title: De sapientia animae Christi

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 176, coll. 845D–856D

source_text:
## PRAEFATIO.

[0845D]

Prudenti ac religioso verbi divini inter caeteros et prae caeteris scrutatori G. Hugo peccator. Aliquoties accidisse comperi, ut rerum difficilium tractatione aut insipientia relatoris auditorem corrumperet, aut temeritas auditoris relatorem infamaret. Quapropter aeque cavendum mihi videtur, ut potissimum illic ubi sine periculo aliud sentiri non potest, nec facile nostra praesumamus asserere, nec aliena temere judicare. Novi enim « quanta, » ut dicit beatus Augustinus, « somnia cor humanum pariat; » atque eo judicio quo in sui cognitione fallitur, caetera quoque quae praeter ipsum sunt, non recte conspicetur. Quid enim hoc esse putatis, quod de rerum veritate tam diversa sentire solent homines? [0846C] Nunquid nomina est veritas? Ecce (ut interim de [0846D] Deo taceamus) quid est quod dialectica tot diversas et tam adversas, ne dicam perversas habet sententias? Nunquid omnes noverunt unum id quod est, sed amore fallendi diversa finxerunt? Non sic ego puto. Sed narrant quinque somnia sua, et ea qua primum ipsi in se opinione decepti sunt postmodum alios nescientes seducunt. Et sicut beatus Job amicis suis arrogantibus et de se plusquam oportebat praesumentibus dicit [n: (Job XII)], jam non solum secundum morituram, sed exortam quoque a se sapientiam putant. Dignum ergo est ut idipsum in nostra nos assertione reddat timidos, quod in unius assertione veritatis tot jam videmus esse diversos. Quia enim de longe veritas videtur, diversa judicia parit; et tantum de ipsa quisque potest, quantum [0847A] ipse est. In nobis quippe quod de rerum cognitione percipimus, et eo modo, cordis intellectus de iis quae extra sunt ad veritatem indicant, quo se interius animus in repraesentatione figurat. Unde necesse est, ut dum mens interius corrupta prave afficitur, intellectus quoque in judicio eorum quae foris sunt, decipiatur. Haec ipsa est causa quae etiam aliquando in unitate sensuum controversiam verborum generare solet, quae tamen tunc magis venialis fit, cum pertinax non fuerit. Hanc igitur nos qui verbi Dei tractatores et inquisitores veritatis esse videmur, si inter nos forte (ut assolet) aliquando invenerimus citius in idipsum redeamus, ne, si coeperimus nostra dicta pertinaciter defendere, aliud putemur sapuisse. Illud quod de anima Christi charitas vestra [0847B] a me quaerere dignata est, jam pridem inter quosdam sapientes ventilatum fuisse didici, atque ex illis quid senserint quibus magis credendum esse existimamus, tum aliis de ipsis, tum ipsis de se referentibus agnovi. Ego autem cum saepius hac quaestione pulsari soleam, talem me esse profiteor qui nollem hinc aliquid ab omnibus vel tam curiose ac superstitiose inquiri, vel tam fidenter asseri. Unde nunc quoque gemina in hac re consideratione coarctor, cum videam me et prudentiae tuae debere silentium, et bonitati responsum. Inter haec ipsa etiam rei difficultas occurrit, quae fortassis non poterit a me ita ut decet compendiose discuti, cum ego si modum in dicendo transiero timeam superstitiosus videri. Volo tamen et multo magis volo aliqua in [0847C] parte inscitiae argui, quam charitatis contemptor videri, et verba incompta habere, quam cor perversum

## SEQUITUR *Decisio quaestionis de anima Christi, utrum aequalem cum divinitate scientiam habuerit.*

Quaeris de anima Christi, id est de illo rationali spiritu, qui humanam in Christo homine carnem vegetavit, quem Verbum cum carne et in carne ipsa sibi in unitatem personae univit, ut esset Christus unus in una persona, duabus naturis, tribus essentiis: una videlicet persona; quia idem homo, propter quem suscepit, et Deus; propter quod fuit duabus naturis, divina scilicet atque humana, in Deo et homine uno, non unis; tribus essentiis, divinitate, [0847D] carne, et anima; sine separatione discretis, sine confusione sociatis. De illa inquam anima, qua mediante *Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis [n: (Joan. I)]*; quaeritis utrum aequalem cum divinitate scientiam habuerit. Adjicitis etiam, quod si illa anima quae, quamvis creatrici naturae ineffabiliter unita fuerat, indubitanter tamen creatura erat, aequalem cum divinitate scientiam habuerit, tunc nimirum creatura Creatori aequalis fuit: non posse autem Creatori facturam suam in aequalitate comparabilem fieri, etsi potuerit in consortium unitatis assumi. Longe aliud esse uniri dignatione et comparari majestate. Multa sunt alia quae in hunc modum fortasse absurda, ostendere potuisti. Sed ego sic una tecum falsa refellere cupio, sicut vera profiteri. Quomodo [0848A] enim Deus immensus esset, si ad ejus aequalitatem aliqua quamlibet excellens, quamlibet singularis creatura pertingeret? *Magnus,* inquit Psalmista, *Dominus est, et magna virtus ejus; et sapientiae ejus non est numerus [n: (Psal. CXLVI)]*. Et Salomon: *Non est sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consilium contra Deum [n: (Prov. XXI)]*. Ubi quantum non est, tantum dici quod potest? Portio quaeritur ubi numerus non invenitur. Sapientiae ejus non est numerus. Quid igitur dico? Anima Christi aut creatura non fuit, aut Creatori aequari non potuit. Imo vero quia creatura est, Creatori non dico aequanda, sed plus audeo dicere, etiam comparanda non est. Ergo dicitis, minorem habuit sapientiam quam verbum? Sed quaeso quid dicimus, cum animam sapientem [0848B] dicimus? Nunquid non sapientia sapientem dicimus? Quis enim sapiens est, si sapientia sapiens non est? Et tamen aliter sapiens est in quo sapientia est, aliter sapiens est qui sapientia est. Creatura sapiens est, quia in ipsa sapientia est. Creator vero sapiens est, quia ipse sapientia est. Nullus tamen sine sapentia sapiens esse potest, sive ea quam habet, sive ea quae ipse est. Anima igitur Christi si sapiens est, imo quia est, aut illa procul dubio sapientia sapiens est, quam habet, aut illa quae ipsa est? Creatura autem, etsi participatione sapientiae sapiens est, ipsa tamen sapientia esse non potest. Quae igitur est illa sapientia, qua anima Christi sapiens est? Quid dicit Joannes de Verbo? *Erat,* inquit, *lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum* [0848C] [n: (Joan. I)]. Quid est Verbum nisi sapientia? Idem enim qui Verbum Dei a Joanne dicitur, ipse sapientia Dei a Paulo nominatur. *Christum* enim, inquit Paulus apostolus, *Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam [n: (I Cor. I)]*. Christus igitur ipse et Verbum, et ipse est sapientia. Verbum sapientia, et sapientia Verbum. Verbum sapientia, quia, *Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum [n: (Psal. XLIV)]*. Sapientia verbum quia, *Ego sapientia ex ore Altissimi prodii, primogenita ante omnem creaturam [n: (Eccli., XXIV)]*. Sapientia igitur verbum cordis et verbum sapientiae oris, quia dum verbum ex corde et sapientia ex ore prodire dicitur, idem esse sapientia et verbum demonstratur. Itaque si verbum illuminat, sapientia illuminat; quia nec illuminare [0848D] verbum poterat, si sapientia non erat. Quid enim facit verbum sine sapientia? Verbum sonat, sapientia illuminat. Nam et ipsa sapientia lux est, et Deus lux est, quia Deus sapientia est; et cum Deus illuminat, sapientia illuminat, et luce illuminat; nec alia luce illuminat, sed ea luce quae ipsa est; quia lux est, et verbum lux est, et sapientia lux est; quia verbum sapientia est, et sapientia Deus est. Erat, inquit, lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Quid igitur? Malos illuminat lux ista, et malos Deus illuminat? Quomodo ergo caeci sunt? Audi quid sequitur: *Et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt [n: (Joan. I)]*. Quid est, lux in tenebris lucet? Et quid tenebrae faciunt si lux ibi est? Et [0849A] tenebrae eam non comprehendunt. Tamen ipsa lux lucet et illuminat, sed non omnes eam vident qui vident per eam. Lux lucet, et per se sciamus quod per se lucet, et ex se illuminat. Lucet: lucet per se, et illuminat ex se. Nam ut erat, inquit, lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Joannes lux erat; quia *vos estis lux mundi [n: (Matth. V)]*, sed vera lux non erat; quia *lucerna* erat *ardens et lucens [n: (Joan. V)]*; nec per semetipsam lucens, et ex semetipsa illuminans, ut lux quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Quos dixit? Bonos non dixit, nec spiritales; sed omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Unus est enim sol, et omnis oculus per eum irradiatur, sed non omnes qui per eum vident agnoscunt [0849B] eum. Similiter lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, cunctis superfunditur, in omnes clarescit, universos illustrat; sed alius per eam videt, alius eam videt. Mali illuminantur ut caetera videant; ipsum per quem vident, non videant, quia lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Boni vero illuminantur, ut eum videant a quo, et per quem vident, ut ad eum referant, et in eo ament omne quod vident, et eum ament super omne quod vident. Omnes ergo per eum illuminantur qui vident, sed excellentius qui eum vident. Per eum illuminantur qui vident, et ex eo illuminantur, quia ipse est lux a quo illuminatur. Unde autem lux illuminaret, si ex semetipsa [0849C] non illuminaret? Unde illuminaret, si id quod ipsa est participandum non praeberet? Sed forte timendum est, ne polluatur ab immundo, ne obscuretur a tenebroso; et indignum sit ut profanis sanctum coinquinatis impollutum, errantibus verum communicabile dicatur. Superfluo ista cogitantur, quia lux quae in tenebris lucet, sicut non obscuratur a tenebroso, sic non corrumpitur a contaminato, in tenebris clara, et inter sordes incoinquinata perseverans. Nam, cum omnia in ipsa et in omnibus ipsa sit, ei tamen universae creaturae nec turpitudo turpis est, nec malitia nocet, nec error errat. Lucet ergo et illuminat, nec per aliud, nec ex alio; sed hoc quod ipsa est, et quo ipsa lucet omnibus illuminandis communicandum praebet, et totum ipsa possidet. [0849D] Audite iterum: *Dominus,* inquit Scriptura, *dat sapientiam [n: (Dan. II)]*. Quam sapientiam forte aliquod accidens dat quo nos afficimur, ut sapientes efficiamur.

