Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D2/P2Q4J

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaest. 4
411 Ad primum argumentum principale dico quod maior sic est intelligenda: 'quaecumque aliqua identitate sunt eadem alicui, tali identitate inter se sic sunt eadem', quia non potest concludi aliqua identitas extremorum inter se nisi secundum illam identitatem sint eadem medio et medium in se sit sic idem; et per hanc propositionem sic intellectam 'tenet omnis forma syllogistica'. Omissa enim altera condicione, vel unitatis medii in se vel extremorum ad medium, non est syllogismus, sed paralogismus accidentis.	411. [To the first] – To the first principal argument [n.191] I say that the major is to be understood in this way: ‘all things that are by some identity the same as another, they are by such identity the same thus among themselves’, because an identity of extremes with each other cannot be concluded unless they are according to that identity the same as the middle and the middle is in itself the same in this way; and by this proposition so understood ‘every syllogistic form holds’. For when one or other condition is omitted, whether of the unity of the middle in itself or of the extremes to the middle, there is no syllogism, but the paralogism of the accident.
412 $a Alia responsio, ubi unitas medii est illimitata respectu unitatis extremorum. Exemplum de ubicatis et quandocatis limitatis: quae sunt simul secundum 'ubi' vel 'quando' cum illimitato, sic vel sic, non tamen sunt simul sic inter se. Aliud exemplum, familiarius, de anima intellectiva et de hac parte carnis et illa. Haec responsio evadit quando idem illimitatum est 'cum quo' vel 'in quo', non quando est 'hoc', nisi deficiat medio in se unitas requisita, sicut dicit responsio logica quae hic intra habetur. a$	412. Another response is where the unity of the middle is unlimited with respect to the unity of the extremes. An example of limited where-ness and limited when-ness: things that are together according to ‘where’ or ‘when’ without limitation, either in this way or in that, are nevertheless not the same thus among themselves. Another example, more familiar, is about the intellective soul and about this and that part of flesh [nn.386- 387]. – This response succeeds when the same unlimited thing is the ‘with which’ or the ‘in which’, not when it is the ‘this’, unless the requisite unity is lacking to the middle in itself, as the logical response contained here just above says.
413 Cum accipitur in minori quod 'quidquid est in essentia divina, ƿest idem illi', non est verum de identitate formali, et ideo non potest concludi formalis identitas extremorum inter se; quamdiu autem stat formalis distinctio relationum suppositi, stat distinctio suppositorum.	413. When it is taken in the minor that ‘whatever is in the divine essence is the same as it’ [n.191], this is not true of formal identity, and therefore the formal identity of the extremes among themselves cannot be inferred; but as long as the formal distinction of the relations of the supposit stands, the distinction of the supposits stands.
414 Et si dicas quod saltem ex reali identitate eorum ad essentiam concluditur identitas eorum inter se, dico quod essentia non habet identitatem talem unicam subsistentiae prout personae vel personalia ut extrema uniuntur in essentia, et ideo non potest concludi identitas subsistentium vel subsistentiae per rationem identitatis eorum in essentia ut in medio.	414. And if you say that at least from the real identity of them with the essence the identity of them among themselves is inferred, I say that the essence does not have such unique identity of subsistence to the extent the persons or the personal features as extremes are united in the essence, and therefore one cannot infer identity of subsistences or of subsistence by reason of their identity in the essence as in a middle term.
415 Per hoc patet ad talia sophismata 'hic Deus est Pater, Filius est hic Deus, ergo Filius est Pater', quod confirmatur, quia medio exsistente 'hoc aliquo', necesse est coniungi extrema. Respondeo. Sicut in creaturis commune se habet ut 'quale quid', singulare ut 'hoc aliquid', ita hic, essentia communis personis habet rationem 'qualis quid ', et persona habet rationem 'huius alicuius'. Medium igitur hic est 'quale quid' et non 'hic aliquis'. Concluditur autem identitas extremorum in conclusione ac si medium esset 'hoc aliquid'; similiter ibi ' videtur esse fallacia accidentis et consequentis, quia 'hic Deus' accipitur in praemissis ƿpro alio et alio supposito, et simiLiter fallacia figurae dictionis, commutando 'quale quid' in 'hoc aliquid'.	415. From this the response is plain to such sophisms as ‘this God is the Father, the Son is this God, therefore the Son is the Father’, which sophism has a confirmation in that, when ‘this something’ exists as middle term, the extremes must necessarily be conjoined. My reply. Just as in creatures the common is related as ‘qualified what’, the singular as ‘this something’, so here the essence common to the persons has the idea of ‘qualified what’, and the person has the idea of ‘this something’. The middle term here, then, is ‘qualified what’ and not ‘this someone’. But the identity of the extremes in the conclusion is inferred as if the middle term was ‘this something’; likewise there [in the above sophism] it seems there is a fallacy of the accident and of the consequent, because ‘this God’ is taken in the premises for different supposits, and likewise a fallacy of figure of speech, by change of ‘qualified what’ to ‘this something’.
