Dist. 7, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 7
Dubia circa litteram Magistri.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Inexplicabile est mysterium huius unionis, quae non est ratio partium. Videtur enim in tali unione esse partem et partem; quia super Levitici quinto7: Decimam partem etc. Glossa Hesychii: « Decima pars Ephi est humanitas Christi. Ephi autem mensura trium modiorum significat Trinitatem ». Et sicut se habet signum ad signum, ita signatum ad signatum; sed signum est pars signi: ergo et signatum est pars
signati: ergo humanitas Christi est pars Christi. — Item, in Symbolo1 dicitur: « Sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita Deus et homo unus est Christus »; sed anima et caro sunt partes hominis: ergo humanitas et divinitas sunt partes Christi; cuius contrarium traditur ibidem2.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod pars multis modis (Respondetur: pars dicitur quadrupliciter) dicitur. Uno modo dicitur pars communiter omne quod venit in compositionem3 alicuius, sive secundum realem compositionem, sive secundum rationem; et hoc modo illa quae cadunt in definitione, dicuntur esse partes rei notificatae. — Alio modo dicitur pars illud quod venit in constitutionem alicuius secundum rem et naturam, sive habeat quantitatem, sive non; et hoc modo anima pars est rei animatae. — Tertio modo dicitur pars magis proprie illud quod venit in constitutionem alicuius secundum rem et naturam, et secundum quantitatem continuam, vel discretam, sicut manus et pes est pars corporis, et binarius pars quaternarii. — Quarto modo dicitur pars magis proprie quod venit in constitutionem alicuius realem, vel quantitativam secundum certam et determinatam mensuram, ita quod aliquoties sumta reddit totum; et ista pars dicitur aliquota, cui propriissime convenit intentio partis4.
Cum ergo quaeritur, utrum humana natura sit pars Christi; dicendum, quod si pars accipiatur communiter primo modo, potest concedi, quod sit pars. Si enim quis velit notificare, quid sit Christus, dicet ipsum unam hypostasim in duabus naturis, divina scilicet et humana. Si autem pars proprie accipiatur, sic humana natura non dicitur pars Christi; et hoc modo intelligitur verbum Magistri in littera. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta; in talibus enim non est similitudo omnimoda5. (Notandum)
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Damascenus: Non hominem deificatum dicimus, sed Deum hominem factum. Videtur enim falsum dicere. Sicut enim divina natura humanae unita est, ita et humana divinae: ergo sicut dicimus Deum humanatum, ita et hominem deificatum. — Item, in unione divinae naturae ad humanam divina natura non est imminuta6, sed humana est exaltata: ergo humana natura magis tracta est ad conformitatem divinae, quam divina ad conformitatem humanae: ergo potius debet dici in Christo humana natura deificata, quam divina humanata. Si tu dicas, quod denominatio debet fieri a notiori7b; hoc non solvit, quia denominatio non solum debet fieri a notiori, sed etiam a digniori. Si etiam dicas, quod esse humanatum praedicat habitum, sicut dicit tertia opinio8; hoc non solvit: quia non tantum dicitur humanatus, sed dicitur factus homo: ergo si debemus dicere, quod homo est Deus, et Deus est homo; videtur, quod nullum inconveniens sit dicere, hominem esse deificatum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc adiectivum humanatum (Resp. 1) non solum praedicat habitum, sed etiam unionem. Unde nihil aliud est dicere, Deum esse humanatum quam carni unitum9. Hoc autem quod est deificatum, etsi possit importare unionem, importat simul ordinem et antecessionem. Deificatum enim componitur a deitate et factum; unde deificatum, hoc est factum esse Deum. Et quoniam humanitas divinitatem non antecedit, ideo Damascenus hanc non concedit, hominem esse deificatum10.
