Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D2/P2Q4E

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaest. 4
[300] Dico tunc ad quaestionem quod tantum sunt ibi duae productiones distinctae secundum rationes formales productionum, et hoc quia sunt tantum duo principia productiva habentia formales rationes producendi distinctas.	300. I say then to the question that there are only two productions distinct according to formal ideas of productions, and this because there are only two productive principles that have distinct formal ideas of production.
[301] Huius causalis probo antecedens et consequentiam. Antecedens probo sic: omnis pluralitas reducitur ad unitatem vel ad paucitatem tantam ad quantam reduci potest; ergo pluralitas principiorum activorum reducetur ad unitatem vel ad tantam paucitatem ad quantam potest reduci. Sed non potest reduci ad aliquod unum principium productivum. Probatio, quia illud haberet determinate alterum vel alterius istorum modum principiandi: vel enim esset productivum ex se determinate per modum naturae, vel non ex se determinate sed libere, et ita per modum voluntatis, ergo non possunt reduci ad aliquod principium quasi tertium ab istis quod, scilicet in producendo, neutrius istorum habeat rationem. Nec unum reducitur ad alterum, quia tunc alterum secundum totum genus suum esset imperfectum, quod falsum est, quia cum ex eadem perfectione conveniat utrique esse principium operativum et productivum (quod probatum est in solutione praecedente, in probatione minoris primi syllogismi ibi facti) et neutrum sit ex se imperfectum in quantum est operativum, quia tunc non esset formaliter in Deo, ergo nec in quantum est productivum est imperfectum.	301. Of this causal statement I prove the antecedent and the consequence. The antecedent I prove as follows: every plurality is reduced to as much unity, or as much fewness, as it can be reduced to; therefore the plurality of active principles will be reduced to as much unity, or as much fewness, as it can be reduced to. But it cannot be reduced to some single productive principle. The proof is that the principle would determinately have one mode of being principle, or the mode of being principle of one of them: for either it would be of itself determinately productive by way of nature, or not of itself determinately but freely productive, and so by way of will; therefore these cannot be reduced to some as it were third principle among them that would have, that is in producing, the idea of neither of them. Nor is one reduced to the other because then one would in its whole genus be imperfect, which is false, because since it belongs to both from the same perfection to be an operative and productive principle (which was proved in the preceding solution, in the proof of the minor of the first syllogism there given [nn.224, 226]), and since neither is in itself imperfect insofar as it is operative, for then it would not exist formally in God, therefore neither is imperfect either as it is productive.
[302] Non ergo possunt principia productiva reduci ad paucitatem minorem quam ad dualitatem principii, scilicet productivi per modum naturae et principii productivi per modum voluntatis. Haec autem duo principia secundum rationes suas principiandi debent poni in primo, quia in ipso est omnis ratio principii quod non reducitur ad aliud principium prius. Igitur tantum sunt duo principia productiva alterius rationis in primo productivo, scilicet, unicum productivum per modum naturae, et unicum productivum libere. Haec autem sunt productiva ad intra, quia quodlibet principium productivum quod non reducitur ad aliud principium prius natum est habere productionem sibi adaequatam et productum adaequatum; ergo principium productivum quod est voluntas natum est habere productum sibi adaequatum, et principium productivum quod est natura natum est habere productum adaequatum. Haec principia productiva sunt infinita, ergo producta eis adaequata non possunt esse nisi infinita. Omnipotentia etiam in primo non potest habere obiectum possibile infinitum, quia tunc creatura posset esse infinita; nihil autem est infinitum formaliter nisi Deus, ex quaestione illa 'Utrum Deus sit'. Igitur ista principia sunt productiva aliquorum in natura divina.	302. The productive principles, therefore, cannot be reduced to a lesser fewness than to a duality of principle, namely a duality of a principle productive by way of nature and of a principle productive by way of will. Now these two principles, according to their reasons of being principle, should be placed in the first thing, because in it there is every idea of principle that is not reduced to another prior principle. Therefore there are only two productive principles of different idea in the first productive thing, namely a single one productive by way of nature and a single one productive freely. But these productive principles are inward, because any productive principle which is not reduced to another prior principle is of a nature to have a production adequate and a product adequate to itself; therefore the productive principle which is will is of a nature to have a product adequate to it, and the productive principle which is nature is of a nature to have a product adequate to it. These productive principles are infinite, therefore the products adequate to them can only be infinite. Also omnipotence in the first thing cannot have a possible infinite object, because then the creature could be infinite; but nothing is formally infinite except God, from the question ‘Whether God Exists’ [nn.39, 74-147]. Therefore these principles are productive of some things in the divine nature.
