← Back to Distinction 15

Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 15

Textus Latinus
p. 332

Quaestio II. Utrum Christus assumserit omnes defectus nostros praeter peccatum.

Secundo quaeritur de huiusmodi defectibus quantum ad generalitatem, et est quaestio, utrum Christus assumserit omnes defectus nostros praeter peccatum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Ad oppositum: Per Damascenum, qui in libro tertiop332-1 ait sic: «Totus totum assumsit me, ut toti mihi salutem gratificaret»: ergo si omnes defectus nostros venit curare, videtur, quod omnes debuit assumere.

2. Item: «Quod fuit inassumtibile fuit incurabilep332-2»: ergo si aliqui defectus nostri fuerunt a Christo inassumtibiles, fuerunt incurabiles; si igitur omnes fuerunt curabiles, omnes fuerunt assumtibiles: ergo videtur, quod assumserit omnes.

3. Item, in assumtione nostrorum defectuum manifestatur divina misericordia, ergo in assumtione plurium defectuum ostenditur maior misericordia, et in assumtione omnium ostenditur maxima; sed maxima misericordia Dei ostensa fuit in assumtione nostrarum infirmitatum et defectuum: ergo videtur, quod Christus omnes defectus debuit assumere.

4. Item, in nostrorum defectuum assumtione fuit humiliatio; sed tantum se humiliavit, quantum potuit, secundum quod dicit Bernardusp332-3: «Descendit, quantum descendere potuit»: si igitur maior est humiliatio in assumtione plurium defectuum quam paucorum, et in assumtione omnium quam quorundam; videtur, quod Christus assumere debuerit universitatem defectuum nostrorum.

Sed contra: 1. Fundamenta. In nobis videmus defectus membrorum et aliquorum sensuum exteriorum, sicut visus et auditus; sed tales Christus non assumsit, nec decuit eum assumere: ergo non decuit ipsum assumere omnes defectus nostros poenalesp332-4.

2. Item, in nobis reperiuntur aegritudines contrariae, sicut patet in febribus et aliis infirmitatibus, reperiuntur etiam aegritudines incurabiles: ergo si «contraria non possunt esse simul in eodemp332-5», videtur, quod omnes defectus nostros poenales nec potuerit nec debuerit simul assumere.

3. Item, fomes et pronitas ad malum non est culpa, quia potest esse in nobis, omni culpa deleta; sed Christus talem defectum nec habuit nec habere potuit, quia non potuit peccarep332-6, ergo nec ad peccatum pronitatem habere: et ita redit idem quod prius.

4. Item, obiicitur de difficultate ad bonum, quae est defectus in nobis poenalis; in Christo autem talis defectus non fuit nec esse potuit: quaeritur igitur in generali, quales defectus assumsit, si non omnes assumsit.

Conclusio. Christus assumsit defectus poenales tantum, non vitiosos, nec omnes poenales, sed tantum naturales, non autem personales.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio «Christus non omnes defectus nostros assumsit, sicut dicit Magister in litterap332-7, sed illos tantum, quos ipsum assumere decuit et nobis expediens fuit». Sed qui sint isti defectus, adhuc quaestione indiget, sicut et

p. 333

primum, et innuit Magister, illos defectus decuisse et expedivisse illum assumere, qui faciunt «vel ad veritatis naturae assumtae ostensionem, vel ad operis propter quod venerat consummationem». Sed adhuc, qui sunt isti defectus, difficile est discernere.

Voluerunt autem aliqui dicere, quod isti sunt defectus, quos «Deus plantavit in nostra naturap333-1». Quidam enim defectus sunt, qui ortum habent ex absentia gratiae, sicut ignorantia et rebellio carnis ad spiritum et consimilia. Quidam autem sunt, qui non solum ex hoc ortum habent, sed etiam ex compositione partium constituentium, sicut fames, sitis, mors, dolor et consimilia, quae ortum habent non tantum ex culpa, sed ex hoc, quod humana natura est ex contrariis constituta; et tales defectus sunt, qui faciunt ad veritatis naturae assumtae manifestationem et ad operis suscepti consummationem; alii vero minime. — Sed illud adhuc habet calumniam, propter hoc quod aegritudines multae ortum habent ex complexione hominis, quas constat Christum non assumsisse. Praetereap333-2, omnes defectus nostri poenales magis videntur seculi esse ex nostra transgressione et divina punitione quam ex primaria plantatione.

