Note also that in the Gonsolatio the framework is allegory, which is also freely applied in the details.
105 BOETHII est. Ad quam uero utilitatem facta probabitur tanta 90 humilitas diuinitatis, si homo qui periit generatione ac passione Christ! saluatus non est, quoniam negatur adsumptus? Rursus igitur sicut ab eodem Nestorii fonte Eutychis error principium sumpsit, ita ad eundem finem relabitur, ut secundum Eutychen 95 quoque non sit saluatum genus humanum, quoniam non is qui aeger esset et saluatione curaque egeret, adsumptus est. Traxisse autem hanc sententiam uidetur, si tamen huius erroris fuit ut crederet non fuisse corpus Christi uere ex homine sed extra atque 100 adeo in caelo formatum, quoniam cum eo in caelum creditur ascendisse. Quod exemplum continet tale: "non ascendit in caelum, nisi qui de caelo descendit."
VI.
Sed satis de ea parte dictum uidetur, si corpus quod Christus excepit ex Maria non credatur adsumptum. Si uero adsumptum est ex Maria neque perrnansit per- fecta humana diuinaque natura, id tribus effici potuit 5 modis: aut enim diuinitas in humanitatem translata est aut humanitas in diuinitatem aut utraeque in se ita temperatae sunt atque commixtae, ut neutra sub- stantia' propriam formam teneret. Sed si diuinitas in humanitatem translata est, factum est, quod credi 10 nefas est, ut humanitate inmutabili substantia per- manente diuinitas uerteretur et quod passibile atque mutabile naturaliter exsisteret, id inmutabile per- maneret, quod uero inmutabile atque inpassibile 0 Another reductio ad absurdum or ad impietatem, cf, supra, p. 98, note 6.
106 CONTRA EVTYCHEN that is useless. And to what useful end shall we say this great humiliation of Divinity was wrought if ruined man has not been saved by the conception and the Passion of Christ — for they denied that he was taken into Godhead? Once more then, just as the error of Eutyches took its rise from the same source as that of Nestorius3 so it hastens to the same goal inasmuch as according to Eutyches also the human race has not been saved," since man who was sick and needed health and salvation was not taken into Godhead. Yet this is the conclusion he seems to have drawn, if he erred so deeply as to believe that Christ's body was not taken really from man but from a source outside him and prepared for the purpose in heaven, for He is believed to have ascended with it up into heaven. Which is the meaning of the text: none hath ascended into heaven save Him who came down from heaven.
VI.
VI.
F think enough has been said on the supposition that we should believe that the body which Christ received was not taken from Mary. But if it was taken from Mary and the human and divine natures did not continue, each in its perfection, this may have happened in one of three ways. Either Godhead was translated into manhood, or manhood into God head, or both were so modified and mingled that neither substance kept its proper form. But if God head was translated into manhood, that has happened which piety forbids us to believe, viz. while the man hood continued in unchangeable substance Godhead was changed, and that which was by nature passible and mutable remained immutable, while that which we believe to be by nature immutable and impassible 107 BOETHII naturaliter creditur, id in rem rnutabilem uerteretur.
