B. Scotus’ own Opinion

31. As to the question I say that the filiation in Christ relative to the Father is different from the filiation in him to his Mother, and both filiations are real.

32. [In Christ there are two filiations] - I prove the first by the fact that filiation is the condition of something naturally produced like the producer in intellectual nature. The particulars here are plain, because as paternity is ‘the condition of a producer’ so filiation is ‘the condition of a produced’; ‘naturally produced’ as well for, by reason of lacking this particular, the Holy Spirit is not son; and similarly as to ‘like the producer’, and for this reason a worm is not son of the sun; ‘in intellectual nature’, so fire is not son of fire nor plant of plant nor, properly, ox of ox.

33. But if you altogether insist that a brute animal is son of a brute animal (as that a calf is son of an ox), then filiation is ‘the condition of something naturally produced, and like the producer, and in non-intellectual or sensitive nature’.

34. Nothing in this description has regard per se and first to a supposit save by reason of passive production, because all the other things added regard the nature either in the producer or in the produced or in both; so by reason of nothing does filiation determine for itself its belonging to a supposit more than passive generation does. But passive generation is multiplied by the multiplication of actually existing natures that are received through acts of generation, as is apparent from Damascene ch. 53, that there are ‘two generations of Christ’ [n.12]; therefore filiation too will be multiplied by the multiplication of the generations.

35. Again, what was argued on the basis of the foundations [n.29] is proved on the basis of the terms, because there cannot be the same relation to two terms, for then the same relation would be and not be at the same time.Tr. 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. ⁸⁵

36. Further, the proposed thesis - as to the first point [nn.31-32] - is shown more particularly as follows: that all divine personal properties equally lack a respect to anything created as to their term; therefore just as eternal paternity cannot be a relation whereby the Father would be called son in time, so neither can eternal filiation be a relation whereby the Son would be called son in time.

37. [These filiations are real] - Second, namely that each filiation is real [n.31]. The point is plain about eternal filiation, because the Son is really Son eternal.

38. The proof about temporal filiation is that that relation is real which, from the nature of the extremes when they are posited without act of intellect, is consequent to the extremes [cf. 1 d.31 n.6]; but when a generating Mother is posited and a supposit having through generation the generated nature, filiation from the nature of the extremes without act of intellect follows in the latter just as maternity follows in the former.

39. But if anyone imagines that here the intellect is operating to cause the relation - the disproof of this is that if Mary had borne a pure man, she would have been truly mother and he truly son by a real relation; but she acted no less now than she would have acted then, nor did Christ as man any less receive nature from her than if a pure man had received it; therefore he is as much a son now from the nature of the extremes as he would then have been, and the relation is as real now as it would then have been.