416 Quod si arguas 'deitas est Pater, Filius est deitas, ergo etc.', licet deitas non supponat pro aliquo supposito in maiori et in minori, tamen ibi est figura dictionis, commutando 'quale quid' in 'hunc aliquem'. Nihil enim aliud est sic commutare, quam ex vi illationis interpretari illud habere rationem 'huius alicuius' quod habet rationem 'qualis quid'; ita sic inferens suppositum de supposito, interpretatur medium esse idem secundum rationem exsistentiae vel subsistentiae, quod falsum est.	416. But if you argue ‘the deity is the Father, the Son is deity, therefore etc.’, although deity does not stand for any supposit in the major or in the minor, yet there is a figure of speech there, by change of ‘qualified what’ to ‘this someone’. For to make a change like this is nothing other than from the force of the inference to interpret that which has the idea of ‘qualified what’ to have the idea of ‘this someone’; so to infer the supposition about the supposit in this way is to interpret the middle as being the same according to idea of existence or of subsistence, which is false.
417 Quod si saltem arguas 'extrema realiter esse idem inter se quia et in medio', concedo quod potest inferri identitas essentialis, non formalis vel suppositiva. Et ideo non debet inferri 'Filius est Pater', quia ibi denotatur ex vi sermonis identitas formalis vel hypostatica, sed sic debet inferri: 'Filius est idem cum eo quod est Pater' vel 'Filius est illud quod est Pater'.	417. But if at any rate you argue that ‘the extremes are really the same among themselves because they are the same also in the middle term’, I concede that essential identity can be inferred but not formal identity or identity of supposit. And therefore one should not infer ‘the Son is the Father’, because in this case formal or hypostatic identity is denoted by the form of the words, but one should infer ‘the Son is the same with that which the Father is’ or ‘the Son is that which the Father is’.
418 Quod si adhuc confirmetur illa maior argumenti principalis per hoc quod negando eam videtur destruere primum principium, ponendo scilicet affirmationem et negationem esse veras de eodem, ƿrespondeo: de aliquo habente veram identitatem sed non tantum unicam, formalem, necesse est idem ratione unius 'realitatis' formaliter praedicari de illa, et de alia 'realitate formaliter' non praedicari formaliter. Sicut albedo ratione alicuius realitatis quam habet in se convenit cum nigredine et ratione alterius non realiter convenit sed differt, nec affirmatio et negatio de eodem ratione eiusdem, scilicet 'realitatis formaliter' - dicuntur, ita hic, Pater ratione essentiae est idem quiditative et ratione proprietatis non est idem formaliter nec hypostatice, nec est affirmatio et negatio eiusdem identitatis de eodem nec ratione eiusdem; $a et licet diceretur affirmatio et negatio eiusdem identitatis de eodem, non tamen ratione eiusdem, puta si diceretur quod ratione paternitatis Pater non est idem quiditative Filio sed ratione essentiae. a$	418. But if there is still a confirmation of the major of the principal argument [n.191] through the fact that, by denying it, one seems to destroy a first principle, namely by positing affirmation and negation to be true of the same thing, I reply: about something that has true identity, but not so much unique or formal identity, the same thing must, by reason of one ‘reality’, be formally predicated of it and not be formally predicated of the other ‘reality formally’. Just as whiteness by reason of some reality which it has in itself agrees with blackness, and by reason of another reality does not really agree with it but differs, and the affirmation and negation are not said of the same thing by reason of the same thing – namely ‘of reality formally’ –, so here, the Father by reason of essence is the same quidditatively, and by reason of property is not the same formally or hypostatically, and the affirmation and negation are not said of the same identity about the same thing nor by reason of the same thing; and although the affirmation and negation be said of the same identity about the same thing, not however by reason of the same thing, to wit if it were said that by reason of paternity the Father is not the same quidditatively with the Son but by reason of essence.
