crucifixion, saying: 13 “See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see : for a spirit 14 hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.” A visible and tangible body of flesh and bone cannot be a phantasm; it must be real and material. In perfect consonance with this realism is the Scriptural use of the term “flesh,” which leaves no doubt whatever as to the materiality of the man Jesus. St. John does not say: “The Word was made man”; he employs the far more graphic phrase : “The Word was made flesh.” 15 14 Spiritus, wvcvfia, *’• a pure spirit, wraith. 13 Luke XXIV, 39. 11 John VIII, 40. diroKTcivai. 15 John I, 14. In vain did the Docetae bolster their contention by an appeal to Rom. VIII, 3: God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin. 16 ” Likeness ” here is not synonymous with ” semblance/’ but denotes identity of nature. St. Paul wishes to say that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with ours except as touching sin. Cfr. Heb. IV, 15 : ” For we have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities : but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” Another favorite passage with the Docete was Phil. II, 7, where St. Paul attributes to the Son of God ” the form of a servant.” 17 But the expression ” form of a servant ” can no more mean ” semblance of man ” than ” form of God * 18 in the preceding verse means * semblance of God.” 19 b) The Fathers rigorously maintained the reality of Christ’s manhood, as is evidenced by the sharply anti-Docetic tenor of the seven genuine Epistles 20 of St. Ignatius of Antioch. «) To quote but one passage:21 “And He [Christ] suffered truly, even as He truly raised Himself up, not as some unbelievers say, that He suffered in appearance, existing themselves in ap16 ” Deus Filium suum mittens in 20 On these Epistles cfr. Bardensimilitudinem carnis peccati hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 30 bfxoiwiKLTi eapicds dfiaprlas) ’ sqq. 17 “Who being in the form of 21 Kal d\rf0m Hade, &s tcai God, thought it not robbery to be dXifOws dviffrijaev iavr6vf oi>x equal with God; but emptied him- tiffwep Awurrol rives \4yovai9 t6 self, taking the form of a servant dojeetV atirdy irerovOivai., airol ro (forma servi, fxop

46 DUALITY IX UNITY pearance;” — that is to say, if Christ suffered only in appearance, they who assert this, themselves have a merely apparitional existence, and thus we should land in utter scepticism. In the West Tertullian vigorously refuted the Docetic errors of Marcion and his adherents by pointing out their absurd consequences : ” Quomodo in Ulo [scil. Christo] vera erunt, si ipse non fuit verus, si non vere habuit in se, quod [cruci] figeretur, quod moreretur, quod sepeliretur et resuscitareturf Carnetn scilicet sanguine suffusam, ossibus structam, nervis intextam, venis implexam, quae nasci et mori novit? ” 22 P) But the early Fathers were not satisfied with a bare statement of the dogma ; they sought to explain our Lord’s humanity theologically and philosophically. Their favorite mode of argumentation was that familiarly known as deductio ad absurdum. Docetism is subversive of the very foundations of Christianity, they said, for if Christ had not a genuine human body, the entire work of Redemption would be nugatory. ” Sequitur,” says Tertullian,28 ” ut omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt, mendacio gesta sint… . Eversum est igitur totum Dei opus, totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus; mors Christi negatur, … negatd vero morte nec de resurrectione constat” ~^%^The Docetic heresy is also opposed to the dogma of \hrist’s Divinity. Non erat says the same writer,24 1D# Came Christi, c. 5. 24 Tertullian, /. c, III, 8. \ Adv. Marcion., Ill, 8. DOCETISM 47 “quod videbatur, et quod erat, mentiebatur: caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde Christus Deus nec Deus. Cur enim non etiam Dei phantasma portaverit?” And St. Augustine writes : ” If the body of Christ was a mere phantasm, Christ was a deceiver; and if He was a deceiver, He is not the truth. But Christ is the truth ; consequently His body was not a phantasm.” 25 Needless to remark, the Docetic theory was not apt to kindle enthusiasm for the faith or eagerness to lay down one’s life in its defense. * If all this was a mere semblance [i. e., if Christ suffered only in appearance]/’ 26 exclaims St. Ignatius,27 my handcuffs, too, are an illusion. Why, then, did I give myself up to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts?” 28 The Docetic hypothesis is furthermore destructive of natural certitude. For to assert that Christ and His Apostles were either idiots or impostors, is to fly in the face of historic evidence and common sense. Such a proceeding must lead to absolute scepticism. St. Irenaeus effectively urges this argument : ” How can these [Docetic heretics] imagine that they are engaged in a real controversy, if their master [Christ] had merely an imaginary existence? … Whatever they say and do is purely imaginary, and we may well ask : Since they are not men, but brute beasts, are not they themselves parading in the guise of human beings?“29 25 “Si phantasma fuit corpus Chicago 1909; Tixeront, History of Christi, fefellit Christus, et si fefel- Dogmas, I, pp. 124 sq. lit, Veritas non est. Est autem ve- 29 * Quomodo enim ipsi vere se ritas Christus: non igitur fuit phan- putant disputare, quando magister tasma corpus eius (LXXXIII, eorum putativus fuit? … PutatiQuae si., qu. 14.) vum est igitur et non Veritas omne 28 to SokcIv* apud eos. Et nunc iam quaeritur, 27 Ep. ad Smyrn., c. 4. ne forte, quum et ipsi homines non 28 On the Christology of Ignatius, sint sed muta animalia, hominum see J. C. Granbery, Outline of New umbras apud plurimos perferant.” Testament Christology, pp. no sqq., (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 5.) 48 DUALITY IN UNITY Readings: — Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, London 1906. — J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc., London 1874. — J. P. Arendzen, art. “Docetae” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V.

