← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 223

# DISTINCTIO X.

Cap. I. An Christus, secundum quod homo, sit persona, vel aliquid.

Solet etiam a quibusdam inquiri, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit persona, vel etiam sit aliquid. — Ex utraque parte quaestionisp224-q1p223-1 argumenta concurrunt. Quod enim persona sit, his edisserunt rationibus. Si, secundum quod homo, aliquid est; vel persona, vel substantia, vel aliud est. Sed aliud non: ergo vel persona, vel substantia. Sed si substantia est; vel rationalis, vel irrationalis; sed non est irrationalis substantia: ergo rationalis. Si vero, secundum quod homo, est rationalis substantiap223-2, ergo persona, quia haec est definitio personae: « Substantia rationalis individuae naturaep223-3 ». Si ergo, secundum quod homo, est aliquid, et, secundum quod homo, persona est.

Sed e converso: si, secundum quod homo, persona est, vel tertia in Trinitatep223-4, vel alia; sed alia non: ergo tertia in Trinitate persona. At si, secundum quod homo, persona est tertia in Trinitate, ergo Deus. — Propter haec inconvenientia et alia quidam dicunt, Christum secundum hominem non esse personam nec aliquid, nisi forte secundum sit expressivum unitatis personae. Secundum enim multiplicem habet rationem. Aliquando enim exprimit conditionem vel proprietatem naturae divinae, vel humanae; aliquando unitatem personae; aliquando notat habitum; aliquando causam. Cuius distinctionis rationem diligenter lector animadvertat atque in sinu memoriae recondat, ne eius confundaturp223-5 sensus, cum de Christo sermo occurrerit.

Illud tamen non sequitur, quod in argumentatione superiori inductum est, quod si Christus, secundum quod homo, est substantia rationalis, ergo persona. Nam et modo anima Christi est substantia rationalis, non tamen persona, quia non est per se sonans, immo alii rei coniuncta. Illa tamen personae descriptio non est data pro illis tribus personis.

Sed adhuc aliter nituntur probare, Christum secundum hominem esse personam: quia Christus, secundum quod homo, praedestinatus est, ut sit Dei filiusp223-6; sed illud est quod ut sit, praedestinatus est: ergo si praedestinatus est, secundum quod homo, ut sit filius Dei; et, secundum quod homo, est filius Dei. — Ad quod dici potest, Christum esse id quod ut sit, praedestinatus est. Est enim praedestinatus, ut sit filius Dei, et ipse vere est filius Dei. Sed secundum hominem praedestinatus est, ut sit filius Dei, quia per gratiam hoc habet, secundum hominem; nec tamen secundum hominem est filius Dei, nisi forte secundum unitatis personae sit expressivum, ut sit sensus: ipse qui est homo, est filius Dei; ut autem ipse, ens homo, sit filius Dei, per gratiam habet. Sed si causa notetur, falsum est; non enim, quo homo est, eo Dei filius est.

Cap. II. An Christus, secundum quod homo, sit adoptivus filius.

Si vero quaeritur, an Christus sit adoptivus filius, secundum quod homo, sivep223-7 alio modo; respondemus, Christum non esse adoptivum filium aliquo modo, sed tantum naturalem, quia natura filius est, non adoptionis gratia. Non autem sic dicitur filius natura, ut dicitur Deus natura. Non enim eo filius est, quo Deus est, quia proprietate nativitatis filius, natura divinitatis Deus est; et tamen dicitur natura, vel naturae filius, quia naturaliter est filius, eandem scilicet habensp. 224 naturam, quam ille qui genuit. Adoptivus autem filius non est, quia non prius fuit, et postmodum adoptatus est in filium, sicut nos dicimur adoptivi filii, quia cum nati fuerimus irae filii, per gratiam facti sumus filii Deip224-1. Christus vero nunquam fuit non filius; et ideo non est adoptivus filius.