Quid enim est sapientia? Nonne accidens? Dat ergo Dominus sapientiam. Quam sapientiam? *Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est [n: (Eccli. I)]*. Bene quia omnia accidentia a Domino Deo sunt a quo sunt omnia quae sunt. An forte quoddam accidens a Deo non est, quia peccatum ab ipso non est? Omnis tamen sapientia a Deo est. Quomodo ab ipso est? Forte quia donum ejus ab ipso est; quia factura ejus est, ab ipso est; et omnis substantia ab ipso est? Quid magnum? quid novum? quid mirum dictum est? Omnis sapientia a [0850A] Domino Deo est; si accidens quoddam ab ipso est a quo omnis substantia est? Quomodo ergo omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est? Aut quia opus ejus, aut quia donum ejus? Si sapientia creatura est, stultitia quid est? Creavit Deus sapientiam, et non creavit stultitiam? Ergo quaedam accidentia Deus creavit, alia esse habent, et ab ipso non habent. Quis hoc aut dicere praesumat, aut dictum approbet, quod aliquid esse habet et a Deo non habet? Quid dicimus? Deus ergo accidentia non creavit; et alter quidam est Creator sapientiae, Deus dator? Ergo dare sapientiam Deus potuit, creare non potuit? Ergo aliunde accepit quod dedit, et dedit quod suum non fuit, et accipere potuit quod non habuerit. Quis hoc dicat? Quis sani capitis hoc vel in cogitationem [0850B] suam admittat? Qualiter ergo omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est? Sive quia donum ejus est, sive quia factura ejus? Nam si factura est, non semper est, quia quod aliquando coepit, non semper esse habuit. Quid ergo ait? Omnis, inquit, sapientia a Domino Deo est; *et cum illo fuit semper, et est ante aevum [n: (ibid.)]*. Mirum est: ergo accidentia semper cum Deo fuerunt; et si accidentia semper cum Deo fuerunt, substantiae non fuerunt. An omnis sapientia a Deo est, et non omnis sapientia cum Deo est? Absit. Sed omnis sapientia ab illo est, et omnis sapientia in illo est, et omnis sapientia cum illo est, et semper est. Et quid facimus de sapientia quae accidens est? Nunquid non ipsa semper cum Deo est? Quomodo ergo Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est, et cum illo [0850C] fuit semper, et est ante aevum? Quid ergo de illa facimus? Excludamus ab adyto sapientiae insipientiae figmenta et phantasias, has nescio quales et somnia vana, quae nobis vere accidentia sunt, quia nobiscum creata non fuerunt. Agnoscamus veram sapientiam, qua sapimus, quicunque sapimus, quidquid sapimus, etiam si eam non sapimus. Ad lucem lucentem in tenebris attendamus, ne tenebrae simus; quia lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Et tenebrae, inquit, eam non comprehenderunt; imo potius non deprehenderunt. Quomodo enim incomprehensibilem comprehendere potuissent? Et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.

