Hoc igitur expedito aequiuocationis atque ambiguitatis nodo nihil est ultra quod possit opponi, quin id sit quod firma ueraque fides catholica continet; eundem Christum hominem esse perfectum, eundem deum eundemque qui h.o.m.o sit perfectus atque deus unum esse deum ac dei filium, nec quaternitatem trinitati adstrui, dum h.o.m.o additur supra perfectum deum, sed unam eandemque personam numerum trinitatis explere, ut c.u.m humanitas pa.s.sa sit, deus tamen pa.s.sus esse dicatur, non quo ipsa deitas humanitas facta sit, sed quod a deitate fuerit adsumpta. Item qui h.o.m.o est, dei filius appellatur non substantia diuinitatis sed humanitatis, quae tamen diuinitati naturali unitate coniuncta est. Et c.u.m haec ita intellegentia discernantur permisceanturque, tamen unus idemque et h.o.m.o sit perfectus et deus: deus quidem, quod ipse sit ex patris substantia genitus, h.o.m.o uero, quod ex Maria sit uirgine procreatus. Itemque qui h.o.m.o, deus eo quod a deo fuerit adsumptus, et qui deus, h.o.m.o, quoniam uest.i.tus homine sit. c.u.mque in eadem persona aliud sit diuinitas quae suscepit, aliud quam suscepit humanitas, idem tamen deus atque h.o.m.o est. Nam si hominem intellegas, idem h.o.m.o est atque deus, quoniam h.o.m.o ex natura, deus adsumptione. Si uero deum intellegas, idem deus est atque h.o.m.o, quoniam natura deus est, h.o.m.o adsumptione. Fitque in eo gemina natura geminaque substantia, quoniam h.o.m.o- deus unaque persona, quoniam idem h.o.m.o atque deus. Mediaque est haec inter duas haereses uia sicut uirtutes quoque medium tenent. Omnis enim uirtus in medio rerum decore locata consist.i.t. Siquid enim uel ultra uel infra quam oportuerit fiat, a uirtute disceditur. Medietatem igitur uirtus tenet.
Quocirca si quattuor haec neque ultra neque infra esse possunt, ut in Christo aut duae naturae sint duaeque personae ut Nestorius ait, aut una persona unaque natura ut Eutyches ait, aut duae naturae sed una persona ut catholica fides credit, aut una natura duaeque personae,[73] c.u.mque duas quidem naturas duasque personas in ea quae contra Nestorium dicta est responsione conuicerimus (unam uero personam unamque naturam esse non posse Eutyche proponente monstrauimus neque tamen tam amens quisquam huc usque exst.i.tit, ut unam in eo naturam crederet sed geminas esse personas), restat ut ea sit uera quam fides catholica p.r.o.nuntiat geminam substantiam sed unam esse personam. Quia uero paulo ante diximus Eutychen confiteri duas quidem in Christo ante adunationem naturas, unam uero post adunationem, c.u.mque hunc errorem duplicem interpretaremur celare sententiam, ut haec adunatio aut generatione fieret, c.u.m ex Maria corpus hominis minime sumeretur aut ad sumptum[74] quidem ex Maria per resurrectionem fieret adunatio, de utrisque quidem partibus idonee ut arbitror disputatum est. Nunc quaerendum est quomodo fieri potuerit ut duae naturae in unam substantiam miscerentur.
[73] quod nullus haereticus adhuc attigit _addunt codices quidam_.
[74] sumptum _codd._; adsumptum _preli diabolus_, ad sumptum _nos_.
VII.
It remains for us to show how in accordance with the affirmation of Catholic belief Christ consists at once in and of both natures.
The statement that a thing consists of two natures bears two meanings; one, when we say that anything is a union of two natures, as e.g. honey and water, where the union is such that in the combination, however the elements be confounded, whether by one nature changing into the other, or by both mingling with each other, the two entirely disappear. This is the way in which according to Eutyches Christ consists of two natures.
The other way in which a thing can consist of two natures is when it is so combined of two that the elements of which it is said to be combined continue without changing into each other, as when we say that a crown is composed of gold and gems. Here neither is the gold converted into gems nor is the gem turned into gold, but both continue without surrendering their proper form.
Things then like this, composed of various elements, we say consist also in the elements of which they are composed. For in this case we can say that a crown is composed of gems and gold, for gems and gold are that in which the crown consists. For in the former mode of composition honey and water is not that in which the resulting union of both consists.
Since then the Catholic Faith confesses that both natures continue in Christ and that they both remain perfect, neither being transformed into the other, it says with right that Christ consists both in and of the two natures; _in_ the two because both continue, _of_ the two because the One Person of Christ is formed by the union of the two continuing natures.
