Dist. 6
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 6
DISTINCTIO VI.
Cap. I. De intelligentia harum locutionum: Deus est homo[^1], Deus factus est homo, tres sententias ponit.
Ex praemissis autem emergit quaestio plurimum continens utilitatis, sed nimium difficultatis atque perplexitatis. Cum enim constet ex praedictis et aliis pluribus testimoniis, omnesque catholici unanimiter fateantur, Deum esse factum hominem, et Christum verum Deum esse et verum hominem; quaeritur, an his locutionibus: Deus factus est homo, Filius Dei factus est filius hominis; Deus est homo, et homo est Deus, dicatur Deus factus esse aliquid, vel esse aliquid, vel aliquid dicatur esse Deus; et an ita conveniat dici: homo factus est Deus, et filius hominis factus est Filius Dei, sicut e converso dicitur; et si ex his locutionibus non dicitur: Deus factus esse aliquid, vel esse aliquid, quae sit intelligentia harum locutionum et similium. — In huius profunditatis reseratione et scrupulosae quaestionis expositione plurimum differre inveniuntur sapientes.
Cap. II. Prima est eorum qui dicunt, in incarnatione hominem quendam ex anima et carne constitutum, et illum hominem factum esse Deum, et Deum illum hominem; et auctoritates, quibus ita esse asserunt, ponit.
(Opinio 1.) Alii enim dicunt, in ipsa Verbi incarnatione hominem quendam ex anima rationali et humana carne constitutum, ex quibus duobus omnis verus homo constituitur; et ille homo coepit esse Deus, non quidem natura Dei, sed persona Verbi; et Deus coepit esse homo ille. Concedunt etiam, hominem illum assumtum a Verbo et unitum Verbo, et tamen esse Verbum; et ea ratione tradunt dictum esse, Deum factum hominem, vel esse hominem, quia Deus factus est, id est, coepit esse quaedam substantia ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens; et illa substantia facta est, id est, coepit esse Deus. Non tamen demigratione naturae in naturam, sed utriusque naturae servata proprietate, factum est, ut Deus esset illa substantia, et illa substantia esset Deus. Unde vere dicitur: Deus factus est homo, et homo factus est Deus; et Deus est homo, et homo Deus; et Filius Dei filius hominis, et e converso. Cumque dicant, illum hominem ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistere, non tamen fatentur, ex duabus naturis esse compositum, divina scilicet et humana; nec illius partes esse duas naturas, sed animam tantum et carnem.
Et ne de suo sensu tantum loqui putentur, hanc sententiam pluribus muniunt testimoniis. (Confirmator.) Ait enim (Augustinus.) Augustinus in libro de Trinitate2: «Cum legitur: Verbum caro factum est, in Verbo intelligo verum Dei Filium, in carne agnosco verum hominis filium, et utrumque simul unam personam, Deum et hominem ineffabilis gratiae largitate coniunctum». Idem in Enchiridio3: «Christus Iesus Deus de Deo est, homo autem natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine. Utraque substantia, divina scilicet et humana, Filius est unicus Dei Patris omnipotentis, de quo procedit Spiritus sanctus», «utrumque unus, sed aliud propter Verbum, et aliud propter hominem, non duo filii, Deus et homo, sed unus Dei Filius, Deus sine initio,
homo a certo initio». Idem in eodem1b: «Quid natura humana in Christo homine meruit, ut in unitatem personae unici Filii Dei singulariter assumta esset? Quae bona voluntas, quae bona opera praecesserunt, quibus mereretur iste homo una fieri persona cum Deo? Nunquid antea fuit homo, et hoc ei singulare beneficium praestitum est, ut singulariter promereretur Deum? Nempe ex quo homo esse coepit, non aliud coepit esse homo quam Dei Filius, et hoc unicus, et propter2b Dei Verbum, quod illo suscepto caro factum est, utique Deus; ut, quemadmodum est una persona quilibet homo, anima scilicet rationalis et caro, ita sit Christus una persona, Verbum et homo». Idem super Ioannem3b: «Agnoscamus geminam substantiam Christi, divinam scilicet, qua aequalis est Patri, et humanam, qua minor est Patre; utrumque autem simul, non duo, sed unus est Christus, ne sit quaternitas, non trinitas Deus. Ac per hoc Christus est Deus, anima rationalis et caro». Idem quoque in libro de Praedestinatione Sanctorum4b: «Ille homo, ut, a Verbo Patri coaeterno in unitatem personae assumtus, Filius Dei unigenitus esset, unde hoc meruit? Quod bonum eius praecessit, ut ad hanc ineffabilem excellentiam perveniret? Faciente ac suscipiente Deo Verbo, ipse homo, ex quo esse coepit, Filius Dei unicus esse coepit». Item: «Homo quicumque ita gratia fit Christianus, sicut gratia homo ille ab initio factus est Christus». Idem in libro decimo tertio de Trinitate5b: «Gratia Dei nobis in homine Christo commendatur; quia nec ipse, ut tanta unitate Deo vero coniunctus, una cum illo persona Filius Dei fieret, ullis est praecedentibus meritis assecutus, sed ex quo homo esse coepit, ex illo est et Deus. Unde dictum est: Verbum caro factum est». Hilarius quoque in libro decimo de Trinitate6b ait: «Christum non ambigimus esse Deum Verbum, neque rursus Filium hominis ex anima et corpore constitisse ignoramus». — His aliisque auctoritatibus utuntur qui hominem quendam ex anima rationali et carne compositum Deum factum dicunt, sed gratia, non natura. Sola enim gratia habuit ille homo, non meritis, vel natura, ut esset Deus, sive Dei Filius, ut haberet omnem scientiam et potentiam7b, quam habet Verbum, cum quo est una persona. Nec tantum in superioribus legitur, quod homo ille sit una persona cum Verbo et sit ipsum Verbum, sed etiam, quod anima rationalis et caro eadem persona sit et Christus sit et Deus.
