Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 15
Articulus II. De defectibus a Christo assumtis in speciali.
Consequenter quaeritur de defectibus a Christo assumtis in speciali. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum habuerit ignorantiam in rationali.
Secundo, utrum habuerit tristitiam in concupiscibili.
Tertio, utrum habuerit iram in potentia irascibili.
Quaestio I. Utrum Christus habuerit ignorantiam in rationali.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus habuerit ignorantiam in rationali. Et quod sic, videtur:
Ad oppositum:
1. Primo auctoritate Damascenip336-1: « Oportet scire, quod servilem et ignorantem naturam assumsit »; loquitur de Verbo incarnato: ergo natura assumta in Christo fuit ignorans, habuit igitur defectum ignorantiae.
2. Item, Ambrosius in libro primo de Spiritu sanctop336-2: « Per humanam imprudentiam quod adhuc non didicit ignorat »: ergo habuit ignorantiam.
3. Item, Leo Papa in Homilia de Epiphaniap336-3: « Adoraverunt infantem, in nullo ab aliorum generalitate discretum »; sed generaliter alii infantes sunt ignorantes: ergo et Christus in sua infantia habuit ignorantiam.
4. Item, scientia inflatp336-4; sed Christus summe se humiliavit et defectus illos assumsit, qui faciunt ad humilitatem: ergo habuit in se defectum et inopiam scientiae. Sed iste defectus est ignorantia: ergo etc.
5. Item, Christus in sua infantia habuit defectum eloquentiae, quamvis esset Verbum Patris, ut veritatem humanae naturae in se ostenderetp336-5: ergo pari ratione, quamvis esset sapientia Patris, secundum humanam naturam debuit habere defectum sapientiae. Sed hic est ignorantia: ergo etc.
6. Item, quamvis Christus esset virtus Patris — iuxta illud quod dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios primo: Dicimus Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam — habuit tamen defectum virium iuxta exigentiam humanae naturae: videtur igitur pari ratione, quod habuerit defectum sapientiae.
Sed contra:
1. Assumtio carnis fuit opus divinae sapientiae; sed sapientia, secundum quod huiusmodi, non est principium ignorantiae: ergo Christus non assumsit defectum illum, qui est ignorantiap337-1.
2. Item, Christus venerat nos docere; sed ignorantis non est docere: ergo non debuit ignorantiam assumere.
3. Item, nulli nisi scienti credendum est; sed Christus ad hoc venit in carnem, ut crederemus in eump337-2: ergo videtur, quod cum sapientia debuerit venire, non cum ignorantia.
4. Item, anima illa non potuit uniri Verbo, quin esset deiformisp337-3; sed deiformitas tollit obscuritatem ignorantiae: ergo videtur, quod impossibile fuerit, Christum secundum humanam naturam defectum ignorantiae in se assumere.
Conclusio.
Christus non habuit defectum ignorantiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister in litterap337-4, Christus non habuit defectum ignorantiae. — Et ratio huius est: quia nec ipsum decebat, nec nobis expediebat. Ipsum non decebat, quia anima eius debuit esse deiformis, ac per hoc repleta luce sapientiae et rectitudine iustitiae; ignorantia autem privatio est scientiae et potest esse via in errorem et obliquationem a rectitudine iustitiae, ac per hoc Christo non competebat. — Nobis etiam non expediebat, quos venerat redimere et dirigere. Si enim defectum ignorantiae habuisset, nos redimere nescivisset; dirigere etiam nescivisset, quia et, si caecus caeco ducatum praebeat, ambo in foveam caduntp337-5. — Et ideo nec ipsum decebat, nec nobis expediebat, quod talem defectum assumeret. — Concedendum est igitur, Christum defectum ignorantiae nequaquam in se habuisse. Et rationes ad hoc inductae sunt concedendae.
Solutio oppositorum:
1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de Damasceno, quod assumsit naturam servilem et ignorantem; dicendum, quod ignorantia et servilitas non attribuitur naturae assumtae ratione illius singularis naturae, quae fuit Verbo copulata in unitatem personae, sed quantum ad alias naturas consimiles in specie, quasi dicat: assumsit naturam nostram, quae est ignorans, non in Christo, sed in nobisp337-6.
