Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. Since the Christian Religion professes that Christ the Lord consists of a twofold nature, and teaches that each single nature, divine namely and human, retains what is proper and innate to itself without all change or confusion, no Catholic doubts that Christ as God, in the proper person of the Word subsisting in human nature, is to be adored with the worship of latria; since indeed he, as such, properly and essentially has uncreated excellence, nor only his nature but even his very person be something uncreated supremely and infinitely excellent, and motive of latria, there is no doubt but that Christ, inasmuch as God and divine Word, is to be venerated with adoration of latria. But the difficulty is whether Christ entire and whole, namely inasmuch as God-Man, is at the same time to be venerated with that genus of adoration. Likewise whether his humanity regarded in itself, inasmuch as either it bears order to the supposit of the Word by which it subsists, or with such order set aside, is to be adored with adoration of latria. Concerning the resolution of which question very many heretics have erred variously; for the Apollinarists denying that in Christ there was a perfect man like to us, and holding that only flesh was received by the Word, and that fallen from Heaven and consubstantial with the Father, as St. Athanasius relates book De Incarnatione Verbi, also taught that with one adoration of latria the flesh was to be venerated together with the Word, because they believed both to be of the substance of God. Wherefore they called Catholics hominicolas, because they asserted that the true substance of man in Christ was to be venerated: but in turn Catholics purged themselves of this reproach by calling them carnicolas. But the Nestorians likewise thought both natures were to be venerated with one adoration, but insidiously, because they said they were joined by moral union only. Gaufredus also relates, disciple of St. Bernard, in an Epistle to Cardinal Albanensis, that Gilbertus Porretanus explaining these words of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, said that the flesh and humanity of Christ were not to be adored with adoration of latria, but with a certain lower adoration: Not that, he was saying, which is called adoration which Latria is, which is owed to the Creator alone: but that which is called dulia: for dulia is adoration, which is exhibited even to a creature: which has two species: one which is shown indifferently to men, another which is shown to the sole humanity of Christ. But in a Manuscript written on parchment of that commentary of Gilbert upon the Psalms, which is preserved in the Library of the monastery of St. Victor near Paris, one may read the contrary entirely to those things which Gaufredus relates.

NOTE 2. That equally it is without controversy that Christ as man can be adored with latria through communication of idioms; because since human nature and divine are predicated of each other mutually in the concrete, whence it comes about that God is called man and Man-God is predicated, and truly is, so through the same communication of idioms Christ, as man, is worthy to be venerated with the same adoration of latria which is proper to God and the divine Word. But the difficulty seems to be whether the worship of latria can be rendered to Christ as man, so that it terminate at him, as at man and according to humanity, and thus not only that man be denominated adorable with latria, but also that he be thus adored as man. That this may be perceived more evidently, and the difficulty to be solved appear more clearly, it must be observed that the humanity of Christ can be considered with respect to adoration in three modes: First, inasmuch as it is conceived as hypostatically united to the divine Word, and as thus conceived is adored. Secondly, as it is apprehended separated and abandoned by the Word: since the Word can dismiss it absolutely, in which case it is asked whether as thus it be to be adored with latria on account of the union which it had with the Word: or also whether, with all order to the supposit of the Word set aside and cut off, it can be adored with latria, inasmuch as we have attained through it very many benefits of grace and redemption. Finally, the humanity of Christ can be regarded according to its own proper excellence, namely eminent sanctity, and all divine charisms with which it is illustrated. It is asked therefore whether the humanity of Christ considered in this threefold mode is worthy to be adored with worship of latria.