Cap. III. Secunda est eorum qui dicunt, hominem illum ex tribus substantiis, vel ex duabus naturis constare; et hunc fatentur unam esse personam, ante incarnationem simplicem tantum, sed in incarnatione compositam; et auctoritates, quibus se muniunt, proponit.
(Opinio 2.) Sunt autem et alii, qui istis in parte consentiunt, sed dicunt, hominem illum non ex anima rationali et carne tantum, sed ex humana et divina natura, id est ex tribus substantiis, divinitate, carne et anima, constare, et hunc Christum fatentur. Et unam personam tantum esse, ante incarnationem solummodo simplicem, sed in incarnatione factam8b compositam ex divinitate et humanitate. Nec est ideo alia persona quam prius, sed cum prius esset Dei tantum persona, in incarnatione facta est etiam hominis persona; non ut duae essent personae, sed ut una et eadem esset persona Dei et hominis. Persona ergo, quae prius erat simplex et in una tantum natura existens, in duabus et ex duabus subsistit naturis; et persona, quae tantum Deus erat, facta est etiam verus homo, subsistens non tantum ex anima et carne, sed etiam ex divinitate; nec tamen persona illa debet dici facta persona, quamvis dicatur facta persona hominis. Facta est igitur illa persona, ut quibusdam placet, quiddam subsistens ex anima et carne, sed non est facta persona, vel substantia, vel natura. Et in quantum est illud9b subsistens, composita est; in quantum autem Verbum est, simplex est.
(Confirmator.) De hoc Augustinus in libro Sententiarum Prosperi10b ait: (Dubium 4.) «Modis omnibus approbare contendimus, Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus constare, duobus confici, visibili elementorum specie et invisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi carne et sanguine: Sacramento et re Sacramenti, id est corpore Christi, sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur ex Deo et homine, cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus et verus homo; quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur». De hoc eodem (Damascenus.) Ioannes Damascenus11b: «In Domino nostro Iesu Christo duas quidem naturas cognoscimus, unam autem hypostasim ex utriusque compositam». «Incarnatus est igitur Christus, ex Virgine assumens primitiam1c nostrae massae, ut ipsa
exstiterit carni hypostasis, quae Dei Verbi hypostasis composita facta fuerit, quae prius simplex erat Verbi hypostasis, composita vero ex duabus perfectis naturis, deitate et humanitate; et ferat ipsa divinae Verbi Dei filiationis characteristicum et determinativum idioma, secundum quod divisa est a Patre et Spiritu sancto, et carnis characteristica et determinativa idiomata, secundum quae differat a Matre et reliquis hominibus». Item: «Unam hypostasim Filii Dei confitemur in duabus naturis perfecte se habentibus, et deitatis et humanitatis, eandem hypostasim incarnatam2c; et has duas naturas custodiri et manere in ipso post unionem, non seorsum et secundum partes ponentes singulam, sed unitas invicem in unam compositam hypostasim. Substantialem enim inquimus unionem, scilicet veram et non secundum phantasiam, substantialem autem, non duabus naturis perficientibus alteram, scilicet unam compositam naturam, sed unitas invicem in unam hypostasim compositam Filii Dei, et manere eandem substantialem differentiam determinamus: quod creabile mansit creabile, et quod increabile increabile, et mortale mortale, et immortale immortale, et circumscriptibile circumscriptibile, et incircumscriptibile incircumscriptibile; et hoc quidem refulget miraculis». (Augustinus.) De hoc etiam Augustinus in libro de Trinitate3c ait: «Quemadmodum secundum deitatem una est Patris et Filii natura, ita etiam iuxta humanitatem eadem est Matris et Filii una natura. Ex utraque autem substantia, et divinitatis et humanitatis, unus atque idem est Deus, Dei et hominis Filius, Iesus Christus, ut Deus verus, ita etiam homo verus». Idem in libro decimo tertio de Trinitate4c: «Sic Deo coniungi potuit humana natura, ut ex duabus substantiis fieret una persona; ac per hoc iam est ex tribus: Deo, anima et carne». — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus se muniunt qui dicunt, personam Christi compositam esse, vel factam sive constantem ex duabus naturis, sive ex tribus substantiis.
Cap. IV. Tertia est eorum qui non solum personam ex naturis compositam negant, sed etiam aliquem hominem vel aliquam substantiam ibi ex anima et carne compositam diffitentur; et sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbo unita dicunt, ut non ex illis aliqua substantia vel persona componeretur, sed illis duobus velut indumento Deus vestiretur, ut mortalibus oculis appareret; qui rationem incarnationis secundum habitum accipiunt.