Sed ad hoc opponitur sic: Christus filius hominis est, id est Virginis, aut gratia, aut natura, vel utroque modo. Si vero natura, aut divina, aut humana; sed divina non: ergo aut humana natura, aut non natura est filius hominis. Si non natura, ergo gratia tantum; et si etiamp224-2 natura humana, non ideo minus per gratiam. Si ergo gratia filius Virginis est, adoptivus filius esse videtur, ut idem sit naturalis filius Patris, et adoptivus filius Virginis. — Ad quod dici potest, Christum filium Virginis esse et natura vel naturaliter et gratia; nec tamen adoptivus filius Virginis est, quia non per adoptionem, sed per unionem filius Virginis esse dicitur. Filius enim Virginis dicitur, eo quod in Virgine hominem accepit in unitatem personae, et hoc fuit gratiae, non naturae. Unde Augustinus super Ioannemp224-3: « Quod Unigenitus est aequalis Patri, non est gratiae, sed naturae. Quod autem in unitatem personae Unigeniti assumtus est homo, gratiae est, non naturae ». Christus ergo nec Dei nec hominis est adoptivus filius, sed Dei naturaliter, et hominis naturaliter et gratia filius. Quod vero naturaliter sit hominis filius, Augustinus ostendit in libro de Fide ad Petrump224-4: « Ille, scilicet Deus, factus est naturaliter hominis filius, qui est naturaliter filius unigenitus Dei Patris ». Quod autem non sit adoptivus filius, et tamen gratia sit filius, ex subditis probatur testimoniis. Hieronymus super Epistolam ad Ephesiosp224-5 ait: « De Christo Iesu scriptum est, quia semper cum Patre fuit, et nunquam eum, ut esset, voluntas paterna praecessit »; « et ille quidem natura filius est, nos vero adoptione. Ille nunquam filius non fuit; nos, antequam essemus, praedestinati sumus, et tunc Spiritum adoptionis accepimus, quando credidimus in Filium Dei ». Hilarius quoque in libro tertio de Trinitatep224-6 ait: « Dominus dicens: Clarifica Filium tuum, non solo nomine contestatus est, se esse filium Dei, sed etiam proprietate. Nos filii Dei sumus, sed non talis hic filius. Hic enim verus et proprius est filius origine, non adoptione; veritate, non nuncupatione; nativitate, non creatione ». Augustinus etiam super Ioannemp224-7 ait: « Nos sumus filii gratia, non natura; Unigenitus autem natura, non gratia. An hoc etiam in ipso Filio ad hominem referendum est? Ita sane ». Ambrosius quoque in libro primo de Trinitatep224-8 ait: « Christus filius est non per adoptionem, sed per naturam; per adoptionem nos filii dicimur, ille per veritatem naturae est ». — Ex his evidenter ostenditur, quod Christus non sit filius gratia adoptionis. Illa enim gratia intelligitur, cum Augustinus eum non esse gratia filium asserit; gratia enim, sed non adoptionis, immo unionis Filius Dei est filius hominis, et e converso.

Cap. III. An persona, vel natura praedestinata sit.

Deinde, si quaeritur, utrum praedestinatio illa, quam commemorat Apostolus, sit de persona, an de natura; sane dici potest, et personam filii, quae semper fuit, esse praedestinatam secundum hominem assumtum, ut ipsa, scilicet ens homo, esset Dei filius; et naturam humanam esse praedestinatam, ut Verbo Patris personaliter uniretur.

---

English Translation

# DISTINCTION X.

Chapter I. Whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is a person, or something.

It is also wont to be inquired by some, whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is a person, or even is something. — On both sides of the questionp224-q1p223-1 arguments run together. For that he is a person, they set forth by these reasonings. If, insofar as he is man, he is something; he is either a person, or a substance, or something else. But something else he is not: therefore either a person or a substance. But if he is a substance; it is either rational or irrational; but it is not an irrational substance: therefore rational. But if, insofar as he is man, he is a rational substancep223-2, then a person, for this is the definition of a person: "An individual substance of a rational naturep223-3." If therefore, insofar as he is man, he is something, then also, insofar as he is man, he is a person.

But on the contrary: if, insofar as he is man, he is a person, he is either the third in the Trinityp223-4, or another; but another he is not: therefore the third person in the Trinity. And if, insofar as he is man, he is the third person in the Trinity, then he is God. — On account of these incongruities and others, certain ones say that Christ, insofar as he is man, is not a person nor something, unless perhaps "insofar as" be expressive of the unity of the person. For "insofar as" has a manifold sense. For sometimes it expresses the condition or property of the divine nature, or of the human; sometimes the unity of the person; sometimes it denotes a habit; sometimes a cause. Let the reader diligently attend to the ground of this distinction and store it away in the recess of his memory, lest its sense be confoundedp223-5 when speech about Christ shall occur.