[303] Ulterius sequitur: si non sint nisi duo principia productiva alterius rationis, ergo sunt tantum duae productiones numero. Probatio, quia utrumque principium productivum habet productionem sibi adaequatam et coaeternam; ergo stante illa, non potest habere aliam,	303. Further it follows: if there are only two productive principles of different nature, then there are only two productions numerically. The proof is that each productive principle has a production adequate to itself and co-eternal; therefore while that production stands it cannot have another.
[304] Obicitur contra istam deductionem sic: natura ex se est principium determinatum ad agendum; in divinis autem intellectus unde intellectus non tantum videtur esse principium determinatum ad agendum sed etiam essentia natura ut est quodammodo prior intellectu, quasi radix et fundamentum, sicut essentia quaelibet videtur fundamentum potentiae; ergo non tantum intellectus sed etiam ipsa essentia ut essentia debet poni habere rationem principiandi principii illius quod est natura ut distinguitur contra voluntatem.	304. An objection is raised against this deduction as follows: nature of itself is a principle determined to action; but in divine reality intellect whereby it is intellect not only seems to be a principle determined to action but also by nature an essence as essence is in some way prior to intellect, being its root as it were and foundation, in the way that any essence seems to be the foundation of the power; therefore not only the intellect but also the essence itself as essence should be set down as having the idea of being principle of the principle which is nature as distinguished from will.
[305] Secundo, dubium est de istis actibus productivis, quomodo sint istorum principiorum productivorum quorum sunt actus essentiales; cum enim actus distinguunt potentias, II De anima, videtur quod istis potentiis quibus conveniunt actus essentiales, non competant actus notionales.	305. Second, there is a doubt about these productive acts, how they belong to those productive principles whose the essential acts are; for since acts distinguish powers, On the Soul 2.4.415a16-20, it seems that to the powers to which the essential acts [understanding, willing] belong, the notional acts [generating, inspiriting, n.271] do not belong.
[306] Tertio, probatio illa non videtur valere, quae adducitur ad ostendendum dualitatem in principiis productivis non posse reduci ad unitatem, nam principiare necessario et principiare contingenter sunt oppositi modi principiandi et tamen haec dualitas reducitur ad unitatem. Et concedo quod illud 'unum' habet determinate unum istorum duorum modorum, illum videlicet qui est perfectior et prior. Ita diceretur in proposito, quod ad principium quod est natura - quia illud est prius in ratione principiandi - reducitur voluntas licet habeat oppositum modum principiandi.	306. Third, the proof does not seem to be valid which is adduced for showing that the duality in productive principles cannot be reduced to unity [n.301], for to be principle necessarily and to be principle contingently are opposite modes of being a principle and yet this duality is reduced to unity. And I concede that the ‘one thing’ has determinately one of these two modes, the mode namely that is more perfect and prior. So it should be said, in the proposed case, that to the principle which is nature – because it is prior in idea of being principle – the will is reduced, although it have the opposite mode of being a principle.
[307] Quarto, unde probatur illa propositio, 'stante uno actu adaequato potentiae, ipsa non potest simul habere alium'? Si intelligat adaequationem secundum extensionem, petitur principium; si secundum intensionem, videtur falsum. Licet enim visio Verbi adaequetur potentiae intellectivae animae Christi, tamen potest nosse etiam actu elicito aliud intelligibile; patet etiam quod Deus novit se notitia adaequata intellectui suo secundum intensionem, et tamen novit alia a se. Si ita est de actu adaequato potentiae operativae, quod compatitur alium, multo magis videtur de potentia productiva, quia eius productum non est in potentia productiva sicut operatio est in potentia operativa.	307. Fourth, whence is proved the proposition ‘when one act adequate to the power stands, the power cannot have another act’ [n.303]? If it understand adequation according to extension, the question is begged; if according to intension, it seems to be false. For although the vision of the Word is adequate to the intellective power of the soul of Christ, yet it can also know by an elicited act some other intelligible; it is plain too that God knows himself by a knowledge adequate to his intellect according to intension, and yet he knows things other than himself. If this is how it is about an act adequate to the operative power, which allows of another, much more does it seem to be so of the productive power, because its product is not in the productive power as operation is in the operative power.
