Whether the Human Nature Was United to the Word of God Accidentally?
Objection 1: It would seem that the human nature was united to the
Word of God accidentally. For the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) of the Son
of God, that He was "in habit found as a man." But habit is
accidentally associated with that to which it pertains, whether habit
be taken for one of the ten predicaments or as a species of quality.
Therefore human nature is accidentally united to the Son of God.
Obj. 2: Further, whatever comes to a thing that is complete in being
comes to it accidentally, for an accident is said to be what can come
or go without the subject being corrupted. But human nature came to
Christ in time, Who had perfect being from eternity. Therefore it
came to Him accidentally.
Obj. 3: Further, whatever does not pertain to the nature or the
essence of a thing is its accident, for whatever is, is either a
substance or an accident. But human nature does not pertain to the
Divine Essence or Nature of the Son of God, for the union did not
take place in the nature, as was said above (A. 1). Hence the human
nature must have accrued accidentally to the Son of God.
Obj. 4: Further, an instrument accrues accidentally. But the human
nature was the instrument of the Godhead in Christ, for Damascene
says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), that "the flesh of Christ is the
instrument of the Godhead." Therefore it seems that the human nature
was united to the Son of God accidentally.
_On the contrary,_ Whatever is predicated accidentally, predicates,
not substance, but quantity, or quality, or some other mode of being.
If therefore the human nature accrues accidentally, when we say
Christ is man, we do not predicate substance, but quality or
quantity, or some other mode of being, which is contrary to the
Decretal of Pope Alexander III, who says (Conc. Later. iii): "Since
Christ is perfect God and perfect man, what foolhardiness have some
to dare to affirm that Christ as man is not a substance?"
_I answer that,_ In evidence of this question we must know that two
heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the
two natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches
and Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature
resulted, so that they confessed Christ to be "from" two natures
(which were distinct before the union), but not "in" two natures (the
distinction of nature coming to an end after the union). The second
was the heresy of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who separated
the persons. For they held the Person of the Son of God to be
distinct from the Person of the Son of man, and said these were
mutually united: first, "by indwelling," inasmuch as the Word of God
dwelt in the man, as in a temple; secondly, "by unity of intention,"
inasmuch as the will of the man was always in agreement with the will
of the Word of God; thirdly, "by operation," inasmuch as they said
the man was the instrument of the Word of God; fourthly, "by
greatness of honor," inasmuch as all honor shown to the Son of God
was equally shown to the Son of man, on account of His union with the
Son of God; fifthly, "by equivocation," i.e. communication of names,
inasmuch as we say that this man is God and the Son of God. Now it is
plain that these modes imply an accidental union.
But some more recent masters, thinking to avoid these heresies,
through ignorance fell into them. For some conceded one person in
Christ, but maintained two hypostases, or two supposita, saying that
a man, composed of body and soul, was from the beginning of his
conception assumed by the Word of God. And this is the first opinion
set down by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6). But others desirous of
keeping the unity of person, held that the soul of Christ was not
united to the body, but that these two were mutually separate, and
were united to the Word accidentally, so that the number of persons
might not be increased. And this is the third opinion which the
Master sets down (Sent. iii, D, 6).
But both of these opinions fall into the heresy of Nestorius; the
first, indeed, because to maintain two hypostases or supposita in
Christ is the same as to maintain two persons, as was shown above (A.
3). And if stress is laid on the word "person," we must have in mind
that even Nestorius spoke of unity of person on account of the unity
of dignity and honor. Hence the fifth Council (Constantinople II,
coll. viii, can. 5) directs an anathema against such a one as holds
"one person in dignity, honor and adoration, as Theodore and
Nestorius foolishly wrote." But the other opinion falls into the
error of Nestorius by maintaining an accidental union. For there is
no difference in saying that the Word of God is united to the Man
Christ by indwelling, as in His temple (as Nestorius said), or by
putting on man, as a garment, which is the third opinion; rather it
says something worse than Nestorius--to wit, that the soul and body
are not united.
Now the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid
positions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place
in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but
midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis. Hence in the fifth Council
(Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 5) we read: "Since the unity may
be understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of
Apollinaris and Eutyches, professing the destruction of what came
together" (i.e. destroying both natures), "confess a union by
mingling; but the followers of Theodore and Nestorius, maintaining
division, introduce a union of purpose. But the Holy Church of God,
rejecting the impiety of both these treasons, confesses a union of
the Word of God with flesh, by composition, which is in subsistence."
Therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions,
mentioned by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6), which holds one hypostasis
of God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but an article of
Catholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two
hypostases, and the third which holds an accidental union, are not to
be styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils.
Reply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "Examples
need not be wholly and at all points similar, for what is wholly
similar is the same, and not an example, and especially in Divine
things, for it is impossible to find a wholly similar example in the
Theology," i.e. in the Godhead of Persons, "and in the Dispensation,"
i.e. the mystery of the Incarnation. Hence the human nature in Christ
is likened to a habit, i.e. a garment, not indeed in regard to
accidental union, but inasmuch as the Word is seen by the human
nature, as a man by his garment, and also inasmuch as the garment is
changed, for it is shaped according to the figure of him who puts it
on, and yet he is not changed from his form on account of the
garment. So likewise the human nature assumed by the Word of God is
ennobled, but the Word of God is not changed, as Augustine says (Qq.
83, qu. 73).
Reply Obj. 2: Whatever accrues after the completion of the being
comes accidentally, unless it be taken into communion with the
complete being, just as in the resurrection the body comes to the
soul which pre-exists, yet not accidentally, because it is assumed
unto the same being, so that the body has vital being through the
soul; but it is not so with whiteness, for the being of whiteness is
other than the being of man to which whiteness comes. But the Word of
God from all eternity had complete being in hypostasis or person;
while in time the human nature accrued to it, not as if it were
assumed unto one being inasmuch as this is of the nature (even as the
body is assumed to the being of the soul), but to one being inasmuch
as this is of the hypostasis or person. Hence the human nature is not
accidentally united to the Son of God.
Reply Obj. 3: Accident is divided against substance. Now substance,
as is plain from _Metaph._ v, 25, is taken in two ways: first, for
essence or nature; secondly, for suppositum or hypostasis--hence the
union having taken place in the hypostasis, is enough to show that it
is not an accidental union, although the union did not take place in
the nature.
Reply Obj. 4: Not everything that is assumed as an instrument
pertains to the hypostasis of the one who assumes, as is plain in the
case of a saw or a sword; yet nothing prevents what is assumed into
the unity of the hypostasis from being as an instrument, even as the
body of man or his members. Hence Nestorius held that the human
nature was assumed by the Word merely as an instrument, and not into
the unity of the hypostasis. And therefore he did not concede that
the man was really the Son of God, but His instrument. Hence Cyril
says (Epist. ad Monach. Aegyptii): "The Scripture does not affirm
that this Emmanuel," i.e. Christ, "was assumed for the office of an
instrument, but as God truly humanized," i.e. made man. But Damascene
held that the human nature in Christ is an instrument belonging to
the unity of the hypostasis.
_______________________