## SEQUITUR *Decisio quaestionis de anima Christi, utrum aequalem cum divinitate scientiam habuerit.* (cont.)

Lux ergo quid fecit? Lux lucem comprehendit. [0850D] Et quae est ista lux? Utique si lux lucem comprehendit, lucem comprehenderunt, qui a luce lux facti sunt. Lucem comprehenderunt, qui a luce illuminati sunt. Lucem comprehenderunt, qui eam lucem super se in se susceperunt. Comprehenderunt similitudine, non comprehenderunt aequalitate. Hoc est ergo unum et verum lumen omnium spirituum rationalium, praecipue sanctorum, quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Quod sine diminutione sui ab omnibus participatur; et cum idem sit in omnibus, non tamen ab omnibus eodem modo percipitur. Ipsum enim quidquid est, totum est, et ubique totum est; nec minus aut majus in eo est, et tamen secundum participationis differentiam minus et magis de illo percipiunt omnes, qui secundum [0851A] conditionem suam aut donum gratiae largitoris minus ac magis hujus ejusdem communicationis ac participationis capaces sunt. Participatio igitur alias major, alias minor est. Participatus autem non alias major aut minor; sed idem ipse totus ac plenus, et perfectus ubique est. Cum igitur animas sapientes dicimus, et sapientia sapientes dicimus, istam sapientiam cogitemus, et ipsam solam esse credamus qua sapiunt, quaecunque rationales mentes vim intelligendi atque discernendi perceperunt. *Haec est,* inquit, *vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum; et quem misisti Jesum Christum [n: (Joan. XVII)]*. Cognitio itaque Dei vita aeterna est, et quid est cognitio Dei? nunquid accidens? Ergo amor Dei accidens est, et beatitudo accidens est, et in accidentibus est beatitudo [0851B] nostra. Quare non magis Deus sit beatitudo nostra? Ipse est sapientia qua cognoscimus, ipse amor quo diligimus, ipse gaudium quo exsultamus. Ergo una sapientia est qua omnes sapiunt, nec tamen uno modo sapiunt, quia participando sapiunt. Quod si omnes hac sapientia sapiunt quicunque sapiunt, multo magis hac sapientia sapit illa anima, quae ipsi sapientiae unita fuit. Quae non sorte participationis ex illa viguit, sed privilegio unitatis plenitudinem possedit. Quid enim de sapientia minus habere poterat, cui ipsa plenitudo sapientiae incorporata erat? *In quo,* ait, *inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter [n: (Coloss. II)]*. De quo hoc dixit, nonne de Christo? Quomodo ergo in Christo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis? Tres essentiae sunt in [0851C] Christo. Caro, anima, divinitas. Quid ergo habitat in quo? an divinitas in divinitate, an divinitas in anima, an divinitas in carne? Sed quid est, divinitas habitat in divinitate? Nunquid hoc aut congruum erat dicere, aut necessarium audire? Ergo in humanitate Christi habitat plenitudo divinitatis Christi. Quod si plenitudo divinitatis Christi, ergo et plenitudo sapientiae Dei. Quid enim est divinitas Christi nisi sapientia Dei? Ergo plenitudo sapientiae Dei habitat in humanitate Christi. Ubi? in carne an in anima, an simul in carne et in anima? an in carne per carnem? in carne ergo sapientia habitaret, et non habitaret in anima. Absit! Sedes sapientiae anima justi, et domus sapientiae anima Christi. Et [0851D] quid dixi, Domus sapientiae anima Christi? Amplius dicere debui, si amplius dicere potui; quia enim sapientia in ea habitat, ideo domum dixi, sed quia corporaliter habitat, ideo amplius dicere debui. Quid est corporaliter habitat? Unum facta est cum illa in qua habitat, et per illam unum etiam cum illo in quo illa habitat. Quomodo unum? Non versibilitate naturae, sed unitate personae; una persona, non una essentia. Ergo incorporata est divinitas habitaculo suo, cui plenitudinem infundit, veritatem sociavit.

*Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, excidit columnas septem [n: (Prov. IX)]*. Quales? *Requiescet super eum Spiritus Domini, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et fortitudinis, spiritus scientiae et [0852A] pietatis; et replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini [n: (Isa. XI)]*. Ecce columnae septem in domo sapientiae. Excidit columnas septem. Unde excidit? De monte excidit; de quo monte? De monte umbroso et condenso. De quo monte? Divinae majestatis excidit columnas septem. Excidit, sed non abscidit. Accepit, sed non abstulit. Columnas de monte excisas in aedificium domus posuit, et tamen montem non minuit. Et quid mirum, si sapientia ad fabricandam domum suam columnas erexit de monte excisas et a monte non separatas, quae ad habitandam domum venit; et tamen unde venerat ibi permansit? Sapientia ergo aedificavit sibi domum. Qualem domum? De qua dictum est: In quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. Et iterum: [0852B] *In Christo complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis inhabitare, et per eum reconciliari omnia, in ipsum pacificans per sanguinem crucis ejus; sive quae in terris, sive quae in coelis sunt [n: (Coloss. I)]*. Videte quid facimus? Apostolus testatur plenitudinem ibi esse; et nos dicimus quod tota sapientia non est in domo sua. Ergo dimidia intus habitat, et dimidia foris. Et ubi quaeretur, si domi non invenitur? In quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. Ubi plenitudo est nihil deest, ubi nihil deest totum est. Sed forte plenitudo divinitatis ibi est, et plenitudo sapientiae non est.

Verum dicit: *In quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi [n: (Coloss. II)]*. Sed dicitis bene. Omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae ibi sunt; sed [0852C] Omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae ibi sunt; sed absconditi sunt. Portat et non videt. Absit autem ab intellectu nostro, ut sic sentiamus. Sed absconditi sunt, non ut ab eo abscondantur; sed ne in eo ab impiis videantur. Absconditi sunt, ut tempore opportuno proferantur. Absconditi sunt et reconditi sunt. Absconditi, ne per eum indignis aperiantur. Reconditi, ut in eo digne custodiantur. Reconditi sunt, ne offuscentur aliqua rubigine peccatorum, ne polluantur aliqua sorde criminum aut contagione vitiorum. Reconditi sunt velut in vase sincero, velut in habitaculo mundo, ne forte quis valeat eis maculam ingerere, et tunc incipiat opprobrium sustinere. *Apprehendent septem mulieres virum unum in die illa dicentes: Panem nostrum comedemus, et vestimentis [0852D] nostris operiemur, tantummodo invocetur nomen tuum super nos; aufer opprobrium nostrum [n: (Isa. IV)]*. Ergo reconditi in eo sunt, sed absconditi ab eo non sunt. *Deum,* inquit, *nemo vidit unquam. Unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit [n: (I Joan. IV; Joan. I)]*; si enarravit, et vidit. Unde hoc probamus? *Qui de terra est, de terra loquitur; qui de coelo venit, super omnes est; et quod vidit et audivit hoc testatur [n: (Joan. III)]*. Ergo vidit. In quo vidit? in divinitate an in humanitate? Forte in divinitate vidit, in humanitate enarravit. Illi ergo qui audierunt in quo viderunt? Aut si non viderunt, quare audierunt? Vidit ergo in divinitate, vidit et in humanitate, tamen ex divinitate sunt? et illi quae audierunt non nisi ex illustratione divini luminis videre [0853A] potuerunt. Erat igitur plenitudo divinitatis in anima Christi; erat et plenitudo sapientiae in anima Christi; et ex plenitudine sapientiae plene sapiens erat anima Christi. Ergo, inquiunt, tantam sapientiam habet anima Christi, quantum Deus habet. Quid facit comparatio? ubi unus solus est? Una est sapientia Dei, qua sapiens est anima Christi, nec participando sapiens est, ut hoc vel illud in illa, et per illam sapiat, sed plenitudinem habendo, ut totum possideat. Non ergo dicamus tanta aut quanta; sed dicamus tota sapientia Dei in anima Christi est, et ex tota sapientia Dei anima Christi sapiens est; nec tamen aequalis Deo anima Christi est, quia sapientia Dei non est. Porro longe aliud est sapientia sapere, et aliud sapientiam esse, quia qui sapientia [0853B] sapit, quod habet aliunde accepit; qui sapientia est, ex semetipso habet quod sapit. Illic gratia, hic natura; et idem illic gratia, quod hic natura; nec tamen illic gratia naturam ad immensitatem commutat; nec hic natura ad mensuram gratiam coarctat. Qui ergo audet dicere plenitudinem sapientiae non fuisse in anima Christi, dicat plene sapientem non fuisse animam Christi. Tota igitur sapientia Dei erat in anima Christi, quia tota sapientia Dei unita erat et corporata animae Christi, nec tamen aequalis Deo erat anima Christi. Non enim naturae comparari poterat, quamvis sine mensura gratiam acceperat, quia cum immensa gratia erat passibilis natura.

