Dist. 6
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/6/q/bon-sent-III-d6-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION VI.

### Chap. I. *On the understanding of these expressions: "God is man", "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 Trinity*: «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 *Enchiridion*: «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 work: «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 of 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 John*: «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 Saints*: «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 Trinity*: «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 Trinity* 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 power, 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 made 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 that 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 Prosper 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 Damascene: «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-fruit 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 incarnate; 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 Trinity* 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 Trinity*: «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 substance 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 man. For by taking man, God was said to have been made man; and on account of the man taken, God is said 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 own, they confirm what they say by testimonies brought into the midst. (*Augustine.*) For Augustine says in the book *On the Grace of the New Testament*: «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 Questions*, 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».

### 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 leanness 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 man, 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 receiver». — 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 Trinity* 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 Peter*: «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 Maximinus*: «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 Trinity* 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.

---