← Back to Distinction 22

Dist. 22

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 22

Textus Latinus
p. 447

Cap. I.

Si Christus in morte fuit homo.

Hic quaeritur, utrum in illo triduo mortis Christus fuerit homo. — Quod non videtur quibusdam, quia mortuus erat, et homo mortuus non est homo. Addunt etiam, quod si tunc erat homo, vel mortalis, vel immortalis. Sed mortalis non, quia mortuus; nec immortalis, quia tantum post resurrectionemp447-1. — Quibus respondemus, quia, licet homo mortuus fuerit, erat tamen in morte Deus-homo, nec mortalis quidem nec immortalis, et tamen vere erat homo. Illae enim et huiusmodi argutiae in creaturis locum habent, sed fidei sacramentum a philosophicis argumentis est liberum. Unde Ambrosiusp447-2: «Aufer argumenta, ubi fides quaeritur. In ipsis gymnasiis suis iam dialectica taceat; piscatoribus creditur, non dialecticis». Dicimus ergo, in

p. 448

morte Christi Deum vere fuisse hominem, et tamen mortuum. Et hominem quidem nec mortalem nec immortalem, quia unitus erat animae et carni seiunctis. Alia enim ratione dicitur Deus homo, vel homo Deus, quam Martinus vel Ioannes. Homo enim dicitur Deus et e converso propter susceptionem hominis, id est animae et carnis. Unde Augustinusp448-1: «Talis erat illa susceptio, quae Deum hominem faceret, et hominem Deum». Cum ergo illa susceptio per mortem non defecerit, sed Deus homini et homo Deo, sicut ante, unitus erat vere; et tunc Deus erat homo et e converso, quia unitus animae et carni; et homo mortuus erat, quia anima a carne divisa erat. Propter separationem animae a carne mortuusp448-2, sed propter utriusque secum unionem homo. Non autem sic erat homo, ut ex anima et carne simul iunctis subsisteret, ex qua ratione dicitur aliquis alius homo. Et ipse forte ante mortem hoc etiam modo erat homop448-3, et post resurrectionem fuit; in morte vero homo erat tantum propter animae et carnis secum unionem, et mortuus propter inter illa duo divisionem.

Cap. II.

Si Christus, ubicumque est, sit homo.

Hic quaeritur, si Christus in morte alicubi erat homo; et si, ubicumque est, homo sit. — Ad quod dicimus, quia non, ubicumque erat, homo erat, nec modo, ubicumque est, homo est; quia ubique est secundum Deitatem, nec ubique homo, quia nonp448-4 ubique homini unitus; sed ubicumque est secundum hominem, ibi homo est. Tempore autem mortis et ubique erat secundum Deum, et in sepulcro secundum hominem, et in inferno secundum hominem; sed in inferno secundum animam, et in sepulcro secundum carnem tantum. In sepulcro ergo erat homo, quia humanitati erat unitus, etsi non toti, quia carni tantum; et in inferno erat homo, quia humanitati unitus, sed non toti, quia animae tantum. Sed si in inferno animae tantum et in sepulcro carni tantum unitus erat; ergo nec in inferno unitus erat animae et carni nec in sepulcro. Quomodo ergo hic vel ibi homo esse dicitur? Quae est ratio dicti? Quia una eademque unione unitus erat animae in inferno et carni in sepulcro; et sic erat illis duobus tunc separatis unitus, sicut ante separationem, id est ante mortem. — Ad hoc autem opponitur: si Christus animam tantum, vel carnem tantum assumsisset, non fuisset verus homo; sed propter utriusque assumtionem verus homo fuit: sic ergo, ubi carnem et animam sibi unitam non habebat, verus homo ibi non eratp448-5. Sed tempore mortis nusquam illa duo unita habebat, quia nec in sepulcro nec in inferno nec alibi: nusquam ergo erat homo. — Ad quod dicimus, quia Christus utique verus homo non fuisset, si carnem et animam non assumsisset; sed tamen, quia ex quo assumsit, neutrum deposuit, sed cum utroque eandem unionem indesinenter tenuit, quam assumendo contraxit: ideo non incongrue, ubicumque animae vel carni vel utrique unitus est, ibi homo esse dicitur, quia ibi humanatus est. Ergo et in sepulcro erat homo et in inferno erat homo, quia utrobique humanatus erat Christus et unam eandemque cum anima et carne, licet separatis, habebat unionem, et uno eodemque tempore in sepulcro iacuit Christus et ad infernum descendit; sed in sepulcro iacuit secundum solam carnem et in infernum descendit secundum solam animam. Unde Augustinusp448-6: «Quis non est derelictus in inferno? Christus, sed in anima sola. Quis iacuit in sepulcro? Christus, sed in carne sola; quia in his singulis Christus est: Christum in his omnibus et in singulis confitemur». — Ex his evidenter ostenditur, quod carni iacenti in sepulcro unitus erat Christus, sicut animae in inferno; alioquin, si carni mortuae non esset unitus, non in ea diceretur iacuisse in sepulcro. Anima igitur ad infernum descendit, caro in sepulcro iacuit, Sapientia cum utroque permansit, quae «in inferno positis, ut ait Ambrosiusp448-7, lumen vitae fundebat aeternae. Radiabat illic lux vera Sapientiae, illuminabat infernum, sed in inferno non claudebatur. Quis enim locus est Sapientiae? de qua scriptum est: Nescit homo vias eius, nec inventa est in terra suaviter viventium; abyssus dicit: Non est in me; mare dicit: Non est mecum: ergo nec in tempore nec in loco Sapientia est, cui nec mors tribuenda est». «In ligno enim caro, non illa operatrix omnium substantia divina, pendebat». — Confitemur tamen, Christum pependisse in ligno et iacuisse in sepulcro, sed in carne; et fuisse in inferno, sed in anima sola.

