← Back to Distinction 12

Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 271

Quaestio II. Utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam sola muliere.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum magis debuerit carnem assumere de viro simul et muliere quam de muliere tantum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ad Hebraeos secundop271-6: Debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari; sed similitudo fraternap271-7 maxime consistit in generatione: ergo videtur, quod sicut alii generantur ex patre et matre, quod et similiter Christus.

2. Item, Christus humanam assumsit naturam, ut nos curaret a morbo originalis peccati: si ergo originale peccatum traducitur per viam generationis de masculo et femina; videtur, quod sic debuit p. 272 nasci, ut sicut sua morte nos a morte damnationis liberavit, sic sua origine nostrae originis vitiositatem sanaret.

3. Item, Christus aequaliter venit ad sanandum utrumque sexum, ergo videtur, quod debuit utrumque sexum assumere, vel ex utroque; sed non utrumque, quia vel in una persona, quia tunc esset hermaphroditusp272-1, quod est abominabile; vel in duabus, et tunc esset superfluitas: ergo debuit humanam naturam ex utroque sexu suscipere.

4. Item, nobilius principium generationis est vir quam mulierp272-2: si ergo alii generantur ex viro et muliere, et Christus ex sola muliere; nobiliori modo sunt alii homines generati quam Christus. Si ergo non decet, ut aliquis ipsum in nobilitate generationis excedat, videtur etc.

Sed contra: 1. Geniti secundum naturalem propagationem ex viro et muliere contrahunt morbum originalem; sed Christus ab illo morbo debuit esse omnino immunis: ergo non decuit ipsum assumere carnem ex utroque sexu.

2. Item, dignitas praecipue est in Virgine Maria, ut sit mater et virgo: si ergo Christus non debuit Matri dignitatem adimere, sed augere; videtur, quod non debuit ex ipsa nasci per commixtionemp272-3.

3. Item, Christus venit nos regenerare nova regeneratione et spirituali, ergo novo modo et spirituali nasci debuit; sed modus nascendi de viro et muliere est carnalis et consuetus: ergo etc.

4. Item, si Christus sic esset genitus, ergo haberet patrem in terris et patrem in caelis: si ergo non decet, unum filium habere duos patres, restat, quod non decuit Christum hoc modo assumere carnemp272-4.

Conclusio.

Non fuisset ita congruum, sicut nunc, Christum accipere carnem vel de viro et muliere, vel etiam de viro tantum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Christus absque dubio potuit carnem assumere, si voluisset, de viro et mulierep272-5, vel etiam de viro tantum, sicut assumsit de muliere tantum. Sicut enim purificavit operatione Spiritus sancti uterum virginalem, sic et purificare et sanctificare potuit, si voluisset, vim generativam in viro pariter et muliere, ut ex eis sanctus et immaculatus nasceretur absque aliqua foeditate. Potuit itaque sine incongruentia, si voluisset, carnem assumere secundum legem naturae institutae de viro et muliere.