## SEQUITUR *Decisio quaestionis de anima Christi, utrum aequalem cum divinitate scientiam habuerit.* (cont.)

Nam, illud quod intulistis, quod si haberet aequalem [0853C] cum Deo scientiam, etiam beatitudinem aequalem haberet, quomodo sibi non cohaereat, in praesenti nil attinet dicere, quia aequalitatem comparationis tollimus, ubi singularitatem unitatis demonstramus. Et longe aliud est idem habere, et idem esse, quia habere pertinet ad gratiam, esse pertinet ad naturam. Sed esto multitudo sapientiarum sive scientiarum comparationem admittat; nunquid aequalem beatitudinem facit aequalis sapientia? Ergo et major majorem, et minorem minor; et daemones tanto hominibus beatiores sunt, quanto eos scientia antecedunt. Et quid de charitate dicam? *Scientia inflat, charitas aedificat [n: (I Cor. VIII)]*. Non ergo quicunque amplius sapiunt, statim de majori dilectione [0853D] praesumere possunt; quia longe aliud est videre, et aliud est diligere. *Nunc,* inquit, *et viderunt, et oderunt et me et Patrem meum [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Nihil tamen hic interest, utrum aequalem notitiam cujuscunque rei aequalis amor comitetur, quia ubi una est sapientia, sicut non potest esse comparatio, ita nec aequalitas diversorum. Postea adjecistis et dixistis: Cum sapientia sit magnum et spirituale bonum, tunc si anima Christi aequalem habet cum Deo sapientiam, falsum erit Deum in omni bono majorem habere sufficientiam, quam ejus creaturam. Et deinceps: Sicut non potest creatura aequali Creatori, ita nec bonum unius bono alterius. Sed hoc bene et veraciter ibi dicitur. Ubi creaturae bonum aliud atque diversum a bono Creatoris invenitur? Ubi [0854A] vero unum et idem ipsum est, majus ac minus esse quod potest? Quod est enim verum bonum creaturae praecipue rationalis aliud praeter Deum? Aut quod est bonum Dei aliud praeter ipsum? Si ergo verum et unicum bonum est creaturae, Deus est; et bonum Dei aliud praeter ipsum esse non potest. Nunquid idcirco Deus minor aut major seipso est, quia creaturae suae pariter et suum bonum ipse est? Cesset ergo tandem tam crebra repetitio comparationis, ubi singularitas est unitatis. Deinde ad comprobandam propositam assertionem adduxistis verba Apostoli, quibus astruere putatis minorem Deo sapientiam habuisse animam Christi. Dicit enim: *Quis enim scit hominum quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui est in homine; ita et quae Dei sunt, nemo [0854B] cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei [n: (I Cor. II)]*. Ergo, ut videtur, non cognovit anima Christi; si nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei. Nisi forte quis nobis respondere velit, et Christi animam fuisse Spiritum Dei? Quae tamen sunt ista Dei quae nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei? Quae nisi illa de quibus ibidem dicitur: *Deus, non vidit oculus absque te, quae praeparasti bona diligentibus te [n: (Isa. LXIV)]*. Quia *nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit [n: (I Cor. II)]*, etc. Ista ergo nemo novit nisi Spiritus Dei; et quid est quod sequitur: *Nobis autem revelavit Deus per Spiritum* sanctum? Quem Spiritum? Subdit: *Nos autem non spiritum hujus mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum* Christi, *ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis [n: (ibid.)]*. Ergo ut Spiritus Dei Spiritus est [0854C] Christi, et illi etiam noverunt quibus ea per Spiritum revelata sunt. Ergo anima Christi multo magis haec novit, et plene ac perfecte novit, quae ipsius Spiritus plenitudinem accepit. *Non,* enim inquit, *ad mensuram Deus dat Spiritum [n: (Joan. III)]*. *Et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis [n: (Joan. I)]*. Nos etiam quicunque haec noscere meremur, et quantumcunque noscere meremur, de ejus plenitudine, non plenitudinem, sed gratiae portionem accipimus. *Pater,* inquit, *manifestavi,* seu revelavi *nomen tuum hominibus quos dedisti mihi [n: (Joan. XVII)]*. Quid est revelatio hominis, nisi aspiratio cognitionis? Ergo ipse aliis nomen revelavit, cujus ipse cognitionem non habuit? Absit! [0854D] Rursum: *Cum autem venerit Spiritus ille veritatis, quem ego mittam vobis, docebit vos omnem veritatem [n: (Joan. XVI)]*. Quare prius ipse ab illo Spiritu veritatis omnem veritatem magister non didicit, quem ad docendam omnem veritatem discipulis misit? Sed misit Spiritum, et Spiritum non amisit; cujus charismata hominibus fidelibus prout voluit distribuit, et plenitudinem ipse retinuit. Aliis eum infundit, sed eum a se non effudit; alios replens, se non evacuans; se non minuens, et alios ditans. Ergo quod Spiritus Dei novit, et anima Christi per Spiritum Dei novit, et plene novit, quia Spiritus Dei plenitudinem habuit.

Postremo quaedam verba beati Ambrosii in medium adducitis, et ne assertioni vestrae contraire [0855A] videantur qualiter intelligenda sive determinanda sint demonstratis. Dicit enim « animam Christi omnia habere per gratiam, quae Deus habet per naturam. » Quibus verbis (fere) adjungendum esse putatis, ne si forte sine temperamento isto omnia prorsus quae deitatis sunt, eam habere dixerimus, creaturae quae initium habuit aeternitatem, et quae termimum habet immensitatem, et quae mutabilitatem habuit, atque passibilitati subjacere potuit, incommutabilitatem et caetera quae soli divinae naturae competere noscuntur, tribuere videamur. Sed haec determinatio, quamvis non omnino refutanda videatur, est tamen multo competentior et commodior expositio ad quam sententia haec accommodari possit. Anima namque Christi [0855B] idcirco omnia habere dicitur per gratiam, quae Deus habet per naturam, quia plenitudo deitatis in Verbo ei unita est, ex tempore per gratiam, quae in Deo ex aeternitate fuit per naturam. Hoc ista ex tempore habet, quia accepit, quod ille ex aeternitate habuit, quia fuit. Accepit non ut in ejus quod accepit naturam, mutata transiret; sed ut in ejus consortium sublimata ascenderet. Ista accepit quod non habuit; ille nec accipere potuit quod non habuit, nec desiit esse quod fuit. Quid ergo accepit anima Christi? Plenitudinem deitatis, plenitudinem sapientiae, plenitudinem virtutis. Totum quod Deus est accepit. Quomodo accepit? Non versibilitate naturae, sed firmitate personae. Accepit non quia in illud essentialiter mutata est, sed quia ineffabiliter illi unita [0855C] est. Accepit non ut illud essentialiter fieret, sed ut cum illo personaliter unum esset. Totum tamen accepit, et totum habet quod ille non accepit et habet. Ergo anima Christi aeternitatem habet, si totum habet quod Deus habet? Quidni? Ecce dicatur. Licet in omnibus necessarium non sit verborum usum ad ejusmodi admittere; immensitatem habet, aeternitatem habet; habet omnia per gratiam, quae Deus habet per naturam. Quomodo habet? forte quia dicimus aeternitatem habet, quia dicimus immensitatem habet, hoc cogitemus, ut principio careat quod esse coepit; interminabile sit, quod circumscriptionem recepit. Nunquid etiam quia Deum habet ut Deus sit? Aut quia non est, ideo non habet? Quomodo tamen habet? Sed habet personaliter unita, non naturaliter [0855D] insita; habet totum, non quod creatura aeterna aut immensa esse possit, sed quod aeterno et immenso unita sit. Quid enim est aeternitas aut immensitas? Nunquid accidens? Ergo aeternitas et immensitas Dei accidentia sunt? Absit! cum ergo dicitur Deus, hoc habet per naturam, intelligitur quod Deus hoc est. Cum vero dicitur, anima Christi hoc habet per gratiam, intelligitur quod illi unita est. Ergo totum anima Christi hoc habet per gratiam [0856A] quod Deus est per naturam. Nec tamen inde sequitur, quod Creatori opus suum aequale sit; quia cum immensitatem gratiae acciperet, conditionem naturae non amisit. Accepit quod non habuit, sed non desiit esse quod fuit. Accepit plenitudinem sapientiae, in qua et per quam plene ac perfecte sapiens esset; non tamen accepit ut sapientia esset. Et quid necesse est singula persequi? Breviter vobis quid mihi in hac re sentiendum esse videtur, ostendam. Plenam ac perfectam, et totam Dei sapientiam in anima Christi fuisse credimus; et ex ipsa sapientia eamdem animam plene ac perfecte sapientem non ex ipsa participando, sed totam possidendo, quam singulariter concepit, et ineffabiliter comprehendit? Quare ineffabiliter comprehendit? quia secundum plenitudinem [0856B] accepit. Joannes *lucerna* erat *ardens, et lucens [n: (Joan. V)]*; hic lucem comprehenderat, quia tenebrae non erat. Sed quia ex parte comprehenderat, propterea ineffabilem illam in Christo comprehensionem comprehendere non poterat, sed ait: *Cujus non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti* ejus [n: (Joan. I)]. Ergo Joannes corrigiam Christi solvere non potuit. In illo enim erat de plenitudine accipere; supra illum plenitudinem comprehendere. Hoc itaque quod noverat dicere potuit, quod non conceperat credere elegit, discutere non praesumpsit. Noluit igitur ille unionem solvere, ne nos praesumatur unitati comparare. Quid vobis videtur? Nonne illi corrigiam incarnati Verbi solvere volunt, qui unitatem ineffabilis sacramenti differentia comparationis dividunt? Anima [0856C] igitur Joannis de plenitudine accepit, anima Christi plenitudinem comprehendit. Comprehendit dico non in aequalitate naturae, sed plenitudine gratiae et unitatis proprietate. Ecce dixi postulanti quod et jubenti debueram, quod magis in hac assertione approbandum putavi. Sed in rebus dubiis si manifesta auctoritate non valeo, ab aliis quidem sic accipi volo, ut quaerentem me adjuvent, invenientem non refutent. Quicunque autem in eo persistunt, ut hoc asserere contendant, quod alia fuerit illa sapientia, qua anima Christi sapiens exstitit; alia quae animae Christi unita fuit; ego nemini praejudicium facere volo; videant ipsi quo sensu hoc asserant, ne forte carnalis sit, magis sua quam vera pronuntians. Hoc [0856D] unum ego indubitanter affirmo, quod aut alia sapientia praeter divinam in anima Christi non fuit, aut si alia fuit, qualis illi non fuit. Hoc credenti qui non credit, non bene credit. Ad caetera ego non cogo, sed suadeo; in his qui mihi credit, mecum credit, qui mihi non credit, sibi credat, donec veniat ubi mecum credat. Sic tamen ut interim unusquisque in suo sensu humiliter abundare studeat, non arroganter praesumere. Vale.