Article 2: The Integrity of Christ’s Sacred Humanity, as Defined Against Arianism and Apollinarianism

THE INTEGRITY OF CHRIST^ SACRED HUMANITY AS DEFINED AGAINST ARIANISM AND APOLLINARIANISM i. The Heresy and its Condemnation by the Church. — The dogmatic definition of the humanity of Jesus Christ against the Docetae clearly involved the inference that the manhood of our Blessed Redeemer was essentially composed of a material body and a spiritual soul. Nevertheless Arius declared Christ to be a synthesis of the Logos with inanimate flesh, while Apollinaris argued that, though our Lord had a soul, He lacked reason. a) The Arians were consistent with themselves in affirming that Christ, whom they believed to be a synthesis of the Logos with soulless flesh, had no human soul. The Arian idea was that the Logos simply supplied and exercised the functions of a human soul. The impiousness of this heresy lay in its denial of the Divinity of the Logos, — which explains the remark made by St. Athanasius : ” The Arians vainly have recourse to subtleties, saying that the Saviour assumed mere flesh, and impiously ascribing the passion to the impassible Godhead.” 1 Thus Arianism was a Christological heresy only indirectly and by implication, whereas Apollinarianism expressly attacked the integrity of our Lord’s manhood. Apollinaris was Bishop of Laodicea in Syria and died in the year 390. After having valiantly supported St. Athanasius in his defense of the Homoousion, he fell away from the orthodox faith and asserted that the body of Christ was animated by an inferior life-principle (i/wxri farucri aAoyos), but had no human or rational soul (ifwtf) XoytKTf, vo€pa) ; the place of the missing vovs being supplied by the Divine Logos.2 In other words, the Son of God actually assumed living flesh (crop£, i. e., an animated body), but the place of the human vovs or irv€vfia was supplied by the Godhead. This new heresy 8 was based on two separate and distinct errors: (1) A wrong notion of the human synthesis, which Apollinaris imagined to consist of three separate and distinct elements, viz.: flesh, soul, and reason;4 (2) a misconception of the true nature of the Hypostatic Union, by virtue of which Divinity and humanity subsist side by side in the personal unity of the Logos. If Christ were a perfect man, argued Apollinaris, He would have two natures, which means two persons, and hence there would be two Sons of God, one begotten and the other adopted, be1 Contr. Apollin., I. 3 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 2 Cfr. Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual pp. 242 sq. of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 153 4 ff&p£> adfia, yf/vxh 9Xoyos\ vovSt sq., London 1910; Pohle-Preuss, vpevfi^ ^vx^l X«7«k^. This diGod the Author of Nature and the vision is Platonic. Supernatural, p. 145. DUALITY IN UNITY cause two beings each of which is perfect in itself, can never be united into one (8vo riXua h ycveaSai ov SvmToi).5 b) In condemning Apollinarianism the Church simultaneously struck at the Christological heresy of the Arians. a) Regardless of his early friendship for Apollinaris, St. Athanasius persuaded the Council of Alexandria (A. D. 362) to anathematize the errors of that heretic. A more important definition is contained in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome, 380 : ” Anathematizamus eos, qui pro hominis animo rationabili et intelligibili dicunt Dei Verbum in humana came versatutn — We pronounce anathema against those who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human, rational, and intellective soul.” The phrase c#c ifrvxqs Xoyucrj? /ecu

asserens corpus ex virgine assumptutn anima caruisse voluit loco animae fuisse deitatem; Apollinarem quoque, qui intelligens, si anima corpus informans negetur in Christo, humanitatem veram ibidem non fuisse, solam posuit animam sensitivam, sed deitatem Verbi vicem rationalis animae tenuisse — [The Church] pronounces anathema also against Arius, who, asserting that the body [which Jesus] assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, held that the Godhead took the place of the soul ; and likewise against Apollinaris, who, aware that if we deny the existence in Christ of a soul informing the body, He cannot have possessed a true human nature, taught that Jesus had only a sensitive soul and that the Godhead of the Logos supplied the place of the rational soul.” 8 P) Of exceptional importance among the ecclesiastical definitions of our dogma is a decree of the Council of Vienne,9 which not only asserts the co-existence in Jesus Christ of a body and a rational soul, but defines their mutual relation. “Confitemur, unigenitum Dei Filium in Us omnibus, in quibus Deus Pater existit, una cum Patre aeternaliter subsistentem, partes nostrae naturae simul unitas, ex quibus ipse in se verus Deus existens fieret verus homo, humanum videlicet corpus passibile et animam intellectivam seu rationalem ipsum corpus vere per se et essentialiter informantem assumpsisse ex tempore in virginali thalamo ad unitatem suae hypostasis et personae.