Sed tamen non fuisset ita congruum, sicut nunc; et hoc multiplici ratione congruentiae, ob quam magis decebat, ut carnem sumeret de sola mulierep272-6. Prima est ad servandam dignitatem Matris, quae ob conceptionem Filii Dei non amisit privilegium virginitatis. — Secunda est propter servandam honorificentiam Patris; Christus enim secundum generationem aeternam habebat patrem; et cum illep272-7 plene sibi sufficeret in caelis, non venit in terris patrem quaerere, sed solum matrem, ne duobus patribus filius existens neutrius esset filius plene, et sic iniuria primo patri quodam modo fieret. — Tertia est propter complendam perfectionem universitatis in modis educendi hominem in esse: quia, cum esset quadruplex modus educendi hominem in esse, scilicet de viro et muliere, nec de viro nec de muliere, de viro sine muliere, et de muliere sine viro; tres primi praecesserant; et ideo non restabat, nisi ut Deus quartum modum adderet; quod non fecisset, si alio modo conceptus essetp272-8. — Quarta ratio propter correspondentiam congruitatis lapsus et reparationis, ut, sicut lapsus est factus in utroque sexu, sed primo in muliere est inchoatus et in viro consummatus; sic esset in reparatione, ut mulier credendo et concipiendo inciperet diabolum superare in abscondito, et post eius filius in manifesto eum vinceret in duello, scilicet in crucis patibulop272-9. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae adducuntur ad partem istam.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod decuit ipsum per omnia fratribus assimilari; dicendum, quod verum est de his quae ad nostram salutem et eruditionem sunt ordinata; sed talis modus nascendi nec nostrae saluti nec nostrae eruditioni adeo competeret, sicut ille quem Christus elegit; et ideo quantum ad nascendi modum non debuit similari. — Praeterea, alia ratio est: quia nos per modum talem nascendi contrahimus morbum: et Christus ut bonus medicus im- p. 273 munis a morbo debuit esse: hinc est, quod in tali modo nascendi non debuit nobis assimilari nec nobiscum convenirep273-1.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debuit sic nasci, ut nos curaret; dicendum, quod Deus sic venit curare et sic disposuit, ut curaret personam, non ut curaret ipsam naturam. Unde medicina Christi non habet in nobis efficaciam in actu generationis, sed in actu regenerationis, quae, inquam, regeneratio non est ex carne et sanguine, sed ex aqua et Spiritu sanctop273-2. Et ideo non oportuit nec decuit eum sic nasci, sicut nos nascimur, cum illum modum nascendi non disposuerit immutare per suum adventum, ut fides haberet meritum; alioquin deprehenderetur fides per humanum experimentum, sicut alias et in quarto et in secundop273-3 fuit ostensum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequaliter venerat salvare utrumque sexum; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen virilem sexum tanquam digniorem quodam modo magis debuit pensare, et sexum virilem assumsit, quia magis competens fuitp273-4. Sed quia mulier ab eius redemptionis sufficientia nequaquam erat excludenda; ideo assumsit carnem de muliere. — Ideo dicendum, quod illa divisio non est sufficiens, qua dicit: aut debuit assumere utrumque sexum, aut de utroque sexu. Est enim medium: aut unum de altero, sicut virilem de muliebri; et tunc tantum valet, quantum si de utroque, et amplius concordat rationi rectae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod pater est nobilius principium; dicendum, quod Christus Dominus non est absque patre, immo patrem habet Deum aeternum, cuius excellentia et dignitas inaestimabiliter excedit omnem patrem creatum; et ideo, quod alii habent patrem creatum, Christus vero minime, hoc non est propter maiorem dignitatem aliorum respectu Christi. Habet enim Christus aliquem loco patris creati, qui adeo est nobilis, ut ex ipso nominetur omnis paternitas in caelo et in terrisp273-5.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether He ought rather to have assumed flesh from man and woman together than from a woman alone.

Secondly it is asked whether He ought rather to have assumed flesh from man and woman together than from a woman alone. And that it was so seems to be the case.

1. To the Hebrews, second [chapter]p271-6: He ought in all things to be made like to His brethren; but fraternal likenessp271-7 consists chiefly in generation: therefore it seems that, just as others are generated from father and mother, so too in like manner [should] Christ [be].

2. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature in order to cure us from the disease of original sin: if therefore original sin is transmitted by way of generation from male and female; it seems that He ought so to be born, that, as by His death He freed us from the death of damnation, so by His origin He might heal the corruption of our origin.

3. Likewise, Christ came equally to heal both sexes, therefore it seems that He ought to have assumed both sexes, or [to be] from both; but not both, because [it would be] either in one person, for then He would be a hermaphroditep272-1, which is abominable; or in two, and then there would be superfluity: therefore He ought to have taken up human nature from both sexes.

4. Likewise, a nobler principle of generation is the man than the womanp272-2: if therefore others are generated from man and woman, and Christ from a woman alone; in a nobler manner are other men generated than Christ. If therefore it is not fitting that anyone should excel Him in the nobility of generation, it seems, etc.

On the contrary: 1. Those begotten according to natural propagation from man and woman contract the original disease; but Christ ought to have been wholly immune from that disease: therefore it was not fitting for Him to assume flesh from both sexes.

2. Likewise, dignity is especially in the Virgin Mary, that she be mother and virgin: if therefore Christ ought not to take away dignity from His Mother, but to increase it; it seems that He ought not to be born from her by commixturep272-3.

3. Likewise, Christ came to regenerate us by a new and spiritual regeneration, therefore He ought to be born in a new and spiritual manner; but the manner of being born from man and woman is carnal and customary: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, if Christ were thus begotten, then He would have a father on earth and a father in heaven: if therefore it is not fitting that one son should have two fathers, it remains that it was not fitting for Christ to assume flesh in this mannerp272-4.

Conclusion.

It would not have been so fitting as it now is, for Christ to take flesh either from man and woman, or even from man alone.

I respond: It must be said that Christ without doubt could have assumed flesh, had He willed, from man and womanp272-5, or even from man alone, just as He assumed it from a woman alone. For as He purified by the operation of the Holy Spirit the virginal womb, so also could He have purified and sanctified, had He willed, the generative power in man and woman alike, so that from them a holy and immaculate one might be born without any foulness. He could therefore, without incongruity, had He willed, have assumed flesh according to the law of nature instituted, from man and woman.

