← Back to Distinction 12

Dist. 12

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

Textus Latinus
p. 260

# DISTINCTIO XII.

Cap. I. An Deus alium sumere potuerit, vel aliunde quam de genere Adae.

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum alium hominem, vel aliunde hominem quam de genere illius Adam Deus assumere potuerit. — Ad quod sane dici potest, ipsum aliam animam et aliam carnem potuisse assumere, quia gratia tantum assumta est anima illa et caro a Verbo Dei. Ut enim ait Augustinus1: « In rebus per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, quod homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo ». Potuit igitur Deus aliam animam et aliam carnem assumere, et carnem utique aliunde quam de genere Adam. Unde Augustinus, in libro decimo tertio de Trinitate2: « Poterat utique Deus hominem aliunde suscipere, in quo esset mediator Dei et hominum, non de genere illius Adam, qui peccato suo obligavit genus humanum, sicut ipsum, quem primo creavit, non de genere alicuius creavit. Poterat ergo vel sic, vel alio quo vellet modo creare unum alium, de quo vinceretur victor prioris. Sed melius iudicavit, et de ipso quod victum fuerat genere assumere hominem, per quem hominis vinceret inimicum; et tamen ex Virgine, cuius conceptum spiritus, non caro, fides, non libido praevenit, nec interfuit carnis concupiscentia, qua ceteri concipiuntur, qui originale trahunt peccatum; sed credendo, non concumbendo sancta est fecundata virginitas ». — Ex his aperte ostenditur, et alium et aliunde hominem Deum assumere potuisse.

Cap. II. Si homo ille potuerit peccare, vel non esse Deus.

Ideo non immerito quaeritur, utrum homo ille potuerit peccare, vel non esse Deus. Si enim potuit peccare, et potuit damnari; si potuit damnari, potuit non esse Deus: ergo si potuit peccare, potuit non esse Deus; quia esse Deum et posse3 velle iniquitatem simul esse nequeunt. — Hic distinctione opus est, utrum de persona, an de natura agatur. Si enim de persona agitur, manifestum est, quia peccare non potuit, nec4 Deus non esse potuit. Si vero de natura, discutiendum est, utrum agat de ea ut Verbo unita, an de ea tanquam non unita Verbo, et tamen enti, id est, an de ea, secundum quod fuit unita Verbo, an de ea, secundum quod esse potuit et non unita Verbo. Non est enim ambiguum, animam illam, entem unitam Verbo, peccare non posse; et est sine ambiguo verum, eandem, si esset et non unita Verbo, posse peccare.

Quidam tamen probare conantur, eam etiam unitam Verbo posse peccare, quia liberum arbitrium habet, et ita potest flecti in utramque partem. Quod frivolum est, cum et Angeli liberum arbitrium habeant, et tamen gratia a Deo5 sunt confirmati, ut peccare nequeant. Quanto magis ergo ille homo, cui spiritus est datus sine mensura? Inducunt quoque auctoritatem ad probandum idem; scriptum est enim in libro Sapientiae6: Qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus; facere malum, et non fecit. Sed hoc accipiendum est secundum membra, vel partim de capite, partim de membris: de capite: non est transgressus et non fecit malum; de membris: potuit transgredi et facere malum.

Cap. III. Si Deus potuerit assumere hominem in sexu muliebri.

Solet etiam quaeri, quamvis curiose, a nonnullis, si Deus humanam naturam potuit assumere secundum muliebrem sexum. — Quidam arbitrantur, eum potuisse assumere hominem in femineo sexu, ut assumsit in virili. Sed opportunius atque convenientius factum est, ut de femina nasceretur et virum assumeret, ut ita utriusque sexus liberatio ostenderetur. Unde Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum7: « Hominis liberatio in utroque sexu debuit apparere. Ergo quia virum oportebat suscipere, qui sexus honorabilior est, consequens erat, ut feminei sexus liberatio hinc appareret, quod ille vir de femina natus est ». Sapientia ergo Dei, quae dicitur unigenitus Filius, homine suscepto in utero et de utero Virginis, liberationem hominis indicavit.

English Translation

# DISTINCTION XII.

Chap. I. Whether God could have taken another man, or [taken him] from elsewhere than from the race of Adam.

It is also customarily asked whether God could have assumed another man, or a man from elsewhere than from the race of that Adam. — To which it can soundly be said that He could have assumed another soul and another flesh, since it is by grace alone that that soul and flesh were assumed by the Word of God. For as Augustine says1: « Among things that arise in time, this is the highest grace, that man is conjoined to God in unity of person ». God could therefore have assumed another soul and another flesh, and the flesh indeed from elsewhere than from the race of Adam. Whence Augustine, in the thirteenth book On the Trinity2: « God could indeed have taken up a man from elsewhere, in whom there would be a mediator of God and men, not of the race of that Adam who by his sin bound the human race, just as He created him whom He first created not of the race of anyone. He could therefore either thus, or in whatever other way He willed, have created another man, by whom the conqueror of the first might be conquered. But He judged it better to assume a man from the very race that had been conquered, through whom He might conquer man's enemy; and yet from a Virgin, whose conception the spirit, not the flesh, faith, not lust, preceded, nor was there present the concupiscence of the flesh by which the rest are conceived who contract original sin; but by believing, not by lying together, was her holy virginity made fruitful ». — From these things it is plainly shown that God could have assumed both another man and one from elsewhere.