15 Hoc igitur fieri nulla ratione contingit. Sed humana forsitan natura in deitatem uideatur esse conuersa. Hoc uero qui fieri potest, si diuinitas in generatione Christi et humanam animam suscepit et corpus? Non enim omnis res in rem omnem uerti ac transmutari 20 potest. Nam cum substantiarum aliae sint corporeae, aliae incorporeae, neque corporea in incorpoream neque incorporea in earn quae corpus est mutari potest, nee uero incorporea in se inuicem formas proprias mutant; sola enim mutari transformarique 25 in se possunt quae habent unius materiae commune subiectum, nee haec omnia, sed ea quae in se et facere et pati possunt. Id uero probatur hoc modo: neque enim potest aes in lapidem permutari nee uero idem aes in herbam nee quodlibet aliud corpus in quodlibet 30 aliud transfigurari potest, nisi et eadem sit materia rerum in se transeuntium et a se et facere et pati possint, ut, cum uinum atque aqua miscentur, utraque suiit talia quae actum sibi passionemque communicent. Potest enim aquae qualitas a uini qualitate aliquid 35 pati; potest item uini ab aquae qualitate aliquid pati. Atque idcirco si multum quidem fuerit aquae, uini uero paululum, non dicuntur inmixta, sed alterum alterius qualitate corrumpitur. Si quis enim uinum fundat in mare, non mixtum est mari uinum sed in mare 40 corruptum, idcirco quoniam qualitas aquae multi- tudine sui corporis nihil passa est a qualitate uini, sed potius in se ipsam uini qualitatem propria multi- tudine commutauit. Si uero sint mediocres sibique aequales uel paulo inaequales naturae quae a se 108 CONTRA EVTYCHEN was changed into a mutable thing. This cannot happen on any show of reasoning. But perchance the human nature may seem to be changed into God head. Yet how can this be if Godhead in the con ception of Christ received both human soul and body? Things cannot be promiscuously changed and inter changed. For since some substances are corporeal and others incorporeal, neither can a corporeal sub stance be changed into an incorporeal, nor can an incorporeal be changed into that which is body, nor yet incorporeals interchange their proper forms; for only those things can be interchanged and transformed which possess the common substrate of the same matter, nor can all of these so behave, but only those which can act upon and be acted on by each other. Now this is proved as follows: bronze can no more be converted into stone than it can be into grass, and generally no body can be transformed into any other body unless the things which pass into each other have a common matter and can act upon and be acted on by each other, as when wine and water are mingled both are of such a nature as to allow reciprocal action and influence. For the quality of water can be influenced in some degree by that of wine, similarly the quality of wine can be influenced by that of water. And therefore if there be a great deal of water but very little wine, they are not said to be mingled, but the one is ruined by the quality of the other. For ii you pour wine into the sea the wine is not mingled with the sea but is lost in the sea, simply because the quality of the water owing to its bulk has been in no way affected by the quality of the wine, but rather by its own bulk has changed the quality of the wine into water. But if the natures which are cap able of reciprocal action and influence are in moderate 109 BOETHII 45 facere et pati possunt, illae miscentur et mediocribus inter se qualitatibus temperantur. Atque haec qui- dem in corporibus neque his omnibus, sed tantum quae a se, ut dictum est, et facere et pati possunt communi atque eadem materia subiecta. Omne enim 50 corpus quod in generatione et corruptioiie subsistit communem uidetur habere materiam, sed non omne ab omni uel in omni uel facere aliquid uel pati potest. Corpora uero in incorporea nulla ratione poterunt permutari, quoniam nulla communi materia subiecta 55 participant quae susceptis qualitatibus in alterutram permutetur. Omnis enim natura incorporeae sub- stantiae nullo materiae nititur fundamento; nullum uero corpus est cui non sit materia subiecta. Quod cum ita sit cumque ne ea quidem quae communem 60 materiam naturaliter habent in se transeant, nisi illis adsit potestas in se et a se faciendi ac patiendi, multo magis in se non permutabuntur quibus non modo commuiiis materia non est, sed cum alia res materiae fundamento nititur ut corpus, alia omnino materiae 65 subiecto non egeat ut incorporeum.
Non igitur fieri potest, ut corpus in incorporalem speciem permutetur, nee uero fieri potest, ut incor- poralia in sese commixtione aliqua permutentur. Quorum enim communis nulla materia est, nee in 70 se uerti ac permutari queunt. Nulla autem est incorporalibus materia rebus; non poterunt igitur in se inuicem permutari. Sed anima et deus incorporeae substantiae recte creduntur; non est igitur humana anima in diuinitatem a qua adsumpta est permutata.