(Dubium 2.) Sunt etiam alii, qui in incarnatione Verbi non solum personam ex naturis compositam negant, verum etiam hominem aliquem, sive etiam aliquam substantiam ibi ex anima et carne compositam vel factam diffitentur; sed sic illa duo, scilicet animam et carnem, Verbi personae vel naturae unita esse aiunt, ut non ex illis duobus, vel ex his tribus aliqua substantia5c vel persona fieret sive componeretur; sed illis duobus velut indumento Verbum Dei vestiretur, ut mortalium oculis congruenter appareret. Qui ideo dicitur factus verus homo, quia veritatem carnis et animae accepit. Quae duo etiam in singularitatem vel unitatem suae personae accepisse legitur, non quia illa duo, vel aliqua res ex illis composita sit una persona cum Verbo, vel sit Verbum; sed quia, illis duobus accedentibus Verbo, non est personarum numerus auctus, ut fieret quaternitas in Trinitate; et quia ipsa persona Verbi, quae erat prius sine indumento, assumtione indumenti non est divisa vel mutata, sed una eademque inimmutata permansit. Qui secundum habitum Deum hominem factum dicunt6c. Accipiendo enim hominem, dictus est Deus factus homo; et propter acceptum hominem dicitur Deus verus7c1 esse homo; et propter assumentem Deum dicitur homo esse Deus. Nam si essentialiter, inquiunt illi, Deus esse homo, vel homo esse Deus intelligeretur; tunc, si Deus hominem assumsisset in sexu muliebri, et mulier essentialiter Deus esset, et e converso; at potuit Deus assumsisse hominem in sexu muliebri: potuit igitur mulier esse Deus, et e converso.
Cap. V. Deinde auctoritates inducit, quibus haec sententia roboratur.
Ne autem et isti de suo7c2 influere videantur, testimoniis in medium productis quod dicunt confirmant. (Augustinus.) Ait enim Augustinus in libro de Gratia novi Testamenti8c: «Sicut non augetur numerus personarum, cum caro accedit animae, ut sit unus homo; sic non augetur numerus personarum, cum homo accedit Verbo, ut sit unus Christus. Legitur itaque Deus homo, ut intelligamus huius personae singularitatem, non ut suspicemur in carnem mutatam divinitatem». Idem quoque tractans illud verbum Apostoli: Habitu inventus est ut homo, manifeste ostendit, Deum dici factum esse hominem, vel esse hominem secundum habitum, in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum9c ita inquiens: (Dubium 3.) «Multis modis habitum dicimus: vel habitum animi, sicut disciplinae perceptionem usu firmatam; vel habitum corporis, sicut dicimus alium alio validiorem; vel habitum eorum, quae membris accommodantur extrinsecus, ut cum dicimus aliquem vestitum, calceatum et huiusmodi. In omnibus generibus manifestum est, in ea re dici habitum, quae accidit alicui, ita ut eam possit etiam non habere. Hoc autem nomen ductum est ab illo verbo, quod est habere. Habitus ergo in ea re dicitur, quae nobis, ut habeatur, accidit vel accedit»10c.
Cap. VI. Quatuor species habitus distinguuntur.
(Augustinus. Species 1.) «Verumtamen hoc interest, quia quaedam eorum quae accidunt vel accedunt, ut habitum faciant, non mutantur, sed ipsa mutant, in se integra et inconcussa manentia; sicut sapientia, accedens homini, non ipsa mutatur, sed hominem mutat, quem de stulto sapientem facit. — (Species 2.) Quaedam vero sic accedunt vel accidunt, ut mutent et mutentur, ut abus, qui, amittens speciem suam, in corpus vertitur, et nos cibo refecti ab exilitate1d atque languore in robur atque valentiam mutamur. — (Species 3.) Tertium genus est, cum ea quae accidunt vel accedunt, nec mutant ea quibus accidunt, nec ab eis ipsa mutantur, sicut anulus positus in digito; quod genus rarissime reperitur. — (Species 4.) Quartum genus est, cum ea quae accidunt, mutantur non a sua natura, sed aliam speciem et formam accipiunt, ut est vestis, quae deiecta atque deposita non habet eam formam, quam sumit induta; induta enim membris accipit formam, quam non habebat exuta. Quod genus congruit huic comparationi. Deus enim Filius semetipsum exinanivit, non formam suam mutans, sed formam servi accipiens, neque conversus aut transmutatus in hominem2d, amissa incommutabili stabilitate, sed in similitudinem hominum factus est ipse susceptor, verum hominem suscipiendo habitu inventus est ut homo, id est, habendo hominem inventus est ut homo, non sibi, sed eis quibus in homine apparuit». Quod autem dicit ut homo veritatem exprimit. «Nomine ergo habitus satis significavit Apostolus, qualiter dixerit in similitudinem hominum factus, quia non transfiguratione in hominem, sed habitu factus est, cum indutus est hominem, quem sibi uniens quodam modo atque conformans immortalitati aeternitatique sociaret. Non ergo oportet intelligi, mutatum esse Verbum susceptione hominis, sicut nec membra veste induta mutantur, quamvis illa susceptio ineffabiliter susceptum suscipienti copularet3d». — His verbis aperte