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. g., St. Ignatius of Antioch, who stands in the front row of the Fathers thus accused. Though he repeatedly describes the Saviour as σapкopópos (fleshbearer), he is careful to explain that our Lord was a "perfect man" (téλeios äv◊pwπoS).19 (τέλειος ἄνθρωπος).1

St. Irenæus 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 Irenæus expressly mentions the soul of Christ. Adopting a similar expression from St. Clement of Rome,21 (who has also been accused of heresy), Irenæus 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." 23

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 sub

19 Epist. ad Smyrn.

20 Contr. Haer., V, 18, 3: "". Verbum Dei caro factum est, ・・・ quoniam Verbum Dei et homo verus.' 21 1 Ep. ad Cor., n. 49.

"

22 δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν.

23 Contr. Haer., V, 1, 1.

24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, pp. 293 sqq.; and also PohlePreuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 166 sq.

stantially like ours. Distinguishing clearly between body and soul,25 he asserts the existence in Christ of two constitutive elements, viz.: 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).28 Towards the end of his anti-Docetic treatise De Carne 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

B) 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 Carne Christi, c. 12: "In hoc vana distinctio est, quasi nos seorsum ab anima simus, quum totum quod sumus anima sit; deinde sine anima nihil sumus, ne hominis quidem, sed cadaveris nomen."

26 De Carne Christi, C. II: "Redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut qui homo voluerit incedere ani

mam quoque humanae conditionis ostenderit, non faciens eam carnem, sed induens eam carne."

27 De Carne 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 Incarnatione, V, II.

the famous soteriological axiom: "Quod assumptum non est, non est sanatum," or, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus expresses it: Tò yàp ἀπρόσληπτον ἀθεράπευτον.20 The meaning of this axiom is: Our own souls would remain unredeemed, had not the Son of God assumed a spiritual soul. Gregory develops this thought as follows: "If any one put his hope in a man destitute of reason, he is indeed unreasonable and unworthy of being wholly redeemed. For that which has not been assumed, is not cured; but that which is united with God [i. e. the Logos] partakes of salvation. If only half of Adam fell, let but half of him be assumed and saved. But if the whole [Adam] sinned, He [i. e. the Logos] is also united with the whole, and the whole [man] attains to salvation." 30 Similar passages

can be cited from Tertullian and St. Ambrose.31

Another Christological principle, which some of the Fathers effectively urged against Apollinaris, and which was subsequently incorporated into the Scholastic system, is this: "Verbum assumpsit carnem mediante animâ (rationali),” i. e., The Word assumed flesh through the mediation of the rational soul.

29 Ep. 101 ad Cledon., 7. 30 Ibid.

31 Ambros., Ep. 48 ad Sabin., 5: "Si enim aliquid ei [i. e. Christo] defuit, non totum redemit . . . to

tum utique suscepit, quod erat humanae perfectionis." Cfr. St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, X, 27; St. Fulgentius, Ad. Trasamundum, I, 6.

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 simpliciter, sed solum ad tempus; et corpus illud 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 carne, non tamen oportebat divinitatem a carne separari." 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. And St. Cyril of Alexandria teaches: "We must believe that He who is by nature God, was made flesh, i. e., a man animated by a rational soul." 34 The same

32 Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., III, dist. 2, art. 3, qu. I. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarnatione, IV, 13, and St. Thomas, Summa Theol., зa, qu. 6, art. 1 sq.

99 32

"33

33 ἀνόητον εἶναι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ. Ep. ad Antiochen. (Migne, P. G., XXVI, 795 sqq.).

34 ὅτι κατὰ φύσιν Θεὸς ὢν γέγονε σάρξ, ἤγουν ἄνθρωπος ἐμψυχομέ

35

Saint habitually employs the phrase σῶμα ψυχωθὲν νοερῶς. Sophronius even speaks of a σὰρξ ἔμψυχος λογική. All of which proves that the dogmatic definition of the Council of Vienne was firmly rooted in Tradition.

3. THE THEOLOGICAL FORMULA OF THE "THREE SUBSTANCES."-Apollinarianism raised a new problem, viz.: Must Christ be conceived dichotomically, as consisting of Divinity and humanity, or trichotomously, of "three substances," i. e., Logos, soul, and body?

A tacit compromise finally led to the adoption of the famous Scholastic formula: "Duae naturae et tres substantiae." By expressly emphasizing the two natures in Christ, this formula was calculated to prevent the misconception that body and soul are, like the Logos, each a complete nature or substance, while in fact they are merely component parts of Christ's sacred humanity. The sole excuse for speaking of "three substances was the necessity of safeguarding the integrity of our Lord's human nature against Arianism, and especially against Apollinarianism. In this sense alone was the phrase employed by the Fathers. Justin Martyr enumerates σ@μa καὶ λόγος καὶ ψυχή as the three constitutive elements of Christ. The teaching of St. Augustine is more definite still: "Man consists of a soul and flesh," he says, "and consequently Christ consists of the Logos, a soul, and flesh." 99 37

In spite of this legitimate use, the phrase did not always meet with favor on the part of the Church. The

νος ψυχῇ λογικῇ. Εp. ad Nestor.,

3, n. 19.

35 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au

thor of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 146.

36 Apol., II, n. 10.

37 Serm. Contr. Arian., IX, n. 7.