Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. or rather to be repeated from what we said in Logic from the Doctor in 1 dist. 1 q. 10: relations, as well as the other entities, are essentially and numerically distinguished by their essential and individual differences: but since on account of the scanty entity of relation those differences lie hidden from us, they can become known only either by the term alone, or by the foundation alone, or by term and foundation together. But it is certain that upon multiplication of foundations relations are multiplied; for that reason that a numerical accident cannot be naturally in subjects numerically diverse: most especially a relative accident, because relative accidents are essentially actual denominations of them: and therefore a numerically diverse foundation suffices for gathering numerical diversity of relations. But whether relations are also multiplied by multiplication of terms of the same species is not so constant among Philosophers and Theologians: yet truer appears the opinion of the Doctor affirming that where there are diverse reasons of terminating and founding, there are diverse relations: but in a father having three sons, for instance, there are three reasons of founding, namely three active generations: likewise there are three reasons of terminating, namely three passive generations: therefore there are three paternities. Which truth indeed we sufficiently proved and asserted in our Logic. The present difficulty therefore turns on this, whether in Christ there be a double sufficient foundation for multiplying the relations of filiation: so that by one filiation he be referred to the eternal Father by reason of his divine generation; but by the other be referred to the Mother by reason of temporal generation.

NOTE 2. Concerning the present difficulty there are chiefly three opinions of Authors. The first is of our Alexander Alensis 3 part. q. 10 memb. 3, teaching that Christ the Lord, qua Word, is referred by one real relation to the Father and to the Mother. The second opinion is of Saint Thomas 3 part. q. 25 art. 4, teaching that Christ is indeed referred to the Father and to the Mother by a double relation; yet nevertheless the relation by which he is referred to the Father is real, but that by which he is referred to the Mother is of reason: with which Saint Bonaventura seems to subscribe in 3 dist. 8 art. 2. Finally the third is of the Subtle Doctor in the same distinction n. 10 where he says: Ego dico quod alia est filiatio in Christo ad Patrem, et alia ad Matrem, et utraque est realis. With whom besides the disciples subscribe from the Recentiores Lorea disput. 21, Suarez disp. 12 dist. 2, and many others.

NOTE 3. That filiation does not require a supposit as proper subject, but can immediately inhere in nature as subject: which indeed the Doctor proves n. 3, because, he says, filiation is the habitude of the product naturally similar to the producer in intellectual nature: but greater is the similitude between produced and producing nature than between producing and produced supposit, because that similitude inheres in two supposits only by reason of nature: therefore the relation of filiation is more immediately subjected in nature than in the supposit. Therefore two things are to be posited here: First, that in Christ there are two relations, of which one is referred to the Father, but the other to the Mother. Second, that those two relations are real.

Conclusion first. — CHRIST IS REFERRED BY A DOUBLE RELATION, ONE INDEED ETERNAL TO THE FATHER, BUT THE OTHER TEMPORAL TO THE MOTHER. Thus the Doctor.

And he proves the conclusion first: Filiation is the habitude of the product naturally similar to the producer in cognitive nature: but in Christ there are two habitudes of this kind, one insofar as he is produced as God from the Father eternally, to whom he is similar in intellectual divine nature: the other insofar as he is produced as man from blessed Virgin, to whom he is similar in human intellectual nature: therefore there are in him two filiations. The major is clear, because, says Poncius in Comment., to every and only filiation befits the aforesaid description, as appears from its explication; for it is said the habitude of the product, because just as paternity is the habitude of the producer, so filiation is the habitude of the product: it is said naturally, for if he were not produced naturally, although he were similar in nature to the producer, he would not be a son: thence indeed the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although he is similar to the Father in Divinity, because he is not produced naturally. Is added similar to the producer, because a worm however much it be produced naturally by the Sun cannot yet be called son of the Sun, since it is not similar to it in nature. Finally it is said in cognitive nature, not intellectual: seeing that according to common acceptation of filiation only an intellectual and cognitive substance can be called daughter. The minor also holds; for there are in Christ as many habitudes as there are origins from distinct principles: but there are two origins in Christ, one indeed eternal, whereby he receives divine nature from the Father; the other truly temporal, whereby he receives humanity from the Mother: wherefore St. Damascenus book 3 cap. 7 says: duas generationes Christi veneramur: therefore also in him there are two filiations.

