II. Opinion of Avicenna for the Opposite Side of the Question

A. Exposition of the Opinion

72. The opinion of Avicenna seems to be for the opposite side of the question. He allows that a creature can create in his Metaphysics 9 ch.4, where he posits that the second intelligence is a productive cause of the third, and the third of the fourth, and so on and so on. But the second intelligence is a creature, and the production of the third intelligence is creation, in the way he speaks of creation and creature in Metaphysics 6 ch.2, namely in that creation is production from nothing. And creation comes after nothing, not in order of duration but of nature, as Avicenna expounds in the same place, or it comes from nothing, that is, not from supposing anything first of the produced thing. He posits that in this way the second intelligence is produced by God, and the third by the second - with nothing presupposed and after non-being in order of nature, though not in order of duration, because he does not posit any newness.

73. The following sort of reason can be put together for this opinion: from a cause altogether one there is only one immediate effect (for otherwise there would be no reason for a distinction in the effect; for why is this effect different from that if the cause of this and of that is altogether one?); but the first thing is altogether one in itself; therefore since the intelligences are several, they will not come immediately from one thing; therefore one intelligence comes from another intelligence.

74. If Aristotle agreed with Avicenna here in these two propositions - namely ‘intelligence is produced, that is, it is a being from another, though without novelty’ and ‘from something altogether simple only one thing can immediately come to be’ - then he would have to agree with him in the conclusion.

75. One can also argue for this opinion in the following way, that the Philosopher says in Meterologica 4.3.380a12-15, “Each thing is perfect when it can produce another like itself.” But the intelligences are more perfect than corruptible bodily substances. Therefore, since body can produce body, much more can intelligence produce intelligence. But an intelligence can only be produced by creation, since it does not have matter as part of itself. Therefore etc.

B. Refutation of the Opinion

1. The Reason Proposed by Thomas Aquinas.

76. An argument against this opinion is as follows [Aquinas ST Ia q.45 a.5 ad 1]: “What participates in some nature does not produce another like itself in that nature save by applying the nature to something else (for man cannot be the cause of human nature absolutely because thus he would be cause of himself; but man is cause that human nature is in ‘this generated man’, and so he presupposes the matter whereby ‘this man’ is). But any created thing participates in the nature of being, because only God is his own being. Therefore no created thing can produce any being unless something is presupposed to its action whereby the product may be a ‘this’. But this sort of supposition cannot hold in the case of an immaterial substance, because an immaterial substance is a ‘this’ through its own form, by which it has being. Therefore, an immaterial substance cannot produce another immaterial substance as to that substance’s ‘being simply’.”

77. This reasoning, which has in some way been rejected elsewhere [Ord. II d.3 nn.229-233, 241-246], supposes first that ‘this man’ is a ‘this’ only through matter, and second that an angel is a ‘this’ through its form.

78. Likewise, when in the major is taken “What participates in some nature does not produce another like itself in that nature save by applying the nature to something else,” then: - Either this is for the reason that the nature must be participated by the product, and then, from the fact that the nature is participated by it, something must be presupposed to which the nature is applied. And then it would follow that God could not create an angel: First because an angel would participate ‘being’ and so something must be presupposed to which ‘being’ might be applied, which is against the idea of creation. Second because, as the proof of the major shows [n.76], the product would have to be a

‘this’ through what was presupposed; but, according to them [Aquinas and his followers] an angel cannot be a ‘this’ through anything that is presupposed, because it is a ‘this’ through its form. Therefore, the reason the major is true cannot be because the nature to be communicated is participated by the product.

79. Or if, alternatively, it be said that the major is true is because the nature communicating the nature participates in the nature [n.76], this cannot be the reason, because nothing is presupposed to the being itself in that very agent (for otherwise the producer itself could not be created). Therefore, neither is it necessary that anything such be presupposed in what is made like the producer in being.

80. Again, being is participated either as some act different from essence, or as the same as essence or as the first act of the thing.

If in the first way, no proof is given that the product cannot create, for although being presupposes something in which it is received, yet essence presupposes nothing; and so, although what participates being is not created as to being, there is no proof that it could not be created as to the substance or essence that is presupposed.

