Anima igitur Christi summam perfectionem divinae visionis optinens inter creaturas ceteras, omnia divina opera et rationes ipsorum, quaecumque sunt, erunt vel fuerunt, in ipso Deo plene intuetur, ut non solum homines sed etiam supremos angelorum illuminet; et ideo Apostolus dicit Col. II quod in ipso sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi, et Hebr. IV quod omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius. Accordingly, the soul of Christ, possessing the highest perfection of the divine vision among all creatures, clearly beholds in God himself all the divine works and the exemplars of all things that are, will be, or have been; and so he enlightens not only men, but also the highest of the angels. Hence the Apostle says, in Colossians 2:3, that in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge of God; and in Hebrews 4:13 he points out that all things are naked and open to his eyes. Non tamen anima Christi ad comprehensionem divinitatis pertingere potest. Nam, ut supra dictum est, illud cognoscendo comprehenditur quod tantum cognoscitur quantum cognoscibile est. Unumquodque autem cognoscibile est inquantum est ens et verum; esse autem divinum est infinitum, similiter et veritas eius: infinite igitur Deus cognoscibilis est. Nulla autem creatura infinite cognoscere potest, etsi infinitum sit quod cognoscit; nulla igitur creatura Deum videndo comprehendere potest. Est autem anima Christi creatura, et quidquid in Christo ad humanam tantum naturam pertinet creatum est, alioquin non esset in Christo alia natura humanitatis a natura divinitatis, quae sola increata est. Hypostasis autem Dei Verbi sive persona increata est, quae est una in duabus naturis: ratione cuius Christum non dicimus creaturam, loquendo simpliciter, quia hoc nomine importatur hypostasis; dicimus tamen animam Christi vel corpus Christi esse creaturam. Anima igitur Christi Deum non comprehendit, sed Christus Deum comprehendit sua sapientia increata, secundum quem modum Dominus dicit Matth. XI Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius, de comprehensionis notitia loquens. Nonetheless, the soul of Christ cannot attain to a comprehension of the divinity. For, as we said above, a thing is comprehended by knowledge when it is known to the full extent that it is knowable. Any object is knowable to the degree that it is a being and is true; but the divine being is infinite, as likewise is its truth. Therefore, God is infinitely knowable. But no creature can know infinitely, even if what it knows is infinite. Hence no creature can comprehend God by seeing him. But Christ’s soul is a creature, and whatever in Christ pertains exclusively to his human nature is created. Otherwise there would not be in Christ a human nature that is other than the divine nature, which alone is uncreated. However, the hypostasis or person of the Word of God, which is one in two natures, is uncreated. For this reason we do not call Christ a creature, speaking absolutely, because the hypostasis is connoted by the name ‘Christ.’ But we do say that the soul of Christ or the body of Christ is a creature. Therefore, Christ’s soul does not comprehend God, but Christ comprehends God by his uncreated wisdom. Our Lord had this uncreated wisdom in mind when, speaking of his knowledge of comprehension, he said in Matthew 11:27: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. Est autem considerandum quod eiusdem rationis est comprehendere essentiam alicuius rei et virtutem ipsius: unumquodque enim potest agere inquantum est actu. Si igitur anima Christi essentiam divinitatis comprehendere non valet, ut ostensum est, impossibile est ut divinam virtutem comprehendat; comprehenderet autem eius virtutem si cognosceret quidquid Deus facere potest, et quibus rationibus effectus producere possit: non igitur anima Christi cognoscit quidquid Deus facere potest, vel quibus rationibus possit operari. In this connection we may note that comprehension of a thing’s essence and comprehension of its power are of the same nature; a thing is able to act so far as it is a being in act. Therefore, if Christ’s soul is incapable of comprehending the essence of the divinity, as we have shown is the case, it cannot comprehend the divine power. But it would comprehend the divine power if it knew all that God is able to accomplish and all the examplars by which he can produce his effects. But this is impossible. Therefore, Christ’s soul does not know all that God can do, nor all the exemplars by which he can work. Sed quia Christus, etiam secundum quod homo, omni creaturae a Deo Patre praepositus est, conveniens est ut omnium quae a Deo qualitercumque facta sunt, in ipsius divinae essentiae visione plenam cognitionem percipiat: et secundum hoc anima Christi omnisciens dicitur, quia plenam notitiam habet omnium quae sunt, erunt vel fuerunt. Aliarum vero creaturarum Deum videntium quaedam plenius et quaedam minus plene praedictorum effectuum in ipsa Dei visione cognitionem