Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D2/P2Q4C

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaest. 4
258 Tenendo quattuor rationes et praecipue duas primas pro conclusione affirmativa quaestionis, respondeo ad argumenta in oppositum. Ad primum, negando maiorem. ƿ	258. By holding onto the four reasons [nn.221, 238, 239, 240-241] and especially the first two [nn.221, 238] for the affirmative conclusion to the question, I respond to the arguments for the opposite conclusion [nn.201-208]. To the first [nn.201-206] by denying the major.
259 Cum probatur primo per necessarium ex se et ex alio, dico quod si idem genus causae importetur per haec duo, 'ex se' et 'ex alio', verum est quod sic nihil est necessarium ex se et ex alio; si autem aliud genus causae importetur, puta per illud 'ex se' causa formalis et per illud 'ab alio' causa effectiva vel productiva, non est inconveniens idem esse necessarium ex se uno modo et ab alio alio modo.	259. When it is proved first through the necessary of itself and the necessary from another [n.202], I say that if the same genus of cause is meant by these two, ‘of itself’ and ‘from another’, it is true that in this way nothing is necessary of itself and from another; but if another genus of cause is meant, to wit through the ‘of itself’ the formal cause and through the ‘from another’ the effective or productive cause, it is not discordant for the same thing to be necessary of itself in one way and from another in another way.
260 Cum probatur maior prosyllogismi, dico quod illud quod est necessarium ex se formaliter non potest non esse circumscripto quocumque alio cuius circumscriptio non includit incompossibilitatem ponendo esse aliud; sed ex se necessarium formaliter sequitur posse non esse circumscripto quocumque alio per incompossibile, sicut ex uno incompossibili posito sequitur aliud incompossibile.	260. When the major of the prosyllogism [n.202] is proved, I say that what is necessary of itself formally cannot not exist when any other thing is removed whose removal does not include incompossibility with the positing of something else existing; but ‘necessary of itself formally’ follows ‘being able not to be’ when any other thing is removed through incompossibility, just as from the positing of one incompossible another incompossible follows.
261 Sed dubium est tunc, quae sit differentia inter ex se necessaƿrium Filii secundum theologos et creaturae necessario productae secundum philosophos. Respondeo: philosophi, ponentes creaturas necessario produci, haberent dicere quod ipsae haberent entitatem qua formaliter essent necessariae, licet in illa entitate dependerent a causa necessario producente; Filius autem habet entitatem formaliter necessariam, et eandem cum producente. Creatura ergo si esset ex se necessaria, non posset non esse circumscripto omni alio cuius circumscriptio non implicat contradictionem, tamen circumscripta causa alia a se per incompossibile, posset non esse; Filius autem non posset non esse circumscripto quocumque alio secundum entitatem, quia non posset non esse nisi circumscripta persona producente, et producens non est aliud secundum entitatem a producto. Unde si Pater produceret creaturam naturaliter et necessario, produceret eam formaliter necessariam, et tamen non esset ƿnecessaria tunc tanta necessitate quanta est nunc Filius necessarius.	261. But then there is a doubt what the difference is between necessary of itself as applied to the Son according to the theologians and as applied to the necessarily produced creature according to philosophers. I respond: the philosophers, when positing that creatures are necessarily produced, had to say that creatures had an entity whereby they were formally necessary, although in that entity they depended on a cause that necessarily produced; but the Son has a formally necessary entity and the same entity as the producer. A creature, then, if it was necessary of itself, could not fail to be when everything else was removed whose removal does not involve a contradiction, although, when the cause other than itself was removed through incompossibility, it could fail to be; but the Son could not fail to be when everything else as to entity was removed, because it could only fail to be when the person producing was removed, and the producer is not other as to entity than the produced. Hence if the Father produced a creature naturally and necessarily, he would produce it to be formally necessary, and yet it would not then be necessary with as much necessity as the Son now is necessary.