Vel dicendum, quod Damascenus (Resp. 2) non negat simpliciter, sed quod non est ita propria: homo est deificatus, sicut haec: Deus est factus homo. Nam ipse dicit, tertio libro11: « Oportet scire, quod non secundum exterminationem naturae, vel confusionem caro deificata est. Tantum enim valet dicere, carnem esse deificatam, quantum deitati esse coniunctam ». Ideo non negat praedictam locutionem tanquam falsam simpliciter, sed non est ita propria, sicut eius conversa12. — Posset etiam vis fieri (Resp. 3) in hoc, quod dico hominem, quia ex parte subiecti stat pro hypostasi, ex parte vero appositi pro
forma; non sic autem hypostasis huius hominis est deificata, cum semper fuerit Deus, sicut est humanata, cum non semper fuerit homo. — Et sic patet utraque obiectio1b.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod non dicitur homo dominicus, et videtur, quod sit concedenda, per illud quod habetur in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum2b: « Monendum est, ut illa aeterna bona exspectentur, quae fuerunt in homine dominico », hoc enim intelligitur de Christo. Si tu dicas, hoc retractatum esse; obiicitur contra hoc: quia super primi libri Regum primo3b dicit Glossa Bedae: « Quis est iste homo nisi homo dominicus »: ergo si hoc potest dici de aliis hominibus, multo magis de Christo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc nomen dominicus secundum communem usum dicitur dupliciter (Distinctio), scilicet possessorie et similitudinarie. Unde dicitur homo dominicus qui possidetur a Domino, vel qui est similis Domino. Et quia secundum utramque comparationem distinctionem4b dicit et disparationem eius de quo dicitur ad dominum, respectu cuius dicitur; cum Christus sit Dominus, non est concedendum, Christum esse hominem dominicum; est enim ipse vere Dominus. — Et ideo hoc retractat Augustinus5b ostendens, quod potest malum generare intellectum. — Posset tamen sane (Explicatur sane) intelligi ratione humanae naturae, quae a Domino possidetur et Domino assimilatur et a Domino causatur; et ideo sic retractat Augustinus, quod hoc modo potest habere sanum intellectum.
Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de aliis hominibus, dicendum, quod non est simile; non enim est tanta disparatio illius hominis ad Deum, quanta est aliorum hominum6b.
---
Doubts concerning the text of the Master.
Doubt I.
In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what is said: "The mystery of this union is inexplicable, which is not an account of parts." For it seems that in such a union there is part and part; because upon Leviticus, chapter five7: "the tenth part," etc. The Gloss of Hesychius: "The tenth part of the Ephah is the humanity of Christ. But the Ephah, a measure of three modii, signifies the Trinity." And as sign stands to sign, so the thing signified stands to the thing signified; but the sign is a part of the sign: therefore also the thing signified is a part of
the thing signified: therefore the humanity of Christ is a part of Christ. — Likewise, in the Symbol1 it is said: "As the rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ"; but soul and flesh are parts of man: therefore the humanity and the divinity are parts of Christ; the contrary of which is handed down in the same place2.
I respond: It must be said that "part" is said in many ways (It is answered: "part" is said in four ways). In one way "part" is said commonly of everything that enters into the composition3 of something, whether according to a real composition, or according to reason; and in this way those things which fall in a definition are said to be parts of the thing made known. — In another way "part" is said of that which enters into the constitution of something according to thing and nature, whether it have quantity or not; and in this way the soul is a part of the animated thing. — In a third way "part" is said more properly of that which enters into the constitution of something according to thing and nature, and according to continuous or discrete quantity, as a hand and a foot is a part of the body, and a pair a part of a quaternary. — In a fourth way "part" is said more properly of that which enters into the real or quantitative constitution of something according to a certain and determinate measure, such that, taken a number of times, it renders the whole; and this part is called aliquot, to which the notion of part most properly belongs4.
