← Back to Distinction 13

Dist. 13

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 13

Textus Latinus
p. 274

# DISTINCTIO XIII.

Cap. Unicum. De sapientia et gratia Christi hominis, an in eis proficere potuerit.

Praeterea sciendum est, Christum secundum hominem ab ipsa conceptione gratiae plenitudinem recepisse. Cui spiritus datus est non ad mensuram, et in quo plenitudo divinitatis habitat corporaliterp274-1; « ita vero habitat, ut ait Augustinus ad Dardanum, quod omni gratia plenus est; non ita habitat in Sanctis. Ut in nostro corpore inest sensus singulis membris, sed non quantum in capite; ibi enim et visus est et auditus et olfactus et gustus et tactus, in ceteris autem solus est tactus »: ita et in Christo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, quia ille est caput, in quo sunt omnes sensus. In Sanctis vero quasi solus tactus est, quibus spiritus datus est ad mensuram, cum de illius plenitudine acceperuntp274-2. Acceperunt autem de illius plenitudine non secundum essentiam, sed secundum similitudinem, quia nunquam illam eandem essentialiter, sed similem acceperunt gratiam. Puer ergo ille plenus sapientia et gratia fuit ab ipsa conceptione. Unde Ieremias recte dicit: Novum faciet Dominus super terram: mulier circumdabit virum; quia in utero Virginis perfectus vir exstitit, non solum propter animam et carnem, sed etiam propter sapientiam et gratiam, qua plenus erat.

Huic autem sententiae videtur obviare quod in Evangelio Lucaep274-3 legitur: Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines. Si enim proficiebat sapientia et gratia, non videtur a conceptione habuisse plenitudinem gratiae sine mensura. — Ad quod sane dici potest, ipsum secundum hominem tantam a conceptione accepisse sapientiae et gratiae plenitudinem, ut Deus ei plenius conferre non potuerit; et tamen vere dicitur profecisse sapientia et gratia, non quidem in se, sed in aliis, qui de eius sapientia et gratia proficiebant, dum eis sapientiae et gratiae munera secundum processum aetatis magis ac magis patefaciebat. Unde Gregorius in quadam homiliap274-4 ait: « Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat sapientia, non quod ipse sapientior ex tempore esset, qui a prima conceptionis hora spiritu sapientiae plenus permanebat; sed eandem qua plenus erat sapientiam ceteris ex tempore paulatim demonstrabat. Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat aetate de infantia ad iuventutem. Iuxta hominis naturam proficiebat gratia, non ipse quod non habebat per accessum temporis accipiendo, sed pandendo donum gratiae, quod habebat. Apud Deum et hominesp274-5, quia quantum, proficiente aetate, patefaciebat hominibus dona gratiae, quae sibi inerant, et sapientiae, tantum eos ad laudem Dei excitabat; et sic Deo Patri ad laudem et hominibus ad salutem proficiebat ». In aliis ergo, non in se, proficiebat sapientia et gratia. Unde in eodem Evangeliop274-6 puer ille plenus sapientia et gratia perhibetur. Sic ergo dicitur profecisse sapientia et gratia, ut aliquis rector ecclesiasticus dicitur proficere in cura sibi credita, cum per eius industriam alii proficiunt.