percipiunt. However, since Christ, even as man, is placed by God the Father over every creature, it is fitting that in his vision of the divine essence he should perceive with full knowledge all things that in any way have been wrought by God. In this sense the soul of Christ is said to be omniscient, for it has complete knowledge of all things that are, will be, or have been. Among the other creatures that see God, some enjoy a more perfect knowledge, others a less perfect, of these effects in their vision of God. Praeter hanc autem rerum cognitionem qua res ab intellectu creato cognoscuntur in ipsius divinae essentiae visione, sunt alii modi cognitionis quibus a creaturis habetur rerum cognitio. Nam angeli praeter cognitionem matutinam qua res in Verbo cognoscunt, habent cognitionem vespertinam qua cognoscunt res in propriis naturis. Huiusmodi autem cognitio aliter competit hominibus secundum suam naturam, atque aliter angelis. Nam homines secundum naturae ordinem intelligibilem rerum veritatem a sensibus colligunt, ut Dionysius dicit, ita scilicet quod species intelligibiles in eorum intellectibus actione intellectus agentis a phantasmatibus abstrahuntur; angeli vero per influxum divini luminis rerum scientiam acquirunt, ut scilicet sicut a Deo res in esse prodeunt, ita etiam in intellectu angelico a Deo rerum rationes sive similitudines imprimuntur. In utrisque autem, tam hominibus quam angelis, supra rerum cognitionem quae competit eis secundum naturam, invenitur quaedam supernaturalis cognitio mysteriorum divinorum, de quibus et angeli illuminantur ab angelis, et homines etiam de his prophetica revelatione instruuntur. In addition to this knowledge of things, whereby things are known by the created intellect in the vision of the divine essence itself, there are other ways of knowing by which creatures possess a knowledge of things. The angels, besides morning knowledge, whereby they know things in the Word, also have evening knowledge, whereby they know things in their proper natures. This kind of knowledge pertains to men in one way, in keeping with their nature, and to angels in another way. For men, consistent with the order of nature, derive the intelligible truth of things from their senses, as Dionysius observes, in such a way that the intelligible species in their intellects are abstracted from phantasms by the agent intellect. But angels acquire knowledge of things through an influx of divine light so that, in the same way that things themselves come forth into being from God, representations or likenesses of things are imprinted on the angelic intellect by God. In men and angels alike, however, over and above the knowledge of things they have by nature, there is found a certain supernatural knowledge of divine mysteries, about which angels are enlightened by angels, and men, for their part, are instructed by prophetic revelation. Et quia nulla perfectio creaturis exhibita, animae Christi, quae est creaturarum excellentissima, deneganda est, convenienter praeter cognitionem qua Dei essentiam videt et omnia in ipsa, triplex alia cognitio est ei attribuenda. Una quidem experimentalis, sicut et aliis hominibus, inquantum aliqua per sensus cognovit ut competit humanae naturae. Alia vero divinitus infusa, ad cognoscendaum omnia illa ad quae naturalis hominis cognitio se extendere potest. Conveniens enim fuit ut humana natura a Dei Verbo assumpta in nullo a perfectione deficeret, utpote per quam esset tota natura humana restauranda. Est autem imperfectum omne quod in potentia existit antequam reducatur in actum; intellectus autem humanus est in potentia ad intelligibilia quae naturaliter homo intelligere potest: omnium igitur horum scientiam anima Christi divinitus accepit per species influxas, quibus tota potentia intellectus humani fuit reducta ad actum. Sed quia Christus secundum humanam naturam non solum fuit reparator naturae sed etiam gratiae propagator, affuit ei et tertia cognitio qua plenissime cognovit quidquid ad mysteria gratiae potest pertinere, quae naturalem hominis cognitionem excedunt, sed cognoscuntur ab hominibus per donum sapientiae vel per spiritum prophetiae. Nam ad huiusmodi etiam cognoscenda est in potentia intellectus humanus, licet altiori agente reducatur in actum; nam ad naturalia cognoscenda reducitur in actum per lumen intellectus agentis, horum autem cognitionem consequitur per lumen divinum. Accordingly, since no perfection vouchsafed to creatures may be withheld from Christ’s soul, which is the most excellent of creatures, a threefold knowledge is fittingly to be attributed to him, in addition to the knowledge whereby he beholds the essence of God and all things in that essence. One kind of knowledge is experiential, as in other men, so far as Christ knew some things through the senses in keeping with his human nature. A second knowledge is divinely infused, granted to Christ so that he might know all truths to which man’s natural knowledge extends or can extend. The human