The Doctor proves secondly: Christ besides eternal filiation has another, whereby he is referred to the Mother: therefore he has two filiations. The antecedent holds: since Christ is Son of blessed Virgin. But the consequence is proved. Christ since he is son of the Virgin is referred to her by the relation of filiation: but he cannot be referred to her by eternal filiation; because the divine Son by his eternal filiation can no more be referred to blessed Virgin, from whom he is generated temporally, than the eternal Father would be referred to her by his paternity if he were likewise begotten of blessed Virgin and assumed from her the generated humanity: but in that hypothesis the eternal Father would not be called Son of the Virgin, nor would he be referred to her by his paternity: therefore neither can the divine Son be referred to her by his eternal filiation. — Poncius confirms this argument of the Doctor: because if the Father had assumed human nature begotten of blessed Virgin, as he was able to do, as we proved above, the Father would truly be man, and qua man would be Son of blessed Virgin: therefore he would have some form by which he would be called her Son: but that form, by which he would be denominated Son of the Virgin, could not be eternal paternity: therefore it ought to be another relation distinct from paternity itself: but Christ now has such a form as the Father would have, if he de facto had been begotten of blessed Virgin, as Christ de facto is begotten of her: therefore truly Christ besides eternal filiation, whereby he is referred to the Father, has another temporal, whereby he is referred to the Virgin.

The Doctor proves thirdly: In Christ there are two nativities and two produced natures: therefore equally in him there are two filiations. The antecedent is of faith. But the consequence is proved: foundations and terms being multiplied, however much the subject remained the same, the relations also are multiplied: but if Christ be twice-begotten, in him are multiplied the foundations and terms of filiations: therefore the filiations also are multiplied. The major is evident: for by no other reason does the divine Father remaining the same refer himself by a double relation to the Son and to the Holy Spirit than because the proximate foundations are multiplied, namely generation and active spiration: the terms also are multiplied, namely Son and Holy Spirit: and consequently foundations and terms being multiplied, filiations must be multiplied. The minor also is proved: the proximate foundation of filiation is to be begotten in intellectual nature: but from St. Damasceno book 3 cap. 7 two generations in Christ we venerate; because Christ is twice-begotten, once from eternity, and again in time: therefore of his filiation two proximate foundations are given, namely two passive generations: also two terms are given, namely eternal Father and Virgin Mother of God: therefore equally two filiations must be.

Porzanus answered, That the Son in human things has not two filiations, although he has two natures, namely body and soul; and regards also two terms, namely Father and Mother: therefore multiplication of natures and terms does not effect multiplication of filiations. — I answer, indeed multiplication of partial terms constituting one total does not contribute to multiplication of filiations: thus father and mother, since they are the one total cause of generation, are also the one total term of the filiation of the man begotten by them: but far different is the case concerning the eternal Father and blessed Virgin generating Christ, because eternal Father and Virgin Mother of God do not concur as two partial causes, namely as father and mother, toward the temporal generation of Christ; but just as the Father alone from eternity is said to be total and adequate principle of the son, so the Virgin Mother of God is said in time to be alone and adequate and total cause, or mother of Christ the Lord: for although the Holy Spirit concur toward that generation through his overshadowing and supervening power, nevertheless he does not concur after the manner of genitor, wherefore he is not called Father of Christ: therefore since Christ has two distinct nativities and two distinct and diverse terms of his filiation, he must also have two wholly distinct relations of filiation.

Conclusion second. — THE TWO FILIATIONS OF CHRIST ARE REAL. This is of the Doctor.