NOTE 3. A twofold object of adoration is distinguished by Theologians, one indeed motivating, another truly terminative. The first is that which moves us and morally excites to exhibiting adoration of the thing which we venerate. The second truly is that which terminates that adoration. Thus in a man whom we venerate on account of virtue, virtue is the motivating object of honor and of the cult shown him: but the man illustrated by virtue is the terminative object of it. Now it can happen that one and the same thing be motivating and terminative object simultaneously, when namely it moves us to exhibiting adoration, and moreover at the same time is also adored. Thus when the divine nature is adored, it simultaneously is motivating and terminative object of that adoration. Whence when it is asked whether Christ as man can be adored, the sense of the difficulty can be whether humanity can be the motivating object of adoration of latria, or truly whether it is only the terminative object of it, inasmuch as that which consists of(?) the divine Word and humanity is adored with latria, so that the humanity included in that whole subsistent be also a terminative object, if not total, at least partial, at which that adoration of latria terminates, although it not be the motivating object of that adoration.

These things prenoted, it must be resolved first whether Christ, as God-Man, be to be adored with one adoration of latria, so that his humanity, as united hypostatically to the divine Word, ought to be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity and subsistence of the Word are adored. Secondly, whether the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word would be to be venerated with the same adoration of latria. Thirdly, whether that humanity, although united to the Word, yet not thus apprehended, but only regarded according to its own proper excellence, be also thus to be adored.

First Conclusion. — CHRIST INASMUCH AS GOD-MAN OUGHT TO BE ADORED WITH ONE ADORATION, SO THAT HIS HUMANITY, INASMUCH AS HYPOSTATICALLY UNITED TO THE DIVINE WORD, IS TO BE ADORED WITH THE SAME ADORATION OF LATRIAE WHEREBY HIS DIVINITY AND DIVINE SUBSISTENCE ARE ADORED.

This is common among Theologians, and the Subtle Doctor teaches it in 3 d. 9. num. 8. where he says:

When it is asked whether adoration be due to Christ only according to the divine nature, I say that ly only can be taken twofoldly, namely categorically, or syncategorematically tice. In the first mode I concede that so, because sufficient reason of highest adorability is in Christ considered according to the sole divine nature. But if it be held syncategorematically, then it notes exclusion from one extreme with respect to the other extreme. Also in like manner I distinguish, because only can exclude something either from the term of adoration, or from the reason of adoring. In the first mode I say that not only according to the divine nature is Christ thus to be adored, because human nature ought not be excluded from the term of adoration, as though by including it the whole could not be adored. This Damascenus says book 3. c. 8. Christ perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with the Father and Holy Spirit with one adoration with his uncontaminated flesh, saying his flesh not unadorable; for they are adored in the one hypostasis of the Word, which became his hypostasis. And shortly after: One person of the Word of God, those two natures being reduced.

He exemplifies afterward: Yet to touch wood on account of fire mixed with wood. In that authority of Damascenus ly cum is taken associatively, not however copulatively, so that the sense be: we adore the Word with flesh, that is, having flesh united to himself: but not with flesh, that is, we adore flesh, as though it be a copulative proposition: and this considering the flesh, as it is flesh, and not as united to divinity: thus therefore flesh ought not be excluded from the term of adoration, although it itself not be the reason of adoring. » So this Doctor.

But the Conclusion is proved, first indeed from Sacred Scripture, namely those testimonies by which it is signified that worship of latria is rendered to Christ as man-God. Thus Matth. 2. Of the Magi venerators of Christ it is said: they bend their knees, etc. Apocalypse 5. The four and twenty ancients fell down(?) their, and adored him living forever and ever. And again: Blessing, and honor, and glory to him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb. All which although they rightly can be understood re(?) of Christ as God, nevertheless they can also be taken of himself as man; since every knee ought to bow to Christ, and all honor be paid, because he is Jesus, and because Lamb: but he is Jesus and Lamb not only on the side of Divinity but chiefly on the side of humanity, whose life was offered and immolated for the price of our redemption: therefore those testimonies can be understood also of Christ as man. — But more clearly does this truth appear from Matth. 28. where concerning the women approaching the sepulcher of Christ it is said: And behold Jesus met them saying, hail: but they approached, and held his feet, and adored him. But since that act of detention, or kiss of feet, is external adoration significative of interior adoration, and that is exercised about the body and feet of Christ, it is certain that they thus holding Christ adored also his humanity. The Apostle St. Thomas performed the same, John 20. when he said to Christ: My Lord, and my God; by which words he confessed Christ to be God and man, and professed that he was truly raised from the dead; and immediately he adored him as God and man: for that profession was an act of signal faith, which consequently had the act of adoration as its companion, especially since Christ was present. Therefore holy Thomas must be judged to have adored not only the divinity of Christ but also the humanity.

