Endmatter

Footnotes

¹Vatican editors: The Book of Six Principles ch.1 n.14, divides Aristotle’s ten categories into two groups: the first four (substance, quantity, quality, relation) it says are respects that come intrinsically from inside; the remaining six (action, passion, when, where, position, having) it says are respects that come extrinsically from outside; and the book deals only with these six; Scotus 4 d.13 q.1 n.9, Quodlibet q.11 n.13.

²Orthodox Faith ch.49: “We confess in Christ two natures, divine and human, agreeing with each other and united in hypostasis, but one perfect hypostasis composed of two natures; and we say that the two natures are also preserved after their union in one composite hypostasis, namely in one Christ, and that they truly exist.”

³Scotus Metaphysics 1 q.1 n.72, “That seems to be the first and proper subject to which the properties first belong that are per se considered in the science.”

⁴This argument, which Scotus presents more than once, seems unconvincing, for ‘total’ may be understood in two ways, as sufficient cause of an effect or as the cause without which the effect would not be. So let a and b each be sufficient for a certain effect and let both be present and active at once; then, if by total cause is meant sufficient cause, each is total cause even separately because each would cause the effect even in the absence of the other; if, on the other hand, by total cause is meant the cause without which the effect would not be, then only a and b together are total cause, because only when both are removed does the effect cease to be. But that a and b are only together total cause in the second sense does not mean that they cannot separately be total cause in the first sense. Scotus’ argument works only against total cause in the second sense, while his conclusion requires it to work against total cause in the first sense.

⁵Sentences 3 d.1 a.1 q.3, “If it be said that the three persons assume one and the same man, a contradiction is involved in every way, whether the assumption is understood to be to the unity of nature or to the unity of person. For if such assumption is made to the unity of nature, then one nature is constituted from the divine and the human nature; therefore there is no distinction between the assumer and the assumed and so no true assumption. But if the assumption is to the unity of person, then the several persons communicate together in one person; therefore the several persons are not several persons... Because of this implied contradiction, then, it is neither possible nor intelligible for several persons to assume one and the same nature.”

⁶Sentences 3 d.5 a.1 q.1, “When the action of assuming terminates at some unity, then the ‘assume’ stated of something signifies not only union but also that the union terminates at the unity of the assumer. And since the union does not terminate at the unity of nature but rather at the unity of person, therefore ‘to assume’ does not belong to the divine nature; for the divine nature did not assume the human nature into the unity of nature; and so in this way it is not conceded that the divine nature assumed it, that is, took it to itself or to its own unity. But if the term of the assuming has regard to the relation of union, then it is conceded that the divine nature assumed the human nature, that is, united it with itself; for it did unite human nature to itself, although not in the divine nature itself but in one person.”

⁷Peter of Spain, Tractatus tr.5 n.3, “An enthymeme is an imperfect syllogism, that is, a speech in which, when not all the propositions have been set down beforehand, a conclusion is hurriedly inferred.”

⁸ST IIIa q.3 a.7 ad.2, “A name imposed because of some form is never stated by us in the plural unless there is a plurality of supposits; for a man who is wearing two garments is not said to be two wearers but one wearer with two garments, and a man who has two qualities is said to be in the singular a man qualified by two qualities... And therefore if a divine person assumed two human natures he would, because of unity of supposit, be called one man having two human natures.”

⁹Scotus’ point would therefore seem to be that if one divine person assumed two human natures he would be one person being two men, or one person doing two ‘man-izings’. At any rate in the cited n.46 he says, “Everything dependent depends on something altogether and simply independent (for never is the dependence of anything sufficiently terminated save at something altogether independent), and therefore when things are equally dependent, neither is of a nature to terminate the other, but both would depend on some third, independent thing; an adjective is dependent on a substantive. When, therefore, an adjective is added to a substantive, an independent thing is found, at any rate where its dependence is terminated, - but when two adjectives are added mutually to each other, neither depends on the other, because neither is terminated at the other but both depend on some third thing, which sufficiently terminates the dependence of both. Therefore when a numerical term is added to a substantive, as when it is said ‘two inspiriters’, at once the numerical adjectival term has a substantive terminating it, because the adjective is determining that which terminates its dependence; therefore the signification of its substantive is denoted as numbered. But when it is added to an adjective, as when it is said there are ‘two inspiriting’, both are dependent and therefore neither determines the other just as neither terminates the dependence of the other, but both depend on a third thing which terminates their dependence and is determined by them.”

¹⁰“n.47. Hence, as to this consequence ‘there are two inspiriting, therefore there are two inspiriters’, - I deny it. And when you prove it ‘because as a singular implies a singular, so a plural implies a plural’ [n.43], I say that it is not necessary - if on some antecedent some consequent follows - that on a distinction in the antecedent a distinction in the consequent follows, except when the consequent is distinguished in the antecedents as a genus is distinguished in its species. But in the proposed case the inspiriting supposits are distinguished, and on ‘inspiriting supposit’ there follows ‘inspiriter’, but this consequent is not distinguished or numbered by the numbered antecedent; and therefore, by arguing ‘inspiriting, therefore inspiriter, - therefore if there are two inspiriting, then there are two inspiriters’ there is a fallacy of the consequent, arguing from a distinction in the antecedent to a distinction in the consequent.”

