← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 16

Textus Latinus
p. 343

DISTINCTIO XVI.

Cap. I. De quibusdam capitulis Hilarii obscuris, quibus a carne Christi dolores submoveri videntur.

Verumtamen magis movent ac difficiliorem afferunt quaestionem verba Hilarii, quibus videtur tradere, ictus et vulnera et huiusmodi sic in Christum incidisse, ut passionis dolorem non incuterent, sicut telum, tractum per aquam vel ignem vel aëra, ea facit, quae et, cum trahitur per corpora animata, quia perforat et compungit, non tamen dolorem ingerit, quia non sunt illae res capaces doloris. Ita et corpus Christi sine sensu poenae vim poenae excepisse dicit, quia, sicut corpus nostrum non habet talem naturam, ut valeat calcare undas, ita corpus Christi dicit non habuisse naturam nostri doloris, quia non habuit naturam ad dolendum.

Ait enim in decimo libro de Trinitatep343-1: « Unigenitus Deus hominem verum secundum similitudinem nostri hominis, non deficiens a se Deo, sumsit. In quo, quamvis aut ictus incideret, aut vulnus descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem passionis inferrent; ut telum aliquod aquam perforans, vel ignem compungens, vel aëra vulnerans, omnes quidem has passiones naturae suae infert, ut perforetp343-2, ut compungat, ut vulneret, sed naturam suam in hoc passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel pungi ignem, vel aëra vulnerari, quamvis naturae teli sit et vulnerare et compungere et forare. Passus quidem Christus est, dum caeditur, dum suspenditur, dum moritur; sed in corpus irruens passio nec non fuit passio, non tamen naturam passionis exercuit, dum et poenali ministerio poena desaevit, et virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit. Habuit sane illud dominicum corpus doloris nostri naturam, si corpus nostrum id naturae habet, ut calcet undas et fluctus desuper eat nec clausae domus obstaculis arceatur. At vero si dominici corporis solum ista natura sit, ut feratur in humidis et sistat in liquidis et structa transcurrat; quid per naturam humani corporis carnem ex Spiritu sancto conceptam iudicamus? Caro illa de caelis est, et homo ille de Deo est, habens ad patiendum corpus, et passus est, sed naturam non habens ad dolendum ». Idem in eodemp343-3: « Videamus, an ille passionis ordo infirmitatem in Domino doloris permittat intelligi. Dilatis enim causis, ex quibus metum Domino haeresis ascribit, res ipsas, ut gestae sunt, conferamus. Neque enim fieri potest, ut timor eius significetur in verbis, cuius fiducia contineatur in factis. Timuisse igitur, haereticep343-4, passionem videtur? Sed ob ignorantiae huius errorem Petrus et satanas et scandalum est. Anne timuit qui armatis obvius prodiit? Et in corpore eius infirmitas fuit, ad cuius occursum consternata persequentium agmina supinatis corporibus conciderunt? Quam igitur infirmitatem dominatam huius corporis credis, cuius tantam habuit natura virtutem? Sed forte dolorem vulnerum timuit? Quem, rogo, o tu dominicae infirmitatis assertor, penetrantis carnem clavi habuit terrorem, qui excisam aurem solo restituit attactu? Producens haec autem manus clavum dolet, et sentit vulnus qui alteri dolorem vulneris non reliquit? Pungendae carnis metu tristis est, cuius in attactu caro post caedem sanatur »? Itemp343-5: « Collatis igitur dictorum gestorumque virtutibus, demonstrari non est ambiguum, in natura corporis eius infirmitatem corporeae naturae non fuisse, et passionem illam, licet corpori illata sit, non tamen naturam dolendi corpori intulisse; quia, licet forma corporis nostri esset in Domino, non tamen vitiosae infirmitatis nostrae forma erat in corpore, quod ex conceptu Spiritus sancti Virgo progenuit ». — Audisti, lector, verba Hilarii, quibus dolorem excludere videtur. Sed si, excussa sensus et impietatis hebetudine, praemissis diligenter intendas atque ipsius scripturae circumstantiam inspicias; dictorum rationem atque virtutem percipere utcumque poteris et intelligentiam arguere non attentabis. Intelligitur enim ea ratione dixisse, dolorem passionis in Christum non incidisse, et virtutemp343-6 corporis Christi excepisse vim poenae sine sensu poenae, quia causam et meritum doloris in se non habuit. Quod videtur notasse, ubi ait: « Non habens naturam ad dolendum ». Et ideo non iudicanda est caro illius secundum naturam nostri corporis; nec in eo etiam dominium habuit passio; ita etiam non habuit naturam ad timendum, vel tristandum, quia non habuit talem naturam, in qua esset causa timoris, vel tristitiae. Itaque necessitas timendi non fuit in eo, sicut est in nobis; nec natura doloris fuit in eo, sicut est in nobis.

