Part II Chapter I §3: The Inseparability of the Two Natures in Christ

§3: The Inseparability of the Two Natures in Christ

SECTION 3 THE INSEPARABILITY OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST The inseparability of the two natures, while not an essential mark, is an integral property of the Hypostatic Union. A separation between the two natures is conceivable only in one of three ways : ( I ) Christ’s manhood might have existed prior to its union with the Godhead and become united with it at a later period of its existence; (2) the sacred manhood might have dissociated itself temporarily from the Logos in the past; (3) the Logos might dissociate Himself from His manhood at some future time. All three of these suppositions are inadmissible, as we will show in three distinct theses. Thesis I: The Hypostatic Union of the Logos with His manhood began at the moment of Christ’s conception. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. At a Council held in Constantinople (A. D. 543) against the unorthodox teachings of 166 THE TWO NATURES INSEPARABLE 167 Origen,1 the proposition that Christ’s human nature existed prior to the Incarnation was condemned as heretical. The Sixth Ecumenical Council expressly defined: “In incarnatione Verbi non fuit deltas copulata carni prius animatae aut prius praefactae vel animae praeexistenti coniuncta, … sed cum ipso Verbo [caro et anima] existentiam habuerunt: … simul quippe caro, simul Dei Verbi caro; simul caro animata rationalis, simul Dei Verbi caro animata rationalist 2 a) That this teaching has a solid foundation in Scripture can be shown from Rom. I, 3: F actus ex semine David, and Gal. IV, 4: Factum ex muliere These texts not only assert that Christ was true man, but that He became man through His conception by the Virgin Mary, that is to say, in the instant of His conception. If the conception of the man Christ and the Incarnation of the Divine Logos had not been absolutely simultaneous, but separate and independent events, Mary would not be really and truly the Mother of God.3 She would indeed have given birth to the Son of God, but she would 1 The researches of Fr. Diekamp Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 204; (Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. Eccl., im 6. Jahrhundert und das V. XVII, 28. Munster 1899) have established the 3 Oeordicos. Cfr. Newman, Select fact that this Council enjoyed ecu- Orations of St. Athanasius, Vol. menical authority. Cfr. Denzinger- II, 210 sqq. Allgemeine Konzil, pp. 46 sqq., 2 Acta, art. 11. i68 UNITY IN DUALITY not have conceived Him; the Hypostatic Union would have occurred some time between the conception and the birth of Jesus. b) St. Cyril was well aware of this, for he remarked against Nestorius : “The Blessed Virgin did not conceive a mere man, upon whom the Logos subsequently descended ; but He subjected Himself to a carnal birth by a union which had its inception in the maternal womb.* 4 The dogma was most clearly and trenchantly formulated by Pope St. Leo the Great in the following terms: Natura quippe nostra non sic assumpta est, ut prius creata post assumeretur, sed ut ipsa assumptione crearetur” 5 Thesis II: The Logos never even for an instant dissociated Himself from His manhood. This thesis may be characterized as “doctrina catholica.” Proof. The Sixth Ecumenical Council declared that the two wills and two operations in Christ are united inseparably (ax^”™). Since this Council did not expressly mean to define the inseparability of the two natures, but had in view the inseparable personal unity of our Lord, it may be objected that a dogmatic argu4Ep. ad Nestor., i. genitus Deus, sed in ea est Dens 5 Bp., 35. c. 3. Cfr. St. Fulgen- altissimd hutnilitate conceptns* tius, De Incarn., 4: * Quam car- See also Petavius, De Incarn., IV, nem non conceptam accepit uni- n; Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 16. ment based upon its definition would not be conclusive in support of our present thesis. This objection cannot, however, be urged against the following canon of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) : . . quas [duas naturas] it a