Et propterea potest alio modo dici, quod quidam sunt defectus, qui sunt ex culpa, quidam vero, qui sunt ex culpa et ad culpam, sicut pronitas ad malum et difficultas ad bonum. Illos autem defectus, qui non tantum sunt ex culpa, sed etiam via ad culpam, non decuit Christum assumere, quia Christus fuit minister iustitiae, omnino segregatus a peccatop333-3. Alios autem defectus decuit ipsum assumere, sed non omnes, quia quidam sunt defectus naturales, quidam personales. Defectus autem naturales voco illos qui respiciunt totam naturam humanam universaliter, sicut fames et sitis et defectus consimiles. Personales autem defectus sunt qui respiciunt aliquas personas specialiter, sicut diversae aegritudinum species. Quoniam igitur Christus venerat naturam humanam redimere communiter sine personarum distinctione; hinc est, quod defectus naturales, non personales defectus, poenales tantum, non vitiosos, debuit in se habere, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hanc partem adductaep333-4.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de Damasceno, quod totum assumsit, ut totum curaret; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de his quae sunt de constitutione naturae, non de his quae pertinent ad defectum naturae; et hoc ipsum verbump333-5 insinuat. Nam proprie quod curatur dicitur natura, morbus vero est illud, a quo curatur, quia morbus expellitur, sed natura servatur. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens, quo dicitur, quod inassumtibile est incurabile; hoc enim intelligitur de natura et eius partibus, quae proprie dicuntur curari, non de defectibus, qui potius dicuntur coassumi quam assumip333-6, magis etiam dicuntur expelli quam sanari.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de ostensione misericordiae, dicendum, quod misericordia semper se ostendit, salva rectitudine iustitiae et ordine sapientiaep333-7; ideo nullos defectus debuit assumere, qui non essent ordinati ad nostrum profectum et expeditionem nostrae salutis; multi autem sunt, qui potius impedivissent, quam iuvissent, sicut defectus membrorum, vel sensuum et aliorum consimilium. Et ideo non sequitur illud.

4. Ad illud vero quod postremo obiicitur de humiliatione, dicendum consimiliter, quod omnis humiliatio virtuosa et laudabilis ortum habet ex discretione rationis; non enim procedere debet ex impetup333-8, sed ex causa rationabili. Et quia de aliquibus defectibus rationabile non erat, ut Christus se per eorum assumtionem humiliaret, quia se potius ex illa humiliatione inutilem quam utilem reddidisset, sicut si fuisset caecus, vel gibbosus et huiusmodi; ideo tales nullo modo debuit assumere, sed illos solum, de quibus supra dictum est, videlicet illos qui respiciunt ipsam naturam et praebent viam ad iustitiam, non ad culpamp333-9.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether Christ assumed all our defects except sin.

Secondly it is asked concerning defects of this kind in respect of their universality, and the question is whether Christ assumed all our defects except sin. And that he did, it seems:

1. To the opposite [view]: By Damascene, who in the third bookp332-1 says thus: «He, the Whole, assumed the whole of me, that he might bestow salvation on the whole of me»: therefore if he came to cure all our defects, it seems that he ought to have assumed them all.

2. Likewise: «What was unassumable was incurablep332-2»: therefore if any of our defects were unassumable by Christ, they were incurable; if then all were curable, all were assumable: therefore it seems that he assumed them all.

3. Likewise, in the assumption of our defects the divine mercy is manifested, therefore in the assumption of more defects greater mercy is shown, and in the assumption of all the greatest is shown; but the greatest mercy of God was shown in the assumption of our infirmities and defects: therefore it seems that Christ ought to have assumed all defects.

4. Likewise, in the assumption of our defects there was humiliation; but he humbled himself as much as he could, according to what Bernard saysp332-3: «He descended as far as he could descend»: if then there is greater humiliation in the assumption of more defects than of fewer, and in the assumption of all than of some; it seems that Christ ought to have assumed the totality of our defects.