262 Ad secundam probationem maioris dico quod possibile logicum differt a possibili reali, sicut patet per Philosophum V Metaphysicae cap. De potentia. Possibile logicum est modus compositionis formatae ab intellectu cuius termini non includunt contradictionem, et ita possibilis est haec propositio: 'Deum esse', 'Deum posse produci' et 'Deum esse Deum'; sed possibile reale est quod accipitur ab aliqua potentia in re sicut a potentia inhaerente alicui vel terminata ad illud sicut ad terminum. Filius autem non est possibilis possibilitate reali neque possibilitate inhaerente alicui ƿneque terminata ad ipsum, quia possibilitas, sive activa sive passiva, est ad aliud in natura, sicut patet per definitionem potentiae activae et passivae V Metaphysicae, quod est principium transmutandi aliud vel ab alio in quantum aliud, vel ab alio vel in quantum aliud. Est tamen Filius terminus potentiae productivae, quae abstrahit a ratione potentiae effectivae, et si illa potentia dicatur simpliciter potentia, terminus illius potentiae potest dici simpliciter possibile; sed illa possibilitas non repugnat necessario formaliter, licet forte possibilitas de qua philosophi loquuntur, de potentia activa et passiva, proprie repugnet necessitati ex se: sed hoc dubium est de activa, si ponerent aliquod necessarium habere principium productivum.	262. To the second proof of the major [n.203] I say that logical possibility differs from real possibility, as is plain from the Philosopher Metaphysics 5.12.1019b28-30. Logical possibility is a mode of composition formed by the intellect whose terms do not involve contradiction, and so this proposition is possible: ‘God exists’, ‘God can be produced’, and ‘God is God’; but real possibility is what is received from some real power as from a power inhering in something or determined to something as to its term. But the Son is not possible with real possibility or with a possibility inhering in something or determined to him, because possibility, whether active or passive, is to another thing in nature, as is plain from the definition of active and passive power at Metaphysics 5.12.1019a15-20, because it is a principle of changing another either from another insofar as it is other, or from another or insofar as it is other. But the Son is the term of productive power, which abstracts from the idea of effective power, and if that power be called simply power, the term of that power can be called simply possible; but that possibility is not repugnant to being formally necessary, although perhaps the possibility of which the philosophers speak, of active and passive power, is properly repugnant to necessity of itself; but this doubt concerns active power, if they posited that something necessary has a productive principle.
263 Ad tertiam probationem, cum dicitur 'est ibi ordo, igitur intelligitur prima persona non intellecta secunda', respondeo quod non necessario prima intellectione intelligitur persona secunda cum persona prima si illa prima persona est absoluta; sed non sequitur ex hoc, quod si prima persona intelligitur non intellecta ƿsecunda, igitur intelligitur secunda persona non esse, sicut non sequitur 'animal illud quod est in homine intelligitur non intellecto rationali, ergo intelligitur non esse rationale.	263. To the third proof, when it is said ‘there is order then, so the first person is understood when the second person is not understood’ [n.204], I reply that in the first understanding the second person is not necessarily understood along with the first person if that first person is absolute; but it does not follow from this that, if the first person is understood with the second not understood, therefore the second person is understood not to exist, just as it does not follow ‘the animal which is in man is understood when rational is not understood, therefore man is understood not to be rational’.
264 Cum autem infers mutationem ex terminis oppositis, accipis ac si intelligeretur productum non esse quando producens est, quod falsum est; abstractionem igitur sine mendacio, quae est non considerando illud a quo fit abstractio, commutas in abstractionem mendacem, quae est considerando illud non esse a quo fit abstractio.	264. When, however, you infer change from the opposed terms [n.204], you take it as if the produced was understood not to be when the producer is, which is false; you are changing abstraction without falsehood, which is by not considering the thing from which the abstraction is made, into false abstraction, which is by considering the thing not to exist from which abstraction is made.
265 Ad quartam probationem dico quod illa persona non esset in essentia sine productione; habet enim essentiam per productionem. Non sequitur 'igitur essentia de non habente personam fit habens', ƿsed sequitur: 'igitur essentia, quae de ratione sua non includit personam' (quod verum est si persona est relativa, primo quia tunc est aliquid excepto relativo, secundum Augustinum VII De Trinitate cap. 3, et secundo quia respectus non est de ratione absoluti) - ipsa, inquam, essentia - habet 'illam productionem sive per productionem habet personam in qua subsistit', quae tamen persona vel productio non est de ratione essentiae. Non autem sequitur mutatio ex hoc quod aliquid inest alicui quod non est de ratione eius, sed mutatio requirit quod aliquid insit alicui cui prius infuit eius oppositum, quod non habetur in proposito.	265. To the fourth proof [n.205] I say that the person would not be in essence without production; for it has essence through production. The consequence is not: ‘therefore the essence becomes from not having the person to having it’, but the consequence is: ‘therefore the essence, which of its idea does not include person’ (which is true if person is relative, first because then there is something when the relative is taken away, according to Augustine On the Trinity VII ch.1 n.2, and second because a respect is not of the idea of an absolute) – the essence, I say – has ‘that production, or through production it has the person in which it subsists’, which person or production, however, is not of the idea of essence. But change does not follow from the fact that something is in something which is not of the idea of it, but change requires that something be in something in which the opposite of it first was, which does not hold in this case.
