Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D2/P2Q4I

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaest. 4
388 Sed adhuc restat ulterior difficultas. Non enim videtur intelligibile quod essentia non plurificetur et supposita sint plura nisi aliqua distinctio ponatur inter rationem essentiae et rationem suppositi. Et ideo ad salvandum istam compossibilitatem praedictam, oportet videre de ista distinctione.	388. But there still remains a further difficulty. For it does not seem intelligible that the essence is not multiplied and that the supposits are several unless a distinction is posited between the idea of essence and the idea of supposit. And therefore, to preserve the aforesaid compossibility [nn.376-387], one must look into this distinction.
389 Et dico sine assertione et praeiudicio melioris sententiae quod ratio qua formaliter suppositum est incommunicabile (sit a) et ratio essentiae ut essentia (sit b) habent aliquam distinctionem praecedentem omnem actum intellectus creati et increati.	389. And I say, without assertion and without prejudice of a better opinion, that the idea by which the supposit is formally incommunicable (let it be a) and the idea of essence as essence (let it be b) have a distinction that precedes every act of created and uncreated intellect.
390 Hoc probo sic: primum suppositum formaliter vel realiter haƿbet entitatem communicabilem, alioquin non posset eam communicare; habet etiam realiter entitatem incommunicabilem, alioquin non posset esse positive in entitate reali suppositum. Et intelligo sic 'realiter', quod nullo modo per actum intellectus considerantis, immo quod talis entitas esset ibi si nullus intellectus esset considerans; et sic esse ibi, si nullus intellectus consideraret, dico 'esse ante omnem actum intellectus'. - Non est autem aliqua entitas ante omnem actum intellectus ita quod non per actum intellectus, communicabilis, et alia entitas de se sit incommunicabilis, ita scilicet quod sibi contradicat communicari, nisi ante actum intellectus, hoc est, non praecise per intelligere, sit aliqua distinctio inter hanc entitatem et illam; ergo etc.	390. I prove this as follows: the first supposit formally or really has a communicable being, otherwise it could not communicate it; also it really has an incommunicable being, otherwise it could not be a positive supposit in real being. And I understand ‘really’ thus, that which is in no way by an act of an intellect considering it, nay that which would be a being of this sort there if no intellect were considering it; and to be in this way there if no intellect were considering it I call ‘existing before every act of intellect’. – But it is not the case that some entity before every act of intellect, such that it is not by an act of intellect, is communicable and that another entity is of itself incommunicable, unless there is before every act of intellect, that is, not precisely through an act of understanding, some distinction between this entity and that; therefore etc.
391 Si dicas quod ante omnem actum intellectus Patris non est ibi aliqua distinctio, sed est entitas omnino unius rationis, et ita ƿnullam entitatem positivam in se habet Pater quam non communicat Filio: ergo communicat ei paternitatem sicut essentiam!	391. If you say that before every act of intellect of the Father there is not there any distinction but an entity of altogether one idea, and thus the Father has no positive entity in himself which he does not communicate to the Son; therefore he communicates to him paternity just as he does essence!
392 Secundo arguitur sic: distinctio una in intellectu est penes diversum modum accipiendi idem obiectum formale, et hoc sive concipiendo grammatice, ut 'homo', 'hominis', sive logice, ut 'homo' et 'hic homo'; alia distinctio, maior, est in intellectu, concipiendo duobus actibus duo obiecta formalia, et hoc sive illis correspondeant diversae res, ut intelligendo hominem et asinum, sive una res extra, ut intelligendo colorem et disgregativum.	392. There is an argument, second, as follows: one distinction exists in the intellect in virtue of a diverse mode of taking the same formal object, and this either by taking it grammatically, as ‘man’, ‘of man’, or logically, as ‘man’ and ‘this man’; another distinction, a greater one, exists in the intellect by conceiving two formal objects in two acts, and this whether diverse things correspond to them, as when understanding man and ass, or whether one thing corresponds, as when understanding color and that which diffuses [sc. sight].