Yet that does not follow which was adduced in the foregoing argumentation, namely that if Christ, insofar as he is man, is a rational substance, then a person. For even now the soul of Christ is a rational substance, yet not a person, because it does not subsist of itself, but rather is conjoined to another thing. That description of a person, however, was not given for those three persons.

But still in another way they strive to prove that Christ, insofar as he is man, is a person: because Christ, insofar as he is man, was predestined to be the Son of Godp223-6; but that is what he was predestined to be: therefore if he was predestined, insofar as he is man, to be the Son of God; then also, insofar as he is man, he is the Son of God. — To which it can be said that Christ is that which he was predestined to be. For he was predestined to be the Son of God, and he truly is the Son of God. But insofar as he is man he was predestined to be the Son of God, because he has this by grace, insofar as he is man; yet not insofar as he is man is he the Son of God, unless perhaps "insofar as" be expressive of the unity of the person, so that the sense be: he who is man is the Son of God; but that he himself, being man, should be the Son of God, he has by grace. But if a cause be denoted, it is false; for it is not by that whereby he is man that he is the Son of God.

Chapter II. Whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is an adoptive son.

But if it be asked whether Christ is an adoptive son, insofar as he is man, orp223-7 in some other way; we answer that Christ is in no way an adoptive son, but only a natural one, because he is a son by nature, not by the grace of adoption. He is not, however, called a son by nature in the way that he is called God by nature. For he is not a son by that whereby he is God, since he is a son by the property of his nativity, but God by the nature of the divinity; and yet he is called a son by nature, or a son of a nature, because he is naturally a son, having, namely, the samep. 224 nature as he who begot him. But he is not an adoptive son, because he did not first exist and afterwards was adopted into a son, as we are called adoptive sons, because, whereas we were born sons of wrath, by grace we have been made sons of Godp224-1. But Christ never was a non-son; and therefore he is not an adoptive son.

But against this it is objected thus: Christ is the son of man, that is, of the Virgin, either by grace, or by nature, or in both ways. But if by nature, either divine or human; but divine, no: therefore he is the son of man either by a human nature, or by no nature. If by no nature, then by grace only; and even ifp224-2 by a human nature, none the less by grace. If therefore he is the son of the Virgin by grace, he seems to be an adoptive son, so that the same one is the natural son of the Father, and the adoptive son of the Virgin. — To which it can be said that Christ is the son of the Virgin both by nature, or naturally, and by grace; yet he is not the adoptive son of the Virgin, because he is said to be the son of the Virgin not by adoption, but by union. For he is called the son of the Virgin because in the Virgin he took up the man into the unity of the person, and this was of grace, not of nature. Hence Augustine on Johnp224-3: "That the Only-begotten is equal to the Father is not of grace, but of nature. But that the man was assumed into the unity of the person of the Only-begotten is of grace, not of nature." Christ therefore is the adoptive son neither of God nor of man, but the son of God naturally, and the son of man both naturally and by grace. And that he is naturally the son of man, Augustine shows in the book On Faith to Peterp224-4: "He, namely God, was made naturally the son of man, who is naturally the only-begotten Son of God the Father." But that he is not an adoptive son, and yet is a son by grace, is proved from what follows in the testimonies. Jerome on the Epistle to the Ephesiansp224-5 says: "Of Christ Jesus it is written that he always was with the Father, and the paternal will never preceded him that he might be"; "and he indeed is a son by nature, but we by adoption. He never was not a son; we, before we existed, were predestined, and then we received the Spirit of adoption, when we believed in the Son of God." Hilary too, in the third book On the Trinityp224-6, says: "The Lord, in saying, 'Glorify thy Son,' attested not by name alone that he is the Son of God, but also by property. We are sons of God, but not such as this Son. For he is a true and proper son by origin, not by adoption; by truth, not by appellation; by birth, not by creation." Augustine also on Johnp224-7 says: "We are sons by grace, not by nature; but the Only-begotten is a son by nature, not by grace. Is this also, in the Son himself, to be referred to the man? Yes indeed." Ambrose too, in the first book On the Trinityp224-8, says: "Christ is a son not by adoption, but by nature; by adoption we are called sons, but he is by the truth of nature." — From these it is evidently shown that Christ is not a son by the grace of adoption. For that grace is understood when Augustine asserts that he is not a son by grace; for it is by grace, but not of adoption, nay rather of union, that the Son of God is the son of man, and conversely.

Chapter III. Whether the person, or the nature, was predestined.

