Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. That the present question presupposes two natures in Christ, divine and human, and likewise two intellects, namely uncreated and created; since the intellective faculty is an undivided property of spiritual nature, it is necessary that that intellective virtue befit every nature having it; whence in the 6th Synod, Action 11, it is defined that the Word assumed a rational soul consubstantial with our souls, and a mind like to our mind; but mind signifies the soul according to that faculty whereby it is intellective; and in the Lateran Council under Martin, Collation 5, it is defined that all things were twofold in Christ; namely two natures, two intellects, two wills and operations: for although there only the Monothelites are condemned, who rejected only the twofold will in Christ; yet since the intellective power is inseparable from the appetitive, this heresy could not be condemned without at the same time determining two intellects in Christ, namely created and uncreated. Whence here it is deservedly asked, whether as there are two intellects in Christ, so also a twofold knowledge must be admitted, namely created and uncreated.

NOTE 2. That, passing over those heretics who denied Christ a human mind and consequently created cognition and science, against whom dispute has already been often held in the preceding pages, certain Catholic Doctors have asserted that the created intellect of Christ our Lord knew all things by no other cognition than divine and uncreated. Which opinion indeed St Bonaventure reports was at one time pleasing to some, in 3 dist. 11 q. 1. A certain John a Ripa taught it before the others, as Capreolus reports in 3 dist. 11 q. 1 a. 1; nay for asserting it Hugh of Victor labored long, Tractate On the Wisdom of Christ our Lord c. 16, where although at first he seems only to ask whether the science of Christ equals the divine; nevertheless he advances to the point that he preferred to deny created science in Christ; for when it had been objected to him: if the soul of Christ knows all things that exist, God has greater sufficiency than his creature in every good; he thus dissolved it: it is true that God excels his creatures in every good, where some good of creature is found other than the good of Creator: but since the wisdom of that soul is not other than divine wisdom, how can comparison be made? Responding to which he says:

It must undoubtedly be said that another wisdom than the divine was not in Christ; for if the wisdom of the soul of Christ were other than divine wisdom, it would be less... therefore that we may hold that truth firmly, that that soul knew nothing not, but knew all things, it must be said that that soul was wise by no other wisdom; but in God by nature, in that soul by grace.

Truly the other Theologians cry out, affirming as a dogma of faith that as there is in Christ a twofold intellect, created and divine, so also there is in Christ a twofold science, uncreated and human.

NOTE 3. That although in establishing this assertion the Theologians agree with unanimous consent concerning the truth of the thing, and that de facto the matter stood in Christ according to the present ordination of God; nevertheless some contend that de potentia saltem extraordinaria et absoluta the human intellect of Christ our Lord could become cognizant of all things through the uncreated cognition and science of God, nor can it be shown to any convincing reason that the opinion of Hugo Victorinus implies contradiction. Which assertion Aegidius a Praesentatione especially defends, book 1 On Beatitude, qu. 1 art. 2; but the contrary teach all Princes of Theology, and likewise their adherents and disciples, to whom let us subscribe with

First conclusion. — CHRIST TRULY DE FACTO HAD CREATED SCIENCE. This is of faith, determined in Councils defining all things to be twofold in Christ, namely two natures, two wills, two intellects, and two operations. And although they do not speak in particular of the intellect, yet by general definition they comprehend it; for Pope Agatho says in the Epistle of the Roman Synod (which is related in the 6th Synod Action 1, and received in the 8th): We confess in Christ all things twofold, insofar as they pertain to the natures, we preach his two natures, and confess each to have its natural properties, the divine all things that are divine, the human all things that are human, without any sin. — It is confirmed from the same Council, where he alleges St Leo saying: Of the two natures of Christ our Lord each form acts with the union of the other what is proper: namely the Word operating what is of the Word, and the flesh executing what is of flesh: which last words prove our opinion thus far, inasmuch as they assert each nature in Christ our Lord to have exercised its own proper functions, and consequently since actual intellection is one of the proper operations of the human nature, Christ our Lord must have understood by his created intellect through created actual intellection alone. Hence is subjoined: For neither do we give one natural operation of God and creature in anything, so as neither to lead up what is created into the divine essence, nor to cast down what is excellent of the divine nature to a place competent to creatures. This also appears most of all from the Lateran Council under ⟦OCR gap: several lines lost here by the OCR; text resumes mid-sentence⟧ it is likewise defined that all things in Christ are twofold, namely not only two wills, ⟦OCR gap: more lines lost; text resumes at the fragment "manam."⟧ manam. For first, since to each will its own cognition corresponds; if there are two wills in Christ, there must also necessarily be two cognitions. Second, by saying two operations, and not determining to the operations of only one or the other power, that action cannot be excluded from this definition which is first among human ones, namely created cognition. Third, by defining that in Christ are all things which pertain to human nature, created intellection was likewise defined to be in Christ, seeing that no one denies it pertains chiefly to human nature.