393 Ex hoc arguo: Pater intelligens se in illo signo primo originis aut intelligit essentiam et a proprietatem ut diversa obiecta formalia, aut praecise ut idem obiectum sub alio et alio modo concipiendi. Secundo modo non, quia tunc non esset maior differentia quam concipiendo Deum et deitatem, et ita non conciperet a proprietatem magis incommunicabilem quam deitatem incommunicabilem, nam homo non est incommunicabilis si humanitas est communicabilis, nec e converso; ita in proposito. Et tunc etiam, non magis esset intellectus Patris in essentia divina beatus quam in ƿa quae dicitur proprietas Patris, nec magis in a quam in proprietate Filii, et ita in duobus obiectis ut in proprietate Patris et Filii primo esset beatus.	393. From this I argue: the Father, when understanding himself in the first moment of origin, either understands the essence and property a [n.389] as diverse formal objects, or he understands them as precisely the same object under this and that mode of conceiving. But not in the second way, because then there would be no greater difference than when conceiving God and deity, and so one would not conceive the property a as more incommunicable than deity is, for man is not incommunicable if humanity is communicable, nor conversely; so it is in the intended proposition. And then too the intellect of the Father would not be more blessed in the divine essence than in a, which is said to be a property of the Father, nor more in a than in a property of the Son, and thus in two objects, as in the property of the Father and of the Son, he would first be blessed.
394 Et si detur primus modus, quod intellectus paternus habeat essentiam et a tamquam duo obiecta formalia, tunc arguo: intellectus ille nihil intelligit nisi intuitive, quia - ut patebit distinctione 3 quaestione 3 - omnis intellectio abstractiva et non intuitiva est aliquo modo imperfecta. Cognitio autem intuitiva est obiecti ut obiectum est praesens in exsistentia actuali, et hoc in se vel in alio continente eminenter totam entitatem ipsius; ergo quae cognoscuntur intuitive ut obiecta formalia distincta, vel unum continetur eminenter in alio, vel utrumque secundum propriam exsistentiam terminat actum ut est eius. Nihil autem intrinsecum personae divinae proprie continetur in aliquo eminenter, quia tunc non esset ens nisi per participationem illius continentis; igitur quaecumque intrinseca sunt diversa obiecta formalia intuitiva, secundum propriam exsistentiam actualem terminant intuitionem ut obiecta, et ita habent aliquam distinctionem ante actum intelligendi.	394. And if the first mode be given, that the paternal intellect has the essence and a as two formal objects [n.393], then I argue: that intellect understands nothing save intuitively, because – as will be plain from I d.3 p.1 q.3 nn.24, 28 [above n.139] – every abstractive and non-intuitive intellect is in some way imperfect. But intuitive knowledge is of an object as the object is present in actual existence, and this either in itself or in another containing eminently its whole being; therefore, as to the things that are known intuitively as formal distinct objects, either one is contained eminently in another, or each according to its own existence terminates the act as the act is of it. But nothing intrinsic to a divine person is properly contained in something eminently, because then it would not be a being save by participation in the thing containing it; therefore all intrinsic things that are diverse formal objects, according to their proper actual existence, terminate intuition as objects, and so they have some distinction before the act of understanding.