english:
## PREFACE.

[0845D]

To G., the prudent and religious searcher of the divine word among all others and above all others: HUGH, a sinner. I have found that it has sometimes happened that, in the handling of difficult matters, either the folly of the reporter corrupted the hearer, or the rashness of the hearer brought the reporter into ill repute. Wherefore it seems to me that equal caution must be taken, that above all there, where nothing else can be held without danger, we should neither easily presume to assert what is ours, nor rashly to judge what is another's. For I know « how many, » as blessed Augustine says, « dreams the human heart brings forth; » and that by the same judgment by which it is deceived in the knowledge of itself, it will look upon the other things also, which are outside itself, not rightly. For what do you think this is, that men are wont to hold such different views about the truth of things? [0846C] Is truth a matter of names? Behold (that we may for the moment be silent about [0846D] God), what is it that dialectic holds so many differing and so opposed — not to say perverse — opinions? Have they all known the one thing that is, but out of a love of deceiving invented differing accounts? I do not think so. But they relate their five dreams, and by that opinion by which they were themselves first deceived in themselves they afterwards, unknowing, lead others astray. And as blessed Job says to his friends, who were arrogant and presumed of themselves more than was fitting [n: (Job XII)], they now think that wisdom not only will die according to them [cj: *secundum*; read *secum*, "with them"], but has also arisen from them. It is fitting therefore that this very thing should make us timid in our own assertion, that in the assertion of one truth we already see so many to be at variance. For because truth is seen from afar, it brings forth differing judgments; and each man has as much power over it as [0847A] he himself is. For in us, that which we perceive concerning the knowledge of things — and in that manner the understandings of the heart give indication toward the truth about the things that are without — in the manner in which the mind inwardly shapes itself in its representation. Whence it is necessary that, while the mind, inwardly corrupted, is wrongly affected, the understanding too is deceived in its judgment of the things that are without. This is the very cause which is wont sometimes to breed a controversy of words even where there is unity of meanings; which nevertheless then becomes the more pardonable, when it has not been obstinate. This, therefore — we who seem to be handlers of the word of God and searchers of the truth — if perchance we ever find it among ourselves (as commonly happens), let us return the more quickly to one and the same mind, lest, if we begin obstinately to defend our own sayings, we be thought to have held some other view. That which your charity [0847B] has deigned to ask of me concerning the soul of Christ, I have learned was long since debated among certain wise men; and I have come to know what those thought whom we judge to be the more worthy of belief, partly from others reporting about them, partly from themselves reporting about themselves. But I, since I am wont to be assailed rather often by this question, profess myself to be such a man as would not wish anything on this matter either to be inquired into by all so curiously and superstitiously, or to be asserted so confidently. Whence now too I am hemmed in by a twofold consideration in this matter, since I see that I owe both silence to your prudence, and an answer to your goodness. Amid these things the very difficulty of the matter also presents itself, which perhaps cannot be discussed by me as compendiously as is fitting, since, if I pass the measure in speaking, I fear to seem superstitious. Yet I wish, and much more do I wish, to be convicted in some [0847C] part of ignorance rather than to seem a despiser of charity, and to have unpolished words rather than a perverse heart

## THERE FOLLOWS *The determination of the question concerning the soul of Christ, whether it had knowledge equal with the divinity.*

