Question 1. Whether the Power of Generating in the Father is something Absolute or a Property of the Father

1. Concerning the seventh distinction I ask whether the power of generating in the Father is something absolute or a property of the Father.

That it is a property of the Father, - proof:

Augustine On the Trinity V ch.5 n.6: “He is Father by the fact he has a Son,” therefore he is Father by the fact he generates; the proof of the consequence is that he has a Son by generation. But he is Father by paternity; therefore he generates by paternity.

2. Or thus: ‘he is Father by paternity, therefore he generates by paternity’; or thus: ‘he generates by deity, therefore he is Father by deity’. - Response: neither consequence is valid, because the ablative when along with a verb [‘he generates by paternity/deity’] signifies the principle of acting, when along with an adjectival or concrete name [‘he is Father by paternity/deity’] signifies the formal concerning principal [e.g. as a white thing is white by whiteness]. But as it is, to be ‘that by which he is formally such’ should not be the same as to be ‘that by which he elicitively acts’, although to be such and to act are convertible with respect to the acting supposit; nor is the added phrase the same, because the ablative cannot be construed uniformly with the latter and the former statements, but there is a figure of speech in the first mode [‘similar termination’, Peter of Spain Logical Summaries tr.7 n.35, Aristotle Sophistical Refutations 1.4.166b10-14], because ‘similar termination’ indicates identity of concept - with the latter and with the former - although the concept is different.The point seems to be that though ‘by paternity/deity’ are the same in verbal form (having in Latin a similar ablative termination) as to each statement, ‘he is Father by paternity/deity’ and ‘he generates by paternity/deity’, yet they are different in concept, because in the first statement they indicate the formal principle and in the second the acting principle. ³⁰

3. Again, by reason:

The act proper is from the proper form of the agent; but to generate is the act proper of the Father;     therefore etc     . - Proof of the minor: both because the proper form gives being, therefore it also gives acting, - and also because, if the form is common, the effect is common too, because cause and effect correspond to each other, universal to universal and particular to particular, Physics 2.3.195b25-27 and Metaphysics 5.2.1014a10-13.

4. Again, the middle term belongs to the same genus as the extremes; but the supposits, which are the extremes, are relatives; therefore that by which the supposit acts - which is the middle between them - is a relative.

5. Again, potency belongs to the same genus as act, nay in divine reality they are the same thing; but the act of generating is a relation; therefore the principle too will be a relation, or a relative.

6. To the contrary:

Damascene On the Orthodox Faith ch.8 says: “Generation is the work of nature” [I d.6 n.6]; but it is not of the nature as of the one generating, because the nature does not generate;     therefore it is the work of the nature as of the principle of generating.

7. Again, Hilary On the Trinity V ch.37: “From the virtue of the nature the Son by nativity subsists in the same nature.”

8. Again, the Master [Lombard] in the text: “the Father is not powerful save by nature,” - and he is speaking of the power of generating; therefore etc     .

I. The Opinions of Others

A. First Opinion

9. There is here an opinion [Aquinas ST Ia q.41 a.5] of this sort, that that by which the Father generates is essence, - for the following reason, that the one generating assimilates to himself the thing generated in the form by which he acts; but the Son is assimilated to the Father in essence, not in property;     therefore etc     .

10. And there is a clarification of the reason, that just as in creatures the individual property is not the idea of the acting but the nature is, in which the individuals agree, so in divine reality the personal property - which corresponds to the individual property in creatures - will not be the idea of the acting or generating.

11. Against this [n.9] there are multiple arguments. - First thus: every form sufficiently elicitive of some action, if it exists per se, acts per se with that action (example: if heat is a sufficiently heating power, separated heat heats); therefore if deity is the generative power, and it is agreed that it is sufficient, - it follows that if deity exists per se then it will per se generate. But deity exists in itself - in some way - before it is understood to exist in a person, because deity as deity is per se being, such that the three persons exist per se by deity itself and not conversely (Augustine On the Trinity VII ch.4 n.9, ch.5 n.10: “God subsists for himself;” and later: “for God to exist is this, to subsist”); therefore in the first moment of nature in which deity is understood, before it is understood in a person, it will generate, - and thus deity considered as such is distinguished from the generated.

12. If it be said that deity does not have ‘per se being’ save in a person, and therefore it does not per se act but the person per se acts, - on the contrary: the argument proves the opposite, that if heat, having per se participated being, were, by a miracle, to exist per se, it could per se operate with the operation of which it is the principle; therefore the essence itself, which is ‘per se being’ of itself (it does not, however, participate ‘per se being’), will be able per se to be an agent with the action of which it is the elicitive principle in the supposit, and so the argument [n.11] stands.