Next, if it be asked whether that predestination which the Apostle mentions is of the person, or of the nature; it can rightly be said both that the person of the Son, which always existed, was predestined according to the man assumed, so that it, namely being man, should be the Son of God; and that the human nature was predestined to be personally united to the Word of the Father.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. I, II, III, et notae ad textum, p.223–224. In hac distinctione textus Magistri (cap. I–III) impressus est pp. 223–224; apparatus criticus restituitur ex notis « NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM » (p.223, nn.1–7) et ex notis paginae 224 (nn.1–8).
    Chapters I, II, III, and notes to the text, pp. 223–224. In this distinction the Master's text (chs. I–III) is printed on pp. 223–224; the critical apparatus is restored from the notes "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" (p. 223, nn. 1–7) and from the notes of p. 224 (nn. 1–8).
  2. Cod. C cum Vat. et pluribus edd. praefigit huius.
    Codex C, with the Vatican edition and several editions, prefixes huius ("of this").
  3. Ed. 1. bene addit est.
    Edition 1 rightly adds est ("is").
  4. Haec autem definitio Boethii (de Una Persona etc. c. 3.) ita legitur: « Substantia individua rationalis naturae », quam ed. 8 in textum recepit, refragantibus omnibus codd. et ceteris edd. Sensus vix variatur, si rationalis trahitur ad naturae.
    This definition of Boethius (On the One Person etc., c. 3) reads thus: "An individual substance of a rational nature," which edition 8 received into the text, against all the codices and the other editions. The sense scarcely varies, if rationalis be drawn to naturae.
  5. Cod. E et edd. 1, 5, 8 addunt persona.
    Codex E and editions 1, 5, 8 add persona ("person").
  6. Ita codd. A B D et edd. 1, 8; in aliis confundantur; deinde cod. D et edd. 6, 8 occurrit pro occurrerit.
    Thus codices A B D and editions 1, 8; in the others, confundantur; then codex D and editions 6, 8 read occurrit for occurrerit.
  7. Rom. 1, 4. — Inferius post si praedestinatus est, edd. 1, R addunt Christus. — De distinctione, quae est in seq. responsione, cfr. Glossa apud Lyranum ad Rom. 1, 4.
    Romans 1:4. — Below, after si praedestinatus est, editions 1, R add Christus. — On the distinction which is in the following reply, cf. the Gloss in Lyra on Romans 1:4.
  8. Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 an. Inferius post filius edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt Dei, refragantibus codd.
    Codex E and editions 1, 8 read an ("whether"). Below, after filius, the editions, except 1 and 8, add Dei ("of God"), against the codices.
  9. Eph. 2, 3. — Mox post non filius solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt Dei.
    Ephesians 2:3. — Soon after, following non filius, the editions alone, except 1 and 8, add Dei ("of God").
  10. Edd. 1, 8 omittunt etiam. Deinde pro Virginis solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, hominis.
    Editions 1, 8 omit etiam. Then for Virginis the editions alone, except 1 and 8, read hominis ("of man").
  11. Tract. 74. in Ioan. Evang. (14, 16.) n. 3. — Pro unitatem personae, quod est in originali et edd. 1, 8, in aliis unitate.
    Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John (14:16), n. 3. — For unitatem personae, which is in the original and editions 1, 8, the others read unitate.
  12. Cap. 2. n. 14.
    Chapter 2, n. 14.
  13. Cap. 1, 5; seq. locus ibid. parum inferius.
    Chapters 1, 5; the following passage is in the same place, a little below.
  14. Num. 11, ubi respicitur Ioan. 17, 5: Et nunc clarifica me, tu Pater. — In illo textu codd. et ed. 1 post esse filium omittunt Dei. Cod. C ibi post filius glossando addit contra Nestorium: origine, non adoptione; contra Sabellium: veritate, non nuncupatione; contra Arium: nativitate etc.
    N. 11, where reference is made to John 17:5: And now glorify me, thou Father. — In that text the codices and edition 1, after esse filium, omit Dei. Codex C there, after filius, adds by way of gloss against Nestorius: by origin, not by adoption; against Sabellius: by truth, not by appellation; against Arius: by birth, etc.
  15. Tract. 82. in Ioan. Evang. (15, 10.) n. 4.
    Tractate 82 on the Gospel of John (15:10), n. 4.
  16. Sive de Fide, c. 19. n. 126.
    Or On Faith, c. 19, n. 126. ---
Dist. 10, Divisio Textus→