419 Si contra arguas quod affirmatio differt ab affirmatione cuius unius negatio dicitur de alia vel stat cum alia quia neutrum est verum de affirmatione contradicente illi negationi, igitur si deitas stat cum non paternitate (puta in alia persona), ipsa deitas differret ƿa paternitate, quae numquam stat in eodem cum non paternitate, respondeo: maior posset concedi de non identitate formali, vel de non adaequata, quia unum illorum non determinatur ad alterum, ex quo stat cum eius opposito, - vel sub aliis verbis, de non identitate convertibili et praecisa. Sed si maior accipiat distinctionem realem simpliciter, neganda est; patet in albedine: accipiendo propriam realitatem unde sumitur genus, illi ex se non repugnat opposita differentiae nigredinis; tamen realitati unde accipitur differentia specifica albedinis, differentia nigredinis repugnat.	419. If on the contrary you say that affirmation differs from affirmation where the negation of one is said about something else or stands with something else, because the other is not true of the affirmation which contradicts the negation, therefore if deity stands with non-paternity (to wit in some other person), deity itself would differ from paternity, which never stands along with non-paternity in the same thing, I reply: the major may be conceded of formal, or not adequate, non-identity, because one of them is not determined to the other, wherefore it stands with the opposite of the other, – or in other words the major may be conceded of convertible and precise non-identity. But if the major takes real distinction simply, it is to be denied; the thing is plain in whiteness; by taking the proper reality from which the genus is taken, with that reality the opposite of the difference of blackness is not of itself repugnant; yet with the reality from which is taken the specific difference of whiteness, the difference of blackness is repugnant.
420 Et ista responsio debet intelligi quantum ad secundam partem maioris, quae dicit quod altera affirmationum 'stat' cum negatione. Sed prima pars maioris, quae accipit negationem 'dici' de affirmatione, posset maior quoad illam partem concedi si intelligatur 'dici' 'necessario et universaliter et per rationem propriam illius de quo dicitur', et hoc quando contradictio illa de qua est sermo est realis sive rei ad non rem, non autem rationis ad non rationem, nam tunc non sequitur nisi distinctio rationis affirmationis ab affirmatione.	420. And this response should be understood as to the second part of the major, which says that one or other affirmation ‘stands’ with the negation. But as to the first part of the major, which takes the negation ‘to be said’ of the affirmation, the major could, as to that part, be conceded if ‘to be said’ is understood ‘necessarily and universally and through the proper reason of that of which it is said’, and this when the contradiction which the words concern is real or is of thing to non-thing, but not of reason to nonreason, for then there only follows a distinction of reason of affirmation from affirmation.
421 Applicando primam partem maioris - ut vera est - ad propositum, sequitur quod Filius realiter distinguitur a Patre, non autem quod Deus vel deitas, quia de Deo non dicitur non Pater necessaƿrio et universaliter, nec per rationem subiecti, licet secundum aliquos dicatur particulariter ratione suppositi ipsius subiecti.	421. By applying the first part of the major – in the way it is true – to the proposed case, it follows that the Son is really distinguished from the Father, but not that God or deity is, because not-Father is not said of God necessarily and universally, nor by reason of the subject, although according to some [Henry of Ghent] it be said particularly by reason of the supposit of the subject.