¹¹Summa a.29 q.7, “Although a simple form, as it is a certain essence, is divisible into several supposits, yet, as it has singularity, it is altogether indivisible - just as ‘this singular man’, according to his singular form of ‘this humanity’, cannot be at all divided.” a.25 q.3 arg.4, “A designated supposit, as it is a designated supposit..., is in no way multipliable - just as if Socrates were man by the very designation by which he is Socrates, then, just as what Socrates is in reality cannot be ‘several Socrateses’, so the nature by which he is a man cannot be ‘several men’.”

¹²Tr. The point seems to be that a human nature and supposit together, as in this particular man Socrates, are superior to a human nature simply without supposit; therefore this particular man Socrates can supply what is lacking to that nature; therefore he can supply the supposit to it.

¹³“It is openly shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son when it is said that ‘he proceeds from God’, because the Son is God. For I ask whether the Holy Spirit is understood to be from the Father for the reason that he is from God, or understood to be from God for the reason that he is from the Father. For although either of these may in turn be proved by the other (for if the Holy Spirit is from the Father, then he is from God, and if he is from God, then he is from the Father, since none of the aforesaid relations prevents this), yet it is not the case that either is in turn the cause of the other... One must believe and confess that the Holy Spirit is for this reason from the Father that he is from God; now the Father is not God more than the Son is, but the one sole true God is Father and Son; therefore, if the Holy Spirit is from the Father because he is from God who is Father, then it cannot be denied that he is also from the Son since he is from the God who is Son.” William of Auxerre, Summa 1 tr.8 ch.7, “Anselm of Canterbury replies that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son insofar as they are divided but insofar as they are one, because he proceeds from them insofar as they are God. We say with Anselm, therefore, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son as they are divided but as they are one able-to-inspirit God.”

¹⁴See Appendix A at the end of this distinction.

¹⁵The point seems to be that if one tries to avoid the argument in n.188 by saying that the relation of equality is not better than the relation of inequality qua relation, but rather what is better is the absolute on which the relation is founded, save that this absolute is not the figure [as was supposed in n.188] but the quantity of the figure, then the statement ‘this quantity is equal to that’, which is alleged to be what really justifies Augustine’s saying that equality is better than inequality, will either state an absolute (namely the quantity itself), which has the problems Scotus notes here in n.189; or it will state a relation, and then the relation ‘this quantity is equal to that’ will be founded on this other relation (whatever it is); in fact, however, there is no such other relation, but only that very relation itself of equality between the quantities. So Augustine’s argument stands.

¹⁶Monologion ch.15, “By ‘it’ and ‘not it’ I understand here nothing other than ‘true’, ‘not true’, ‘body’, ‘not body’, and the like. There is something indeed that is altogether better it than not it, as wise than not wise...and just than not just...But not it is better than it in something’s case, as not gold than gold, for it is better for a man not to be gold than to be gold, although perhaps for something (as for lead) gold would be better than not gold.”

¹⁷See Appendix B at the end of this distinction.

¹⁸The Vatican editors say that Scotus’ answer here is more motivated by the authorities of the saints than by the arguments adduced (which he has just been criticizing). One might also add that Scotus himself, while allowing that the persons are in some sense relatives, seems nevertheless inclined to the view that their primary constituting factors are absolutes, nn.207, 210.

¹⁹“Again, third: the first constitutive element of a supposit in any nature seems to make something that is per se one with that nature, because it does not seem that the per accidens could be ‘first simply’ in any genus, according to the Philosopher Physics 2.1.192b20-23; but just as in creatures relation is of a different kind from the absolute and so does not make something per se one with it, so in divine reality there does not seem to be one concept per se of the absolute and of relation; therefore if person includes these two things, namely essence and relation, essentially, then person does not seem to be a supposit per se and first of such a nature but is a supposit as it were per accidens, and so it seems that some prior thing could exist that is constitutive per se of the supposit in that nature.”

²⁰“Whatever constitutes existence in something, and in the unity corresponding to such existence, is wholly first repugnant to a distinction opposite to that unity (example: if rational first constitutes man in his being and specific unity, rational is wholly first repugnant to a specific distinction such that, when removing if possible or per impossibile everything other than rational that is not part of the meaning of rational and keeping only the meaning of rational, a division into diverse specific natures will be repugnant to it). And the proof of this proposition is that if such a distinction is repugnant to the constituted whole, then it is repugnant to it by something; let that something be a; if it is wholly repugnant to the a itself then the intended conclusion is gained, - if not but it is repugnant to the a itself through b, there will be a process ad infinitum or, wherever a stand is made, that will be the ultimate constituent in such a unity and a distinction opposed to such unity will be wholly repugnant to it. Therefore if paternity constitutes the first supposit in its personal being under the idea of its being incommunicable, then communicability must of its own idea be first repugnant to paternity.”

²¹The Vatican editors say about this note, which seems out of place where it is added, that it was written by Scotus on pieces of paper some of which were lost. So what remains is partial.

