Dist. 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-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION V.

### Chap. I. *Whether person or nature has assumed person [or nature], and whether the nature of God has been incarnate.*

Further, it must be inquired, since from what precedes it is established that the Word of God assumed flesh and soul together into the unity of person, which of these is rather to be granted, namely whether person assumed person, or nature nature, or person nature, or nature person; and whether it is fitting to say in this way that the divine nature has been incarnate, just as God is rightly said to be incarnate and the Word incarnate. *(The four principal questions.)* — This inquiry, or manner of seeking, according to the testimonies of the sacred authorities, is partly implicit and perplexed, partly explicit and open. *(An incidental question.)* For it is certain and true without ambiguity that not nature assumed person, nor person person, but person assumed nature. *(Reply to the 3rd question.)* This is confirmed by the testimonies set down by the Saints and is established by documents. For Augustine says in the book *On Faith, to Peter*: *(Fulgentius.)* «The only-begotten God, while he was being conceived, took the truth of flesh from the Virgin; and when he was born, he preserved the integrity of virginity in his Mother». And a little after: «Thus God took up human nature into the unity of person, in that, humbling himself through mercy, he filled the womb of the incorrupt Virgin, about to be born of her. Therefore that God took the form of a servant, that is the nature of a servant, into his own person». Likewise: «For God the Word did not take the person of man, but the nature». Likewise: «The only-begotten Son of God, that he might cleanse the flesh and soul of man, was incarnate by the assumption of flesh and rational soul». — By these and many other authorities it is evidently shown that not nature took person, nor person person, but person took nature. — But concerning the fourth article of the question *(the 4th question)*, namely whether nature assumed nature, there is a question scrupulous even among the learned, because in this too those who were eminent in authority and more learned than others in sacred Scripture seem greatly to disagree. And not only do some differ from others, but even the same authors seem to be at variance with themselves, as the chapters set down below teach.

For it is read that in the Sixth Council of Toledo this was handed down *(Authorities for the 1st part.)*: «The Word alone was made flesh and dwelt among us; and although the whole Trinity wrought the formation of the man assumed — since the works of the Trinity are inseparable — yet the Son alone took the man into the singularity of person, not into the unity of the divine nature, that is, that which is proper to the Son, not what is common

to the Trinity». Likewise in the Eleventh Council of Toledo: «We believe the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be of one substance; yet we do not say that the Virgin Mary begot the unity of this Trinity, but only the Son, who alone assumed our nature into the unity of his person. The Incarnation of this Son of God also is to be believed to have been wrought by the whole Trinity; yet the Son alone took the form of a servant into the singularity of person». — By these it seems to be intimated that person only assumed nature, not nature nature. For if what is common to the Trinity did not take man: therefore neither did the divine nature, which is common to the three persons. *(For the 2nd part.)* — To this there seems to be opposed what Augustine says in the book *On Faith, to Peter* *(Doubt 1.)*: «Neither, he says, is the divinity of Christ foreign to the nature of the Father, according to that which in the beginning was the Word; nor is his humanity foreign to the nature of the Mother, according to that which the Word was made flesh. For that nature which ever remains begotten from the Father took up our nature without sin, that it might be born of the Virgin». — By this authority it seems to be conveyed that the divine nature took up the human; in which we can be greatly moved, because he says that it was begotten eternally from the Father, unless perhaps he here takes nature for person; otherwise, if we should say that the nature common to the three persons was begotten, there occur against us the things which we discussed in the treatise *On the Trinity*, where we said that not nature begot nature, but person person; because, if nature had begotten nature, since the nature of the Trinity is one and the same, the same thing would have begotten itself; which Augustine denies can come to pass. — But elsewhere we find a sure document by which it is shown that nature assumed nature. For Augustine says *(Augustine.)* in the first book *On the Trinity*: «Christ was made less even than himself, taking the form of a servant. For he did not so take the form of a servant as to lose the form of God, in which he was equal to the Father, so that both in the form of a servant and in the form of God he himself is the only-begotten Son of the Father, because the form of God took the form of a servant». But if the form of God took the form of a servant, without doubt nature took nature. For by the name of *form* nature is signified, as Augustine evidently teaches in the book *On Faith, to Peter* *(Doubt 2.)*: «When, he says, you hear concerning Christ that he was in the form of God, you must acknowledge and most firmly hold that in him by the name of *form* natural fullness ought to be understood. He was therefore in the form of God, because he was ever in the nature of God the Father, of which he was born». Hilary too in the twelfth book *On the Trinity* says: «To be in the form of God is no other understanding than to remain in the nature of God». — You have learned that by the name of *form* an understanding of nature comes about, and you have heard that the form of God took up the form of a servant; whence it follows that the divine nature took up the human nature. This also Jerome *(Jerome.)* in his *Exposition of the Faith* evidently intimates, saying: «The Son of God suffered, not in appearance, but truly; according to that he suffered which was able to suffer, that is not according to that substance which assumed, but according to that which was assumed». — From which it appears that the divine substance assumed the human. — But from the words of Augustine set down above, if diligence be applied, it seems to be intimated that the Word alone was made flesh and took up the human nature alone, and that the divine nature took up the same. For he says: «The Trinity reconciled us to itself through this, that the Trinity itself made the Word alone flesh. In which the incommutable truth of the divine and human nature so remains, that just as his divinity, which he has from the Father, is ever true, so his humanity, which the supreme divinity bears united to itself, is ever true and incommutable». — Behold, he said both that the Word alone was made flesh, and that the humanity was united to the divinity. The same author also said above that «the servile form was taken up by the Son alone, which the whole Trinity made». Now it is easy to recognize how diverse and manifold are the things the authors handed down upon the proposed question; and therefore those who come after, reading them, bring forth various and contrary opinions, taking occasion from the foregoing.

