Dist. 6, Divisio Textus
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 6
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.
De modo illius unionis secundum varias doctorum opiniones.
Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra determinavit Magister de modo illius excellentissimae unionis secundum fidei assertionem; in hac parte determinat secundum variam doctorum opinionem1. Et quoniam secundum varietatem opinionum variatur intellectus locutionum circa illius unionis mysterium, ideo pars ista habet duas partes.
In quarum prima circa unionis mysterium plures explicat opiniones. In secunda vero ostendit, qualiter secundum illas opiniones determinari habeant ambiguae locutiones, infra, distinctione septima: Secundum vero primam dicitur Deus factus etc.
Prima pars dividitur in duas partes. In quarum prima Magister proponit ambiguas locutiones. In secunda vero circa modum divinae unionis explicat diversas opiniones, ibi: In huius autem quaestionis reseratione etc. Prima pars remanet indivisa. Sed secunda subdividitur in tres secundum tres opiniones. In prima2 ponit primam opinionem; in secunda secundam, ibi: Sunt autem et alii, qui istis in parte consentiunt. In tertia vero tertiam, ibi: Sunt autem et alii, qui in incarnatione Verbi etc. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima opinionem narrat; in secunda confirmat, ibi: Sed ne de suo sensu loqui putentur etc. Similiter secunda duas partes habet. In prima ponit illam3 opinionem; in secunda confirmat, ibi: De hoc Augustinus in libro Prosperi. Similiter et tertia pars habet duas, quia in prima ponit intellectum tertiae positionis; in secunda confirmat Sanctorum testimoniis, ibi: Sed ne de suo sensu influere videantur.
PRAENOTATA DE TRIBUS OPINIONIBUS.
(Opinio 1.) Notandum est autem hoc in principio, quod explicatio primae opinionis in quatuor consistit articulis, secundum quod colligi potest ex verbis ipsius Magistri4. Primo enim ponebant, quod in ipsa incarnatione constitutus fuit unus homo ex anima et carne, ita tamen quod nihil constituebatur tertium ex homine et Deo. — Secundo vero dicebant hominem illum assumtum a Verbo. — Tertio vero, quia Deus est homo et e converso, dicebant, assumentem praedicari de assumto. — Et ex hoc consequebatur quarta positio, quod Christus est duo. Cum enim alius sit assumens, et alius sit assumtus, et Christus sit Deus assumens, et homo assumtus; suppositis praemissis, necessario habent ponere, quod Christus sit duo. Et hoc est ultimum, in quo consummatur et denominatur ista positio.
(Opinio 2.) Similiter explicatio secundae opinionis consistit in quatuor articulis. Primo enim dicebat, quod in incarnatione non tantum est ex anima et corpore constituta una natura, sed etiam divinitas et humanitas ad unam concurrerunt5 constituendam personam, ita quod persona Verbi ante incarnationem Verbi erat simplex, in incarnatione vero facta est composita. — Secundo vero simul cum hoc dicebat, quod si6 in incarnatione Verbi aliquo modo persona facta est composita, non tamen facta est alia, sed eadem manens, quae prius erat. — Tertio vero subiungebat, quod etsi persona Verbi in incarnatione Verbi possit dici composita, non tamen potest dici facta; nec est concedendum, quod sit facta persona, quamvis concedi possit, quod sit facta persona hominis. — Et ideo quarto loco dicebat, quod Christus erat unum, non plura, quia persona Verbi non assumserat hominis suppositum, sed naturam.
(Opinio 3.) Tertia similiter positio in quatuor consistebat articulis. Nam primo negabat quod dicit positio prima; aiebat enim, quod in incarnatione ex carne et anima non est constituta tertia natura. — Secundo vero negabat quod dicit opinio secunda, pro eo quod non concedebat, quod ex illis duabus naturis persona esset composita. — Tertio vero subiungebat, quod persona Verbi carnem veram et veram animam per modum indumenti assumserat, ut hominum oculis visibilis appareret. — Quarto vero subiungebat, quod Christus non est aliquid, secundum quod homo; homo enim de Christo non praedicatur per modum substantiae, sed per modum habitus, per quem modum ille qui habet habitum, dicitur esse vestitus.
Omnia autem, quae dicta sunt, trahi possunt ex his quae in littera dicuntur. Possent autem et his multa adiungi, quia uno posito, sequuntur multa7. Verumtamen ista quae dicta sunt, principales positiones sunt praedictarum opinionum et ex verbis Magistri accipi possunt.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam autem eorum quae circa partem istam dicuntur, incidit hic quaestio principaliter circa duo. Quaeritur primo de varietate harum opinionum, in qua videlicet sit maior probabilitas. Secundo de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis8, ex qua consurgit harum opinionum diversitas.
Circa primum quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus sit unum, an duo, sicut dicebat prima opinio.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum persona Christi sit simplex, an composita, sicut dicit9 secunda opinio.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit aliqua substantia, an solum dicatur homo de Christo secundum habitum, sicut dicebat tertia opinio.
---
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI.
On the mode of that union according to the various opinions of the doctors.
But from what has gone before a question emerges.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master determined concerning the mode of that most excellent union according to the assertion of faith; in this part he determines [it] according to the varied opinion1 of the doctors. And since according to the variety of opinions the understanding of the locutions concerning the mystery of that union is varied, therefore this part has two parts.
In the first of these he explains several opinions concerning the mystery of the union. But in the second he shows in what way, according to those opinions, the ambiguous locutions are to be determined, below, in distinction seven: But according to the first it is said that God was made etc.