* 8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 710. 9A.D. 1311. Anglice: We profess that the only-begotten Son of God, who eternally subsists with the Father in all those respects in which the Father exists, assumed in time, in the virgin’s bridal chamber, the parts of our nature united together, by which He, being in Himself true God, became true man; viz.: a passible human body and an intellective or rational soul informing that body truly per se and essentially ; and that He assumed them into the unity of His Hypostasis and Person.” 10 2. The Teaching of Revelation. — The dogmatic teaching of the Church in regard to the integrity of Christ’s human nature is merely the technical formulation of a truth plainly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition. a) The New Testament writings, especially the Gospels, portray Jesus Christ in His daily intercourse with men, in His joys and sorrows. They tell how He suffered hunger and thirst, weariness and exhaustion. It is impossible to assume that He who conversed as a man with men and shared their sentiments, had no human (i. e. rational) soul. That He Himself expressly claimed such a soul is evidenced by a number of unmistakable texts ; e. g. John X, 17: “Ego pono animam meant (ttjv i/a^v fov)t tit 10 On the bearing of this definition see Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 142 sqq. CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE 53 iterum sumam earn.” Our English Bible renders this passage as follows: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again.” But even if anima were here synonymous with ” life ” (vita, fan;), we should evidently have to assume the existence of a soul, because without a soul there can be neither life nor death. Our Divine Redeemer exclaims on the Cross : ” Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” 11 ” Spirit” in this context manifestly does not mean the ” Divinity ” of the Logos, but His human soul, about to leave His body. For St. Luke adds : ” And saying this, he gave up the ghost.”12 What is here called “spirit” (spiritus, irvcvfia) is elsewhere referred to as ” soul ” (anima, foxo)> so that we have solid Scriptural warrant for saying : Spirit = soul, i. e., spiritual soul (anima rationalis) . Probably the text most fatal to Arianism and Apollinarianism is Matth. XXVI, 38: ” My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” Here Christ unequivocally asserts that He has a soul susceptible to the spiritual affection of sorrow. Such a soul cannot be other than a spiritual soul.13 The mutual relationship of body and soul in the sacred humanity of our Lord, as defined by the Council of Vienne, has a solid Scriptural foundation in the fact that the Bible again and again refers to Jesus Christ as ” true man,” ” the Son of man,” and ” Son of Adam.” One of the most effective texts is 1 Tim. II, 5 : ” There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Obviously Christ would not be true man, nor could He act as mediator between God and men if, 11 rb Tvcv/xd iiov. Luke XXIII, X: ” Tristis est non ipse Dens, sed 46. anima; suscepit enim anitnam meant, 12 i^-Kvevaevf expiravit. See Luke suscepit corpus meum; non me feXXIII, 46. fellit, ut alius esset et alius videreisCfr. St. Ambrose, In Luc, 1. tut.” DUALITY IN UNITY instead of being united in an essential unity of nature, body and soul had existed separately in His Person. caro 15 factum est * preclude the existence of a spiritual soul in Christ? It does not, because the synecdochical use of * flesh ” for ” man ” is quite common throughout the Bible.16 b) In formulating the Patristic argument for our thesis it will be advisable to regard the Fathers ( i ) as simple witnesses of Tradition and (2) as theologians or philosophers concerned with the speculative demonstration of the dogma. a) Let us first consider their testimony as that of simple witnesses to Tradition. Those of the Fathers who lived after the termination of the Arian and Apollinarist controversy, express themselves with unmistakable clearness.17 The case is different with certain earlier Fathers, who are charged by Protestant writers 18 with having held Arian or Apollinarist views on the subject of Christology. It is easy to show that this charge is unfounded. Some of the earliest among the Fathers believed that Christ was constituted of “flesh” {caro, and “spirit” (spiritus, mv/Aa) ; but they were far from regarding Him as a compound of Divinity and inBut does not the Johannine dictum: 14 it Et verbum 14 John I, 14. 