Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. According to Isambert on q. 22, art. 3, a fourfold servitude can be distinguished in Sacred Scripture: The first natural and general, common to all creatures in order to God, according to which every creature is so under the dominion of God as to serve Him at His nod, of which Wisdom 16: Serving the maker of all things. But that this servitude is true is plain, because then the proper reason of servitude is present when someone is so subjected to another as not only to be bound to obey him as superior, but also that all that he is and has exists under his dominion and he is bound to direct himself and all his goods to that one's good: for thus a servant properly so called is held to be wholly of his lord, as Aristotle teaches in his Politics: but all this is found in every creature with respect to God, according as it is a creature; for both in being and in being preserved it depends on God; and God can by exercising His absolute right destroy it. Likewise it is ordered to God as to its ultimate end, and if it be a rational creature, it is bound to direct itself and all its actions to Him, and if it constitute any other end for itself, it sins: therefore every creature, qua creature, is called servant in order to God. The second servitude is legal and despotic, which was introduced by law, and not by the institution of that first nature, according to which some are so under the dominion of another that they are his as regards all their temporal actions and operations, and are bound to expend them for his good: in which species are constituted not only purchased slaves but also hired ones for that time during which they hire out themselves and their works to others. The third servitude is sinful, by which a rational creature is subjected to sin or the devil, of which 1 John 10: He who committeth sin is the servant of sin. The fourth and last servitude can be called penal, which consists in that affection by which a rational creature obeys God through fear of punishment to be undergone, as the Apostle says to the Romans 2: You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear. It is asked, moreover, whether Christ our Lord can be reckoned and called servant in any of these ways.

Note 2. Between the first servitude and the rest there is this difference, that the first does not conflict with free birth but is compatible with it, and at the same time admits of the right to inheritance: since Adam before sin, and his posterity had they persevered in the state of innocence, would have been servants of God by this kind of servitude, as is sufficiently understood of itself; and yet by force of original justice, or rather of sanctifying grace, they would have had a right to eternal life and would have shared in the goods of God Himself, since sanctifying grace, which original justice imports, is a certain singular participation in the divine nature, by reason of which we are named and are sons of God, as St. John says. Likewise the just are servants by this kind of servitude: for the blessed Virgin calls herself the handmaid of God in her Canticle, and everywhere all the Saints do; yet they are not less freeborn and free; nay, as the Church sings in the office of blessed Agatha, Supreme nobility is that in which the servitude of Christ is proved. Hence St. Jerome on Psalm 115: O Lord, for I am thy servant, says: To be a servant of God is of great dignity and merit. And St. Ambrose book 1 On Jacob and the Happy Life, chapter 3, calls such servitude glorious liberty. And St. Augustine on the cited verse of Psalm 115 says that a creature owes service to its Creator, which when it renders, it is free; receiving from the Lord that grace whereby it serves Him not from necessity but willingly. It must further be observed that for the formal reason of servitude there is not required a negation of communication in the goods of the lord, as Vazquez less correctly teaches in the cited place chapter 9, because since servitude admits free birth along with itself, it likewise admits the right to inheritance, and consequently communication in goods: therefore only communication in goods with equality and plainly entire independence can take away the reason of servitude, not any communication whatsoever in the goods of the lord.

Note 3. In three ways it can be said that Christ was subject to the Father, namely either by reason of the inequality of human nature with respect to the divine; or by reason of the divine will, by which He is above the created will of Christ; or by reason of the obedience rendered to the paternal command and precept. Concerning the first and second subjection there is no controversy; for it is said 1 John 14: The Father is greater than I: whence the subjection of Christ is at once manifest. Therefore only the question is moved concerning the third reason of subjection, whether namely Christ was subject to the Father by reason of some precept to which He was bound by reason of the virtue of obedience.

Conclusion first. — CHRIST WAS SUBJECT TO THE FATHER BY REASON OF A PRECEPT TO WHICH HE WAS BOUND TO BE OBEDIENT.

It is proved: for He Himself says John 10 and 14: I have received a commandment from my Father. And as the Father gave me commandment, so I do: and although the name of commandment is sometimes taken broadly in the Sacred Scriptures, inasmuch as those things that are commended to us, though not commanded, are called commandments; nevertheless commonly by the name of commandments precepts and prohibitions are understood. Hence in the same chapter 11 Christ professes that He received precepts from the Father: I, He says, keep the commandments of my Father, in which places Christ makes an equal condition of the precepts imposed upon Him by the Father. Then, to the Philippians 2, Christ is said to have been made obedient unto death. Nor should it be said that obedience is more excellent when someone obeys a superior without intimation of a precept than with intimation of a precept: for this is simply false; for although from another standpoint that act is more excellent, and argues a will more excellent even under another title; nevertheless, if the force of obedience be considered, certainly the intimation of a precept is required, which alone regards obedience as its proper correlate. But more ample discourse on these matters will belong to the following Disputation, where the merits of Christ will be treated.