422 Quod si arguas, illud quo Pater distinguitur a Filio sit a, a in quantum a aut est idem essentiae, aut aliud - si aliud, hoc est inconveniens, si in quantum a est idem, igitur in quantum distinguit est idem, et per consequens essentia distinguit - respondeo: dico quod nec verum est a in quantum a esse idem essentiae, nec a in quantum a est aliud ab essentia, et hoc, intelligendo illud quod sequitur reduplicationem accipi secundum rationem suam formalem et cum hoc habet esse rationem formalem inhaerentiae praedicati, sicut distinxi superius de unitate obiecti fruibilis in responsione ad tertium argumentum. Ad hoc est exemplum: homo enim et non ƿhomo sunt opposita immediata, et tamen formaliter de aliquo cum reduplicatione neutrum dicitur; sicut album nec in quantum album est homo nec in quantum album est non homo.	422. But if you argue, let that by which the Father is distinguished from the Son be a, then a, insofar as it is a, is either the same as the essence or different – if it is different, this is discordant; if insofar as a is the same, then, insofar as it distinguishes, it is the same as the essence, and consequently the essence distinguishes – I reply: I say that it is neither true that a insofar as it is a is the same as the essence nor that a insofar as it is a is different from the essence, and this by understanding that which follows the reduplication to be taken according to its formal reason, and that along with this it has to be the formal reason for the inherence of the predicate, just as I distinguished above in the case of unity of enjoyable object in response to the third argument [I d.1 n.58]. There is an example for this: for man and non-man are immediate opposites, and yet neither is said formally about anything along with reduplication; just as a white thing is not man insofar as it is white nor is it non-man insofar as it is white.
423 Et si dicas, 'idem' et 'aliud' circa ens sunt immediate opposita, dico quod non sequitur ((sunt immediate opposita, ergo alterum praedicatur de quolibet cum 'in quantum')) ita quod ratio subiecti sit formalis ratio inhaerentiae alterius contradictorii, sed sufficit quod alterum contradictoriorum vere insit cuilibet subiecto, licet non per se ratione subiecti. Si autem accipiatur ly 'in quantum' primo modo, ut tantum notet a accipi secundum suam rationem formalem, dico quod a quocumque modo formaliter acceptum est idem essentiae, licet non formaliter idem essentiae: sed tunc non sequitur (('a formaliter' est idem essentiae, 'a formaliter' distinguit, ergo essentia distinguit)), sed est figura dictionis, commutando 'hunc aliquem' in 'quale quid'.	423. And if you say ‘the same’ and ‘other’ are immediate opposites in the case of being, I say that it does not follow “they are immediate opposites, therefore one or other is said of anything along with ‘insofar as’” such that the idea of the subject is the formal reason for the inherence of the other contradictory, but it suffices that one or other of the contradictories truly exists in any subject, although not per se by reason of the subject. But if the ‘insofar as’ is taken in the first way, so that it only indicates that the a is taken according to its formal reason [n.422], I say that a, when in any way formally taken, is the same as the essence, although it is not formally the same as the essence; but in that case this inference does not follow “‘a formally’ is the same as the essence, ‘a formally’ distinguishes, therefore the essence distinguishes,” but there is a figure of speech, by change of ‘this someone’ to ‘qualified what’.
424 Si adhuc instes quod a in quantum a est ens vel res, quae res, vel quod ens? - si essentia, habetur propositum, si res et non essentia, ergo alia res - respondeo: concedo quod est ens et res, et hoc, utroque modo accipiendo 'in quantum', quia si aliquod ƿpraedicatum per se primo modo inest alicui, ergo inerit eodem modo per se sive illud subiectum sit res distincta a quocumque quod est extra rationem eius sive contineatur per identitatem in aliquo quod est extra rationem eius; continentia enim talis non tollit rationem formalem nec ea quae insunt per se primo modo.	424. If still you insist that a insofar as it is a is a being or a thing, so which thing or which being? – if the essence then the proposition [n.191] is obtained, if a thing and not the essence, then some other thing – I reply: I concede that it is a being and a thing, and this by taking ‘insofar as’ in both ways, because if some predicate per se in the first mode is present in something, then it will be present in the same mode per se whether the subject is a thing distinct from whatever is outside the idea of it or is contained by identity in something which is outside the idea of it; for such containing does not take away the formal reason nor what is present per se in the first mode.
425 Sed cum quaeris, quod ens, - dico quod ens quod est a; sicut si substantia est per se ens, quod ens, descendendo sub ente, est per se substantia, non aliud. Ultra si quaeras, estne per se essentia, dictum est quod non. Si infers 'ergo alia per se res', fallacia consequentis est 'non est per se haec res, et est res, ergo est alia res', quia in antecedente negatur 'per se identitas, in consequente 'identitas', et ita destruitur antecedens.	425. But when you ask, which being? [n.424], – I say the being which a is; just as if a substance is a per se being, that being, by descending under being, is per se substance, and not anything else. If you ask further whether it is per se essence, it has been said [n.423] that it is not. If you infer ‘therefore it is another per se thing’, it is the fallacy of the consequent to say ‘it is not per se this thing, and it is a thing, therefore it is another thing’ [n.424], because in the antecedent ‘per se identity’ is denied, in the consequent ‘identity’, and so the antecedent is destroyed.