²²The Vatican editors say that there were probably before this, but now lost, three confirmations about some statement or argument, since Scotus next immediately responds to the two final confirmations. Most likely these confirmations were drawn from Rep. IA d.26 nn.45-58, 77-82.

²³Namely the point made in response to a preceding confirmation, now lost.

²⁴“By our Greeks ‘one essence, three substances’ is said, but by the Latins ‘one essence or substance, three persons’, because...in our speech, that is in Latin, ‘essence’ is not usually understood differently from ‘substance’.”

²⁵“But it is absurd for substance to be said relatively; for every thing subsists for itself. How much more God!”

²⁶On the Trinity 7.5 n.10, “However, whether essence is said (which is what is properly said) or substance (which is abusively said), both are said ‘for itself’ and not relatively to anything. Hence for God to exist is for him to subsist; and therefore if the Trinity is one essence, it is also one substance.”

²⁷Ibid., 7.6 n.11, “The Greeks have preferred to say this (namely ‘three substances’), which is perhaps the more fitting expression in the custom of their speech.”

²⁸Ibid., 7.5 n.10, “Perhaps therefore ‘three persons’ is a more suitable expression than ‘three substances’.”

²⁹Ibid., 7.6 n.11, “For it is not one thing to be God and another to be person, but altogether the same thing. Indeed ‘person’ is said for itself.just as God is said for itself.”

³⁰“For if the Son of God by nature has been made son of man, how much more credible it is that the sons of man by nature should become sons of God by grace...; and it is a greater thing to be united to God in person than in grace.”

³¹This argument is stated rather elliptically, but its point seems to be as follows. Suppose that the accident ‘brown’ in ‘brown horse’ were a composite of the subject and the quality, and that the subject were actual and the quality potential with respect to the subject. This supposition is strictly false, for ‘brown’, as an accident said concretely, is actual and actually includes the subject, though obliquely and not directly. However, it creates a parallel with Henry’s supposition about the Word’s assumption of human nature. For, if the accident ‘brown’ is so understood then it is potentially brown before being united to horse and actually brown afterwards (as the body is potentially human before being united to the soul in the Word and actually so afterwards), so that ‘brown’ gets its meaning from ‘brown horse’. ‘Horse’, then, cannot properly be called ‘brown’ for, as subject, it is not the accident but the subject of the accident, and the subject, as such, does not include the accident in its idea. The same problem applies to Henry’s supposition. For since, according to Henry, the Word assumes the soul first and the body through the soul, the Word plus soul is the subject of body. But Henry also says that body in separation from soul (and soul in separation from body) is not human nature, because Christ was not properly a man when his body and soul were separated during the three days in the grave. The assumed body, then, in order to be human body, must include soul in its idea and must mean something like ‘bodied soul’. Thus the assumed body directly includes the subject in its idea, for its subject is the Word plus soul, and, just as the horse cannot properly be the subject of brown and be called brown if ‘brown’ means ‘brown horse’, so the Word plus soul cannot properly be the subject of man and be called man if ‘man’ means ‘bodied soul’. Henry’s supposition, then, must be false and, in order for the Word properly to be called man, the Word must be the subject of ‘bodied soul’ directly and not through the soul, which is to say that the Word must assume soul and body immediately and not the second through the first.

³²Aristotle: “As to the doubt what the cause is of being a one..., if this is matter but that form, and this indeed is in potency but that in act, the question asked will seem no longer in doubt.” Scotus’ commentary ad loc., sect.1 ch.6 n.37: “One must note that the strength of this solution stands in this fact.that man.is per se one insofar as he is composed of matter and form as of potency and act; nor is any cause to be sought why these make a one other than that the former is as potency while the latter is as act.”

³³Aristotle, “But in another way cause is said to be the species [form] and exemplar; this then is the idea of the ‘what it was to be’ [the quiddity].” Scotus’ commentary ad loc., sect.1 ch.2 n.17, “For form belongs most of all to the quiddity of a thing. One must note that the form of a thing is called the species, insofar as it is the principle of being and of specification.”

³⁴Avicenna, “Although the universal itself would be man or horse, the intention in this case is different, additional to the intentionality that is humanity or horseness; for the definition of horseness is other than the definition of universality, and universality is not included in the definition of horseness... Horseness, therefore, from the fact that many things come together in its definition, is common but, from the fact it is taken along with indicated properties and accidents, it is singular. Horseness then in itself is just horseness. For humanity itself, from the fact it is humanity, is something additional to any of the things mentioned [sc. the accidents and properties of this man], and in its definition nothing is taken but humanity alone.”

³⁵Aristotle, “...there is another way of being prior; for, in the case of things that convert according to consequence of essence, that which is in some way cause of the other is rightly said to be prior in nature., for being a man converts in consequence of substance with true speech about it.; but the thing seems to be in some way the cause that the speech is true, for speech is said to be true or false because the thing is or is not.”

³⁶Damascene, “In death.neither soul nor body had their own hypostasis besides that of the Word, but there was always the one hypostasis of the Word and not two.”

³⁷This question about the unity or plurality of substantial forms is discussed extensively by Scotus in Ordinatio 4 d.11 q.3.