110 CONTRA EVTYCHEN proportion and equal or only slightly unequal, they are really mingled and tempered by the qualities which are in moderate relation to each other. This indeed takes place in bodies but not in all bodies, but only in those, as has been said, which are capable of reciprocal action and influence and have the same matter subject to their qualities. For all bodies which subsist in conditions of birth and decay seem to possess a common matter, but all bodies are not capable of reciprocal action and influence. But cor- poreals cannot in any way be changed into incorporeal s because they do not share in any common underlying matter which can be changed into this or that thing by taking on its qualities. For the nature of no in corporeal substance rests upon a material basis; but there is no body that has not matter as a substrate. Since this is so, and since not even those things which naturally have a common matter can pass over into each other unless they have the power of acting on each other and being acted upon by each other, far more will those things not suffer interchange which not only have no common matter but are different in substance, since one of them, being body, rests on a basis of matter, while the other, being incorporeal, cannot possibly stand in need of a material substrate! It is therefore impossible for a body to be changed into an incorporeal species, nor will it ever be possible for incorporeals to be changed into each other by any process of mingling. For things which have no common matter cannot be changed and converted one into another. But incorporeal things have no matter; they can never, therefore, be changed about among themselves. But the soul and God are rightly believed to be incorporeal substances; therefore the human soul has not been converted into the Godhead 111 BOETHII 75 Quod si neque corpus neque anima in diuinitatem potuit uerti, nullo modo fieri potuit, ut humanitas conuerterettir in deum. Multo minus uero credi potest, ut utraque in sese confunderentur, quoniam neque incorporalitas transire ad corpus potest neque gO rui'sus e conuerso corpus ad incorporalitatem, quando quidem nulla his materia subiecta communis est quae alterutris substantiarum qualitatibus permutetur.
At hi ita aiunt ex duabus quidem naturis Christum consistere, in duabus uero minime, hoc scilicet in- 85 tendentes, quoniam quod ex duabus consistit ita unum fieri potest, ut ilia ex quibus dicitur constare iion maneant; ueluti cum mel aquae confunditur iieutrum manet, sed alterum alterius copulatione cor- ruptura quiddam tertium fecit, ita illud quidem quod 90 ex melle atque aqua tertium fit constare ex utrisque dicitur, in utrisque uero negatur. Non enim poterit in utrisque constare, quando utrorumque natura non permanet. Ex utrisque enim constare potest, licet ea ex quibus coniungitur alterutra qualitate corrupta 95 sint; in utrisque uero huiusmodi constare non poterit, quoniam ea quae in se transfusa sunt non manent ac non sunt utraque in quibus constare uideatur, cum ex utrisque constet in se inuicem qualitatum mutatione transfusis.
100 Catholic! uero utrumque rationabiliter confitentur, nam et ex utrisque naturis Christum et in utrisque consistere. Sed id qua ratione dicatur, paulo poster! us explicabo. Nunc illud est manifestum conuictam esse Eutychis sententiam eo nomine, quod cum tribus CONTRA EVTYCHEN by which it was assumed. But if neither body nor soul can be turned into Godhead, it could not possibly happen that manhood should be transformed into God. But it is much less credible that the two should be confounded together since neither can incorporality pass over to body, nor again, contrari wise, can body pass over into incorporality when these have no common matter underlying them which can be converted by the qualities of one of two substances.
But the Eutychians say that Christ consists indeed of two natures^ but not in two natures, meaning, no doubt, thereby, that a thing which consists of two elements can so far become one, that the elements of which it is said to be made up disappear; just as, for example, when honey is mixed with water neither remains, but the one thing being spoilt by conjunc tion with the other produces a certain third thing, so that third thing which is produced by the combina tion of honey and water is said to consist of both, but not in both. For it can never consist in both so long- as the nature of both does not continue. For it can consist of both even though each element of which it is compounded has been spoiled by the quality of the other; but it can never consist in both natures of this kind since the elements which have been transmuted into each other do not continue, and both the elements in which it seems to consist cease to be, since it consists of two things translated into each other by change of qualities.
But Catholics in accordance with reason confess both, for they say that Christ consists both of and in two natures. How this can be affirmed I will explain a little later. One thing is now clear; the opinion of Eutyches has been confuted on the ground that, E 113 BOETHII 105 modis fieri possit, ut ex duabus naturis una subsistat, ut aut diuinitas in humanitatem translata sit aut humanitas in diuinitatem aut utraque permixta sint, nullum horum modum fieri potuisse superius dicta argumentatione declaratur.
VII.
Restat ut, quemadmoduni catholica fides dicat, et in utrisque naturis Christum et ex utrisque consistere doceamus.