15 ffdpl. 17 Cfr. Thomassin, De IncarnaHone, IV, 8 sq. 18 £. g., Munscher, De Wette, Neander. 16 For the necessary references consult Card. Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. n. CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE 55 animate flesh. By “spirit” they simply understood His Divinity, and for this reason they could not and did not attach to “flesh” any other meaning than does the Bible when it employs the term by synecdochy for “man.” Take, e. ., St. Ignatius of Antioch, who stands in the front row of the Fathers thus accused. Though he repeatedly describes the Saviour as 6pos (fleshbearer), he is careful to explain that our Lord was a ” perfect man ” (riXeios avOpwros).19 St. Irenaeus employs ” flesh ” and ” man ” as synonymous terms when he teaches that ” The Word of God was made flesh, … because the Word of God was also true man.” 20 The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that in another passage of the same work Irenaeus expressly mentions the soul of Christ. Adopting a similar expression from St. Clement of Rome,21 (who has also been accused of heresy), Irenaeus says : ” The mighty Word was also true man … since He redeemed us with His blood and gave up His soul for our souls 22 and His flesh for our flesh.” 28 Not even Tertullian, who notoriously held false views on the metaphysical essence of spiritual substances (e. g., God, the soul),24 can be convicted of heresy in his Christological teaching. It is sufficient for our present purpose to note that, in common with the rest of the Fathers, Tertullian attributes to the Godman a soul sub18 Epist, ad Smyrn, 23 Contr, Haer., V, x, I. 20 Contr. Haer,t V, 18, 3: ” Ver- 24 Cf r. Pohle-Preuss, God: His hum Dei caro factum est, . • . quo- Knowability, Essence and Attriniam Verbum Dei et homo verus” butes, pp. 293 sqq.; and also Pohle21 1 Ep. ad Cor., n. 49. Preuss, God the Author of Nature 22$6ptos t^v yfrvx^v dirty t&v and the Supernatural, pp. 166 sq. DUALITY IN UNITY stantially like ours. Distinguishing clearly between body and soul,26 he asserts the existence in Christ of two constitutive elements, vis.: a material body and a human soul, and indignantly combats Marcion’s assertion that Christ, in His outward appearance, was merely a soul clothed in the semblance of flesh (anima carnalis).2* Towards the end of his anti-Docetic treatise De Came Christi, Tertullian gives the following perfectly orthodox account of the constitution of our Blessed Redeemer: “Homo, qua caro et anima, et filius hominis; qua autem Spiritus Dei et Virtus Altissimi, Deus et Dei Filius — As flesh and soul, He was a man, and the Son of man ; but as the Spirit of God and the Power of the Most High, he is God and the Son of God.” 27 P) In order to obtain a more accurate notion of the teaching of the Fathers on this subject, we must study the explanations they give with a view to bringing Christ’s humanity as nearly as possible within the grasp of reason. All we can do within the limits of this treatise is to call attention to two important points of view. Not a few of the Fathers 28 demonstrate the necessity of a rational soul in Christ by 25 The soul he identifies with the Ego. Cfr. De Came Christi, c. xa: ” In hoc vana distinctio est, quasi nos seorsum ab anima simus, quutn to turn quod sumus anima sit; deinde sine anima nihil sumus, ne hominis quidem, sed cadaveris nomen* 2d De Came Christi, c. n: * Redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut qui homo voluerit incedere animam quoque humanae conditionis ostenderit, non faciens earn carnem, sed induens earn came.’ 27 De Came Christi, c. 14. On the Christological teaching of Tertullian cfr. J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I (English ed.), pp. 315 sqq., St Louis 1911. 28 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarnation, V, ix. CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE the famous soteriological axiom: Quod assumptum non est, non est sanatum or, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus expresses it: To yap d7rp6