You will object first: Precepts are given to someone only for two reasons, namely on account of direction to be made in the very will of the operator: or on account of infliction of punishment, insofar as the law decrees punishment for transgression: but in neither way was a precept given to Christ. Not indeed in the first way, because He was impeccable and His will was otherwise sufficiently directed. Not even in the latter way, because fear of punishment argues penal servitude, which was none in Christ, as we shall soon say. Besides, where there can be no transgression of the law, there also no punishment to be inflicted can be joined to the law, because there is lacking to the Legislator Himself the motive reason for constituting punishment, which is to contain subjects in observance of the law whom they can violate: therefore punishment could not be inflicted upon Him: therefore no precept is given. It is confirmed by the example of a vow, which Christ could not make, as Theologians commonly teach, because a vow is made by man in order that, because his will is not firm in good, by vowing he may fix it immovably upon what it is expedient to do, and he does this so that through fear of dishonoring God and violating his promise he may abstain from its contrary. Since therefore a precept is given to someone also to direct him, because his will is not firm in good but can defect from it, and the will of Christ was not of this condition, seeing that He could not make a vow, thus neither could any precept be imposed upon Him. — I answer denying the major: for a precept is given on account of the act which the law commands; whence in such a precept neither direction nor punishment is considered primarily, but only secondarily. Direction indeed where the will is not firm: punishment truly, where there is present the power of imposing precept and law: and because neither of these was in Christ; therefore neither was a precept given to Him under those reasons; but with the added reason of the excellence and dignity of the act, which He could choose through obedience without need of direction and fear of punishment. To the confirmation I answer, that Christ could not make a vow under those reasons brought forward in the objection, yet could under other reasons, inasmuch namely as it is some act of latria or religion; for Christ, as man, could will to pray to the Father out of a vow, to fast, to sacrifice, and the like; for these include no imperfection or indecency.

You will object secondly: Where there is a precept, there is necessity of executing the thing prescribed, because a precept induces obligation: but Christ, John 10, denies that He had necessity of dying: therefore etc. — I answer, that Christ the Lord asserts indeed that He had not necessity of dying, because the mandate about undergoing death for us was accepted by Him freely, according to Psalm 38: Then said I; Behold I come.

You will object thirdly: The death of Christ is commonly said to be merely permitted, not commanded. — I answer, it is said permitted by reason of the crucifiers; but said commanded by reason of the crucified and dead.

You ask first: to what laws was Christ subject? — I answer first that He was subject to the laws of the natural law, both of the natural and of the supernatural order, which nevertheless did not derogate from the dignity of His person. The reason is, because Christ assumed human nature with the conditions that follow upon it (excepting sin and ignorance): but the precepts of the natural law follow upon human nature; likewise they contain the right order which a rational creature ought to keep, against which Christ could not act. I said of the supernatural order also, because since His soul was ordered to a supernatural end, with respect to which certain necessary means are given which by their own nature follow upon such ordination, of which kind is the supernatural love of God, thence it comes that Christ was subject to this and other similar precepts. I said furthermore, which nevertheless did not derogate from the dignity of His person: for the dignity of the person of Christ demanded that He be exempted from some laws even of the natural law: e.g., by the natural law we owe obedience to parents: but Christ was not bound to render it to His Mother the most blessed Virgin, since she was His superior: and therefore what is said Luke 2, and he was subject to them, must be understood not from the obligation of a natural precept but from His free will and for our instruction; as blessed Bernard signifies section 29 on the Canticles. — I answer secondly, that Christ our Lord was not subject to human laws, as is gathered from chapter 27 of Matthew, where Christ signified that He paid tribute not from obligation but voluntarily: lest namely others be scandalized. But the reason of the response is, because a superior cannot be bound by the laws of an inferior: but Christ is superior to all human laws and legislators: therefore He was not subject to human laws. — I answer thirdly, that Christ was not subject to positive laws, both of the New and of the Old Testament. It is proved concerning the laws of the New Testament, because the Prince is loosed from his own laws, especially when the law regards subjects inasmuch as they are in some state discordant with the state of the Legislator, as is plain when the Prince lays down a law about paying tributes: but Christ is the author of the New Testament, and the law of the New Testament regards men inasmuch as they are in some manner sinners: therefore Christ was not subject to the law of the New Testament. — It is proved further concerning the laws of the Old Testament, because the old law was given only for the posterity of Adam descending according to common reason: but Christ did not descend from Adam in this manner. Whence I gather, that when it is said to the Galatians that Christ was made under the law, that must be understood of the voluntary subjection of Christ as an example of humility. That word of Matthew 5, I came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfil, is rightly understood of the fulfillment of the figure through the exhibition of truth: for the old law was the shadow of things to come in the New Testament.