When, therefore, it is asked whether the human nature is a part of Christ; it must be said that, if "part" be taken commonly, in the first way, it can be conceded that it is a part. For if anyone should wish to make known what Christ is, he will say that he is one hypostasis in two natures, namely the divine and the human. But if "part" be taken properly, then the human nature is not called a part of Christ; and in this way the word of the Master in the text is understood. — And by this the reply to the objections is plain; for in such things the likeness is not in every respect5. (Note)
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about what Damascene says: "We do not say that man was deified, but that God was made man." For it seems false to say it. For as the divine nature is united to the human, so also the human to the divine: therefore as we say "God was made man" (humanatum), so also "man was deified" (deificatum). — Likewise, in the union of the divine nature to the human the divine nature is not diminished6, but the human is exalted: therefore the human nature is drawn more to conformity with the divine, than the divine to conformity with the human: therefore it ought rather to be said that in Christ the human nature is deified, than that the divine is made man. If you say that the denomination ought to be made from what is better known7b; this does not solve it, because the denomination ought to be made not only from what is better known, but also from what is more worthy. If you also say that to be made man predicates a habit, as the third opinion says8; this does not solve it: because it is not only said made man (humanatus), but it is said made man (factus homo): therefore if we must say that man is God, and God is man; it seems that there is no unfitness in saying that man was deified.
I respond: It must be said that this adjective humanatum (Resp. 1) predicates not only a habit, but also a union. Whence to say that God is made man (humanatum) is nothing other than to say that he is united to flesh9. But this which is deified, although it can import a union, imports at the same time order and antecedence. For deificatum is compounded from deitas and factum; whence deificatum is "to have been made God." And since the humanity does not precede the divinity, therefore Damascene does not concede this, that man was deified10.
Or it must be said that Damascene (Resp. 2) does not deny it simply, but that it is not so proper: "man was deified," as this is: "God was made man." For he himself says, in the third book11: "It must be known that the flesh was deified not according to an extermination of nature, or a confusion. For to say that the flesh is deified means as much as that it is joined to the deity." Therefore he does not deny the aforesaid locution as false simply, but it is not so proper as its converse12. — Force could also be made (Resp. 3) in this, that I say man, because on the side of the subject it stands for the hypostasis, but on the side of the predicate for the
form; but the hypostasis of this man is not thus deified, since it was always God, as it is made man, since it was not always man. — And thus both objections are made plain1b.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about what is said, that one does not say "lordly man" (homo dominicus), and it seems that this is to be conceded, by that which is had in the book of the Eighty-three Questions2b: "It must be admonished that those eternal goods be awaited, which were in the lordly man," for this is understood of Christ. If you say that this has been retracted; it is objected against this: that upon the first book of Kings, chapter one3b, the Gloss of Bede says: "Who is this man, if not the lordly man?": therefore if this can be said of other men, much more of Christ.
I respond: It must be said that this name dominicus, according to common usage, is said in two ways (Distinction), namely possessively and by likeness. Whence the lordly man is called he who is possessed by the Lord, or who is like the Lord. And because according to either comparison it says a distinction4b and a disparity of that of which it is said to the lord, with respect to whom it is said; since Christ is Lord, it is not to be conceded that Christ is a lordly man; for he himself is truly Lord. — And therefore Augustine retracts this5b, showing that it can generate an evil understanding. — Yet it could soundly (It is soundly explained) be understood by reason of the human nature, which is possessed by the Lord and assimilated to the Lord and caused by the Lord; and therefore Augustine retracts it in such a way that in this manner it can have a sound understanding.
But to that which is objected concerning other men, it must be said that it is not similar; for there is not so great a disparity of that man to God, as there is of other men6b.