Cap. III.

Quod Christus ubique totus est, sed non totum; ut totus est homo vel Deus, sed non totum.

Et utique totus eodem tempore erat in inferno, totus in caelo, totus ubique. Persona enim illa aeterna non maior erat, ubi carnem et animam simul unitamp448-8 sibi habebat, quam ubi alterum tantum; nec maior erat, ubi utrumque simul, vel alterum tantum unitum habebat, quam ubi erat neutrum habens unitum. Totus ergo Christus et perfectus ubique erat. Unde Augustinusp448-9: «Non dimisit Patrem Christus, cum venit in Virginem, ubique totus, ubique perfectus. Uno igitur

p. 449

eodemque tempore totus erat in inferno, totus in caelo. Erat apud inferos resurrectio mortuorum, erat super caelos vita viventium; vere mortuus, vere vivus, in quo et mortem susceptio mortalitatis excepit, et vitam Divinitas non perdidit». «Mortem igitur Dei Filius et in anima non pertulit et in maiestate non sensit; sed tamen participatione infirmitatis Rex gloriae crucifixus est». — Ex his apparet, quod Christus eodem tempore totus erat in sepulcro, totus in inferno, totus ubique, sicut et modo totus est, ubicumque est, sed non totum. Nec in sepulcro nec in inferno totum erat, etsi totus; sicut Christus totus est Deus, totus homo, sed non totum, quia non solum est Deus vel homo, sed et Deus et homo. Totum enim ad naturam refertur, totus autem ad hypostasim, sicut aliud et aliquid ad naturam, alius vero et aliquis ad personam referuntur. Unde Ioannes Damascenus: «Totus Christus est Deus perfectus, non autem totum Deus est. Non enim solum Deus est, sed et homo; et totus homo perfectus, non autem totum homo, non enim solum homo, sed et Deus. Totum enim naturae repraesentativum est, totus autem hypostaseos; sicut aliud quidem est naturae, alius autem hypostaseos». Sic et huiusmodi.

Cap. IV.

Si ea quae dicuntur de Deo vel de Filio Dei, possint dici de homine illo vel de filio hominis.