But the Catholic Faith does not hold the union of Christ out of two natures according to that sense which Eutyches puts upon it. For the interpretation of the conjunction out of two natures which he adopts forbids him to confess consistence in two or the continuance of the two either; but the Catholic adopts an interpretation of the consistence out of two which comes near to that of Eutyches, yet keeps the interpretation which confesses consistence in two.
"To consist of two natures" is therefore an equivocal or rather a doubtful term of double meaning denoting different things; according to one of its interpretations the substances out of which the union is said to have been composed do not continue, according to another the union effected of the two is such that both natures continue.
When once this knot of doubt or ambiguity has been untied, nothing further can be advanced to shake the true and solid content of the Catholic Faith, which is that the same Christ is perfect man and G.o.d, and that He who is perfect man and G.o.d is One G.o.d and Son of Man, that, however, quaternity is not added to the Trinity by the addition of human nature to perfect G.o.dhead, but that one and the same Person completes the number of the Trinity, so that, although it was the manhood which suffered, yet G.o.d can be said to have suffered, not by manhood becoming G.o.dhead but by manhood being a.s.sumed by G.o.dhead. Further, He who is man is called Son of G.o.d not in virtue of divine but of human substance, which latter none the less was conjoined to G.o.dhead in a unity of natures. And although thought is able to distinguish and combine the manhood and the G.o.dhead, yet one and the same is perfect man and G.o.d, G.o.d because He was begotten of the substance of the Father, but man because He was engendered of the Virgin Mary. And further He who is man is G.o.d in that manhood was a.s.sumed by G.o.d, and He who is G.o.d is man in that G.o.d was clothed with manhood. And although in the same Person the G.o.dhead which took manhood is different from the manhood which It took, yet the same is G.o.d and man. For if you think of man, the same is man and G.o.d, being man by nature, G.o.d by a.s.sumption. But if you think of G.o.d, the same is G.o.d and man, being G.o.d by nature, man by a.s.sumption.
And in Him nature becomes double and substance double because He is G.o.d- man, and One Person since the same is man and G.o.d. This is the middle way between two heresies, just as virtues also hold a middle place.[75]
For every virtue has a place of honour midway between extremes. For if it stands beyond or below where it should it ceases to be virtue. And so virtue holds a middle place.
Wherefore if the following four a.s.sertions can be said to be neither beyond or below reason, viz. that in Christ are either two Natures and two Persons as Nestorius says, or one Person and one Nature as Eutyches says, or two Natures but one Person as the Catholic Faith believes, or one Nature and two Persons, and inasmuch as we have refuted the doctrine of two Natures and two Persons in our argument against Nestorius and incidentally have shown that the one Person and one Nature suggested by Eutyches is impossible--since there has never been anyone so mad as to believe that His Nature was single but His Person double--it remains that the article of belief must be true which the Catholic Faith affirms, viz. that the Nature is double, but the Person one. But as I have just now remarked that Eutyches confesses two Natures in Christ before the union, but only one after the union, and since I proved that under this error lurked two opposite opinions, one, that the union was brought about by conception although the human body was certainly not taken from Mary; the other, that the body taken from Mary formed part of the union by means of the Resurrection, I have, it seems to me, argued the twofold aspect of the case as completely as it deserves. What we have now to inquire is how it came to pa.s.s that two Natures were combined into one Substance.
[75] _Vide supra_, p. 100 note.
VIII.
Verumtamen est etiam nunc et alia quaestio quae ab his inferri potest qui corpus humanum ex Maria sumptum esse non credunt, sed alias fuisse sequestratum praeparatumque quod in adunatione ex Mariae utero gigni ac proferri uideretur. Aiunt enim: si ex homine sumptum est corpus, h.o.m.o uero omnis ex prima praeuaricatione non solum peccato et morte tenebatur, uerum etiam affectibus peccatorum erat implicitus, eaque illi fuit poena peccati, ut, c.u.m morte teneretur obstrictus, tamen esset reus etiam uoluntate peccandi, cur in Christo neque peccatum fuit neque uoluntas ulla peccandi?