innuere videtur Augustinus, Deum dici factum hominem secundum habitum. Qui etiam ipsius incarnationis modum volens exprimere, (Augustinus.) in quarto libro de Trinitate4d ait: «Si quaeritur, ipsa incarnatio quo modo facta sit, ipsum Verbum Dei dico carnem factum, id est hominem factum, non tamen in hoc, quod factum est, conversum atque mutatum», sed carne, ut carnalibus congruenter appareret indutum. «Ita sane factum, ut ibi sit non tantum Verbum Dei et hominis caro, sed etiam rationalis hominis anima; atque hoc totum et Deus dicatur propter Deum, et homo propter hominem. Quod si difficile intelligitur, mens fide purgetur a peccatis abstinendo et bona operando; difficilia enim sunt haec». (Fulgentius.) Idem in libro de Fide ad Petrum5d: «Dei Filius, cum sit Deus aeternus et verus, pro nobis factus est homo verus et plenus: in eo verus, quia veram habet Deus ille humanam naturam; in eo vero plenus, quia et carnem humanam suscepit et animam rationalem». Item: «Non aliud fuit illa Dei summi exinanitio nisi formae servilis, id est naturae humanae, susceptio. Utraque igitur est in Christo forma, quia utraque vera et plena est in Christo substantia», divina scilicet et humana. Idem in libro contra Maximinum6d: «Cum esset per se ipsum invisibilis, visibilis in homine apparuit, quem de femina suscipere dignatus est». Item in eodem: «Nos Christum Dominum verum hominem suscepisse credimus, et in ipso visibiliter invisibilem hominibus apparuisse, in ipso inter homines conversatum fuisse, in ipso ab hominibus humana pertulisse, in ipso homines docuisse». (Hilarius.) Hilarius quoque in decimo libro de Trinitate7d ait: «Quomodo Dei Filius natus est ex Maria, nisi quod Verbum caro factum est, scilicet quod Filius Dei, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi accepit? Unum tamen eundemque non Dei defectione, sed hominis assumtione profitemur, et in forma Dei per naturam divinam, et in forma servi ex conceptione Spiritus sancti secundum hominis habitum repertum fuisse». «Non fuit habitus ille tantum hominis, sed ut hominis; neque caro illa caro peccati, sed in similitudine carnis peccati». — Audistis tres secundum diversos positas sententias et pro singulis inducta testimonia.
---
DISTINCTION VI.
Chap. I. On the understanding of these expressions: "God is man"[^1], "God was made man"; he sets out three opinions.
From the foregoing, however, there arises a question containing very much of usefulness, but too much of difficulty and perplexity. For since it is established from what has been said before and from many other testimonies, and since all Catholics unanimously confess, that God was made man, and that Christ is true God and true man, it is asked whether by these expressions — God was made man, the Son of God was made the son of man; God is man, and man is God — God is said to have been made something, or to be something, or whether something is said to be God; and whether it is fitting to say: man was made God, and the son of man was made the Son of God, just as conversely it is said; and if by these expressions it is not said that God was made something, or is something, what is the understanding of these expressions and the like. — In the unlocking of this depth and in the exposition of this scrupulous question, the wise are found to differ very greatly.
Chap. II. The first is the opinion of those who say that in the incarnation a certain man was constituted out of soul and flesh, and that that man was made God, and God that man; and he sets out the authorities by which they assert that it is so.
(Opinion 1.) Now some say that in the very incarnation of the Word a certain man was constituted out of a rational soul and human flesh — out of which two every true man is constituted — and that that man began to be God, not indeed by the nature of God, but by the person of the Word; and God began to be that man. They also concede that that man was assumed by the Word and united to the Word, and yet is the Word; and on that account they teach that it is said that God was made man, or is man, because God was made, that is, began to be a certain substance subsisting out of a rational soul and human flesh; and that substance was made, that is, began to be God. Yet not by a migration of nature into nature, but, the property of each nature being preserved, it came about that God was that substance, and that substance was God. Whence it is truly said: God was made man, and man was made God; and God is man, and man God; and the Son of God the son of man, and conversely. And although they say that that man subsists out of a rational soul and human flesh, yet they do not confess that he is composed out of two natures, namely divine and human; nor that his parts are two natures, but only soul and flesh.
