Dist. 3, Part 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 58

DISTINCTIO III.

Pars I.

Cap. I. De carne assumta, qualis ante fuerit.

Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi, an, priusquam conciperetur, obligata fuerit peccato, et an talis assumta fuerit a Verbo. — Sane dici potest et credi oportet, iuxta Sanctorum attestationis convenientiam, ipsam prius peccato fuisse obnoxiam, sicut reliqua Virginis caro, sed Spiritus sancti operatione ita mundatam, ut ab omni peccati contagione immunis uniretur Verbo, poena tantum non necessitate, sed voluntate assumentis remanente. — Mariam quoque totam Spiritus sanctus, in eam praeveniens, a peccato prorsus purgavit et a fomite peccati etiam liberavit, vel fomitem ipsum penitus evacuando, ut quibusdam placet, vel sic debilitando et extenuando, ut ei postmodum peccandi occasio nullatenus exstiterit; potentiam quoque generandi absque viri semine Virgini praeparavit. Ita enim verba Evangelii docent, ubi Angelus Virginem alloquens ait¹: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi... et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur Filius Dei. Cui sacra Virgo respondit: Ecce ancilla Domini; fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Quod exponens Ioannes Damascenus² ait: «Post consensum autem sanctae Virginis Spiritus sanctus pervenit in ipsam secundum verbum Domini, quod dixit Angelus, purgans ipsam et potentiam deitatis Verbi receptivam praeparans, simul autem et generativam. Et tunc obumbravit ipsam Dei altissimi per se Sapientia et Virtus existens, id est Filius Dei Patri homousios, id est consubstantialis, sicut divinum semen; et copulavit sibi ipsi ex sanctissimis et purissimis ipsius Virginis sanguinibus nostrae antiquae conspersionis carnem, animatam anima rationali et intellectiva, non seminans, sed per Spiritum sanctum creans. Quare simul caro, simul Dei caro, simul Dei Verbi caro, animata anima rationali et intellectiva». — Ex his perspicuum fit quod ante diximus³, carnem scilicet Verbi simul conceptam et assumtam, eandemque, immo totam Virginem, Spiritu sancto praeveniente, ab omni labe peccati castificatam. Cui collata est potentia «novo more generandi, ut sine coitu viri, sine libidine concipientis in utero Virginis celebraretur conceptus

p. 59

Dei et hominis⁴». «Illa enim caro, quam Deus ex Virgine sibi unire dignatus est, sine vitio concepta, sine peccato nata est». «Hanc tamen carnem non caelestis, non aëreae, non alterius cuiusquam putes esse naturae, sed eius, cuius est omnium hominum caro».

Cap. II. Quod nullus est sine peccato hic, excepta Virgine.

Quod autem sacra Virgo ex tunc ab omni peccato immunis exstiterit, Augustinus evidenter ostendit, in libro de Natura et gratia⁵ inquiens: «Excepta sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem. Inde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae sit collatum ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quod concipere ac parere meruit quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. Hac ergo Virgine excepta, si omnes Sancti et Sanctae congregari possent, et quaereretur ab eis, an peccatum haberent, quid responderetur, nisi quod Ioannes ait: Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus»? «Illa autem Virgo singulari gratia praeventa est atque repleta, ut ipsum haberet ventris sui fructum, quem ex initio habuit universitas Dominum⁶»; «ut illud quod nascebatur ex propagine primi hominis, tantummodo generis et non criminis originem duceret».

Pars II.

Cap. III. Quare Christus non fuit decimatus in Abraham, sicut Levi.