But nevertheless it would not have been so fitting as it now is; and this for a manifold reason of fittingness, on account of which it was more becoming that He should take flesh from a woman alonep272-6. The first is for preserving the dignity of the Mother, who, on account of the conception of the Son of God, did not lose the privilege of virginity. — The second is on account of preserving the honor of the Father; for Christ according to His eternal generation had a Father; and since Hep272-7 sufficed fully for Himself in heaven, He did not come on earth to seek a father, but only a mother, lest, the Son existing with two fathers, He should be fully the son of neither, and thus an injury be in a certain manner done to the first Father. — The third is on account of completing the perfection of the universality in the modes of bringing man into being: because, since there were a fourfold mode of bringing man into being, namely, from man and woman, neither from man nor from woman, from man without woman, and from woman without man; the first three had gone before; and therefore there remained nothing, except that God should add the fourth mode; which He would not have done, had He been conceived in another mannerp272-8. — The fourth reason [is] on account of the correspondence of the congruity of the fall and the reparation, that, as the fall was made in both sexes, but first in the woman was it begun and in the man consummated; so it might be in the reparation, that the woman by believing and conceiving might begin to overcome the devil in hiding, and afterward her Son in the open might conquer him in single combat, namely on the gibbet of the crossp272-9. — And the reasons which are adduced for this side are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that it was fitting for Him to be made like to His brethren in all things; it must be said that this is true of those things which are ordained to our salvation and instruction; but such a manner of being born would not so befit either our salvation or our instruction, as that one which Christ chose; and therefore as to the manner of being born He ought not to be made like. — Moreover, there is another reason: that we by such a manner of being born contract the disease: and Christ as a good physician ought to be im- mune from the disease: hence it is that in such a manner of being born He ought not to be made like to us nor to agree with usp273-1.

2. To that which is objected, that He ought so to be born, that He might cure us; it must be said that God so came to cure and so disposed, that He might cure the person, not that He might cure the nature itself. Hence the medicine of Christ has no efficacy in us in the act of generation, but in the act of regeneration, which regeneration, I say, is not from flesh and blood, but from water and the Holy Spiritp273-2. And therefore it was neither necessary nor fitting that He be born as we are born, since He did not dispose to change that manner of being born by His coming, in order that faith might have merit; otherwise faith would be apprehended by human experiment, as has elsewhere been shown both in the fourth and in the secondp273-3.

3. To that which is objected, that He had come equally to save both sexes; it must be said that this is true; nevertheless He ought in a certain way to esteem the male sex the more, as being the worthier, and He assumed the male sex, because it was the more befittingp273-4. But since the woman was by no means to be excluded from the sufficiency of His redemption; therefore He assumed flesh from a woman. — Therefore it must be said that that division is not sufficient, by which one says: either He ought to assume both sexes, or [to be] from both sexes. For there is a middle: either the one from the other, as the male from the female; and then it is worth as much as if from both, and it accords more with right reason.