in se una Christi persona univit, ut nec divinitas ab humanitate nec humanitas a divinitate possit aliquando seiungi” The Ethiopian liturgy contains the sentence : “I believe that the Godhead has never, even for an hour or for a moment, been separated from the manhood/’ a) The only juncture at which a temporary cessation of the Hypostatic Union could possibly have occurred, was the triduum mortis, i. e., the time that elapsed between the death of Christ and His Resurrection. But we have it on the authority of the Apostles’ Creed that the dissolution of the human nature of our Lord did not in matter of fact entail the cessation of the Hypostatic Union. “He was buried, and descended into hell,,, i. e., His body was buried, but His soul descended into hell. The death of Christ did not consist in a separation of His manhood from His Godhead, but in the dissolution of His human nature, i. e., the separation of body from soul, both of which, though temporarily dissociated, remained the true body and soul of the Son of God. From our Lord’s exclamation on the Cross : “My God, why hast thou forsaken me !” 170 UNITY IN DUALITY certain heretics argued that the Hypostatic Union was interrupted during His Passion and death. But this conclusion is absolutely unwarranted. Hugh of St. Victor in conformity with the teaching of the Fathers explains the passage as follows : “God merely withdrew His protection, He did not sever the union.” 6 b) Did the blood shed by our Lord during His sacred Passion remain hypostatically united with the Godhead during the triduum mortis? This is a somewhat more difficult question, which demands an extended explanation. a) Though not of faith, it is theologically certain that in Christ’s living body, both before His death and after the Resurrection, His sacred Blood was united to the Logos hypostatically, not merely in a mediate manner, as were, for instance, His hair, nails, etc.7 Whether and how far a man’s blood is informed by his soul is a question in regard to which physicians, physiologists, and philosophers have not yet reached an agreement. Many hold that the blood is merely an inanimate medium by which the tissues of the body are nourished and relieved of effete matter.8 Putting this controversy aside, it is theologically certain that the Hypostatic Union is not limited to the sphere informed by the soul, but comprises 6 * Deus subtraxit protectionem, sed non separavit unionem.* De Sacratn., II, i, 10. On certain difficult Patristic passages cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 19. 7 Suarez contended against Durandus and some of the earlier Schoolmen: “Sanguis Christi Domini proxime et immediate fuit unitus Verbo Dei, Haec conclusio est hoc tempore ita certa, ut contraria non possit sine errore defendi.” {De Incarn., disp. 15, sect. 6, n. 2.) 8 Cfr. Urraburu, Psychol., pp. 800 sqq., Vallisoleti 1897. all those factors which constitute the proper essence and integrity of human nature. It would be wrong, therefore, to argue that since, according to one theory at least, the spiritual soul immediately informs only the spinal and sympathetic nerves, the nervous system alone in Christ was immediately (secundum hypostasin) united with the Logos, all other parts of His body only mediately (in hypostasi). Whatever physiological theory one may prefer to adopt, the hypostatic (t. e., immediate) union of the Logos with His living blood can be demonstrated independently of the question whether or not the soul of Christ animated this blood from within. Holy Scripture tells us that we were redeemed ” with the Precious Blood of Christ,” 9 and it is this same Precious Blood which is proposed to our adoration in the consecrated chalice during Mass.10 Pope Clement VI expressly declares 11 that, because of its union with the Divine Word, a single drop of the Precious Blood of our Lord would have sufficed to redeem the world. St. Thomas voices the opinion of the medieval Schoolmen when he says: ” Manifestum est quod sanguis in passtone effusus, qui maxime fuit salubris, fuit divinitati unitus; et ideo oportuit quod in resurrectione iungeretur aliis humanitatis paribus!’ 