Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. It is certain that the principal efficient cause of this mystery is God, and the three divine persons operating ad extra. For this was defined in very many Councils, especially the Lateran Council under Martin I, Can. 2, and the other Lateran Council under Innocent III; likewise in Toledan 6 and 11 in their Confessions of faith; which twofold doctrine all the holy Fathers who treated of the divine Incarnation in a particular manner openly teach, especially St. Augustine lib. 1. De Trinitate, chap. 1, and tract. 10 and 11 on John.

This truth is likewise gathered from Sacred Scripture, in which this incarnation is attributed both to the Father and to the Son: to the Father indeed, thus Galatians 1: God sent his Son, made of a woman, etc.; but to the Son, Philippians 2: When he was in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. Finally, to the Holy Spirit, who is called the craftsman of this ineffable mystery; for what was born of the Virgin is of the Holy Spirit. To these the theological reason also gives its support, because since works ad extra proceed from the divine omnipotence, which is common indivisibly to the three persons — for there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent — therefore all the works of God, among which the most excellent is the work of the Incarnation, proceed from the three divine persons as they are one in unity of nature, will, and power, according to that word of John 10: What things soever the Father doth, these same also the Son doth in like manner. But a difficulty remains, whether God has elevated any creature, or could have elevated it, to that dignity and excellence, that it should be for him an efficacious co-cause, or instrumental cause, in the working and effecting of this mystery.

Note 2. That in this matter the efficient cause is distinguished from the instrumental, in that the efficient acts and influences into the effect by its own and intrinsic power; whereas the instrumental only operates and influences into the production of the effect by a power conceded to it from elsewhere, borrowed from the efficient. Moreover, the efficient cause has a certain proportion and analogy with the effect produced: for every productive cause has a determinate sphere of activity in producing its like, toward which it is chiefly ordered and tends; whereas the instrumental, especially that which has only an obediential potency for some work, has no proportion of itself with the effect, but is only ordered toward it and assumed at the nod and good pleasure of the principal agent.

It is asked here, then, whether any creature was assumed, or at least could have been assumed, as an instrument for effecting the hypostatic union. It is certain, however, that no creature distinct from the Virgin was assumed as a physical instrument for effecting this union: for of none can it be suspected that it made Christ man: for Scripture, or the holy Fathers, attribute this virtue and efficacy to none; for even the presence of the Angel Gabriel himself terminated in the annunciation alone, in the proposal of the mystery, and in the petition for the virginal consent; whence there remains only the difficulty to be solved concerning the most blessed Virgin, namely whether she was elevated by God as an instrument for effecting the hypostatic union.

Note 3. The present difficulty is raised about the first effecting of this mystery: for it is certain that a new union could take place, at least partial, of the Word to the parts of substance which were being added to the body of Christ through nutrition throughout the whole time of his life: for on the part of the Word the whole divine subsistence was united to every part of the body; but by whom physically that union would be effected — namely, whether by God immediately, or through humanity as through a physical instrument, which by its own proper power would dispose the matter of the food, and convert it into its own substance, so that before nature, the matter of the food being informed by the soul, through the action of the Trinity alone it would be united hypostatically to the subsistence of the Word, into which Christ would straightway in the same instant introduce his form — in what manner, I say, this was done, nothing can be defined with certainty. Therefore only these two come here chiefly to be resolved: First, whether the Blessed Virgin was assumed as a physical instrument for effecting the hypostatic union. Second, whether the divine Word had any principal physical and real influx into the assumed humanity, to which influx the other two persons would not concur.

First Conclusion. — THE BLESSED VIRGIN WAS NOT ELEVATED BY GOD AS A PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT FOR THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE HUMANITY GENERATED IN HER AND FROM HER WITH THE DIVINE WORD.

Proof 1. From all those texts of Scripture in which the Incarnation is attributed to God alone, and is said to be the singular work of God alone. Thus Habakkuk 3: O Lord, thy work in the midst of the years; which text St. Augustine and other holy Fathers explain in the usual way of the work of the Incarnation: but the hypostatic union would not be perfectly the singular work of God, if the blessed Virgin, or any creature, had been consenting and concausa of its production; therefore the Blessed Virgin had no efficiency, even instrumental, with respect to the hypostatic union.

Next: No creature, as we proved in the Physics, can be assumed as an instrument of creation: therefore much less of this union. The consequence is evident, because just as by creation existence itself is communicated to a thing, so by this union the very esse of divine subsistence is communicated, which certainly is far more excellent and nobler than mere esse of natural existence.

Finally: Only that concurrence should be granted to the Most Blessed Virgin which is chiefly required and suffices, that she truly be and be called Mother of God: but for that it is not necessary that the Blessed Virgin have an instrumental concurrence in order to the hypostatic union: therefore it ought not to be admitted. This is evident; for to what else would such concurrence be asserted? The minor also stands, both because the concurrence of a mother in the generation of a son is not instrumental but principal, whether it be only after the manner of a material cause, or supplier of matter, as some will have it, or after the manner of an efficient cause effectively concurring to the formation and organization of the body, as the others seem to judge more correctly.

