Scotus Academicus, Tomus secundus: De Deo Intelligente et Volente

Note 1. That although the divine perfections are infinite, and consequently of equal grade and merit; nevertheless, if we defer to the divine Scriptures, which express divine things in human fashion, we will surely acknowledge that divine Holiness holds the first place among the other excellences: for, as the royal psalmist sings, addressing God, Ps. 137. Thou hast magnified thy holy name above every name — as though God glories more in the name of holiness than in the other divine titles.

To which that passage of Exodus 28 not incongruously squares, where Moses, at God's command, describing the priestly ornaments, ordered a golden plate to be made, in which, by the engraver's work, was inscribed: Holy to the Lord; which plate the high Priest bore on his forehead, showing it to all the peoples, to make known to them that the name of holiness is not only a character of the true Divinity, but also a special and more radiant perfection.

Hence it came about that although God, out of His infinite patience, so long endured the idolaters who adulterated His Divinity, and suffered that any of His perfections whatsoever should be consecrated to false deities — attributing, namely, strength to Mars, fecundity to Venus, knowledge to Pallas, empire to Jupiter, etc. — yet He never suffered this injury to be inflicted upon His holiness.

For there was never any deity among the Gentile idolaters to whom Holiness was attributed as a special character.

Whence, whenever the true Divinity is designated in the Scriptures, it is signified by the name of holiness.

Hence also the Seraphim, burning with fire for God, who are wholly given to celebrating the divine perfections, do not extol God with praises and encomiums on account of His Strength, Wisdom, Majesty, etc., but with unceasing voice proclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy.

Nor undeservedly, says St. Ambrose, lib. 3. De Spiritu Sancto cap. 18. For we find nothing more precious by which we can name God, unless we call Him Holy; anything else is inferior to God, inferior to the Lord.

With whom St. Bernard agrees, homil. 4. on the Missus est, saying that the Archangel Gabriel rightly said to the Virgin Mary: The Holy One that shall be born of thee, because, he says, he had no other name by which he could better express the Divinity of Christ.

The same thing St. Dionysius seems to have taught earlier, lib. De Divinis Nominibus cap. 12, saying: Since He is the Author of all things, and most full of all things, from the one supereminence which surpasses all, He is called the Holy of Holies.

Indeed, God Himself sufficiently indicates that His holiness is to be esteemed above His other divine excellences, when He proposes it alone to be imitated by men, Leviticus 19.¹ Be ye holy, because I am holy.

It is established, therefore, that God is not only holy, but that divine Holiness also stands out among His other perfections.

Note 2. From our Harphius, lib. 1. Theologiae mysticae part 2. cap. 103, the name of holiness is used in four ways, according to its fourfold etymology. For, he says, Holy first means the same as without stain, that is, without sin; because just as a dye takes away the natural color of cloth, penetrating the whole cloth, so sin takes away from the soul the innocence of baptism and penetrates the whole man; concerning which sanctification the Apostle says: Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God. Secondly, Holy means the same as without earth; for ἅγιος in Greek is sanctum in Latin, or ἅγιος means the same as without earth; and so we ought to sanctify ourselves by despising all things, saying with the Apostle: I have counted all things as dung that I may gain Christ, so that thus we may be raised up to God in pure love vitally. Thirdly, Holy means the same as stained with blood. For of old the victims were stained with blood and purified, and almost all things were cleansed in blood. So also we ought to sanctify ourselves by sprinkling both posts, namely of the concupiscible and of the irascible, and the lintel of the rational. Whence blessed Agnes, he says, His blood adorned my cheeks.

Fourthly, Holy means the same as firm and holy: and therefore laws are called holy because they are firm; so also we ought to sanctify ourselves through patience, as the Apostle says: Follow peace with all men: the Gloss, even with persecutors; and sanctimony, that is, perfection, perseverance in good works, without which no man shall see God. This firmness and holiness the Apostle attained when he said: I am certain that neither death nor life, etc.

Note 3. From Hugh of St. Victor, lib. 1. Eruditionis Theologicae title 30: Holiness is attributed to God, to men, and to places, with this distinction, that God is holy, not sanctified, but sanctifying; man is holy, sanctified and sanctifying; a place, however, is holy and sanctified, but not sanctifying: for God is holy of Himself, not of us, as the Prophet says, Ps. 15. Thou hast no need of my goods: man, however, is holy not of himself, but of God; for of His fullness we have all received, as is said in John, chapter 1. A place, indeed, is sanctified either without man or through man; it does not sanctify, because just as a place not holy does not defile the holy, as Lot in Sodom; so a holy place does not sanctify what is not holy, as the heavenly Paradise did not sanctify the Devil, and the earthly the first man; man, however, for the most part sanctifies a place in two ways, by merit and by office. For sanctification is threefold: there is the Sanctification of the Sacrament, the Sanctification of justice or merit, and the Sanctification of glory or reward. For churches are sanctified when they are dedicated, men are sanctified when they are justified, the elect are sanctified when they are rewarded with the gifts of eternal glory. Having set aside the two latter modes of holiness, we here inquire only two things concerning the former: first, in what divine Holiness consists; second, in how many ways it differs from the holiness of men.