It is proved first: Eternal filiation doubtless is real: but temporal also is real: therefore that double relation is real. All admit the major. The Doctor proves the minor: that relation is real which has all that is desired for a real relation, namely real extremes, upon which it follows independently of any act of intellect: but the filiation of Christ with respect to the Mother is such; for it has the Mother generating and the nature generated: therefore as by reason of both this extreme the maternity of blessed Virgin is truly real, so also the relation of filiation of Christ to her is truly real. — It is confirmed: Christ is formally Son of blessed Virgin, although no intellect or vital power conceived or feigned any form in him: but, as has been proven above, he cannot be held formally Son of the Virgin by his eternal filiation: therefore necessarily he is referred to her by the created relation of filiation.

It is proved secondly: If blessed Virgin had begotten a pure man, she would be true mother of that begotten man by a truly real relation; and he likewise would be true son of hers referred to her by the real relation of filiation: but she no less begat Christ the Lord, or cooperated no less toward his production, than if Christ were pure man; nor does Christ as man less really receive his nature and entity from her through true generation: therefore he is her Son by real filiation. The major holds. The minor is proved: if any difference existed between the generation of a pure man and the generation of Christ, chiefly because a pure man begotten of a Virgin would have received from her nature and personality together; but Christ receives from her nature only: yet this does not stand in the way of a true relation of real filiation, which I prove thus: blessed Virgin is true Mother of Christ by a real relation, although Christ did not receive personality from her: therefore Christ is true and real Son of hers by real filiation, although he did not receive his personality from blessed Virgin. The consequence is clear from parity of reason; for if blessed Virgin is truly called Mother of Christ precisely from this, that through her cooperation the humanity was produced, which had personality no less perfecting and affecting that nature than if personality had been begotten of blessed Virgin: therefore similarly Christ by this reason must be held her true Son, who through her cooperation had nature begotten, which the supposit no less brings forth and sustains than if it had been produced together with nature by blessed Virgin herself. — It is confirmed, because man is no less true and real cause of another man begotten of him than fire is cause of other fire produced by it; although man does not produce the substantial form, namely the rational soul of the begotten man, as fire produces the substantial form of the fire produced; nor is the begotten man less said to be produced by the generating man than the produced fire is truly said to be produced by the producing fire: because that generation and begotten suffice that through the cooperation of the Virgin a true man be produced, whether meanwhile that personality of that man be produced by her or not. The parity holds, because neither ought begotten man more receive his personality from the generating man that he may be called his son, than receive the rational soul, whereby he is his substantial form essentially constituting his very nature: but notwithstanding that from the generating man begotten man does not receive the substantial form, truly he is called his son begotten by him: therefore from parity of reason, although Christ receives not his personality from blessed Virgin, he will be none less her true Son, and is referred to her by a true and real relation.

The Doctor proves thirdly: If anything stood in the way why Christ is referred to the Mother by a true real relation, chiefly because, as St. Thomas wishes, there cannot be several forms of the same kind in the same supposit, and consequently in Christ there cannot be two filiations: but this reason is null: therefore etc. Vain is the chief foundation of St. Thomas.

The Doctor proves the minor: if it were repugnant for several relations of the same kind to exist in the same supposit, this would be chiefly either because relation is simple, or because it is such a relation, namely of origin and filiation: but from neither head is this repugnant. Not indeed from the first, because there can be several relations in the same supposit of Christ, namely relations of equality, identity, and similarity: for Christ, since He had a true human nature of such a size, affected with whiteness, truly had a relation of identity to all men, of equality to those who were of the same size and stature, and of similarity to other men, just as also of dissimilarity to black men: therefore it is not repugnant that there be several relations in the same supposit of Christ. Nor is it repugnant from the second head, namely, that there can be several relations of the same kind in the same supposit, for instance of origin: because it is no more repugnant that there be several relations consequent upon origination than that there be several originations in the same supposit: but there are several originations, or passive productions, in Christ, one by which He receives from the Father the divine nature communicated to Him through eternal generation; another by which He receives human nature through the cooperation of the blessed Virgin: therefore likewise He can have two filiations. The major stands; for no repugnance appears why the relation of origin should be multiplied in the same supposit any more than that that origination be multiplied which is the proximate ground of founding that relation. The Doctor proves the minor by the authority of St. Damascene affirming that we venerate two generations in Christ. — Nor does it avail to say that St. Damascene is to be understood of active generations; for, says the Doctor, there is no greater reason why there should be two active generations in Christ than two passive ones. That same minor can moreover be proved: both because Christ, as man, has a dependence upon His Mother; which dependence is really distinct from the passive origination He has from the Father: therefore He truly has two real originations; and because two relations of active origin can exist in the same supposit: therefore also passive: the consequence is clear from parity of reason: the antecedent also stands, because in the eternal Father there are two active productions of origin, namely active generation and active spiration: finally, because two relations of origin can no less exist in Christ than two most diverse operations, one of which is divine and the other human: but two operations are most diverse in Christ: therefore by equal reason there are in Him two relations of origin.