It is proved secondly by authority of the Council of Alexandria with St. Cyril presiding, whose Synodal epistle to Nestorius prefixed this eighth among other chapters to be subscribed under intermination of anathema and excommunication:

If anyone dare to say that the assumed man ought to be joined with God the Word, and conglorified, as though one with another (for the particle cum added cogitates this to be understood) and Emmanuel be not rather venerated with one reverence, and render him one glorification, according to that the Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.

Which decree certainly of the Alexandrian Synod, together with that Synodic epistle, the Synod of Chalcedon approved Action 5. and likewise the V. Synod: and likewise the Lateran Synod under Martin first, which reports and approves the ninth Canon of the V. Synod thus:

If anyone say that Christ is adored in two natures, whence they introduce two adorations, of God the Word separately, and of man separately: or if anyone bringing forward(?) one nature or essence of those concurring unto the destruction of the flesh, or unto confusion of Divinity and humanity saying, thus adore Christ, but shall not have adored with one adoration God the Word incarnate together with his flesh, according to that has been handed down to the holy Church of God from the beginning: let such a one be anathema.

By which it stands that not only is Christ as God-man adored in solidum, but also that that adoration terminates at his humanity subsisting in the person of the Word. Which certainly is confirmed from the Council of Trent Session 13. chapter 5. and Can. 6. where defining the worship of latria, which truly befits God, to be owed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, he gives the reason in these words:

For neither on that account is it less to be adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be taken: for we believe that same God present to be present in it, whom the eternal Father introducing into the world says, and let all the Angels of God adore him, etc.

But the sacrament of the Eucharist comprehends not only the Divinity by concomitance, but truly also the body and blood of Christ by force of words and signification of the sacrament: therefore if the Sacrament of the Eucharist be worthy of adoration of latria, the body and blood of Christ are venerated with the same worship.

It is proved thirdly by authority of the holy Fathers, above all truly St. Athanasius in the epistle to Adelphius Bishop: where he expounds an abundant discourse on this argument: denying that the adoration of flesh should be separated from that of the Word: but commanding both natures to be venerated with one veneration.

We do not adore a creature, he says, far be it; for of such men and Arians is that kind of error. But we adore the Lord incarnate of the creature, God the Word. For although the flesh itself of itself is a part of creatures, nevertheless it has become the body of God. And neither severing such a body of itself, do we adore through the Word; nor wishing to adore the Word do we disjoin it far from the flesh. But knowing these things, as we already said, the Word was made flesh, this very thing also placed in flesh we acknowledge God. Who then is so foolish as to say to the Lord: spare(?) from the body, that I may adore you?

Here Athanasius brought forward the true and certain reason of his saying when he said that one adoration was to be exercised toward both, Because the flesh is proper to the Word: for it was his own body, and in it the Word was present, as he immediately says:

But where indeed (the same proceeds) altogether will these impious find separately through themselves the flesh which the Savior received, that they may dare to say: We adore the Lord with flesh, but we sever the body, and serve him alone with worship of latria?

Wherefore in the same place he calls Gentiles and Ethnics, and by no means Christians, those who think the Word ought to be separated from flesh, that they may adore it. — Signal also is the doctrine of St. Epiphanius in Anchorato for confirming the same truth, where against the Arians he proves the Son of God uncreated and God because he is adored. Then he brings forward the calumny of heretics reproaching Catholics that they adored a creature, because they adored the body begotten from a creature. Hence he presses them thus: Do you adore the incarnate Savior, or do you not adore? How indeed shall I not adore? For if I shall not adore, I have no life. Behold therefore you adore a creature, the body itself. Immense however is their madness(?) who say such things: for the King clothed in purple is adored by all. Is then the purple adored, or the king? It is manifest, that the king: but together with him even the purple which he wears is co-adored; but where the king has stripped off this and put it in its place, no longer is the garment purple adored. — St. Ambrose also demonstrates most splendidly that passage book 3. De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 11. explaining that of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, which he so takes, that he takes scabellum for the flesh of Christ.