---
- Vers. 11. — Hesychius, presbyter Hierosolym. († an. 428, secundum alios a. 433) sic scribit: Ephi autem mensura est trium mensurarum i. e. tres modios capiens. Ergo Christus est qui sacrificium offert, et ipse est sacrificium quod offertur. Ephi enim, cum sit mensura trium modiorum, evidenter Trinitatem innuit, quae una quidem mensura est, quia una in ea est Deitas. Tres autem habet mensuras i. e. tres personas perfectas, et tot subsistentias, ut manifestum sit, non nos peccare, eius partem carnem Domini dicentes, propter inseparabilem cum ea incarnati Verbi unitionem. Quare autem Trinitatis pars est? Quia indivisibilis eius est gloria et virtus, ita ut Paulus de Christo diceret: In ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter (Coloss. 2, 9.)... Ergo ephi quidem hic incarnatus Deus Verbum, utpote habens in se Trinitatis plenitudinem. Decima autem eius est caro; primum quidem, ut ostenderetur sublimitas divinitatis eius quantum ad humanitatem, propter quod et pars dicitur; deinde pro eo quod integro homine incarnatus est Deus Verbum et qui legem impleret. Utrumque enim decima significat, quia et perfectus est denarius numerus, decem autem mandata Legis sunt etc.Verse 11. — Hesychius, a presbyter of Jerusalem († A.D. 428, according to others 433), writes thus: "But the Ephah is a measure of three measures, i.e. holding three modii. Therefore Christ is he who offers the sacrifice, and he himself is the sacrifice that is offered. For the Ephah, since it is a measure of three modii, clearly indicates the Trinity, which is indeed one measure, because in it there is one Deity. But it has three measures, i.e. three perfect persons, and as many subsistences, so that it is plain that we do not sin in calling the flesh of the Lord a part of it, on account of the inseparable union of the incarnate Word with it. But why is it a part of the Trinity? Because its glory and power are indivisible, so that Paul said of Christ: In him dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily (Col. 2:9)... Therefore the Ephah here is indeed the incarnate God the Word, inasmuch as he has in himself the fullness of the Trinity. But the tenth of it is the flesh; first, that the sublimity of his divinity might be shown with respect to the humanity, on account of which it is also called a part; then because God the Word was incarnate in a whole man and one who would fulfill the Law. For the tenth signifies both, since ten is also a perfect number, and the commandments of the Law are ten," etc.
- Athanasiano.[The Athanasian Symbol.]
- Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2.Here in the text of the Master, c. 2.
- Cod. Z quod convenit in compositione. Mox edd. secundum rationalem pro secundum rationem, cuiusmodi pars est genus et differentia.Codex Z reads "which agrees in composition." Then the editions read secundum rationalem for secundum rationem — of which kind of part are genus and difference.
- Quadruplex haec acceptio termini partis habetur apud Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 30. (IV. c. 25.). Cfr. ibid. VII. text. 33. seqq. (VI. c. 10.). — Pro aliquota edd. aliquanta; perperam, siquidem pars aliquanta dicitur quae pluries sumta vel totum excedit, vel ab eo deficit ideoque totum nunquam adaequat. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 1, scholion. — Infra pro divina scilicet et humana edd. vitiose divinam scilicet et humanam.This fourfold acceptation of the term "part" is found in Aristotle, Metaphysics V, text 30 (IV, c. 25). Cf. ibid. VII, text 33 ff. (VI, c. 10). — For aliquota the editions read aliquanta; wrongly, since an aliquant part is said to be one which, taken several times, either exceeds the whole or falls short of it and therefore never equals the whole. Cf. I Sent. d. 2, q. 1, scholion. — Below, for divina scilicet et humana the editions faultily read divinam scilicet et humanam.
- Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 6. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic d. 6. a. 6; S. Thom., hic d. 6. q. 2. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. above d. 6, a. 1, q. 2; Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 6, m. 2, a. 3; Blessed Albert, here d. 6, a. 6; St. Thomas, here d. 6, q. 2, a. 3; Richard of Middleton, here on the text.
- Codd. F H U immutata.Codices F, H, U read immutata ["unchanged"].
- Cfr. supra pag. 47, nota 5; quoad seq. proposit. vide supra pag. 46, nota 5.Cf. above p. 47, note 5; as for the following proposition, see above p. 46, note 5.
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et supra d. VI. c. 1.See here the text of the Master, c. 2, and above d. VI, c. 1.
- Cfr. supra pag. 174, nota 2. — Mox post importat edd. subdunt tamen.Cf. above p. 174, note 2. — Then after importat the editions add tamen.