Alibi tamen scriptum reperitur, quod secundum sensum hominis profecerit, sicut aetate hominis profecit. Ait enim Ambrosius in libro de Incarnationis dominicae sacramentop274-7 sic: « Deus perfectionem naturae assumsit humanae. Suscepit sensum hominis, sed non sensu carnis fuit inflatus. Sensu hominis animam dixit esse conturbatam; sensu hominis esurivit et rogavit; sensu hominis profecit, sicut scriptum est: Iesus proficiebat aetate et sapientia et gratia. Quomodo proficiebat sapientia Dei? Profectus aetatis et profectus sapientiae non divinae, sed humanae est. Ideo aetatem commemoravit, ut secundum hominem crederes dictum. Aetas enim non divinitatis, sed corporis est. Ergo si proficiebat aetate hominis, proficiebat sapientia hominis. Sensus autem profecit, et quia sensus, ideo sapientia. Quis sensus proficiebat? Si humanus, ergo ipse susceptus est; si divinus, ergo mutabilis per profectum. Quod enim proficit mutatur in melius, sed quod divinum est non mutatur. Quod ergo mutatur non est divinum. Sensus igitur proficiebat humanus. Sensum ergo suscepit humanum ». « Non poterat confortari virtus Dei, nec crescere Deus, nec altitudo sapientiae Dei impleri. Quae igitur implebatur erat non Dei, sed nostra sapientia. Nam quomodo implebatur, qui, ut omnia impleret, descendit? Per quem autem sensum dixit Isaiasp274-8, quod patrem puer nesciebat aut matrem? Scriptum est enim: Priusquam sciat puer vocare patrem aut matrem, accipiet spolia Samariae. Sapientiam enim Dei futura et occulta non fallunt. Expers autem agnitionis infantia, per humanam utique imprudentiam, quod adhuc non didicit ignorat. Sed verendum est, inquam, ne, si duos principales sensus, aut geminam sapientiam Christo tribuimus, Christum dividamus. Nunquid, cum et divinitatem eius et carnem adoramus, Christum dividimus? Nunquid, cum in eo imaginem Dei crucemque veneramur, dividimus eum? Apostolusp274-9 certe, qui de eo di-p. 275xit, quoniam, etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate nostra, vivit tamen ex virtute Dei, ipse dixit, quia non divisus est Christus. Nunquid etiam, cum dicimus, quia animam rationalem et intellectus nostri suscepit capacem, dividimus eum? Non enim ipse Deus Verbum pro anima rationali et intellectus capaci in carne sua fuit; sed animam rationalem et intellectus capacem, et ipsam humanam et eiusdem substantiae, cuius nostrae sunt animae, et carnem nostrae similem eiusdemque cuius caro est nostra substantiae suscipiens, perfectus etiam homo fuit ».

Haec verba Ambrosii pia diligentia inspicienda sunt, quae ex parte hominis ignorantiam instruunt et illuminant, ex parte errandi fomitem male intellecta ministrant. His etenim evidenter traditur, duos in Christo esse principales sensus sive geminam sapientiam. Neque ideo unitas et singularitas personae dividitur, sed iuxta duas naturas duas habet sapientias: unam non creatam, sed genitam, quae ipse est; alteram non genitam, sed creatam et per gratiam ei collatam. Nam Isaiasp275-1 de eo protestatur: Requiescet super eum spiritus sapientiae et intellectus etc. Spiritu ergo sapientiae et intellectus, id est sapientia et intelligentia, per Spiritum sanctum gratis data, Christus erat sapiens secundum animam. Secundum Deum vero sapiens erat sapientia genitap275-2, quae ipse est. Et sicut, in quantum Deus est, bonus est bonitate naturali, quae ipse est, et iustus iustitia naturali, quae ipse est; ita sapiens sapientia naturali, quae ipse est. Anima vero eius, sicut bona est et iusta bonitate vel iustitia gratis data, quae ipse vel ipsa non est; ita sapiens est sapientia gratis data, quae ipsa non est. Et licet gemina in Christo sit sapientia, una tamen eademque persona est, quae, in quantum Deus est, vel in quantum divina natura est, sapiens est sapientia aeternap275-3, scilicet sapientia genita, id est se ipsa, et sapientia, quae non est genita, quae communis est tribus personis; non tamen gemina sapientia, quia non est alia et alia sapientia sapientia genita, quae tantum Filius est, et sapientia, quae communiter Pater est et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. In quantum vero eadem persona homo est, id est secundum hominem acceptum, vel in quantum est subsistens ex anima et carne, sapiens est sapientia gratuita. Sapiens igitur est humano sensu et divino.