Cum autem illa caro, cuius excellentia singularis verbis explicari non valet, antequam esset Verbo unita, obnoxia fuerit peccato in Maria et in aliis, a quibus propagatione traducta est; non immerito videri potest in Abraham peccato subiacuisse, cuius universa caro peccato subiacebat. Unde quaeri solet, quare Levi decimatus dicatur⁷ in Abraham, et non Christus, cum in lumbis Abrahae uterque fuerit secundum materialem rationem, quando Abraham decimatus est et decimas dedit Melchisedech. Tunc enim Apostolus Levi decimatum dicit in Abraham tanquam in materiali causa, quia ea decimatione sicut Abraham minor Melchisedech ostenditur, cui personaliter decimas solvit, ita et Leviticus ordo, qui in Abraham secundum rationem seminalem erat et ex eo per concupiscentiam carnis descendit. Christus autem non est decimatus, quia licet ibi fuerit secundum carnem, non tamen inde descendit secundum legem communem, scilicet per carnis libidinem; sicut etiam in Adam omnes peccaverunt, sed non Christus. Unde Augustinus super Genesim⁸: Sicut, Adam peccante, qui in lumbis eius erant peccaverunt, sic, Abraham dante decimas, qui in lumbis eius erant decimati sunt. Sed hoc non sequitur in Christo, licet in lumbis Adae et Abrahae fuerit, quia non secundum concupiscentiam carnis inde descendit. Cum ergo Levi et Christus secundum carnem essent in lumbis Abrahae, quando decimatus est; ideo pariter decimati non sunt, quia secundum aliquem modum non erat ibi Christus, quo erat ibi Levi. «Secundum rationem quippe illam seminalem ibi fuit Levi, qua ratione per concubitum venturus erat in matrem, secundum quam rationem non ibi erat Christi caro, quamvis secundum ipsam ibi fuerit Mariae caro». «Ille ergo decimatus est in Abraham, qui sic fuit in lumbis Abrahae, sicut ille fuit in lumbis patris sui, id est, qui sic est natus de patre Abraham, sicut ille de suo patre natus est, scilicet per legem carnis et invisibilem concupiscentiam».

Cap. IV. Quare caro Christi non dicta est peccatrix, sed similis.

Quocirca primitiam⁹ nostrae massae recte assumsisse dicitur Christus, quia non carnem peccati, sed similitudinem carnis peccati accepit. Misit enim Deus Filium suum, ut ait Apostolus¹⁰, in similitudinem carnis peccati. Assumsit enim Verbum carnem peccatrici similem in poena, et non in culpa, et ideo non peccatricem, cetera vero hominum caro omnis peccati¹¹ caro est. Sola illius non est caro peccati, quia non eam mater concupiscentia, sed gratia concepit. Habet tamen similitudinem carnis peccati per passibilitatem et mortalitatem, quia esurit, sitiit¹² et huiusmodi. Licet ergo eadem caro sit eius quae et nostra, non tamen ita facta est in utero, sicut nostra. Est enim sanctificata in utero et nata sine peccato, et nec ipse in illa unquam peccavit. In poena ergo similis est nostrae, non in qualitate peccati, quia pollutionem, quae ex concupiscentiae motu concepta est, omnino non habuit nec ex carnali delectatione nata est. Venit ergo ad corpus immaculatum¹³, quod praeter libidinis concupiscentiam fuit conceptum; nec illud in se habuit vitium, quod in aliis est causa peccati, nec in eo peccavit. Ideoque vere dicitur Verbi caro non fuisse in Christo obligata peccato.

p. 60

Illi autem sententiae, qua supra diximus, carnem Verbi non ante fuisse conceptam quam assumtam, videtur obviare quod Augustinus ait super Ioannem¹⁴, ubi legitur: Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est hoc templum, et tu tribus diebus excitabis illud? «Hic, inquit, numerus perfectioni dominici corporis convenit, quia, ut dicunt physici, tot diebus forma humani corporis perficitur». Horum occasione verborum quidam dicere praesumserunt, dominici corporis formam tot diebus ad modum aliorum corporum perfectam et membrorum lineamentis distinctam, et mox Verbum Dei dicitur sibi univisse carnem et animam; et hoc modo dicunt illum numerum perfectioni dominici corporis convenire. — Sed alia ratio illius dicti exstitit, ex qua sana verbi intelligentia oritur. Non enim ideo illud dixit Augustinus, quin¹⁵ mox, ut caro illa opere Spiritus sancti sanctificata et a reliqua separata fuit, Verbo Dei cum anima uniretur, ut perfectus et verus Deus esset perfectus et verus homo, sed quia membrorum illius dominici corporis distinctio in ipso momento conceptionis et unionis Dei et hominis adeo tenuis erat et parva, ut humano visui vix posset subiici; diebus autem illis, quos memorat Augustinus, perfecta est et notabilis facta. «Incarnatum est igitur Verbum, ut ait Ioannes Damascenus¹⁶, et a propria incorporalitate non excessit, et totum incarnatum est et totum est incircumscriptum. Minoratur corporaliter et contrahitur et divine est incircumscriptum, non coextensa carne eius cum incircumscripta divinitate». «In omnibus igitur et super omnia erat et in utero sanctae Genitricis existebat, sed in ipso actu incarnationis».