395 Si dicas quod essentia facit de se unum conceptum in intellectu Patris sed circa illam potest intellectus paternus facere diversas rationes, et praecise secundo modo distinguuntur essentia et a in ƿintellectu paterno, non autem primo, - contra: quidquid intellectus causat sine actione obiecti circa obiectum praecise virtute propria intellectus, et hoc loquendo de obiecto ut habet esse cognitum in intellectu praecise et de intellectu ut considerans est, illud est praecise relatio rationis. Nunc autem illa ratio quam facit essentia de se patet quod est absoluta, aliter non beatificaret intellectum Patris; praeter istam rationem absolutam nulla est alia in re ante actum intellectus, vel habetur propositum; nulla etiam est alia per te in intellectu Patris nisi per actum intellectus negotiantis et non per impressionem factam ab obiecto, quod non imprimit per te nisi unum conceptum: igitur quaelibet ratio alia a ratione absoluta essentiae esset praecise relatio rationis, et ita proprietas Patris qua est incommunicabilis erit relatio rationis, quod videtur inconveniens.	395. If you say that the essence makes of itself one concept in the intellect of the Father but that concerning it the paternal intellect can make diverse ideas, and that it is precisely in the second mode that essence and a in the paternal intellect are distinguished, but not in the first mode [n.393], – on the contrary: whatever the intellect, without the action of the object, causes concerning the object precisely by the proper virtue of the intellect, and this when speaking of the object as it has known being in the intellect precisely and from the intellect as considering it, that thing is precisely a relation of reason. But now the idea which the essence makes of itself is plainly absolute, otherwise it would not beatify the intellect of the Father; beyond this absolute idea there is no other in reality before the act of the intellect, or the intended proposition is attained [n.389]; also there is for you no other idea in the intellect of the Father save by an act of intellect being busy about it and not through an impression made by the object, which, for you, only imprints one concept; therefore any idea other than the absolute idea of the essence would be precisely a relation of reason, and thus the property of the Father by which he is incommunicable will be a relation of reason, which seems discordant.
396 Secundo oportet videre qualis sit ista differentia quae ponitur praecedere omnem actum intellectus. Dico quod tam in rebus quam in intellectu differentia maior manifesta est, et ex illa concluditur frequenter differentia minor, quae est immanifesta, sicut ex differentia creaturarum concluditur ƿdifferentia idearum in intellectu divino, sicut patet per Augustinum 83 Quaestionum quaestio 46. In re autem manifesta est distinctio rerum, et hoc duplex, suppositorum scilicet et naturarum; in intellectu manifesta est differentia duplex, modorum scilicet concipiendi et obiectorum formalium.	396. Second, it is necessary to see [n.388] of what sort the difference is that is posited to precede every act of intellect. I say that both in things and in the intellect a major difference is manifest, and that from it a minor difference is frequently inferred that is not manifest, just as from the difference of creatures a difference of ideas is inferred in the divine intellect, as is plain from Augustine On 83 Diverse Questions q.46 n.2. In reality, however, a distinction of things is manifest, and this a twofold one, namely of supposits and of natures; in the intellect there is manifest a twofold difference, namely of modes of conceiving and of formal objects [n.392].
397 Ex dictis concluditur differentia hic intenta, quae est immanifesta, nimirum quia minima in suo ordine, id est inter omnes quae praecedunt intellectionem.	397. From what has been said is inferred the difference here intended, which is not manifest, namely because it is least in its order, that is, among all those that precede the intellect.
398 Concluditur autem ex differentia reali sic: distinctio divinorum suppositorum est realis; ergo cum non possit idem eodem formaliter, quod est aliquid sui, convenire realiter tantum, sic quod non ex illo distingui, et differre realiter tantum, sic quod non illo convenire (quia si est omnino idem re, quare hoc est tantum principium identitatis et non distinctionis et idem tantum principium distinctionis et non identitatis?), concluditur aliqua differentia vel ƿdistinctio essentiae in qua supposita conveniunt ab illis rationibus quibus supposita distinguuntur.	398. Now the inference is made from the difference in reality in this way: the distinction of divine supposits is real; therefore since with the same one formally, which is something of itself, the same one cannot agree in reality to such an extent that it cannot be distinguished from it, and since it cannot differ from it in reality to such an extent that it cannot agree with it (because if it is altogether the same in reality, why is this one so great a principle of identity and non-distinction and the same one so great a principle of distinction and non-identity?), there is inferred some difference or distinction of the essence in which the supposits agree from the ideas in which the supposits are distinguished.