³⁸Vatican editors: Alexander of Hales, ST 3 n.75, “The blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified in her parents; on the contrary, it was necessary that she would contract sin from her parents in being generated;” n.76, “The blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified in her conception;” n.78, “The glorious Virgin was sanctified in her mother’s womb before her birth after infusion of soul in her body.” Albert the Great Sentences 3 d.3 a.4, “The blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation; and to say the opposite is a heresy;” ad 1, “This statement is false: that the Holy Spirit preceded her soul in the body by sanctifying grace inhabiting the body;” a.5, “She was sanctified before birth from the womb^, more probably soon after animation.” Thomas Aquinas Sentences 3 d.3 a.1 a.1 q.2, “The sanctification of the blessed Virgin could not have fittingly been before the infusion of the soul, because she was not yet capable of grace; but nor even in the very instant of infusion, namely so that by the grace then infused in her she would have been preserved from incurring original guilt;” a.2 q.2 ad 3, “Christ’s Virgin Mother was indeed infected with original sin, but she was cleansed of it before she was born from the womb;” Quodlibet 6 q.5 a.1, “Now the blessed Virgin proceeded thus from Adam...and therefore she was conceived in original sin...The belief is... that she was sanctified quickly after conception and infusion of soul.” Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.3 p.1 a.1 q.2, “Now the position of others is that the sanctification of the Virgin was subsequent to the contraction of original sin...And this way of speaking is more common and more reasonable and more safe...Adhering to this position.let us hold.that the sanctification of the Virgin was after contraction of original sin.” Richard of Middleton Sentences 3 d.3 princ.1 q.1, “The soul.of the Virgin, from its union with the flesh, contracted original sin.” Giles of Rome Sentences 3 d.3 q.1 a.1, “We will say that she was conceived in original sin as are also other women, but it is piously believed that almost immediately after she was conceived in original sin she was cleansed of it and sanctified in the womb;” also Quodlibet 6 q.20. Many other authors too.

³⁹Vatican editors: John de la Rochelle Quaestiones Disputatae q.1, “If the blessed Virgin.does not have the guilt of sin she does not need redemption.She was redeemed by Christ; therefore she was conceived in sin.” Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.3 p.1 a.1 q.2 arg.5 in opp., “If then the blessed Virgin lacked original sin, it seems that she does not belong to the redemption of Christ; but there is great glory for Christ from the saints whom he has redeemed; therefore, if he did not redeem the blessed Virgin, he is deprived of the noblest glory.; this is a profane and impious thing to say.” Thomas Aquinas Sentences 3 d.3 q.1 a.1 qc.2, “Christ singly has this among the human race, that he does not need redemption, because he is our head but it belongs to all to be redeemed through him; but this could not be if any soul were found which had never been infected with the original stain; and therefore this was conceded neither to the Virgin nor to anyone else besides Christ;” Quodlibet 6 q.5 a.1; ST IIIa q.27 a.2, “If the blessed Virgin had not incurred the stain of original guilt.she would not have needed the redemption and salvation that comes through Christ.; but this is unacceptable, that Christ was not the savior of all men.” Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.3 p.1 a.1 q.2 arg.6 in opp., “Again, if the blessed Virgin did not have original sin, and if to none the door is closed save as desert for original sin, then it seems that, if she had died before Christ, she would at once have flown to heaven; therefore it does not seem that the door was opened to all by Christ.”

⁴⁰Vatican editors: Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.3 p.1 a.1 q.2, “Being precedes well being; therefore the soul was first united to the flesh before the grace of God was infused in it... So it is necessary to posit that the infection of original guilt was there before sanctification was.” Thomas Aquinas Sentences 3 d.3 q.3 a.1 qc.1 and ad 1; Quodlibet 6 q.5 a1, “Now the blessed Virgin proceeded thus from Adam, because she was born from the commingling of the sexes, as others also are; and therefore she was conceived with original sin and is included in the totality of them, about which totality the Apostle says in Romans 5, ‘in whom all have sinned,’ and from this totality Christ alone is excepted;” ST IIIa q.27 a.2 ad 4. Also references in Richard of Middleton, Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome.

⁴¹Vatican editors: Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.3 p.1 a.1 q.1, “Almost everyone holds that the blessed Virgin had original sin, since this is apparent from the manifold penalties in her, which one cannot say she suffered for the redemption of others, and which one cannot say she had by assuming them -but by contraction [of sin];” d.15 a.1 q.3 ad4. Thomas Aquinas ST IIIa 1.27 a.3 arg.1.

⁴²Sermon 99 ch.6: “But O you who say that you did not commit many sins. Wherefore? Ruled by whom?... This man committed many and was made debtor for many; that man, being governed by God, committed few. The former attributes to God that he dismissed them; the latter attributes to God that he did not commit them... Recognize then the grace of him to whom you also owe that you did not commit them.” On Holy Virginity ch.41 n.41, “Reckon for yourselves as altogether dismissed by God all evil whatever that was - under his rule - not committed by you.”