[308] Item, principium non est principium in quantum principiatum iam intelligitur positum in esse, sed in quantum est prius principiato; ut autem est prius, non aliter se habet per hoc quod principiatum ponitur in esse. Igitur, si isto non posito posset esse principium alterius, pari ratione videtur quod isto posito posset esse simul principium alterius, quia isto posito principium in quantum principium, hoc est in quantum prius principiato, nullo modo aliter se habet.	308. Again, a principle is not a principle insofar as the thing that has a principle is already understood to be posited in existence, but insofar as it is prior to that thing; but as it is prior it is not differently disposed by the fact that what has it as a principle is posited to be in existence. Therefore if, when this thing is not posited, it could be the principle of another thing, it seems by parity of reason that, when this thing is posited, it could at the same time be the principle of another thing, because when the first thing is posited the principle, insofar as it is principle, that is, insofar as it is prior to what has it as a principle, is in no way differently disposed.
[309] Solutio istarum duarum rationum ultimarum, et declaratio rationis illius contra quam fiunt, et probatio conclusionis ad quam illa ratio adducitur, videlicet quod sunt tantum duae productiones, dimittatur usque ad 7 distinctionem, quaestione illa 'An possent esse plures Filii in divinis'.	309. The solution of these two ultimate questions [nn.307-308], and the clarification of the reason against which they are made, and the proof of the conclusion for which the reason is adduced, namely that there are only two productions – let them be dismissed to distinction 7 [n.358], in the question ‘Whether there could be several Sons in divine reality’ [I d.7 q.2].
[310] Ad primum respondeo quod hoc totum 'intellectus habens obiectum actu intelligibile sibi praesens' habet rationem memoriae perfectae in actu primo, quae scilicet est immediatum principium actus secundi et notitiae genitae; in hoc autem principio quod est memoria concurrunt duo, quae constituunt unum principium totale, videlicet essentia in ratione obiecti, et intellectus, quorum utrumque per se est quasi partiale principium respectu productionis adaequatae huic totali principio. Cum ergo arguitur quod ratio naturae non tantum competit intellectui, sed essentiae, respondeo quod totale principium, includens essentiam ut obiectum et intellectum ut potentiam habentem obiectum sibi praesens, est principium productivum quod est natura et principium completum producendi per modum naturae. Si enim essentia ut obiectum non haberet rationem principii in productione Verbi, quare magis diceretur Verbum essentiae quam lapidis si ex sola infinitate intellectus ut principii productivi posset produci Verbum infinitum quocumque alio obiecto praesente?	310. [Response to the instances] – To the first [n.304] I reply that this whole ‘the intellect having an object actually intelligible present to itself’ [n.211] has the idea of perfect memory in first act, namely the idea that is the immediate principle of second act and of generated knowledge; but in this principle that is memory two things come together which constitute one total principle, namely essence in the idea of object and intellect, each of which is per se a partial principle as it were with respect to a production adequate to this total principle. When therefore it is argued that the idea of nature belongs not only to intellect but to essence [n.304], I reply that the total principle, including the essence as object and the intellect as a power having the object present to itself, is the productive principle which is nature and is the complete principle of producing by way of nature. For if essence as object did not have the idea of principle in the production of the Word, why would the Word be said more of essence than of stone, if from the sole infinity of intellect as productive principle an infinite Word could, when any other object whatever was present, be produced?