On the contrary: 1. Foundations. In ourselves we see defects of the limbs and of certain outward senses, such as sight and hearing; but such defects Christ did not assume, nor was it fitting for him to assume them: therefore it was not fitting for him to assume all our penal defectsp332-4.

2. Likewise, in us are found contrary diseases, as is plain in fevers and other infirmities, and there are also found incurable diseases: therefore if «contraries cannot be at the same time in the same subjectp332-5», it seems that he neither could nor ought to have assumed all our penal defects at the same time.

3. Likewise, the tinder and proneness to evil is not a fault, since it can be in us when every fault is removed; but Christ neither had nor could have such a defect, since he could not sinp332-6, therefore neither could he have proneness to sin: and thus the same thing returns as before.

4. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the difficulty toward the good, which is a penal defect in us; but in Christ such a defect did not and could not exist: therefore it is asked in general what defects he assumed, if he did not assume all.

Conclusion. Christ assumed penal defects only, not vicious ones; nor all penal defects, but only natural ones, not however personal ones.

I respond: It must be said that, without doubt, «Christ did not assume all our defects, as the Master says in the textp332-7, but only those which it was fitting for him to assume and expedient for us». But which these defects are still requires inquiry, just as also

primum, and the Master suggests that it was fitting and expedient for him to assume those defects which contribute «either to the showing forth of the truth of the assumed nature, or to the consummation of the work for which he had come». But still, which these defects are, is difficult to discern.

Now some wished to say that these are the defects which «God planted in our naturep333-1». For there are certain defects which take their origin from the absence of grace, such as ignorance and the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit and the like. But there are others which take their origin not only from this, but also from the composition of the constituent parts, such as hunger, thirst, death, pain and the like, which take their origin not only from fault, but from this, that human nature is constituted out of contraries; and such are the defects which contribute to the manifestation of the truth of the assumed nature and to the consummation of the undertaken work; but others not at all. — But this still has a difficulty, on account of this, that many diseases take their origin from the complexion of the man, which it is agreed Christ did not assume. Moreoverp333-2, all our penal defects seem rather to have followed from our transgression and the divine punishment than from a primary planting.

And therefore it can be said in another way, that certain defects are from fault, but certain others are from fault and toward fault, such as proneness to evil and difficulty toward the good. But those defects which are not only from fault, but also a way toward fault, it was not fitting for Christ to assume, because Christ was a minister of justice, wholly set apart from sinp333-3. But the other defects it was fitting for him to assume, yet not all, because certain defects are natural, certain personal. Now I call those natural defects which regard the whole human nature universally, such as hunger and thirst and like defects. But personal defects are those which regard certain persons specially, such as the various species of diseases. Since therefore Christ had come to redeem human nature in common, without distinction of persons; hence it is, that he ought to have in himself natural defects, not personal defects, penal only, not vicious, as the reasons adduced for this side showp333-4.

Solution of the opposing [arguments]. 1. 2. To that, then, which is objected on the contrary concerning Damascene, that he assumed the whole that he might cure the whole; it must be said that this is to be understood of those things which belong to the constitution of nature, not of those which pertain to a defect of nature; and the very wordp333-5 suggests this. For properly what is cured is called the nature, but the disease is that from which it is cured, since the disease is expelled, but the nature is preserved. — And by this the answer to the next [argument] is plain, where it is said that the unassumable is incurable; for this is understood of the nature and its parts, which properly are said to be cured, not of defects, which are rather said to be co-assumed than assumedp333-6, and are said rather to be expelled than healed.

3. To that which is objected concerning the showing of mercy, it must be said that mercy always shows itself with the rectitude of justice and the order of wisdom preservedp333-7; therefore he ought to assume no defects which were not ordered to our advancement and the expediting of our salvation; but there are many which would rather have hindered than helped, such as the defects of the limbs, or of the senses and other like things. And therefore that [argument] does not follow.