nature assumed by the Word of God ought not to have been lacking in any perfection whatever, since through it the whole of human nature was to be restored. But everything that exists in potency is imperfect before it is reduced to act. Thus the human intellect is in potency to the intelligibles which man can know naturally. Hence the soul of Christ received knowledge of all such objects through divinely infused species, by which the entire potency of his human intellect was reduced to act. Furthermore, since Christ in his human nature was not only the restorer of our nature, but was also the fountainhead of grace, he was endowed with a third knowledge whereby he knew most perfectly all that can pertain to the mysteries of grace, which transcend man’s natural knowledge, although they are known by men through the gift of wisdom or through the spirit of prophecy. The human intellect is in potency with regard to the acquisition of such knowledge, even though an agency belonging to a higher sphere is required to reduce it to act. When there is question of knowing natural things, the mind is reduced to act by the light of the agent intellect; but it acquires knowledge of these mysteries through divine light. Patet igitur ex praedictis quod anima Christi summum cognitionis gradum inter creaturas optinuit quantum ad Dei visionem, qua Dei essentia videtur et alia in ipsa; similiter etiam quantum ad cognitionem mysteriorum gratiae, necnon quantum ad cognitionem naturalium scibilium: unde in nullo horum trium Christus proficere potuit. Sed manifestum est quod res sensibiles per temporis successionem magis ac magis sensibus corporis experiendo cognovit, et ideo solum quantum ad cognitionem experimentalem Christus proficere potuit, secundum illud Luc. II Puer proficiebat sapientia et aetate; quamvis possit et hoc aliter intelligi, ut profectus sapientiae Christi dicatur non quo ipse sit sapientior, sed quo sapientia proficiebat in aliis, quia scilicet per eius sapientiam magis ac magis instruebantur. Quod dispensative factum est, ut se aliis hominibus conformem ostenderet, ne si in puerili aetate perfectam sapientiam demonstrasset, Incarnationis mysterium phantasticum videretur. From all that has been said, it is clear that the soul of Christ reached the highest degree of knowledge among all creatures as regards the vision of God, whereby the essence of God is seen, and other things in it; likewise as regards knowledge of the mysteries, and also as regards knowledge of things naturally knowable. Consequently, Christ could not advance in any of these three kinds of knowledge. But obviously he knew sensible things more and more with the passing of time by experiencing them through the bodily senses. Therefore, Christ could advance only with respect to experimental knowledge. That he actually did so we learn from Luke 2:52: The boy advanced in wisdom and years. However, this can be understood also in another way, so that Christ’s increase of wisdom would mean not that he himself became wiser, but that wisdom increased in others, in the sense that they were more and more instructed by his wisdom. This was done for a good reason: that he might show that he was like other men. If he had made a display of his perfect wisdom at a tender age, the mystery of the Incarnation might well have seemed phantastical. Capitulum 217 Chapter 217 De materia corporis Christi Concerning the matter of Christ’s body Secundum praemissa igitur evidenter apparet qualis debuit esse corporis Christi formatio. Poterat siquidem Deus corpus Christi ex limo terrae formare vel ex quacumque materia, sicut formavit corpus primi parentis; sed hoc humanae restaurationi propter quam Filius Dei, ut diximus, carnem assumpsit, congruum non fuisset. Non enim sufficienter natura humani generis ex primo parente derivata, quae sananda erat, in pristinum honorem restituta esset, si aliunde corpus assumeret diaboli victor et mortis triumphator, sub quibus humanum genus captivum tenebatur propter peccatum primi parentis. Dei autem perfecta sunt opera, et ad perfectum perducit quod reparare intendit, ut etiam plus adiiciat quam fuerat subtractum, secundum illud Apostoli Ro. V: quod gratia Dei per Christum amplius abundavit quam delictum Adae. Convenientius igitur fuit ut Dei Filius corpus assumeret de natura ab Adam propagata. The foregoing exposition clearly indicates the way the formation of Christ’s body ought to have taken place. God could, indeed, have fashioned Christ’s body from the dust of the earth or from any other matter, in the way he fashioned the body of our first parent. But this would not have been in keeping with the restoration of man, which is the reason why the Son of God assumed flesh, as we have pointed out. The nature of the human race, which was derived from the first parent and which was to be healed, would not have been so well restored to its pristine honor if the victor over the devil and the conqueror of death, under which the human race was held captive