The conclusion can also be proved from sacred Scripture, especially from John 8, where Christ our Lord says: For I know him (namely the Father), and keep his word: where this particle I know stands for created cognition corresponding to the observation of the precepts of his Father. Moreover in the same Evangelist c. 13, Knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father, having loved his own; from which I infer, that as Christ observed the commandment of God as man, and suffered through the assumed nature, so also as man he knew these things by some created act. Add to these that Christ our Lord elicited very many acts of human intellection which cannot fall into divine cognition, for Luke 2 it is said he advanced in wisdom: but this progress however explained cannot be understood of divine wisdom, which is incapable of any increase as of decrease; Matt. 8 it is said he marveled: but admiration supposes a certain ignorance, which certainly cannot fall into divine science. And Hebrews 5, He learned by those things which he suffered: but to learn something conflicts with Christ by reason of divinity; therefore it behooved that Christ have a created intellect, and consequently created cognition.

It is proved also by reason, because if Christ had not science and created cognition, it would follow that the created intellect in him was frustraneous, for the intellect per se is ordered to its proper action: but the proper action of intellect is intellection elicited by itself: therefore Christ ought to have it. — Then, Christ is true and perfect man: but humanity without created intellection is not perfect: therefore Christ ought to have created intellection. The major is evident. The minor is proved: because whatever lacks its end is imperfect: but human nature, insofar as intellective, is on account of created intellection: for every power is on account of its operation: therefore without it it will be imperfect.

You will say. In vain are many things done which can be done by fewer: but Christ knew all things by uncreated intellection: therefore created intellection was frustraneous to him. — I distinguish the major: In vain are things done by the same faculty and power, pass; by different ones, I deny. But Christ through the divine intellect, and as God, understood indeed all things by uncreated cognition; but through the created intellect, and as man, he knew things by created cognition: therefore by reason of diverse faculty he had diverse cognitions, nor in vain was done through one faculty what could not be supplied through the other intellective faculty.

You will urge. Therefore Christ did not have created subsistence, because He subsisted sufficiently through uncreated: but He also knew all things sufficiently through uncreated science: therefore, etc. — I answer denying the parity; and the reason of disparity is that multiplication of subsistences would multiply supposits, and constitute two entirely separate and divided things, and consequently if there had been two supposits in Christ, there would have been no union of Divinity with humanity: but the like does not happen from double nature, faculty, and operation, because through those there are not constituted in Christ two intelligent beings separate and sundered from one another, but one only, by reason namely of unity of supposit.

You will say 2. If it be unbecoming Christ to know only through created science, especially since, as we said, it would follow thence that the created intellective faculty in Him would be vain: but this argument is nothing. Proof; for no inconvenience is it that some power in Christ not have its due operation nor attain the end to which it is ordered, for Christ indeed had generative power which was nowhere reduced to act. — I deny the minor, and to its antecedent I say that in Christ were all faculties and their acts which conduced to the end of redemption; but actual exercise of the created intellect of the soul of Christ most greatly conduced to that end; otherwise however of generative power; therefore no wonder if the act of this faculty was wanting to Christ.

Conclusion second. — THE HUMAN INTELLECT OF CHRIST, EVEN BY GOD'S ABSOLUTE POWER, COULD NOT BECOME INTELLIGENT THROUGH DIVINE AND UNCREATED SCIENCE. This is common among Theologians. It is proved first from the Epistle of Pope Agatho cited above, for therein he proves that in Christ there cannot be one operation of both natures; because it is impossible that the proper operation of one nature become the operation of another. Which can also be proved by the authority of St. Ambrose book 2 De Fide, chapter 4, where he plainly says the operation of one power cannot be another's: for he says: Where substance is diverse, one operation cannot be. In the same way argues St. Damascene book 3 chapter 13 and Pope Leo Epistle 10 to Flavian.

