Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

1. Royal dignity I call that by which one supreme Prince and Monarch has supreme right in a commonwealth, and the power of commanding and of enacting laws in those things which pertain to its governance, administration, peace, and tranquillity. This dignity, however, can be distinguished as twofold: temporal, and spiritual: of which the former regards the government of the commonwealth itself especially in things that are temporal: the latter, however, prescribes and ordains those things which concern either the worship of God, or the honour of religion, or the salvation of souls. Now concerning this twofold royal power and dignity there is question at present, whether Christ the Lord was truly a spiritual or a temporal king. Moreover, royal spiritual dignity, considered in Christ the Lord, is a certain power and jurisdiction which he has over the whole Church, whether militant on earth or triumphant in heaven; but especially over the militant; according to which power and dignity Christ the Lord could constitute a certain new commonwealth, namely the Church, appoint superiors in it, and also prescribe the means by which the salvation of souls and eternal life might be obtained with ease. That this power and dignity was in Christ no Catholic doubts, as we abundantly proved in the Treatise On Laws, showing that Christ enacted various Evangelical laws, and likewise instituted various grades of orders in the Church, and most efficacious means for working the salvation of men: nevertheless, since very many heretics of this age clamour against this manifest truth, especially the Socinians, therefore it will not be useless to demonstrate this truth in the present Question.

Note 2. That it can be understood in two ways that Christ was a Temporal King, namely either by reason of his Divinity, or by reason of his humanity. That he was so de facto under the former title, no one doubts; for God is King and Lord of all. It is disputed, therefore, whether he was a spiritual King by reason of his humanity. Further, that he was King under this latter title can still be understood in two ways, namely either de facto, or de iure. That he was not so de facto is clear, because during the times of his life there were other Kings in Jerusalem, though perhaps not by right. Add that when the crowd wished to make him King, he fled into the wilderness. There remains therefore the difficulty, whether by right he was a temporal King by reason of his humanity. Finally, that he was a temporal King by right could be understood in three ways: namely either by right of succession, or by right of election, or by right of union with the divine Word. And first indeed, that he was not a temporal King by right of election is clear, because thus he was never elected, nay he was repudiated by the Jews saying to Pilate: We have no king but Caesar. There remains therefore the doubt, whether he was a temporal King either by right of succession, or by reason of union with the Word.

Note 3. As regards the temporal kingdom and wholly political regimen of Christ, that it is, as we said, a matter of the greatest controversy among some Catholic Doctors: for some, as Marsilius of Padua, and John of Jandun, have said that Christ not only did not have the right of a King over other Kings and Princes of this world, but even was subject to them by right, and paid tributes due by law, not spontaneously, but constrained by necessity and obligation of law: yet this opinion John XXII justly condemned as heretical in a certain Extravagant, as Cardinal Torquemada relates in book four of his Summary, part 2, chapter 37. For it is openly contrary to Matthew 17, where, when tribute was demanded from Christ, he asked Peter and said:

The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or customs? of their own children, or of strangers? And Peter answered: Of strangers. Jesus said to him: Then the children are free. But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook, and take the fish that first cometh up; and opening his mouth thou shalt find a stater, etc.