399 Similiter secunda via: ex differentia obiectorum formalium quorum neutrum continetur in aliquo eminenter, et hoc in intellectu intuitive considerante, concluditur aliqua differentia ante actum intellectus eorum quae cognoscuntur intuitive.	399. Likewise in the second way [n.396]: from the difference of formal objects, neither of which is contained eminently in something, and this in an intellect considering intuitively, there is inferred in the things known intuitively some difference prior to an act of intellect [n.394].
400 Sed numquid haec distinctio dicetur realis? Respondeo: non est realis actualis, intelligendo sicut communiter dicitur, 'differentia realis actualis' illa quae est differentia rerum et in actu, quia in una persona non est aliqua differentia rerum, propter simplicitatem divinam; et sicut non est realis actualis, ita non est realis potentialis, quia nihil est ibi in potentia quod non est in actu.	400. But is this distinction to be called real? I reply that it is not an actual real, understanding this in the way ‘actual real difference’ is commonly said to be that which is a difference of things and actually so, because there is not in one person any difference of things, on account of the divine simplicity; and just as the distinction is not an actual real so it is not a potential real, because nothing is in potency there that is not actual.
401 Potest autem vocari 'differentia rationis ', sicut dixit doctor quidam; - non quod 'ratio' accipiatur pro differentia formata ab intellectu, sed ut 'ratio' accipitur pro quiditate rei secundum quod quiditas est obiectum intellectus.	401. But it can be called ‘a difference of reason’, as a certain doctor said [Bonaventure]; – not as ‘reason’ is taken for a difference formed by the intellect, but as ‘reason’ is taken for the quiddity of a thing as quiddity is an object of the intellect.
402 Vel, alio modo, potest vocari 'differentia virtualis', quia illud ƿquod habet talem distinctionem in se non habet rem et rem, sed est una res, habens virtualiter sive praeeminenter quasi duas realitates, quia utrique realitati ut est in illa una re competit illud quod est proprium principium tali realitati, ac si ipsa esset res distincta: ita enim haec realitas distinguit et illa non distinguit, sicut si illa esset una res et ista alia.	402. Or, in another way, it can be called ‘virtual difference’, because what has such a distinction in itself does not have thing and thing, but it is one thing having virtually and pre-eminently two realities as it were, because to each reality, as it is in one thing, there belongs, as if it were a distinct thing, that which is a proper principle for such reality; for in this way this reality distinguishes and that one does not distinguish, as if the former were one thing and the latter another.
403 Vel, ut propriissime, dicatur: sicut possumus invenire in unitate multos gradus - primo, minima est aggregationis; in secundo gradu est unitas ordinis, quae aliquid addit supra aggregationem; in tertio est unitas per accidens, ubi ultra ordinem est informatio, licet accidentalis, unius ab altero eorum quae sunt sic unum; in quarto est per se unitas compositi ex principiis essentialibus per se actu et per se potentia; in quinto est unitas simplicitatis, quae est vere identitas (quidquid enim est ibi, est realiter idem cuilibet, et non tantum est unum illi unitate unionis, sicut in aliis modis) ita, adhuc ultra, non omnis identitas est formalis. Voco autem identitatem formalem, ubi illud quod dicitur sic idem, includit illud cui sic est idem, in ratione sua formali quiditativa et per se ƿprimo modo. In proposito autem essentia non includit in ratione sua formali quiditativa proprietatem suppositi, nec e converso. Et ideo potest concedi quod ante omnem actum intellectus est realitas essentiae qua est communicabilis, et realitas suppositi qua suppositum est incommunicabile; et ante actum intellectus haec realitas formaliter non est illa, vel, non est formaliter eadem illi sicut prius expositum est quid est 'formaliter'.	403. Or, most properly in a way, let it be said: just as we can find in unity many grades – first, there is the least degree of aggregation; in the second grade there is unity of order, which adds something more to aggregation; in the third there is unity per accidens, where beyond order there is an informing, although an accidental informing, of one thing by another of those that are in this way one; in the fourth there is a per se unity of a thing composed of essential principles that are per se in act and per se in potency; in the fifth there is the unity of simplicity, which is truly identity (for each of what exists there is really the same as any other, and is not just one with the unity of union, as in other modes) – thus, further still, not every identity is formal. But I call it formal identity when that which is called thus the same includes that with which it is thus the same in its own formal quidditative reason and per se in the first mode of per se. Now in the proposed case essence does not include in its formal quidditative reason the property of supposit, nor conversely. And therefore it can be conceded that before every act of intellect there is a reality of essence by which the essence is communicable and a reality of supposit by which the supposit is incommunicable; and before every act of intellect this reality is formally not that one, or it is not formally the same as that one in the way that what ‘formally’ is was previously expounded [n.390].