4. To that, however, which is last objected concerning humiliation, it must be said likewise that all virtuous and laudable humiliation takes its origin from the discretion of reason; for it ought not to proceed from impulsep333-8, but from a reasonable cause. And since concerning certain defects it was not reasonable that Christ should humble himself by their assumption, since he would rather have rendered himself useless than useful by that humiliation, as if he had been blind, or hunchbacked and the like; therefore such defects he ought in no way to have assumed, but only those of which it was said above, namely those which regard the nature itself and afford a way to justice, not to faultp333-9.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. De Fide orthod. c. 6. — Vat. sola sententiam Damasc. temere sic ampliavit: Totus... me, ut totum me curaret aut toti mihi etc. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. II. c. 1. — In conclus. codd. N Q post curare subiungunt et tollere.
    On the Orthodox Faith c. 6. — The Vatican edition alone rashly amplified the sentence of Damascene thus: He, the Whole... me, that he might cure the whole of me or [bestow on] the whole of me etc. Compare above the text of the Master, d. II, c. 1. — In the conclusion codices N Q after curare add et tollere [and to take away].
  2. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 6. et 18.
    Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III, c. 6 and 18.
  3. Cfr. supra pag. 266, nota 1.
    Compare above, p. 266, note 1.
  4. De hoc arg. nec non de seq. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    Concerning this argument, as also concerning the following, see here the text of the Master, c. 1.
  5. De hoc Aristot. verbo vide supra pag. 85, nota 10.
    Concerning this saying of Aristotle, see above, p. 85, note 10.
  6. Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. — De maiori vide supra pag. 74, nota 3, et II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. seq.
    Compare above, d. 12, a. 2, q. 1. — Concerning the major [premise] see above, p. 74, note 3, and II Sent. d. 32, a. 1, q. 1 and following.
  7. Hic c. 1. Ibid. et text. seq. — Paulo inferius vocabulum primum respicit principalem quaestionem.
    Here c. 1. There and in the following text. — A little below, the word first refers to the principal question.
  8. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 6. et 20. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. II. c. 1. — Paulo ante pro qui sunt codd. F G I L aa qui sint. Subinde post difficile est codd. I L aa interiiciunt videre et.
    Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III, c. 6 and 20. See above the text of the Master, d. II, c. 1. — A little before, for qui sunt codices F G I L aa read qui sint. Then after difficile est codices I L aa insert videre et.
  9. Codd. F L T U V aa Et praeterea.
    Codices F L T U V aa: And moreover.
  10. Respicitur illud Gal. 2, 17: «Numquid Christus peccati minister est? Absit»; et etiam Hebr. 7, 26. Cfr. supra pag. 264, nota 7.
    Reference is made to that of Gal. 2:17: «Is Christ then a minister of sin? God forbid»; and also Heb. 7:26. Compare above, p. 264, note 7.
  11. Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 20: Christum porro naturales minimeque reprehendendas [ἀδιάβλητα] hominis passiones assumsisse confitemur. Nam suscepit totum hominem et quaecumque hominis sunt, excepto peccato. Neque enim istud naturale est neque a Creatore nobis insitum... Naturales porro et inculpatae [ἀδιάβλητα] passiones hae sunt, quae in arbitrio nostro sitae non sunt; quae nimirum in violati praecepti poenam humanae vitae irrepserunt, velut fames, sitis... quae quidem natura universo hominum generi conveniunt (ed. Migne).
    Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III, c. 20: Further, we confess that Christ assumed the natural and in no way blameworthy [ἀδιάβλητα] passions of man. For he took up the whole man and whatever belongs to man, except sin. For this [sin] is neither natural nor implanted in us by the Creator... Now the natural and blameless [ἀδιάβλητα] passions are these, which are not placed within our choice; which, namely, crept into human life as a penalty for the violated precept, such as hunger, thirst... which indeed by nature befit the whole human race (Migne edition).
  12. Cod. O subnectit assignatum. Post pauca codd. A F H N X verbo dicitur adiungunt esse.
    Codex O appends assignatum. A little after, codices A F H N X to the word dicitur add esse.
  13. Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 5. ad 1.
    Compare above, d. 5, a. 2, q. 5, to the first [objection].
  14. Cfr. supra pag. 267, nota 5. — Circa finem obiect. pro membrorum cod. V morborum.
    Compare above, p. 267, note 5. — Near the end of the objection, for membrorum [limbs] codex V reads morborum [diseases].
  15. De hac dictione cfr. tom. I. pag. 785, nota 2.
    Concerning this expression compare tome I, p. 785, note 2.
  16. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question.
← Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 3→