⁴³Quodlibet 15 q.13, “Was it possible, according to nature, that the Virgin, in the instant in which she was conceived a human being from seed according to the body and in which the soul was united to the body, could truly have contracted original sin and remained in the sin only for that instant? And it seems to me that this is very well possible... When a fava bean is moved upwards with violent motion and meets something moved more forcefully, to wit a millstone falling naturally downwards, it is, by the sudden contact of the stone, altered in an instant into a space equal thereto by the natural motion of the stone pushing the fava bean downwards, so that it is not possible for the fava bean to rest in a space equal to itself in the way it would have rested if it were left to itself. And this example, as it seems to me, is valid.for our present purpose: for the corporeal human form has being.in the first moment of its generation from the seed., and in the same instant the human body.has infected being.; and in the same instant the rational soul is created in the body...and thereby the soul contracts from the body the stain of original sin.; and in the whole preceding time the soul did not have that stain, because it did not have being; nor did [the stain] have being in the Virgin during the subsequent time, as I reckon becomes the dignity of the Virgin, in the way it is possible according to nature, so that only in passing and in an instant was she in original sin; that is to say, original sin had in that instant first and final being at once, but according to different indications of that instant, because as the instant was the term of past time, original sin had in it first being., but as the instant was the beginning of subsequent time, original sin had in it final being by the subsequent impulse of the motion of grace, as by a superior expelling original sin in that subsequent time. Thus it seems to me that original sin could have been in the Virgin for the sole moment of an instant. But whether it so happened God knows - and I neither know it nor assert it, but it seems reasonable to me and possible that, in accord with the aforesaid, it did happen.”

⁴⁴Scotus, Lectura 3 d.2 n.52, “not both but one fails to be present, and that one is present which - as far as depends on the idea of the subject - the subject determines for itself, unless it is impeded.”

⁴⁵Scotus says nothing in response to the second statement [n.56]; it was sufficiently rejected by many others before him.

⁴⁶The reference is to St. Paul’s remark Hebrews 7.9 that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, discussed extensively by Master Lombard in 3 d.3 ch.3 and by Scotus himself in Lectura 3 d.3 n.2.

⁴⁷Galen, On the Use of the Parts of the Human Body 14, “Nature has thought out a way to provide a double principle of generation for fetuses, that one of them indeed should be male and the other female;” “The woman herself has all the parts that the male has; but if she has some of them smaller and others larger, the art of nature is here too to be admired, that it did not - even in women - make anything less that ought to be more, nor again anything more that was fittingly less;” “It is sufficient enough to reckon that the male’s seed provides the principle of motion and that the women’s seed confers something on it for the generation of the animal.” William of Ware Sentences 3 q.13, “Others say the opposite, and this is the opinion of Galen, that both the man and the woman cooperate in this formation, but the chief part of the action is on the part of the man and the less chief on the part of the woman.”

⁴⁸On the diffusing and concentrating of sight by colors, Aristotle Topics 1.15.107b29-32, 3.5.119a27-31, 7.3.153a36-38, Scotus Ord. 1 d.4 n.12.

⁴⁹Nestorius, Second Epistle to Cyril, “So wherever the divine Scriptures make mention of the Lord’s dispensation, his birth and his death are not attributed to the divine but to the human nature of Christ. Wherefore, if we consider the matter more carefully, the holy Virgin should be called, not ‘God-bearer’, but ‘Christ-bearer’.”

⁵⁰The other arguments, nn.6-9 supra, Scotus does not reply to as they are not in the Lectura, which the Ordinatio is here following.

⁵¹Bernard, “Among all the things that are rightly called ‘one’, the summit is held by the unity of the Trinity, whereby the three persons are one substance. Excelling in second place is the unity by which, conversely, three substances are one person in Christ... I mean that in Christ the Word, the soul, and the flesh are, without confusion of essences, one person.”

⁵²Text cancelled by Scotus: “Further, the nature of an angel could be assumed by the Word, and it cannot remain the same, according to them [Aquinas], unless it remains with its own same existence;     therefore neither could human nature now remain the same in Christ unless it remained with its own existence. The consequence is manifest, because its own existence is as intrinsic to one nature as to the other; therefore etc     .”

⁵³Text cancelled by Scotus, “now the existence of human nature is the existence of substance;     therefore , since the divine Word is a man simply by that existence, he exists simply by that existence.”

⁵⁴Vatican editors: because everyone concedes that the first existing of Christ is the existing of the Word (Bonaventure, Aquinas, Richard of Middleton, Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines).

⁵⁵The conclusion ‘many existings, many things’ requires dividing up ‘existing’ and ‘thing’ so that each, by way of negation, becomes many (‘this existing or this thing is not that existing or that thing etc   .’). The original premise, however, said nothing about how the multiplication of one term related to the multiplication of the other, so that to introduce multiplication into the conclusion is to destroy the premise, and thus the conclusion too that was depending on it.

⁵⁶Scotus is not denying here what he said in nn.36-37, but denying that the difference he showed there of existences in Christ can be used to argue to a difference of subsistences in Christ, or to show that Christ is one supposit in one existence and another supposit in the other existence; for, on the contrary, he is not different even as to each existence but the same in both. Further, the difference cannot be used either to show that Christ is different in having two natures. Christ is, as it were, one supposit all the way through whatever the differences.

