← Back to Distinction 2

Dist. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 2

Textus Latinus
p. 35

# DISTINCTIO II.

Cap. I.

Quare totam humanam naturam accepit, et quid nomine humanitatis vel humanae naturae intelligendum sit.

Et quia in homine tota humana natura vitio corrupta erat, totam assumsit, id est animam et carnem, ut totam curaret et sanctificaret. — Quod autem humanae naturae sive humanitatis vocabulo anima et caro intelligi debeant, aperte docet Hieronymus1 in Expositione catholicae fidei dicens: « Sic confitemur in Christo unam Filii esse personam, ut dicamus, duas perfectas et integras esse substantias, id est deitatis et humanitatis, quae ex anima continetur et corpore ». — Ecce aperte ostendit, humanitatis nomine animam et corpus intelligi, quae duo assumsisse Dei Filius intelligitur, ubi hominem sive humanitatem vel humanam naturam accepisse2 legitur. — Errant igitur qui nomine humanitatis non substantiam, sed proprietatem quandam, a qua homo nominatur, significari contendunt, ubicumque Christi humanitas memoratur. Ait enim Ioannes Damascenus3: « Sciendum quidem est, quod deitatis et humanitatis nomen substantiarum, scilicet naturarum, est repraesentativum ». Natura enim non sic accipitur in Christo, ut cum dicitur una natura esse omnium hominum; quod evidenter idem Ioannes ostendit, differentem rationem dicti assignans, cum natura humana in Christo nominatur, et cum dicitur una natura omnium hominum. Ait enim4: « Cum unam hominum naturam dicimus, sciendum est, quod non considerantes ad animae et corporis rationem hoc dicimus5. Impossibile enim est unius naturae dicere Domini corpus et animam, ad invicem comparata. Sed quia plurimae personae hominum sunt, omnes autem eandem suscipiunt rationem naturae — omnes enim ex anima et corpore compositi sunt, et omnes naturam animae participant et substantiam corporis possident — communem speciem plurimarum et differentium personarum unam naturam dicimus, uniuscuiusque scilicet personae duas naturas habentis et in duabus perfecte naturis existentis, animae scilicet et corporis. In Domino autem Iesu Christo non est communem speciem accipere. Neque enim factus est, nec est nec aliquando fiet alius. Sed Christus, ex deitate et humanitate, in deitate et humanitate Deus perfectus, idem et homo perfectus ». — Totam igitur hominis naturam, id est animam et carnem, et horum proprietates sive accidentia assumsit Deus, non carnem sine anima, nec animam sine ratione6, ut haeretici voluerunt, sed et carnem et animam cum sensibus suis. Unde Ioannes Damascenus ait7: « Omnia quae in nostra natura plantavit Deus, Verbum assumsit, scilicet corpus et animam intellectualem, et horum idiomata ». « Totus enim totum assumsit me, ut toti mihi salutem gratificaret. Quod enim inassumtibile est incurabile est ».

Cap. II.

De unione Verbi et carnis mediante anima.

Assumsit igitur Dei Filius carnem et animam, sed carnem mediante anima8: « Unitum est carni per medium intellectum, Verbum Dei ». Tantae enim subtilitatis atque simplicitatis est divina essentia, ut corpori de limo terrae formato uniri non congruerit, nisi mediante rationali essentia. Illa autem unio inexplicabilis est adeo, ut etiam Ioannes9, ab utero sanctificatus, se non esse dignum fateatur solvere corrigiam calceamenti Iesu, quia illius unionis modum investigare aliisque explicare non erat sufficiens. « Non sunt igitur audiendi qui non verum hominem Filium Dei suscepisse dicunt, neque natum de femina, sed falsam carnem et imaginem corporis simulatam ostendisse videntibus10 ». In quem errorem prorumpunt, quia timent, quod fieri non potest, scilicet, ne humana carne veritas et substantia Dei inquinetur; « et tamen praedicant, istum visibilem solem radios suos per omnes faeces et sordes corporum spargere et eos mundos et sinceros servare. Si ergo visibilia munda a visibilibus immundis contingi possunt et non coinquinari, quanto magis incommutabilis et invisibilis Veritas, per spiritum animam et per animam corpus suscipiens, totum hominem sine sui contaminatione assumsit et ab omnibus infirmitatibus liberavit ». — Ecce hic dicit, Dei Sapientiam per spiritum assumsisse animam, et per animam corpus. Spiritus enim, scilicet pars animae superior, maiori similitudine Deo propinquat quam anima, scilicet ipsa eadem secundum inferiorem partem, et anima magis quam corpus; et ideo non incongrue anima dicitur assumta per spiritum, et corpus per animam11.

p. 36

Cap. III.

