Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D2/P2Q3

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaest. 3
201 Et quia pluralitas divinarum personarum declaratur ex productione, ideo quaero de productione in natura divina, et primo ƿin communi, utrum cum essentia divina possit stare in aliquo ipsum esse productum; in Lectura sic: utrum essentiae divinae repugnet quaecumque productio intrinseca realis. Arguo quod non quantum ad primam formam, et est arguere quod sic quantum ad secundam, quia nullum productum est ex se necessarium; sed quidquid subsistit in essentia divina est ex se necessarium; ergo etc.	201. And, because a plurality of divine persons is made clear from production, I therefore ask about production in the divine nature, and first in general, whether the being of being produced can stand in something along with the divine essence; and in the Lectura [Reportatio I A d.2 n.107] in this way: whether any intrinsic real production whatever is repugnant to the divine essence. I argue no according to the first form of the question, and this is to argue yes according to the second form, because nothing produced is of itself necessary; but whatever subsists in the divine essence is of itself necessary; therefore etc.
202 Maior patet per quinque vias: Primo, quia nihil simul est necessarium ex se et ab alio; sed quod est productum, si est necessarium, est necessarium ab alio; ergo non a se. Maiorem huius syllogismi probo, quia si est necessarium ex se, ergo est necessarium circumscripto omni alio; si autem est necessarium ab alio, non est necessarium illo circumscripto. ƿ	202. The major is plain in five ways: First, because nothing is at the same time necessary of itself and by another; but what is produced, if it is necessary, is necessary from another; therefore it is not necessary of itself. The proof of the major of this syllogism is that if it is necessary of itself then it is necessary when everything else is removed; but if it is necessary from another it is not necessary when that other is removed.
203 Secundo probatur maior prima, quia omne productum fuit possibile produci, alioquin impossibile produci est productum; ergo omne productum aliquam possibilitatem includit, quia et omnis possibilitas repugnat necessario ex se; ergo etc.	203. Second, a proof of the first major [n.201] is that everything produced was capable of being produced, otherwise a thing incapable of being produced was produced; therefore everything produced includes in it some possibility; also that every possibility is repugnant to what is necessary of itself; therefore etc.
204 Item tertio, terminus productus est posterior aliquo modo producente, quia non potest intelligi productio sine aliquo ordine; in illo priori in quo producens intelligitur non intelligitur productum, quia tunc non esset prius; ergo intelligitur in illo priori productum non esse, et in signo posteriori intelligitur esse: ergo mutatio de non esse ad esse.	204. Again, third, the produced terminus is posterior in some way to the thing producing, because production cannot be understood without some order; in that prior moment in which the producer is understood the thing produced is not understood, because then the producer would not be first; therefore in that prior moment the thing produced is understood not to exist, and in the next moment it is understood to exist; therefore there is a change from not-being to being.
205 Quarto probatur, quia essentia divina circumscripta productione non habet illud productum; habet autem illud productum per ƿproductionem: ergo per illam fit essentia divina de non habente illud habens, et ita mutatio.	205. There is a proof, fourth, that the divine essence, when all production is removed, does not have the thing produced; but it has the thing produced by production; therefore by production the divine essence becomes from not having the thing produced to having it, and so there is change.
206 Quinto, quia generatio videtur esse essentialiter mutatio sicut species essentialiter includit genus; productio autem ad esse per modum naturae est generatio: igitur illa non potest intelligi sine mutatione.	206. Fifth, because generation seems to be essentially a change, in the way a species essentially includes the genus; but production into being by way of nature is generation; therefore production cannot be understood without change.
207 Item secundo sic, ad principale: si est productum, ergo dependet; consequens falsum, ergo et antecedens. Probatio consequentiae, quia si nullo modo dependet productum a producente, igitur uterque ex aequo haberet naturam; et ex hoc ultra, non magis praeexigeret productum ad suam productionem et esse quod producens praehaberet suam naturam quam e converso, quod est contra naturam productionis.	207. Again on the principal point, second, in this way: if it is produced therefore it is dependent; the consequent is false, therefore the antecedent is too. The proof of the consequence is that if the produced depends in no way on the producer, then each would have its nature on an equal basis; and from this further, that the produced would first require for its production and existence that the producer first have its nature would not be more the case than the reverse, which is contrary to the nature of production.
208 Item tertio ad principale, quia aliae mutationes, quae non ponunt de ratione sua tantam imperfectionem quantam ponit generatio, non possent esse in divinis; ergo nec generatio. Consequentia patet, quia removemus a Deo quidquid est imperfectionis. Probatio antecedentis, quia latio et alteratio secundum ƿAristotelem VIII Physicorum non ponunt tantam imperfectionem quantam ponit generatio, et ideo multa entia perfecta possunt alterari vel localiter ferri quae non possunt generari; sed non conceditur in Deo loci mutatio vel alteratio; ergo etc.	208. Again third on the principal point, because other changes, which do not involve in their idea as much imperfection as generation involves, could not exist in divine reality; therefore not generation either. The consequence is plain, because we remove from God whatever there is of imperfection. The proof of the antecedent is that local motion and alteration according to Aristotle, Physics 8.7.260a26-261a20, do not involve as much imperfection as generation, and that is why many perfect beings can be altered and locally moved that cannot be generated [to wit the heavenly bodies]; but no change of place or alteration is conceded to exist in God; therefore etc.
209 Ad oppositum est Augustinus IV De Trinitate cap. 18: ((Pater est principium totius deitatis)), non nisi per productionem.	209. To the opposite is Augustine On the Trinity IV ch.20 n.29: “The Father is the principle of the whole deity,” only by production.
210 Item, in Psalmo: Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te.	210. Again Psalm 2.7: “The Lord said to me: Thou art my son, today have I begotten thee.”
211 Alias auctoritates quaere in littera.	211. Look for other authorities in the text [Sentences I d.2 ch.4-5].