Cap. II. De tristitia Christi et eius causa secundum eundem.

Tristitiam tamen in eo fuisse, consequenter asserit, sed causam eius exstitisse non suam mortem, sed defectum Petri et aliorum Apostolorum. Dicit enim, Christum non propter mortem, sed usque ad mortem tristem fuisse, his verbisp343-7: « Interrogo, quid sit tristem esse usque ad mortem. Non enim eiusdem significationis est, tristem esse propter mortem et usque ad mor- p. 344 tem, quia, ubi propter mortem tristitia est, illic mors causa tristitiae est; ubi vero tristitia usque ad mortem est, mors non tristitiae est causa, sed finis ». « Adeo autem non propter mortem suscepta est tristitia, ut sit destituta per mortem ». « Non ergo sibi tristis est, sed illis qui in scandalo per infirmitatem carnis erant futuri, quos monet orare, ne inducantur in tentationem; qui ante polliciti erant se non scandalizari ».

NOTULA. Hilarius in libro de Synodisp344-1: Cum haec passionum genera infirmitate carnis afficiant, Deus tamen, Verbum caro factum, non potuit ad se demutabilis esse patiendo. Verbum enim, quia caro factum est, licet se passioni subdiderit, non tamen demutatum est possibilitate patiendi. Pati potuit, et passibilis esse non potuit, quia passibilitas naturae infirmae significatio est, passio autem eorum est, quae sunt illata, perpessio.

Cap. III. An in Christo fuerit necessitas patiendi et moriendi, quae est defectus generalis.

Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis ducens originem. Dictum est enim suprap344-2, quod Christus in se nostros defectus suscepit praeter peccatum. Est autem hominis quidam generalis defectus, qui peccatum non est, scilicet necessitas patiendi, vel moriendi. Unde corpus nostrum non tantum mortale, sed etiam mortuum dicitur, quia non tantum aptitudinem moriendi, sed etiam necessitatem habet. Ideo quaeritur, utrum necessitas talis in Christi corporep344-3 fuerit. De aptitudine enim moriendi, quod in eo fuerit, ambiguum non est, quae etiam ante peccatum in homine fuit, quando aliquis in eo non fuit defectus; nec igitur mortalitas illa tunc in eo fuit defectus, quia natura ei erat. Unde etiam quidam talem mortalitatem in nobis non esse defectum non improbe tradunt, sed necessitatem moriendi, vel patiendi, quae etiam mortalitas dicitur, vel passibilitas. Dicitur enim homo nunc passibilis, vel mortalis, non modo propter aptitudinem; sed etiam propter necessitatem. Sed nunquid hic defectus fuit in Christi carne? Anima quoque eius, cum passibilis exstiterit ante mortem, nunquid necessitatem patiendi habuit? Si enim necessitas patiendi, vel moriendi fuit in Christo, non videtur sola voluntate miserationis defectus nostros accepisse. — Ad quod dici potest, Christum voluntate, non necessitate suae naturae hos defectus, sicut alios, suscepissep344-4, scilicet necessitatem patiendi in anima, simul autem patiendi et moriendi in carne. Verum hanc necessitatem non habuit ex necessitate suae conditionis, quia a peccato immunis, sed ex sola voluntate accepit, de nostra infirmitate ponens tabernaculum suum in sole, scilicet sub temporali mutabilitate et labore. Unde super Epistolam ad Hebraeosp344-5 auctoritas dicit, quod « sicut hominibus aliis iure et lege naturae statutum est semel mori, ita et Christus eadem necessitate et iure naturae semel oblatus est, et non saepe ». Nec ideo dicit iure naturae, quod ex natura suae conditionis hunc defectum traxerit, qui etiam non provenit nobis ex natura, secundum quod prius est instituta, sed ex ea peccato vitiata. Et ideo dicitur hic defectus naturalis, quia quasi pro natura inolevit, in omnibus diffusus.

Cap. IV. De statibus hominis, et quid Christus de singulis acceperit.