⁵⁷Damascence, “the whole [totus] indeed who is Christ is perfect God, but the whole [totum] that is Christ is not God; for Christ is not only God but also man^ For ‘the whole that’ represents totality of nature, but ‘the whole who’ totality of hypostasis.”

⁵⁸Scotus Exposition on Aristotle’s Metaphysics 4 sect.1 ch.1 n.12, “One must note that the ‘insofar as’, and any reduplicative phrase, can be taken in two ways, namely either as reduplicative or as specifying. It is taken in the first way when that which immediately follows the reduplication is indicated to be the formal and precise cause of the inherence of the predicate in the subject. It is taken in the second way when that which immediately follows the reduplication is taken only in its formal idea, without precision of causality of the inherence of the predicate in the subject. An example of the first: ‘a triangle, insofar as it is a triangle, has three angles'... An example of the second: ‘A man, insofar as he is a man, is white' - for here the ‘man’ that follows the ‘insofar as' is not the formal cause of the inherence of the predicate in the subject.; for in this way the ‘insofar as' only specifies the subject and does not reduplicate it” [sc. presumably, specifies it as an individual man and not as a species, or as a man and not as a horse, or as to his whole body and not as to his teeth or hair etc.; however, if one said ‘a man, insofar as he is a man, is rational', one would have the first way of saying ‘insofar as', namely by indicating the cause of the inherence of the predicate in the subject].

⁵⁹It is treated of at length by Peter of Spain Syncategoremata tr.3, and William of Sherwood Syncategoremata pp.67-70.

⁶⁰Tr. That is, since there are two middle terms here, ‘humanity and deity’ and ‘man and God’, there will be four terms overall when the minor and major terms, ‘Christ’ and ‘two’, are added in; but a syllogism is only valid with three terms.

⁶¹Tr. The three views from Lombard’s Sentences 3 d.6 are: first, that in the incarnation a man already constituted of soul and flesh became God and that God became that man; second, that the man Christ consists of three substances [God, soul and flesh] or two natures [divine and human] and that he is one composite person; third, that the union of soul and flesh with the Word did not constitute a single substance or person but God clothed himself with the human nature as with an external habit or covering.

⁶²The condemnation by Alexander III in 1177AD is included in the Decretals of Gregory IX, and reads more fully: “Since Christ is perfect God and perfect man, it is remarkable by what temerity anyone dares to say that Christ is not anything according as he is man. Now lest so great abuse or error arise or be introduced in the Church of God, we command Your Fraternity by apostolic writing that, having convoked the masters of Paris and Reims and of the other cities round about, you forbid by our authority under anathema that, for the rest, no one is to dare to say that Christ is not anything according as he is man, because, just as Christ is true God, so he is true man, subsistent of rational soul and human flesh.” John of Cornwall, in a eulogy to Alexander III, reports that, “Master Gilbert de la Porree, as many relate, taught...that Christ is and became a person composed of two natures or three substances, and yet did not become a person or a substance or anything as he is man.”

⁶³Augustine 83 Questions q.73 n.2 explains Paul’s verse in Philippians thus: “‘He emptied himself’, not changing his form but ‘taking on the form of a slave’, and not changed and transmuted into a man with loss of his incommutable stability, but, by as it were taking on true man, he himself, who takes it on, ‘was made in the likeness of men...and was found in habit as a man’. By this name ‘habit’, then, the Apostle sufficiently indicated how he meant the phrase ‘made in the likeness of men’, because the Word was not made into man by transformation but by habit when he took on man, whom he associated with himself by in some way uniting man with, and conforming him to, immortality. And by this word [‘take on’] should be understood not that the Word was changed by taking on man, just as neither are our members changed when they put on clothing, although the taking on here conjoined the taken-on ineffably with the taker-on.”

⁶⁴Three authorities from Damascene for the second opinion are quoted by Lombard, where the person of Christ is said to be composed of two natures.

⁶⁵Damascene, “If therefore, according to the heretics, Christ exists through the union of one composite nature, he is changed from a simple nature into a composite one, and.will be called neither God nor man but only Christ. But our dogma is not that Christ is composed of one nature, nor is he another thing from other things, as man is from soul and body, or as body is from the four elements.”

⁶⁶Porphyry in the Book of Predicables ch.1 lists the five predicables (into one or other of which all predications are supposed to fall) as follows: genus, species, difference, property, accident.

⁶⁷Scotus Metaphysics 7 q.4 n.23, “Formal predication is when the predicate is in the subject from the understanding of the subject.”

⁶⁸This argument is given by Bonaventure Sentences 3 d.7 a.1 q.1. The point seems to be that ‘man’ in ‘the Word is the supposit that is man’ must, according to the view here being criticized, itself be short-hand for ‘supposit that is man’ (otherwise the predication will be formal after all), so that the proposition will become ‘the Word is the supposit that is the supposit that is man’, where again the ‘man’ must be replaced by ‘the supposit that is man’, and so on ad infinitum.