[311] Ad secundum dubium dico quod memoria in Patre est principium operativum Patris, quo scilicet ut actu primo Pater formaliter intelligit ut in actu secundo; est etiam eadem memoria Patri principium productivum, quo Pater exsistens in actu primo producit ut in actu secundo notitiam genitam. Non fundatur igitur actus productivus super actum essentialem, qui consistit in actu secundo, videlicet qui est operatio quasi super rationem formalem eliciendi illum actum secundum productivum, sed quodam modo praeexigit illum actum secundum, quia actus primus, qui est operativus et productivus, est ratio perficiendi in actu secundo suppositum, in quo est quodam ordine prius antequam intelligatur produci vel perfici illud quod producitur. Operans enim et producens, per illud principium, prius est operans quam producens.	311. To the second doubt [n.305] I say that memory in the Father is the operative principle of the Father, by which, namely, as by first act, the Father formally understands as in second act; the same memory of the Father is also the productive principle by which the Father, existing in first act, produces, as he is in second act, generated knowledge. The productive act, therefore, is not founded on the essential act which consists in second act, that is, which is a quasi-operating on the formal reason of eliciting the second productive act, but in a certain way pre-requires that second act, because the first act which is operative and productive is the idea of perfecting a supposit in second act, in which it exists first by a certain order before that which is produced is understood to be produced or perfected. For what operates and produces through that principle is operating before it is producing.
[312] Exemplum. Si 'lucere' poneretur aliqua operatio in luminoso et 'illuminare' poneretur productio luminis a luminoso, lux in luminoso esset principium 'quo' et respectu operationis quae est 'lucere' et respectu productionis quae est 'illuminare'; nec tamen 'lucere' quod est operatio esset ratio formalis illuminationis quae est productio, sed esset ibi ordo quasi effectuum ordinatorum ad eandem causam communem amborum, a qua immediatius procedit unus effectus quam alius. Ita in proposito. Ad eundem actum primum, qui est memoria Patris, ordinem quemdam intelliguntur habere 'intelligere' quod est operatio Patris, et 'dicere' quod est 'producere' Patris respectu notitiae genitae; non talem ordinem quod 'intelligere' Patris sit causa vel principium elicitivum 'dicere' Verbi, sed quod immediatius 'intelligere' sit quasi productum a memoria Patris, quam 'dicere' vel Verbum sit productum ab eadem. Non igitur est ibi talis ordo qualem posuit opinio prior, in ratione obiecti praesuppositi vel in ratione principii formalis agendi, sed tantum ordo prior quasi producti ad productum, respectu eiusdem principii, communis ad quasi productum et productum.	312. An example. If ‘to shine’ were set down as some operation in a luminous thing, and ‘to illuminate’ were set down as production of light by the luminous thing, light in the luminous thing would be the principle ‘by which’ both with respect to the operation which is ‘to shine’ and with respect to the production which is ‘to illuminate’; yet ‘to shine’, which is an operation, would not be the formal idea of the illumination, which is production, but would there be the order, as it were, of the effects ordered to the same common cause of both, from which one of the effects proceeds more immediately than the other. So it is in the proposed case. A certain order to the same first act, which is the memory of the Father, is understood to be possessed by the ‘to understand’, which is an operation of the Father, and by the ‘to say’, which is the ‘to produce’ of the Father with respect to generated knowledge; not such an order that the ‘to produce’ of the Father is the cause or elicitive principle of the ‘to say’ of the word, but that the ‘to understand’ is more immediately quasi-produced by the memory of the Father than the ‘to say’ or the Word is produced by the same memory. So there is not such an order there as is posited by the first opinion [of Henry of Ghent, 280] in the idea of a presupposed object or in the idea of the formal principle of acting, but only the prior ordering, with respect to the same principle, of a quasi-product to a product, a principle common to quasi-product and product.
[313] Et tunc ad illud II De anima, de distinctione potentiarum per actus, potest dici quod 'quasi producere' et 'producere' sunt actus eiusdem rationis; si enim illud quod non producitur sed quasi producitur esset realiter distinctum a producente, esset vere productum; igitur quod modo sine productione insit, virtute tamen principii quod esset productivum eius si posset distingui - et pro tanto dicatur quasi productum - non variat formaliter actum ab illo quo produceretur si esset producibile.	313. And then to the passage of On the Soul, about the distinction of powers to acts [n.305], one could say that ‘to quasi-produce’ and ‘to produce’ are acts of the same idea; for if that which is not produced but quasi-produced were really distinct from the producer, it would truly be a product; therefore what is only present without production, though by virtue of a principle which would be productive of it were the thing able to be made distinct – and to this extent one may call it a quasi-product – does not vary the act formally from the act by which it would be produced were it producible.