Ex utrisque naturis aliquid consistere duo signi- 5 ficat: unum quidem, cum ita dicimus aliquid ex duabus naturis iungi sicut ex melle atque aqua, id autem est ut ex quolibet modo confusis, uel si una uertatur in alteram uel si utraeque in se inuicem misceantur, nullo modo tamen utraeque permaneant; 10 secundum hunc modum Eutyches ait ex utrisque naturis Christum consistere.
Alter uero modus est ex utrisque consistendi quod ita ex duabus iunctum est, ut ilia tamen ex quibus iunctum esse dicitur maneant nee in alterutra 15 uertantur, ut cum dicimus coronam ex auro gemmisque compositam. Hie neque aurum in gemmas translatum est neque in aurum gemma conuersa, sed utraque permanent nee formam propriam derelinquunt. Talia ergo ex aliquibus constantia et in his constare dicimus 20 ex quibus consistere praedicantur. Tune enim pos- sumus dicere coronam gemmis auroque consistere; sunt enim gemmae atque aurum in quibus corona 114 CONTRA EVTYCHEN although there are three ways by which the one nature can subsist of the two, vi/. either the transla tion of divinity into humanity or of humanity into divinity or the compounding of both together, the foregoing train of reasoning proves that no one of the three ways is a possibility.
VII.
It remains for us to show how in accordance witli the affirmation of Catholic belief Christ consists at once in and of both natures.
The statement that a thing consists of two natures bears two meanings; one, when we say that anything is a union of two natures, as e.g. honey and water, where the union is such that in the combination, however the elements be confounded, whether by one nature changing into the other, or by both mingling with each other, the two entirely disappear. This is the way in which according to Eutyches Christ consists of two natures.
The other way in which a thing can consist of two natures is when it is so combined of two that the elements of which it is said to be combined continue without changing into each other, as when we say that a crown is composed of gold and gems. Here neither is the gold converted into gems nor is the gem turned into gold, but both continue without surrendering their proper form.
Things then like this, composed of various elements, we say consist also in the elements of which they are composed. For in this case we can say that a crown is composed of gems and gold, for gems and gold are that in which the crown consists. For in the former 115 BOETHII 115 BOETHII consistat. Nam in priore modo non est mel atque aqua in quibus illud quod ex utrisque iungitur constet 25 Cum igitur utrasque maiiere naturas in Christo fides catholica confiteatur perfectasque easdem persistere nee alteram in alteram transmutai'i, iure dicit et in utrisque naturis Christum et ex utrisque consistere: in utrisque quidem, quia manent utraeque, ex utris- 30 que uero, quia utrarumque adunatione manentium una persona fit Christi. Non autem secundum earn siguificationem ex utrisque naturis Christum iunctum esse fides catholica tenet, secundum quam Eutyches pronuntiat. Nam ille talem significationem coniunc- 35 tioiiis ex utraque natura sumit, ut non confiteatur in utrisque consistere, neque enim utrasque manere; catholicus uero earn significationem ex utrisque con- sistendi sumit quae illi sit proxima eamque conseruet quae in utrisque consistere confitetur.
40 Aequiuocum igitur est "ex utrisque consistere" ac potius amphibolum et gemina significatione diuersa designans: una quidem significatione non manere substantias ex quibus illud quod copulatum est dicatur esse coniunctum, alio modo significans ita ex utrisque 45 coniunctum, ut utraque permaneant.
Hoc igitur expedite aequiuocationis atque ambigui- tatis nodo nihil est ultra quod possit opponi, quin id sit quod firma ueraque fides catholica continet; eun- dem Christum hominem esse perfectum, euiidem deum 50 eundemque qui homo sit perfectus atque deus unum esse deum ac dei filium, nee quaternitatem trinitati adstrui, dum homo additur supra perfectum deum, sed unam eandemque personam numerum trinitatis 116 CONTRA EVTYCHEN mode of composition honey and water is not that in which the resulting union of both consists.
Since then the Catholic Faith confesses that both natures continue in Christ and that they both remain perfect, neither being transformed into the other, it says with right that Christ consists both in and of the two natures; in the two because both continue, of the two because the One Person of Christ is formed by the union of the two continuing natures.
But the Catholic Faith does not hold the union of Christ out of two natures according to that sense which Eutyches puts upon it. For the interpretation of the conjunction out of two natures which he adopts forbids him to confess consistence in two or the continuance of the two either; but the Catholic adopts an interpretation of the consistence out of two Avhich comes near to that of Eutyches, yet keeps the interpretation which confesses consistence in two.