Et omnino habet animaduertendam dubitationem talis quaestio. Si enim ex carne humana Christi corpus adsumptum est, dubitari potest, quaenam caro haec quae adsumpta sit esse uideatur. Eum quippe saluauit quem etiam adsumpsit; sin uero talem hominem adsumpsit qualis Adam fuit ante peccatum, integram quidem uidetur humanam adsumpsisse naturam, sed tamen quae medicina penitus non egebat. Quomodo autem fieri potest, ut talem adsumpserit hominem qualis Adam fuit, c.u.m in Adam potuerit esse peccandi uoluntas atque affectio, unde factum est ut etiam praetergressis diuinis praeceptis in.o.boedientiae delictis teneretur adstrictus? In Christo uero ne uoluntas quidem ulla creditur fuisse peccandi, c.u.m praesertim si tale corpus hominis adsumpsit quale Adae ante peccatum fuit, non debuerit esse mortalis, quoniam Adam, si non pecca.s.set, mortem nulla ratione sensisset.
c.u.m igitur Christus non peccauerit, quaerendum est cur senserit mortem, si Adae corpus ante quam peccaret adsumpsit. Quod si talem statum suscepit hominis qualis Adae post peccatum fuit, uidetur etiam Christo non defuisse necessitas, ut et delictis subiceretur et pa.s.sionibus confunderetur obductisque iudicii regulis bonum a malo non sincera integritate discerneret, quoniam has omnes poenas Adam delicti praeuaricatione suscepit.
Contra quos respondendum est tres intellegi hominum posse status: unum quidem Adae ante delictum in quo, tametsi ab eo mors aberat nec adhuc ullo se delicto polluerat, poterat tamen in eo uoluntas esse peccandi: alter in quo mutari potuisset, si firmiter in dei praeceptis manere uoluisset, tunc enim id addendum foret ut non modo non peccaret aut peccare uellet sed ne posset quidem aut peccare aut uelle delinquere. Tertius status est post delictum in quo mors illum necessario subsecuta est et peccatum ipsum uoluntasque peccati. Quorum summitatum atque contrariorum haec loca sunt: is status qui praemium esset, si in praeceptis dei Adam manere uoluisset et is qui poenae fuit, quoniam manere noluit; in illo enim nec mors esset nec peccatum nec uoluntas ulla peccati, in hoc uero et mors et peccatum et delinquendi omnis affectio omniaque in perniciem p.r.o.na nec quicquam in se opis habentia, ut post lapsum posset adsurgere. Ille uero medius status in quo praesentia quidem mortis uel peccati aberat, potestas uero utriusque constabat, inter utrumque statum est conlocatus. Ex his igitur tribus statibus Christus corporeae naturae singulas quodam modo indidit causas; nam quod mortale corpus adsumpsit ut mortem a genere humano fugaret, in eo statu ponendum est quod post Adae praeuaricationem poenaliter inflictum est. Quod uero non fuit in eo uoluntas ulla peccati, ex eo sumptum est statu qui esse potuisset, nisi uoluntatem insidiantis fraudibus applica.s.set. Restat igitur tertius status id est medius, ille scilicet qui eo tempore fuit, c.u.m nec mors aderat et adesse poterat delinquendi uoluntas. In hoc igitur Adam talis fuit ut manducaret ac biberet, ut accepta digereret, ut laberetur in somnum et alia quae ei non defuerunt humana quidem sed concessa et quae nullam poenam mortis inferrent.
Quae omnia habuisse Christum dubium non est; nam et manducauit et bibit et humani corporis officio functus est. Neque enim tanta indigentia in Adam fuisse credenda est ut nisi manduca.s.set uiuere non potuisset, sed, si ex omni quidem ligno escam sumeret, semper uiuere potuisset hisque non mori; idcirco paradisi fructibus indigentiam explebat. Quam indigentiam fuisse in Christo nullus ignorat, sed potestate non necessitate; et ipsa indigentia ante resurrectionem in eo fuit, post resurrectionem uero talis exst.i.tit ut ita illud corpus inmutaretur humanum, sicut Adae praeter praeuaricationis uinculum mutari potuisset. Quodque nos ipse dominus Iesus Christus uotis docuit optare, ut fiat uoluntas eius sicut in caelo et in terra et ut adueniat eius regnum et nos liberet a malo. Haec enim omnia illa beatissima humani generis fideliter credentium inmutatio deprecatur.
Haec sunt quae ad te de fidei meae credulitate scripsi. Qua in re si quid perperam dictum est, non ita sum amator mei, ut ea quae semel effuderim meliori sententiae anteferre contendam. Si enim nihil est ex n.o.bis boni, nihil est quod in nostris sententiis amare debeamus. Quod si ex illo cuncta sunt bona qui solus est bonus, illud potius bonum esse credendum est quod illa incommutabilis bonitas atque omnium bonorum causa perscribit.
VIII.