This does not mean that the Son of God first assumed a spiritual soul and then, flesh. Nor does it signify that the spiritual soul of Christ constituted, as it were, a permanent bond of union between His body and His Divinity. The Fathers wished to say that the only kind of flesh capable of being assumed by the Godhead was flesh animated by a truly human, i. e. rational soul, as its forma essentialis, because it would have been altogether unbecoming for God to enter into Hypostatic Union with a body animated by a mere brute soul. But did not the Logos remain united with the body of Christ during the three days from His death to His Resurrection? Yes, but our axiom loses none of its truth for that. For, as St. Bonaventure explains, ” Anima non recedebat a corpore sitnpliciter, sed solum ad tempus; et corpus Mud ex prima coniunctione sui ad animam dispositionem ad incorruptionem habebat: et ideo propter separationem ipsius animae congruitatem ad unionem [hypostaticam] non amittebat; et ideo quamvis anima separaretur a came, non tamen oportebat divinitatem a came separari” 82 It is only by taking anima rationalis as the forma essentialis of the body that we shall be enabled to understand why the Fathers, after the time of Apollinaris, so strongly emphasized the ” rationality of Christ’s flesh ” — which is really a somewhat paradoxical expression. Thus St. Athanasius says: “The Saviour having become man, it is impossible that His body should lack reason.”83 And St. Cyril of Alexandria teaches : ” We must believe that He who is by nature God, was made flesh, t. e., a man animated by a rational soul.” 84 The same 82 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 83 dvfyror clwai t6 ff&fia airov. Sent., Ill, disk a, art 3, qvu 1. Ep. ad Antiochen. (Migne, P. C, Cfr. Petavius, Dt Incarnatione, IV, XXVI, 795 sqq.). 13, and St. Thomas, Summa Theol., »$ti kclt. v yfyov* 3a, qu. 6, art. 1 sq. ff&p$, Ijyovr ArOpuwos ifi^xofiiTHE ” THREE SUBSTANCES ” FORMULA 59 Saint habitually employs the phrase uw/w. ^vxmOh votpfc. Sophronius even speaks of a 9* ural, p. 146. 85 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Cod the Aw 36 Apol., II, n. 10. 87 Serm. Contr. Arion., IX, n. 7. 6o DUALITY IN UNITY Eleventh Council of Toledo (A.D. 675) taught that * Christ exists in two natures, but in three substances.* • But when the Fourteenth Council of Toledo, held only nine years later, repeated this phrase, Pope Sergius the First demanded an “explanation.” The demand was complied with by St. Julian of Toledo, and His explanation satisfied the Pope.* A century later (A. D. 794) the formula was expressly disapproved by a provincial council held at Frankfort against the Adoptionists. The decrees of this council, which are vested with special authority on account of their formal approbation by Pope Hadrian I, contain the following passage : ” In profession Nicaeni symboli non invenimus dictum, in Christo * duas naturas et tres substantias ’ et ’ homo deificatus ’ et 9 Deus humanatus! Quid est natura hominis nisi anima et corpus ? Vel quid est inter naturam et substantiam, ut ‘tres substantias* necesse sit nobis dicer e? … Consuetudo ecclesiastica solet in Christo duas substantias nominare, Dei videlicet et hominis.* 40 In spite of this reprimand, however, the formula of the * three substances ” continued in use and ultimately became part of the approved Scholastic terminology. St. Bonaventure unhesitatingly speaks of a * threefold substance 99 in Christ, and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches : * The name ’ man/ applied to Christ, also signifies His Divine Person, and thus implies three substances.* 41 The orthodoxy of the formula, therefore, when used in the sense which we have explained, cannot be questioned.42 M * Christus in his duabus na- de Christo, dicit etiam divinam perurU, tribus exstat substantiis.’ sonant, et sic dicit tres substantias.’ ^fr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- {Comment, in Quatuor Libros Sent., 40Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. m, n. 284). l»Cfr. Vasquez, Comment in S. .., Ill, disp. 37, c. 2-3. Ill, dist. 6, qu. i, art. 3.) 42 Cfr. L. Janssens, De DeoHomine, I, 156 sqq., Friburgi 1901; ’ homo * dictum 13, sect. 1 (ed. Paris. 1890, t. II, pp. 636 sqq.).