2. Ad illud Ambrosii, quod dicitur, Christum ignorasse quod non didicit; dicendum, quod quaedam est scientia simplicis notitiae, quaedam experientiae. Ambrosius autem non loquitur ibi de ignorantia, prout dicit privationem cuiuscumque scientiae, sed prout dicit privationem experientiae, secundum quod in praecedentibusp337-7 determinatum est.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Leone Papa, quod infans ille in nullo erat ab aliorum generalitate discretus; dicendum, quod Leo Papa loquitur quantum ad ea quae exterius apparebant; nam quantum ad ea quae intrinsecus latebantp337-8, in multis ab aliis differebat.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod scientia inflat; dicendum, quod est loqui de scientia, prout est absque caritate, vel prout est caritati coniuncta. Si, prout est a caritate divisa, sic dicit Apostolus, quod inflat. Si autem, prout est caritati coniuncta, sic non est via ad inflationem, sed potius ad rectitudinem et aedificationem et humilitatem. Ex cognitione enim sui et Dei consurgit perfectio humilitatis; et hoc secundo modo fuit in Christop337-9.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Christo fuit defectus eloquentiae, ergo similiter et sapientiae; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in defectu eloquentiae, sicut in aliis necessitatibus infantilibus, manifestabatur veritas naturae assumtae; defectus autem sapientiae interius latet; ideo ad nihil valuisset, si in Christo fuisset. Et ideo non est simile.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus, Dei virtus, habuit defectum virium; dicendum, quod non est simile, tum quia defectus virium exterius apparebat et in carne erat, defectus vero sapientiae interius erat in anima, quae ad unionem sui cum Verbo a primordio debuit esse perfecte disposita; tum etiam, quia defectus virium est materia exercendae virtutis, non sic autem defectus cognitionis, quin potiusp337-10 impedit. Ideo non est simile hinc et inde.
I. Circa hanc quaestionem cfr. auctor aliique supra d. 14. per totam. Specialiter de eadem agunt Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 5. m. 2. a. 1. § 1, et S. Thom., S. III. q. 13. a. 3.
II. Seq. (2.) quaestio solvitur secundum triplicem distinctionem tristitiae (cfr. hic dub. 4.). Aliis verbis, sed in conformi sententia, distinguit S. Thom. (S. loc. cit. a. 4.) triplicem differentiam, quae est inter passiones nostras atque Christi, scilicet secundum obiectum, principium atque effectum.
De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
III. Etiam in ultima (3.) quaestione solvenda omnes consentiunt, et conclusio iam sequitur ex doctrina 2. quaestionis, cum ira sit effectus tristitiae, ut docet S. Thom. (S. III. q. 15. a. 9. et alibi). Alii Scholastici etiam de passione timoris solent specialem quaestionem instituere, de qua S. Bonav. agit hic dub. 3.
De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 5. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.
---
Article II. On the defects assumed by Christ in particular.
Next there is inquiry concerning the defects assumed by Christ in particular. And concerning this three things are asked.
First it is asked whether he had ignorance in the rational [faculty].
Second, whether he had sorrow in the concupiscible [faculty].
Third, whether he had anger in the irascible power.
Question I. Whether Christ had ignorance in the rational [faculty].
Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked, whether Christ had ignorance in the rational [faculty]. And that he did, it seems:
For the opposite:
1. First, by the authority of Damascenep336-1: "It must be known that he assumed a servile and ignorant nature"; he speaks of the Word incarnate: therefore the nature assumed in Christ was ignorant, and so it had the defect of ignorance.
2. Likewise, Ambrose in the first book On the Holy Spiritp336-2: "Through human imprudence he is ignorant of what he has not yet learned": therefore he had ignorance.
3. Likewise, Pope Leo in the Homily On the Epiphanyp336-3: "They adored the infant, in no way distinguished from the generality of others"; but in general other infants are ignorant: therefore Christ too in his infancy had ignorance.
4. Likewise, knowledge puffs upp336-4; but Christ humbled himself utterly and assumed those defects which make for humility: therefore he had in himself a defect and lack of knowledge. But this defect is ignorance: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, Christ in his infancy had a defect of eloquence, although he was the Word of the Father, in order to show in himself the truth of human naturep336-5: therefore by parity of reasoning, although he was the wisdom of the Father, according to human nature he ought to have had a defect of wisdom. But this is ignorance: therefore etc.