12 P) It is not easy to demonstrate that, like His soul or His inanimate body, the blood which our Saviour shed on the Cross remained hypostatically united with the Logos during the three days that elapsed between 9 Cfr. z Pet. I, 18 sq.; z John quae tamen propter unionem ad I, 7; Heb. IX, 12 sqq.; Apoc. VII, Verbutn pro redemptione totius hw 14. mani generis suffecisset, sed copiose 10 See the dogmatic treatise on velut quod dam effluvium noscitur the Holy Eucharist. effudisse” 11 Extrav. Com., 1. V, tit. o, c. a: 12 Quodlib., V, art. 5. ” Non guttam sanguinis modicam, 12 172 UNITY IS DUALITY His death and Resurrection- In the fifteenth century a violent controversy broke out over this question between members of the Dominican and the Franciscan Orders. Pope Pins II, in 1464, after listening to a formal debate which lasted three days, commanded both parties to cease quarrelling and reserved the final decision to the Holy See.” Xo such decision was ever published. Since the Council of Trent the opinion of the Dominicans has become the prevailing one among theologians. It is to the effect that during the triduum mortis the Logos remained hypostatically united at least with that portion of His Precious Blood which He re-assumed after the Resurrection. The contradictory opinion of the Franciscans no longer has any prominent defenders outside of Scotist circles.14 Some older theologians 15 held that the Blood of Christ was never at any time united with the Divine Logos secundum hypostasin, so that, had the Apostles during the triduum mortis consecrated bread and wine, it would have become mere blood, but not the blood of the Godman. This view is altogether obsolete and untenable. The dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council : ” Ipsum autem corpus sub specie vini et sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub utraque [specie existere non quidem vi verborum, sed] vi naturalis illius connexionis et concomitantioe, qua partes Christi Domini … inter se copulantur,” 16 plainly intimates that ” body ” and ” blood ” stand on the same level, and consequently either both are united with the Divine Logos, or neither of them is. It follows that since the bloodless corpse of our Redeemer was still truly the body 18 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 15 E, g,, Alphonsus Tostatus chiridion, n. 718. (+ 1455) and Gabriel Biel ( + 14 Its last notable champion was 1495). Fr, Collius (De Sanguine Christi, 10 Denzinger-Bannwart, EnchiriMediol. 16 12). dion, n. 876. of the Logos, the blood that had flown from it was not dissociated from the Hypostatic Union. y) Jerusalem, Beyrout, Rome, Mantua, Boulogne, Bruges, Weingarten, Reichenau, Stans, Neury SaintSepulchre, and a number of other places claim, or at one time claimed, to possess authentic relics of the Precious Blood of our Divine Saviour.17 If these relics were genuine blood shed by our Lord during His sacred Passion, this would merely prove that some particles of Christ’s body were not re-assumed but permanently eliminated from the Godhead. They may be venerated like particles of the holy Cross, but it would be idolatry to give them divine worship.18 This principle applies a fortiori to blood which is believed to have flown miraculously from consecrated hosts or images of Christ. St. Thomas inclines to the opinion that all the alleged relics of the Precious Blood preserved in different churches throughout Christendom belong to this class. “Sanguis autem ille, qui in quibusdam ecclesiis pro reliquiis conservatur, non fluxit ex latere Christi, sed miraculose dicitur ef&uxisse de quadam imagine Christi percussa” 19 This fluid is not the blood of Christ at all, because the glorified Saviour ” no longer dies/’ and consequently sheds no more blood. For the rest it is well to be cautious in accepting such medieval legends. The phenomenon of “bleeding hosts” may be caused by a certain rare micrococcus, called prodigiosus,20 the action of which is described thus by one of our leading 17 Cfr. the Catholic Fortnightly On the different kinds of worship Review, Vol. XVI (1909), No. 10, (latria, dulia, hyperdulia, etc.) see pp. 296 sqq. Pohle-Preuss, Mariology. 