426 Si obicis: 'est per se res, et non per se essentia, ergo per se alia res', et ultra, 'ergo alia res'.	426. Suppose you object: ‘it is per se a thing, and it is not per se essence’, ‘therefore it is per se another thing’, and further, ‘therefore it is another thing’.
427 Probatur prima consequentia, nam circa ens 'idem' et 'aliud' sunt immediate opposita; ergo si est per se res, est per se res eadem essentiae (et ita per se essentia) vel per se alia res. Secunda conseƿquentia probatur, quia 'per se' non est determinatio distrahens,patet.	427. The proof of the first consequence is that in the case of a being ‘same’ and ‘different’ are immediate opposites; therefore if it is per se a thing, it is per se the same thing as the essence (and so it is per se essence), or it is per se some other thing. The proof of the second consequence is that ‘per se’ is not a determination that divides, as is plain.
428 Praeterea, probatur prima consequentia, et est ad principale: si est per se res, aut res quae est essentia, aut res quae non est essentia. Si per se res quae est essentia, ergo est per se essentia; si est per se res quae non est essentia, ergo est res alia ab essentia.	428. Further, the first consequence is proved, and it is to the principal point, because if it is per se a thing, it is either a thing which is the essence or a thing which is not the essence. If it is per se a thing which is the essence, therefore it is per se the essence; if it is per se a thing which is not the essence, then it is a thing other than the essence.
429 Praeterea, tertio: essentia est per se res, et proprietas per se est res, et non sunt per se eadem res; ergo sunt per se duae res, et ita utrumque est per se res alia ab altero.	429. Further, third: essence is per se a thing, and a property is per se a thing, and they are not per se the same thing; therefore they are per se two things, and so each is per se a different thing from the other.
430 Ad primum. Licet posset conclusio primi argumenti distingui quod ibi esset alietas perseitatis vel perseitas alietatis, et primo modo negaretur ly 'per se' per negationem inclusam in alietate, secundo modo affirmaretur, quia praecederet vim negationis, et per consequens primo modo consequens primae consequenƿtiae concederetur - sed tunc consequentia secunda peccaret secundum consequens a destructione antecedentis, secundo modo prima consequentia peccaret secundum consequens - tamen quia non videtur bene logice dictum quod negatio, si qua includatur in alietate, possit aliquid attingere praeter terminum respectus et formam in qua vel secundum quam notatur esse alietas, nec videtur bene logice dictum quod ly 'per se', quod dicit modum inhaerentiae et per consequens determinat compositionem, possit negari per negationem aliquam in praedicato, ideo aliter potest dici, quod in consequente primae consequentiae tantum potest haberi de vi sermonis unus sensus, videlicet quod hoc praedicatum, esse rem aliam ab essentia, 'per se' insit proprietati; et iste sensus est falsus, quia sic bene sequitur falsum illud quod infertur in secunda consequentia. Ideo simpliciter nego primam consequentiam, cum duae propositiones in antecedente sint verae et consequens falsum.	430. To the first [n.426]. Although the conclusion of the first argument could be distinguished, because there would be there a difference of per se-ity or a per se-ity of difference, and in the first way the ‘per se’ would be denied by the negation included in the difference, in the second way it would be affirmed, because it would precede the way of negation, and consequently in the first way the consequent of the first consequence would be conceded – but then the second consequence would offend according to the consequent by destroying the antecedent [n.425], in the second way the first consequence would offend according to the consequent – however, because it does not seem logically well said that negation, if it is in any way included in the difference, could attain something other than the term of the respect and than the form in which, or according to which, the difference is noted to exist, nor does it seem logically well said that the ‘per se’, which indicates the mode of inherence and consequently determines the composite, could be denied by some denial in the predicate, therefore one should say in another way that, in the consequent of the first consequence, there can be obtained, by force of the words, only one sense, namely that this predicate, to be a thing other than the essence, is ‘per se’ present in the property; and this sense is false, because thus the false thing that is inferred in the second consequence very well follows. Therefore I simply deny the first consequence, since the two propositions in the antecedent are true and the consequent false.