because of the sin of the first father, had taken his body from some other source. The works of God are perfect, and what he means to restore he brings to perfection. He even adds more than had been taken away: Through Christ the grace of God has abounded more than the offense of Adam, as the Apostle teaches in Romans 5:15, 20. Hence it was fitting that the Son of God should assume a body from the nature propagated by Adam. Adhuc, Incarnationis mysterium hominibus per fidem proficuum redditur: nisi enim homines crederent Dei Filium esse eum qui homo videbatur, non sequerentur eum homines ut salutis auctorem, quod Iudaeis accidit, qui ex Incarnationis mysterio propter incredulitatem damnationem potius quam salutem sunt consecuti. Ut ergo hoc ineffabile mysterium facilius crederetur, Filius Dei sic omnia dispensavit ut se verum hominem esse ostenderet, quod non ita videretur si aliunde materiam sui corporis acciperet quam ex natura humana. Conveniens igitur fuit ut corpus a primo parente propagatum assumeret. Moreover, the mystery of the Incarnation becomes profitable to men by faith. Unless men believed that he who appeared in the guise of a man was the Son of God, they would not follow him as the author of salvation. This was the case with the Jews, who drew upon themselves damnation rather than salvation from the mystery of the Incarnation, because of their unbelief. In order, therefore, that this ineffable mystery might more readily be believed, the Son of God disposed all things in such a way as to show that he was a true man. This would not have seemed to be so if he had taken his bodily nature from some other source than from human nature. Fittingly, therefore, he assumed a body stemming from the first parent. Item, Filius Dei homo factus humano generi salutem adhibuit, non solum conferendo gratiae remedium, sed etiam praebendo exemplum quod repudiari non potest. Alterius enim hominis et doctrina et vita in dubium venire potest propter imperfectum humanae cognitionis et virtutis; sed sicut quod Filius Dei docet indubitanter creditur verum, ita quod operatur indubitanter creditur bonum. Oportuit autem ut in eo exemplum acciperemus et gloriae quam speramus, et virtutis qua ipsam meremur; utrumque autem exemplum minus efficax esset, si aliunde materiam corporis assumpsisset quam unde alii homines assumunt. Si cui enim persuaderetur quod toleraret passiones sicut Christus sustinuit, quod speraret se resurrecturum sicut Christus resurrexit, posset excusationem praetendere ex diversa corporis conditione. Ut igitur exemplum Christi efficacius redderetur, conveniens fuit ut non aliunde corporis materiam assumeret quam de natura quae a primo parente propagatur. Furthermore, the Son of God, made man, brought salvation to the human race, not only by conferring the remedy of grace, but also by giving an example that cannot be ignored. Doubts may be raised about the teaching and the life of any other man because of a defect in his human knowledge and his mastery of truth. But what the Son of God teaches is believed without hesitation to be true and what he does is accepted without misgiving as good. We ought to accept him as an example of the glory we hope for and of the virtue whereby we may merit it. In both instances the example would have been less effective if he had taken his bodily nature from another source than that from which the rest of men receive theirs. Otherwise, if we tried to persuade a man that he should endure sufferings as Christ endured them, and that he should hope to rise as Christ rose, he could allege as an excuse the different condition of his body. Therefore, to give greater effectiveness to his example, it was fitting that Christ assumed his bodily nature from no other source than from the nature that is propagated from the first parent. Capitulum 218 Chapter 218 De formatione corporis Christi, quae non est ex semine On the formation of Christ’s body, which was not from male seed Non tamen fuit conveniens ut eodem modo formaretur corpus Christi de humana natura, sicut formantur aliorum hominum corpora. Cum enim ad hoc Filius Dei naturam humanam assumeret ut ipsam a peccato mundaret, oportebat ut tali modo assumeret quod nullum contagium peccati incurreret. Homines autem peccatum originale incurrunt ex hoc quod generantur per virtutem activam quae est in virili semine, quod est secundum seminalem rationem in Adam peccante praeextitisse. Sicut enim primus homo originalem iustitiam transfudisset in posteros simul cum transfusione naturae, ita etiam originalem culpam transfudit transfundendo naturam, quod est per virtutem activam virilis seminis; oportuit igitur absque virili semine corpus Christi formari. Nevertheless, the body of Christ could not becomingly have been fashioned in human nature in the same way as the bodies of other men are formed. Since he assumed this nature for the purpose of cleansing it from sin, he ought to have assumed it in such a way that he would incur no contagion of sin. Men