Nevertheless there remains yet another question which can be advanced by those who do not believe that the human body was taken from Mary, but that the body was in some other way set apart and prepared, which in the moment of union appeared to be conceived and born of Mary"s womb. For they say: if the body was taken from man while every man was, from the time of the first disobedience, not only enslaved by sin and death but also involved in sinful desires, and if his punishment for sin was that, although he was held in chains of death, yet at the same time he should be guilty because of the will to sin, why was there in Christ neither sin nor any will to sin? And certainly such a question is attended by a difficulty which deserves attention. For if the body of Christ was a.s.sumed from human flesh, it is open to doubt of what kind we must consider that flesh to be which was a.s.sumed.
In truth, the manhood which He a.s.sumed He likewise saved; but if He a.s.sumed such manhood as Adam had before sin, He appears to have a.s.sumed a human nature complete indeed, but one which was in no need of healing.
But how can it be that He a.s.sumed such manhood as Adam had when there could be in Adam both the will and the desire to sin, whence it came to pa.s.s that even after the divine commands had been broken, he was still held captive to sins of disobedience? But we believe that in Christ there was never any will to sin, because especially if He a.s.sumed such a human body as Adam had before his sin, He could not be mortal, since Adam, had he not sinned, would in no wise have suffered death. Since, then, Christ never sinned, it must be asked why He suffered death if He a.s.sumed the body of Adam before sin. But if He accepted human conditions such as Adam"s were after sin, it seems that Christ could not avoid being subject to sin, perplexed by pa.s.sions, and, since the canons of judgment were obscured, prevented from distinguishing with unclouded reason between good and evil, since Adam by his disobedience incurred all these penalties of crime.
To whom we must reply[76] that there are three states of man to envisage: one, that of Adam before his sin, in which, though free from death and still unstained by any sin, he could yet have within him the will to sin; the second, that in which he might have suffered change had he chosen to abide steadfastly in the commands of G.o.d, for then it could have been further granted him not only not to sin or wish to sin, but to be incapable of sinning or of the will to transgress. The third state is the state after sin, into which man needs must be pursued by death and sin and the sinful will. Now the points of extreme divergence between these states are the following: one state would have been for Adam a reward if he had chosen to abide in G.o.d"s laws; the other was his punishment because he would not abide in them; for in the former state there would have been no death nor sin nor sinful will, in the latter there was both death and sin and every desire to transgress, and a general tendency to ruin and a condition helpless to render possible a rise after the Fall. But that middle state from which actual death or sin was absent, but the power for both remained, is situate between the other two.
Each one, then, of these three states somehow supplied to Christ a cause for his corporeal nature; thus His a.s.sumption of a mortal body in order to drive death far from the human race belongs properly to that state which was laid on man by way of punishment after Adam"s sin, whereas the fact that there was in Christ no sinful will is borrowed from that state which might have been if Adam had not surrendered his will to the frauds of the tempter. There remains, then, the third or middle state, to wit, that which was before death had come and while the will to sin might yet be present. In this state, therefore, Adam was able to eat and drink, digest the food he took, fall asleep, and perform all the other functions which always belonged to him as man, though they were allowed and brought with them no pain of death.
There is no doubt that Christ was in all points thus conditioned; for He ate and drank and discharged the bodily function of the human body. For we must not think that Adam was at the first subject to such need that unless he ate he could not have lived, but rather that, if he had taken food from every tree, he could have lived for ever, and by that food have escaped death; and so by the fruits of the Garden he satisfied a need.[77] And all know that in Christ the same need dwelt, but lying in His own power and not laid upon Him. And this need was in Him before the Resurrection, but after the Resurrection He became such that His human body was changed as Adam"s might have been but for the bands of disobedience. Which state, moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us to desire in our prayers, asking that His Will be done as in heaven so on earth, and that His Kingdom come, and that He may deliver us from evil. For all these things are sought in prayer by those members of the human family who rightly believe and who are destined to undergo that most blessed change of all.[78]
So much have I written to you concerning what I believe should be believed. In which matter if I have said aught amiss, I am not so well pleased with myself as to try to press my effusions in the face of wiser judgment. For if there is no good thing in us there is nothing we should fancy in our opinions. But if all things are good as coming from Him who alone is good, that rather must be thought good which the Unchangeable Good and Cause of all Good indites.
[76] This _respondendum_ has the true Thomist ring.
[77] Adam did not need to eat in order to live, but if he had not eaten he would have suffered hunger, etc.
[78] The whole of this pa.s.sage might be set in _Tr._ iv. without altering the tone.
ANICII MANLII SEVERINI BOETHII
V.C. ET INL. EXCONS. ORD. EX MAG. OFF. PATRICII
PHILOSOPHIAE CONSOLATIONIS
LIBER I.
I.
Carmina qui quondam studio florente peregi, Flebilis heu maestos cogor inire modos.
Ecce mihi lacerae dictant scribenda Camenae Et ueris elegi fletibus ora rigant.