You will say 1: Very many of the holy Fathers admit that instrumental concurrence in the B. Virgin with respect to the hypostatic union: therefore it is to be admitted. The antecedent is proved, for Hesychius, Homil. 2, De Beata Virgine, calls her herself the instrument of the Incarnation: similarly St. Ambrose, Epist. 82: Through man and woman flesh was cast out of Paradise: through the Virgin it is joined to God. In the same manner speaks St. Bernard, Hom. 4 super Missus est, while he says that the Blessed Virgin is that woman who so well tempered those three fates of the Gospel, namely flesh, soul, and divinity, that not even upon the separation made of flesh and soul would flesh or soul be divided from God. —

I answer, that the holy Fathers are to be understood only of a dispositive concurrence, and not of an effective one; since the most blessed Virgin is reckoned to have concurred dispositively to the hypostatic union, because she supplied and prepared the purest blood for forming the humanity of Christ, whereby it was united hypostatically to the divine Word: hence when they call her the instrument of the Incarnation, they do not use the name instrument in its proper signification, in which it is wont to be taken by Philosophers, but in a wider sense, in which whatever concurs in any way whatsoever to the production of another thing is wont to be called an instrument.

You will say 2: God is wont to use his creatures as instruments, especially when the instrument is accommodated to the intended effect, and chiefly when that work redounds to the commendation of his sweet providence, and to the dignity of the creatures which he intends to elevate: but the dignity of the most blessed Virgin would seem to be far greater, and the commendation of the sweet disposition of God far ampler, if the blessed Virgin concur instrumentally in the hypostatic union than if she only effect it dispositively: therefore this is what must be said. —

I distinguish the major: When no contradiction or repugnance thence appears, I concede; otherwise, I deny. But there is a contradiction in that any creature should be elevated to create, much more to effect this union; since God and creature are more distant from one another in the order of unibles than the production of the existence of the creature itself from nothing; for distance is measured by reason of the terms: moreover less distant from the power of a natural agent is to be purely created than to be partly divine and created, such as is that esse which comes about through the Incarnation: therefore, etc.

Second Conclusion. — THE DIVINE WORD HAD NO SPECIAL PHYSICAL INFLUX WITH REGARD TO THE FORMATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE HUMANITY.

Proof: The formal principle of operating ad extra is the same, and holds itself in the same manner with respect to those operations, in all the divine persons; hence whatever one person operates physically, the others also operate: therefore either the Word had no influx into the humanity of Christ which the Father and the Holy Spirit did not have in like manner; or if it had any, the other divine persons equally had the same. The consequence is evident: for this reason we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son indivisibly, because in the Father and the Son there is the same and undistinguished principle of spiration: therefore since the principle of operating ad extra, namely divine omnipotence, is the same in the three divine persons, one of them could not have some influx without the others having the same.

Next: If anything peculiar were bestowed by the Word upon the assumed humanity, all of it should be reduced to its personality; but this is not active, nor productive of any effect; therefore it effects nothing peculiarly. The antecedent is evident: because in the Word there are only two things, namely the divine essence, and the personality of the Word: but the divinity is common to it with the other persons. The consequence is proved: the whole office of the personality of the Word with respect to the assumed nature is only that it bestow upon it what its own proper personality would bestow were it present: but a proper personality has no real effective influx into the humanity whose it is, but only terminates it: therefore also the personality of the Word had no efficiency toward the assumed humanity.

Finally: For every real effecting there must be given some term produced by it; for no productive action is given without a term: but no term can be assigned of the efficiency of the Word with respect to the humanity: therefore it had no peculiar efficiency toward it, either for producing or conserving it.

You will say 1: To assume is to take to oneself: but to take to oneself is to act: therefore since to assume humanity is proper to the Word, the consequence is that it have a peculiar action with respect to the human nature which it assumrit. —

I distinguish the minor: To assume is to act, insofar as assume signifies the formation of the humanity and its union with the divinity, I concede; insofar as it signifies to terminate that nature, and make it existing of itself and incommunicably, I deny. In the first way assumption belongs to the whole Trinity: in the latter it is proper to the Son alone. In the first way assumption is an action: in the latter it is only a termination.

You will say 2: Everything most perfect is active: but whatever is in the Word is most perfect: therefore also active; and consequently its personality will be active, and consequently will have some peculiar efficiency toward its own humanity. —

I distinguish the major: Whatever is most excellent in the genus of real being, I concede; total, I deny. And likewise distinguishing the minor, I deny the consequence: for it is certain that there are many divine attributes which of themselves are not precisely active and productive: since neither eternity nor immensity are of themselves productive of any effect; indeed who would that be? Therefore what is formal in the Word is not active. Hence divine personality can be considered either as it is a relation constituting the divine person, or as it is a subsistence affecting and terminating the divine nature: but in neither of these ways is it operative and productive. Not indeed as it is relation, because relation is not of itself a principle of acting: nor even as it is subsistence, because this of itself is not a physical principle of acting, but only of terminating. Nor does it matter that to act be a certain perfection: for not every perfection ought to belong to the divine personalities as they are something distinct from the divine Essence; for as thus they are not something imperfect or perfect, as we proved in Tract. De Trin.; but it suffices that they include every perfection as they are really identical with the divine Essence: otherwise, since to understand, to will, and to love are the highest perfections, they ought also to belong to the personalities themselves, as from the same essence — nay, as they are distinguished by another intellect and another will; which certainly no Theologian will admit.