And lest they be thought to speak only from their own opinion, they fortify this opinion with many testimonies. (It is confirmed.) For (Augustine.) Augustine says in the book On the Trinity2: «When it is read: The Word was made flesh, in the Word I understand the true Son of God, in the flesh I recognize the true son of man, and both together one person, God and man, joined together by the largess of ineffable grace». The same in the Enchiridion3: «Christ Jesus is God of God, but he was born man of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary. Each substance, namely the divine and the human, is the one Son of God the Father almighty, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds», «both one, but one thing on account of the Word, and another on account of the man, not two sons, God and man, but one Son of God, God without beginning,
man from a certain beginning». The same in the same work1b: «What did human nature merit in Christ the man, that it should be singularly assumed into the unity of the person of the only Son of God? What good will, what good works preceded, by which that man might merit to be made one person with God? Was he formerly a man, and was this singular benefit conferred upon him, that he should singularly merit God? Indeed, from the time he began to be man, the man began to be nothing other than the Son of God, and this the only one, and on account of2b the Word of God, which, that being assumed, was made flesh, namely God; so that, just as any man is one person, namely a rational soul and flesh, so Christ is one person, the Word and man». The same on John3b: «Let us acknowledge the twofold substance of Christ, the divine, namely, by which he is equal to the Father, and the human, by which he is less than the Father; yet both together, not two, but one is Christ, lest there be a quaternity, not a trinity, God. And by this Christ is God, a rational soul, and flesh». The same also in the book On the Predestination of the Saints4b: «That man — that, being assumed by the Word coeternal with the Father into the unity of person, he might be the only-begotten Son of God — whence did he merit this? What good of his preceded, that he might attain to this ineffable excellence? By God the Word effecting and receiving, that man himself, from the time he began to be, began to be the only Son of God». Likewise: «Whoever a man is made a Christian by grace, just so by grace that man was from the beginning made Christ». The same in the thirteenth book On the Trinity5b: «The grace of God is commended to us in the man Christ; for not even he himself, that he might, joined by so great a unity to the true God, be the Son of God one person with him, attained this by any preceding merits, but from the time he began to be man, from that time he is also God. Whence it is said: The Word was made flesh». Hilary also in the tenth book On the Trinity6b says: «We do not doubt that Christ is God the Word, nor again are we ignorant that the Son of man consisted of soul and body». — These and other authorities are used by those who say that a certain man composed out of a rational soul and flesh was made God, but by grace, not by nature. For that man had it by grace alone, not by merits or by nature, that he should be God, or the Son of God, that he should have all knowledge and power7b, which the Word has, with whom he is one person. Nor is it only read in the foregoing that that man is one person with the Word and is the Word himself, but also that the rational soul and flesh are the same person, and that he is Christ and is God.
Chap. III. The second is the opinion of those who say that that man consists of three substances, or of two natures; and they confess that he is one person, before the incarnation simple only, but in the incarnation composite; and he sets forth the authorities by which they fortify themselves.
(Opinion 2.) Now there are also others who in part agree with these, but say that that man consists not out of a rational soul and flesh only, but out of human and divine nature, that is, out of three substances — divinity, flesh, and soul — and this one they confess to be Christ. And that there is one person only, before the incarnation simply simple, but in the incarnation made8b composite out of divinity and humanity. Nor is the person therefore other than before, but, whereas before it was the person of God only, in the incarnation it was made also the person of man; not that there might be two persons, but that one and the same might be the person of God and man. The person, therefore, which before was simple and existing in one nature only, subsists in two and out of two natures; and the person which was God only was made also true man, subsisting not only out of soul and flesh, but also out of divinity; yet that person ought not to be called a made person, although it is called a made person of man. That person, therefore, was made, as it pleases some, something subsisting out of soul and flesh, but it was not made a person, or a substance, or a nature. And insofar as it is that9b subsisting thing, it is composite; but insofar as it is the Word, it is simple.
(It is confirmed.) On this Augustine in the book of the Sentences of Prosper10b says: (Doubt 4.) «In all ways we strive to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church consists of two things, is confected of two things, the visible species of the elements and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, just as the person of Christ consists and is confected of God and man, since Christ himself is true God and true man; because every thing contains in itself the nature and truth of those things out of which it is confected». On this same matter (Damascene.) John Damascene11b: «In our Lord Jesus Christ we recognize indeed two natures, but one hypostasis composed out of each». «Christ, therefore, was incarnate, assuming from the Virgin the first-fruit1c of our mass, so that it itself
might exist as the hypostasis of the flesh, which became the composite hypostasis of the Word of God, which before was the simple hypostasis of the Word, but composite out of two perfect natures, deity and humanity; and that it might bear the characteristic and determinative idiom of the divine filiation of the Word of God, according to which it is divided from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the characteristic and determinative idioms of the flesh, according to which it differs from the Mother and the rest of men». Likewise: «We confess one hypostasis of the Son of God in two natures perfectly subsisting, both of deity and of humanity, the same hypostasis incarnate2c; and that these two natures are guarded and remain in him after the union, not setting them down separately and according to parts, each singly, but united with each other into one composite hypostasis. For we say a substantial union, namely true and not according to phantasy, and substantial, moreover, not with two natures perfecting another, namely one composite nature, but united with each other into one hypostasis of the Son of God composite, and we determine that the same substantial difference remains: that the creatable remained creatable, and the uncreatable uncreatable, and the mortal mortal, and the immortal immortal, and the circumscriptible circumscriptible, and the incircumscriptible incircumscriptible; and this indeed shines forth in miracles». (Augustine.) On this also Augustine in the book On the Trinity3c says: «Just as according to deity the nature of the Father and of the Son is one, so also according to humanity the nature of the Mother and of the Son is one. And out of each substance, both of divinity and of humanity, one and the same is God, the Son of God and of man, Jesus Christ, as true God, so also true man». The same in the thirteenth book On the Trinity4c: «Thus human nature could be joined to God, so that out of two substances there might be made one person; and by this it is now out of three: God, soul, and flesh». — These and many other authorities are used to fortify themselves by those who say that the person of Christ is composite, or made or consisting out of two natures, or out of three substances.