If in the second way, even less is the proposed conclusion got that being cannot be created and cannot be so by what participates being just as by something else. For in things here below each individual participates the nature of the species, and yet this nature can be the first term of production in one individual and the principle of producing in another individual. And that matter is presupposed in this case is not on account of the nature to be participated, but because the form, which is part of the participated nature, is a material form.

2. Scotus’ own Argument, Drawn from Three Propositions

81. Setting this response aside then [n.76], I argue against Avicenna on the basis of three propositions. The first of these is that ‘no accidental act is necessarily required in that which creates a substance as something that necessarily precedes the term of creation’. The second is that ‘the intellection of an angel is accidental to an angel’. From these two follows that intellection is not necessarily required in an angel previous to the creation of substance. The third proposition is that ‘for producing anything outside an angel, the intellection of the angel as something preceding is necessarily required’. And there follows the initial point intended, namely that ‘no substance can be created by an angel’.

a. The First Proposition

82. The proof of the first proposition is that the act (necessarily preceding the term of creation) is required either as an act productive of the term or as the formal initial productive of the term (an example of the first: heating in respect of heat generated in wood; an example of the second: heat in the fire in respect of the heating of the wood).

83. But the act is not required in the first way, because an act productive of something and a formal productive act are in the same thing; so an act immanent to the agent as a productive act is not required to produce anything outside.

84. Nor is the act required in the second way [n.82], because an accidental act cannot be the formal initial of producing a substance.

First because an accident necessarily requires, in its existing, a receptive potency [sc. a substance able to receive it]; but every form requiring a receptive potency necessarily requires, if it is active, a passive potency in its acting, otherwise the form terminating the action would be more removed from matter than the form is that is the principle of the action - and this is unacceptable because removal from matter argues perfection; but the formal term of action cannot be more perfect than the formal principle of acting.

Second because accident is more imperfect than substance, from Metaphysics 7.1.1028a29-36; but nothing is a formal principle of producing a thing more perfect than itself. For if it is a univocal producer it is equally perfect, and if it is an equivocal one it must be more perfect. But never can something more imperfect than the product produce something more perfect than itself.

85. [Objections and their solution] - A response is made here that an accident can be the principle of producing a substance by virtue of a substance, because it is an instrument of a substance - though it cannot do so by its own virtue (an example from heat, which is an instrument of the soul in generating flesh, On the Soul 2.4.416b27-29).

86. Against this: every instrument, or anything acting in virtue of another, either attains the initial effect or disposes for the initial term of the act. But neither of these is given in the matter at issue. For an accident cannot attain the effect of the initial agent, namely an agent creating a substance, because if the initial agent were a univocal agent it would not necessarily require any agent intermediary between its form and its effect. But an equivocal agent is more perfect than a univocal one. Therefore, it does not necessarily require such an intermediary, and consequently does not have an instrument through which to attain the term. Nor can an accident serve as preceding disposition, because creation presupposes nothing that is disposed to it.

87. A confirmation of this [n.86] is that where accidents are instruments for generating a substance, they do not reach the initial term but only a certain disposition on the way to it, as is plain of the alterative qualities of the elements, which do not attain the substantial form. Otherwise quality would be a principle that acts immediately on the matter [sc. prime matter] that is receptive of substantial form, which is unacceptable because quality can only be received in a substance composite in its existence [sc. composite of matter and act]. Neither then can an accident act save on a composite substance and so not on pure matter.

88. Hereby is plain the answer to the point about heat in On the Soul [n.85]: for heat is called an instrument of the soul in the generation of animated flesh in so far as it is a principle for alteration in an alteration that is previous to generation - and not because, in the instant of generation, it reaches the form of flesh as its term, just as neither does it reach the substantial matter of flesh as its passive object.

89. Against this response [nn.86-88] an objection is raised based on Metaphysics 7.7.1032a13-14, b1,11-12, that “The house outside is made by the house in the mind.” And yet ‘the house outside’ has the being of a house more truly than ‘the house in the mind’, for the ‘house in the mind’ has diminished being in respect of ‘the house outside’, just as a known being is diminished in respect of real being. Therefore, a more imperfect thing (namely something having being in knowledge) can be the principle for producing something more perfect.