Conclusion second. — CHRIST, AS MAN, CAN TRULY AND PROPERLY BE CALLED THE SERVANT OF GOD BY NATURAL SERVITUDE, BUT NOT BY LEGAL SERVITUDE.

The first part is proved from Sacred Scripture, in which Christ the Lord is most frequently called the servant of God. Thus Isaiah 12: Behold my servant, I will uphold him: my elect, my soul delighteth in him. And chapter 53: By his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many. And Zechariah 5: I will bring my servant the Orient. The same truth is handed down in the New Testament: for Matthew 12, the Evangelist interprets the passage quoted from Isaiah of Christ. Nor does it matter that the Evangelist did not report the words my servant but my child, for most often the name child is taken for servants. Thus 1 Kings 9: Bid the child go before us, and 21: If the children be innocent (that is, servants) especially from women. And Psalm 68: Hide not thy face from thy child. Which is also evident from the New Testament, where the name child is sometimes written for servant. Thus especially Acts 4, Peter said: For of a truth there assembled together in this city against thy holy child Jesus, in which place the name child does not signify a younger man not yet mature in adult age, but is taken properly for a servant. Nay Christ Himself Matthew 11 quite plainly signified that this appellation was to be attributed to Himself, when He said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, where He calls the Father Lord of those things which exist made in heaven and in earth, that He may signify that He also, as man, acknowledges the Father as Lord; and consequently, that He be reckoned among His servants, as St. Athanasius gathers book 3 Against the Arians. — It avails to reply with Vazquez that the words of Scripture are to be taken metaphorically: both because the oracles of Scripture are to be taken in their proper signification whenever no absurdity follows from it: but nothing is detracted from Christ, nor from Christian truth, by Christ's being called, as man, servant of God: therefore He must truly be so regarded: and because the Holy Fathers, soon to be praised, used the foresaid authorities of Scripture in their proper signification: therefore they ought to be so taken. — Nor does it equally stand in the way, that Adrian, supreme Pontiff, in his epistle to the Council of Frankfort, says that never did any Evangelist, no Apostle call Him servant: for he said this either because rarely, and not with such express words in the New as in the Old Testament, is He so called, or he takes servant in another signification, namely either for pure man, or for man subjected to sins, of which matter below.

It is proved secondly from the Holy Fathers: first indeed St. Chrysostom, Homily 7 on the epistle to the Philippians, expounding these words, Taking the form of a servant, says: As in the form of God He is perfect God, so in the form of a servant He is perfect servant. Similarly St. Ambrose book 7 of Epistles, epistle 15, reproves one who had denied that Christ accepted for us the condition of a servant, where expounding that word of Psalm 109: Strengthen me, O Lord my God, he says: Servitude is of nature, dominion is of dignity. St. Jerome, on the epistle to Titus, chapter 1: Let it be no wonder if any sounding men are nobly called servants of God, when through Isaias the Prophet the Father speaks of the Son: It is great for thee to be called my servant. Isidore, book 1 On the Highest Good, chapter 16: Christ, and in the form of a servant a servant, and in the form of God not a servant: for in the form of a servant, servant of the Lord: and in the form of God Lord of men. Augustine, epistle 171: According to the form of God He said of Himself: I and the Father are one: according to the form of a servant: because the Father is greater than I. Athanasius, sermon 3, Against the Arians, where he referred the words made, created, servant, and son, thus has it: All such words, by reason of humanity, well and properly apply. Nazianzen, oration 3, On Theology: Thou hast rendered to me more safely against those voices of ingratitude these, namely, My God and your God; greater, created, made, sanctified; add even servant, if it so please, and obedient.