incur original sin by the fact that they are begotten through the active human power residing in the male seed; which is according to the seminal principle preexisting in Adam the sinner. Just as the first man would have transmitted original justice to his posterity along with the transmission of nature, so he transmitted original sin by transmitting nature; and this is brought about by the active power of the male seed. Hence the body of Christ ought to have been formed without male seed. Item, virtus activa virilis seminis naturaliter agit, et ideo homo qui ex virili semine generatur non subito perducitur ad perfectum, sed determinatis processibus: omnia enim naturalia per determinata media ad determinatos fines procedunt. Oportebat autem corpus Christi in ipsa assumptione perfectum esse et anima rationali informatum, quia corpus est assumptibile a Dei Verbo inquantum est animae rationali unitum, licet non esset perfectum secundum debitam quantitatem; non ergo corpus Christi formari debuit per virilis seminis virtutem. Moreover, the active power of the male seed operates naturally, and so man, who is begotten of male seed, is brought to perfection, not at once, but by definite processes. For all natural things advance to fixed ends through fixed intermediary stages. But Christ’s body ought to have been perfect and informed by a rational soul at its very assumption; for a body is capable of being assumed by the Word of God so far as it is united to a rational soul, even though it was not at first perfect with regard to its full measure of quantity. Accordingly, the body of Christ ought not to have been formed through the power of the male seed. Capitulum 219 Chapter 219 De causa formationis corporis Christi On the cause of the formation of Christ’s body Cum autem corporis humani formatio naturaliter sit ex virili semine, quocumque alio modo corpus Christi formatum fuerit, supra naturam fuit talis formatio. Solus autem Deus institutor naturae est qui supernaturaliter in rebus naturalibus operatur, ut supra dictum est; unde relinquitur quod solus Deus illud corpus miraculose formavit ex materia humanae naturae. Sed cum omnis Dei operatio in creatura sit tribus personis communis, tamen per quandam convenientiam formatio corporis Christi attribuitur Spiritui Sancto. Est enim Spiritus Sanctus amor Patris et Filii, quo se invicem et nos diligunt; Deus autem, ut Apostolus ad Ephesios dicit, propter nimiam caritatem suam qua dilexit nos, Filium suum incarnari constituit: convenienter igitur carnis eius formatio Spiritui Sancto attribuitur. Since the formation of the human body is naturally effected by the male seed, any other way of fashioning the body of Christ was above nature. God alone is the author of nature, and he works supernaturally in natural things, as was remarked above. Hence we conclude that God alone miraculously formed that body from matter supplied by human nature. However, although every action of God in creation is common to the three divine persons, the formation of Christ’s body is, by a certain appropriation, attributed to the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, who love each other and us in him. Since God decreed that his Son should become incarnate because of his great love with which he loved us, as the Apostle says in Ephesians 2:4, the formation of Christ’s flesh is fittingly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Item, Spiritus Sanctus omnium gratiarum est actor, cum sit primum donum in quo omnia dona gratis donantur; hoc autem fuit superabundantis gratiae ut humana natura in unitatem divinae personae assumeretur, ut ex supradictis apparet: Ad demonstrandam igitur huiusmodi gratiam formatio corporis Christi Spiritui Sancto attribuitur. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the author of all grace, since he is the first in whom all gifts are given gratis. But the taking up of human nature into the unity of a divine person was a communication of superabundant grace, as is clear from what was said above. Accordingly, to emphasize the greatness of this grace, the formation of Christ’s body is attributed to the Holy Spirit. Convenit etiam hoc secundum similitudinem humani verbi et spiritus. Verbum enim humanum in corde existens sinvlitudinem gerit aeterni Verbi secundum quod existit in Patre. Sicut autem humanum verbum vocem assumit ut sensibiliter hominibus innotescat, ita et Verbum Dei carnem assumpsit ut visibiliter hominibus appareret; vox autem humana per hominis spiritum formatur: unde et caro Verbi Dei per Spiritum Verbi Dei debuit formari. Another reason for the appropriateness of this teaching is the relationship between the human word and spirit. The human word, as existing in the heart, bears a resemblance to the eternal Word as existing in the Father. And as the human word takes voice that it may become sensibly perceptible to men, so the Word of God took flesh that it might appear visibly to men. But the human voice is formed by man’s breath