Therefore he says, by the footstool earth is understood, but by earth the flesh of Christ, which even today we adore in the mysteries: and which the Apostles in the Lord Jesus, as we said above, adored: for neither is Christ said, but one: nor was it denied that he was adored as Son of God born of the Virgin. Since therefore the sacrament of incarnation is to be adored, but incarnation be a work of the Spirit, as it is written: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, etc. without doubt the Holy Spirit also is to be adored when he is adored who according to the flesh is born of the Spirit.

— St. Augustine expounding the same words of the Psalmist luculently confirms the same truth in these words:

I was made man: I fear to adore earth, lest I hem in me who made heaven and earth. Again I fear not to adore the footstool of my Lord's feet; the Psalm seeks me, he says, adore the footstool of his feet. I ask what be the footstool of his feet, and Scripture says to me: Earth is the footstool of my feet. Wavering I turn myself to Christ, because I seek himself there, and I find how without impiety the footstool of his feet may be adored. For he took of earth Earth, because flesh is of earth, and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh: and because he walked here in that flesh, and gave that flesh to us to be eaten unto salvation: but no one eats that flesh unless first he adore. There has been found how such a footstool of the Lord's feet may be adored, and not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring.

— Moreover John Damascenus first in book 3. De Fide, chapter 8. confirms the same thing admirably:

Therefore Christ is one, he says, perfect God, and perfect man, whom we adore with the Father and Spirit with one adoration, with his immaculate flesh, by no means denying adoration to his flesh. For he is adored in the hypostasis of the Word, which hypostasis was made his, nor yet doing this do we serve a creature; for we adore not as naked flesh, but as joined to divinity, and inasmuch as into one person and one hypostasis of the Word of God those two natures of his are reduced. I fear to touch wood on account of the fire which is conjoined with wood. Therefore both things which are Christ's on account of Divinity copulated to flesh.

It is proved also by reason: That some whole be held worthy of adoration it suffices that in such a whole, as adored, there be some motivating reason of exhibiting its adoration; nor is it necessary that that motive exist in each single part of it: since since honor, v. g., is paid to a man on account of wisdom, that whole man is venerated, and according to itself whole is the terminative object of such honor: nevertheless wisdom, which is the motive reason of honor exhibited, resides formally in the intellect alone; yet because that wisdom is in the whole man, there is sufficient motive reason why the whole man be honored: but Christ, as man, or as subsistent in humanity, is some whole consisting of divine nature, subsistence of the Word, and humanity: in which whole the divine nature and person of the Word, on account of their infinite and uncreated excellence, are motive reasons that adoration of latria be paid to Christ: therefore Christ, as man or subsistent in humanity, ought also to be adored with latria, and consequently the humanity, as subsisting in the subsistence of the Word, and as hypostatically united to God, ought to be adored with the same adoration whereby the divinity of Christ is adored.

You will object 1. St. Damascenus Oratione 1. De imaginibus, who speaking concerning the humanity of Christ says:

Not matter, but the Author of matter I adore, who on my account became matter, and willed to dwell in matter, that through matter he might afford me salvation: but the matter through which salvation has been procured for me I cease not to venerate, not however as God, far be it.

Therefore St. Damascenus does not hold that the flesh and humanity of Christ, which there he calls matter, is to be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity and person of the Word.