English Translation

DISTINCTION III.

Part I.

Ch. I. On the flesh assumed, what it was beforehand.

It is asked also concerning the flesh of the Word, whether, before it was conceived, it was bound to sin, and whether it was assumed by the Word as such. — It can soundly be said and ought to be believed, according to the consistency of the saints' testimony, that it was beforehand liable to sin, like the rest of the Virgin's flesh, but was so cleansed by the operation of the Holy Spirit that it was united to the Word free from every contagion of sin, only the penalty remaining—not by necessity, but by the will of the one assuming. — The Holy Spirit also, coming beforehand into her, wholly purged Mary from sin and even freed her from the tinder of sin, either by entirely emptying out that tinder itself, as it pleases some, or by so weakening and attenuating it that afterward no occasion of sinning at all remained for her; he also prepared for the Virgin the power of generating without a man's seed. For the words of the Gospel thus teach, where the Angel, addressing the Virgin, says¹: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee... and that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God. To whom the holy Virgin replied: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word. Expounding this, John Damascene² says: «But after the consent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit came upon her according to the word of the Lord, which the Angel spoke, purifying her and preparing her to be receptive of the deity of the Word, and at the same time generative. And then there overshadowed her the per-se-existing Wisdom and Power of the Most High God, that is, the Son of God consubstantial with the Father (homousios), that is, of one substance, as a divine seed; and he joined to himself from the most holy and most pure bloods of the Virgin herself the flesh of our ancient mingling, animated by a rational and intellective soul—not sowing, but creating through the Holy Spirit. Wherefore at once flesh, at once God's flesh, at once the flesh of God the Word, animated by a rational and intellective soul». — From these things it is clear, as we said before³, namely that the flesh of the Word was at once conceived and assumed, and that the same flesh—indeed the whole Virgin—was, by the prevenient Holy Spirit, purified from every stain of sin. To her was granted the power «of generating in a new manner, so that without intercourse of a man, without the lust of one conceiving, there should be celebrated in the Virgin's womb the conception

of God and man⁴». «For that flesh which God deigned to unite to himself from the Virgin was conceived without fault, born without sin». «Yet do not suppose this flesh to be of a celestial, an aerial, or any other nature whatsoever, but of that whose flesh is the flesh of all men».

Ch. II. That no one here is without sin, except the Virgin.

That the holy Virgin was from that time free from all sin, Augustine plainly shows in the book On Nature and Grace⁵, saying: «With the exception of the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question raised when sins are treated. For from this we know that more grace was conferred on her for overcoming sin in every part, because she merited to conceive and to bear him whom it is certain had no sin. With this Virgin excepted, therefore, if all the Saints, men and women, could be gathered together, and it were asked of them whether they had sin, what would be answered, except what John says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves»? «But that Virgin was forestalled and filled with singular grace, so that she had as the fruit of her womb him whom the universe had from the beginning as its Lord⁶»; «that what was born from the propagation of the first man should draw only the origin of its race and not of crime».

Part II.

Ch. III. Why Christ was not tithed in Abraham, as Levi was.

But since that flesh, whose singular excellence cannot be explained in words, before it was united to the Word, was liable to sin in Mary and in others, from whom it was derived by propagation; it can not without reason seem to have been subject to sin in Abraham, whose entire flesh was subject to sin. Hence it is wont to be asked why Levi is said to have been tithed⁷ in Abraham, and not Christ, since both were in the loins of Abraham according to material reckoning, when Abraham was tithed and gave tithes to Melchizedek. For then the Apostle says Levi was tithed in Abraham as in a material cause, because by that tithing, just as Abraham is shown to be lesser than Melchizedek, to whom he personally paid tithes, so also the Levitical order, which was in Abraham according to seminal reckoning and descended from him through the concupiscence of the flesh. But Christ was not tithed, because although he was there according to the flesh, nevertheless he did not descend thence according to the common law, namely through the lust of the flesh; just as also in Adam all sinned, but not Christ. Hence Augustine on Genesis⁸: As, when Adam sinned, those who were in his loins sinned, so, when Abraham gave tithes, those who were in his loins were tithed. But this does not follow in Christ, although he was in the loins of Adam and Abraham, because he did not descend thence according to the concupiscence of the flesh. Since therefore Levi and Christ were according to the flesh in the loins of Abraham when he was tithed; therefore they were not alike tithed, because in some mode Christ was not there in the way that Levi was there. «For according to that seminal reckoning Levi was there, by which reckoning he was to come into a mother through intercourse, according to which reckoning Christ's flesh was not there, although according to it Mary's flesh was there». «He therefore was tithed in Abraham who so was in the loins of Abraham as that man was in the loins of his own father, that is, who was so born of his father Abraham as that man was born of his own father, namely through the law of the flesh and invisible concupiscence».