⁶⁹Peter of Spain Tractatus tr.2 n.21, “Denominatives are said to be all terms that, differing from something only in case, get from that name their appellation... Hence ‘grammatical’, ‘strong’, ‘white’ and the like are predicated denominatively. And therefore an accident is said to be predicated denominatively.”

⁷⁰Ibid. n.20, “But to be predicated univocally is to be predicated according to one name and one definition taken according to that name, as ‘man’ according to its name is predicated of Socrates and Plato., and the definition of it according to that name is one, as ‘mortal rational animal’, and according to this definition is it predicated of its [logical] inferiors.”

⁷¹Ibid., “Now that is said to be predicated of something as to whatness which is appropriately given as a response to a question asked by ‘what?’ - as when the question is asked, ‘what is man?’, an appropriate response is, ‘animal’; and for this reason ‘animal’ is predicated of man as to whatness.”

⁷²See Aristotle Prior Analytics 1.4.73a34-b18.

⁷³Scotus Lectura 3 d.7 n.33, “Know that an accident, as the metaphysician takes it, is a thing dependent on a substance; but, as it is taken by the logician, it is an intention made by the soul and is nothing but the contingent inherence of a predicate in a subject. And although this intention of contingent inherence only exists in a real accident, yet there is no repugnance to its being found in something else.”

⁷⁴Peter Helias, Commentary on Priscian 18, “Where the grammarians say that diction regiments diction, there Priscian says that diction demands diction; and what others call ‘regimen’ he calls ‘demand’, using a more explicit locution.” Cf. Scotus 1 d.21 n.16.

⁷⁵Tr. That is, if ‘white man’ should be construed as ‘a man who is white’ and if ‘white’ should be construed as ‘a white who is a man’, then ‘a white man’ becomes ‘a man who is a white who is a man’; and since ‘white’ appears here again and so must be construed in the same way as before, the sentence becomes ‘a man who is a white who is a man, who is a man’, and so on ad infinitum.

⁷⁶Tr. Scotus is following the analysis of propositions found in Aristotle On Interpretation 2-3 and 10.19b19-25 (also William of Sherwood Syncategorematic Words), where a proposition is analyzed either as consisting of two elements, noun and verb, or as three, two terms and a copula. In the case of ‘is’ an example of the first analysis would be ‘Socrates is (or exists)’, and an example of the second would be ‘Socrates is wise’. In the case of ‘made’ an example of the first analysis would be ‘Socrates was-made (or became)’, and an example of the second would be ‘Socrates was-made (or became) wise’. In this second analysis the ‘is’ or ‘was-made’ or ‘became’ is added as a third element and is specified by the third term, namely ‘wise’, which says what the subject is or was made to be. Of course one can, if one wishes, analyze ‘Socrates is (or exists)’ in the second way, namely as ‘Socrates is existent or is an existent’; one can also analyze ‘Socrates is wise’ in the first way, namely as ‘Socrates wise-izes’. Indeed disputes and developments in the history of logic turn on this interesting fact. Nevertheless, for Scotus’ present purposes, the point about the varying uses of ‘is’ or ‘made’ remains.

⁷⁷Tr. Scotus here goes against the opinions of Bonaventure (Sentences 3 d.7 a.1 q.3) and Aquinas (ST IIIa q.16 a.6 ad 4), who think ‘man was made God’ is improper or false, though Scotus interestingly directs his remarks to the view that ‘man was made God’ is truer or more proper.

⁷⁸The rule is thus expressed by Damascene ch. 49, “The Word appropriates human things to himself (for to him belongs what belongs to his sacred flesh), and bestows on the flesh, by way of giving back, his own properties, because of the interpenetration of the parts with each other and because of union in hypostasis.” He excepts things expressing the union from this rule as do other doctors generally, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Aquinas.

⁷⁹“If the Holy Spirit were incarnate as the Son is incarnate, the Holy Spirit would be son of man; there would therefore be two sons in the Trinity of God, the Son of God and the son of man. Hence a certain confusion of doubt would arise when we spoke of God the Son; for both would be God and son, although one is Son of God and the other son of man... And if the Father had assumed man into the unity of his person, the plurality of sons would cause the same unacceptable results.”

⁸⁰“If any other person is incarnate, there will be two sons in the Trinity, namely the Son of God who is Son also before the incarnation, and he who through incarnation will be son of the Virgin; and among the persons, who ought always to be equal, there will be an inequality in dignity of births, for he who is born of God will have a greater birth than he who is born of the Virgin. Again if the Father is incarnate, there will be two grandsons in the Trinity, because the Father will be grandson of the Virgin’s parents through the man assumed, and the Word, although he has nothing of man, will yet be grandson of the Virgin, because he will be son of her son. All these things are unacceptable and do not arise in the incarnation of the Son.”

⁸¹“The Father did not assume flesh, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son only, so that he who was in divinity Son of God the Father would become in man son of the human mother; and so that the name of son should not pass to another who was not son by eternal birth. Therefore the Son of God was made son of man, born Son of God in truth of nature from God, and born son of man in truth of nature from man; so that the truth of the one begotten would have, by being born, the name of Son, not by adoption or in name, but in both births, and the one Son would be true God and true man. We confess, therefore, neither two Christs nor two sons, but one Son, God and man.”

