Authors/Duns Scotus/Ordinatio/Ordinatio I/D28/Q1

Translated by Peter Simpson.

Latin	English
Quaestio 1	Twenty Eighth Distinction Question One: Whether ‘Unbegotten’ is Property of the Father Himself
ƿ1 Circa distinctionem vigesimam octavam quaero utrum 'ingenitum' sit proprietas ipsius Patris. Quod non: Nulla proprietas formaliter dicitur de essentia, quia tunc ipsa non distingueret, sicut nec essentia, quae non dicitur formaliter generans nec genita, nec spirans nec spirata; sed essentia, ut videtur, formaliter est ingenita; ergo 'ingenitum' non est proprietas alicuius personae. - Spiritus etiam Sanctus, ut probabo, formaliter est ingenitus; ergo etc. Probatio assumpti, quia essentia non est genita, ergo est non genita (consequentia patet per Philosophum II Perihermeƿneias: 'Ad negativam de praedicato finito sequitur affirmativa de praedicato infinito'), - et ulterius, ergo est ingenita (haec consequentia probatur per Augustinum V Trinitatis cap. 8, ubi dicit quod idem est 'ingenitum' et non genitum). Et consimiliter potest argui de Spiritu Sancto: 'si non est genitus, ergo est non genitus'.	1. About the twenty eighth distinction I ask whether ‘unbegotten’ is property of the Father himself. That it is not: No property is formally asserted of the essence, because then it would not distinguish [sc. the persons], just as neither does the essence distinguish, which is not said to be formally begetter or begotten, or inspiriter or inspirited; but the essence, as it seems, is unbegotten; therefore ‘unbegotten’ is not a property of any person. – Also the Holy Spirit, as I will prove, is formally unbegotten; therefore etc. Proof of the assumption, because the essence is not begotten, therefore it is nonbegotten (the consequence is plain from the Philosopher De Interpretatione 10.2020-21: “On a negative proposition about a finite predicate follows an affirmative about the infinite predicate”), – and further, therefore it is unbegotten (this consequence is proved from Augustine On the Trinity V ch.7 n.8 where he says that ‘unbegotten’ is the same as not-begotten). And the like can be argued about the Holy Spirit: ‘if he is not begotten then he is non-begotten’.
2 Praeterea, omnis proprietas personalis est relativa, quia quidquid ad se dicitur, est commune tribus (ex V Trinitatis); ingenitum autem non dicit relationem, ut probabo; ergo etc. Probatio minoris, quia si sic, tunc omne ingenitum est relatum. Haec est vera 'omne genitum est relatum'; hanc converto per contrapositionem: 'ergo omne non relatum est non genitum'. Tunc arguo: omne non genitum est relatum, omne non relatum est non genitum, ergo omne non relatum est relatum. Conclusio est impossibilis, ergo et aliqua praemissarum; non illa quae sequitur ex vera per conversionem per contrapositionem, ergo alia. ƿ	2. Further, every personal property is relative, because whatever is said to itself is common to the three (from ibid. V ch.8 n.9); but unbegotten does not state a relation, as I will prove; therefore etc. Proof of the minor, because if it does [sc. state a relation], then everything begotten is a related thing. This proposition is true: ‘everything begotten is a related thing’; I convert this by contraposition: ‘therefore every non-related thing is nonbegotten’. Then I argue: every non-begotten is a related thing, every non-related thing is non-begotten, therefore every non-related thing is related. The conclusion is impossible, therefore one of the premises is also impossible; not the one that follows from a true proposition by conversion through contraposition, therefore the other one.
3 Item, si innascibilitas esset proprietas Patris, ergo et inspirabilitas esset proprietas Patris et Filii, et ita essent sex notiones, quod negatur communiter.	3. Again, if not being able to be born were a property of the Father, then not being able to be inspirited would be a property of the Father and the Son, and so there would be six notions [sc. in divine reality], which is commonly denied.
4 Praeterea, Ambrosius IV De Spiritu Sancto noluit uti hoc nomine 'ingenitus', sicut Magister dicit in littera.	4. Further, Ambrose On the Holy Spirit IV [On the Incarnation ch.8 nn.79-80] did not want to use the name ‘unbegotten’, as the Master says in the text [I d.13 ch.4 n.117].
5 Oppositum: Augustinus Ad Orosium: 'Non duos esse ingenitos, certa fides declarat'.	5. The opposite: Augustine to Orosius [Ps.-Augustine, Dialogue of 65 Questions q.2]: “Sure faith declares that there are not two unbegottens.”