The Thomists answer with Cajetan that there is a disparity why Christ can have two nativities, and two respects of similarity and dissimilarity, and two operations, but not two filiations, because, they say, the temporal nativity, which He can have besides the divine, is founded immediately in His own human nature: but several operations, and other relations are not immediately subjected in the supposit, but in the very natures with which they are identified: whence the supposit can indeed have those relations and operations by reason of the natures it sustains: but temporal filiation would have to be immediately subjected in the very supposit of Christ, if that supposit were capable of receiving that relation: but it is not capable of a real relation, because the supposit of the Word, which sustains the human nature of Christ, cannot receive any accident. — But on the contrary, first they gratuitously suppose that filiation, which accrues to the supposit, must be immediately subjected in it: therefore their reply is worthless. The antecedent is plain, because as, although actions belong to supposits and not to nature, according to the adversaries, yet they themselves admit that actions are not immediately subjected in the supposit but in nature, otherwise Christ would have no actions or operations truly human, which is absurd; so likewise, although filiation pertains to the supposit, by which it is denominated Son, still it does not follow from that that it must be immediately subjected in the supposit and not in nature. Poncius confirms this response in his first Commentary, because the created supposit, according to the truer opinion, consists in negation; but the filiation of a created supposit, since it is a real respect, cannot be immediately subjected in a negation: therefore filiation ought not to be subjected immediately in the supposit, but in nature. He confirms it secondly, because if the Holy Spirit assumed a human nature born of a Virgin, He would no less be the Son of the Virgin than Christ: but He would not be her Son through eternal filiation, because the Holy Spirit does not have such: therefore through temporal filiation: but that temporal relation would not be immediately subjected in the personality of the Holy Spirit: therefore that filiation would be subjected in the humanity, and consequently filiation ought not to be subjected in anything other than the humanity. He confirms it thirdly, because it would be said gratuitously that filiation ought to be subjected in something other than that in which the passive production is subjected, by which Christ has it that He was produced by a Virgin: but that, according to the adversaries, is subjected in the humanity: therefore filiation too ought to be subjected in it.

The Thomists answer: If filiation were received immediately in the humanity, the humanity could be called daughter of the Virgin: for that is formally called son which formally has filiation immediately subjected in itself: but this is absurd: therefore it is false that filiation is immediately received in human nature. — I answer first, the major can be denied; for although divine filiation is intimately joined with the soul and body of Christ; nevertheless in the three days of death, when the soul was separated from the body, it did not denominate the body son, nor the soul daughter; therefore likewise, although filiation is immediately received in the humanity, it does not follow that it must denominate it daughter. Which indeed is confirmed; for filiation and divine personality need not necessarily denominate daughter or person the assumed nature; for if the Word had assumed wood, for example, that assumed wood could not be denominated either son or person, because in order that any individual nature be called person and daughter, it must be intelligent and rational; where these conditions are absent, the assumed nature is not capable of receiving such denomination: so similarly we can say that in order that any nature be truly denominated daughter, it is necessary that it be complete by its own subsistence and personality: and consequently that nature, considered singularly in itself and apart from its personality, cannot have such denomination, even though it be born and produced. I answer secondly, that if for human nature to be daughter is nothing else than for it to have filiation immediately subjected in itself, the minor can be denied, and whatever will be brought forward to the contrary will be only a question about a name.