Sed ex qua causa illius dicti intelligentia, scilicet Ambrosii « sensus proficiebat humanus », assumenda est? Aperte enim videtur Ambrosius innuere, quod Christus secundum humanum sensum profecerit, et quod infantia eius expers cognitionis fuerit et patrem et matrem ignoraverit; quod nec Ecclesia recipit, nec praemissae auctoritates patiuntur sic intelligi. — Sed ita sane potest accipi, ut quantum ad visum hominum et sui sensus ostensionem Christus profecisse dicatur. Proficiebat ergo humanus sensus in eo secundum ostensionem et aliorum hominum opinionem. Ita etiam patrem et matrem dicitur ignorasse in infantia, quia ita se habebat et gerebat, ac si agnitionis esset expers.

---

English Translation

# DISTINCTION XIII.

Sole Chapter. On the wisdom and grace of Christ as man, whether he could advance in them.

Moreover it must be known that Christ, according to the man, received from the very conception the fullness of grace. To whom the Spirit was given not by measure, and in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodilyp274-1; "and it dwells in such wise, as Augustine says to Dardanus, that he is full of all grace; it does not so dwell in the Saints. As in our body sense is present in the several members, but not as much as in the head; for there both sight and hearing and smell and taste and touch are present, but in the rest there is touch alone": so also in Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, because he is the head, in whom are all the senses. But in the Saints there is, as it were, touch alone, to whom the Spirit was given by measure, since of his fullness they receivedp274-2. But they received of his fullness not according to essence, but according to likeness, because they never received that same grace essentially, but a like grace. That boy, therefore, was full of wisdom and grace from the very conception. Whence Jeremiah rightly says: The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man; because in the womb of the Virgin he existed as a perfect man, not only on account of soul and flesh, but also on account of the wisdom and grace wherewith he was full.

But to this opinion there seems to stand in the way what is read in the Gospel of Lukep274-3: Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men. For if he advanced in wisdom and grace, he does not seem to have had from the conception the fullness of grace without measure. — To which it can soundly be said that he himself, according to the man, received from the conception so great a fullness of wisdom and grace that God could not confer it on him more fully; and yet he is truly said to have advanced in wisdom and grace, not indeed in himself, but in others, who advanced from his wisdom and grace, while he disclosed to them the gifts of wisdom and grace, according to the progress of age, more and more. Whence Gregory says in a certain homilyp274-4: "According to the nature of the man he advanced in wisdom, not that he himself was wiser with time, who from the first hour of his conception remained full of the spirit of wisdom; but the same wisdom wherewith he was full he gradually displayed to others with time. According to the nature of the man he advanced in age from infancy to youth. According to the nature of the man he advanced in grace, not by receiving through the access of time that which he did not have, but by opening forth the gift of grace which he had. Before God and menp274-5, because, as much as, with advancing age, he disclosed to men the gifts of grace which were within him, and of wisdom, so much did he stir them up to the praise of God; and thus he advanced unto the praise of God the Father and unto the salvation of men." In others, therefore, not in himself, he advanced in wisdom and grace. Whence in the same Gospelp274-6 that boy is declared full of wisdom and grace. So therefore he is said to have advanced in wisdom and grace, as some ecclesiastical ruler is said to advance in the care committed to him, when by his industry others advance.

