’’Which of these three possibilities actually took place, God knows. But if it be not against the authority of the Church and of Holy Scripture, it would seem probable to attribute to Mary that which is more perfect.” 47
In this restrained concluding statement are we dealing with literary modesty, with prudence, or with complete and absolute honesty admitting personal uncertainty regarding the true answer? There are authors who affirm the latter. Others find it difficult to subscribe to this view on account of the whole preceding course of argument and tenor and tendency of the defense as offered respectfully by Duns Scotus.
Le Bachelet, in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 48 recalling the hostile atmosphere of the Paris University circles, suggests that the young Franciscan Magister Regens, only recently admitted to their august Academic Senate, deliberately chose this prudent way of stating his final conclusion.
As a matter of fact, in a later passage of the same Oxford commentary, Scotus explicitly says of Mary that she was never in original sin: "Numquam fuit inimica actualiter ratione peccati actualis, nec ratione originalis; fuisset tamen nisi fuisset praeservata.” 49
The public lecture course in Sacred Theology given by Scotus at the Paris University, beginning in 1304 and lasting four years, is recorded for us in the Reportata Parisiensia. The Subtle Doctor here resumes the earlier Oxford course, retouching it in places. The question concerning the Immaculate Conception came up toward the end of 1307 or early in 1308, when Scotus again lectured on the Third Book of the Sentences. His doctrine is the same as
22