You say first: Divine filiation is not received immediately in the divine nature, nor does it denominate that nature daughter: therefore neither does created filiation: therefore created filiation ought not to be received immediately in nature, but in the supposit. — I answer first, the consequence can be denied; for there is a disparity between created and uncreated filiation, because the former is an accident, the latter substance; the former requires a subject in which it inheres by way of inhesion, the latter only requires a subject in which it is present by way of constitution. Whence the argument can be retorted; for just as uncreated filiation is not received in the supposit but constitutes the supposit, so neither ought created filiation to be received in the supposit. I answer secondly, that the antecedent can be denied; for divine filiation, just as it is received by its real entity in the divine nature, and determines it to constitute a son; so that if the divine nature of the Son were really distinguished from the Father, that filiation identified with it would denominate it daughter with respect to the Father; but He does not denominate it thus, because in order that any nature be able to be denominated daughter, it is necessary that it be really distinguished from the generating principle: whence similarly the argument can be retorted: divine filiation is received immediately in the divine nature by identification, and would denominate it daughter if it were really distinguished from it: therefore created filiation ought to be received immediately in the singular nature and denominate it daughter, since that created nature is really distinguished from the generating principle.

You say secondly: If filiation were received immediately in the humanity and not in the whole supposit, or in the man himself constituted of nature and personality, it would follow that, if the Word relinquished the assumed humanity, as He truly can relinquish it, that nature thus relinquished would have its own supposit; and thus that man would be said to be the Son of the Virgin and would not be said to be: he would indeed be said to be, because his nature had been born of the blessed Virgin: therefore if filiation follows nature, that man would truly be the Son of the blessed Virgin; but he would not be, because the blessed Virgin had not begotten that supposit. Which indeed is confirmed, because if at the same instant at which the Word relinquished the humanity the eternal Father assumed it, He could not on account of that assumed nature be called Son of the Virgin: therefore neither should that one, who would be pure man on account of the humanity relinquished by the Word, be called Son of the Virgin. — I answer, passing over the various solutions which he reports from Suarez, Faber and others, and which Poncius unfolds in his Commentary n. 10 and following; by denying the consequence of the major as regards its second part: for truly, in that case, that pure man would truly be son of the Virgin, if it suffices in order that some person be called daughter of another person that it be a supposit having a generated nature, in which nature the relation of filiation immediately resides; for in that hypothesis both the created supposit and the supposit of the eternal Father could truly be called Sons of the Virgin, because they would have a nature joined to them, in which the relation of filiation toward the blessed Virgin would be immediately received. But if anyone contend that this does not suffice for the reason of filiation, but that besides it is required either that the supposit be produced together with the humanity, or that it follow connaturally upon the production of the human nature for that instant at which the human nature is produced; then neither the human supposit nor the eternal Father ought to be called sons of the Virgin. Thence this difficulty can only be about a manner of speaking.

You say thirdly: By filiation man is constituted in the reason of son: therefore two real filiations constitute two sons really: but Christ is not two sons: therefore He does not have two filiations. — The Doctor distinguishes the first consequent at n. 18: by two filiations two sons are constituted, if those filiations are in two supposits, he grants: if in the same, he denies. Because, he says, concreated things are not multiplied unless both form and supposit are multiplied; for the multiplication of form alone does not suffice, especially where several forms, whether of the same kind, or expressed by the same name, can exist in the same supposit: thus Christ is not several willing beings, although He has several volitions.