First conclusion. — The holiness of God is the complete conformity of His divine will with the eternal and invariable law, whereby, separate and free from every stain and contagion of sin, He adheres immutably to Himself with perpetual affection, and operates all things solely for the sake of Himself.

This conclusion contains four parts, by which divine holiness is explained and made known. For first it is a complete conformity with the eternal law, which is nothing other than right divine reason, inasmuch as it dictates all things that are fitting to a rational nature: that rectitude, therefore, and the conformity of the divine will with it, is rightly called His Holiness. For just as the natural perfection of created things consists chiefly in this, that each of them is commensurate with the rule and idea according to which it was made; so their moral perfection is situated in commensuration with the eternal law, according to which it is necessary to operate: because just as the concept and idea of the divine mind is the measure and rule of the natural perfection of things; so the eternal law is the measure of the moral perfection of the rational nature itself: and so, since Holiness is the apex and crown of all moral perfection, it is rightly established in conformity with the eternal law of God. Hence Christ the Lord, who is surnamed the Holy of Holies, was wholly intent on fulfilling the divine law and executing the command and prescription of His eternal Father, and that in the most perfect manner. 1. For He fulfilled all the divine commands, He Himself for the most part testifying, John 6. I came not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me, the Father. 2. He executed them in the manner in which they had been ordained, John 14. As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I. 3. He observed all things most exactly: One jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law till all things be fulfilled. 4. He wrought all things for the paternal glory, and for a divine end He executed all things solely: I seek not my own glory, but the glory of him who sent me, the Father. By which things He taught by His example that complete holiness is to be established in conformity with the divine and eternal law.

Secondly, since the eternal law, says Lessius, Book 8. Opuscul. num. 3., arises from the divine Essence itself (which, just as it is the origin and primordial source of every entitative and natural perfection, so likewise is the root of every moral perfection, and the rule of all rectitude of affection and love): hence it comes about that the divine Holiness itself also consists in that supreme conjunction of God with Himself, not only by nature, but also by affection and love; whence it comes about that God is therefore called holy: 1. Because He loves Himself more than other things; 2. Because He loves other things in Himself; 3. Because He loves them for the sake of Himself; 4. Because He loves them through Himself.

Thirdly, because right reason dictates that a rational nature should undertake all things with a view to some certain end, lest, aiming at an uncertain mark, it be convicted of imprudence and blindness; whence it comes about that for right operation a fitting end is always required; hence no will can be called right, nor consequently holy, unless it directs all its affections and motions to God Himself, the end of all things per se, sincerely and solely. Whence St. Paul rightly admonished the Corinthians, 1. 10: Whether you eat, or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. He gives the reason for this in Romans 14: For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

And so divine holiness shines forth chiefly in this, that God operates all things solely for the sake of Himself: For my own sake, He says, Isaiah 48, for my own sake I will do it, and I will not give my glory to another: I myself, I am the first and the last. And Apoc. 1. I am α and ω, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God. Hence it is rightly said in Proverbs 16: The Lord hath wrought all things for himself.

Fourthly and finally, divine Holiness shines forth in every way from God's separation from every stain and contagion of sin: for God is therefore proclaimed holy, because He is altogether impeccable; for holiness, as St. Dionysius says, cap. 12. De Divinis Nominibus, is purity free from every crime and altogether perfect, and in every part immaculate. But such purity most befits God, who is good by His nature, indeed is the very highest Goodness; wherefore, just as, if infinite heat were given, it would admit no particle of coldness; so infinite goodness excludes all malice, both as regards effect and as regards affection.

Hence St. Gregory of Nyssa, in Catechetico cap. 1, removing from the divine Word every affection of sin, says:

Since, however, the free will of the Word can do all things, it has no propensity toward evil; for propensity toward malice is foreign to the divine Nature, but everything that is good, that also it must will, and what it wills it is altogether able to do as well. Moreover, since it can, it does not remain idle, but brings every choice of the good to effect.