13. Second thus: the producer and the form by which it produces have the same relation to the product. This is taken from the Philosopher Physics 2.3.195b21-25, Metaphysics 5.2.1013b30-33, where he means that art and the builder pertain to the same genus of cause.     Therefore the producer and that by which the producer produces pertain to the same genus of principle, and so, if the essence is that by which the Father generates, the essence will have a real relation to the one generated; this is false, therefore etc     .

14. Again, third: the form, insofar as it is that in which the generator and the generated are assimilated, only has the unity of idea, therefore it only has the being of idea; therefore, according to this, it is not the elicitive principle of real action.

15. Again, fourth: the form is only the principle of acting insofar as the agent is in act by it, but the agent is not in act by it save insofar as it is in the agent; but as it is in the agent it is a ‘this’; therefore it is principle as a ‘this’.

16. Again, production distinguishes before it assimilates - as is plain (for every production distinguishes but not every production assimilates) - therefore the form which is the principle of production is first a principle of it insofar as form distinguishes before it is a principle of it insofar as form assimilates; the form distinguishes insofar as it is a ‘this’, and it assimilates insofar as it is a ‘form’; therefore it is a productive principle insofar as it is a ‘this’ before it is so insofar as it is a ‘form’.

17. Again, there is an instance against the proof of the argument for the position [n.9]: both because when a brute generates a brute it is assimilated to it in species, and yet the specific form of the brute is not the principle of generating, but the vegetative power is, - therefore the major [‘the one generating assimilates to himself the thing generated in the form by which he acts’, n.9] seems to be false; and also because in the increase of flesh heat is the active principle (according to the Philosopher On the Soul 2.4.416a13-14), and yet animated flesh is generated, being similar to the generator in form of vegetative [soul].

B. Second Opinion

18. In another way it is said [by Henry of Ghent] that for generation in divine reality one must give some positive principle, because action is positive; but the only positive principles in the divine persons are essence and relation, - but relation cannot be a principle of the production, because relation is not a principle or a term of motion, Physics 5.2.225v11-13; therefore essence is. But essence, considered in itself, is indeterminate to several persons and to the actions of several persons, therefore, in order for it to be principle of determinate action, it must be determined; but it is determined by relation, - and therefore relation is posited as a principle, not an elicitive principle but a determinative one.

19. To this there is adduced a confirmation from creatures, where the same form gives the first and the second act [sc. being and action, n.3]; but it is determined to the former and the latter by diverse respects, because to the first it is determined by respect to the subject, and to the second by respect to the object.

20. To the contrary. Of indetermination one sort is of a ‘passive power’ and another is of an ‘active power’ unlimited to several effects (an example: as the sun is indeterminate to producing many generable things, not because it receives some form so as to act, but because it has an unlimited productive virtue). What is indeterminate by ‘indetermination of matter’ [sc. the first sort of indetermination] must receive a form so that it may act, because it is not in act sufficient for acting, but what is indeterminate ‘by indetermination of active power’ is of itself sufficiently determinate for producing any of the effects; and it is so if the passive disposed thing, when something passive is required, is close by, or of itself when something passive is not required; proof: if such an active thing was of itself determinate to one effect, it could of itself sufficiently produce it, - but if it is indeterminate to this and to that, the perfection of its causality with respect to such an effect is not taken away by such lack of limitation, but there is only added causality with respect to one or other of them; it can then produce it just as if it were of it alone, and so there is not required anything to determine it.

21. To the intended proposition [n.18]. The divine essence is not a principle that is indeterminate by ‘indetermination of matter’; therefore if it is indeterminate by the indetermination of something else as an active principle, it will be simply determined by the determination that is required for acting, and thus nothing else is required. A confirmation is that such indetermination of an active principle, although it is to disparate things, is yet not to contradictories, but it is determinately to one or other part of the contradiction with respect to any of the disparate things; but no indetermination prevents a thing acting determinately of itself save an indetermination that is in some way to contradictories, as to acting and not-acting;     therefore etc     .

22. Again second thus: when some active principle is indeterminate to two effects, not equally so but according to a natural order, - it is sufficiently of itself determined to the first of them, and, once the first is in place, to the second;Note by Scotus: “Note here that the indeterminate thing is determined by itself, - otherwise there would be a process to infinity, because it would be determined to those effects because it was determined to others, and to those others because it was determined by yet others. - On the contrary: what is determined of itself to one opposite is incompossible with the other; again [what is determined of itself to one opposite] is therefore determined to it in anything at all. - Response: this holds of contradictories; to the second, - in anything at all it has been determined, etc. [sc. determined first to the first effect, second to the second etc.]” ³¹ but the divine essence is not indeterminate equally to those two productions [sc. generation and inspiriting], but is related first to generation; therefore it is of itself sufficiently determined to both, because it is of itself determined first to the first - in order of origin - and, with that in place, it is determined to the second, - and so in no moment of origin is it indeterminate to each as each is then to be elicited.