431 Ad probationem consequentiae dico quod 'idem' et 'diversum' non sunt immediata circa quodcumque praedicatum ut per se dictum de subiecto, immo nec contradictoria sic sunt immediata: nec enim homo per se est albus nec per se est non albus. ƿTamen inter contradictoria absolute sumpta vel absolute dicta de quocumque, non est medium; ita si proprietas est res, est 'eadem' vel 'alia' verum est, sed cum 'per se' non valet, quod sit 'per se eadem' vel 'per se alia'.	431. To the proof of the consequence [n.427] I say that ‘same’ and ‘diverse’ are not immediate about any predicate as said per se of a subject, nay rather contradictories are not thus immediate; for man is not per se white nor per se not-white. Yet between contradictories absolutely taken or absolutely said of something, there is no middle; so if a property is a thing, it is true it is the ‘same’ or ‘other’, but with a ‘per se’ it is not valid that it be ‘per se the same’ or ‘per se other’.
432 Ad secundum. Antecedens potest distingui secundum compositionem et divisionem. In sensu compositionis neutrum dandum est; sicut enim non est dandum quod sit per se essentia vel per se non essentia, ita nec alterum membrum illius disiunctivae, cum 'quae est', in sensu compositionis. Nec ex hoc negantur ambo contradictoria, quia si dicas de incomplexis, habetur quod neutrum illorum dicitur per se de subiecto; hoc concedo. Si vis habere contradictoria complexa, dico quod erunt ista. 'aut proprietas est per se res quae est essentia, aut non est per se res quae est essentia'; et haec negativa est vera, sed non infert 'ergo est per se res quae non est essentia', sicut non sequitur 'homo non est per se ƿalbus', 'ergo est per se non albus'.- In sensu divisionis est danda pars affirmativa disiunctivae; sed non sequitur ultra 'ergo est per se essentia', quia ex identitate reali infertur formalis, nam antecedens in sensu divisionis tantum notat identitatem realem per ly 'quae est'.	432. To the second [n.428]. The antecedent can be distinguished according to composition and division. In sense of composition neither [part of the antecedent] is to be granted; for just as one must not grant that it is per se essence or per se non-essence [n.431], so neither must one grant the other member of this disjunctive, with ‘which is’, in sense of composition. Nor are by this both contradictories denied, because if you are speaking of the terms, it is given that neither of them is said per se of the subject; this I concede. If you wish to hold to the contradictory propositions, I say that they will be these: ‘either the property is per se a thing which is essence, or it is not per se a thing which is essence’; and the negative here is true, but it does not entail ‘therefore it is per se a thing which is not essence’, just as it does not follow ‘a man is not per se white’, ‘therefore he is per se non-white’. – In sense of division the affirmative part of the disjunctive must be granted; but it does not further follow ‘therefore it is per se essence’, because formal identity is being inferred from real identity, for the antecedent in sense of division only indicates real identity by the ‘which is’.
433 Aliter posset distingui antecedens praedictum, ut per implicationem illam 'quae est' intelligatur inhaerentia formalis vel tantum identica. Primo modo neutra pars est danda, quia neutrum oppositorum per se inest illi rei quae per se dicitur de proprietate. Secundo modo est danda pars affirmativa, sed non sequitur ulterius propositum propter positionem consequentis.	433. In another way could the aforesaid antecedent [n.432] be distinguished, so that by the implication ‘which is’ be understood formal inherence or only identical inherence. In the first way neither part is to be granted, because neither of the opposites is per se in the thing which is said per se of the property. In the second way the affirmative part is to be granted, but the intended proposition [n.191] does not in addition follow, because of the positing of the consequent [n.428].
434 Haec secunda distinctio non habetur ex vi sermonis, quia illa compositio implicata non determinatur per aliquid quod notet eam dicere inhaerentiam formalem, sed tantum identicam; prima distinctio habetur ex vi sermonis, et licet ibi 'quae est' non notet in sensu compositionis formalem inhaerentiam, tamen ex unitate extremi, ut est quasi specificativa et determinativa constructio, habet essentia denominari 'per se inesse' subiecto. ƿ	434. This second distinction [n.433] does not hold by force of the words, because the implicated composite [‘which is’] is not determined to something which indicates that it means formal inherence, but only identical inherence; the first distinction [n.432] does hold by force of the words, and although ‘which is’ there does not indicate formal inherence in sense of composition, yet from the unity of the extreme, as it is a quasi specific or determinative construction, the essence has to be denominated ‘per se present in’ the subject.