Yet elsewhere it is found written that he advanced according to the sense of the man, just as he advanced in the age of the man. For Ambrose says in the book On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnationp274-7 thus: "God assumed the perfection of human nature. He took up the sense of a man, but he was not puffed up by the sense of the flesh. By the sense of a man he said his soul was troubled; by the sense of a man he hungered and prayed; by the sense of a man he advanced, as it is written: Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and grace. How did the wisdom of God advance? The advance of age and the advance of wisdom is not of the divine, but of the human. Therefore he made mention of age, so that you might believe it said according to the man. For age is not of the divinity, but of the body. Therefore if he advanced in the age of the man, he advanced in the wisdom of the man. But the sense advanced, and because the sense, therefore the wisdom. Which sense was advancing? If the human, then it was assumed; if the divine, then it is mutable through advance. For what advances is changed into something better, but what is divine is not changed. What therefore is changed is not divine. Therefore the human sense was advancing. Therefore he took up a human sense." "The power of God could not be strengthened, nor could God grow, nor could the height of the wisdom of God be filled. That, therefore, which was being filled was not the wisdom of God, but our wisdom. For how was he being filled who, that he might fill all things, descended? But by what sense did Isaiahp274-8 say that the boy knew not father or mother? For it is written: Before the boy knows to call father or mother, he shall receive the spoils of Samaria. For things future and hidden do not deceive the wisdom of God. But infancy, devoid of recognition, through human imprudence indeed, is ignorant of what it has not yet learned. But it is to be feared, I say, lest, if we attribute to Christ two principal senses, or a twofold wisdom, we divide Christ. Surely, when we adore both his divinity and his flesh, do we divide Christ? Surely, when in him we venerate the image of God and the cross, do we divide him? The Apostlep274-9 certainly, who said of himp. 275that, although he was crucified from our weakness, yet he lives by the power of God, himself said that Christ is not divided. Surely also, when we say that he took up a rational soul and one capable of our understanding, do we divide him? For God the Word himself was not in his flesh in place of a rational soul and one capable of understanding; but, taking up a rational soul and one capable of understanding, both itself human and of the same substance whereof are our souls, and a flesh like to ours and of the same substance whereof is our flesh, he was also a perfect man."

These words of Ambrose are to be examined with pious diligence; for on the one hand they instruct and illuminate concerning the ignorance of the man, on the other, when ill understood, they furnish kindling for error. For by these it is evidently handed down that there are in Christ two principal senses, or a twofold wisdom. Nor is the unity and singularity of the person thereby divided, but according to the two natures he has two wisdoms: one not created, but begotten, which he himself is; the other not begotten, but created and conferred upon him by grace. For Isaiahp275-1 testifies of him: The spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon him etc. By the spirit therefore of wisdom and understanding, that is, by wisdom and intelligence, given freely through the Holy Spirit, Christ was wise according to the soul. But according to God he was wise with begotten wisdomp275-2, which he himself is. And just as, insofar as he is God, he is good by natural goodness, which he himself is, and just by natural justice, which he himself is; so he is wise by natural wisdom, which he himself is. But his soul, just as it is good and just by goodness or justice freely given, which he or it is not; so it is wise by wisdom freely given, which it is not. And although there is in Christ a twofold wisdom, yet it is one and the same person who, insofar as he is God, or insofar as he is the divine nature, is wise with eternal wisdomp275-3, namely begotten wisdom, that is, by himself, and the wisdom which is not begotten, which is common to the three persons; yet not a twofold wisdom, because the begotten wisdom, which is the Son alone, and the wisdom which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are in common, are not one and another wisdom. But insofar as the same person is man, that is, according to the man assumed, or insofar as he is subsisting from soul and flesh, he is wise with gratuitous wisdom. He is wise, therefore, by a human sense and by a divine.