90. And this example is applied to the issue at hand as follows: as the house in the mind is related to the house outside, so is an angel (in the actual knowledge of an angel) related to an angel outside. But, according to the Philosopher [n.89], the house outside is made by the house in the mind. Therefore, from an angel that is in another angel’s intellect as known, that same angel can come to be outside.

91. It is not then the accidentality of angelic knowledge that prevents the creation of an understood substance.

92. To the first objection [n.89], then, I say that it is one thing to speak of a truer or more perfect ‘being simply’ and another thing to speak of a truer or more perfect ‘being of this sort’. For a stone in the divine mind has ‘being simply’ more truly and more perfectly than the stone outside, because a known object is said to have the being that knowledge itself has. Hence Augustine on John 1.3-4, tr.1 n.16, “What was made in him was life,” says ‘the thing known is creative life in the Word’, and this because the Word’s knowledge is really creative life. For what is said objectively of the thing known must be really found in the knowledge itself. But a stone in the divine intellect does not have a truer being of stone than the stone outside does, otherwise something intrinsic really to God would be formally and properly a stone.

93. To the issue at hand: the house in the intellect of the artisan is said to have the being that the knowledge itself of the house formally has; but, as it is, knowledge is simply more perfect than the form of the house outside, because the knowledge is a certain natural perfection of the soul; and the form of the house outside is either not real or, if it is, is much more imperfect than the knowledge is.

94. So, therefore, the answer to the first argument [n.89] is plain, that the house outside is said to come to be from the house in the mind, for it comes to be from the knowledge of the house in the mind as from the formal principle; and this knowledge of the house is simply more perfect than the house outside. Also the house inside, to the extent it participates in the being of cognition, is more perfect than itself outside.

95. And when it is said that the house inside is a diminished being and the house outside is a real being [n.89], I say that the knowledge of it is a real being and a more perfect being than the house outside. The house in the mind also participates objectively a more noble real being than is the being outside.

96. And in this way is to be understood the remark of Augustine On the Trinity 11 ch.11 n.6, that “a superior thing has a nobler being in itself than in the intellect, and conversely an inferior thing has a nobler being in the intellect than in itself.” This is to be understood of the being that belongs formally to knowledge itself, and by participation to the known thing. It is, however, true that the house outside has a truer being of house than the house in anyone’s intellect, but this is ‘being in a certain respect’, that is, a limited such being; but it has a simply nobler being in the intellect, above all in the divine intellect.

97. From this is plain the answer to the argument by similarity [n.90]; for I deny the similarity, because although the knowledge of a house is nobler than the house outside, yet the knowledge of an angel is not nobler than the angel is in himself, because an accident is not nobler than a substance.

98. And if you argue that it is similar, because the object on both sides is disposed in a similar way to the knowledge of it: ‘for it is of a nature to be the cause of its knowledge (namely the house cause of knowledge of itself as an angel cause of knowledge of himself), but a cause (if it is an equivocal one) is more perfect than its effect’. And likewise: ‘a house is the measure of the understanding of itself as an angel is the measure of an understanding of himself, but a measure is more perfect than the thing measured, for the measured depends on the measure and not conversely, Metaphysics 5.15.1021a29-30’ - I reply that a house is not of a nature to have, as to the above conditions (namely ‘to be cause’ or ‘to be measure’ of knowledge), the idea of an object in respect of knowledge of it, because an intellect that is moved by a being or quiddity in some sensible thing is not moved by an artefact as it is an artefact, because it is not thus an entity or has a whatness. But a house is only an object as to the third condition of knowledge,The three conditions for being an object of understanding are: cause, measure, term of intellection; cf. Ord. 1 d.3 nn.477-479. ³ namely that it terminates the act of knowing, and this condition of an object does not indicate a greater perfection in the object than in the act of knowing it.