⁸²Summa a.65 q.1, “I say that ‘one’ is said in two ways, and accordingly a common relation is caused by ‘one’ in two ways. For in one way something is called one by unity; in another way it is called one by union. Now ‘one’ called so by union, or by the property of union, is the cause of every relation of equality...in creatures., which can for this reason be called a relation of union. But a relation of unity is double.; for something is one by unity of singularity.while another thing is one by unity of community;” q.3 ad 3, “Equality and likeness in divine reality...are caused by a ‘one’ called so by unity of singularity; but they are caused in creatures by a ‘one’ called so by union of many.”

⁸³Gilbert de la Porree, Commentary on Boethius' Work of Seven Days, “Now union is always of things that are diverse in number from each other; but this happens in diverse ways from diversity of ideas. For in one way are matter and form said to be united to each other, so that there is, by a certain rational habit, one subsistent thing; in another way part and part, as in civil matters where many persons are, by partnership in one tongue or rite or law or place or affection, said to be one nation, one people, one assembly, one heart, and the like.”

⁸⁴Cf. Scotus 4 d.12 q.3 n.34, “I say that the proposition ‘to act belongs per se to the supposit’ is not got from the Philosopher in Metaphysics 1 (1.1.981a12-17), but what is had there is that action is about singulars... But whence comes the mode of arguing? ‘Action is about the singular as object, therefore it belongs to the supposit alone as agent’.”

⁸⁵Tr. A relation only has being as relation to something, so if a relation has two terms its being to one term is not its being to the other, and so its being simply (which for it is relative being) is not its being simply.

⁸⁶Vatican editors: The Latin is ‘ratitudo’ from ‘reor’, to think or validate or ratify, and signifies a thing as certain. Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet 5 q.2, “The first..most common concept, common to this concept and to that, is the concept whereby a thing ‘res’, as said from ‘reor’, is conceived, which ‘thing’ contains under it ‘imaginary thing’, which is a pure non-being. But if a thing has being in God according to exemplar idea, not only does one say that it is a thing or ‘res’ as taken from ‘reor’, but also that it is some nature and essence, and so it is called a validated thing, or ‘res’ as taken from ‘ratitudo’.”

⁸⁷Vatican editors: Probably Richard of Conington, an Anglican Minorite, said by contemporaries to have been a follower or disciple of Henry of Ghent; his commentary on the Sentences is missing.

⁸⁸Henry of Ghent Summa a.55 q.6, “When it is said that in divine reality ‘the Father is equal to the Son’ the relation on both sides is according to reason... So when greatness is said to be the equality of the persons, it must, in its understanding, be taken twice: once as it is has being in one person and once as it has being in another, or taken thrice if equality of the three persons in greatness is taken;” a.65 q.1, “From ‘one’ understood from unity, or from the property of unity, every common relation in divine reality is caused. But from ‘one’ understood from union, or from the property of union, every relation of equality.in creatures is caused;” ad 1, “I say that the fact that on ‘one’ something follows, namely common relation, can be understood in two ways: in one way when ‘one’ is taken once and formally; in another when ‘one’ is taken several times and is multiplied materially as it were, either in reality or in reason.now when ‘one’ is taken in the second way, there follow on it all the common relations of equality, identity, and likeness.”

⁸⁹“Justice, further, is the virtue which bestows on each that which belongs to him. Is that then man’s justice which takes man himself from God and subjects him to unclean demons? Or is that man just who removes himself from God his master, by whom he was made, and serves malign spirits? So where man does not serve God, what of justice must there be thought to be in him?”

⁹⁰Because, presumably, he would thus not be estranged by any sin from union with God.

⁹¹Fire is a genus under body and body a genus under creature, and creature is said of both fire and body.

⁹²Sc. neither does a created nature give a reason to denominate the supposit as created, nor does an uncreated supposit give a reason to denominate the nature as uncreated.

⁹³Scotus is following here, and throughout this argument, the traditional Aristotelian analysis of the material elements, according to which earth is cold and dry, water cold and wet, air hot and wet, fire hot and dry.

⁹⁴Sc. any form is a universal and can inform any number of individuals.

⁹⁵The Latin word is ‘dolor’, which also means ‘pain’ and is sometimes so translated in what follows.

⁹⁶St. Augustine On the Trinity 12.3. n.3, “...the part of reason that is turned toward management of temporal things [=lower part], so that the image of God does not remain save in the part with which man’s mind clings to gazing upon eternal reasons and considering them [=higher part].”

⁹⁷The editors put this doubt in brackets, noting that there is no response given to it later by Scotus.

⁹⁸No reply is given by Scotus to the principal arguments posed at the beginning, nn.2-19, but answers can perhaps be supplied, mutatis mutandis, from the parallel passage in the Lectura 3 d.15 nn.108-121

⁹⁹Metaphysics 9.8.1050b8-12: “Every power is a power at once for contradiction:...what is possible to be is able to be and not to be.”

¹⁰⁰The text has ‘infinity’, which seems to be a typographical error.