It is proved also by reason: If the human intellect of Christ could become intelligent through uncreated science, especially either habitually or actually: but neither can be said. Not the first, because uncreated science is not a habit but substance. Not even the second, because that uncreated cognition must be produced by an intellect, either created or divine: but it could not be produced by a created intellect: for whatever is from a created and finite principle is created and finite: therefore a created intellect cannot produce uncreated and infinite intellection. Nor yet by an uncreated one, because actual intellection is the proper effect of the intelligent being; for no one understands through the intellection of another, nor consequently through intellection produced by another: therefore the created intellect of the soul of Christ could not become formally intelligent through intellection produced by the divine intellect. — Then, if the created intellect of the soul of Christ could understand through the uncreated intellection of the Word, this would happen either through proper communication of uncreated intellection, or through union of that intellection with the created intellect. The first cannot be said; because by the same reason that created intellection would be said to be truly communicated to the created intellect of the soul of Christ, all other divine operations could be communicated to the assumed humanity by the same reason, and thus that humanity could spirate by communication of spirative virtue and spiration, and create by communication of creation, which are manifestly absurd and impossible. Not even the second: for if through union of the cognition of the divine intellect the created intellect of Christ could become intelligent, also the will of Christ could become willing and free through volition and liberty uncreated intimately united to itself: but this is false: therefore, etc. The sequence of the major appears: for by the same reason that uncreated intellection could be united to a created intellect, uncreated volition and liberty could be united to created will, since the same ratio appears on both sides. But the minor seems certain: for free volition must be in the power and dominion of will: but divine volition cannot be subject to the power or dominion of created will.

You will say 1. For true and perfect cognition nothing else is required than that the soul have science and wisdom intimately united to it actually: but the soul of Christ has intimately united to itself the divine Word, which is the very knowledge and uncreated wisdom of God: therefore truly through it the soul could know all things. — I distinguish the major: united to itself by the mode of form affecting and perfecting it, in the ratio of intellective faculty, I concede: by the mode of terminus hypostatically terminating its dependence: I deny. But the divine Word is not united to the very soul of Christ by the mode of form, but by the mode of hypostatic terminus: for the subsistence of the Word is terminus in its formal concept, not act; but intellection is formally the act of the intelligent being, and therefore it must be after the manner of form. Which answer is confirmed by what the Seraphic Doctor says d. 14 art. 1 q. 1:

Although the uncreated Word be united to the eye of Christ, and to all parts of Christ's body, nevertheless it is not known by the eye: and this because there is not in it disposition for knowing a spiritual thing: therefore by parity, however much the uncreated Word be united to the soul of Christ, unless the soul be disposed to see God through light which makes it Deiform, it will never behold Him.

You will say 2. Divinity can be united no less to a created intellect in the ratio of actual intellection, whereby the created intellect may understand, than be united to the same intellect in the ratio of intelligible species, or in the ratio of subsistence: yet both the divine essence and the subsistence of the Word are united to human intellect in those two ways: therefore also the divine essence can be united to a created intellect in the ratio of actual intellection, whereby it may understand. The minor stands from what has been said both in the present Treatise and in the treatise On beatific vision. But the major is proved as to the first part: for from the fact that the divine essence is united to a created intellect by way of actual intellection, it would not follow that the intellect does not become formally intelligent, just as it does not follow that it is not formally intelligent from the fact that the divine essence is united to it by way of intelligible species. It also appears as to the second part: for as the personality of the Word makes the humanity of Christ subsist in a far nobler manner and satisfies most sufficiently the appetite of humanity, so actual uncreated intellection far better satisfies the intellect of the soul of Christ, since created actual intellection cannot serve it either for knowing objects which it does not know, through that actual uncreated cognition of God; or for knowing them in a nobler manner: therefore the intellect of the soul of Christ knows not only through actual uncreated cognition of God, but also besides it has no other actual created intellection: and consequently it has no scientific habit ordered to such created intellection. — I deny the major regarding both parts; and to the first I say there is not parity of reason between the union of the divine essence in the ratio of actual intellection and the union of the same in the ratio of intelligible species, for the intelligible species is extrinsic to intellect: but intellection is intrinsic and the proper formal effect of the intellect itself. To the second argument I say there is not likewise parity between the union of uncreated subsistence with humanity and the union of uncreated intellection with a created intellect, because human nature is not ordered first and per se to subsisting as to its proper formal effect connaturally owed to it: but the intellect is ordered to its proper intellection, such that if that be taken away it can no longer be conceived how it understands; because to understand through intellection produced elsewhere it would need that it be received in it by way of word of mind: but uncreated intellection cannot be received in a created intellect, otherwise it would exist after the manner of accidental form, which is repugnant. I add that positing the subsistence of the Word in humanity implies the proper subsistence resulting in humanity: but however much uncreated intellection be posited in the created intellect of Christ, it would not imply that this intellect understand also through a created act elicited by itself; because although in that hypothesis it would know all objects which it can know through created intellection, and indeed in the noblest manner; nevertheless there would remain another mode whereby it could still know those objects, namely natural cognition proportionate to itself: just as de facto Christ, although He knows objects by beatific and infused cognition, not less therefore knows them also by acquired and experimental cognition.

You will say 3. A scientific habit is given only that it be known by: but there was no necessity that Christ know through created science, seeing He already knew all things through uncreated science: therefore there is no necessity of admitting created science in Christ. — I distinguish the minor: there was no necessity simply, I concede: secundum quid, and on account of perfection of the created intellect, I deny.