6. Likewise, although Christ was the power of the Father — according to that which the Apostle says in the first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter one: We declare Christ to be the power of God and the wisdom of God — yet he had a defect of strength according to the exigency of human nature: it seems therefore by parity of reasoning that he had a defect of wisdom.
On the contrary:
1. The assumption of flesh was the work of divine wisdom; but wisdom, as such, is not the principle of ignorance: therefore Christ did not assume that defect which is ignorancep337-1.
2. Likewise, Christ had come to teach us; but it does not belong to one who is ignorant to teach: therefore he ought not to assume ignorance.
3. Likewise, one is to be believed only if he is knowing; but Christ came in the flesh to this end, that we might believe in himp337-2: therefore it seems that he ought to have come with wisdom, not with ignorance.
4. Likewise, that soul could not be united to the Word without being deiformp337-3; but deiformity removes the obscurity of ignorance: therefore it seems that it was impossible for Christ to assume in himself, according to human nature, the defect of ignorance.
Conclusion.
Christ did not have the defect of ignorance.
I respond: It must be said that, as the Master says in the textp337-4, Christ did not have the defect of ignorance. — And the reason for this is: because it neither befitted him, nor was expedient for us. It did not befit him, because his soul ought to be deiform, and by this filled with the light of wisdom and the rectitude of justice; but ignorance is a privation of knowledge and can be a way into error and a deviation from the rectitude of justice, and by this it did not pertain to Christ. — Nor was it expedient for us, whom he had come to redeem and to direct. For if he had had the defect of ignorance, he would not have known how to redeem us; he would also not have known how to direct us, because indeed, if a blind man gives guidance to a blind man, both fall into the pitp337-5. — And therefore it neither befitted him, nor was expedient for us, that he should assume such a defect. — It must therefore be granted that Christ in no way had the defect of ignorance in himself. And the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.
Solution of the opposing [arguments]:
1. To that which is objected from Damascene, that he assumed a servile and ignorant nature; it must be said that ignorance and servility are not attributed to the assumed nature by reason of that singular nature which was joined to the Word in unity of person, but as regards the other natures similar in species, as if to say: he assumed our nature, which is ignorant — not in Christ, but in usp337-6.
2. To that of Ambrose, where it is said that Christ was ignorant of what he had not learned; it must be said that one kind of knowledge is of simple cognition, another of experience. But Ambrose is not there speaking of ignorance insofar as it signifies the privation of any knowledge whatever, but insofar as it signifies the privation of experience, according to what was determined in the preceding [questions]p337-7.
3. To that which is objected concerning Pope Leo, that that infant was in no way distinguished from the generality of others; it must be said that Pope Leo is speaking as regards those things which appeared outwardly; for as regards those things which lay hidden withinp337-8, he differed from others in many respects.
4. To that which is objected, that knowledge puffs up; it must be said that one may speak of knowledge either insofar as it is without charity, or insofar as it is conjoined to charity. If insofar as it is divided from charity, then the Apostle says that it puffs up. But if insofar as it is conjoined to charity, then it is not a way to inflation, but rather to rectitude and edification and humility. For from the knowledge of oneself and of God arises the perfection of humility; and in this second way it was in Christp337-9.
5. To that which is objected, that in Christ there was a defect of eloquence, therefore likewise also of wisdom; it must be said that it is not similar, because in the defect of eloquence, as in the other infantile necessities, the truth of the assumed nature was made manifest; but the defect of wisdom lies hidden within; therefore it would have been of no avail, had it been in Christ. And therefore it is not similar.
6. To that which is objected, that Christ, the power of God, had a defect of strength; it must be said that it is not similar, both because the defect of strength appeared outwardly and was in the flesh, whereas the defect of wisdom was inwardly in the soul, which from the beginning ought to have been perfectly disposed for its union with the Word; and also because the defect of strength is matter for the exercise of virtue, but not so the defect of cognition, which ratherp337-10 impedes it. Therefore it is not similar on the one side and the other.
I. Concerning this question cf. the author and others above, d. 14, throughout. Treating of the same in particular are Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 5. m. 2. a. 1. § 1, and St. Thomas, S. III. q. 13. a. 3.