Chap. IV. The third is the opinion of those who not only deny a person composed out of natures, but also disavow any man or any substance there composed out of soul and flesh; and so they say that those two, namely soul and flesh, are united to the Word in such a way that no substance or person is composed out of them, but that God was clothed by those two as by a garment, that he might appear to mortal eyes; who take the account of the incarnation according to habit.
(Doubt 2.) There are also others who in the incarnation of the Word not only deny a person composed out of natures, but also disavow any man, or even any substance, there composed or made out of soul and flesh; but they say that those two, namely soul and flesh, are so united to the person or nature of the Word, that no substance5c or person is made or composed out of those two, or out of these three; but that the Word of God was clothed by those two as by a garment, that he might fittingly appear to the eyes of mortals. He is therefore said to have been made true man, because he received the truth of flesh and soul. And these two he is read to have received also into the singularity or unity of his person, not because those two, or any thing composed out of them, is one person with the Word, or is the Word; but because, those two acceding to the Word, the number of persons was not increased, so that a quaternity might be made in the Trinity; and because the very person of the Word, which was before without a garment, was not divided or changed by the assumption of the garment, but remained one and the same unchanged. They say that according to habit God was made man6c. For by taking man, God was said to have been made man; and on account of the man taken, God is said7c1 to be truly man; and on account of the God assuming, man is said to be God. For if essentially, they say, it were understood that God is man, or man is God, then, if God had assumed a man in the female sex, the woman too would essentially be God, and conversely; but God could have assumed a man in the female sex: therefore a woman could be God, and conversely.
Chap. V. Then he adduces the authorities by which this opinion is strengthened.
But lest these too be thought to bring it forth from their own7c2, they confirm what they say by testimonies brought into the midst. (Augustine.) For Augustine says in the book On the Grace of the New Testament8c: «Just as the number of persons is not increased when flesh accedes to a soul, so that there is one man; so the number of persons is not increased when man accedes to the Word, so that there is one Christ. Thus God-man is read, that we may understand the singularity of this person, not that we may suspect the divinity changed into flesh». The same also, treating that word of the Apostle: In habit found as a man, manifestly shows that God is said to have been made man, or to be man, according to habit, in the book Of Eighty-three Questions9c, speaking thus: (Doubt 3.) «In many ways we speak of habit: either the habit of the mind, like the perception of a discipline firmed by use; or the habit of the body, as we say one stronger than another; or the habit of those things which are accommodated externally to the members, as when we say someone clothed, shod, and the like. In all the kinds it is manifest that habit is said in that thing which befalls someone, in such a way that he can also not have it. But this name is drawn from that verb which is to have. Habit, therefore, is said in that thing which, that it may be had, befalls or accedes to us»10c.
Chap. VI. Four species of habit are distinguished.
(Augustine. Species 1.) «Nevertheless this much is of interest, that certain of those things which befall or accede, so as to make a habit, are not changed, but themselves change, remaining in themselves whole and unshaken; as wisdom, acceding to a man, is not itself changed, but changes the man, whom it makes wise from foolish. — (Species 2.) But certain things accede or befall in such a way that they both change and are changed, like food, which, losing its own species, is turned into the body, and we, refreshed by food, are changed from leanness1d and languor into strength and vigor. — (Species 3.) The third kind is when those things which befall or accede neither change those to which they befall, nor are themselves changed by them, like a ring placed on the finger; which kind is very rarely found. — (Species 4.) The fourth kind is when those things which befall are changed not from their own nature, but receive another species and form, as is a garment, which, cast off and laid aside, does not have that form which it takes when put on; for when put on it receives from the members the form which it did not have when taken off. Which kind suits this comparison. For God the Son emptied himself, not changing his own form, but taking the form of a servant, neither converted nor transmuted into man2d, the unchangeable stability being lost, but in the likeness of men he himself became the receiver, by receiving true man was found in habit as a man, that is, by having a man was found as a man, not for himself, but for those to whom he appeared in the man». But that he says as a man expresses the truth. «By the name of habit, therefore, the Apostle sufficiently signified in what manner he said made in the likeness of men, because not by transfiguration into man, but by habit he was made, when he was clothed with man, whom, uniting to himself in a certain way and conforming, he might associate with immortality and eternity. It is not necessary, therefore, to understand that the Word was changed by the reception of man, just as neither are the members changed by a garment put on, although that reception ineffably joined the received to the receiver3d». — By these words Augustine seems openly to intimate that God is said to have been made man according to habit. He also, wishing to express the manner of the incarnation itself, (Augustine.) in the fourth book On the Trinity4d says: «If it is asked how the incarnation itself was done, I say that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, made man, yet not in this, that what was made was converted and changed», but by flesh, that it might fittingly appear to carnal beings, clothed. «So indeed it was done, that there is there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man; and that this whole both is called God on account of God, and man on account of man. But if this is difficult to understand, let the mind be purged by faith, by abstaining from sins and doing good; for these things are difficult». (Fulgentius.) The same in the book On the Faith to Peter5d: «The Son of God, since he is eternal and true God, was for us made true and full man: in him true, because that God has true human nature; in him truly full, because he both took up human flesh and a rational soul». Likewise: «That emptying of the most high God was nothing other than the taking up of the servile form, that is, of human nature. Each form, therefore, is in Christ, because each is true and full substance in Christ», namely the divine and the human. The same in the book against Maximinus6d: «Although he was through himself invisible, he appeared visible in the man, whom he deigned to take up from a woman». Likewise in the same work: «We believe that Christ the Lord took up a true man, and that in him the invisible appeared visibly to men, that in him he conversed among men, that in him he endured human things from men, that in him he taught men». (Hilary.) Hilary also in the tenth book On the Trinity7d says: «How was the Son of God born of Mary, except that the Word was made flesh, namely that the Son of God, when he was in the form of God, took the form of a servant? Yet we profess one and the same, not by a defection of God, but by an assumption of man, both to have been in the form of God by the divine nature, and in the form of a servant by the conception of the Holy Spirit found according to the habit of man». «That habit was not only of a man, but as of a man; nor was that flesh the flesh of sin, but in the likeness of the flesh of sin». — You have heard three opinions set down according to diverse authors, and the testimonies adduced for each.
