Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 12
Articulus III. De conditione naturae quantum ad sexum.
Consequenter quaeritur de conditione naturae assumtae quantum ad sexum. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum Deum decuerit assumere sexum muliebremp270-1.
Secundo, utrum decuerit carnem assumere de sola muliere.
Quaestio I. Utrum decuerit Deum assumere sexum muliebrem.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum decuerit Deum assumere muliebrem sexum ad reparandum genus humanum. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia ordo reparationis per oppositum debet respondere lapsuip270-2; sed nostra ruina fuit per mulierem: ergo relevatio. Sed relevatio facta est per naturam assumtam: ergo etc.
2. Item, ideo assumsit Deus naturam fragilem, ut, dum sua fragilitate vinceret fortem, mirabilis in hoc Dei potentia reluceret: si ergo fragilior est sexus muliebris, videtur, quod magis fuisset eius potentia manifestata, si in sexu muliebri diabolum superasset: ergo magis congruum fuit, mulierem quam virum assumi a Verbo Deip270-3.
3. Item, spiritus rationalis ita unibilis est indifferenter sexui muliebri, ut virili: ergo pari ratione et spiritus increatus: ergo indifferenter se habent sexus utriquep270-4 ad unionem, quantum est ex parte naturae. Si ergo sexus muliebris magis depressus erat in miseriam quam virilis; cum Dei Filius incarnatus fuerit ad nostram miseriam relevandam, videtur, quod magis debuerit assumere sexum femineum quam virilem.
4. Item, proles assimilari debet suo principio; sed Christus natus fuit ex sola Virgine matre: ergo si ex femina traxit carnem, magis debuit assimilari matri quam alii: ergo si non degeneravit, potius debuit ex ea trahere sexum, quem habebat Virgo, quam alium.
Sed contra: 1. Philosophus in libro de Animalibusp270-5 dicit, quod « femina est vir occasionatus », hoc est imperfectus: ergo si homo assumtus debuit esse perfectissimus, non ergo debuit mulier esse, sed tantum masculus.
2. Item, quod maius est, Apostolus primae ad Corinthios undecimop270-6 dicit, quod caput mulieris est vir, non e converso; sed homo assumtus est caput totius Ecclesiae: ergo non debuit esse sexus feminei, alioquin fieret perversio ordinis; quod quidem non debuit Deus in sua incarnatione facere, quin potius destructum ordinem debuit reparare.
3. Item, principium totius generationis est sexus virilis, nam ex uno viro omnesp270-7; sed homo assumtus debuit esse principium totius generationis spiritualis: non ergo sexus muliebris, sed virilis.
4. Item, si assumsisset sexum muliebrem, ergo cum fiat communicatio idiomatum, deberet dici dea et deberet dici filia: si ergo non decet esse nisi Deum et Filium in illa summa Trinitate, non deam aut filiamp270-8; nullo modo decuit Deum assumere feminam.
Conclusio.
Absque dubio non ita decuit Deum assumere sexum femineum, sicut virilem, in unitatem personae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio non ita decuit Deum assumere sexum femineum, sicut virilem, in unitatem personae. — Et ratio huius est, quia muliebris sexus non est tantae dignitatis, sicut p. 271 virilis. Excellit enim sexus virilis muliebrem et quantum ad dignitatem in principiando, et quantum ad virtutem in agendo, et quantum ad auctoritatem in praesidendo. Quantum ad dignitatem in principiando, quia omnes tam viri quam mulieres ex uno viro fuerunt, in quo est expressa repraesentatio egressus rerum ab illo unico principio primo et summop271-1. — Quantum ad virtutem in agendo similiter praecellit, quoniam viri est agere, et mulieris est pati. Unde plus habet sexus virilis de virtute activa, propter quod et robustior est et re et nominatione. — Quantum ad auctoritatem in praesidendo etiam praeexcellit. Nam secundum rectum ordinem non mulier viro, sed vir praeficitur mulieri tanquam caput corpori, sicut dicit Apostolusp271-2. — Quoniam ergo in Verbo assumente naturam humanam est praecipua dignitas in principiando et virtus in agendo et dominium in praesidendo; hinc est, quod magis decuit, sexum virilem quam muliebrem assumi a Verbo increato, quia illi naturae assumtae debuerunt haec tria communicari excellenter. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem.