You ask concerning the soul of Christ, that is, concerning that rational spirit which quickened the human flesh in Christ the man, which the Word united to itself, together with the flesh and in the flesh itself, into the unity of a person, so that Christ might be one in one person, in two natures, in three essences: in one person, namely, because the same is man, on account of him whom he took up, and God, on account of that which he was; in two natures, that is, divine and human, in God and man being one, not several; in three essences, divinity, [0847D] flesh, and soul — distinguished without separation, joined without confusion. Of that soul, I say, by whose mediation *the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us [n: (Joan. I)]*, you ask whether it had knowledge equal with the divinity. You add also that, if that soul — which, although it had been ineffably united to the creating nature, was nevertheless beyond doubt a creature — had knowledge equal with the divinity, then assuredly a creature was equal to the Creator; but that a thing he has made cannot be made comparable in equality to the Creator, even if it could be taken up into the fellowship of unity. That it is one thing altogether to be united by his condescension, and another to be compared in majesty. There are many other things which, in this manner, you were perhaps able to show to be absurd. But I desire, together with you, so to refute what is false as to profess what is true. For how [0848A] would God be immeasurable, if any creature, however excellent, however singular, could reach to equality with him? *Great,* says the Psalmist, *is the Lord, and great is his power; and of his wisdom there is no number [n: (Psal. CXLVI)]*. And Solomon: *There is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against God [n: (Prov. XXI)]*. Where there is no "how much," what can be said to be "so much"? A portion is sought where number is not found. Of his wisdom there is no number. What therefore do I say? Either the soul of Christ was not a creature, or it could not be made equal to the Creator. Nay rather, because it is a creature, it is not — I do not say to be made equal to the Creator — but I dare to say more: it is not even to be compared with him. Therefore, you say, it had less wisdom than the Word? But I ask, what do we say when we call a soul wise [0848B]? Do we not call it wise by wisdom? For who is wise, if wisdom is not wise? And yet in one way he is wise in whom wisdom is, in another way he is wise who is wisdom. The creature is wise because wisdom is in it. But the Creator is wise because he himself is wisdom. Yet no one can be wise without [sic: *sapentia*], whether by that which he has, or by that which he himself is. If therefore the soul of Christ is wise — nay rather, because it is — is it wise, beyond doubt, by that wisdom which it has, or by that which it itself is? But a creature, even if it is wise by participation in wisdom, cannot itself be wisdom. What then is that wisdom by which the soul of Christ is wise? What does John say of the Word? *He was,* he says, *the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world* [0848C] [n: (Joan. I)]. What is the Word but wisdom? For the same who is called the Word of God by John is himself named the wisdom of God by Paul. For *Christ,* says Paul the apostle, *the power of God and the wisdom of God [n: (I Cor. I)]*. Christ therefore is himself both the Word, and himself is wisdom. The Word is wisdom, and wisdom is the Word. The Word is wisdom, because, *My heart has uttered forth a good word [n: (Psal. XLIV)]*. Wisdom is the word, because, *I, wisdom, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before every creature [n: (Eccli., XXIV)]*. Wisdom therefore is the word of the heart, and the word is the wisdom of the mouth; because, while the word is said to come forth from the heart and wisdom from the mouth, wisdom and the word are shown to be the same. And so, if the word enlightens, wisdom enlightens; because the word could not [0848D] enlighten, if it were not wisdom. For what does a word do without wisdom? The word sounds, wisdom enlightens. For wisdom itself also is light, and God is light, because God is wisdom; and when God enlightens, wisdom enlightens, and enlightens with light; nor does he enlighten with another light, but with that light which it itself is; because it is light, and the word is light, and wisdom is light; because the word is wisdom, and wisdom is God. He was, he says, the true light which enlightens every man coming into this world. What then? Does this light enlighten the wicked, and does God enlighten the wicked? How then are they blind? Hear what follows: *And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it [n: (Joan. I)]*. What is this, the light shines in the darkness? And what does the darkness do, if the light is there? And [0849A] the darkness does not comprehend it. Yet that light shines and enlightens, but not all who see by it see it. The light shines, and let us know through itself that it shines through itself, and enlightens from itself. It shines: it shines through itself, and enlightens from itself. For as he was, he says, the true light which enlightens every man coming into this world. John was a light, because *you are the light of the world [n: (Matth. V)]*; but he was not the true light, because *a lamp* he was, *burning and shining [n: (Joan. V)]*; not shining through itself, and enlightening from itself, like the light which enlightens every man coming into this world. Whom did he name? He did not say the good, nor the spiritual; but every man coming into this world. For there is one sun, and every eye is irradiated by it, but not all who see by it recognize [0849B] it. In like manner the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world, is poured out upon all, grows bright upon all, illumines all; but one man sees by it, another sees it. The wicked are enlightened that they may see other things; the very one by whom they see, they do not see, because the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. But the good are enlightened that they may see him from whom and by whom they see, that they may refer to him, and love in him, everything that they see, and love him above everything that they see. All therefore who see are enlightened by him, but more excellently those who see him. Those who see are enlightened by him, and from him they are enlightened, because he himself is the light from whom one is enlightened. But from what would the light enlighten, if it did not enlighten [0849C] from its own self? From what would it enlighten, if it did not offer for sharing that which it itself is? But perhaps it must be feared that it be polluted by what is unclean, that it be darkened by what is shadowy; and that it be unworthy that the holy be called communicable to the profane, the unpolluted to the defiled, the true to those who err. These things are thought to no purpose, because the light which shines in the darkness, just as it is not darkened by what is shadowy, so is not corrupted by what is defiled, remaining bright in the darkness and undefiled amid filth. For, since all things are in it and it is in all things, yet to it the foulness of the whole creation is not foul, nor does its malice harm it, nor does its error err. It shines therefore and enlightens, neither through another nor from another; but that which it itself is, and by which it itself shines, it offers to be shared with all who are to be enlightened, and itself possesses the whole. [0849D] Hear again: *The Lord,* says Scripture, *gives wisdom [n: (Dan. II)]*. Which wisdom he gives, perhaps, as some accident by which we are affected, that we may be made wise.

For what is wisdom? Is it not an accident? The Lord therefore gives wisdom. What wisdom? *All wisdom is from the Lord God [n: (Eccli. I)]*. Well said, because all accidents are from the Lord God, from whom are all the things that are. Or is some accident perhaps not from God, since sin is not from him? Yet all wisdom is from God. How is it from him? Perhaps because it is his gift, it is from him; because it is a thing made by him, it is from him; and all substance is from him? What great thing? what new thing? what wonderful thing has been said? All wisdom is from [0850A] the Lord God — if some accident is from him from whom all substance is? How then is all wisdom from the Lord God? Either because it is his work, or because it is his gift? If wisdom is a creature, what is folly? Did God create wisdom, and not create folly? Therefore God created certain accidents, while others have being, and do not have it from him. Who would presume either to say this, or to approve it when said, that something has being and does not have it from God? What do we say? Did God then not create accidents, and is some other the Creator of wisdom, and God the giver? Was God then able to give wisdom, and not able to create it? Did he then receive from elsewhere what he gave, and give what was not his own, and was he able to receive what he had not had? Who would say this? Who of sound head would admit this even into his own [0850B] thought? In what way then is all wisdom from the Lord God? Whether because it is his gift, or because it is a thing made by him? For if it is a thing made, it is not always, because what once began has not always had being. What then does it say? All wisdom, it says, is from the Lord God; *and it has been with him always, and is before all time [n: (ibid.)]*. It is a wonder: accidents therefore have always been with God; and if accidents have always been with God, they were not substances. Or is all wisdom from God, and not all wisdom with God? God forbid. But all wisdom is from him, and all wisdom is in him, and all wisdom is with him, and always is. And what do we make of the wisdom which is an accident? Is not it too always with God? How then is All wisdom from the Lord God, and has it been with him [0850C] always, and is before all time? What then do we make of it? Let us shut out from the inner shrine of wisdom the fictions and phantasms of folly — these I know not what sort of things, and empty dreams, which truly are accidents to us, because they were not created with us. Let us acknowledge the true wisdom by which we are wise, whoever we are that are wise, whatever we are wise about, even if we are not wise about it. Let us attend to the light shining in the darkness, lest we be darkness; because the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. And the darkness, he says, did not comprehend it; nay rather, did not apprehend it. For how could they have comprehended the incomprehensible? And the darkness did not comprehend it.

## THERE FOLLOWS *The determination of the question concerning the soul of Christ, whether it had knowledge equal with the divinity.* (cont.)