---
- Cod. D in, codd. A C et ed. 6 omittunt praepositionem.Codex D reads in; codices A, C, and edition 6 omit the preposition.
- Libr. XIII. c. 19. n. 24. Respicitur Ioan. 1, 14. — Pro ineffabilis cod. A et ed. 8 ineffabili.Book XIII, c. 19, n. 24 [Augustine, On the Trinity]. Reference is to John 1:14. — For ineffabilis codex A and edition 8 read ineffabili.
- Cap. 38. n. 12; seq. locus ibid. c. 35. n. 10; tertius c. 36. n. 11. — In tertio loco pro et hoc unicus, quod codd. A B C D, ed. 6 et originale habent, alii codd. et edd. et hic unicus.C. 38, n. 12 [Augustine, Enchiridion]; the following passage ibid., c. 35, n. 10; the third c. 36, n. 11. — In the third place, for et hoc unicus ("and this the one"), which codices A, B, C, D, edition 6, and the original have, other codices and editions read et hic unicus ("and here the one").
- In omnibus codd. et edd., exceptis 6, 8, propterea; deinde Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 quia est ab illo suscepta caro facta est pro quod illo suscepto caro factum est, cod. A D Verbum, quod ab illo suscepta caro facta; cod. B et ed. 1 verbum, quod illo suscepta... Cum ed. 8 maluimus recipere textum originalis, cum omnes aliae lectiones corruptae sint; tolerari autem poterit lectio ex diversis sic conflata: et hic unicus, et propterea Dei (Augustinus Deum) Verbum; quia ab illo suscepta caro facta est utique Deus.In all codices and editions, except 6 and 8, propterea; then the Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 reads quia est ab illo suscepta caro facta est for quod illo suscepto caro factum est; codices A and D Verbum, quod ab illo suscepta caro facta; codex B and edition 1 verbum, quod illo suscepta... With edition 8 we preferred to receive the text of the original, since all the other readings are corrupt; the reading thus conflated from the various ones may, however, be tolerated: and here the one, and therefore the Word of God (Augustine: God), because the flesh assumed by him was made God indeed.
- Tract. 78. n. 3.Tractate 78, n. 3 [Augustine, On John].
- Cap. 15. n. 30. Seq. locus ibid. n. 31.C. 15, n. 30 [Augustine, On John]. The following passage ibid., n. 31.
- Cap. 17. n. 22.C. 17, n. 22 [Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints].
- Num. 57.N. 57 [Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. XIII].
- Edd. 1, 8 potestatem. In fine capituli cod. G et ed. 1 omittunt et ante Deus.Editions 1 and 8 read potestatem ("power"). At the end of the chapter codex G and edition 1 omit the et before Deus.
- Vat. sed, incarnatione facta, refragantibus codd. et aliis edd.; paulo superius ante solummodo eadem cum codd. D E et edd., exceptis 1, 3, 8, adiicit vero.The Vatican edition reads sed, incarnatione facta, the codices and the other editions resisting; a little above, before solummodo, the same edition with codices D, E and the editions, except 1, 3, 8, adds vero.
- Codd. A C D E ille, et cod. B cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 illa.Codices A, C, D, E read ille, and codex B with editions 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 illa.
- Sumtum est ex Decret. Gratiani, 48. de Consecrat. d. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus, ubi etiam legitur: Augustinus in libro Sententiarum Prosperi, (in quo tamen haec verba non inveniuntur), et in notis citantur Lanfrancus et Algerus.It is taken from Gratian's Decretum, 48, On the Consecration, d. 2, Hoc est quod dicimus, where it is also read: Augustine in the book of the Sentences of Prosper (in which, however, these words are not found), and in the notes Lanfranc and Alger are cited.
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 4; seq. locus ibid. c. 7; tertius c. 3.Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 4 [John Damascene]; the following passage ibid., c. 7; the third c. 3.
