Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 5
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/5/q/bon-sent-III-d5-a2-q5
----------------------------------------
### Question V. *Whether this is to be conceded: the Son of God assumed humanity.*

Fifthly it is asked whether this is to be conceded: the Son of God assumed humanity. And that it is so, it seems.

(*Fundamentals.*)

1. Damascene: "All things which He planted in our nature, the Word of God assumed"; but to each of us He gave humanity: therefore it seems that He assumed humanity.

2. Likewise, humanity is nothing other than the nature of man, according to what Damascene says: "The names 'divinity' and 'humanity' are representative of a nature"; but this is simply to be conceded: the Son of God assumed human nature: therefore also this: the Son of God assumed humanity.

3. Likewise, humanity is the form of man; but this is simply conceded: the Son of God assumed the form of man, as is said in Philippians, chapter two: *He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant:* therefore also this: the Son of God assumed humanity.

4. Likewise, this is simply true: the Son of God has humanity; and He did not have it from eternity, but temporally: therefore it seems that He assumed it.

**On the contrary:** (*To the opposite.*) 1. Humanity follows upon the union of soul with body; but the soul and the body were not united prior to being assumed: therefore if the thing assumed precedes, according to the natural order, the assumption itself, it seems that this is false: the Son of God assumed humanity.

2. Likewise, the name *humanity* signifies more in abstraction than does the name *man:* therefore if "God did not assume human nature in the universal, but in the individual," then this is more improper: He assumed humanity, than: He assumed a man: therefore it is false.

3. Likewise, if He assumed humanity and never laid aside what He assumed, He always had humanity; but what has humanity is always a man always; therefore in the three days [in the tomb] He was a man.

(*Incidental question.*) In connection with this it is asked: what is understood by the name *humanity* when it is said that the Son of God assumed humanity?

### Conclusion.

> It is to be conceded that the Son of God assumed humanity.

**I respond:** (*"Humanity" is said in three ways.*) It must be said that the name *humanity* is customarily taken in three ways: in one way, by *humanity* can be understood the *constituent principles* of man; in another way, by *humanity* can be understood the *form following upon* the whole composite; in a third way, by the name *humanity* can be understood the *property following upon* man himself, insofar as he is a man. And this threefold understanding is had from the words of the Master, in the second distinction, where the Master confirms and shows, on the authority of Jerome, that by the name *humanity* the body and the soul are understood.

(*The conclusion with its threefold application.*) Now in all these ways it must be conceded that the Son of God assumed humanity. For if by the name *humanity* are understood the *constituent principles* of man, namely the soul and the flesh, it is without doubt true that the Son of God assumed humanity, that is, a soul and flesh. — Likewise, if by the name *humanity* is understood the *form of the whole,* it still holds the truth: the Son of God assumed humanity, that is, a human form, according to that which is said in Philippians, chapter two: *He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.* — Finally, if by the name *humanity* is understood the *property following upon* it, it still holds the truth: the Son of God assumed human nature, because He assumed not only our human nature, but also its consequent properties, as Damascene says. — (*Corollary.*) But if anyone understands *only* in this last way that He assumed humanity, that is, the property of man, he errs concerning the truth of the Incarnation. For one must hold that in this threefold manner of speaking the Son of God assumed human nature. — And the reasons adduced for this side are to be conceded.

(*Solution of the opposing arguments.*) 1. As for what is objected, that humanity follows upon the union; it must be said that it follows upon the union of the soul to the body insofar as they are united into the constitution of a nature, not insofar as they are united into the unity of a person. — (*Another solution with a distinction.*) It could also be said that since some things are *first assumed* and some *co-assumed;* and although the soul and the body are first assumed by the Word, nevertheless all the things which follow upon them can be called *co-assumed.* Hence, because the soul and the body had the property of passibility, the Son of God assumed passibility. And in this manner it must be conceded that He assumed humanity, just as it is conceded that He assumed passibility, although it is not conceded that He assumed Himself as passible, but that by assuming passibility He made Himself passible. Thus it is conceded that He assumed humanity, although it is not conceded that He assumed Himself as a man.

2. As for what is objected concerning abstraction, it must be said that it tells rather for the opposite than for the proposed view. (*Note.*) For because it signifies *abstractly,* it therefore signifies in a certain diversity from the supposit; and therefore that condition of the assumption can be safeguarded, which indeed is the distinction of the one assuming from the thing assumed; but it is not so in this, that it is called *man*.

3. As for what is objected, that He never laid aside what He assumed; it must be said that this is understood with respect to the *principles of the nature,* which were first assumed, namely the soul and the flesh; but with respect to the *co-assumed* it does not hold the truth; for He laid aside passibility. (*Note.*) But if *humanity* is taken in this way, by reason of the principles constituting man, then He never laid aside humanity. But from this it does not follow: in the three days [in the tomb] He had humanity, therefore He was a man; because the principles of man do not make a man, except insofar as they are joined *to one another* and are united into the *unity of a person;* and one of these modes was lacking in the three days. But if by the name *humanity* is understood the form itself following upon the composite, or the property itself; it is not necessary that in the three days Christ had humanity; because, as has been said, such things were not first assumed, but rather co-assumed.

(*To the incidental question.*) 4. As for what was asked last, the response is clear from the things which have already been said.