Quod simul assumsit animam et carnem Verbum, nec caro prius est concepta quam assumta.

Si autem quaeritur, utrum Verbum carnem simul et animam assumserit, an prius animam quam carnem, vel carnem quam animam; et utrum caro illa prius fuerit in utero Virginis concepta et postea assumta; verissime et absque ulla ambiguitate dicitur, quia, ex quo hominem Deus assumsit, totum assumsit simulque sibi univit animam et carnem; nec caro prius fuit concepta, et postmodum assumta, sed in conceptione assumta et in assumtione concepta. Unde Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum12: « Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, non carnem Christi sine divinitate conceptam in utero Virginis, priusquam susciperetur a Verbo, sed ipsum Deum suae carnis acceptione conceptum, ipsamque carnem Verbi incarnatione conceptam ». Idem in libro de Trinitate13: Non esset Dei hominumque mediator, nisi esset idem Deus, idem homo, in utroque unus et verus, quam servilem formam, a solo Filio susceptam, tota Trinitas, cuius una est voluntas et operatio, fecit. Non autem in utero Virginis prius caro suscepta est, et postmodum divinitas venit in carnem, sed mox ut Verbum venit in uterum, servata veritate propriae naturae, factum est caro et perfectus homo, id est, in veritate carnis et animae natus est. — De hoc etiam Gregorius in Moralibus14 ait: « Angelo nuntiante et Spiritu adveniente, mox Verbum in utero, mox intra uterum Verbum caro ».

English Translation

# DISTINCTION II.

Chapter I.

Why He assumed the whole human nature, and what is to be understood by the name of humanity or human nature.

And because in man the whole human nature had been corrupted by sin, He assumed the whole, that is, soul and flesh, in order to heal and sanctify the whole. — But that by the word of human nature or humanity soul and flesh ought to be understood, Jerome1 plainly teaches in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, saying: "Thus we confess in Christ that there is one person of the Son, in such a way that we say there are two perfect and integral substances, that is, of deity and of humanity, which [latter] is constituted of soul and body." — Behold, he plainly shows that by the name of humanity are understood soul and body, which two the Son of God is understood to have assumed, wherever He is read2 to have assumed man, or humanity, or human nature. — They err, therefore, who contend that by the name of humanity is signified not a substance, but a certain property, from which a man is named, wherever Christ's humanity is mentioned. For John Damascene says3: "It must indeed be known that the name of deity and of humanity is representative of substances, that is, of natures." For nature is not taken in Christ in the way it is when one nature is said to be of all men; which the same John evidently shows, assigning a different account of the statement, when human nature is named in Christ, and when one nature of all men is spoken of. For he says4: "When we say one nature of men, it must be known that we say this without regard to the account of soul and body5. For it is impossible to call the Lord's body and soul of one nature, compared to one another. But because there are many persons of men, and all receive the same account of nature — for all are composed of soul and body, and all participate in the nature of soul and possess the substance of body — we call the common species of the many and differing persons one nature, namely of each person having two natures and existing perfectly in two natures, namely of soul and of body. But in the Lord Jesus Christ there is no common species to be taken. For He was not made, nor is, nor ever will be another. But Christ, of deity and of humanity, in deity and humanity perfect God, is likewise perfect man." — Therefore God assumed the whole nature of man, that is, soul and flesh, and their properties or accidents — not flesh without soul, nor soul without reason6, as the heretics wished, but both flesh and soul with their senses. Hence John Damascene says7: "All things that God planted in our nature the Word assumed, namely body and intellectual soul, and their idioms." "For the whole assumed the whole of me, that He might bestow salvation on the whole of me. For what is unassumable is incurable."

Chapter II.