435 Ad secundum dico quod accidentale aut accipitur pro extraneo, aut accipitur proprie, pro eo quod quasi perficit aliquid accidentaliter quod praeexsistit in se perfectum. Si secundo modo, dico quod non omne ens omni enti in quo est est essentiale vel accidentale; est enim medium inter accidentale et essentiale, ut contrahens, sicut differentia contrahit genus, quia tale non est substantiale nec accidentale, accipiendo hoc modo. Et sic in divinis nihil est accidentale, sed praeter essentiam aliquid est non essentiale. - Si autem accipiatur accidentale primo modo, quidquid non est de ratione eius formali sed extraneum, licet non proprie sic dicatur accidentale, sic differentia esset accidentalis respectu generis; et hoc modo accipit Philosophus accidentale pro extraneo in fallacia accidentis. Sic potest dici accidentale alicui ƿquidquid est ei extraneum ut illud comparatur ad aliquod tertium praedicatum.	435. [To the second] – To the second [n.192] I say that what is accidental is either taken for something extraneous or is taken properly, for that which as it were perfects something accidentally which in itself pre-exists as perfect. If in the second way, I say that not every being is essential or accidental to every being that it is in; for there is a middle between the accidental and the essential, as in the case of that which contracts, as difference contracts a genus, because such a thing is neither substantial nor accidental, taking it in this way. And thus in divine reality nothing is accidental, but there is beside the essence something non-essential. – But if the accidental is taken in the first way, anything that is not of the formal idea of it but extraneous, although it not properly be called accidental, would thus be an accidental difference with respect to the genus; and in this way the Philosopher takes the accidental for the extraneous in the fallacy of the accident [Sophistical Refutations 1.5.166b28-30]. Thus can anything be called accidental to something which is extraneous to it as it is compared to some third predicate.
436 Ad tertium dico quod si in maiore per illud 'si' intelligatur condicio possibilis, maior est vera et minor falsa; nulla enim positione possibili posita potest deesse secunda persona in divinis quin summum bonum et summa perfectio deesset. Et si probes, si illa deesset, summa perfectio esset in Patre, dico quod si illa deesset, summa perfectio deesset; et si illa deesset et Pater non deesset, summa perfectio adesset: et ita ipsam deesse et Patrem esse includit contradictionem. - Si autem in maiore per ly 'si' ponatur positio incompossibilis, dico quod maior est falsa; illud enim ponendum est in summo bono quod non potest poni non esse sine positione incompossibilium.	436. [To the third] – To the third [n.193] I say that if in the major by the ‘if’ is understood a possible condition, the major is true and the minor false; for, when a possible is posited, by no positing can the second person in divine reality be lacking without the supreme good and supreme perfection being lacking. And if you prove that, if the second person were lacking, supreme perfection would exist in the Father, I say that if that person were lacking, supreme perfection would be lacking; and if the second person were lacking and the Father was not lacking, supreme perfection would be present; and so for supreme perfection to be lacking and for the Father to be present includes a contradiction. – But if in the major by the ‘if’ is posited an incompossible positing, I say that the major is false; for in the supreme good must be posited that which cannot be posited not to be without the positing of incompossibles.