II. The following (2nd) question is solved according to a threefold distinction of sorrow (cf. here dub. 4.). In other words, but in a conformable sense, St. Thomas (S. loc. cit. a. 4.) distinguishes a threefold difference which exists between our passions and Christ's, namely according to object, principle, and effect.
On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — Scotus, in both Writings here, one question. — St. Thomas, here a. 2. little-question 1; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. little-question 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3. q. 2. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 2.
III. In the last (3rd) question to be solved likewise all agree, and the conclusion already follows from the doctrine of the 2nd question, since anger is the effect of sorrow, as St. Thomas teaches (S. III. q. 15. a. 9. and elsewhere). Other Scholastics are also accustomed to set up a special question on the passion of fear, on which St. Bonaventure treats here in dub. 3.
On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 5. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. little-question 2; S. loc. cit. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. little-question 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 4.
---
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 21. — Mox pro Verbo incarnato multi codd. Verbo increato, et dein pro in Christo fere omnes codd. in ipso.[John Damascene,] Book III of On the Orthodox Faith, c. 21. — Presently, for Word incarnate many codices [read] Word uncreated, and then for in Christ nearly all codices [read] in him.
- Ita codd. et edd., sed re vera locus cit. invenitur in Ambrosii libro de Incarn. domin. sacram. c. 7. n. 74, olim III. de Spiritu S. Vide supra pag. 274, nota 7.Thus the codices and editions, but in fact the cited passage is found in Ambrose's book On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation, c. 7, n. 74, formerly [book] III On the Holy Spirit. See above, p. 274, note 7.
- Serm. 34. (alias 33.) c. 3: Viderunt et adoraverunt [Magi] puerum, quantitate parvulum, alienae opis indigum, fandi impotem, et in nullo ab humanae infantiae generalitate dissimilem.Sermon 34 (otherwise 33), c. 3: The [Magi] saw and adored the boy, small in size, in need of another's aid, unable to speak, and in no way unlike the generality of human infancy.
- Epist. I. Cor. 8, 1.[Paul's] Epistle, 1 Cor. 8:1.
- Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. — Mox post humanam naturam edd. subdunt tamen, et non pauci codd. deinde pro sed hic substituunt sed haec.Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. — Presently, after human nature the editions add yet, and not a few codices then, for but this [masc.], substitute but these [fem.].
- Cfr. supra pag. 286, nota 5.Cf. above, p. 286, note 5.
- Codd. G I L T aa et alii ante ut crederemus in eum superflue et inepte interserunt et; melior et fortasse vera lectio est codd. AN ut crederemus ei et ut crederemus in eum.Codices G I L T aa and others superfluously and ineptly insert and before that we might believe in him; the better and perhaps the true reading is that of codices A N, that we might believe him and that we might believe in him.
- Vide supra d. 2. a. 3. q. 2. et d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. — Cod. K voci Verbo praefigit cum.See above, d. 2, a. 3, q. 2, and d. 13, a. 1, q. 1. — Codex K prefixes with to the word Word.
- Hic c. 1.Here [in the text], c. 1.
- Matth. 15, 14. Vulgata: ducatum praestet.Matt. 15:14. The Vulgate: gives guidance.
- Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 14. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1.Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 6, and d. 14, a. 3, q. 1, reply to 1.
- Dist. 14. a. 3. q. 2. De seq. solut. vide ibid. nec non lit. Magistri, d. XIII. — Paulo superius pro non didicit cod. A non didicerat.Dist. 14, a. 3, q. 2. On the following solution see ibid., as also the text of the Master, d. XIII. — A little above, for he has not learned codex A [reads] he had not learned.
- Edd., paulo ante pro nam substituto non, hic addunt per quae, et subinde cod. M solutionem terminat sic: in multis aliis differebant.The editions, a little before, having substituted not for for, here add by which, and thereupon codex M ends the solution thus: they differed in many other respects.
- Cfr. supra pag. 223, nota 1. — In initio solut. post prout est absque caritate Vat. addit et a caritate divisa, et inferius pro humilitatem codd. A T Z substituunt humiliationem.Cf. above, p. 223, note 1. — At the beginning of the solution, after insofar as it is without charity the Vatican [edition] adds and divided from charity, and below, for humility codices A T Z substitute humiliation.
- Pro quin potius cod. U quoniam plus.For which rather codex U [reads] since more.