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod ruina fuerit per mulierem; dicendum, quod quamvis in sexu muliebri ruina nostra fuit inchoata, in sexu tamen virili est consummata. Et quoniam nostra reparatio in natura assumta habuit consummari, hinc est, quod secundum rectam correspondentiam magis decuit, virum quam mulierem assumi.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fragilitate, dicendum, quod sic congruum fuit, Christum vincere per fragilitatem in patiendo, ut postmodum vinceret per virtutem in resurgendo; et ideo sexum talem debuit assumere, qui etiamp271-3 fragilis esset ad tempus propter passibilitatis qualitatem, et nihilominus ad virtutem ordinabilis secundum qualitatem naturae; et talis fuit virilis sexus magis quam muliebris.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione spiritus rationalis ad utrumque sexum, dicendum, quod non est simile: primum, quia spiritus unitur corpori, ita quod ex his fit unum, et non est communicatio idiomatum; non sic autemp271-4 de Verbo aeterno, quod manet in sua proprietate, communicans homini assumto suas proprietates, ad quas communicandas magis sexus virilis quam muliebris competens erat. — Praeterea, non est simile, quia spiritus increatus est nobilissimus, et unio, qua unit sibi nostram naturam in persona, est nobilissima; et ideo nobiliorem sexum debet assumere. Non sic autem est de spiritu rationali.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proles debet assimilari suo principio; dicendum, quod illud est verum, quando producit prolem omnino secundum propriam virtutem naturae suae; non sic autem est in proposito. Nam Virgo concepit mota et adiuta Spiritu sanctop271-5; et ideo magis proles habuit sexum, quem Spiritus sanctus elegit, quam sexum, quem in matre invenit. Nec in tali generatione est degeneratio, sed magis nobilitatio; quia non est contra naturam mulieris concipere sexum virilem, immo magis cupit naturaliter mulier habere filium masculum quam feminam.
I. Hanc quaestionem Magister (hic c. 3.) incipit his verbis: « Solet etiam quaeri, quamvis curiose, a nonnullis, si Deus humanam naturam potuit assumere » etc., eamque paucis verbis expedit. Nihilominus Gualterus a S. Victore ob hanc quaestionem acerrime insectatur Magistrum tanquam blasphemum, sed immerito (cfr. D'Argentré, Collectio iudicior. t. I. pag. 117). — Argumenta congruentiae pro hac et seq. quaestione sunt manifesta, et a diversis diversa addita sunt. De hac quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. — B. Albert., a. 10. — Petr. a Tar. hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1.
II. De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. II. 12. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2; S. III. q. 28. a. 1, q. 32. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.
---
Article III. On the condition of the nature with respect to sex.
Next it is asked concerning the condition of the assumed nature with respect to sex. And concerning this two questions are raised.
First it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sexp270-1.
Second, whether it was fitting to assume flesh from a woman alone.
Question I. Whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex.
Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it was fitting for God to assume the female sex for the repairing of the human race. And that it was so seems to be the case:
1. Because the order of reparation ought to correspond by way of opposite to the fallp270-2; but our ruin came about through a woman: therefore [also] the relieving [of it]. But the relieving was effected through the assumed nature: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, God assumed a fragile nature for this reason, that, while by His fragility He might conquer the strong one, the power of God might shine forth in this the more wondrously: if therefore the female sex is more fragile, it seems that His power would have been the more manifested, had He overcome the devil in the female sex: therefore it was more fitting that a woman rather than a man should be assumed by the Word of Godp270-3.
3. Likewise, a rational spirit is just as indifferently unitable to the female sex as to the male: therefore by parity of reasoning the uncreated Spirit also: therefore both sexes are related indifferentlyp270-4 to the union, so far as it is on the part of the nature. If therefore the female sex was more deeply sunk into misery than the male; since the Son of God was incarnate to relieve our misery, it seems that He ought rather to have assumed the female sex than the male.
4. Likewise, offspring ought to be made like to its principle; but Christ was born from the Virgin mother alone: therefore if He drew flesh from a woman, He ought rather to be made like to His mother than to another: therefore if He did not degenerate, He ought rather to have drawn from her the sex which the Virgin had, than another.
On the contrary: 1. The Philosopher in the book On Animalsp270-5 says that « woman is a man manqué », that is, imperfect: therefore if the assumed man ought to be most perfect, then the woman ought not to have been [assumed], but only the male.
2. Likewise, what is greater, the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter]p270-6, says that the head of the woman is the man, and not the reverse; but the assumed man is the head of the whole Church: therefore there ought not to have been the female sex, otherwise a perversion of order would arise; which indeed God ought not to do in His incarnation, but rather He ought to repair the destroyed order.