Solet etiam quaeri, si congruenter dici possit filius hominis, vel ille homo descendisse de caelo, vel ubique esse, sicut dicitur Filius Dei vel Deus de caelo venisse, vel ubique esse. — Ad quod dicimus, si ad unitatem personae referatur dicti intelligentia, sane dici potest; si vero ad distinctionem naturarum, nullatenus concedendum est. Unde Augustinus: «Una persona est Christus, Deus et homo. Ideo dicitur: Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, etc. Si ergo attendas distinctionem substantiarum, Filius Dei descendit, et filius hominis crucifixus est; si vero unitatem personae, et filius hominis descendit, et Filius Dei est crucifixus. Propter hanc unitatem personae non solum filium hominis descendisse de caelo, sed etiam dixit esse in caelo, cum loqueretur in terra». «Propter hanc eandem dicitur Deus gloriae crucifixus, qui tamen ex forma servi tantum crucifixus est, non secundum hoc, quod Deus gloriae est et secundum quod glorificat suos; et tamen dicitur Deus gloriae crucifixus, recte quidem non ex virtute Divinitatis, sed ex infirmitate carnis. Quid ergo, propter quid, et quid secundum quid dicatur, prudens et diligens et pius lector intelligat». — Haec de corrigia calceamenti dominici dicta sufficiantp449-1, ne ossa regis Idumaeae consumantur usque in cinerem.

English Translation
p. 447

Chapter I.

Whether Christ in death was a man.

Here it is asked whether in that three-day span of death Christ was a man. — That he was not seems so to certain men, because he was dead, and a dead man is not a man. They add further that, if he was then a man, he was either mortal or immortal. But not mortal, because he was dead; nor immortal, because [he became immortal] only after the resurrectionp447-1. — To these we respond that, although he was a dead man, yet in death he was God-man, neither mortal indeed nor immortal, and yet truly he was a man. For these and suchlike subtleties have their place among creatures, but the sacrament of faith is free of philosophical arguments. Hence Ambrosep447-2: «Take away arguments where faith is sought. In their very schools let dialectic now be silent; one believes the fishermen, not the dialecticians». We say therefore that in

p. 448

the death of Christ God was truly a man, and yet dead. And a man indeed neither mortal nor immortal, because he was united to the soul and the flesh while these were sundered. For God is said to be a man, or a man God, by another account than that by which Martin or John [is said to be a man]. For God is called man and conversely on account of the assumption of the man, that is, of soul and flesh. Hence Augustinep448-1: «Such was that assumption, that it made God a man, and a man God». Since therefore that assumption did not fail through death, but God was truly united to the man and the man to God, as before; then too God was a man and conversely, because he was united to the soul and the flesh; and the man was dead, because the soul had been divided from the flesh. He was dead through the separation of the soul from the fleshp448-2, but a man through the union of both with himself. Yet he was not a man in such a way that he subsisted out of soul and flesh joined together at once, by which account some other man is so called. And he himself perhaps before death was a man in this mode alsop448-3, and after the resurrection was; but in death he was a man only on account of the union of soul and flesh with himself, and dead on account of the division between those two.

Chapter II.

Whether Christ, wherever he is, is a man.

Here it is asked whether Christ in death was anywhere a man; and whether, wherever he is, he is a man. — To which we say that not wherever he was, was he a man, nor now, wherever he is, is he a man; because he is everywhere according to the Deity, yet not everywhere a man, because he is notp448-4 everywhere united to a man; but wherever he is according to the man, there he is a man. At the time of death he was everywhere according to God, and in the sepulcher according to the man, and in hell according to the man; but in hell according to the soul, and in the sepulcher according to the flesh only. In the sepulcher therefore he was a man, because he was united to the humanity, though not to the whole, because to the flesh only; and in hell he was a man, because united to the humanity, but not to the whole, because to the soul only. But if in hell he was united to the soul only and in the sepulcher to the flesh only; then neither in hell was he united to soul and flesh nor in the sepulcher. How then is he said to be a man here or there? What is the ground of the saying? Because by one and the same union he was united to the soul in hell and to the flesh in the sepulcher; and thus he was united to those two, then separated, as before the separation, that is, before death. — But against this it is objected: if Christ had assumed soul only, or flesh only, he would not have been a true man; but on account of the assumption of both he was a true man: thus therefore, where he did not have flesh and soul united to himself, there he was not a true manp448-5. But at the time of death nowhere did he have those two united, because neither in the sepulcher nor in hell nor elsewhere: nowhere therefore was he a man. — To which we say that Christ would indeed not have been a true man, if he had not assumed flesh and soul; but yet, because from the time he assumed them he laid neither aside, but kept unceasingly with each the same union which he contracted in assuming: therefore not incongruously, wherever he is united to the soul or to the flesh or to both, there he is said to be a man, because there he is made man. Therefore both in the sepulcher he was a man and in hell he was a man, because in both places Christ was made man and had one and the same union with soul and flesh, though separated, and at one and the same time Christ lay in the sepulcher and descended to hell; but in the sepulcher he lay according to the flesh alone and into hell he descended according to the soul alone. Hence Augustinep448-6: «Who was not forsaken in hell? Christ, but in the soul alone. Who lay in the sepulcher? Christ, but in the flesh alone; because in these singly Christ is: Christ in all these and in each we confess». — From these it is evidently shown that Christ was united to the flesh lying in the sepulcher, as to the soul in hell; otherwise, if he were not united to the dead flesh, he would not be said to have lain in it in the sepulcher. The soul therefore descended to hell, the flesh lay in the sepulcher, Wisdom remained with both, which «among those set in hell, as Ambrose saysp448-7, poured forth the light of eternal life. There the true light of Wisdom shone, it illumined hell, but in hell it was not enclosed. For what place is there of Wisdom? of which it is written: Man knows not its ways, nor is it found in the land of those living sweetly; the abyss says: It is not in me; the sea says: It is not with me: therefore Wisdom is neither in time nor in place, to which neither death is to be ascribed». «For on the wood the flesh, not that divine substance which works all things, was hanging». — Yet we confess that Christ hung on the wood and lay in the sepulcher, but in the flesh; and that he was in hell, but in the soul alone.