This Christ the Lord performed, that he might show himself free from the exaction of tributes; but on account of scandal he willed to pay. — There are also those who, with Armacanus, book 4 of the Questions of the Armenians, chapter 16, and Abulensis on chapter 21 of Matthew, question 30, explaining that text, Behold thy King, etc., concede to Christ a peculiar right of kingship over Judaea by reason of succession and inheritance; yet that he did not have the same right over other Kings and the other kingdoms. Thirdly, there are those who teach with St. Antoninus, part 3, title 3, chapter 2, Almainus in his Treatise On the Power of the Church, and very many other Theologians of no lesser name, that Christ truly had the right of King and temporal Emperor over all other Kings; although he would not use it temporally, but only spiritually. Fourthly, finally, there is the opinion that Christ not only did not reign in a temporal kingdom, but also did not have any right of temporal kingship, neither in Judaea, nor in the kingdoms of the universe, nor in any one of them; but that his kingdom and right of reigning was only spiritual; by which right he could establish rights and laws throughout the whole universe, as he judged expedient for the spiritual end in the salvation of souls; which opinion, as more probable with the others we embrace.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST THE LORD, AS MAN, WAS TRULY A SPIRITUAL KING, AND AS SUCH HAD A POWER OF EXCELLENCE OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, BY WHICH HE COULD ENACT LAWS. This Conclusion consists of three parts: of which the First and second are proved by all those texts of Scripture in which that adorable Saviour King is pronounced and affirmed; especially Psalm 2, in which the Psalmist speaks in the person of Christ: But I am appointed King by him over Sion, his holy mountain. And that such a kingdom be known to be spiritual, he adds: Preaching his commandment. And shortly after: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron. And immediately he explains this kingdom to be spiritual, saying: Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling: embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry. And Isaiah 9: His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it in judgment and justice. By which last words he declared this kingdom would be spiritual, as the sacred Expositors have noted. And Ezekiel 21 contains the best testimony to the same kingdom, from those words: Take away the mitre, remove the crown, etc., down to that, until he come whose is judgment, and I will give it him. And chapter 34: I will raise up one Pastor over them who shall feed them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their pastor: and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince in the midst of them. By which words he signifies that Christ is King because he is Priest and Pastor of souls: which St. Augustine indeed luminously teaches on Psalm 149. The Son of God, who made us, he says, was made among us, and our King rules us, because our Creator made us. He it is nevertheless through whom we were made, through whom we are ruled: and therefore Christians, because he is Christ — Christ named from chrism, that is, from anointing: for Kings were anointed, and Priests. But he was anointed both king and priest. He fought for us; in his priesthood he offered himself for us. Facundus Hermianensis also, book 12, chapter 3, says that the kingdom together with the priesthood belongs to Christ alone:

Since although certain Kings exercised priesthood in figure of him who was to come, nevertheless when manifest light went forth into the world, removing the shadows of things to come, he gave to none other what he reserved to himself alone, but distributing his gifts variously, he thus forbade the proper laws of the priesthood.

— At length the thief acknowledged this spiritual kingdom, when hanging on the cross he said, Luke 23: Remember me, Lord, when thou comest into thy kingdom: for he desires not a temporal commodity, but a spiritual kingdom: and therefore Christ said to Pilate, John 18: My kingdom is not of this world. Which passage St. Augustine, tractate 115 on John, weighs thus:

Hear therefore, O Jews and Gentiles: hear circumcision, hear prepuce: hear all earthly kingdoms: I do not impede your dominion in this world: my kingdom is not of this world. Fear not the vainest fear, wherewith that Herod the greater trembled when the birth of Christ was announced: and slew so many infants, that death might reach him, being more cruel in fearing than in raging. My kingdom, he says, is not of this world. Come believing, and do not serve by fearing.

And straightway he expounds that passage of the second Psalm, in which Christ after the resurrection declares himself constituted King: But I am appointed King by him over Sion, his holy mountain, thus: But that Sion and that mountain is not of this world; for what is his kingdom except those believing in him? — Moreover this spiritual royal dignity excels the temporal in many respects: First indeed in the end, which is supernatural and heavenly. Second, in amplitude, since it extends to heaven and earth. Third, in duration, since it is eternal. Finally, since it extends directly not only to bodies but also to souls: I say directly, because the temporal power of kings extends to souls indirectly; for they can enact laws binding under pain of sin, as we taught in the Treatise On Laws.

There is proved the third part, namely that by that power Christ could enact laws, nay did in fact enact them. I say it is proved from Isaiah 33: The Lord is our king, the Lord is our Lawgiver. Likewise from Jeremiah 31: I will give my law in their hearts; which law in Matthew 11 is called his sweet yoke, as St. Cyril explains in book 2 to the Queens; and in John 13 it is clear Christ enacted a law, when he said: A new commandment I give you: for the reason is, that since he had the power of instituting a certain new commonwealth, he ought rightly to have had the power of enacting laws by which it should be governed.

You will say. From John 1: The law was given by Moses; grace and truth were made by Christ: therefore as Moses gave the law in such wise that he conferred not grace and truth, so Christ gave grace and truth in such wise that he enacted no law. — I answer, this is not the sense of those words, but there each thing is denominated from what is ⟦…⟧ to enact a law was the chief truth of his coming. Yet from this it does not follow that he did not also enact certain laws. Add that, as St. Augustine says in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, the law of Moses commanded and did not help; but the law of Christ commands and helps; nay it helps more than it commands, because if he imposed any precepts upon us, he prescribed them not to burden but to relieve us, as is clear from the precept concerning receiving the sacraments: for all sacraments confer grace upon us, and are rather for our succour than for any burden, as St. Augustine learnedly and elegantly pursues throughout the whole book On the Spirit and the Letter.