Ch. IV. Why Christ's flesh was not called sinful, but similar.

Wherefore Christ is rightly said to have assumed the first-fruits⁹ of our mass, because he took not the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin. For God sent his Son, as the Apostle says¹⁰, in the likeness of the flesh of sin. For the Word assumed flesh like to sinful flesh in penalty, and not in fault, and therefore not sinful, whereas the rest of men's flesh is all flesh of sin¹¹. His alone is not the flesh of sin, because not concupiscence as mother, but grace conceived it. Yet it has the likeness of the flesh of sin through passibility and mortality, because he hungered, thirsted¹², and the like. Although therefore the same flesh is his which is also ours, nevertheless it was not so made in the womb as ours. For it was sanctified in the womb and born without sin, and he never sinned in it. In penalty therefore it is like to ours, not in the quality of sin, because it had no pollution at all such as is conceived from the motion of concupiscence, nor was it born from carnal delight. He came therefore to an immaculate body¹³, which was conceived apart from the concupiscence of lust; nor did it have in itself that fault which in others is the cause of sin, nor did he sin in it. And therefore it is truly said that the flesh of the Word was not bound to sin in Christ.

But to that opinion, by which we said above that the flesh of the Word was not conceived before it was assumed, there seems to be opposed what Augustine says on John¹⁴, where it is read: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said: Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? «This number, he says, befits the perfection of the Lord's body, because, as the natural philosophers say, in so many days the form of the human body is perfected». On the occasion of these words certain men presumed to say that the form of the Lord's body was, in so many days, perfected after the manner of other bodies and distinguished by the lineaments of its members, and then the Word of God is said to have united flesh and soul to himself; and in this way they say that number befits the perfection of the Lord's body. — But another reason for that saying existed, from which a sound understanding of the word arises. For Augustine did not say it as though¹⁵ it were not the case that, as soon as that flesh was, by the work of the Holy Spirit, sanctified and separated from the rest, it was united to the Word of God together with a soul, so that perfect and true God might be perfect and true man; but because the distinction of the members of that Lordly body, in the very moment of the conception and union of God and man, was so slight and small that it could scarcely be subjected to human sight; but in those days which Augustine mentions, it became perfect and conspicuous. «The Word therefore became incarnate, as John Damascene¹⁶ says, and did not depart from its own incorporeality, and it was wholly made incarnate and is wholly uncircumscribed. It is lessened corporeally and is contracted and divinely is uncircumscribed, his flesh not being coextensive with the uncircumscribed divinity». «In all things therefore and above all things it was, and was existing in the womb of the holy Mother, but in the very act of incarnation».