99. And if you ask ‘what then is the object that is causative and measure of the knowledge of a house or of some other artefact?’, I reply that it is some natural entity or entities, whereby the intellect is moved to knowing the order or figure that the artefact adds to the natural entity. But an angel is in every way the object of knowledge of itself in the intellect of another angel; and for this reason a house can come to be from the knowledge of itself but not an angel from a knowledge of itself.

100. And hence is evident the invalidity of the argument, ‘a known object has diminished being, but the object outside has being simply and real being, so the object inside cannot be the principle of producing the object outside’ (or: ‘therefore the known thing inside cannot be the principle of knowing the known thing outside’). Yet this argument does really prove, ‘if knowledge is less noble than the form outside, then the knower cannot, by this knowledge, know the known thing outside’.

101. If the essence of a higher angel is the reason for knowing an inferior angel, then it contains the inferior angel in its knowability and therefore also in its entity. Therefore it can produce it whole - just as if an object is natural in two ways and artificial in a third, the natural contains the artificial eminently, because it contains what contains the artificial, namely the knowledge productive of it [nn.124-125].

b. The Second Proposition

102. The second initial proposition posited abovea [n.81] is shown in this way, because in Ord. I d.2 nn.101, 106, 126 it is proved as follows: it is not repugnant to the intellect of an angel to understand distinctly anything intelligible, even if there could be infinite intelligibles and of different idea and so disparate that none of them was the principle of knowing another. For, on the basis of these posits on the part of the intelligible object, there is not found on the part of the intellect any repugnance to prevent it perfectly and distinctly understanding all of them or any one of them. But the repugnance is that the intellect of an angel should distinctly understand them through a single act of understanding if they were infinite and disparate in the way stated [here n.102]. Therefore, it is not repugnant to an angel’s intellect to have different intellections really, though it is repugnant to an angel’s substance to be different substances really. Therefore not every understanding that is possible for an angel’s intellect can be the same as its substance; therefore it is an accident.

a.a [Interpolation] But some books have it differently: if the essence of a higher angel is the reason for knowing a lower one, then it contains it in its knowability and so in its entity; therefore it can produce the whole of it - just as, if the object were natural to it in two ways and artificial in the third way, the natural contains the artificial, because it contains what contains it, namely intellection productive of it [n.101].

103. These assumptions [sc. about what is repugnant, n.102] seem plain, besides this one, that ‘it is repugnant to a single finite intellect that it could be distinctly of infinite disparate objects’.

104. But this one I prove in three ways: first from the finitude of the intellection in itself, second from the finitude of the angelic intellect, third from the finitude of the angel’s essence.

105. [From the finitude of the intellection in itself] - From the first in two ways: First as follows: a single act of understanding, if it were of infinite disparate objects, would include eminently in itself the perfections of the infinite intellections that would naturally be had with respect to those objects. But it could not contain them eminently in itself unless it were intensively infinite (as is plain, because if the intellections were infinite in their proper ideas, there would be there an infinity of perfection of different ideas, because of the objects that are posited to be infinite and disparate). So, where they exist in a more eminent manner, there would have to be some infinity there - but not an extensive infinity, because the unity of what it is contained in would take such infinity away; therefore an intensive infinity.

106. Secondly as follows: every finite act of understanding is determined to a definite intelligible or to some definite intelligibles, such that it would be repugnant to it in itself that it be of things other than them or than it. But if the act of understanding in an angel is posited with respect to disparate intelligibles (were they to exist), it would not be thus determined; therefore it would not be finite.

107. [From the finitude of the angelic intellect] - I prove it, second, on the part of the angel’s intellect as follows: Things of which there is a single act of understanding can be understood together. But a finite intellect cannot at the same time distinctly understand infinite disparate objects, because it is a mark of greater power to understand distinctly many disparate objects at the same time than to understand few. Therefore to have distinct understanding of infinite disparate objects is a mark of a power intensively infinite.

108. To this proof [n.107] the response is made that intellection is not more perfect because it is of more objects, for the understanding that compares stone to wood is not more perfect than the pure understanding of stone, and yet the comparative intellection includes the intellection of more things, because it is of compared things.