Second Conclusion. — CHRIST AS MAN WAS NOT KING OF THE JEWS TEMPORALLY BY RIGHT OF SUCCESSION.

It is proved first: If Christ had had any hereditary right to the kingdom, especially since he was sprung from the seed of David: but this reason is of no weight; both because not all sprung from David had right to the kingdom, but only the first-born; and that in the direct line through Solomon: yet it is not established that Christ was son of David through the line of Solomon, neither on the part of his Mother, since it is uncertain whether the blessed Virgin was sprung from David through the line of Solomon or through Nathan; nor on the part of his putative father, namely St. Joseph, seeing that St. Luke and St. Matthew wove his genealogy differently, Luke proceeding to David through Nathan; but Matthew descending from David through Solomon. Add that it would be uncertain whether St. Joseph then was first-born, and head of the whole family of David. Moreover, Christ was only the putative, or at least adoptive son of St. Joseph, upon whom therefore the royal right could not devolve to the prejudice of those who were first-born.

Secondly: The royal dignity and power had long before been transferred from the family of David. For indeed after the Babylonian captivity Priests of the race of the Machabees presided over the Jewish people even until Christ: therefore however truly Christ on his mother's side were of the family of David, he was not on that account held to have right to royal dignity, which had already been conveyed to another family.

You will object. Various texts of Scripture by which it seems signified that Christ the Lord was truly King by right of succession, or because he was the son of David. Thus Isaiah 9: He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom. And Jer. 23: I will raise up a just branch to David, and a King shall reign. And Luke 1: The Lord will give him the seat of David his father, etc. Whence, John 12, the Hebrew people going forth to meet Christ cried out: Hosanna, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel: therefore Christ was truly acknowledged and hailed as King by the Israelites: but he was King neither by election nor by usurpation: therefore he was hailed King by the Israelites by right of succession. — I answer, all those authorities are to be understood of the spiritual kingdom, not of the temporal, as the Holy Fathers explain, especially Cyril, book 12 on John, chapter 10, where he says:

Christ answering Pilate does not deny himself to be king: for he could not lie: but he shows that he is not an enemy of Caesar's kingdom, because his principality is not worldly, but of heaven and earth and of all other things: by which last words Cyril shows the majesty of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, to which all things are subject.

You will object 2. Other texts of Scripture by which it is signified that Christ is King of the whole universe. Thus Apocalypse 1: Christ is called Prince of the Kings of the earth. And chapter 19 he is said to have written on his thigh: King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: likewise in Hebrews 2 St. Paul attributes to Christ the Lord that Psalm 8: Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. And at the end of Matthew Christ himself testifies: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth: therefore he has also temporal power over all kingdoms. — I deny the consequence, and to the antecedent I say Christ is not called Prince and King of Kings by reason of temporal power, but spiritual: nor are all things subject to him according to that temporal dominion; because Christ neither ever reigned in any earthly kingdom, nor will reign in this manner. Add that very many nations never heard anything of Christ; therefore all these things cannot rightly be understood except of the spiritual kingdom: which is especially clear from this, that the Apostle uses a beautiful antithesis between Christ and mere man; for God subjected this earthly globe and all the animals in it to man at his creation; but now after sin he lost this full power over all things, nor did all things remain subject to him, on account of sin: but Christ was so appointed head of the whole Church, which is the future and spiritual world (saeculum futuri et spirituale), that he died for all without exception, and thus by the merit of his death subjected to himself all who are in the world to come.

You will object 3. Certain Holy Fathers, some of whom teach Christ to have been King by hereditary right of succession: thus St. Athanasius, in a sermon

