B. Scotus’ own Response

25. To the question then I reply as follows: first by comparing the Word that assumes to the nature that is assumed; second by comparing the nature to its accompanying quality; and third by comparing the assumed nature with its qualities to glory and punishment.

26. Now as to the first point it can be taken in two ways:

Either by comparing the Word as going to assume to the glorious nature to be assumed, for the Word was able to assume a nature simply glorious - and a simply glorious body would in no way have had a necessary cause of corruption.

27. Or in another way, by comparing the Word to the assumption of an innocent nature which, because it is without sin and is a pure nature, has original justice and innocence, as far as concerns the nature in itself. And thus too there was in the nature no cause deserving of death; and so, because of some gift, namely the gift of original justice, it was able not to die.

28. As to the next point [n.25], by comparing the Word to the assumption of a glorious body in such a way that, because of a miracle, the glory did not redound to the body; and thus, when the miracle was performed in the third instant, there necessarily followed in the fourth instant a cause of necessity for corruption of the body, that is, for the separation of soul from body. Consequently, by comparing the Word to the assumed glorious nature, and when in the third instant there was no redounding of the glory into the body, then I say that there was not only a necessity for the body to be mortal but there was a special miracle for the body to be mortal, because a new miracle impeded the redounding of the soul’s glory into the body. And when this new miracle was performed, the body was under a necessity to die, both because glory did not redound into it and because it did not have (as to the body) original justice preserving it from corruption.

29. A confirmation that the body was under a necessity to die when this miracle was performed comes from Augustine, On Baptism of Infants, [On Merits of Sins, 2.29.n.48], who speaks thus expressly.

30. But where does this necessity of dying come from?

This was because the body, when left to itself (if one compares nature to its principles and to the qualities that naturally follow nature [n.25]), was, by privation of glory, an animal body and so was not under a full enough dominion of the soul to prevent passion in the body. Therefore too the body underwent depletion and restoration through consumption of food; but, if the soul did not have complete dominion over the body, the restoration was incapable of being so perfect that the body would remain immortal.

31. On the contrary: Christ knew how much had to be taken up for the restoration of so much that was lost, in order that as much as had been lost would be restored.

32. I reply that although he knew this yet there are two reasons that the conclusion does not follow, namely weakness in the nutritive power for converting food and impurity of the food that he took in.

33. As to impurity of food [n.32], I believe that if Adam had had our food he would have died of old age. So it is plain that, by reason of the food, ‘not anything is able to be generated from anything’ (‘from anything’ as from the term of generation) [Physics 1.5.188a33-34], but a determinate thing is generated from a determinate thing. And so, from a purer and better food better blood is generated, and from better and purer blood the body becomes more compact and permanent; hence from corrupt and impure food a very loose flesh is generated. The impurity, then, of Christ’s food by comparison with Adam’s would have been an extrinsic cause of corruption in Christ (as it is in us), for there would not have been, on the part of the food, as full a restoration as there was a loss.

34. But on the supposition that Christ would have had the ‘tree of life’, would his body have been incorruptible [n.32]? I say no but that he had an intrinsic cause of dying, for every finite natural power (left to itself and not preserved by some gift conferred on it) suffers and is weakened when acting on anything material; and I say that, from the fact the power is finite, then the more it is able to act the more its power is weakened, because it cannot act sufficiently for the conservation of the individual (the point is plain from the nutritive power in us, for its power, by long action on and daily conversion of food, is weakened so much that it cannot convert more, and the man dies). The nutritive power in Christ, left to itself, was of this sort, and so it was at length weakened so much that it could no longer effect restoration.

35. The weakness, then, of his nutritive power and the impurity of the food from without would have been naturally a sufficient cause of Christ’s death.