Chapter 3 (13): 1. Why The Apostle Says That Christ Was Made, But We Profess
Distinction V | 17 from power, as all things are from God. And so how was Mary with child from the Holy Spirit? If as from substance, then was the Spirit changed into flesh and bones? Certainly not. But if the Virgin conceived as from the Spirit's operation and power, who would deny that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Lord's incarnation?""
Chapter 3 (13)
1. WHY THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT CHRIST WAS MADE, BUT WE PROFESS
THAT HE WAS BORN.—AMBROSE. But it can be asked: "Since we profess that the Saviour was born, why does the Apostle say that he was made from the seed of David,' and in another place, made from a woman,' even though to be made is one thing, and to be born another? The Apostle must have signified something else by his statement.—The Apostle says made, and not born, because the Lord's flesh was formed and given bodily shape in the Virgin's womb not by human seed, but by the working and power of the Holy Spirit. For it is one thing to beget by the mixture of seed and the coagulation of blood; it is another to procreate not by commixture, but by power."® Men can beget human children, but they cannot make them.
—That is why the Apostle said made, not born, namely so that his birth, which occurred without the seed of a man, should not be held to be like ours, which is done by the commixture of seeds.
2. WHY FROM THE SEED OF DAVID. AUGUSTINE, IN THE BOOK ON THE
TRINITY. And so, when the Apostle said made, he added from the seed of David, because "although no seed of man intervened in the Virgin's conceiving, yet, because Christ was formed from that flesh which had descended from seed, it is rightly said that he was made [from the seed].""
DISTINCTION V
Chapter | (14)
1. WHETHER A PERSON OR NATURE TOOK ON A PERSON OR NATURE, AND
WHETHER GOD'S NATURE BECAME FLESH. Moreover, since it is clear from the foregoing that the Word of God took at once flesh and soul into the unity of its person, it is necessary to inquire which of these is more to be granted: namely that a person took on a person, or a nature a nature, or a '4 mbrose, De Spiritu sancto, cS nn42-43.
Cr Ronis le.
Cf. Gal. 4, 4.
3Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento, q44.
'Cf. Syagrius, Sermo 238.
18 | THE SENTENCES, BOOK 3
person a nature, or a nature a person; and whether it is as suitable to say that divine nature became flesh, as it is truly said that God became incarnate and the Word became incarnate.—This inquiry or approach to the question, according to the testimonies of the sacred authorities, is partially implicit and difficult, but partially explicit and manifest.
2. ON THE PART OF THE QUESTION WHICH IS CLEAR. For it is certain, and true without ambiguity, that it was not a nature that took on a person, nor a person a person, but a person a nature.—This is proved by the testimonies of the saints here appended and is concluded from the evidence.
For Augustine says, in the book On Faith to Peter: "The only-begotten God, in his conception, took the truth of the flesh from the Virgin; in his birth, he preserved the integrity of virginity in his Mother."' And a little later: "The same God took human nature into the unity of person, who, humbling himself through mercy, filled the womb of the undefiled Virgin from whom he would be born. And so the same God took into his person the form of a servant,' that is, the nature of a servant.'* Also: "For God the Word did not take the person of a man, but the nature of a man."
Also: "The only-begotten Son of God, in order to cleanse the flesh and soul of man, became man by taking on flesh and a rational soul."°—By these and many other authorities, it is clearly shown that it was not a nature that took on a person, nor a person a person, but a person a nature.
3. ON THE DIFFICULT PART OF THE QUESTION. But as to the fourth article of the question, namely whether a nature took on a nature, the question is troublesome even among the learned, because even those who were famously authoritative and more learned than the rest in the sacred
Page appear to disagree much with regard to this. Indeed, they seem to disagree not just with each other, but also with themselves, as the following chapters teach.
4. HERE HE SETS FORTH THOSE [ARGUMENTS] WHICH APPEAR TO INDI-
CATE THAT A NATURE DID NOT TAKE ON A NATURE.—ON THE COUNCIL OF
TOLEDO VIII. For we read that at the Council of Toledo VIII the following was handed down: "The Word alone was made flesh and dwelled among us.° And although the entire Trinity worked the making of the man who was taken, because the works of the Trinity are not severable, yet the Son alone took human form in the singularity of his person, not in the unity of the divine nature, that is, that which is proper to the Son
'Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, c2 n17.
208 Philo 27, *Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, c2 n28.
'Thid., cl7 n58.
*Ibid., c2 n17.