What then did the light do? Light comprehended light. [0850D] And what is this light? Certainly, if light comprehends light, then they have comprehended the light who from the light have been made light. They have comprehended the light who have been enlightened by the light. They have comprehended the light who took up into themselves that light which is above them. They comprehended it by likeness; they did not comprehend it by equality. This therefore is the one and true light of all rational spirits, and chiefly of the holy ones, which enlightens every man coming into this world. Which is shared by all without diminution of itself; and although it is the same in all, it is nevertheless not perceived by all in the same manner. For it, whatever it is, is whole, and is everywhere whole; nor is there less or more in it, and yet, according to the difference of participation, all perceive less and more of it who, according to [0851A] their own condition or the gift of the bestower's grace, are less and more capable of this same communication and participation. Participation, therefore, is at one time greater, at another less. But he who is participated is not at one time greater or less; rather, he himself is everywhere the same, whole and full and perfect. When therefore we call souls wise, and call them wise by wisdom, let us think of that wisdom, and believe that it alone is that by which they are wise, whatever rational minds have received the power of understanding and of discerning. *This is,* he says, *life eternal, that they may know thee, the only God; and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent [n: (Joan. XVII)]*. And so the knowledge of God is life eternal; and what is the knowledge of God? Is it an accident? Then the love of God is an accident, and beatitude is an accident, and our beatitude [0851B] lies in accidents. Why should not God rather be our beatitude? He himself is the wisdom by which we know, he himself the love by which we love, he himself the joy in which we exult. There is therefore one wisdom by which all are wise; nor yet are they wise in one manner, because they are wise by participating. But if all who are wise are wise by this wisdom, much more is that soul wise by this wisdom which was united to wisdom itself. Which did not flourish from it by the lot of participation, but possessed the fullness of it by the privilege of unity. For what could it have less of wisdom, to which the very fullness of wisdom had been embodied? *In whom,* he says, *dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily [n: (Coloss. II)]*. Of whom did he say this — was it not of Christ? How then does all the fullness of the divinity dwell in Christ? There are three essences in [0851C] Christ: flesh, soul, divinity. What then dwells in what? Divinity in divinity, or divinity in the soul, or divinity in the flesh? But what is this, divinity dwells in divinity? Was this either fitting to say or necessary to hear? Therefore the fullness of Christ's divinity dwells in the humanity of Christ. And if the fullness of Christ's divinity, then the fullness of the wisdom of God also. For what is the divinity of Christ but the wisdom of God? Therefore the fullness of the wisdom of God dwells in the humanity of Christ. Where? In the flesh or in the soul, or at once in the flesh and in the soul? Or in the flesh through the flesh? Then wisdom would dwell in the flesh, and would not dwell in the soul. God forbid! The seat of wisdom is the soul of the just man, and the house of wisdom is the soul of Christ. And [0851D] what have I said — the house of wisdom is the soul of Christ? I ought to have said more, if I could have said more; for because wisdom dwells in it, therefore I called it a house; but because it dwells there bodily, therefore I ought to have said more. What is it, that it dwells bodily? It has been made one with that in which it dwells, and through that one also with him in whom that dwells. How one? Not by a turning of nature, but by the unity of person; one person, not one essence. Therefore the divinity has been embodied in its own dwelling-place, into which it pours fullness, and to which it has joined truth.

*Wisdom has built herself a house, she has hewn out seven pillars [n: (Prov. IX)]*. Of what kind? *The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and [0852A] of godliness; and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him [n: (Isa. XI)]*. Behold the seven pillars in the house of wisdom. She hewed out seven pillars. Whence did she hew them? From a mountain she hewed them; from what mountain? From the shady and thick-set mountain. From what mountain? From the mountain of the divine majesty she hewed out seven pillars. She hewed them out, but she did not cut them off. She took, but she did not take away. The pillars hewn from the mountain she set in the building of the house, and yet she did not diminish the mountain. And what wonder, if wisdom, to build her house, raised up pillars hewn from the mountain and not separated from the mountain — she who came to inhabit the house, and yet remained there whence she had come? Wisdom therefore built herself a house. What kind of house? That of which it has been said: In whom dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily. And again: [0852B] *In Christ it has pleased that all the fullness of the divinity should dwell, and that through him all things should be reconciled, making peace unto himself through the blood of his cross, whether the things that are on earth or the things that are in heaven [n: (Coloss. I)]*. Do you see what we are doing? The Apostle testifies that the fullness is there; and we say that the whole of wisdom is not in her own house. Then half of her dwells within, and half without. And where shall she be sought, if she is not found at home? In whom dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily. Where there is fullness nothing is lacking; where nothing is lacking, the whole is there. But perhaps the fullness of the divinity is there, and the fullness of wisdom is not.

But he says: *In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge [n: (Coloss. II)]*. But you say, well. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are there; but [0852C] [d: All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are there; but] they are hidden. He carries them and does not see them. But far be it from our understanding that we should hold such a view. Rather they are hidden, not that they should be hidden from him, but lest in him they be seen by the impious. They are hidden, that at the opportune time they may be brought forth. They are hidden, and they are laid up. Hidden, lest through him they be opened to the unworthy. Laid up, that in him they may be worthily kept. They are laid up, lest they be darkened by any rust of sins, lest they be polluted by any filth of crimes or contagion of vices. They are laid up as in an unspoiled vessel, as in a clean dwelling, lest perhaps anyone be able to bring a stain upon them, and then begin to bear reproach. *Seven women shall lay hold of one man in that day, saying: We will eat our own bread, and be covered with our own [0852D] garments; only let thy name be invoked upon us; take away our reproach [n: (Isa. IV)]*. Therefore they are laid up in him, but they are not hidden from him. *God,* he says, *no one has ever seen. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him [n: (I Joan. IV; Joan. I)]*; if he declared him, he also saw him. Whence do we prove this? *He who is of the earth speaks of the earth; he who comes from heaven is above all; and what he has seen and heard, this he testifies [n: (Joan. III)]*. Therefore he saw. In what did he see? In the divinity or in the humanity? Perhaps he saw in the divinity, and declared in the humanity. Those then who heard, in what did they see? Or if they did not see, why did they hear? He saw therefore in the divinity, he saw also in the humanity, yet are they from the divinity? and those things which they heard they could not see [0853A] except by the illumination of the divine light. There was therefore the fullness of the divinity in the soul of Christ; there was the fullness of wisdom also in the soul of Christ; and out of the fullness of wisdom the soul of Christ was fully wise. Therefore, they say, the soul of Christ has as much wisdom as God has. What is comparison doing? where there is only one? One is the wisdom of God, by which the soul of Christ is wise; nor is it wise by participating, so as to be wise about this or that in it and through it, but by having the fullness, so that it possesses the whole. Let us not say therefore "so much" or "how much"; but let us say that the whole wisdom of God is in the soul of Christ, and that out of the whole wisdom of God the soul of Christ is wise; and yet the soul of Christ is not equal to God, because it is not the wisdom of God. Further, it is one thing altogether to be wise by wisdom, and another to be wisdom; because he who is wise by [0853B] wisdom has received from elsewhere what he has; he who is wisdom has from his own self that by which he is wise. There grace, here nature; and the same is grace there which is nature here; and yet there grace does not change nature into immensity, nor here does nature confine grace to measure. He therefore who dares to say that the fullness of wisdom was not in the soul of Christ, let him say that the soul of Christ was not fully wise. The whole wisdom of God therefore was in the soul of Christ, because the whole wisdom of God had been united and embodied to the soul of Christ; and yet the soul of Christ was not equal to God. For it could not be compared to that nature, although it had received grace without measure, because together with immeasurable grace the nature was passible.

## THERE FOLLOWS *The determination of the question concerning the soul of Christ, whether it had knowledge equal with the divinity.* (cont.)