On the union of the Word and the flesh through the medium of a soul.

The Son of God therefore assumed flesh and soul, but flesh through the medium of a soul8: "United to flesh through the medium of the intellect is the Word of God." For the divine essence is of such great subtlety and simplicity that it would not have been fitting for it to be united to a body formed from the slime of the earth, except through the medium of a rational essence. And that union is so inexplicable that even John9, sanctified from the womb, confesses himself not worthy to loose the strap of Jesus' sandal, because he was not sufficient to investigate the mode of that union and to explain it to others. "Therefore those are not to be heard who say that the Son of God did not take up a true man, nor was born of a woman, but showed false flesh and a simulated image of a body to those who saw10." Into which error they rush headlong because they fear what cannot happen, namely, that the truth and substance of God should be defiled by human flesh; "and yet they preach that this visible sun scatters its rays through all the dregs and filth of bodies and keeps them clean and pure. If, therefore, clean visible things can be touched by filthy visible things and not be polluted, how much more did the immutable and invisible Truth, taking up a soul through the spirit and a body through the soul, assume the whole man without contamination of itself and free him from all infirmities." — Behold, here he says that the Wisdom of God assumed a soul through the spirit, and a body through the soul. For the spirit, namely the superior part of the soul, approaches God by a greater likeness than the soul, namely the same [soul] in its inferior part, and the soul more than the body; and therefore not unfittingly is the soul said to be assumed through the spirit, and the body through the soul11.

Chapter III.

That the Word assumed soul and flesh simultaneously, and the flesh was not conceived before it was assumed.

But if it is asked whether the Word assumed flesh and soul simultaneously, or the soul before the flesh, or the flesh before the soul; and whether that flesh was first conceived in the Virgin's womb and afterwards assumed; it is said most truly and without any ambiguity that, from the moment God assumed man, He assumed the whole and at once united to Himself soul and flesh; nor was the flesh first conceived and afterwards assumed, but conceived in being assumed and assumed in being conceived. Hence Augustine in the book On the Faith to Peter12: "Hold most firmly, and in no way doubt, that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the Virgin's womb without the divinity, before it was taken up by the Word, but that God Himself was conceived by the assumption of His flesh, and that the very flesh was conceived by the incarnation of the Word." The same in the book On the Trinity13: He would not be the mediator of God and men, were He not the same God, the same man, in both one and true — which servile form, taken up by the Son alone, the whole Trinity, whose will and operation is one, made. Nor in the Virgin's womb was the flesh first taken up and the divinity afterwards came into the flesh, but as soon as the Word came into the womb, the truth of His proper nature being preserved, He was made flesh and perfect man, that is, was born in the truth of flesh and soul. — Concerning this Gregory also in the Morals14 says: "When the angel announced and the Spirit came, at once the Word was in the womb, at once within the womb the Word was flesh."