On the Mother of God, explaining Psalm 109: The Lord said to my Lord, says: But by these words he received the throne of David corporally by reason of lineage, whereby David was his father. To him also St. Epiphanius consents, as we said in the prelude of the Section. Others, however, pronounce absolutely that Christ is King of this world: thus St. Augustine, tractate 116 on John; Gregory in Homily 8 on the Gospels; and Hilary on Psalm 2, expounding these words: But I am appointed king, where with many texts of Scripture he confirms that Christ truly was king. — I answer to the authorities of the first kind, that the Holy Fathers wish nothing else than that the kingdom of David persevered until Christ, not indeed through Kings, but through Priests and judges of the people; but that when Christ was born all that royal and judicial authority was transferred to him, not because the right of temporal kingdom was devolved upon him, but because the temporal kingdom of David was extinguished, and translated into the spiritual one which Christ possessed. Whereas when St. Athanasius says that by reason of lineage Christ received the kingdom, he understands him not to have received it by right of blood and kinship, but since Christ was truly of the stock of David, he says he received the throne of David his father, because he alone was he ⟦…⟧ it may be gathered that they speak only of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as appears from the first Conclusion. Hence St. Hilary, when he had proved with many texts of Scripture that Christ is King, concludes at length: This King therefore was appointed over Sion, the holy mountain of God, announcing the commandment of the Lord, not certainly over that mountain of the city of the earth, namely of bewailed, murderous, parricidal Jerusalem: but his Jerusalem, which is in heaven: which plainly must be understood of spiritual royal power. Whence St. Augustine, tractate 51 on John, weighing that text: Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh, says: What that the Lord should be king of Israel! what great thing that the King of ages should become king of men? For Christ is not King of Israel to exact tribute, or to arm an army with iron, or to vanquish enemies visibly: but King of Israel, that he may rule minds, that he may provide for eternity, that he may lead believers, hopers, and lovers into the kingdom of heaven.

You will object 4. Melchisedech had this peculiar above those Priests, that being simultaneously King and Priest he bore the figure of our Saviour, as the Apostle teaches to the Hebrews 3 and 7: but the priestly dignity, which was purely spiritual in Melchisedech, was distinct from the royal dignity, by which he was temporal: therefore in like manner both dignity and authority in Christ ought to have been distinct; and consequently Christ has not only spiritual royal dignity but also temporal. — I answer to the major, that Melchisedech by his priesthood and kingdom prefigured in it the priestly and royal authority of Christ, in that Melchisedech besides his priesthood was also King of Salem, that is, King of peace, or justice; whence by his kingdom he figured the kingdom of Christ, in that Christ also, inasmuch as he was spiritual king, would be King of peace and justice. Wherefore although Christ alone was spiritual King of the kingdom, nevertheless Melchisedech perfectly prefigured his royal authority and dignity. — Yet it is not thence to be understood that royal and priestly dignity in Christ was the same according to every manner of identity. For St. Augustine, book 83 Questions, question 61, distinguishes them; not indeed in reality, but by reason only, from their different genera and offices; for he says:

Our King is Jesus Christ, who furnished us an example both of fighting and of conquering in our mortal flesh, taking upon himself our sins, yielding neither to the darksome nor terrible temptations of the enemy, finally stripping off the flesh of our mortality, despoiling principalities and powers confidently, triumphing over them in himself.

And a little further on: Under that same leader we presume we can be introduced into the heavenly Jerusalem, as into the land of promise, and there be preserved while he reigns in eternity and keeps guard. By which words he shows the royal dignity of Christ prefigured in Melchisedech, in that Christ was equally King of Salem, King of peace and justice: but shortly after he explains the priestly dignity thus: He is also, he says, our priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, who offered himself as a holocaust, and commended the celebration of the likeness of his sacrifice in memory of his Passion. — Rightly therefore is the royal dignity of Christ distinguished from the priestly, in this respect, that the office of him as priest was to offer sacrifice to God for us; but the dignity of spiritual King, that he might save us, and make us able to reign with him in the heavens, as we shall know. Add that Christ, inasmuch as spiritual King, had the right of enacting laws and instituting sacraments; and likewise that as judge he is to judge the world in equity, assigning rewards to the good and punishments to the evil.

From these gather, that Christ the Lord, inasmuch as man, did not have royal right by reason of hypostatic union, as Vasquez contends; for from this it would follow that he had that right only by reason of the Divinity, to which his humanity was joined, and thus he would truly not be accounted King as man, but only as God; which is certainly denied by all Theologians, as openly repugnant to Sacred Scripture itself; consequently it follows that he obtained that royal dignity by right of donation and institution, whereby the eternal Father constituted him King over the whole world; that he might have the right of instituting, ruling, and governing a spiritual commonwealth in those things which pertain to the worship of God and the salvation of souls, according to Psalm 2: But I am appointed King by him. And shortly after: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession: thou shalt rule them, etc.