St. Basil removes from God the efficient causality of evil, Homil. 2. in Hexameron: And neither is it pious to say, he says, that evil was produced by God, because none of the contraries is generated from its contrary; for life cannot generate death, nor can darkness be the principle of light, nor can disease be the efficient cause of health: but in the changes of affections one passes from contraries to contraries. How, however, God is not the author of all the sins which arise from a created will turning aside, although He concurs in its operation, will be resolved below.

From these gather that God is holy in every conceivable way, but especially in a fivefold manner. First, indeed, Radically: because His divine essence itself is the first root and primordial source of all holiness and purity; for from it the eternal law, and every love and the divine love, and divine purity in the intellect and will arise. Second, Objectively: for He is the object of absolutely all holiness; for holiness is commensuration with the eternal law, like the love of it: whence to adhere to God through love is to be pure and holy, just as to adhere by affection to lower things is to be impure. Third, He is holy Exemplarily: because He Himself is the right reason and eternal law written with the rays of the Deity itself in the mind of God, to which absolutely all holiness must be conformed. Fourth, He is holy Formally: because He is formally the love of Himself, and so formally He is His own holiness: whence, since He loves Himself infinitely, He is therefore also infinitely holy, both intensively and extensively, because, namely, He loves Himself and His own rectitude and the eternal law infinitely, as much, that is, as He is lovable. Likewise that divine holiness is infinite extensively, because God loves absolutely nothing except for the sake of Himself; therefore He is holy also in the love of all creatures: whence the Psalmist, 144, says: The Lord is just in all his ways and holy in all his works.

Hence it comes about that He pursues sin with infinite hatred; for since He necessarily loves the rectitude of the eternal law, He necessarily hates whatever is opposed to this rectitude: but every sin is opposed to it, because the notion of sin is located in this, that it is against the eternal law of God. Fifthly and finally, He is holy eminently and causally, as the fount and principle of all holiness and purity; for He sanctifies all creatures, either by the presence of His Divinity, as the whole world, which He consecrates as a temple: or by love and knowledge of Himself, as rational creatures: or by substantial and personal union, as Christ Himself, in whom all the fullness of divinity and holiness dwells corporally, and from whose fullness we all receive.

Second conclusion. — Divine holiness differs from created holiness in many things, but especially in a fivefold circumstance.

First, divine holiness is essential, because it penetrates the divine Essence and flows from it as a rivulet from a fountain and a ray from the Sun; but no creature can be holy essentially, but only through an adventitious quality and accessory acts and affections, and all its holiness emanates from supernatural gifts superadded to its nature.

Second, the holiness of God is substantial, like wisdom and love and all the other divine excellences; but created holiness is accidental, because, as the praised Lessius says, it comprises various acts and habits, both of the intellect and of the will; for the intellect must be illumined by faith or by the light of glory: but the will must be ordered by charity, religion, and the other supernatural virtues subservient to charity.

Third, divine holiness is altogether infinite, both intensively and extensively, because, as we have said, God loves Himself as much as He is lovable, and there is as much purity in His love as there is in the perfection of His essence; it also extends to infinite things, namely to all those things which He beholds either in His essence or outside His essence, for in them He takes supreme complacency for His own sake and for His glory: but the holiness of creatures is limited and finite in both ways, for we do not love God as much as He is lovable: whence St. Bernard, The measure of loving God is to love without measure.

Fourth, divine holiness cannot increase, because it is the universality and fullness of holiness altogether infinite, nor can it be diminished, because it is altogether immutable and indefectible. But it is otherwise with created holiness, which can increase and be diminished: whence St. Gregory the Pope, in Pastorali parte 3. cap. 35.: In this world the human soul, as a ship against the onslaught of a descending river, is by no means permitted to stand still in one place, because it slips back to the depths unless it strives for the heights. With which Alcimus elegantly concurs in a poem to his sister Fuscina:

But if one is loath to exercise holy labors, And slothful idleness dissolves the accustomed cares, The glory of a ruinous life slips headlong, If virtue gains no strength by advancing, Returning, it gradually loses its former powers, extinguished.

Fifthly and finally, divine holiness is altogether indefectible and immutable; but created holiness is subject to many defects: whence St. Cyril, lib. 5. in Ioannem:

In created things, he says, inasmuch as they can be changed for the worse and yield by conversions from better to baser things, the fruit of a religious mind inclined to virtue will be a good; but in the divine substance, which exceeds all things, it is not so; for with all change and conversion removed, and no place left for it, the fruit will henceforth be the good of an immutable substance, just as heat is in fire and cold in snow.