Et est hic notandum, Christum de omni statu hominis aliquid accepisse, qui omnes venit salvare. Sunt enim quatuor status hominis: primus ante peccatum, secundus post peccatum et ante gratiam, tertius sub gratia, quartus in gloria. De primo statu accepit immunitatem peccati. Unde Augustinusp344-6 illud Ioannis Evangelistae exponens: Qui desursum venit super omnes est, dicit: « Christum venisse desursum, id est de altitudine humanae naturae ante peccatum, quia de illa altitudine assumsit Verbum Dei humanam naturam, dum non assumsit culpam, cuius assumsit poenam ». Sed poenam assumsit de statu secundo et alios defectus; de tertio vero gratiae plenitudinem; de quarto non posse peccare et Dei perfectam contemplationem. Habuit enim simul bona viae quaedam et bona patriae, sicut et quaedam mala viae.

---

English Translation
p. 343

DISTINCTION XVI.

Chap. I. On certain obscure chapters of Hilary, by which sorrows seem to be removed from the flesh of Christ.

Nevertheless, what move us more, and raise a more difficult question, are the words of Hilary, by which he seems to hand down that blows and wounds and the like so befell Christ that they did not inflict the sorrow of passion — just as a dart, drawn through water or fire or air, does those things which it also does when it is drawn through animate bodies, namely, that, because it pierces and pricks, it does not nevertheless cause sorrow, since those things are not capable of sorrow. So too he says that the body of Christ received the force of punishment without the sensation of punishment, because, just as our body does not have such a nature that it is able to tread the waves, so he says that the body of Christ did not have the nature of our sorrow, because it did not have a nature for grieving.

For he says in the tenth book On the Trinityp343-1: « The Only-begotten God took on a true man according to the likeness of our manhood, not falling away from himself as God. In whom, although a blow might fall, or a wound descend, or knots concur, or hanging lift him up, these would indeed bring the impulse of passion, yet they would not inflict the sorrow of passion; just as some dart piercing water, or pricking fire, or wounding air, inflicts indeed all these passions of its own nature, so as to piercep343-2, to prick, to wound, but the passion inflicted does not retain its nature in this, since it is not in the nature of things either for water to be bored, or fire to be pricked, or air to be wounded, although it belongs to the nature of a dart both to wound and to prick and to bore. Christ indeed suffered, while he is struck, while he is hung up, while he dies; but the passion rushing upon his body both was and was not a passion, yet it did not exercise the nature of passion, since the punishment raged on with a penal service, and the power of the body without the sensation of punishment received the force of the punishment raging within it. That dominical body indeed had the nature of our sorrow, if our body has it of its nature that it tread the waves and go over the waters above and not be hindered by the obstacles of a closed house. But if it is the sole nature of the dominical body that it be borne upon moist things and stand upon liquids and run across solid structures; how shall we judge, by the nature of a human body, the flesh conceived of the Holy Spirit? That flesh is from heaven, and that man is from God, having a body for suffering, and he suffered, but not having a nature for grieving ». The same in the same placep343-3: « Let us see whether that order of the passion permits weakness of sorrow to be understood in the Lord. For setting aside the causes by which heresy ascribes fear to the Lord, let us compare the things themselves, as they were done. For it cannot be that fear should be signified in the words of one whose confidence is contained in his deeds. Did he then, O hereticp343-4, seem to fear the passion? But on account of the error of this ignorance Peter is both Satan and scandal. Did he fear who came forth to meet armed men? And was there weakness in his body, at whose approach the dismayed bands of his pursuers fell down with bodies overthrown? What weakness, then, do you believe to have mastered this body, whose nature had so great a power? But perhaps he feared the sorrow of wounds? What terror, I ask, O you who assert the Lord's weakness, did he have of the nail piercing his flesh, who restored the severed ear by a mere touch? And does this hand, producing them, feel pain at the nail, and does he feel a wound who did not leave to another the sorrow of a wound? Is he sad with fear of his flesh being pierced, at whose touch the flesh is healed after the blow »? Likewisep343-5: « When therefore the powers of his words and deeds are compared, it is not doubtful to demonstrate that in the nature of his body there was no weakness of bodily nature, and that that passion, although it was inflicted on the body, did not nevertheless bring upon the body the nature of grieving; because, although the form of our body was in the Lord, yet the form of our vitiated weakness was not in the body which the Virgin brought forth from the conception of the Holy Spirit ». — You have heard, reader, the words of Hilary, by which he seems to exclude sorrow. But if, having shaken off the dullness of sense and of impiety, you attend diligently to what has been set forth and inspect the very context of the scripture; you will be able somehow to perceive the ground and force of the things said, and you will not attempt to accuse his understanding. For he is understood to have said, with this reasoning, that the sorrow of passion did not befall Christ, and that the powerp343-6 of Christ's body received the force of punishment without the sensation of punishment, because it had not in itself the cause and merit of sorrow. Which he seems to have noted where he says: « Not having a nature for grieving ». And therefore his flesh is not to be judged according to the nature of our body; nor did passion have dominion in it either; so too it did not have a nature for fearing, or for being made sad, because it did not have such a nature in which there was the cause of fear, or of sadness. And so the necessity of fearing was not in him, as it is in us; nor was the nature of sorrow in him, as it is in us.