I answer. St. Damascenus does not deny that the humanity of Christ is to be adored with worship of latria inasmuch as it is joined to Divinity: since indeed he himself teaches this most expressly, as we saw above; but only he wills that it not be adored as God, that is, that there be rendered to it first and by reason of its own excellence worship of adoration latria, nor be the affection of servitude borne toward it, but toward divinity, which on account of its infinite excellence is the reason moving us toward that adoration to be paid to Christ. St. Epiphanius praised above signifies this same thing when he says the King is adored, not his purple, but the purple only co-adored, namely because it is not adored as King, but co-adored with the King, as something of his by reason of dignity, not of the purple itself, but of the King.

You will object 2. The ordinary Gloss on these words of Psalm 98. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, where it says: The flesh assumed by the Word without impiety is adored by us, but not with that adoration which latria is, and which is owed to the Creator alone: therefore it is false that the humanity of Christ can be adored with the same adoration whereby the Divinity. — The Seraphic Doctor answers that gloss to be so understood, that it wills the humanity of the Word as in itself, and considered according to its own proper excellence, is not to be adored with adoration of latria, but does not deny that united to Word it is thus to be adored. I answer secondly that that gloss was taken from St. Augustine on the same words of the Psalm, who, as we saw above, does not deny, nay affirms, that the humanity of Christ, which there he wills to be designated by the footstool of feet, is religiously adored with the same adoration whereby Divinity: not indeed on account of its own excellence, but on account of its union with the Word. Add that the words of the gloss were not faithfully excerpted from St. Augustine, since in him the said words are not found, but not that adoration which latria is, etc.: therefore that authority of the gloss is not to be greatly regarded.

You will object 3. God alone is to be adored with adoration of latriae: but the humanity of Christ as united to Word is not God: therefore neither to be adored with adoration of latriae. — I answer distinguishing the major: God alone is to be adored with latria as object moving toward that adoration, I concede: as sole terminative object of it, I deny: since indeed the humanity of Christ and Divinity concur into one person, hence they also constitute one terminative object of that adoration.

You will object 4. To the lesser lesser reverence is to be shown, and to the greater greater: but Christ according as man is less than the Father, and his humanity inferior to Divinity: therefore this is not to be venerated with supreme adoration, such as latria is. Finally, it is not of that one's part to be adored with adoration of latriae whose part it is to adore: but of humanity's part it is to adore the supreme Divinity and Trinity: which is proved, because to adore belongs to whose part it is to pray: but Christ as man prayed God many times: therefore, etc. Finally, worship of latriae is not rightly paid to him to whom that worship cannot be rendered through that which he has in himself more excellent: but Christ cannot be venerated as man through sacrifice, which is the more excellent sign of worship of latriae; because sacrifice ought not be offered to Christ, for as St. Augustine teaches, lib. 20. De Civitate Dei, Christ preferred to be the sacrifice than to take it: therefore worship of latriae cannot be paid to the humanity of Christ. — The Seraphic Doctor answers to the first, that the major is true in those who are susceptible of diverse honors, namely when those honors to be paid are ordered to diverse persons distant in grade and dignity: false truly when there is only one person: therefore since in Christ there is one person, to whom supreme reverence is due, just as honor is due to the King whatever garment he be clothed in; for honor, he says, respects the more worthy nature, and consequently that which is annexed to it: thus the flesh of a holy Man ought to be honored according to the dignity of the soul, not according to the ignobility of its own nature. To the second he says that although it belong to the humanity of Christ to adore, still it does not follow from that that it should not equally be adored with adoration of latria: for it adores according to the operations and state of humanity, whereby it is less than the Father; but it is adored according to the dignity of divinity and person, according to which it is equal to the Father; but we, who adore him, ought not attend to his inferiority of humanity, but to the dignity and majesty of person and divinity. To the third he answers that although sacrifice cannot be offered to the humanity of Christ inasmuch as it is considered according to itself, nevertheless truly it can have sacrifice made to it, as it is joined to divinity, because sacrifice can be made to whole Christ, since he is truly God. He says this of St. Augustine, as denying not that sacrifice ought to be made to Christ; but that it was not practically to be done, that occasion of error may be avoided, and lest perhaps anyone think honor owed to the supreme Numen is paid to a creature.