437 Ad ultimum dico quod illa ratio de 'necesse esse' debet sic intelligi: quidquid est ex se necesse esse, habet ex se esse actualissimum, ita quod per nihil - qualitercumque aliud a se - exspectat aliquam actualitatem essendi. Et ideo ex se est indivisibile, quia si posset dividi, tunc ab illis per quae divideretur exspectaret aliquam actualitatem essendi quam haberet in illis diviƿsis; et oporteret tunc illa distinguentia illa necesse esse quod essent formaliter necessitates essendi, quia essent ultimae actualitates necessitatis in illis diversis necesse esse, sine quibus non haberent actualissimam entitatem, quia divisibile non habet entitatem actualissimam sive exsistentiam actualissimam. Per hoc igitur tenet ratio illa superius posita in quaestione de unitate Dei, ex ratione 'necesse esse', quae etiam tacta fuit quaestione prima secundae distinctionis, quod necesse esse non dividitur in plura. Quia a et b si non essent formaliter necessitates essendi, antequam etiam intelligerentur in aliquo illorum in quibus necesse esse dividitur, cum sint ultimae actualitates sine quibus actualitas illa communis non esset, illa actualitas communis non esset necesse esse, quia requireret aliquo modo aliquid aliud a se per quod esset. Sed hoc non concludit de diversis personis in eadem entitate necessaria; nam illa entitas ex se necessaria non exspectat aliquam actualitatem ab ipsis distinguentibus personas, quia non dividitur per illa distinguentia personas, et illa distinguentia personas non sunt quasi ultimae actualitates quibus talia entia exsistunt.	437. [To the fourth] – To the final one [n.195] I say that the reason about ‘necessary being’ must be thus understood: whatever is of itself a necessary being has of itself the most actual existence, such that it does not by anything – in any way other than itself – expect any actuality of existing. And therefore it is of itself indivisible, because if it could be divided, then from the things by which it might be divided it would expect some actuality of existing that it would have in the divided parts; and then it would be necessary that the things distinguishing that necessary being would formally be necessities of existing, because they would be ultimate actualities of necessity in those diverse necessary beings, without which they would not have the most actual being, because the divisible does not have the most actual being or the most actual existence. On this basis, then, the reason holds that was above posited [n.177] in the question about the unity of God, from the reason about ‘necessary being’, which was also touched on in the first question of the second distinction [n.71], that necessary being is not divided among several things. Because if a and b were not formally necessities of existing, even before they were understood in any of the things among which necessary being is divided, then, since they are ultimate actualities without which that common actuality would not exist, that common actuality would not be necessary being, because it would in some way require something other than itself by which it would be. But this does not hold of diverse persons in the same necessary entity; for that entity, which is of itself necessary, does not expect any actuality from the things that distinguish the persons, because it is not divided by the things that distinguish the persons, and the things that distinguish the persons are not as it were ultimate actualities by which such beings exist.
438 Cum ergo arguitur 'a et b (intelligendo hic per ipsa duas proƿprietates personales) aut sunt formaliter necessitates essendi, aut non', concedi potest quod non sunt formaliter necessitates essendi; nec sequitur 'ergo sunt possibilitates', quia per identitatem sunt una illa necessitas essendi. Sed si a et b essent in diversis, oporteret dicere quod essent formaliter necessitates vel entitates possibiles, quia non possent esse eaedem alicui entitati ex se necessariae; illa enim entitas communis cui essent eaedem esset quasi potentialis ad exsistendum ut praeintelligitur ante illam rationem contrahentem vel dividentem.	438. When therefore it is argued ‘a and b (understanding by these here two personal properties) are either formally necessities of existing or they are not’ [n.195], one can concede that they are not formally necessities of existing; and it does not follow ‘therefore they are possibilities’, because they are by identity that one necessity of existence. But if a and b were in diverse things, one would have to say that they were formally necessities or possible entities, because they could not be the same as some entity that was of itself necessary; for that common entity, to which they were the same, would be as it were a potential for existing, in the way this common entity is understood before the idea that contracts or divides it.
439 Contra hoc ipsi a in quantum a aut repugnat posse deficere, aut non. Si sic, a inquantum a est necessarium, et ita cui est forma, est ratio necessario essendi. Si non, ergo per nihil aliud potest ipsi a praecise in quantum a repugnare, ergo per nihil tollitur quin ipsi a praecise in quantum a sit compossibile 'deficere'; ergo semper, praecise sumptum, est 'possibile deficere'; ergo repugnat 'necessario ex se'. - Ad istud.	439. Against this [nn.438, 437]: being able to be lacking is either repugnant to the a, insofar as it is a, or is not repugnant. If it is, a insofar as it is a is necessary, and so it is the reason for necessarily existing for that for which it is the form. If not, then by nothing can something else be repugnant to a precisely insofar as it is a, therefore by nothing is there taken away from a, precisely insofar as it is a, its being able ‘to be lacking’; therefore, as precisely taken, it is always ‘able to be lacking’; therefore it is repugnant to ‘necessarily of itself’. – To this…