" To consist of two natures " is therefore an equivocal or rather a doubtful term of double mean ing denoting different things; according to one of its interpretations the substances out of which the union is said to have been composed do not continue, according to another the union effected of the two is such that both natures continue.
When once this knot of doubt or ambiguity has been untied, nothing further can be advanced to shake the true and solid content of the Catholic- Faith, which is that the same Christ is perfect, man and God, and that He who is perfect man and God is One God and Son of Man, that, however, quaternity is not added to the Trinity by the addition of human nature to perfect Godhead, but that one and the same Person completes the number of the Trinity, 117 BOETHII 117 BOETHII explere, ut cum humanitas passa sit, deus tamen ,5 passus esse dicatur, non quo ipsa deitas humanitas facta sit, sed quod a deitate fuerit adsumpta. Item qui homo est, dei filius appellatur non substantia diuinitatis sed humanitatis, quae tamen diuinitati naturali unitate coniuncta est. Et cum haec ita 10 intellegentia discernantur permisceanturque, tamen unus idemque et homo sit perfectus et deus: deus quidem, quod ipse sit ex patris substantia genitus, homo uero, quod ex Maria sit uirgine procreatus. Itemque qui homo, deus eo quod a deo fuerit ad- 15 sumptus, et qui deus, homo, quoiiiam uestitus homine sit. Cumque in eadem persona aliud sit diuinitas quae suscepit, aliud quam suscepit humanitas, idem tamen deus atque homo est. Nam si hominem in- tellegas, idem homo est atque deus, quoniam homo '0 ex natura, deus adsumptione. Si uero deum intelle- gas, idem deus est atque homo, quoniam natura deus est, homo adsumptione. Fitque in eo gemina natura geminaque substantia, quoniam homo -deus unaque persona, quoniam idem homo atque deus. Mediaque '5 est haec inter duas haereses uia sicut uirtutes quoque medium tenent. Omnis enim uirtus in medio rerum decore locata consistit. Siquid enim uel ultra uel infra quam oportuerit fiat, a uirtute disceditur. Medie- tatem igitur uirtus tenet.
$0 Quocirca si quattuor haec neque ultra neque infra esse possunt, ut in Christo aut duae naturae sint duaeque personae ut Nestorius ait, aut una persona unaque natura ut Eutyches ait, aut duae naturae sed CONTRA EVTYCHEN so that, although it was the manhood which suffered, yet God can be said to have suffered, not by manhood becoming Godhead but by manhood being assumed by Godhead. Further, He who is man is called Son of God not in virtue of divine but of human substance, which latter none the less was conjoined to Godhead in a unity of natures. And although thought is able to distinguish and combine the manhood and the Godhead, yet one and the same is perfect man and God, God because He was begotten of the substance of the Father, but man because He was engendered of the Virgin Mary. And further He who is man is God in that manhood was assumed by God, and He who is God is man in that God was clothed with manhood. And although in the same Person the Godhead which took man hood is different from the manhood which It took, yet the same is God and man. For if you think of man, the same is man and God, being man by nature, God by assumption. But if you think of God, the same is God arid man, being God by nature, man by assumption. And in Him nature becomes double and substance double because He is God-man, and One Person since the same is man and God. This is the middle way between two heresies, just as virtues also hold a middle place." For every virtue has a place of honour midway between extremes. For if it stands beyond or below where it should it ceases to be virtue. And so virtue holds a middle place.
Wherefore if the following four assertions can be said to be neither beyond or below reason, viz. that in Christ are either two Natures and two Persons AS Nestorius says, or one Person and one Nature as Eutyches says, or two Natures but one Person as 119 BOETHII una persona ut catholica fides credit, aut una natura 85 duaeque personae,1 cuinque duas quidem naturas duasque personas in ea quae contra Nestorium dicta est responsione conuicerimus (unam uero personam unamque naturam esse non posse Eutyche proponente monstrauimus neque tamen tarn amens quisquam hue 90 usque exstitit, ut unam in eo naturam credere t sed geminas esse personas), restat ut ea sit uera quam fides catholica pronuntiat geminam substantiam sed unam esse personam. Quia uero paulo ante diximus Eutychen confiteri duas quidem in Christo 'ante 95 adunationem naturas, unam uero post adunationem, cumque hunc errorem duplicem interpretaremur celare sententiam, ut haec adunatio aut generatione fieret, cum ex Maria corpus hominis minime sumeretur aut ad sumptum 2 quidem ex Maria per resurrectionem 100 fieret adunatio, de utrisque quidem partibus idonee ut arbitror disputatum est. Nunc quaerendum est quomodo fieri potuerit ut dune naturae in unam substantiam miscerentur.