You will object 5. If an Angel adoring the Word before Incarnation would continue the same adoration after Incarnation accomplished, either he adores Christ as God and man, or not. If the first: therefore the adoration antecedently to Incarnation also terminated at humanity, which is absurd. If the second: therefore the adoration of Christ qua God does not tend into him qua man, and consequently his humanity with the same adoration whereby divinity is not venerated. — I answer first that in that hypothesis the Angel can be judged to adore the Word as man with the same adoration whereby before he adored the Word only: for by that very fact that he tends into the person of the Word, with the same adoration without any physical mutation he tends into all that which is joined to that person, and is proposed through intellect as joined; nor from that does it follow that antecedently it was terminated at humanity; since antecedently the angelic intellect did not represent to him humanity conjoined with the Word. I answer secondly that if the Angel should adore Christ as man in such wise that he wished to subject himself not only to him inasmuch as he is God, but also inasmuch as he is man, and wished to pay his servitude according to both considerations, in that case the adoration would be distinct after Incarnation from that whereby before he adored the Word: namely because with another affection and cult he would prostrate himself before Christ than before.

You will object 6. Finally: the humanity of Christ even as united to divine Word cannot be loved with the same love wherewith God: for neither Christ as man, nor his humanity ought to be loved above all things: therefore neither ought it be adored with the same adoration. — I deny the antecedent: for Christ considered according to himself whole can truly be loved above all things, because he has goodness and infinite excellence conjoined to himself, by reason of which he can be loved above all objects which have not infinite goodness and excellence of that kind. — The Doctor approves the same solution n. 14, where having proposed various modes by which it could be conceded or denied that Christ be to be loved above all things, he says:

If love can tend equally confusedly into the object as adoration, it can be conceded that Christ having human nature is to be loved supremely, although human nature not be the reason of supreme lovableness, nor even union of human nature to the Word however it be: just as we adore the Trinity with one adoration and love it with one love, not excluding personal properties from essence: which properties nevertheless are not formally infinite; so also it is safe in adoration not to distinguish too much that created nature from the Word, but to adore the Word subsisting in two natures: and thus the Word having human nature can be loved supremely, although that nature itself be not supremely loved, nor even be supremely loved the union of nature to the Word, which is a creature.

Second Conclusion. — If the humanity of Christ were dismissed by the Word, it would not be to be adored with adoration of latriae, even respective. This is against Wicleffus who, as Thomas Waldensis relates, lib. 1. Doctrinalis fidei, art. 3. cap. 99. n. 1. asserted that the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word in its own person was to be adored with adoration of latriae, and loved as Redeemer.

It is proved first from St. Augustine, who Sermon 58. De Verbis Domini, says:

I adore the flesh of the Lord, or rather the perfect humanity in Christ on this account, because it was received from Divinity and has been united to Deity. Finally, if you separate man from God, as Photinus or Paul of Samosata, I never believe them nor serve them: just as if any one of you should love purple, or royal diadem lying in the storehouse: for what would he attempt to adore? But when the King shall have been clothed in it, he incurs peril of death if anyone despise it together with the law. By which words St. Augustine openly signifies that the humanity of Christ apart from the Word is not to be venerated with supreme worship.