23. Again third: relation is the idea of the acting supposit. Therefore if the relation is determinative of the principle ‘in which’, it will have a double idea of principle with respect to generation: one insofar as it is the idea of the agent, and another insofar as it is the determinative idea of the acting principle, - and so it will mediate between itself and the action.

24. Fourth thus: nature as nature is posited as the elicitive principle of the action. But nature ‘as nature’ is not determinable, according to Damascene On the Orthodox Faith ch.50: “The properties determine the hypostases, not the nature” ‘as nature’. Therefore nothing is determinative of the principle ‘in which’ as it is the principle ‘in which’, but only of the acting principle.

25. Again, relation according to you differs only in idea from the foundation; therefore it cannot be a determinative principle, in some way distinct from the essence, for a real act, because only something real concurs with the idea of some principle in respect of a real action.

26. Again, what is said of determinative relation in creatures [n.19] seems to be false, because heat of itself - not by some intermediate respect - is the foundation with respect to this heating power; also, it is not necessary that the determination to the first and the second act be done through respects, because the same absolute form gives a first absolute and not respective act, and the principle of acting too is absolute and not respective.

II. To the Question

A. On the Distinction of Powers

27. I respond to the question, then, by first making a distinction about ‘power’.

For in one way there is said to be ‘logical power [possibility]’, which states the mode of composition made by the intellect, - and this indicates the non-repugnance of the terms; about which the Philosopher says Metaphysics 5.12.1019b30-32: “That is possible whose contrary is not by necessity true.” - And if in this way one asks about ‘power’ in divine reality I say that it exists by comparing generation to any act non-repugnant to generation; and then power, or possibility, is of the Father or of God to the predicate that is ‘to generate’, because these terms are not repugnant; but there is an impossibility that the Son or Holy Spirit generate, because these terms are repugnant. And if one ask what is the power of generating in divine reality, there is in this way [sc. of logical possibility] no need to give some principle by which someone is able to generate, - for the sole non-repugnance of the terms suffices; just as if, before the creation of the world, the world not only was not but, per incompossibile, God was not but began of himself to be, and then was able to create the world, - if there had been an intellect before the world combining the proposition ‘the world will exist’, this proposition would have been possible because the terms were not repugnant, not however because of any principle in possible reality, or any active principle, corresponding to it; nor even so was this proposition ‘the world will be’ possible - formally speaking - by the power of God, but by the possibility that was the non-repugnance of the terms, because the terms would be non-repugnant, although the non-repugnance would be concomitant with the power that is active in respect of this possibility.

28. In another way there is said to be ‘power as divided against act’ [Metaphysics 9.8.1050a15-16], - and this power is not in God.

29. So there is left ‘real power’ - which is said to be ‘principle of doing or suffering’ [ibid. 5.12.1019a15-20; I d.2 n.262] - as the proximate foundation of relations, because this noun ‘power’ is not abstract with ultimate abstraction, but is concrete with concretion in a foundation (although not with concretion in a subject), - which multiple abstraction in relatives was spoken of above in distinction 5 [I d.5 n.21]. Here however the question is only about the power of acting.

30. And then I draw a distinction, because this noun ‘power’ can be taken for that which it per se signifies, or for that which it denominates - which is ‘proximate foundation of such relation’.

31. Power taken in the first way [n.30] I say signifies relation, just as does potentiality or being a principle, - and in this way the question has no difficulty, because ‘the power of generating in divine reality’ essentially states a relation.

32. In the second way [n.30] the question does have a difficulty when one inquires what that ‘absolute’ is which is the proximate foundation of this relation. And then (speaking always precisely of active or productive power, which is what the discussion is now about [n.29]) I draw a further distinction that ‘power denominatively taken’ is sometimes taken for the foundation precisely, but sometimes for the foundation along with all the other things that come together so that it can elicit the act, namely the things that are required for the idea of proximate power - of which sort in creatures are the coming near of the passive thing and the removal of an impediment.