266 Ad quintam probationem dico quod in generatione etiam in creaturis concurrunt duae rationes, scilicet quod ipsa est mutatio, et quod ipsa est productio; ut autem est mutatio, est forma subiecti mutati, et ut est productio, est termini producti ut via. Istae rationes non includunt se essentialiter etiam in creaturis, quia diversa respiciunt primo. Ergo sine contradictione potest intelligi ratio productionis sine ratione mutationis, et ita generatio transfertur ad divina sub ratione productionis, licet non sub ratione mutationis. ƿ	266. To the fifth proof [n.206] I say that also in generation in creatures two ideas come together, namely that generation is a change and that it is a production; but as it is a change it is the form of the changed subject, and as it is a production it is as the process of the produced term. These ideas do not include each other essentially even in creatures, because they have a regard first to diverse things. Therefore without contradiction the idea of production can be understood without the idea of change, and so generation is transferred to divine reality under the idea of production, although not under the idea of change.
267 Ad secundum principale dico quod non sequitur 'est ab alio, igitur dependens'. Cum probatur, concedo quod aeque independenter est natura in producente et in producto. Cum arguitur ex independentia quod non erit praeexigentia, nego consequentiam, quia dependentia sequitur entitatem formalem dependentis ab illo a quo dependet; quando igitur habent eandem entitatem, non est ibi dependentia, potest tamen esse praeexigentia si unum suppositum habeat illud ab altero.	267. To the second principal argument [n.207] I say that this does not follow ‘it is from another therefore it is dependent’. When it is proved I concede that nature exists equally independently in producer and produced. When it is argued from independence that there will not be a pre-requirement, I deny the consequence, because dependence follows the formal entity of what depends on that on which it depends; when therefore it has the same entity, there is not in that case dependence, although there can be a prerequirement if one supposit has it from another.
268 Ad ultimum dico quod mutationes aliae a generatione ex ratione sua formali sunt imperfectiores generatione, quia termini inducti sunt imperfectiores quam termini generationis; tamen non requirunt aliae mutationes, quantum ad illud quod praesupponunt, tantam imperfectionem in subiecto quantam requirit generatio, et hoc ut est mutatio, quia generatio requirit in subiecto entitatem in potentia, et hoc ad esse simpliciter, aliae mutationes non.	268. To the final argument [n.208] I say that changes other than generation are in their formal idea more imperfect than generation, because the terms introduced are more imperfect than the terms of generation; yet the other changes do not require, as to what they presuppose, as much imperfection in the subject as generation requires, and this in the way generation is a change, because generation requires in the subject a being in potency, and potency to existence simply, but the other changes do not.
269 Ad propositum applicando, dico quod generatio non transfertur ad divina secundum illud quod praesupponit generatio, puta subiectum mutabile, quod est imperfectionis, quia ut est mutatio, ƿnon est in divinis, - sed transfertur ad divina in quantum productio, sub ratione qua est productio termini, qui est terminus perfectior terminis aliarum mutationum; et sic bene potest per generationem accipi essentia tamquam terminus perfectissimus in divinis licet non possit per aliquam aliam mutationem accipi aliquis alius terminus aliarum mutationum, quia hoc concluderet compositionem et imperfectionem, quia terminus cuiuscumque alterius foret accidens componibile cum subiecto.	269. Applying this to the intended proposition, I say that generation is not transferred to divine reality as to what generation presupposes, to wit a changeable subject, which is a matter of imperfection, because in the way it is a change it is not in divine reality, – but it is transferred to divine reality insofar as it is a production, under the idea in which production is of a term, which term is more perfect than the terms of other changes; and thus can essence well be taken through generation as the most perfect term in divine reality, although there could not be taken through some other change some other term of other changes, because this other term would include composition and imperfection, because the term of any other change would be an accident combinable with a subject.