4. To that which is objected, that the father is the nobler principle; it must be said that Christ the Lord is not without a father, nay rather He has the eternal God for His Father, whose excellence and dignity inestimably exceeds every created father; and therefore that others have a created father, but Christ by no means [has one], is not on account of a greater dignity of others in respect of Christ. For Christ has someone in place of a created father, who is so noble, that from Him is named all paternity in heaven and on earthp273-5.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 17. — In minori edd. et multi codd. pro similitudo fraterna male exhibent similitudo superna.
    Verse 17. — In the minor [premise] the editions and many codices for similitudo fraterna (fraternal likeness) wrongly exhibit similitudo superna (heavenly likeness).
  2. Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 2; II. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3, a. 2. q. 3. et dub. 2.
    See above d. 3 p. II a. 1 q. 2 and a. 2 q. 2; II Sent. d. 31 a. 1 q. 3, a. 2 q. 3, and dub. 2.
  3. Cfr. August. XVI. de Civ. Dei, c. 8. n. 2, et XII. de Trin. c. 6. n. 8. — Paulo superius post vel ex utroque edd. subiiciunt nasci et deinde pro quia tunc cum aliquibus codd. habent et tunc.
    Cf. Augustine, XVI On the City of God, c. 8 n. 2, and XII On the Trinity c. 6 n. 8. — A little above, after vel ex utroque (or from both) the editions add nasci (to be born), and then for quia tunc (because then) they have, with some codices, et tunc (and then).
  4. Vide supra pag. 111, nota 1. — Paulo inferius post quam Christus codd. A G H supplent fuerit, et in fine arg. pro excedat cod. X substituit excellat.
    See above p. 111, note 1. — A little below, after quam Christus (than Christ) codices A G H supply fuerit (were); and at the end of the argument, for excedat (exceed) codex X substitutes excellat (excel).
  5. Leo M. Serm. 21 (II. in Nat. Domini) c. 2: Venit enim Dominus Iesus Christus contagia nostra auferre... propter quod oportuit, ut novo nasceretur ordine... oportuit enim, ut primam Genitricis integritatem nascens incorruptio custodiret... ut virginitas, quae in aliis non poterat salva esse generando, fieret in aliis imitabilis et confitendo et renascendo. — In maiori ante Mater et Virgo cod. K interserit simul.
    Leo the Great, Sermon 21 (II on the Nativity of the Lord) c. 2: For the Lord Jesus Christ came to take away our contagions... on which account it was necessary that He be born by a new order... for it was necessary that, as He was being born, incorruption should guard the prior integrity of His Genetrix... so that virginity, which in others could not be kept safe while generating, might become in others imitable both by confessing and by being reborn. — In the major [premise], before Mater et Virgo (mother and virgin), codex K inserts simul (at once).
  6. Vide supra pag. 111, nota 1.
    See above p. 111, note 1.
  7. Cfr. supra pag. 29, nota 9. Eadem sententia editur in libro de Fide contra Manichaeos (inter opera August., sed est Evodii), c. 24.
    Cf. above p. 29, note 9. The same opinion is set forth in the book On Faith against the Manichees (among Augustine's works, but it is by Evodius), c. 24.
  8. Vat. subiicit simul. Paulo inferius pro potuit edd. cum cod. cc potuisset.
    The Vatican [edition] adds simul (at once). A little below, for potuit (could) the editions, with codex cc, read potuisset (would have been able).
  9. Pro muliere cod. K virgine. Paulo superius edd. omittunt ita ante congruum.
    For muliere (woman) codex K reads virgine (virgin). A little above, the editions omit ita (so) before congruum (fitting).
  10. De hac August. sententia vide supra pag. 29, nota 9. — Proxime post pro ne duobus cod. A ne in duobus, cod. aa ne de duobus.
    On this opinion of Augustine see above p. 29, note 9. — Immediately after, for ne duobus (lest, with two) codex A reads ne in duobus (lest, in two), codex aa ne de duobus (lest, from two).
  11. Vide August., Serm. 370 (alias 20. de Tempore) c. 1. n. 1. et supra pag. 23, nota 4. — Paulo ante pro adderet cod. K apponeret.
    See Augustine, Sermon 370 (otherwise 20, On the Season) c. 1 n. 1, and above p. 23, note 4. — A little before, for adderet (would add) codex K reads apponeret (would set beside).
  12. Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. ad 2. — In fine enuntiati praeced. pro similari codd. F U assimilari.
    See above d. 3 p. II a. 3 q. 2 ad 2. — At the end of the preceding statement, for similari (to be made like) codices F U read assimilari (to be made like).
  13. Ioan. 3, 5. — Subinde pro oportuit non pauci codd. vitiose oportet.
    John 3, 5. — Thereupon for oportuit (it was necessary) not a few codices wrongly [read] oportet (it is necessary).
  14. Libr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 2, ubi in originali peccato distinguitur corruptio personae et naturae, et docetur, quod gratia directe respiciat corruptionem personae, non naturae. Rationes huius divinae ordinationis vide IV. d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
    Book II Sent. d. 32 a. 1 q. 2, where in original sin a distinction is made between the corruption of the person and of the nature, and it is taught that grace directly regards the corruption of the person, not of the nature. For the reasons of this divine ordination see IV d. 4 p. I a. 1 q. 2.
  15. Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Paulo inferius pro qua dicit Vat. quae dicit. Circa finem solut. post utroque cod. K supplet esset.
    As was shown in the preceding question. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 3. — A little below, for qua dicit (by which one says) the Vatican [edition reads] quae dicit (which says). Toward the end of the solution, after utroque (both) codex K supplies esset (it were).
  16. Eph. 3, 15, ubi Vat. et edd. 1, 2 cum Vulgata in caelis pro in caelo. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    Eph. 3, 15, where the Vatican [edition] and editions 1, 2, with the Vulgate, [read] in caelis (in the heavens) for in caelo (in heaven). — See the scholion on the preceding question.
← Dist. 12, Art. 3, Q. 1Dist. 12, Dubia→