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2, ex quo textus huius dubii delibatus est. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1.On the Orthodox Faith, book III, c. 2, from which the text of this doubt has been drawn. Cf. above the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1.
- De Fide orthod. c. 17: Oportet scire, quod non secundum exterminationem [μεταβολήν i. e. immutationem] naturae... vel confusionem caro Domini deificata dicitur eiusdemque Deitatis consors (ὁμόθεος)... Haec enim non secundum exterminationem naturae, sed secundum dispensativam unionem sive secundum hypostasim dico, secundum quam inseparabiliter [caro] Deo Verbo coniuncta est etc. — Pro exterminationem Vat. aestimationem, edd. 1, 2 cum aliquibus codd. extimationem.On the Orthodox Faith, c. 17: "It must be known that the flesh of the Lord is said to be deified not according to an extermination [μεταβολήν, i.e. change] of nature... or a confusion, and to be a consort of the same Deity (ὁμόθεος)... For I say this not according to an extermination of nature, but according to a dispensative union, that is, according to the hypostasis, in accordance with which [the flesh] is inseparably joined to God the Word," etc. — For exterminationem the Vatican reads aestimationem, editions 1, 2 with some codices extimationem.
- Scilicet: Deus est factus homo sive est humanatus. — Vat. sicut est eius conversa, codd. AGH, NTUXaa et edit. 1, 2 minus recte sicut et eius conversa, de qua lectione cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. Subinde pro Posset etiam codd. FG Posset tamen, alii Posset enim. Mox pro subiecti codd. W Y verbi.That is: "God was made man," or "was made man" (est humanatus). — The Vatican reads sicut est eius conversa, codices AGH, NTUXaa and editions 1, 2 less correctly sicut et eius conversa; concerning which reading, cf. above a. 1, q. 2. Then for Posset etiam codices FG read Posset tamen, others Posset enim. Then for subiecti codices W, Y read verbi.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.Concerning this doubt, cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
- Quaest. 35. n. 2: « Monendumque, ne peritura beneficia et transeuntia exspectentur a Deo... sed firma et sempiterna... Hic praestantissimum illud et unicum exemplum dominici hominis proponendum est, qui cum se tot miraculis tantam rerum potestatem habere monstraret, et ea sprevit quae magna bona, et ea sustinuit quae magna mala imperiti putant » etc. Libr. I. Retract. c. 19. n. 8. August. locutionem homo dominicus retractat. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.Question 35, n. 2: "And it must be admonished that perishing and passing benefits not be awaited from God... but firm and everlasting ones... Here that most excellent and unique example of the lordly man must be set forth, who, although he showed by so many miracles that he had such great power over things, both spurned those things which the inexperienced think great goods, and endured those things which they think great evils," etc. In Retractations book I, c. 19, n. 8, Augustine retracts the locution homo dominicus. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.
- Vers. 20: Vocavitque nomen eius Samuel. In quem locum Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum dicit: « Id est Deus. Annae primogenitus propheta. Quis est hic nisi dominicus homo? » Beda in hunc locum (I. in Samuel. proph. allegoric. exposit. c. 3.) ait: Interpretatur enim [Samuel] ibi ipse Deus sive nomen eius Deus.Verse 20: "And she called his name Samuel." On which place the ordinary Gloss, in Strabo and Lyra, says: "That is, God. The firstborn prophet of Anna. Who is this if not the lordly man?" Bede on this place (book I on the prophet Samuel, allegorical exposition, c. 3) says: "For [Samuel] there is interpreted God himself, or his name is God."
- Edd. divisionem.The editions read divisionem ["division"].
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Paulo ante pro vere Dominus codd. verus Dominus. Paulo post pro generare codd. G Z bb aggenerare.See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — A little before, for vere Dominus the codices read verus Dominus. A little after, for generare codices G, Z, bb read aggenerare.
- De hoc dubio tractant B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2; Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.This doubt is treated by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2; Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 2. ---