18 Cfr. Benedict XIV, De Festis, 10 5”. Theol., 3a, qu. 4, art. 2. 8374. See A. Jox, Die Reliquien 20 Also Monas prodigiosa Ehrendes kostbaren B lutes unseres gott- berg, lichen Heilandes, Luxemburg 1880. 174 uxity duality bactersAogUxs : ** Starcry substances, s^ch as boiled potatoes, bread, rice, hosts, etc., show moist, bkod-red spots, which sometimes spread rapi^y. The scc-den appearance of soch spots on ankles of daily use has given rise to all sorts of curious superstitions.” 21 The theological axiom: ” Quod semel Verbum assumpsit, nunquam dimisit ” applies absolutely only to the soul of our Divine Redeemer; in regard of His body, including His Precious Blood, it has but relative value. The blood which Christ shed at the circumcision, and when He was scourged, and during His agony on Mount Olivet, unquestionably left the union with His Godhead for ever. This applies in an even greater measure to the secretions incident to the ordinary metabolic and catabolic processes of nature, e. g., tears, perspiration, sputum.22 Thesis III: The Logos will never dissociate Himself from His manhood. This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. While the so-called Seleucians heretically taught that Christ had “transplanted His sacred humanity to the sun,” 23 Marcellus of Ancyra,24 and his disciple Photinus of Sirrnium,25 21 A. de Bary, Vorletungen Hber 24 Died about 374. Cfr. NewBakttrien, p. n, Leipsic 1885. Cfr. man, Select Orations of St. Athenathe article “Hoftien” in Burg’s sius, Vol. II, pp. 196 sqq.; BardenKonlrovers-Lexikon, pp. 414 sqq., hewer-Shahan, Patrohgy, pp. 241 Essen- Ruhr, 1905. sq. What remains of Marcellus’ 22 Cfr. Tepe, Instil, Theol., Vol. writings is to be found in Chr. H. Ill, pp. 541 sqq., Paris 1896; Chr. G. Rettberg, Marcelliano, Gottingen 3rd ed., pp. 80 sqq., 95 sqq., Friburgi 1794* Pesch, Praelect, Dogma!,, Vol. IV, 25 Died about 376. His numer1909; L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, ous writings have all perished. Vol. I, pp. 294 Friburgi 1901. Cfr. Th. Zahn, Marcellus von An28 Cfr. Ps. XVIII, 6: In sole cyro, pp. 189 sqq., Gotha 1867. posuil labernaculum suum, THE TWO NATURES INSEPARABLE 175 maintained that the Saviour would not dispossess Himself of His body until after the resurrection of the flesh. The Second General Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) rejected this heresy by adding to the Nicene Creed the phrase : “Of whose kingdom there .shall be no end.” 26 a) The perpetual inseparability of our Lord’s two natures is implied in the Scriptural teaching (1) that Christ is eternal and (2) that He is forever our High Priest and King. The eternal existence of Christ (not to be confounded with the eternity of the Divine Logos) is taught in Heb. XIII, 8 : Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula — Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever. That the Apostle in this passage means the Godman, i. e., the synthesis of Logos and manhood, is evidenced by his teaching in regard to Christ’s eternal priesthood. Cfr. Heb. VII, 24: “Hie [scil. Christus] eo quod maneat in aeternum, sempiternum habet saeerdotium — But this one [Christ] for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood.* He is also called Eternal King. Cfr. Luke I, 33: Et regni eius non erit finis — And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” God Himself “hath sworn” that the priesthood “according to the order of Melchisedech” shall never come 2«0i5 T^f fiaffiXelas ovk Iotcu ri\os» Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 86. 7 ^-f> /4 -”\ f Lrrtdrm igau — Funk-Cappa// MiWHdl /// / A?//’ A ffntory, Vol. IT pp. 157 sqq^ r^3 “1wrfi’4fif Srlfct Treatises of St. Atkanastus, T1 ( U f;. ( ft, 4, />/ Incar., XII, 18; Suarez, t’titrtti , ff, >/, //# A/.V.t# Vtt. Ckristi, disp. 51,’ tt»Ht, fa Intl, if, ( ft, PMn #*ct, f. Vol. II, pp. 331 sqq., 412 sqq.— Freddi-Sullivan, Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, Considerations Gathered from the Works of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, pp. 169 sqq., 195 sqq., St. Louis 1904.— W. H. Hutton, The Church of the Sixth Century, London 1897.