Chap. II. On the sadness of Christ and its cause, according to the same author.

That sadness nevertheless was in him, he asserts consequently, but that the cause of it was not his own death, but the failing of Peter and of the other Apostles. For he says that Christ was sad not because of death, but unto death, in these wordsp343-7: « I ask, what it is to be sad unto death. For it is not of the same signification, to be sad because of death and unto dea- p. 344 th, since, where there is sadness because of death, there death is the cause of the sadness; but where there is sadness unto death, death is not the cause of the sadness, but its end ». « And so sadness was so far not undertaken because of death, that it is destroyed by death ». « Therefore he is sad not for himself, but for those who through the weakness of the flesh were going to be in scandal, whom he warns to pray, lest they be led into temptation; who had before promised that they would not be scandalized ».

NOTULA. Hilary in the book On the Synodsp344-1: Though these kinds of passions afflict by the weakness of the flesh, God nevertheless, the Word made flesh, could not by suffering become changeable in himself. For the Word, because it was made flesh, although it subjected itself to passion, was nevertheless not changed by the possibility of suffering. He was able to suffer, and could not be passible, because passibility is the signification of an infirm nature, while passion is the enduring of those things which are inflicted.

Chap. III. Whether there was in Christ a necessity of suffering and of dying, which is a general defect.

Here arises a question deriving its origin from what has been said. For it was said abovep344-2 that Christ took upon himself our defects except sin. Now there is a certain general defect of man which is not sin, namely the necessity of suffering, or of dying. Whence our body is called not only mortal, but also dead, because it has not only the aptitude for dying, but also the necessity. Therefore it is asked whether such a necessity was in Christ's bodyp344-3. For concerning the aptitude for dying, that it was in him, there is no doubt, which also was in man before sin, when there was no defect in him; nor therefore was that mortality then a defect in him, because it was natural to him. Whence also some, not improperly, hand down that such mortality in us is not a defect, but the necessity of dying, or of suffering, which also is called mortality, or passibility. For man is now called passible, or mortal, not only on account of aptitude, but also on account of necessity. But was this defect in Christ's flesh? Did his soul too, since it was passible before death, have a necessity of suffering? For if a necessity of suffering, or of dying, was in Christ, he does not seem to have received our defects by the will of compassion alone. — To which it can be said that Christ undertook these defects, like the others, by will, not by the necessity of his naturep344-4, namely the necessity of suffering in the soul, but at once of suffering and dying in the flesh. But he did not have this necessity from the necessity of his condition, since he was immune from sin, but received it from his will alone, placing, out of our weakness, his tabernacle in the sun, that is, under temporal mutability and labor. Whence on the Epistle to the Hebrewsp344-5 the authority says that « just as it is appointed for other men by the right and law of nature to die once, so also Christ by the same necessity and right of nature was offered once, and not often ». Nor does he say by right of nature because he drew this defect from the nature of his condition, which also does not come to us from nature as it was first instituted, but from nature vitiated by sin. And therefore this defect is called natural, because it grew in as it were in place of nature, diffused into all.

Chap. IV. On the states of man, and what Christ received of each.