- Cod. D assumendo primitiam, etiam codd. A B E et edd. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 habent primitiam (ἀπαρχήν), cod. C, Vat. et ed. 8 primitias; deinde pro carni, quod habent Vat. et edd. 2, 3 cum codd. A E, cod. D carnis; in aliis in carne. Paulo inferius ante composita cod. B et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7 omittunt et; Vat. legit etiam composita et facta fuerit.Codex D reads assumendo primitiam; codices A, B, E and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 also have primitiam (aparchēn); codex C, the Vatican edition, and edition 8 primitias; then for carni, which the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3 with codices A, E have, codex D carnis; in others in carne. A little below, before composita, codex B and editions 2, 3, 4, 7 omit et; the Vatican edition reads etiam composita et facta fuerit.
- Vat., et fere etiam ed. 6, ita legit: habentibus, eandem hypostasim deitatis et humanitatis dicentes incarnatam esse. Vocem ultimam esse adiungunt etiam edd. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9.The Vatican edition, and almost also edition 6, reads thus: habentibus, eandem hypostasim deitatis et humanitatis dicentes incarnatam esse. The final word esse is added also by editions 3, 4, 5, 7, 9.
- Potius Serm. 238. (in append. n. 3.).Rather Sermon 238 (in the appendix, n. 3).
- Cap. 17. n. 22.C. 17, n. 22 [Augustine, On the Trinity].
- Vat. et pleraeque edd. natura, refragantibus codd. et edd. 1, 8.The Vatican edition and most editions read natura, the codices and editions 1, 8 resisting.
- Cfr. Gregor., I. super Ezechiel. Hom. 8. n. 24. 25, et de seqq. August., 83 Qq. q. 11.Cf. Gregory, On Ezekiel I, Homily 8, nn. 24, 25, and on what follows Augustine, Eighty-three Questions, q. 11.
- Vat. cum plerisque edd. vere.The Vatican edition with most editions reads vere.
- Cod. E et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 addunt sensu.Codex E and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 add sensu ("from their own sense"). — This footer (Quaracchi p.145 right-col note 7) attaches to de suo in Cap. V; the identical note also covers the p.145 right-col note 6 anchor below.
- Cod. E et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 addunt sensu.Codex E and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 add sensu ("from their own sense").
- Epist. (alias 120.) 140. c. 4. n. 11. 12.Letter (otherwise 120) 140, c. 4, nn. 11, 12 [Augustine].
- Quaest. 73. n. 1; continuatur hic locus etiam in seq. cap.; locus Scripturae est Phil. 2, 7.Question 73, n. 1 [Augustine, Of Eighty-three Questions]; this passage is continued also in the following chapter; the Scripture passage is Philippians 2:7.
- Vat. cum originali omittit vel accedit; cod. K tantum accedit, et infra pluries idem dicendum de accidunt vel accedunt; deinde ante mutant Vat. et edd. 6, 8 adiiciunt nos.The Vatican edition with the original omits vel accedit; codex K reads only accedit, and below the same is to be said several times of accidunt vel accedunt; then, before mutant, the Vatican edition and editions 6, 8 add nos.
- Cod. D imbecillitate, et paulo inferius pro cum ea habet in his.Codex D reads imbecillitate, and a little below, for cum ea, has in his.
- Codd. A D et ed. 1 homine, et deinde codd. A B C E et edd. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 pluries similitudine pro similitudinem; denique post suscipiendo codd. omnes et edd. 1, 5 addunt et.Codices A, D and edition 1 read homine, and then codices A, B, C, E and editions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 several times read similitudine for similitudinem; finally, after suscipiendo, all the codices and editions 1, 5 add et.
- Ibid. n. 2.Ibid., n. 2.
- Cap. 21. n. 31, ubi et seq. locus.C. 21, n. 31 [Augustine, On the Trinity IV], where also the following passage.
- Cap. 2. n. 10. — Pro Dei Filius codd. A D E et edd. 4, 5, 8 Deus Filius, refragante etiam originali. Seq. locus ibid. n. 20. 21, in quo Vat. et plurimae edd., exceptis 1, 8, ante exinanitio praefigunt susceptio vel.C. 2, n. 10 [Fulgentius, On the Faith to Peter]. — For Dei Filius codices A, D, E and editions 4, 5, 8 read Deus Filius, the original also resisting. The following passage ibid., nn. 20, 21, in which the Vatican edition and most editions, except 1, 8, prefix before exinanitio the words susceptio vel.
- Est potius liber de Fide contra Manichaeos c. 22 (inter opera Augustini); seq. locus ibid. c. 26, ubi edd. 1, 5, 8 Christum Deum pro Christum Dominum et cum cod. E in Christo pro in ipso. — Respicitur ibi Bar. 3, 38.It is rather the book On the Faith against the Manichaeans c. 22 (among Augustine's works); the following passage ibid., c. 26, where editions 1, 5, 8 read Christum Deum for Christum Dominum, and with codex E in Christo for in ipso. — Reference is there to Baruch 3:38.
- Num. 22. — Pro per naturam Vat. cum pluribus edd. propter naturam. Seq. locus est ibid. n. 25.N. 22 [Hilary, On the Trinity X]. — For per naturam the Vatican edition with several editions reads propter naturam. The following passage is ibid., n. 25. ---