3. Likewise, the principle of all generation is the male sex, for from one man are allp270-7; but the assumed man ought to be the principle of all spiritual generation: therefore not the female sex, but the male.
4. Likewise, if He had assumed the female sex, then, since the communication of idioms takes place, He would have to be called goddess and would have to be called daughter: if therefore it is fitting that there be only God and Son in that highest Trinity, and not goddess or daughterp270-8; in no way was it fitting for God to assume a woman.
Conclusion.
Without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person.
I respond: It must be said that without doubt it was not as fitting for God to assume the female sex as the male, into the unity of person. — And the reason for this is that the female sex is not of as great a dignity as the male. For the male sex excels the female both as to dignity in originating, and as to power in acting, and as to authority in presiding. As to dignity in originating, because all, both men and women, came from one man, in whom there is an express representation of the going-forth of things from that one first and highest principlep271-1. — As to power in acting likewise it surpasses, since it belongs to the man to act, and to the woman to undergo. Hence the male sex has more of active power, on account of which it is both stronger in fact and in name. — As to authority in presiding also it pre-excels. For according to right order it is not the woman who is set over the man, but the man who is set over the woman as the head over the body, as the Apostle saysp271-2. — Since therefore in the Word assuming human nature there is preeminent dignity in originating and power in acting and dominion in presiding; hence it is that it was more fitting that the male sex rather than the female be assumed by the uncreated Word, because to that assumed nature these three things had to be communicated in an excellent way. — And therefore the reasons for this position are to be conceded.
1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that the ruin came about through a woman; it must be said that although in the female sex our ruin was begun, yet in the male sex it was consummated. And since our reparation had to be consummated in the assumed nature, hence it is that according to right correspondence it was more fitting that a man rather than a woman be assumed.
2. To that which is objected concerning fragility, it must be said that it was thus fitting that Christ conquer through fragility in suffering, that afterward He might conquer through power in rising again; and therefore He ought to assume such a sex as would alsop271-3 be fragile for a time on account of the quality of passibility, and nonetheless be capable of being ordered toward power according to the quality of [its] nature; and such was the male sex rather than the female.
3. To that which is objected concerning the union of the rational spirit to either sex, it must be said that it is not similar: first, because the spirit is united to the body in such a way that from these there comes about one [thing], and there is no communication of idioms; but it is not sop271-4 with the eternal Word, which remains in its own property, communicating to the assumed man its [own] properties, for the communicating of which the male sex was more fitting than the female. — Moreover, it is not similar, because the uncreated Spirit is most noble, and the union by which it unites our nature to itself in person is most noble; and therefore it ought to assume a more noble sex. But it is not so with the rational spirit.
4. To that which is objected, that the offspring ought to be made like to its principle; it must be said that this is true when [the principle] produces the offspring wholly according to the proper power of its nature; but it is not so in the case at hand. For the Virgin conceived being moved and aided by the Holy Spiritp271-5; and therefore the offspring rather had the sex which the Holy Spirit chose, than the sex which it found in the mother. Nor in such a generation is there degeneration, but rather an ennobling; because it is not against the nature of a woman to conceive the male sex, nay rather a woman naturally desires the more to have a male child than a female.
I. The Master begins this question (here, c. 3) with these words: « It is also wont to be asked, though curiously, by some, whether God could have assumed human nature » etc., and he settles it in a few words. Nevertheless Walter of St. Victor, on account of this question, most fiercely assails the Master as a blasphemer, but undeservedly (cf. D'Argentré, Collection of Judgments vol. I, p. 117). — The arguments of congruity for this and the following question are manifest, and various things have been added by various [authors]. On this question: St. Thomas, here q. 3 a. 1. — Bl. Albert, a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 4 little-question 1, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3 q. 1.
II. On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III q. 2 m. II. 12. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2; Summa III q. 28 a. 1, q. 32 a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 2.
---
- Pro sexum muliebrem non pauci codd. mulierem, qui tamen infra in ipsa quaestione nostrae lectioni assentiuntur.For sexum muliebrem (the female sex) not a few codices read mulierem (a woman), which however below, in the question itself, agree with our reading.
- Cfr. tom. II. pag. 517, nota 8. — Edd. conclusionem valde truncarunt, exhibentes sola verba: ergo et relevatio etc.Cf. vol. II, p. 517, note 8. — The editions greatly truncated the conclusion, exhibiting only the words: therefore also the relieving, etc.