But for what cause is the understanding of that saying, namely of Ambrose's "the human sense was advancing," to be taken? For Ambrose seems openly to suggest that Christ advanced according to the human sense, and that his infancy was devoid of knowledge and that he was ignorant of father and mother; which neither the Church receives, nor do the foregoing authorities suffer to be so understood. — But it can soundly be taken thus, that as to the sight of men and the manifestation of his own sense Christ is said to have advanced. The human sense therefore was advancing in him according to the manifestation and the opinion of other men. So too he is said to have been ignorant of father and mother in infancy, because he so bore and conducted himself as if he were devoid of recognition.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Ioan. 3, 34, et Coloss. 2, 9. — Locus August. est Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 13. n. 40.
    John 3:34, and Colossians 2:9. — The passage of Augustine is Epistle 187 (alias 57), c. 13, n. 40.
  2. Ioan. 1, 16. — Infra respicitur Luc. 2, 40; denique locus Scripturae est Ier. 31, 22.
    John 1:16. — Below, reference is made to Luke 2:40; finally the Scripture passage is Jeremiah 31:22.
  3. Cap. 2, 52.
    Chapter 2, 52.
  4. Glossa ad cit. locum attribuitur Gregorio, sed est potius apud Bedam, Hom. in Dominicam I. post Epiph.
    The Gloss on the cited passage is attributed to Gregory, but is rather found in Bede, Homily on the First Sunday after Epiphany.
  5. Edd., excepta I, addunt proficiebat, refragantibus codd., et similiter infra ante et hominibus non bene repetunt Dei.
    The editions, except I, add proficiebat, against the codices, and likewise below, before et hominibus, they wrongly repeat Dei.
  6. Luc. 2, 40. Vulgata: plenus sapientia, et gratia Dei erat in illo. — Pro credita edd., exceptis 1, 8, tradita.
    Luke 2:40. The Vulgate: full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. — For credita ("committed"), the editions, except 1, 8, read tradita ("handed over").
  7. Cap. 7. n. 71. 72, ubi respicitur Luc. 2, 52; seq. locus est ibid. usque ad n. 76. — In codd. et edd., exceptis 8 et Vat., citatur Ambrosii liber sic: in libro III. de Spiritu S., sed sic antiquitus liber citabatur. Plura in utroque textu a Magistro sunt omissa et mutata, plura etiam verba in Vat. et pluribus edd. gratuito addita.
    Chapter 7, nn. 71–72, where Luke 2:52 is referred to; the following passage is ibid. up to n. 76. — In the codices and editions, except 8 and the Vatican, the book of Ambrose is cited thus: in the third book On the Holy Spirit, but the book was anciently cited so. Much in both texts has been omitted and altered by the Master, and many words have been gratuitously added in the Vatican and in several editions.
  8. Cap. 8, 1, in quo textu codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4 cum originali omittunt vocare. Vulgata: vocare patrem suum et matrem suam. Paulo superius respicitur Eph. 4, 10.
    Chapter 8, 1, in which text the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, with the original, omit vocare ("to call"). The Vulgate: to call his father and his mother. A little above, reference is made to Ephesians 4:10.
  9. Epist. II. ad Cor. 13, 4; deinde I. Cor. 1, 13, ubi Vulgata: Divisus est Christus?
    Second Epistle to the Corinthians 13:4; then 1 Corinthians 1:13, where the Vulgate reads: Is Christ divided?
  10. Cap. 11, 2.
    Chapter 11, 2.
  11. Ita codd. A C D E; cod. B et edd. aeterna; pro ipse est, quod habent iidem codd. et edd. 1, 8, in aliis Deus est.
    Thus codices A C D E; codex B and the editions read aeterna ("eternal"); for ipse est ("he himself is"), which the same codices and editions 1, 8 have, in the others Deus est ("it is God").
  12. Sequimur hic bonam lectionem codd. A C D E (B plura omittit). Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 ita: sapientia ingenita, scilicet sapientia aeterna, quae est Pater; et sapientia, quae non est ingenita; a qua lectione etiam edd. 1, 8 non recedunt, nisi quod in principio legant: sapientia aeterna, scilicet sapientia ingenita... Deinde inferius prosequuntur: sapientia, sapientia ingenita (ed. 6 genita), quae tantum Filius (edd. 8 Pater), contradicentibus eisdem codd. Manifestum est, lectiones editionum non esse aptas.
    Here we follow the good reading of codices A C D E (B omits much). The Vatican and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 read thus: uncreated wisdom, namely eternal wisdom, which is the Father; and wisdom which is not uncreated; from which reading editions 1, 8 also do not depart, except that at the beginning they read: eternal wisdom, namely uncreated wisdom... Then below they continue: wisdom, uncreated wisdom (ed. 6 begotten), which is the Son alone (edd. 8 the Father), the same codices contradicting. It is manifest that the readings of the editions are not apt.
Dist. 13, Divisio Textus→