But we, desiring to remove every mark of falsehood and contradiction from the sacred Pages, agree with the orthodox Fathers and catholic doctors, marked with no suspicion of perverse understanding, saying both that the person of the Son assumed human nature, and that the divine nature was united to the human nature in the Son, and united or assumed it to itself. *(Concord of the authorities.)* Whence it is also truly said to be incarnate. *(On the divine nature incarnate.)* But as to what is said, that the Son alone took the form of a servant, by this the divine nature is not excluded from the taking of the servile form, but the other two persons, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. Likewise that other point also, namely that «that which is proper to the Son, not what is common to the Trinity, took man», must be so understood, that is, that properly in the hypostasis of the Son, not in the three persons in common, the divine nature united the human nature to itself. This sense is confirmed by the words of John Damascene, who evidently asserts that the whole divine nature was incarnate in one of the hypostases, saying: «In the becoming-human of God the Word we say that the whole and perfect nature of the deity was incarnate in one of his hypostases, that is, that it was united to the human nature, and not part to part. For we say that to all human nature the whole nature or substance of the deity was united». *(Doubt 3.)* Likewise: «The nature is the same in each of the hypostases, that is, of the persons; and when we say that the nature of the Word was incarnate, according to the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we say that the deity was united to the flesh, and we confess one incarnate nature of God the Word. But the Word possesses both what is common to the substance and what belongs to property, having a hypostasis», that is, a per-

son. — From these things it is manifestly shown that the divine nature was incarnate. Whence the same is also truly said to have taken up the human nature.

### Chap. II. *Whether the divine nature ought to be said to have been made flesh.*

But it is asked whether the same divine nature ought to be said to have been made flesh, just as the Word is said to have been made flesh. For if to be incarnate is the same as to be made flesh, it can seem that it ought to be said in this way, that it has been made flesh, just as it is said to be incarnate. *(The incidental question is resolved.)* — To which we say that, if that expression were found in sacred Scripture, it would be taken in the same understanding by which, when it is said, it is incarnate. But because authority has kept silence on that, and the mode of expression would seem to make an excessive declaration, if the divine nature were said to have been made flesh; I think it better to keep silent on this or to deny it than rashly to assert it, lest, if it be said, a convertibility of nature into nature be thought to be signified. — From what precedes it is indubitably established that the person of the Word, or the nature *of the man*, assumed nature, namely flesh and soul, but not the person of man. But if the divine nature took the nature of man *(Objection.)*, why is it not said to have been made man, or to be man, just as the Word of God? *(Solution.)* — To which it can be said that the Son of God is said to have been made man, or to be man, not only because he assumed man, but because he took him into the unity and singularity of himself, that is, of his person. But the divine nature indeed took man, that is, it united the form of man to itself, but not into the singularity and unity of itself. For, the property and diversity of the two natures being preserved, the singularity of person came to be. And therefore the divine nature is not said to be man, or made man, in the same way as the Son of God. *(Doubt 4.)* — Some, however, indifferently concede both.

### Chap. III. *Why he did not take the person of man, although he assumed man, which some endeavor to prove.*

But he did not take the *person* of man for this reason, that *(He returns to the principal question.)* that flesh and that soul were not united into one person, which he assumed, because the person was not constituted from them, when the Word was united to them. For they are united to one another at the same time, when they are united to the Word. Yet by one union those two are united to one another, namely soul and flesh, by another union they are united to the Word; because one is the union of that soul to the flesh, and another is the union of the Word to that soul and flesh. Therefore the Word of God did not take the person of man, but the nature, because there was not from that flesh and that soul one composite person which the Word might have taken, but by taking he united and by uniting he took. *(It is objected.)* Here it is objected by some that person assumed person. For person is «a rational substance of individual nature»; but this is the soul: therefore if he assumed the soul, he also assumed person. *(Reply.)* — Which does not follow for this reason, that the soul is not a person when it is united personally to another thing, but when it exists through itself. For absolved from a body it is a person, like an Angel. But that soul never was without being joined to another thing. And therefore, it being assumed, person was not assumed. *(It is objected again.)* — In another way too they endeavor to prove that the Word of God assumed person, because he assumed a certain man. For he assumed the man Jesus Christ: therefore a certain man. And that he assumed the man Jesus Christ, Augustine in his *Exposition of the Symbol* hands down under anathema, saying: «If anyone shall say and believe that the man Jesus Christ was not assumed by the Son of God, let him be anathema». He also in many places of Scripture uses expressions of this kind: «that man was assumed by the Word of God»; «that man was made Christ». And the Prophet, speaking of the man Christ, says to God *(Reply.)*: *Blessed is he whom you have chosen and assumed.* From which it seems to follow that a certain man was assumed by the Word, and so that person was assumed by person. — But because this is impious to say or to think, the foregoing expressions and those like them must be soundly understood according to this understanding, that the man Christ, or that man, or a certain man is said to be assumed by the Word or united to the Word, not because the person of man was assumed or united to the Word, but because that soul and that flesh were assumed and united to the Word, in whom subsists the person of God and man, so that you may look to the nature of man, not to the person, when Scripture mentions «assumed», or «united», or «a certain one», or «some one» in expressions of this kind. Wherefore, when it is asked, without an authority proposed, whether some, or a certain man was assumed by the Word, or united to the Word; without a distinction of understanding a response is not here to be given, since the question proposed is manifold; but the instance of the one asking determine thus: if you ask concerning the person of man, I respond: no; if concerning the nature of man, I say: it is.

---