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Explanatio Symboli ad Damasum. — Edd. I, 6, 8 cum cod. D id est divinitatis pro id est deitatis, refragante etiam originali.
    Explanation of the Creed to Damasus. — Editions I, 6, 8, with codex D, [read] that is, of divinity for that is, of deity, the original also being against it.
  2. Cod. D assumsisse. — De praepositione sequenti cfr. de Ecclesiast. Dogm. c. 2. 5.
    Codex D [reads] to have assumed. — On the following preposition, cf. On Ecclesiastical Dogmas c. 2, 5.
  3. Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 4.
    Book III of On the Orthodox Faith, c. 4.
  4. Ibid. c. 3.
    Ibid., c. 3.
  5. Edd. I, 8 addunt: ut dicimus, in singulis hominibus eandem esse naturam corporis et animae, quia alia est natura animae, alia corporis, refragantibus aliis edd. cum codd. et originali. Deinde post speciem accipere ed. 8 addit quid prius fuit, at ed. I si quid sit res alicuius speciei, ipsum fit aliud ab omni re, quae prius fuit; non sic factus est homo, quia homo scilicet non confert ei esse, sicut aliis hominibus. Etiam hoc deest in originali.
    Editions I, 8 add: as we say, that in individual men the nature of body and soul is the same, because the nature of the soul is one, that of the body another, the other editions, with the codices and the original, being against it. Then after to take a species edition 8 adds what was before, but edition I [adds] if a thing be something of some species, it itself becomes another from every thing that was before; man was not made thus, because man, namely, does not confer being on him, as on other men. This too is absent from the original.
  6. Vat. et edd. 5, 6 cum cod. E et Erf. non ita bene sine carne. Sed cod. Erf. in marg. dicit alii: sine ratione.
    The Vatican edition and editions 5, 6, with codex E and Erfurt, [read] not so well without flesh. But the Erfurt codex in the margin says others [read]: without reason.
  7. Ibid. c. 6.; seq. locus paulum inferius, ubi codd. A B C D cum edd. I, 8 et originali Graeco transpositis verbis, legunt Totum enim totus assumsit me, et in fine cum plerisque codd. gratificet pro gratificavet.
    Ibid., c. 6; the following passage a little below, where codices A B C D, with editions I, 8 and the Greek original, with the words transposed, read For the whole assumed the whole of me, and at the end, with most codices, that He may bestow for bestowed.
  8. Edd. I, 8 addunt Unde Ioannes Damascenus. Locus cit. est ibid. Sanam huius sententiae explanationem exhibet Comment. infra n. 3. q. I.
    Editions I, 8 add Hence John Damascene. The cited passage is in the same place. The Commentary below, n. 3, q. I, presents a sound explanation of this sentence.
  9. Baptista, ut narratur Io. 1, 27. — Edd. I, 8 post sanctificatus addunt hanc glossam id est ab originali mundatus.
    The Baptist, as related in John 1:27. — Editions I, 8, after sanctified, add this gloss: that is, cleansed from original [sin].
  10. August. de Agone christiano c. 18. n. 20, ubi est etiam seq. locus.
    Augustine, On the Christian Struggle c. 18, n. 20, where the following passage also is found.
  11. De his cfr. auctor libri de Spiritu et anima c. 14.
    On these matters cf. the author of the book On the Spirit and the Soul, c. 14.
  12. Cap. 18. n. 61. — Pro ipsum Deum cod. D et ed. I ipsum Verbum Domini, sed originale Verbum Deum.
    Chapter 18, n. 61. — For God Himself codex D and edition I [read] the Word of the Lord Himself, but the original [reads] the Word, God.
  13. Scilicet variis in locis in unum collectis. Prop. prima: Non esset etc. collecta esse videtur ex II. de Trin. c. 8. n. 9, et IV. c. 7. 8, c. 20. n. 30. Secunda prop.: Non autem etc. (quae etiam a S. Bonav., infra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. fund. 3. Augustino tribuitur) quoad sensum occurrit XIII. c. 17. n. 22. his verbis: Ex quo homo esse coepit, ex illo est et Deus, unde dictum est: Verbum caro factum est. Cfr. etiam Enchirid. c. 36. n. 11. et libr. contra Sermonem Arianorum c. 8. n. 6: « Ipse namque unus Christus et Dei Filius semper natura et hominis filius, qui ex tempore assumtus est gratia, nec sic assumtus est, ut prius creatus post assumeretur, sed ut ipsa assumtione crearetur ». Convenit in sententia et nonnullis verbis etiam Gregor. loco mox citato.
    That is, [a text] gathered into one from various places. The first proposition, He would not be etc., seems to be collected from On the Trinity II, c. 8, n. 9, and IV, c. 7, 8, c. 20, n. 30. The second proposition, Nor however etc. (which is also attributed to Augustine by St. Bonaventure below, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, fund. 3), occurs as to its sense in XIII, c. 17, n. 22, in these words: From the time man began to be, from that time God too is [man], whence it is said: The Word was made flesh. Cf. also the Enchiridion c. 36, n. 11, and the book Against the Sermon of the Arians c. 8, n. 6: "For He, the one Christ and Son of God, is always by nature also son of man, who in time was assumed by grace, and was not so assumed that, having first been created, He was afterwards taken up, but so that He was created in the very assumption." It agrees in sense and in some words also with Gregory in the passage just cited.
  14. Libr. XVIII. c. 52. n. 85.
    Book XVIII, c. 52, n. 85.
Dist. 2, Divisio Textus→