For as to that which you brought in — that if it had knowledge equal [0853C] with God, it would also have equal beatitude — how it fails to hold together there is no need to say at present, since we take away the equality of comparison where we demonstrate the singularity of unity. And it is one thing altogether to have the same, and another to be the same; because to have belongs to grace, to be belongs to nature. But suppose a multitude of wisdoms or of kinds of knowledge does admit comparison: does equal wisdom make equal beatitude? Then greater wisdom makes greater beatitude, and less makes less; and demons are more blessed than men by as much as they go before them in knowledge. And what shall I say of charity? *Knowledge puffs up, charity builds up [n: (I Cor. VIII)]*. Not all, therefore, who are wiser can straightway presume upon a greater love [0853D]; because it is one thing altogether to see, and another to love. *Now,* he says, *they have both seen and hated both me and my Father [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Yet it matters nothing here whether an equal love accompanies equal knowledge of anything whatever; because where wisdom is one, just as there can be no comparison, so neither can there be an equality of diverse things. Afterward you added and said: Since wisdom is a great and spiritual good, then, if the soul of Christ has wisdom equal with God, it will be false that God has a greater sufficiency in every good than his creature has. And next: As a creature cannot to an equal Creator, so neither the good of the one to the good of the other. But this is well and truly said where it applies. Where is the good of a creature found to be other and different from the good of the Creator? But where [0854A] it is one and the very same, what can be greater and less? For what other true good of a creature, and chiefly of a rational creature, is there besides God? Or what other good of God is there besides himself? If therefore there is a true and only good of the creature, it is God; and the good of God cannot be anything other than himself. Is God therefore less or greater than himself, because he himself is alike the good of his creature and his own good? Let there cease then at last so frequent a repetition of comparison, where there is the singularity of unity. Then, to prove the assertion you had set forth, you brought forward the words of the Apostle, by which you think to establish that the soul of Christ had less wisdom than God. For he says: *For who among men knows the things that are of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in him? So too the things that are of God no one [0854B] has known but the Spirit of God [n: (I Cor. II)]*. Therefore, as it seems, the soul of Christ did not know them, if no one has known them but the Spirit of God. Unless perhaps someone should wish to answer us that the soul of Christ too was the Spirit of God? Yet what are those things of God which no one has known but the Spirit of God? What but those of which it is said in the same place: *O God, the eye has not seen, besides thee, the good things which thou hast prepared for them that love thee [n: (Isa. LXIV)]*. Because *neither has eye seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man [n: (I Cor. II)]*, etc. These things therefore no one knows but the Spirit of God; and what is it that follows: *But to us God has revealed them through the Spirit,* the holy one? What Spirit? He adds: *But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of* Christ, *that we may know the things that have been given us by God [n: (ibid.)]*. Therefore, as the Spirit of God is the Spirit [0854C] of Christ, those also have known them to whom these things have been revealed through the Spirit. Therefore much more has the soul of Christ known these things, and known them fully and perfectly — the soul which received the fullness of that very Spirit. *Not,* for he says, *by measure does God give the Spirit [n: (Joan. III)]*. *And we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth [n: (Joan. I)]*. We too, whoever of us are counted worthy to know these things, and however much we are counted worthy to know, receive of his fullness not the fullness, but a portion of grace. *Father,* he says, *I have manifested,* or revealed, *thy name to the men whom thou gavest me [n: (Joan. XVII)]*. What is the revelation of a man, but the breathing-in of knowledge? Did he then reveal to others a name of which he himself had not the knowledge? God forbid! [0854D] Again: *But when that Spirit of truth shall come, whom I will send to you, he shall teach you all truth [n: (Joan. XVI)]*. Why did the Master himself not first learn all truth from that Spirit of truth, whom he sent to the disciples to teach all truth? But he sent the Spirit, and did not lose the Spirit; whose gifts he distributed to faithful men as he willed, and himself retained the fullness. He pours him into others, but has not poured him out from himself; filling others, not emptying himself; not diminishing himself, and enriching others. Therefore what the Spirit of God knows, the soul of Christ also knows through the Spirit of God, and knows fully, because it had the fullness of the Spirit of God.

Lastly you bring forward into the midst certain words of blessed Ambrose, and, lest they should seem to run counter [0855A] to your assertion, you show how they are to be understood or determined. For he says « that the soul of Christ has by grace all the things which God has by nature. » To which words you think that something must (well-nigh) be added, lest, if perhaps without that qualification we should say that it has utterly all the things that are of the deity, we seem to attribute to a creature — which had a beginning — eternity, and — which has [sic: *termimum*] — immensity, and — which had mutability and could lie subject to passibility — immutability, and the rest of the things known to belong to the divine nature alone. But this determination, although it does not seem wholly to be rejected, is nevertheless far less suitable than the more convenient exposition to which this opinion may be fitted. For the soul of Christ [0855B] is said to have by grace all the things which God has by nature for this reason: because the fullness of the deity in the Word was united to it in time by grace, which fullness was in God from eternity by nature. This soul has in time what it has, because it received it; he had it from eternity, because he was it. It received it, not that, being changed, it should pass over into the nature of that which it received, but that, being lifted up, it should ascend into fellowship with it. This one received what it did not have; he could neither receive what he did not have, nor did he cease to be what he was. What then did the soul of Christ receive? The fullness of the deity, the fullness of wisdom, the fullness of power. It received the whole of what God is. How did it receive it? Not by a turning of nature, but by the firmness of person. It received it, not because it was essentially changed into it, but because it was ineffably united [0855C] to it. It received it, not that it might essentially become it, but that it might be personally one with it. Yet it received the whole, and has the whole which he did not receive and yet has. Does the soul of Christ then have eternity, if it has the whole that God has? Why not? Behold, let it be said — although it is not necessary in all cases to admit the use of words to this effect: it has immensity, it has eternity; it has by grace all the things that God has by nature. How does it have them? Perhaps, because we say that it has eternity, because we say that it has immensity, are we to think this: that what began to be lacks a beginning; that what has received circumscription is unbounded? Is it also, because it has God, that it should be God? Or because it is not God, does it therefore not have him? In what way then does it have him? But it has him as personally united, not as naturally [0855D] implanted; it has the whole — not that a creature could be eternal or immeasurable, but because it is united to the eternal and the immeasurable. For what is eternity or immensity? Is it an accident? Are then the eternity and immensity of God accidents? God forbid! When therefore it is said, God has this by nature, it is understood that God is this. But when it is said, the soul of Christ has this by grace, it is understood that it has been united to it. Therefore the soul of Christ has wholly by grace [0856A] that which God is by nature. Nor yet does it follow from this that his own work is equal to the Creator; because, while it received the immensity of grace, it did not lose the condition of its nature. It received what it did not have, but it did not cease to be what it was. It received the fullness of wisdom, in which and through which it might be fully and perfectly wise; yet it did not receive that it should be wisdom. And what need is there to pursue each point? Briefly I will show you what seems to me must be held in this matter. We believe that the full and perfect and whole wisdom of God was in the soul of Christ; and that out of that same wisdom the same soul was fully and perfectly wise — not by participating in it, but by possessing it whole, which it singularly conceived and ineffably comprehended? Why ineffably comprehended? Because it received according to fullness [0856B]. John *a lamp* was, *burning and shining [n: (Joan. V)]*; he had comprehended the light, because he was not darkness. But because he had comprehended it in part, therefore he could not comprehend that ineffable comprehension in Christ, but he says: *Of whom I am not worthy that I should loose the latchet of the shoe* of him [n: (Joan. I)]. Therefore John could not loose the latchet of Christ. For it was within him to receive of the fullness; it was above him to comprehend the fullness. And so what he knew he was able to say; what he had not conceived he chose to believe, and did not presume to discuss. He therefore was unwilling to loose the union, lest it be presumed to compare us to that unity. What does it seem to you? Do not those wish to loose the latchet of the incarnate Word who divide the unity of the ineffable mystery by a difference of comparison? The soul [0856C] of John therefore received of the fullness; the soul of Christ comprehended the fullness. It comprehended it, I say, not in equality of nature, but in fullness of grace and by the property of unity. Behold, I have said to you who asked what I owed also to you who commanded — what I judged the more to be approved in this assertion. But in doubtful matters, if I have no strength of manifest authority, I wish indeed to be so received by others that they help me while I seek, and do not refute me when I find. But whoever persist in this, so as to contend in asserting that the wisdom by which the soul of Christ was wise was one thing, and another the wisdom which was united to the soul of Christ — I do not wish to prejudge anyone; let them see for themselves in what sense they assert this, lest perhaps it be a carnal sense, pronouncing its own things rather than true ones. This [0856D] one thing I affirm without doubt: that either there was in the soul of Christ no other wisdom besides the divine, or, if there was another, it was not such as that one. He who does not believe one who believes this, does not believe well. To the rest I do not compel, but persuade; in these things, he who believes me believes with me; he who does not believe me, let him believe himself, until he come where he may believe with me. Yet so that meanwhile each one may take care to abound humbly in his own sense, not to presume arrogantly. Farewell.