or spirit. In the same way the flesh of the Word of God ought to have been formed by the Spirit of the Word. Capitulum 220 Chapter 220 Expositio articuli in Symbolo positi de conceptione et nativitate Christi Explanation of the article in the Creed about the conception and birth of Christ Ad excludendum igitur errorem Ebionis et Cerinthi, qui corpus Christi ex virili semine formatum dixerunt, dicitur in Symbolo Apostolorum qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto; loco cuius in Symbolo Patrum dicitur et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, ut non corpus phantasticum secundum Manichaeos, sed veram carnem assumpsisse credatur. Additum est autem in Symbolo Patrum propter nos homines, ad excludendum Origenis errorem, qui posuit virtute passionis Christi etiam daemones liberandos. Additum est etiam in eodem propter nostram salutem, ut mysterium Incarnationis Christi sufficiens ad humanam salutem ostendatur, contra haeresim Nazaraeorum, qui fidem Christi sine operibus legis ad salutem humanam sufficere non putabant. Additum est etiam descendit de caelis, ad excludendum errorem Fotini, qui Christum purum hominem asserebat dicens eum ex Maria sumpsisse initium, ut magis per bonae vitae meritum in terris habens principium ad caelum ascenderet, quam caelestem habens originem assumendo carnem descendisset ad terram. Additur etiam Et homo factus est, ad excludendum errorem Nestorii, secundum cuius positionem Filius Dei, de quo Symbolum loquitur, magis inhabitator hominis quam homo esse diceretur. To exclude the error of Ebion and Cerinthus, who taught that Christ’s body was formed from male seed, the Apostles’ Creed states: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In place of this, the Creed of the Nicene Fathers has: he was made flesh by the Holy Spirit, so that we may believe that he assumed true flesh and not a phantastical body, as the Manichaeans claimed. And the Creed of the Fathers adds: on account of us men, to exclude the error of Origen, who alleged that by the power of Christ’s Passion even the devils were to be set free. In the same Creed the phrase, for our salvation, is appended to show that the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation suffices for men’s salvation, against the heresy of the Nazarenes, who thought that faith was not enough for human salvation apart from the works of the Law. The words, he came down from heaven, were added to exclude the error of Photinus, who asserted that Christ was no more than a man and that he took his origin from Mary. In this heresy the false teaching that Christ had an earthly beginning and later ascended to heaven by the merit of a good life, replaces the truth that he had a heavenly origin and descended to earth by assuming flesh. Lastly, the words, and he was made man, were added to exclude the error of Nestorius, according to whose contention the Son of God, of whom the Creed speaks, would be said rather to dwell in man than to be man. Capitulum 221 Chapter 221 Quod conveniens fuit Christum nasci ex virgine That it was fitting for Christ to be born of a virgin Cum autem ostensum sit quod de materia humanae naturae conveniebat Filium Dei carnem assumere, materiam autem in humana generatione ministrat femina, conveniens fuit ut Christus de femina carnem assumeret, secundum illud Apostoli ad Galatas IV: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere. Femina autem indiget viri commixtione ad hoc quod materia quam ipsa ministrat formetur in corpus humanum; formatio autem corporis Christi fieri non debuit per virtutem virilis seminis, ut supra iam dictum est: unde absque commixtione virilis seminis illa femina concepit ex qua Filius Dei carnem assumpsit. Since, as we have shown, the Son of God was to take flesh from matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: God sent forth his Son, born of woman. A woman needs the cooperation of a man in order that the matter she supplies may be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ’s body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above. Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Tanto autem aliquis magis spiritualibus donis repletur, quanto magis a carnalibus separatur: nam per spiritualia homo sursum trahitur, per carnalia vero deorsum. Cum autem formatio corporis Christi fieri debuerit per Spiritum Sanctum, oportuit illam feminam de qua Christus carnem assumpsit maxime spiritualibus donis repleri, ut per Spiritum Sanctum non solum anima fecundaretur virtutibus, sed etiam venter prole divina. Unde oportuit non solum mentem eius esse a peccato immunem, sed etiam corpus eius ab omni corruptela carnalis concupiscentiae elongari; unde non solum ad concipiendum Christum virilem commixtionem non est experta, sed nec ante nec postea. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more such a person is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual things, whereas he is dragged down by carnal things. Accordingly, since the formation of Christ’s body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it was necessary that the woman from whom Christ took his body should wholly filled with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb would be made fruitful with divine offspring. Therefore, her soul had to be free from sin, and her body had to be far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence. And so, not only did she have no experience of commingling with a man at the conceiving of Christ, but neither did she have it before or after. Hoc etiam conveniebat ei qui nascebatur ex ipsa. Ad hoc enim Filius Dei veniebat in mundum carne assumpta ut nos ad resurrectionis statum promoveret, in quo neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt homines sicut angeli in caelo: unde et continentiae et integritatis doctrinam introduxit, ut in fidelium vita aliqualiter resplendeat gloriae futurae imago; conveniens ergo fuit ut et in suo ortu integritatem commendaret nascendo ex Virgine. Et ideo in Symbolo Apostolorum dicitur natus ex Maria Virgine. In Symbolo autem Patrum incarnatus ex Maria Virgine dicitur, per quod Valentini error excluditur, ceterorumque qui corpus Christi dixerunt aut esse phantasticum, aut esse alterius naturae, et non esse ex corpore Virginis sumptum atque formatum. This was also due to him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world for the purpose of raising us to the state of resurrection, in which men neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven (Matt 22:30). This is why he established the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity: so that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Consequently, he did well to extol purity of life at his very birth by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles’ Creed says that he was born of the Virgin Mary. In the Creed of the Fathers he is said to have been made flesh of the Virgin Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastical or was of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin. Capitulum 222 Chapter 222 Quod Beata Virgo sit mater Christi That the Blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ Ex hoc etiam excluditur error Nestorii, qui beatam Mariam matrem Dei confiteri nolebat. In utroque enim Symbolo dicitur quod Filius Dei est natus vel incarnatus ex Virgine; femina autem ex qua aliquis homo nascitur, mater illius dicitur ex eo quod materiam ministrat humano conceptui: unde beata Virgo Maria, quae materiam ministravit conceptioni Filii Dei, vera mater Filii Dei dicenda est. Non enim refert ad rationem matris, quacumque virtute materia ministrata ab ipsa formetur: non minus igitur mater est quae materiam ministravit Spiritu Sancto formandam, quam quae materiam ministrat formandam virtute virilis seminis. The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the definition of motherhood is concerned, the power whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the power of male seed. Si quis autem dicere velit beatam Virginem Dei matrem non debere dici, quia non est ex ea assumpta divinitas, sed caro sola, sicut dicebat Nestorius, manifeste vocem suam ignorat. Non enim ex hoc aliqua dicitur alicuius mater, quia totum quod in ipso est ex ea sumatur. Homo enim constat ex anima et corpore, magisque est homo id quod est secundum animam quam secundum corpus; Anima autem nullius hominis a matre sumitur, sed vel a Deo immediate creatur, ut veritas habet, vel si esset ex traduce, ut quidam posuerunt, non sumeretur a matre sed magis a patre, quia in generatione ceterorum animalium, secundum philosophorum doctrinam, masculus dat animam, femina vero corpus. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is more in virtue of his soul than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as truth has it, or, if it were produced by traduction, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body. Sicut igitur cuiuslibet hominis mater aliqua femina dicitur ex hoc quod ab ea corpus eius assumitur, ita Dei mater beata Virgo Maria dici debet, si corpus ex ea assumptum est corpus Dei. Oportet autem dicere quod sit corpus Dei, si assumitur in unitatem personae Filii Dei, qui, est verus Deus; confitentibus igitur humanam naturam esse assumptam a Filio Dei in unitatem personae, necesse est dicere quod beata Virgo Maria sit mater Dei. Sed quia Nestorius negabat unam personam esse Dei et hominis Iesu Christi, ideo et ex consequenti negabat Virginem Mariam esse matrem Dei. Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore, all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of his person must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But because Nestorius denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, consequently he denied that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God. Capitulum 223 Chapter 223 Quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit Pater Christi That the Holy Spirit is not the father of Christ