Apparatus Criticus

1
Luc. 1, 35. 38.
Luke 1:35, 38.
2
Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2., sed brevius a Magistro; in quo textu pro pervenit Vat. et edd. 4, 6, 8 supervenit. In originali secundum versionem recentiorem post divinum semen sic legitur: Exque castis purissimisque illius sanguinibus carnem anima rationali et intelligente animatam, conspersionis scilicet nostrae primitias, ipse sibi compegit; non id quidem seminali procreatione, sed conditoris more per Spiritum S... Quam ob rem simul atque caro exstitit, simul quoque Dei Verbi exstitit caro, simul caro animata, rationis particeps et intelligentiae (ὥστε ἅμα σὰρξ, ἅμα Θεοῦ Λόγου σὰρξ, ἅμα σὰρξ ἔμψυχος, λογικῇ τε καὶ νοερά). Codd. nostri ita inter se differunt et falsis lectionibus abundant, ut superfluum sit lectiones variantes afferre.
Bk. III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 2, but more briefly by the Master; in which text, for pervenit («came upon»), the Vatican edition and edd. 4, 6, 8 read supervenit. In the original, according to the more recent version, after divine seed it reads thus: «And from her chaste and most pure bloods he framed for himself a flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul, namely the first-fruits of our mingling—not indeed by a seminal procreation, but in the manner of a Creator through the Holy Spirit... Wherefore as soon as the flesh existed, at once it existed as the flesh of God the Word, at once a flesh animated, partaker of reason and of intelligence» (so that at once flesh, at once flesh of God the Word, at once flesh ensouled, rational and intellective). Our codices differ so among themselves and abound in false readings that it would be superfluous to adduce the variant readings.
3
Dist. II. c. ult.
Distinction II, last chapter.
4
Fulgent., de Fide ad Petrum, c. 2. n. 16; seq. locus ibid. n. 15; et tertius ibid. immediate superius.
Fulgentius, On the Faith, to Peter, c. 2, n. 16; the following passage in the same place, n. 15; and the third in the same place, immediately above.
5
Cap. 36. n. 42. In textu originali pro lade... peccatum, quod nunc legitur Unde... peccatum, quae. Pro responderetur edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 responderent. — Locus Scripturae est I. Ioan. 1, 8.
C. 36, n. 42. In the original text, for lade... peccatum what is now read is Unde... peccatum, quae. For responderetur edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 read responderent. — The scriptural passage is 1 John 1:8.
6
De Fide ad Petrum, c. 2. n. 17; seq. locus est August., XIII. de Trin. c. 18. n. 23.
On the Faith, to Peter, c. 2, n. 17; the following passage is Augustine, On the Trinity XIII, c. 18, n. 23.
7
Hebr. 7, 9. De decimatione Abrahae cfr. Gen. 14, 18.
Hebrews 7:9. On the tithing of Abraham cf. Genesis 14:18.
8
Lib. X. super Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 34, ex variis propositionibus excerptum; seq. locus ibid. c. 20. n. 35; tertius ibid. n. 36. (secundum sensum).
Bk. X, On Genesis according to the Letter, c. 19, n. 34, excerpted from various propositions; the following passage in the same place, c. 20, n. 35; the third in the same place, n. 36 (according to the sense).
9
Ita codd. et edd. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 et ipse Comment. S. Bonav. In aliis edd. melius primitias. Cfr. locus Damasceni, c. 1. pag. 58, nota 2. citatus.
So the codices and edd. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and the Commentary of St. Bonaventure itself. In other editions better: primitias («first-fruits», plural). Cf. the passage of Damascene, c. 1, cited on p. 58, note 2.
10
Rom. 8, 3.
Romans 8:3.
11
Ita edd. 1, 8; in reliquis tantum omnis caro peccati est.
So edd. 1, 8; in the rest only omnis caro peccati est («all flesh is flesh of sin»).
12
Cfr. Matth. 4, 2; Ioan. 19, 28.
Cf. Matthew 4:2; John 19:28.
13
Sap. 8, 20, ubi Vulgata incoinquinatum pro immaculatum.
Wisdom 8:20, where the Vulgate has incoinquinatum («undefiled») for immaculatum («immaculate»).
14
Tract. 10 n. 12; IV. de Trin. c. 5. n. 9; et praecipue 83 Qq. 56. Locus Scripturae Ioan. 2, 19; cfr. ibi Glossa Lyrani. Verba supra diximus referuntur ad d. II. c. 3.
Tractate 10, n. 12; On the Trinity IV, c. 5, n. 9; and especially the Eighty-three Questions, 56. The scriptural passage is John 2:19; cf. there the Gloss of [Nicholas of] Lyra. The words as we said above refer to Distinction II, c. 3.
15
Vat. perperam quia.
The Vatican edition wrongly quia («because»).
16
Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 7. Seq. locus est partum superius, qui est in pluribus codd. corruptus. Recentior versio sic habet: Et quidem in omnibus et supra omnia erat etiam tum, cum in sanctae Deiparae utero esset (καὶ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὑπάρχων τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου); at in eo per incarnationis operationem.
Bk. III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 7. The following passage is somewhat above [in the source], and in several codices it is corrupt. The more recent version reads thus: «And indeed in all things and above all things it was even then, when it was in the womb of the holy Mother of God (καὶ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ὑπάρχων τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου); but in it [it acted] through the operation of the incarnation».

Dist. 3, Part 1, Divisio Textus→