It is proved also by reason: For he truly is held servant who is under the power of a lord, and is held to spend all his actions and labors in his service, as well as in all things obey and serve him: but all these befit Christ as man with respect to God. First indeed God of all men, and therefore of Christ as man, is such Lord that according to pleasure and right of his dominion he can annihilate all men, and therefore Christ as man, and all creatures: as God himself testifies Deuteronomii 32: Ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam: et Sapientiae 16: Tu es Domine, qui vitae et mortis habes potestatem. Similarly Christ, as man, whatever he has owes to God omnipotent, as distributor and bestower of every good. By equal reason he is held to spend all his service toward his worship and honor; for all things serve him; wherefore Christ D., as the Apostle teaches ad

Philip. 2, Et factus est obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem Crucis.

You will say first: The reason of creature depending on God is not adequate foundation of true and proper servitude; but moreover it is required that he who is servant communicate nowise in goods of his lord: but Christ as man communicates in goods of God; since, to be complete man, he must have subsistence; but subsistence of Christ is divine: therefore as man he communicates in goods of his Lord. — I deny the major; for although this communication in goods of lord perhaps be something consequent upon legal servitude, because he who is servant with legal servitude is so under dominion of another that with him he communicates neither in goods, nor honor, nor dignity; yet that negation is not required for natural servitude, as we said in Notable second. Since indeed this does not exclude right of communicating in goods and honors, as appears not only in son, who although natural servant of father, nevertheless has right to communicate with him in goods and honors, but even in most holy men; for just men communicate through grace in goods of God, because through grace they are partakers of divine nature, as St. Peter teaches epist. 2 cap. 1, and have right to vision and fruition, are truly and properly named servants of God, as St. Paul testifies many times, who in his epistles glories chiefly in this appellation repeated often, Paulus Apostolus servus Iesu Christi. Hence Matth. 25, to every Just man called to eternal glory it is said: Euge, serve bone et fidelis, etc.

You will urge again: That the just indeed are called servants of God, but improperly: seeing that Christ said to them Ioann. 15: Iam non dicam vos servos, sed amicos: therefore that response is null. — I deny the consequence: For Christ only removes from the just the appellation and lot of servile servitude, because the just do not act in manner of servants from servile fear, but in manner of sons from love: wherefore rather friends than servants are they named. But that natural servitude excludes not condition of adoptive son, nor friend, holds, because it admits with itself also condition of maternity: for indeed blessed Virgin, who communicated most abundantly in honors of God, and was illustrated with title and glory of divine maternity, nevertheless immediately after conception of divine Word, and dignity of maternity granted her, named herself servant and handmaid of God, saying Luciae 1: Ecce ancilla Domini: whence in her Canticle there she sang: Respexit humilitatem ancillae suae, etc.

You ask: That parity of communication of Saints and Mother-of-God Virgin in goods of God and Christ is not the same: therefore however much that communication does not stand in the way of blessed Virgin and Saints being called servants of God, since Christ far more nobly and divinely communicates in goods of God, he can nowise be reckoned his servant. — Against this, however much Christ far more perfectly than any other Saint communicated with God in goods, nevertheless he did not communicate unto equality: since Christ claims for himself not all divine attributes; for neither is he omnipotent, nor infinite, nor immense; for although attributes of God be predicated of Christ through communication of idioms, nevertheless his true humanity cannot be called omnipotent, immense, eternal, etc.: therefore he communicates not in all goods of God unto equality. Whence notwithstanding this communication in goods Christ truly will be able to be said servant of God, because although equal to Father according to divinity, nevertheless he is less than Father according to humanity.

The other parts of the Conclusion are proved. First indeed from Council of Frankfort, which in epistle to Bishops of Spain thus addresses Felix and Elipandus: Intelligite, inquit, in hac professione vestra, duplices diabolicae fraudis latuisse dolos..... dum, et Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, quem Deum colimus et adoramus, servum producutis, et adopticum, considerate quale est hoc scandalum inter paganas gentes, ut dicatur Deum Christianorum servum esse, vel adopticum. Nos per illum a servitute liberati, non ille nobiscum servus. The same is gathered from epistle of Adrianus supreme Pontiff to Bishops of Spain, in which equally addressing Felix and Elipandus, says: Tanta vos dementia detulit; adopticum eum.... filium quasi purum hominem calamitati humana subiectum, et quod pudet dicere, servum: cum impii, et ingrati tantis beneficis, liberatorem nostrum non pertimescatis venenosa fauce susurrare. Cur non veremini, queruli obtrectatores Dei odibiles, illum servum nuncupare, qui eos de servitute diaboli liberarit? Et paulo post: Dominum igitur Angelorum, omnisque creaturae, cuius sub pedibus cuncta subiecta sunt, eos dicitis servum, et adopticum. From these two testimonies plainly enough it stands that servitude is removed from Christ, namely not natural in order to God, to which assumed nature is subjected; but either legal or penal or sinful; which Council signifies more clearly in same epistle while saying: Etsi cum Propheta servum nominasset, non tamen ex conditione servitutis, sed ex humilitatis obedientia, quia factus est Patri obediens usque ad mortem, Papa Leone dicente: Assumpta est de Matre Domini natura, non culpa, sumpta in forma servi sine conditione servili. By which words Council signifies that it removes from Christ servitude not natural consisting in obedience of humility, which is proper to creature, but legal and sinful servitude.