109. This response supposes something false, and from the refutation of it the truth of our proposed position becomes clear. For the intellect cannot have an understanding comparing stone to wood unless it have the reasons for knowing each object. But the pure understanding of one of the objects can be had through the reason proper to only one object. Therefore the comparative understanding necessarily requires a greater perfection in the formal principle of understanding than pure understanding does. But the effect does not necessarily require a greater perfection in the cause unless there is a greater perfection in the effect (at least in effects of the same idea); therefore etc.

110. [From the finitude of the angel’s essence] - The third [n.103] is proved on the part of the object, or of the reason for understanding, in two ways:

The first as follows: one understanding requires one formal objective idea of understanding and one primary object, because if there are many primary objects the understandings will be numbered according to the number of their objects, just as things measured are numbered by their numbered measures, because of their actual dependence. Therefore, there must be one object of a single intellection and one formal idea of understanding. But it cannot be other than the essence of the angelic intellect, for, as is plain, this is the primary object in the angel’s intellection and the primary idea of understanding.

111. And if this is not similar in the intellection of anything else, you will be granting several primary objects. So there must be several intellections, or one must posit that the angel’s essence is the primary object and the formal idea of understanding whatever can be understood by it. But the consequent here is false for two reasons: first because some infinite being is intelligible to this intellect, but nothing finite can be the reason for understanding perfectly an infinite object; second because nothing can be the reason for knowing several things of different idea unless it contain eminently in itself all of them according to its knowability and so according to its entity. Therefore nothing can be the principle for knowing infinite disparate things, if they exist, unless it contain those infinite things eminently in itself. Therefore the essence of an angel, since it is finite, cannot be the reason for knowing such infinite objects.

112. Thus, therefore, on the supposition of the finitude of angelic intellection and of angelic intellect and essence (from Ord. I d.2, n.102), it follows that there can be in an angel different acts really of understanding and only one substance. Therefore an angel’s understanding is not the same as his substance; therefore it is an accident [n. 102].

c. The Third Proposition

113. The third proposition is conceded by Avicenna [n.81], as is plain according to his way of positing it in his Metaphysics 9 ch.4 [n.72].

114. However this can also be made clear because a nature merely intellectual cannot produce save by understanding and willing, or by act of understanding or will (either one of them or both, I care not). Hence too a divine Person produces nothing internally or externally without an act of these same powers; for if the divine nature, as it is prior to the intellect, were a principle of producing a Person, there could be some Person in divine reality prior to the Word, and so four Persons.

115. Also if some third executive power is posited in an angel, different from intellect and will, this does not impede the intended conclusion, because nothing can be produced by this third power save in virtue of the intellect and will, for the reason that every per se agent acts for an end that it knows or to which it is directed by what knows. And thus every per se active principle which is not cognitive seems to be directed in its action by a cognitive principle. At least this fact is plain, that the third power, if it existed, would be subordinate in acting to the intellect and will, and thus nothing could be produced by it without an act of intellect or will, and the argument stands.

C. To the Arguments for the Opinion

116. To the arguments for Avicenna’s opinion:

As to the first [n.73]: the proposition ‘from a principle altogether one there cannot immediately come several things’ is false if it is understood of something altogether one in reality. For, in the case of an agent acting through intellect and will, a distinction of known things, or a distinct knowledge of several things, is sufficient for several things to be produced from it. And thus is it sufficient here, if the knowledge is the substance of the knower and is consequently not numbered - it is otherwise if the knowledge is not the substance of the operating agent, but is an accident and numbered.

17. As to the second argument [n.75], one must say that the proposition of the Philosopher is true in the case of things where it is not repugnant for the nature to be communicated by something alike in species. But not everything perfect in a species can communicate the nature, because neither is the nature itself communicable to something like itself.

118. And if you argue ‘at least those things will be more perfect that can communicate their species than those that cannot’ - I say rather that in the matter at issue they are more imperfect. For, in the matter at issue, it is because of the perfection of the nature that the nature cannot be communicated save by the most perfect agent and in a way of communicating that agrees alone with the first agent. And it is more perfect to have such a perfect nature, which because of its perfection cannot be produced save immediately by God himself, than to have a nature able, because of its imperfection, to be caused by a created nature.