Chap. II. Whether that man could have sinned, or could have not been God.

Hence it is not without reason asked whether that man could have sinned, or could have not been God. For if he could sin, he could also be damned; if he could be damned, he could not be God: therefore if he could sin, he could not be God; since being God and being able3 to will iniquity cannot stand together at once. — Here a distinction is needed, whether the matter concerns the person or the nature. For if it concerns the person, it is manifest that he could not sin, nor4 could he fail to be God. But if it concerns the nature, it must be discussed whether one is treating of it as united to the Word, or of it as not united to the Word and yet a being — that is, whether of it according as it was united to the Word, or of it according as it could be and not united to the Word. For it is not ambiguous that that soul, being united to the Word, cannot sin; and it is without ambiguity true that the same soul, if it were also not united to the Word, could sin.

Some, however, attempt to prove that even when united to the Word it could sin, because it has free will, and thus can be bent toward either part. This is frivolous, since the Angels too have free will, and yet by grace from God5 they are confirmed so that they cannot sin. How much more, then, that man, to whom the spirit was given without measure? They also adduce an authority to prove the same thing; for it is written in the book of Wisdom6: He who could transgress and did not transgress; do evil, and did not do it. But this must be taken according to the members, or partly of the head, partly of the members: of the head: he did not transgress and did not do evil; of the members: he could transgress and do evil.

Chap. III. Whether God could have assumed man in the female sex.

It is also customarily asked, though out of curiosity, by some, whether God could have assumed human nature according to the female sex. — Some think that He could have assumed man in the female sex, as He assumed in the male. But it was done more fittingly and more suitably that He should be born of a woman and assume a man, so that thus the liberation of each sex might be shown. Whence Augustine in the book On Eighty-three Questions7: « The liberation of man ought to appear in each sex. Therefore, since it was fitting to take up a man, which is the more honorable sex, it followed that the liberation of the female sex should appear from this, that that man was born of a woman ». The Wisdom of God, therefore, which is called the only-begotten Son, by taking up a man in the womb and from the womb of the Virgin, manifested the liberation of man.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Huius dub. solutionem exhibent etiam B. Albert. hic a. 4; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. — August., de Trin. Libr. XIII. c. 19. n. 24. — In principio dist. post aliunde plurimae edd. omittunt hominem, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8. Infra pro assumere codd. sumere.
    The solution of this doubt is also given by Blessed Albert here, art. 4; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. — Augustine, On the Trinity, Book XIII, c. 19, n. 24. — At the beginning of the distinction, after aliunde most editions omit hominem, against the codices and editions 1 and 8. Below, for assumere the codices read sumere.
  2. Cap. 18. n. 23, in quo textu pro Poterat utique edd. aliquae Potuit itaque. In fine fere omnes edd. falso facta pro sancta.
    Chapter 18, n. 23, in which text, for Poterat utique some editions [read] Potuit itaque. At the end, nearly all editions wrongly [read] facta for sancta.
  3. Cod. C addit vel, cod. E et ed. 1 et, et ed. 8 aut. — Hic fortasse respicitur Ps. 5, 5: Quoniam non Deus volens iniquitatem tu es.
    Codex C adds vel, codex E and edition 1 [read] et, and edition 8 aut. — Here perhaps reference is made to Ps. 5:5: For thou art not a God that willest iniquity.
  4. Vat. et ed. 1 existentem, et infra pro ambiguo edd., exceptis 1, 8, ambiguitate; denique ante non unita Vat. et ed. 1 omittunt et, ed. 8 habet et non esset.
    The Vatican edition and edition 1 [read] existentem, and below, for ambiguo the editions, except 1 and 8, [read] ambiguitate; finally, before non unita the Vatican edition and edition 1 omit et, while edition 8 has et non esset.
  5. Codd. A B E et ed. 5 scribunt non incongrue adeo; ed. 8 in gratia pro gratia. Post pauca respicitur Ioan. 3, 34.
    Codices A, B, E and edition 5 write, not inappropriately, adeo; edition 8 [reads] in gratia for gratia. Shortly after, reference is made to John 3:34.
  6. Scil. Eccli. 31, 10.
    That is, Ecclesiasticus 31:10.
  7. Quaest. 11. — In fine ante feminei Vat. et edd. 7, 9 minus bene ponunt et pro ut; deinde, facto puncto post liberatio, prosequuntur: Hinc apparet, quia (etiam edd. 3, 4, 5 habent quia).
    Question 11. — At the end, before feminei, the Vatican edition and editions 7 and 9 less well place et for ut; then, with a period made after liberatio, they continue: Hinc apparet, quia (editions 3, 4, 5 also have quia).
Dist. 12, Divisio Textus→