The Doctor proves this same thing d. 1. n. 9, since supreme worship is owed to none except on account of supreme and uncreated excellence: but the humanity of Christ dismissed by the Word would by no means have that supreme excellence in itself: since it would have neither formally nor through hypostatic union infinite perfections: therefore, etc. Then, if this worship the humanity thus dismissed ought to vindicate to itself, especially either absolutely or relatively: but neither can be affirmed. Not the first, because, as soon said, the humanity in that case would not have infinite excellence. Not even the second, because that relation which it would have to God cannot be sufficient reason whereby it moves toward that supreme adoration to be paid it; since it would regard God only either by reason of sanctifying grace, whereby it would be illustrated above other creatures, or by reason of grace of head, in which it would be constituted, or by reason of ministry of redemption, because namely it had contributed to our salvation: but none of these three relations of that humanity to God can be sufficient motive that supreme worship of latriae be paid it. Not indeed the two first, because they are founded in created good and created excellence: since grace of head and sanctifying grace are something created and finite; and therefore insufficient for founding worship of latriae. Nor even the third, because, says the Doctor n. 12, although it may have been congruous that the Redeemer of human kind ought to have been God, that the same might be Reparator who had been Creator, and thus to the same person we render our supreme obedience and honor: nevertheless it was not absolutely necessary that the person redeeming be God; since pure creature, God so ordaining, was sufficient, according to extraordinary power, to work our salvation and redemption, of which matter the Doctor brings this splendid example: that just as although it appear more congruous that he who begot the son himself nourish him, inasmuch as reverence and honor of genitor and nutrimentor be due and paid to the same person; nevertheless notwithstanding this, another than father could nourish the son begotten, and thus that son would owe reverence and honor to two distinct persons, namely genitor and nutrimentor. So also although it have been congruous that the person creating be also redeeming, yet it could come about that the person redeeming not be the same that had been creating, and thus supreme worship, which is owed to God alone, would not be due to the redeemer. Add that, if by hypothesis God in creating man had used some Angel, as instrumental cause, latria adoration would not be owed to such an Angel on account of benefit of creation, but to God alone, as principal independent cause, on whom then the Angel would depend in creating: therefore since the humanity in repairing man was only instrument of the Word, it follows that if itself were separated from the Word, it would not be to be venerated with adoration of latriae.

You will say. To Christ, inasmuch as he is Redeemer, and head of human kind, greater worship is owed than considering him only on the side of eminent sanctifying grace wherewith he was illustrated, and other supernatural gifts with which he was endowed and enriched: but by reason both of his eminent sanctity and also of those heavenly gifts there would be owed to his humanity worship of hyperduliae, because with these gifts he not only equals but also exceeds the excellence of blessed Virgin, who is venerated with hyperdulia: therefore Christ as head, or Redeemer of human kind, is to be venerated with greater worship than sole worship of hyperduliae: but worship greater than hyperdulia is worship of latriae: therefore the humanity of Christ, inasmuch as it would have character of head and redemptress, ought to be venerated with latria. — I distinguish the major: greater worship is owed within the same grade, and order, I pass over; greater worship of another order is owed, I deny: and similarly the minor being distinguished, the consequence is to be denied. Since indeed worship is paid anyone on account of his excellence, and since that excellence can be diverse according to greater or lesser grade, on whose side one is more or less illustrated with divine gifts: hence it is that within the same order of adoration duliae v. g. one Saint is celebrated with ampler honor than another even by the Church herself, which proposes the solemnities of Saints to be celebrated under diverse rite of simple or semidouble, etc.: therefore by equal right within the order of hyperduliae someone could appear worthy of greater worship than another: and thus by this reason the humanity of Christ, if it were dismissed by the Word, would have to be venerated with ampler honor of hyperduliae than most blessed Virgin: then because it would be gifted with grace and dignity of head, which does not befit blessed Virgin: then finally because more efficaciously than blessed Virgin it had contributed to our redemption. Yet from that it is not consequent that that humanity in that state would be to be venerated with adoration of latriae: since on account of those relations to God it would not be held to have excellence and perfection infinite, nor consequently would it have foundation and motive why it should be venerated with supreme worship.

Third Conclusion. — The humanity of Christ united to the Word, considered precisely neither according to its peculiar excellence and supernatural gifts with which it is illustrated, can be adored with adoration of hyperduliae. This seems the more probable opinion against Suarez, who judges it as thus to be adored with adoration which is latria, not indeed perfect, because this, he says, regards only God, but imperfect, which tends into that which is really terminated at the Word. And likewise against Vazquez, disp. 99. chapter 1. denying that the humanity of Christ as conceived without Divinity can be adored with any adoration.