Chapter III.

That Christ is everywhere whole, but not the whole; as he is wholly man or God, but not the whole.

And indeed he was at the same time wholly in hell, wholly in heaven, wholly everywhere. For that eternal Person was not greater where he had flesh and soul together unitedp448-8 to himself, than where [he had] one only; nor was he greater where he had both together, or one only, united, than where he was having neither united. Wholly therefore and perfectly was Christ everywhere. Hence Augustinep448-9: «Christ did not forsake the Father, when he came into the Virgin, everywhere whole, everywhere perfect. At one therefore

p. 449

and the same time he was wholly in hell, wholly in heaven. Among the dead was the resurrection of the dead, above the heavens was the life of the living; truly dead, truly alive, in whom the assumption of mortality took up death, and the Divinity did not lose life». «The Son of God therefore neither bore death in the soul nor felt it in the majesty; but yet by participation of infirmity the King of glory was crucified». — From these it appears that Christ at the same time was wholly in the sepulcher, wholly in hell, wholly everywhere, as also now he is wholly, wherever he is, but not the whole. Neither in the sepulcher nor in hell was he the whole, though whole; as Christ is wholly God, wholly man, but not the whole, because he is not only God or man, but both God and man. For "the whole" refers to nature, but "wholly" to the hypostasis, as "another thing" (aliud) and "something" (aliquid) refer to nature, but "another one" (alius) and "someone" (aliquis) to the person. Hence John Damascene: «Christ is wholly perfect God, but not the whole is God. For he is not only God, but also man; and wholly perfect man, but not the whole is man, for he is not only man, but also God. For "the whole" is representative of nature, but "wholly" of the hypostasis; as "another thing" indeed belongs to nature, "another one" to the hypostasis». And so of suchlike.

Chapter IV.

Whether those things which are said of God or of the Son of God can be said of that man or of the son of man.