VIII.
VIII.
Verumtamen est etiam mine et alia quaestio quae ab his inferri potest qui corpus humanum ex Maria sumptum esse non credunt, sed alias fuisse seque- stratum praeparatumque quod in adunatione ex 5 Mariae utero gigni ac profem uideretur. Aiunt enim: si ex homine sumptum est corpus, homo uero omnis ex prima praeuaricatione non solum peccato 1 quod nullus haereticus adhuc attigit addunt codices quidam.
2 suraptum codd.; adsuraptum preli diabolus, ad sumptum nos.
120 CONTRA EVTYCHEN the Catholic Faith believes, or one Nature and two Persons, and inasmuch as we have refuted the doctrine of two Natures and two Persons in our argument against Nestorius and incidentally have shown that the one Person and one Nature suggested by Eutyches is impossible — since there has never been anyone so mad as to believe that His Nature was single but His Person double — it remains that the article of belief must be true which the Catholic Faith affirms,, viz. that the Nature is double,, but the Person one. But as I have just now remarked that Eutyches confesses two Natures in Christ before the union, but only one after the union, and since I proved that under this error lurked two opposite opinions, one, that the union was brought about by conception although the human body was certainly not taken from Mary; the other, that the body taken from Mary formed part of the union by means of the Resurrection, I have, it seems to me, argued the twofold aspect of the case as completely as it deserves. What we have now to inquire is how it came to pass that two Natures were combined into one Substance.
VIII.
VIII.
Nevertheless there remains yet another question which can be advanced by those who do not believe that the human body was taken from Mary, but that the body was in some other way set apart and pre pared, which in the moment of union appeared to be conceived and born of Mary's womb. For they say: if the body was taken from man while every man was, from the time of the first disobedience, not only enslaved by sin and death but also involved E2 121 BOETHII et morte tenebatur, uerum etiam affectibus pecca- torum erat implicitus, eaque illi fuit poena peccati, 10 ut, cum morte teneretur obstrictus, tamen esset reus etiam uoluntate peccandi, cur in Christo neque peceatum fuit neque uoluntas ulla peccandi? Et omnino habet animaduertendam dubitationem talis quaestio. Si enim ex carne humana Christi corpus 15 adsumptum est, dubitari potest, quaeiiam caro haec quae adsumpta sit esse uideatur. Eum quippe saluauit quern etiam adsumpsit; sin uero talevn hominem adsumpsit qualis Adam fuit ante peccatum, integram quidem uidetur humanam adsumpsisse 20 naturam, sed tamen quae medicina penitus non egebat. Quomodo autem fieri potest, ut talem adsumpserit hominem qualis Adam fuit, cum in Adam potuerit esse peccandi uoluntas atque affectio, unde factum est ut etiam praetergressis diuinis prae- 25 ceptis inoboedientiae delictis teneretur adstrictus? In Christo uero ne uoluntas quidem ulla creditur fuisse peccandi, cum praesertim si tale corpus hominis adsumpsit quale Adae ante peceatum fuit, non debuerit esse mortalis, quoniam Adam, si non 30 peccasset, mortem nulla ratione sensisset. Cum igitur Christus non peccauerit, quaerendum est cur senserit mortem, si Adae corpus ante quam peccaret adsumpsit. Quod si talem statum suscepit hominis qualis Adae post peceatum fuit, uidetur etiam Christo 35 non defuisse necessitas, ut et delictis subiceretur et passionibus confunderetur obductisque iudicii regulis bonum a malo non sincera integritate discerneret, quoniam has omnes poenas Adam delicti praeuarica- tione suscepit.