The first part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master sets forth the ambiguous locutions. But in the second he explains the diverse opinions concerning the mode of the divine union, there: But in the unlocking of this question etc. The first part remains undivided. But the second is subdivided into three according to the three opinions. In the first2 he sets down the first opinion; in the second the second, there: But there are also others, who in this part agree with these. But in the third [he sets down] the third, there: But there are also others, who in the incarnation of the Word etc. The first is divided into two. In the first he narrates the opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: But lest they be thought to speak from their own sense etc. Likewise the second has two parts. In the first he sets down that3 opinion; in the second he confirms [it], there: Concerning this Augustine in the book of Prosper. Likewise the third part also has two, since in the first he sets down the meaning of the third position; in the second he confirms [it] by the testimonies of the Saints, there: But lest they be thought to flow in from their own sense.
PREFATORY REMARKS ON THE THREE OPINIONS.
(Opinion 1.) But it is to be noted here at the beginning, that the explanation of the first opinion consists of four articles, according to what can be gathered from the words of the Master himself4. For first they held that in the incarnation itself one man was constituted from soul and flesh, yet in such a way that nothing third was constituted from the man and God. — But secondly they said that this man was assumed by the Word. — But thirdly, since God is man and conversely, they said that the one assuming is predicated of the one assumed. — And from this followed the fourth position, that Christ is two. For since the one assuming is one thing, and the one assumed is another, and Christ is God assuming and a man assumed; the foregoing being supposed, they necessarily have to hold that Christ is two. And this is the last point, in which this position is consummated and named.
(Opinion 2.) Likewise the explanation of the second opinion consists of four articles. For first it said that in the incarnation not only is one nature constituted from soul and body, but also that divinity and humanity concurred5 to constitute one person, in such a way that the person of the Word before the incarnation of the Word was simple, but in the incarnation became composite. — But secondly, together with this, it said that if6 in the incarnation of the Word the person in some way became composite, nevertheless it did not become another, but remained the same, which it was before. — But thirdly it subjoined that even though the person of the Word in the incarnation of the Word can be called composite, nevertheless it cannot be called made; nor is it to be conceded that the person was made, although it can be conceded that the person of a man was made. — And therefore in the fourth place it said that Christ was one, not many, because the person of the Word had not assumed the supposit of a man, but the nature.
(Opinion 3.) The third position likewise consisted of four articles. For first it denied what the first position says; for it asserted that in the incarnation a third nature was not constituted from flesh and soul. — But secondly it denied what the second opinion says, for the reason that it did not concede that from those two natures a person was composed. — But thirdly it subjoined that the person of the Word had assumed true flesh and a true soul in the manner of a garment, so that it might appear visible to the eyes of men. — But fourthly it subjoined that Christ is not anything, insofar as he is man; for man is not predicated of Christ in the manner of a substance, but in the manner of a habit, in which manner he who has a habit is said to be clothed.
But all the things that have been said can be drawn from those things which are said in the text [of the Master]. But many things could also be added to these, since, one thing being posited, many follow7. Nevertheless these things that have been said are the principal positions of the aforesaid opinions and can be gathered from the words of the Master.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
But for the understanding of those things which are said concerning this part, a question falls here principally concerning two things. It is asked first concerning the variety of these opinions, namely in which there is greater probability. Secondly concerning the quality and nobility of that union8, from which arises the diversity of these opinions.
Concerning the first, three things are asked.
First it is asked whether Christ is one, or two, as the first opinion said.
Secondly it is asked whether the person of Christ is simple, or composite, as the second opinion says9.
Thirdly it is asked whether Christ, insofar as he is man, is some substance, or whether man is only said of Christ according to habit, as the third opinion said.
---
- Cod. G expositionem.Codex G [reads] expositionem [exposition].
- Codd. A G I L N X aa In quarum prima.Codices A G I L N X aa [read] In quarum prima [In the first of which].
- Pro illam edd. aliam.For illam [that] the editions [read] aliam [another].
- Hic c. 2.Here c. 2.
- Codd. A F H U bb concurrunt.Codices A F H U bb [read] concurrunt [concur].
- Edd. a quo; subinde pro consummatur plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 conservatur, et pro ista positio cod. K prima positio.The editions [read] a quo [from which]; thereafter for consummatur [is consummated] very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] conservatur [is conserved], and for ista positio [this position] codex K [reads] prima positio [the first position].
- Cod. U etsi, edd. scilicet. Paulo inferius pro manens codd. K P Q Z bb mansit.Codex U [reads] etsi [even though], the editions scilicet [namely]. A little below, for manens [remaining] codices K P Q Z bb [read] mansit [it remained].
- Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 6. in principio, et S. Thom. in principio huius dist. — Plurimi codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 de qualitate illius variationis; sed infra in rubrica art. 2. omnes codd. et edd. exhibent de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis.Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa, part III, q. 6, at the beginning, and St. Thomas at the beginning of this distinction. — Very many codices, as well as editions 1, 2, [read] de qualitate illius variationis [concerning the quality of that variation]; but below in the rubric of article 2 all the codices and editions exhibit de qualitate et nobilitate illius unionis [concerning the quality and nobility of that union].
- Codd. F G I L N T U aa dixit, quod cod. Q paulo inferius pro dicebat ponit.Codices F G I L N T U aa [read] dixit [it said], which codex Q a little below puts for dicebat [it was saying]. ---