- Chrysost., Homil. in S. Dorsidem M. n. 3: Quanto infirmius est vas, tanto maior est gratia, tanto illustrius trophaeum, tanto micantior et insignior victoria. — Pro manifestata codd. H I L aa manifesta.Chrysostom, Homily on St. Drosis the Martyr n. 3: The weaker the vessel, the greater the grace, the more glorious the trophy, the more dazzling and distinguished the victory. — For manifestata (manifested) codices H I L aa read manifesta (manifest).
- Edd. se habet sexus uterque. In fine arg. pro femineum cod. K muliebrem.The editions read each sex is related [in the singular]. At the end of the argument, for femineum (feminine) codex K reads muliebrem (womanly).
- Libr. XVI. sive, secundum recentiorem operum Aristot. divisionem, II. de Generat. animal. c. 3. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 485, nota 5.Book XVI, or, according to the more recent division of Aristotle's works, II On the Generation of Animals c. 3. Cf. vol. II, p. 485, note 5.
- Vers. 3. — De minori vide infra d. 13. a. 2. q. I. seqq.Verse 3. — On the minor [premise] see below d. 13 a. 2 q. I and following.
- Hebr. 2, 11. August., XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 27. n. 1: Quem [primum parentem] propterea Deus creare voluit unum, de quo multitudo propagaretur, ut hac admonitione etiam in multis concors unitas servaretur. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 1, et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. nec non dub. 1.Heb. 2, 11. Augustine, XII On the City of God, c. 27 n. 1: [The first parent,] whom God therefore willed to create as one, from whom the multitude would be propagated, so that by this admonition a concordant unity might be preserved even among the many. Cf. II Sent., Master's text, d. XVIII c. 1, and Commentary a. 1 q. 1 in the body, and also dub. 1.
- Anselm., Monolog. c. 42, ad ostendendum, quod in significandis personis Ss. Trinitatis nomina patris et filii, et non matris et filiae adhibenda sint, optime hanc rationem affert: quia « prima et principalis causa prolis semper est in patre. Nam si maternam causam quolibet modo semper paterna praecedit, nimis est incongruum, ut illi parenti adaptetur nomen matris, cui ad gignendam prolem nulla alia causa aut sociatur aut praecedit... Quodsi filius semper similior est patri quam filia [quae disparis est sexus]; nihil autem similius est alteri, quam summo Patri proles sua: verissimum est, hanc prolem non esse filiam, sed filium. — In fine arg. pro assumere feminam codd. M O assumere sexum femineum, quibus verbis adhuc addunt sicut virilem in unitatem personae.Anselm, Monologion c. 42, in order to show that in signifying the persons of the Most Holy Trinity the names of father and son, and not of mother and daughter, are to be used, gives this reason most aptly: because « the first and principal cause of the offspring is always in the father. For if the paternal cause in any way always precedes the maternal, it is too unfitting that the name of mother be applied to that parent to whom, for the begetting of the offspring, no other cause is either joined or prior... But if the son is always more like the father than the daughter [who is of a disparate sex]; and nothing is more like another than its own offspring is like the highest Father: it is most true that this offspring is not a daughter, but a son. — At the end of the argument, for assumere feminam (to assume a woman) codices M O read assumere sexum femineum (to assume the feminine sex), to which words they further add sicut virilem in unitatem personae (as the male, into the unity of person).
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et dub. 1. De ratione seq. cfr. hoc idem dub. 1, nec non supra pag. 111, nota 1.Cf. II Sent. d. 18 a. 1 q. 1 in the body and dub. 1. On the following reason cf. this same dub. 1, and also above p. 111, note 1.
- Epist. I. Cor. 11, 3, et Eph. 5, 23. — Paulo superius pro praeexcellit codd. A I L T Z aa praecellit.First Epistle to the Cor. 11, 3, and Eph. 5, 23. — A little above, for praeexcellit (pre-excels) codices A I L T Z aa read praecellit (excels).
- Codd. A H K L aa bb et.Codices A H K L aa bb read et (and).
- Codd. K aa bb adiiciunt est. In fine solut. pro debet edd. cum aliquot codd. debuit.Codices K aa bb add est (is). At the end of the solution, for debet (ought) the editions, with several codices, read debuit (ought-[have]).
- Cfr. supra d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Ultima solut. verba quam feminam desunt in codd. I L aa; pro feminam, quod habent edd. cum codd. A Z bb, alii codd. substituerunt femineum.Cf. above d. 4 a. 3 q. 1 and following. — The last words of the solution, quam feminam (than a female), are wanting in codices I L aa; for feminam (female), which the editions have with codices A Z bb, other codices substituted femineum (feminine).