It is also wont to be asked whether the son of man, or that man, can fittingly be said to have descended from heaven, or to be everywhere, as the Son of God or God is said to have come from heaven, or to be everywhere. — To which we say that if the meaning of the saying be referred to the unity of the person, it can soundly be said; but if to the distinction of natures, it is by no means to be conceded. Hence Augustine: «Christ is one person, God and man. Therefore it is said: No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven, etc. If therefore you attend to the distinction of substances, the Son of God descended, and the son of man was crucified; but if to the unity of the person, both the son of man descended, and the Son of God was crucified. On account of this unity of the person he said not only that the son of man had descended from heaven, but also that he was in heaven, while he was speaking on earth». «On account of this same [unity] the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, who yet from the form of the servant only was crucified, not according to that whereby he is the Lord of glory and according to which he glorifies his own; and yet the Lord of glory is said to be crucified, rightly indeed not by the power of the Divinity, but by the infirmity of the flesh. What therefore is said, on account of what, and according to what, let the prudent and diligent and pious reader understand». — Let these things said of the strap of the Lord's sandal sufficep449-1, lest the bones of the king of Idumaea be consumed even to ashes.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt ergo non erat homo; paulo superius post immortalis, quia cod. D bene addit hoc. — Cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 11, ex quo Magister multa excerpsit.
    Codex E and editions 1, 8 add therefore he was not a man; a little above, after immortal, because, codex D rightly adds this. — Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. I, c. 11, from which the Master excerpted much.
  2. Libr. I. de Fide, c. 13. n. 84, qui locus sub nomine S. Hieronymi allegatus est in Prooemio ad I. libr. Sent. q. 2. arg. 6. ad opposit.; vide tom. I. pag. 10, nota 5.
    [Ambrose,] On the Faith I, c. 13, n. 84, which passage is cited under the name of St. Jerome in the Prologue to Book I of the Sentences, q. 2, arg. 6, against the objection; see vol. I, p. 10, note 5.
  3. Libr. I. de Trin. c. 13. n. 28.
    [Augustine,] On the Trinity I, c. 13, n. 28.
  4. Edd. 1, 8 praefigunt homo; inferius solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, post utriusque addunt semper.
    Editions 1, 8 prefix a man; below, the editions alone, except 1 and 8, after of both add always.
  5. De hac falsa opinione cfr. supra d. VI, et Comment. S. Bonav. ibid. post divisionem textus. Cod. Erf. hic addit: De hac materia Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. 1. c. 11, et I. Sent. c. ult., et Gandolphus, libro III. c. 108.
    On this false opinion cf. above, d. VI, and the Commentary of St. Bonaventure there, after the division of the text. Codex Erfurt here adds: On this matter [see] Hugh, On the Sacraments II, p. 1, c. 11, and Sent. I, last chapter, and Gandulph, book III, c. 108.
  6. Edd. 1, 8 nec; eaedem infra post in inferno legunt secundum animam et omittunt verba sed in inferno secundum animam. — Verba ista excerpta sunt ex Fulgentio, de Fide ad Petrum, c. 2. n. 11.
    Editions 1, 8 read nor; the same below, after in hell, read according to the soul and omit the words but in hell according to the soul. — These words are excerpted from Fulgentius, On the Faith, to Peter, c. 2, n. 11.
  7. Edd. 1, 9 existebat; inferius post illa duo Vat. cum plurimis edd. addit vere.
    Editions 1, 9 read was existing; below, after those two, the Vatican edition with very many editions adds truly.
  8. In Evang. Ioan. (14, 28.) tr. 78. n. 3.
    [Augustine,] On the Gospel of John (14:28), tract 78, n. 3.
  9. De Incarnat. dominic. sacramento, c. 5. n. 41. 42, ubi locus Script. est Iob 28, 12. seqq. Seq. locus ibid. c. 6. n. 50.
    [Ambrose,] On the Sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation, c. 5, nn. 41–42, where the Scripture passage is Job 28:12 ff. The following passage is in the same place, c. 6, n. 50.
  10. Codd. unita, quo loquendi modo utitur Bonav. pag. 441.
    The codices read united (fem.), a manner of speaking which Bonaventure uses on p. 441.
  11. De Unitate Trinit. contra Felician. c. 14. (videtur esse opus Vigilii Taps.). Seq. locus ibid. c. 16, in quo pro sed tamen codd. habent sed tantum. Sed in originali aliter legitur: Ergo, inquis, mortem Dei Filius et in anima non pertulit et in maiestate non sensit? Quid ergo dicebas esse quod pertulit? Sensit prorsus et pertulit, sed participatione morbi alieni, non proprietate vulneris sui.
    [Augustine,] On the Unity of the Trinity, against Felician, c. 14 (it seems to be a work of Vigilius of Thapsus). The following passage is in the same place, c. 16, in which for but yet the codices have but only. But in the original it reads otherwise: Therefore, you say, the Son of God neither bore death in the soul nor felt it in the majesty? What then were you saying that he bore? He felt indeed and bore it, but by participation of another's affliction, not by the property of his own wound.
  12. Non pauci codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 minus recte fuit.
    Not a few codices, as well as editions 1 and 2, less correctly [read] fuit ("was/let it be").
Dist. 22, Divisio Textus→