With this St. Jerome concurs, Dialogo 1. contra Pelagianos:

In the holy Scriptures, he says, there are two perfections, two justices, and two fears: the first, a perfection and incomparable truth, and a perfect justice of God to be fitted to His virtues: the second, however, is that which suits our frailty, according to what is said in the Psalms, no living man shall be justified in thy sight; to that justice which is said to be perfect not by comparison, but as the justice of God. Job also, and Zacharias and Elisabeth, are called just according to that justice which can at some time be changed into injustice, and not according to that which can never be changed.

Hence God is called not only the Holy of holies, but is also proclaimed by the Church in the Angelic Hymn: You alone are holy, You alone are the Lord, because evidently His divine holiness alone is free of all blemishes, and is altogether indefectible and immutable.

Since, however, divine holiness, like created holiness, must be illustrated with the crown of all the virtues, inasmuch as it is the supreme rectitude of the will, which is fulfilled and strengthened only through the virtues; therefore, in order that the splendor of that divine holiness may shine forth more brilliantly, certain things concerning the divine virtues must be woven in.

That this may be examined more plainly and in a more fitting order, first of all it must be noted that all those virtues which in their formal concept connote and import some defect are to be far removed from God, the center and source of all conceivable perfection. From which it is permissible to infer that all those virtues which tend toward another, whether superior or equal, such as religion, obedience, piety, observance, etc., have no seat in God, the supreme of all beings. Likewise all those virtues are absent from Him which consist wholly in taming and regulating the movements of the passions and of the sensitive appetite; for since God is altogether incorporeal and subject to no passions, therefore neither are virtues to be asserted in Him which have commerce with the body and with passions.

Hence almost all theologians agree that neither fortitude, nor patience, nor meekness, nor temperance is found in God formally, but only metaphorically, because fortitude must moderate fear and daring, patience sadness and despair, meekness wrath and cruelty, temperance bodily delights and pleasures.

Nevertheless the Doctor, in 3. dist. 33., proves that those virtues have their place and seat more in the will than in the sensitive appetite: first, because the will, since it is free and has command over the sensitive appetite, and also over the external senses, as it were the ministers of that appetite, can therefore more efficaciously restrain the movements of the passions than the appetite can, which is neither free, but is determined to act by its object, nor has despotic command over the external senses. Second, because the will can more refer a commanded or elicited act to an end consonant with right reason than the sensitive appetite can, because the will is properly the rational appetite, and so should properly direct the act to that end which right reason demonstrates, which does not befit the sensitive appetite. Third and finally, because those virtues would have existed in the state of innocence, since they contribute greatly to the splendor of the soul, in which, nevertheless, there would have been no inordinate movement of the passions.

Finally the Doctor concludes that those virtues, the moderators of the sensitive passions, can be affirmed to be truly in the Angels, and even in God, insofar as they are concerned with the passions of the sensitive appetite, not as existing in God Himself or in the Angels; but only as concerned with such passions, inasmuch as in general and universally those passions are shown by the intellect to be moderated, v. g., in ourselves. For this divine or angelic volition is honest and virtuous, as is evident.

Nor can it be of another virtue than fortitude and temperance, because, as the Doctor proves ibidem, num. 16., if that volition proceeded from another virtue, it would especially proceed from charity; but it is not so, because the motive of charity is the divine good willed for God's own sake: but when God or an Angel wills that I live bravely or temperately, that volition tends to the good itself for the sake of its formal honesty, and consequently it must arise from the virtue of temperance and fortitude, not from charity.

Nor should you say that the virtue of temperance and fortitude does not incline in any way to moderating the passions concerning the pleasurable and the terrible, but even to regulating and moderating them in the proper subject in which they inhere; for this is false;

Because, says the Doctor, the formal notion of the habit is not varied by 'for me' and 'for you': for this is material, because from the fact that the honest good inheres in me or in you, the formal and essential notion of honesty is not varied; for the good of temperance in me and in you is of the same species: therefore from the fact that a virtue inclines to willing the honest good in its own subject or in another, the formal notion of the virtue is not varied; whence the Doctor concludes:

In this way, consequently, one could posit in God the notion of the moral virtues, just as Charity is conceded in Him without its accidentality: and so from that notion concerning the Angel.... For the will of the Angel can will for me the good of temperance, inasmuch as it is such a good, the willing of which is the proper act of temperance: therefore from the habit of temperance it can will that.

Nevertheless, since those virtues cannot have in God all their formal notions entirely, namely the moderation of their own passions; therefore the Doctor judges more probably that they do not belong to God formally and properly; but only metaphorically and according to a certain proportion of the infinite act of the divine will with the acts of the created will, which is illustrated and informed by these virtues.

Only this, therefore, remains to be examined: whether Justice and Mercy with their attendant virtues are in God formally, or only virtually and eminently, which will be weighed in the two following Questions.