You say fourthly: Therefore the eternal Father is not incarnate but the Son, because otherwise there would be confusion of properties, as was said in the first Article of the first Disputation, because the same person would be Son and Father; Father indeed inasmuch as first person of the Trinity; but Son inasmuch as born of the blessed Virgin: therefore Christ is not Son, both of the Father and of the Virgin, by a filiation other than the eternal: because otherwise there would be confusion of properties: seeing that He would not be Son by one and the same filiation alone. — The Doctor answers first by denying the consequence with its proof, because there is utterly no confusion that Christ by one filiation be son of the Virgin, and by another son of the eternal Father; indeed from the fact that He is son of the Virgin it is not on that account denied that He is son of the eternal Father. Hence when it is said of Christ that He is Son, no one can doubt from that manner of speaking that the divine person of Christ is the person of the Word and son of the eternal Father: it would be otherwise, however, if the Father or the Holy Spirit were incarnate; for if one of those two persons were called son, one could doubt whether the speech were of the son of the eternal Father, or of the son of the Virgin; which confusion does not follow from the incarnation of the Word, because by the appellation of divine Son we sufficiently understand the person of the Word. He answers secondly by retorting the argument: confusion would follow from the incarnation of the Father, because the same person would be Father and Son: therefore an incarnate Father would truly be son of the Virgin: but He would not be son through eternal filiation, which He does not have: therefore through temporal filiation: therefore a divine person is capable of temporal filiation: therefore the Son is not incapable of that filiation, as the adversaries will.

You say fifthly: Therefore a real temporal filiation would have to be admitted, in order that Christ be truly called son of the Virgin: but He could be called son of the Virgin without that real relation. It is proved, because God can be called Lord of creatures without a real relation: therefore Christ can be called son of the blessed

Virgin without a real relation. — The Doctor denies the minor: for neither could he be called son of the Virgin unless the blessed Virgin were likewise called his Mother and had a real relation of maternity: but she would not have that relation unless Christ equally had the relation of filiation, because by the same reason that the blessed Virgin is called Mother of Christ because she begot His humanity, by the same reason Christ ought to be called her son, because he has humanity born of her: for there is no greater reason why a relation of maternity should follow in her upon the active generation of the blessed Virgin than that a relation of filiation should follow in Christ upon the passive generation. Wherefore the proof of the minor must be denied, because God has no reason in Himself on account of which a real relation must necessarily follow from His being Creator and Lord of things: nay rather He has a reason entirely opposed to that real relation, namely immutability, by which it comes about that He is not capable of sustaining a real relation: but it is otherwise concerning Christ the Lord, because He is capable of that new relation of filiation by reason of the assumed nature born of the blessed Virgin: therefore it is not the same reason concerning Christ with respect to the relation of filiation as concerning God with respect to the real relation of Creator and Lord.

You say sixthly: If Christ had a new real relation to His Mother, He would be really equal to her: but this is false, because real equality is founded upon unity of union, and consequently that equality does not intervene except between things having unity of union: but Christ has not unity of any real union with His Mother: therefore He has neither any quality, nor consequently a real relation. — The Doctor denies the minor with its proof: for, as Poncius explains him, two pure men equal in perfection of nature do not have any unity of union between themselves: therefore equality is not founded upon such a unity. But if you say that two men have a unity of union between themselves by reason of their agreement in nature, on account of which they found a relation of equality: the same can also be said of Christ and the blessed Virgin: for whatever equality is posited between two men by reason of nature, the same can be posited between Christ and the Virgin by reason of the generated human nature which Christ has.

You say lastly: Whatever relation Christ had to the blessed Virgin, He had it only as long as He preserved the integral human nature born of that blessed Virgin: but He lost that integrity of humanity in the three days of death: for while the soul is separated from the body, the whole composite of man perished: therefore either He no longer has that real relation of filiation, or He has it not received from the blessed Virgin but only from God reproduced in the resurrection. — He denies the minor; the consequent is false: Mary has Him by the same filiation as before: because filiation is founded upon the existence of the nature received through generation absolutely, to which no interruption is added, provided the existence be the same: and therefore whenever that existence is the same, and the other extreme the same, the filiation also is the same: and by the same action by which the foundation remains the same, the relation remains the same. Such is the doctrine of the Doctor, by which He signifies that Christ after the resurrection is son of the blessed Virgin by numerically the same filiation by which He was before death.