And here it is to be noted that Christ received something of every state of man, who came to save all. For there are four states of man: the first before sin, the second after sin and before grace, the third under grace, the fourth in glory. Of the first state he received immunity from sin. Whence Augustinep344-6, expounding that saying of John the Evangelist, He who comes from above is above all, says: « Christ came from above, that is, from the height of human nature before sin, because from that height the Word of God assumed human nature, while it did not assume guilt, whose punishment it assumed ». But he assumed punishment from the second state and the other defects; from the third the fullness of grace; from the fourth the not being able to sin and the perfect contemplation of God. For he had at once certain goods of the way and goods of the fatherland, just as also certain evils of the way.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Num. 23.
    Number 23.
  2. Codd. foret. Infra pro Passus quidem edd. 1, 8 Passus invenitur quidem, et deinde omittunt est. Denique pro dominicum corpus edd. 1, 8 cum originali Domini corpus, et inferius iterum cum codd. A C E, at contra originale, Domini corporis.
    The codices read foret. Below, for Passus quidem editions 1, 8 read Passus invenitur quidem, and then omit est. Finally, for dominicum corpus editions 1, 8, with the original, read Domini corpus, and again below, with codices A C E, but against the original, Domini corporis.
  3. Ibid. n. 26. et 27. In textu plura a Magistro omissa sunt.
    Ibid., nn. 26 and 27. In the text many things were omitted by the Master.
  4. In originali sic: Timuisse tibi, o haeretice, Dominus gloriae passionem videtur? — Mox respicitur Matth. 16, 23. et Ioan. 18, 6. — Paulo inferius post Anne timuit edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt mori, refragante etiam originali.
    In the original thus: « Does the Lord of glory seem to you, O heretic, to have feared the passion? » — Shortly after, Matthew 16:23 and John 18:6 are looked back to. — A little below, after Anne timuit, the editions, except 1 and 8, add mori, the original also dissenting.
  5. Ibid. n. 35.
    Ibid., n. 35.
  6. Edd. 1, 8 virtute; post Christi cod. A et Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addiciunt sibi.
    Editions 1, 8 read virtute; after Christi, codex A and the Vatican edition, with editions 4, 5, 6, 9, add sibi.
  7. Ibid. n. 36; in quo textu edd., excepta 1, 8, ante Non enim adiciunt et tristem esse propter mortem, refragantibus edd. et originali. Seq. locus est ibid. paulo inferius; tertius n. 37. in fine, ubi respicitur Matth. 26, 41.
    Ibid., n. 36; in which text the editions, except 1 and 8, before Non enim add and to be sad because of death, the editions and the original dissenting. The following passage is ibid., a little below; the third is at n. 37, at the end, where Matthew 26:41 is looked back to.
  8. Num. 49. — Sequens notula Hilarii in edd. et codd. vel deest, vel ad marginem est posita, sed in diversis edd. non eodem loco. — Cum verbis, quae sequuntur: Hic oritur, in codd. aliis et edd. incipit haec d. XVI.
    Number 49. — The following note of Hilary in the editions and codices is either lacking, or placed in the margin, but in different editions not in the same place. — With the words which follow, Hic oritur, this Dist. XVI begins in other codices and editions.
  9. Dist. XV. c. 1.
    Dist. XV, c. 1.
  10. Ita codd. A C E et edd. 1, 7; in ceteris carne. Infra pro natura ei, quod habet Vat. et edd. 4, 9, edd. 6, 8 naturae eius, in reliquis et codd. naturae ei.
    Thus codices A C E and editions 1, 7; in the rest, carne. Below, for natura ei, which the Vatican edition and editions 4, 9 have, editions 6, 8 read naturae eius, in the remaining ones and the codices naturae ei.
  11. Codd. A B C accepisse.
    Codices A B C read accepisse.
  12. Cap. 9, 27, et est Glossa ordinaria apud Lyranum. — Paulo superius respicitur Ps. 18, 6. — Infra pro traxerit edd. 1, 8 contraxerit, quae simul cum cod. E post prius est addunt nobis.
    Chap. 9:27, and it is the Glossa Ordinaria in Lyra. — A little above, Psalm 18:6 is looked back to. — Below, for traxerit, editions 1, 8 read contraxerit, which, together with codex E, add nobis after prius est.
  13. Glossa super Ioan. 3, 31, apud Lyranum relata cum nomine Augustini. — De prima huius cap. propositione cfr. Boeth., de Una Persona et duabus naturis etc. c. 8. De quatuor statibus II. Sent. d. XXV. c. 6. et hic in Comment. dub. 4.
    A gloss on John 3:31, reported in Lyra under the name of Augustine. — On the first proposition of this chapter cf. Boethius, On the One Person and Two Natures, etc., c. 8. On the four states, II Sent., d. XXV, c. 6, and here in the Commentary, dub. 4. ---
Dist. 16, Divisio Textus→