404 Numquid igitur debet concedi aliqua 'distinctio'? Melius est uti ista negativa 'hoc non est formaliter idem', quam, hoc est sic et sic 'distinctum'.	404. But should some ‘distinction’ then be conceded? It is better to use the negative ‘this is not formally the same’ than to say this is ‘distinct’ thus and so.
405 Sed nonne sequitur, a et b non sunt idem formaliter, ergo sunt formaliter distincta? Respondeo quod non oportet sequi, quia formalitas in antecedente negatur, et in consequente affirmatur.	405. But surely this follows, a and b are not the same formally, therefore they are formally distinct? I reply that it need not follow, because formality is denied in the antecedent and affirmed in the consequent.
406 Breviter ergo dico quod in essentia divina ante actum intellectus est entitas a et entitas b, et haec formaliter non est illa, ita quod intellectus paternus considerans a et considerans b habet ƿex natura rei unde ista compositio sit vera 'a non est formaliter b', non autem praecise ex aliquo actu intellectus circa a et b.	406. Briefly then I say that there is in the divine essence before an act of intellect entity a and entity b, and this one is not formally that one, such that the paternal intellect when considering a and considering b has, from the nature of the thing, that which makes this composite true ‘a is not formally b’, but not precisely from any act of intellect about a and b [n.389].
407 Ista differentia manifestatur per exemplum: si ponatur albedo species simplex non habens in se duas naturas, est tamen in albedine aliquid realiter unde habet rationem coloris, et aliquid unde habet rationem differentiae; et haec realitas non est formaliter illa realitas, nec e converso formaliter, immo una est extra realitatem alterius - formaliter loquendo - sicut si essent duae res, licet modo per identitatem istae duae realitates sint una res.	407. This difference is made clear by an example: if whiteness be set down as a simple species not having in itself two natures, yet there is something really in whiteness whereby it has the idea of color, and something whereby it has the idea of difference; and this reality is not formally that reality, nor formally the reverse, nay one is outside the reality of the other – speaking formally – just as if they were two things, although now by identity those two realities are one thing.
408 Hoc autem exemplum licet aliqualiter sit simile ad propositum (quoad hoc scilicet quod identitas realis non necessario concludit identitatem formalem cuiuslibet quod est in sic eodem ad quodcumque quod est in ipso), non tamen est omnino simile, quia aliqua compositio est in albedine, licet non rei et rei, tamen qualis non concederetur in Deo, propter non identitatem formalem. Ubi autem non identitas formalis aliquorum in eodem requirat aliquam compositionem et ubi non, dicetur distinctione 8 quaestione de attributis, et in illa quaestione 'An Deus sit in genere'. ƿ	408. But this example, although it is in a way similar to the proposed case (namely as to the fact that real identity does not necessarily entail the formal identity of anything in something that is thus the same with whatever is in it), is yet not altogether alike, because there is some composition in whiteness, although not of thing and thing, yet such is not conceded in God, because of formal non-identity. But where formal nonidentity of certain things in the same thing requires some composition, and where it does not, will be stated in distinction 8 in the question about attributes and in the question ‘Whether God is in a genus’ [I d.8 p.1 q.4.3].