"Cin ela:
Distinction V | 19 alone, not that which is common to the Trinity."'—Also, at the Council of Toledo XI: "We believe God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit to be of one substance; yet we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of this Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone took on our nature into the unity of his person. In the same way too, the entire
Trinity is to be believed to have worked the incarnation of the Son of God; but the Son alone took the form of a servant into the singularity of his person."*—By these words, it appears to be indicated that only a person took on a nature, not a nature a nature. For if what is common to the Trinity did not take human form, then the divine nature, which is common to the three persons, did not do so.
5. HERE HE SETS OUT THOSE [ARGUMENTS] BY WHICH IT IS PROVED
THAT A NATURE TOOK ON A NATURE. What Augustine says in the book On Faith to Peter, appears to go against what was said above; he states: "The divinity of Christ is not alien to the Father's nature, since in the beginning was the Word;' nor is his humanity alien to his Mother's nature, since the Word was made flesh.'° For that nature, which remains forever begotten of the Father, took our nature free from sin in order to be born of the Virgin."''—By this authority, it appears to be handed down that the divine nature took on a human one. Where we can be strongly troubled is by his saying it to be eternally 'begotten' of the Father; unless perhaps he here uses nature in the sense of person. Otherwise, if we said that the nature which is common to the three persons was 'begotten,' we will contradict what we discussed in the treatise on the Trinity,'* where we said that a person begot a person, and not a nature a nature, because, if a nature begot a nature, since the nature of the Trinity is one and the same, the same thing would have begotten itself; which Augustine denies to be possible.'
6. But elsewhere we find sure evidence by which it is shown that a nature took on a nature. For Augustine says, in On the Trinity, book 1:
"The Son was made even less than his own self in taking the form of a servant.'* For he did not take the form of a servant so as to lose the form of God, in which he was equal to the Father: since, in both the form of a servant and the form of God, he is the same 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 a nature took on a 'Rather, Toledo VI, cl.
8Creed of Toledo XI. od Os we) 1 al aN 9 ein ti, 'Pulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, c2 n14.
"Bk 1 dist. 5 cl.
'3 Augustine, De Trinitate, bk 1 cl nl.
MCf. Phil. 2, 6-7.
'S Augustine, De Trinitate, bk 1 c7 n14.
20 | THE SENTENCES, BOOK 3
nature—WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE TERM FORM. For by the term 'form' nature is understood, as Augustine clearly teaches in the book On Faith to Peter, saying: "When you hear of Christ that he was in the form of God,'® it is necessary that you acknowledge and hold most firmly that, in that term 'form,' the fullness of nature is to be understood. And so he was in thé form of God because he was forever in the nature of God the Father, of whom he was born.""""
7. HILARY. Hilary too, in On the Trinity, book 12, says: "To be in the form of God means nothing else than to remain in the nature of God." '*—
You have learned that the meaning of 'form' is nature, and you have heard that the form of God took the form of a servant: and so it follows that divine nature took on human nature.—JEROME. Jerome too, in the Explanation of the Faith, clearly indicates the same, saying: "The Son of God suffered not putatively, but truly; he suffered in accordance with that which was capable of suffering, that is, not according to the substance which took, but according to the substance which was taken."!" From which it is apparent that the divine substance took on the human one.
8. AUGUSTINE, ON F4/TH TO PETER. But the words of Augustine set out above, if they are examined with diligence, appear to indicate that the Word alone was made flesh and it alone took on a human nature, and that the divine nature took the same human nature. For he says: "The Trinity reconciled us to itself through the fact that the Trinity itself made the Word alone flesh. In this the truth of divine and human nature remains so unchangeable that, just as the divinity which it has from the Father is forever true, so also is forever true and unchangeable his humanity, which the most high divinity has united to itself."'° See, he said both that the Word alone was made flesh, and that humanity was united to divinity —
AUGUSTINE, IN THE BOOK ON THE TRINITY. The same [Augustine] also said earlier that "the whole Trinity made the servile form which was taken by the Son alone.""!
9. It is by now easy to recognize that authorities have handed down different and manifold views on the proposed question; and so those who came after them, reading these views, take occasion from the aforesaid to set forth various and contradictory opinions.
10. WHAT IS TO BE HELD CONCERNING THIS. Wishing to remove any sign of mendaciousness and contradiction from the sacred Pages, we agree with the orthodox Fathers and Catholic doctors who are untouched
CEP. 276.
'Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, c2 n19.
'SHilary, De Trinitate, bk 12 n6.
Pelagius, Libellus fidei ad Innocentium Papam, n5.
*Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, c2 n23; cf. above, dist. 1 c3 n2.
*1See above, dist. 2 c3 n2.