[314] Alia responsio esset de intellectu agente et possibili, sed modo transeo; non dixi adhuc, cui intellectui convenit producere notitiam ut principio partiali (hoc dicetur infra), sed nunc de intellectu indistincte locutus sum.	314. Another response would be about the agent and possible intellect, but I pass it over now; I have not yet said to which intellect, as to partial principle, it belongs to produce knowledge (this will be spoken of below), but I have now spoken about the intellect indistinctly [n.232].
[315] Ad tertium dico quod quando duo principia habent modos oppositos principiandi quorum neutrum requirit aliquam imperfectionem, neutrum reducitur ad alterum ut ad prius natura, licet posset ibi esse aliqua prioritas quasi originis, vel huiusmodi. Nunc autem neutrum istorum principiorum includit aliquam imperfectionem, non magis in quantum productivum quam in quantum operativum: nec ergo unum ad alterum reducetur ut ad prius natura, nec ambo ad tertium, propter idem, quia neutrum est imperfectum, et etiam quia illud tertium esset principium secundum rationem alterius istorum, quia inter ista non est medium in principiando, et ita si ambo reducerentur ad tertium, unum reduceretur ad aliud et idem ad se ipsum.	315. To the third [n.306] I say that when two principles have opposite modes of being principle, neither of which requires any imperfection, neither is reduced to the other as to a prior in nature, although there could there be some priority of origin, as it were, or something of the sort. But now neither of these principles includes any imperfection, no more insofar as it is productive than insofar as it is operative; therefore one of them will not be reduced to the other as to a prior in nature, nor both to a third, for the same reason, because neither is imperfect, and also because the third thing would be a principle according to the idea of one or other of them, because there is between them no middle in being principle, and so, if both were reduced to a third, one would be reduced to the other and the same to itself.
[316] Contra ista instatur, et primo sic: intelligentia est in Patre sub propria ratione intelligentiae, et propria perfectio intelligentiae ut intelligentia est Verbum; ergo Verbum est intelligentiae Patris, quod prius est negatum.	316. Against these [nn.310-315] an instance is made, and first in this way: intelligence is in the Father under the proper idea of intelligence, and the Word is the proper perfection of intelligence as intelligence; therefore the Word belongs to the intelligence of the Father [n.290], which was before denied [nn.291-296].
[317] Praeterea, Augustinus XV De Trinitate cap. 12: ((Verbum est visio de visione)), igitur actualis notitia est ratio gignendi Verbum.	317. Further, Augustine On the Trinity XV ch.12 n.22: “The Word is vision of vision;” therefore actual knowledge is the idea of generating the Word [n.290].
[318] Praeterea, non videtur differentia inter memoriam et intelligentiam in Patre, igitur non videtur aliud esse improbare Patrem ut intelligentiam esse principium Verbi et Patrem ut memoriam; idem igitur approbas et improbas.	318. Further, there does not seem to be a difference between memory and intelligence in the Father, therefore to reject the Father as he is intelligence from being the principle of the Word does not seem to be other than rejecting the Father as he is memory from being so; therefore you approve and reject it as one and the same thing [nn.310, 291].
[319] Quarta instantia est: quare Pater isto actu producit notitiam genitam et non illo, non videtur ratio, cum uterque sit actus secundus et principietur virtute eiusdem actus primi.	319. The fourth instance is: there seems to be no reason for the Father to produce generated knowledge in this act and not in that, since each is second act and is a principle by virtue of the same first act [nn.311, 292].
[320] Ad primum dico quod Pater formaliter est memoria, intelligentia et voluntas, secundum Augustinum XV De Trinitate cap. 7, sive cap. 15 'de parvis': ((In illa Trinitate quis audeat dicere Patrem nec se ipsum nec Filium nec Spiritum Sanctum intelligere nisi per Filium, per se autem meminisse tantummodo vel Filii vel Spiritus Sancti?)) - sequitur - ((quis hoc in illa Trinitate opinari vel affirmare praesumat? Si autem solus ibi Filius intelligat nec Pater et Spiritus Sanctus sint intelligentes, ad illam absurditatem reditur quod Pater non sit sapiens de se sed de Filio)). Haec ille. Intelligit igitur quod Pater formaliter est memoria sibi, intelligentia sibi et voluntas sibi; et in hoc est dissimilitudo inter personas et partes imaginis in nobis, secundum ipsum. Cum igitur dicitur 'proprius actus intelligentiae est Verbum', nego, immo de ratione Verbi est quod sit notitia genita.	320. To the first [n.316] I say that the Father is formally memory, intelligence, and will, according to Augustine On the Trinity XV ch.7 n.12: “In the Trinity who would say that the Father only through the Son understands himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but of himself only remembers either the Son or the Holy Spirit?” – conclusion – “who would presume to opine or affirm this in the Trinity? But if there only the Son understands and neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understand, one is reduced to the absurdity that the Father is not wise about himself but about the Son.” So St. Augustine. He understands, therefore, that the Father is formally memory for himself, intelligence for himself, and will for himself; and in this respect there is a dissimilarity between the persons and the parts of the image in us, according to him. When therefore it is said that ‘the proper act of intelligence is the Word’ [n.316], I deny it; rather it belongs to the idea of the Son that he is generated knowledge.