409 Ista distinctio sive non identitas formalis, quae probata est prius per duas vel tres rationes, etiam potest probari per duas vel tres auctoritates Augustini: VII De Trinitate cap. 2 vel 3 'de magnis', vel 6 'de parvis': ((Omnis essentia quae relative dicitur est aliquid aliud excepto relativo)); et 3 cap. in principio: ((si Pater non est aliquid ad se ipsum, non est omnino qui relative dicatur)). Est ergo in re essentia ad se et non ad aliquid, et in re Pater in quantum Pater, relative dicitur, vel est ad aliud vel ad alium; non est autem formaliter eadem entitas ad se et non ad se; ergo etc.	409. This formal distinction or non-identity, which was proved before by three reasons [nn.390, 394, 398], can also be proved by two or three authorities of Augustine: On the Trinity VII ch.1 n.2 ‘about big things’ or ‘about little things’: “Every essence which is said relatively is something when the relative is removed;” and: “If the Father is not something in himself he is altogether not someone who may be spoken of relatively.” In reality therefore he is essence in itself and not in relation to another, and in reality the Father, insofar as he is Father, is said relatively, or he is in relation to another thing or another person; but he is not formally the same entity in himself and not in himself; therefore etc.
410 Item in eodem VII cap. 4 vel 12: ((Non eo Verbum quo sapientia, quia Verbum non ad se dicitur sed tantum relative, ad eum cuius Verbum est, sicut Filius ad Patrem; sapientia vero eo quo essenƿtia)). Et ex hoc concludit cap. 14: ((Quapropter non quia Pater non est Filius)), ((ideo non una essentia, quia his nominibus eorum relativa ostenduntur; uterque autern simul una sapientia, una essentia)). Est ergo, secundum ipsum, talis non identitas relationis ad absolutum in divinis, quod si unum est 'quo' respectu alicuius, alterum non erit 'quo' respectu eiusdem; esse autem 'quo' convenit alicui secundum rationem eius formalem; ergo unum illorum non est de ratione formali alterius sed extra eam, et per consequens non est formaliter idem alteri sicut supra exposita est ratio eius quod est 'non esse idem'. Et tamen ex hoc non sequitur simƿpliciter diversitas vel non identitas realis substantiae et relationis. Non enim illud quo Pater est Pater est aliud ab essentia, sed idem, secundum ipsum Augustinuma XI De civitate cap. 10 et cap. 11: ((Simplex dicitur Deus, quia est hoc quod habet, excepto quod relative quaecumque persona ad alteram dicitur)); nec est ipsa asicut Pater habet Filium et non est Filius)), sed ((quidquid habet Pater in se, ad quod)) per consequens ((non dicitur relative, illud est ipse)) vera identitate, licet non formali. ƿ	410. Again in the same place ch.2 n.3: “He is not Word by the fact he is wisdom, because Word is not said by itself but only relatively, in relation to him of whom he is the Word, as Son is in relation to Father; but he is wisdom by the fact he is essence.” And from this he concludes: “Wherefore not because the Father is not the Son…is there for that reason not one essence, because by these names of theirs relatives are indicated; but both are together one wisdom, one essence.” There is, therefore, according to him such a non-identity of relation with absolute in divine reality, because if one is the ‘by which’ with respect to another, the other will not be the ‘by which’ with respect to the same; but to be the ‘by which’ belongs to one according to its formal idea; therefore one of them is not of the formal idea of the other but is outside it, and consequently it is not formally the same as the other, just as the idea of that which is ‘not to be the same’ was expounded above [n.403]. And yet from this does not simply follow a real diversity or non-identity of substance and relation. For that by which the Father is Father is not other than the essence but the same, according to Augustine himself City of God XI ch.10 n.1: “God is called simple because he is what he has, except that each person is said relatively to the other;” nor is essence “as the Father has a Son but is not the Son,” but “whatever the Father has in himself, to which he is” as a consequence “not said relatively, that he himself is” by true identity, although not by formal identity.