Vazquez replies. Pontiff and Council remove from Christ every servitude altogether, seeing that they signify Christ to be to be called simply Son, truly not servant. — Against this, both Pontiff and Council eliminate that servitude from Christ, for impugning which they bring forth authorities of Holy Fathers: but all authorities of Holy Fathers which they bring forth remove only the threefold last servitude from Christ. For Saint Chrysostom Homil. 13 in epistola ad Heb., whom Vasquez also alleges for confirming his opinion, excludes only servile condition from Christ per order to men; for he says: Sicut servus factus est, sic etiam Pontifex, et minister: sed servus factus non mansit servus, sic et minister factus non mansit minister: non enim ministri est sedere, sed stare. By which words St. Chrysostom shows that Christ now sitting at right hand of Father in heavens exercises ministry of servant no longer, nor minister, per order to men. Whence he excludes from Christ only that subjection which the mortal state still showed per order to men. — Similarly St. Leo Sermon 1 De Nativitate past middle, soon praised by Council, says thus: Assumpta est de Matre hominis Domini natura, non culpae: creata est forma servi, sine conditione servitutis, quia novus homo sic contemperatus est veteri, ut civitatem susciperet generis, et ritum excluderet vetustatis. — Finally St. Damascenus, who seems to militate more openly for opinion of Vasquez, removes from Christ no servitude other than that introduced through sin: for he says: nisi caro Deo Verbo copulata fuisset, serva procul dubio, et ignara extitisset: verum quia personaliter Deus Verbum eam sibi univit, id habuit, ut nec servus esset, neque in ignorantia versaretur. By which words he signifies that only that servitude is removed from Christ to which his humanity would have been subjected, as also ignorance, if it had not been assumed by Word. But it is certain that it would not have been subjected to ignorance except on account of sin: therefore St. Damascenus removes only from Christ servitude induced through sin: therefore there is no reason why Vasquez should flatter himself so greatly that his opinion is confirmed by open and evident oracles of Councils and Holy Fathers.

Vazquez argues. Council of Frankfort after removing from Christ the servitudes above-named, adds: Quid dicitis de Deo Patre, qui cum in baptismate, et transfiguratione Filium nominarit, non Servum? Secondly, if Christ could be called servant with natural servitude, Adrianus supreme Pontiff had labored so much in vain, that he twisted into allegorical sense all texts of Scripture attributing some servitude to Christ; for with easy task he would have said those were to be understood of natural servitude of Christ in order to God, if he had acknowledged that in Christ.

I answer first denying the consequence: for besides natural servitude, whereby man depends on God, he can also have another servitude with respect to God contracted from sin, since by the very fact that man is sinner he is subjected by new title to God as Judge and avenger. And God obtains new right over sinner, to punish him not only, but also exterminate and annihilate.

I answer secondly, Council speaks of servitude which would be founded in supposit and person, such servitude as Felix and Elipandus admitted, who innovating error of Nestorius affirmed double person in Christ, as Fathers of same Council signify, addressing Felix and Elipandus in same epistle thus: Numne olim eadem haeresis vestra in Nestorio refutata etiam et damnata est? Unde St. Damascenus lib. 3. De Fide cap. 21: Si autem, ait, qui solum eum dicunt, unum Christum iuxta Nestorium in duos dividunt.

I answer to second, more prudently indeed and rightly would it have been to receive testimonies in proper than metaphorical sense: nevertheless with prudent counsel Pontiff descended to metaphor, lest he attribute name of servitude (so odious to Spaniards on account of their dire and long-lasting servitude whereby they were vexed by Moors) to Christ, and so Spanish Church appear burdensome and hostile to Fathers.