Therefore it is proved first that it can be adored inasmuch as thus conceived precisely according to itself: honor is owed to excellence: but the humanity united to the Word regarded according to itself obtains every created excellence: therefore it as thus truly can be honored and adored. The major stands. The minor is proved: the humanity considered according to itself precisely has excellence among created things maximal, because among created things nothing is greater: therefore as thus it is worthy of some adoration: but it is not worthy of adoration of latriae: because in it thus apprehended nothing is apprehended except something created: nor even common dulia with Saints, because there is an excellence superior to singular humanity: therefore some interior cult is owed to it beyond latria and above dulia, and accordingly hyperdulia is due to it. — It is confirmed, because the humanity, as having union with the Word, is the extreme of that union really distinct from the Word, and from divine nature, and having in itself intrinsically goodness and perfection really distinct from the perfection of the Word and Deity: therefore as thus it can be adored by reason of that perfection.

You will say. The humanity of Christ cannot be apprehended with created excellence of such kind unless the Word be equally apprehended: therefore it cannot be adored on account of that excellence unless the Word equally be adored. The antecedent is clear: that humanity cannot be conceived unless it be conceived as humanity of Christ: but as it is humanity of Christ it is necessarily conceived as united to the Word: therefore as having from him all manner its excellence: therefore it cannot be adored unless the Word equally be adored. — I deny the antecedent, and to its proof I say that although the humanity of Christ cannot be completely and perfectly understood unless it be conceived as subsisting in subsistence of the Word, nevertheless by precissive concept it can be apprehended according to itself, namely inasmuch as that humanity is illustrated with all graces and divine charisms; but thus apprehended and proposed through intellect it truly can be adored: for if that humanity with those supernatural gifts, which do not say necessary order to hypostatic union, were conserved by God without any supposit, whether proper or alien, thus by reason of those supernatural gifts it would be adorable: therefore since this humanity and its supernatural gifts lose nothing of their perfection and dignity from their union with the Word, truly the humanity thus apprehended can be adored. — This response is confirmed as also the preceding proof: because if that humanity could not be adored apart from the Word, chiefly on account of the strict union of it with the Word itself: but this reason does not stand in the way. It is proved, because the conjunction and union of divine persons in divine essence is greater than that of divinity and humanity in the person of the Word, because personal properties are identified really with divine essence, but human nature is not so identified with the person of the Word nor with divinity to which it is united: but notwithstanding that identification personal properties are adorable according to themselves, and one person can be adored apart from another, just as prayed to, as is clear from the practice of the Church, which in her prayers and collects sometimes directs her prayers to one only of the divine persons: therefore much more could the humanity of Christ be adored, as apprehended apart from the Word. Add that we can praise and love the humanity thus apprehended on account of created gifts; why therefore could we not also adore it thus? Nay even experience establishes that we sometimes venerate the humanity of Christ, or his most holy soul, without thinking about the Divinity and about God, without adoring the divinity.

They object. All those authorities both of Councils and holy Fathers, whereby it was proved in the first Conclusion that Christ is to be adored with one adoration: therefore his humanity cannot be adored apart from Divinity. — I answer first that Councils and holy Fathers instituted discourse concerning adoration of latriae, whereby namely humanity is adored on account of Divinity; for thus it is necessary that it be adored with the same adoration whereby Divinity, because humanity according to itself is not worthy of adoration of latriae. I say secondly that Councils and holy Fathers teach these things in order to signify publicly and ordinarily that Christ only is to be adored with one adoration on account of himself, his divine supposit, and divine nature, lest namely by adoring the humanity of Christ apart on account of created gifts, and with lower worship owed to those gifts, we seem to depress Christ to the state of pure man, while he inasmuch as man as God is capable of greater adoration on account of the greater excellence of divinity. Finally I say, two adorations total and partial are to be excluded from Christ, as though there were double person, as Nestorius judged Christ was to be venerated with double adoration.