[321] Dicis, sufficit quod sit notitia declarativa. Nego, intelligendo per 'declarativum' relationem rationis, ut intelligibilis ad intellectum: talis enim est relatio notitiae declarativae actualis Patris qua Pater formaliter intelligit, ad notitiam habitudinalem Patris ut est memoria, ita quod obiectum praesens intellectui Patris declaratur aeque per notitiam actualem Patris sicut per notitiam actualem quae est Filius, - et tamen notitia actualis Patris non est Verbum, quia nihil potest esse formaliter in Patre nisi non genitum.	321. You say that it suffices that the knowledge be declarative. I deny it, understanding by ‘declarative’ a relation of reason, as of the intelligible to the intellect; for such is the relation of the actual declarative knowledge of the Father, by which the Father formally understands, to the habitual knowledge of the Father as he is memory, such that the object present to the Father’s intellect is made clear as equally by the actual knowledge of the Father as by the actual knowledge of the Son, – and yet the actual knowledge of the Father is not the Word, because nothing can exist formally in the Father save what is non-generated.
[322] Cum dicitur secundo quod est 'notitia de notitia', respondeo quod ipsemet Augustinus exponit se XV De Trinitate cap. 10 a: ((Simillima est visio cogitationis visioni scientiae)); et eodem, cap. 8, sive cap. 32 g: ((Tunc est verbum simillimum rei noscendae de qua gignitur, et imago eius: de visione scientiae, visio cogitationis)). - Istae constructiones sunt intransitivae. Nam sicut 'visio cogitationis' nihil aliud est quam cogitatio, ita 'visio scientiae' nihil aliud est quam scientia. Idem est igitur dicere, de visione scientiae nasci visionem cogitationis, quod, de scientia nasci cogitationem. 'Scientia' autem est scientia habitualis, perficiens memoriam, secundum eundem XV Trinitatis cap. 15, sive 38, ubi dicit: ((Si potest esse in anima scientia aliqua sempiterna, sempiterna esse non potest scientiae eiusdem cogitatio)). Illud 'sempiternum' secundum eum pertinet ad memoriam, 'non sempiternum' ad intelligentiam. Nihil igitur vult aliud dicere 'visionem de visione', 'notitiam de notitia', nisi actum secundum qui est visio vel cogitatio in intelligentia, nasci de actu primo qui est visio habitualis sive scientia, secundum eum.	322. When it is said, second, that there is ‘knowledge of knowledge’ [n.317] I reply that the self-same Augustine expounds himself On the Trinity XV ch.11 n.20: “the vision of thinking is most similar to the vision of science;” and ibid. ch.12 n.22: “In this case is the word most similar to the thing to be known from which it is generated, and the image of it: vision of thinking from vision of science.” – These phrases are intransitive. For as ‘vision of thinking’ is nothing other than thinking, so ‘vision of science’ is nothing than science. It is the same thing then to say that from the vision of science the vision of thinking is born as to say that from science thinking is born. But ‘science’ is habitual science, which perfects memory, according to the same Augustine ibid. ch.15 n.25, where he says: “If there can be in the soul some eternal science, there cannot be eternal thinking of the same science.” The ‘eternal’ according to him pertains to memory, ‘non-eternal’ to intelligence. He does not then intend the phrases ‘vision of vision’, ‘knowledge of knowledge’ to mean anything other than that second act, which is vision or thinking in intelligence, is born of first act, which is habitual vision or science, according to him.
[323] Ad tertiam instantiam, cum arguitur de differentia memoriae et intelligentiae, dico quod illi adversarii nec ponunt differentiam realem inter intellectum et voluntatem Patris, et tamen habent tantam differentiam, quod alterum potest esse principium elicitivum alicuius productionis cuius alterum non est principium formale elicitivum; Filius enim non producitur formaliter per modum voluntatis. Igitur licet non differant realiter memoria et intelligentia Patris, est tamen tanta differentia inter illa, quod alterum posset poni principium elicitivum alicuius productionis cuius reliquum non ponatur principium formale elicitivum. Talis differentia patet secundum Augustinum XV De Trinitate cap. 8, et ubi prius. Talis enim est, quia si Pater esset memorialiter noscens, non autem intelligens, non esset perfectus, secundum Philosophum XII Metaphysicae, non obstante illa identitate memoriae ad intelligentiam sive recordationis ad intellectionem.	323. To the third instance, when an argument is made about the difference between memory and intelligence [n.318], I say that those adversaries do not posit a real difference between the intellect and the will of the Father, and yet these have so much difference that one can be the elicitive principle of some production of which the other is not the formal elicitive principle; for the Son is not formally produced by way of will. Therefore although the memory and intelligence of the Father do not differ really, there is yet as much difference between them that one of them could be posited as the elicitive principle of some production of which the remaining one is not posited as the formal elicitive principle. Such difference is plain according to Augustine ibid. ch.7 n.12 and before [n.291]. For the difference is such that if the Father by way of memory were knowing but not understanding, he would not be perfect, according to the Philosopher Metaphysics 12.9.1074b17-18, notwithstanding the identity of memory with intelligence or recollection with understanding.
[324] Ad quartam instantiam dico quod haec est immediata contingens 'calor calefacit', et ista immediata necessaria 'calor est calefactivus', quia inter extrema neutrius istorum invenitur aliquod medium. Ita dico quod haec est per se 'operatio in quantum operatio non est productiva', quia operationes ut operationes sunt fines et perfectiones operantis; productio autem ut productio non est perfectio producentis sed habens terminum productum extra essentiam producentis, vel saltem non formaliter in persona producentis.	324. To the fourth instance [n.319] I say that this is an immediate contingent proposition, ‘heat is heating’ and this an immediate necessary one, ‘heat is able to heat’, because there is no middle found between the extremes of either of these. So I say that this proposition is per se, ‘operation insofar as it is operation is not productive’, because operations as operations are the ends and perfections of the operator [n.292]; but production as production is not the perfection of the producer but contains the term produced outside the essence of the producer, or at any rate this term is not formally in the person of the producer.
[325] Quare ergo actus primus quo Pater intelligit vel formaliter operatur non producit? Respondeo quod illud 'intelligere' est 'operari' Patris ex ratione sua, et non est 'producere'; productione autem sive dictione producit sicut aliquid calefactione calefacit, formaliter cuius non est alia causa prior.	325. Why then does the first act by which the Father understands or formally operates not produce? I reply that the ‘to understand’ is the ‘to operate’ of the Father from his own idea, and is not the ‘to produce’; but by production or by speaking he produces in the way that something heats by heating, of which there is not formally some other prior cause.
[326] Quod autem dicis idem esse principium istorum duorum actuum, non altercando modo de intellectu agente et possibili, potest concedi quod ex plenitudine perfectionis potest competere alicui quod operetur et quod producat aliquid aliud a se. Magis tamen hoc patebit quando dicetur quod 'dicere' non est aliquis actus intelligendi formaliter; est tamen aliquis actus intellectus. Nullus autem actus intelligendi formaliter est productivus, sed aliquis alius actus naturalis, praecedens vel subsequens, potest esse productivus - qualis est actus dicendi.	326. But as to your statement that the principle of these two acts is the same [n.319], without interchange of mode of agent and possible intellect [nn.314, 232], it can be conceded that, from the fullness of perfection, there can belong to something that it operate and that it produce something other than itself. This, however, will be plainer when it is stated that ‘to say’ is not formally an act of understanding [I d.6 q. un. nn.2-4]; it is however an act of intellect. But no act of understanding is formally productive, but some other natural act, preceding or following, can be productive – of which sort is the act of saying.