33. This last distinction of power, of power taken for the foundation precisely or for the foundation along with the other concurring things, is taken from the Philosopher Metaphysics 5.12.1019a15-16 and 9.1.1046a10-11. For the definition of power that he there sets down is of power taken in the first way. But power taken in the second way he himself manifestly expresses in Metaphysics 9.5.1047b35-8a2, 5-7, 16-21: “Since,” he says, “the possible is something possible, and when, and how, and anything else that must be present in the definition;” and he subjoins: “in the case of such powers” (namely the irrational powers) “it must be that, when they approach each other so that they can be active and passive, the former must act and the latter must undergo.” And if it be objected against Aristotle that these irrational powers can be impeded, he says excluding this: “When no outside thing impedes, there is no need to add anything further, - for it has power as it is a power of making; now it is not present absolutely but in things that are disposed in some way, where what hinders from outside is excluded; for these - some of the things placed in the definition - remove it” (he means to say that ‘some of the things’ pertaining to the definition of active and possible power exclude impediment, but ‘active power’ here - according to him - is taken ‘along with all the things that come together for proximate possibility of acting’).

34. Again, third, ‘power of generating’ signifies the principle of eliciting the act by the supposit that has the principle. Therefore it connotes a double relation, one the relation of principle to act, and another the relation of act to supposit, - which is to say: it notes the relation of the principle ‘in which’ to the act and it connotes the relation of the act to the principle ‘which’; and perhaps, third, it connotes the relation of the principle ‘in which’ to the principle ‘which’. Whether there are two relations or three, they are only relations of reason, because of the lack of distinction of the extremes (the first [sc. the relation of principle to act] belongs to paternity as to proximate foundation). - What BoethiusWhat text of Boethius is here referred to is unclear. The name ‘Boethius’ may possibly be an error and perhaps a reference to an ‘argument’ is meant, as to that in n.22 [Vatican editors]. ³² says, then, that the idea of original principle is directed ‘within’, is true in respect of the person originated, but not in respect of the origin or act of originating, save according to reason only.

B. The Father’s Power of Generating is Something Absolute

35. Speaking then of power, that is, of the proximate foundation precisely taken of this relation, - I say the Father’s power of generating is not a relation but something absolute.

36. [Proof] - The negative part I prove:

First, because every relation seems to regard equally naturally its proper correlative, therefore the relation of inspiriting will equally naturally regard its correlative just as the relation of generating will regards its own; but in divine reality productions are not distinguished by way of nature and will, except because the principle ‘by which the producer produces’ is disposed differently to the production and to the product, because it is of this one naturally and of that one freely;     therefore they would not then be two productions formally distinct by way of nature and of will.

37. Second, because then [sc. if the Father’s power were a relation] the same relation would be the principle of itself, because there is in the Father only a single relation to the Son, and it is the principle ‘by which’ with respect to generation, -which is the same relation, although differently named; therefore etc     .

38. Third, because then paternity would be simply more perfect than filiation. Proof of the consequence, in two ways. First, because that by which the producer produces, if it is not of the same idea as the form of the product, contains the form virtually and is more perfect than it; therefore if paternity is that by which the Father acts, and it is not of the same idea as filiation, it contains filiation virtually and is more perfect than it. Second, because filiation does not give to the Son what it does; therefore if the Father acts by paternity formally, paternity will be something more perfect than filiation.

39. The affirmative part of the solution [that the Father’s power is something absolute, n.35] I prove thus:

What is of perfection in the productive principle does not take the idea of productive principle away from anything; but to communicate itself in numerical identity, and with a communication adequate to itself, posits a perfection in the productive principle; therefore this does not take the idea of productive principle away from anything. But if God, per incompossibile, were to generate another God, and that other a third, deity would be posited as the productive principle of the other [sc. the third] and not as a relation of it; and then deity would not communicate itself in numerical identity, nor would it communicate itself with a communication adequate to itself in idea of productive principle, because deity would be able to be the principle of another communication, namely the one done -per incompossibile - by the second god. Therefore since, as things are now, deity is communicated in numerical identity and with a communication adequate to itself, such that by deity there cannot be a numerically further communication of the same idea as the first, - it follows that the productive principle should now much more be posited as absolute than it would then be posited as being.

40. In brief: if a form were communicated that was not the same in number, nor communicated adequately, it would be posited as the principle of communicating; therefore if now it is more perfectly communicated, it - or something more perfect - will be the principle of communicating in this more perfect way.

41. An example of this is if heat in fire were to communicate itself the same in number to a piece of wood, and with an adequate communication, such that the heat could not be the principle of another heating, one would not deny that the heat of the fire was the productive principle of heat in the wood, since now in fact the heat is posited as the principle of it, and this with a double imperfection, opposed to the double perfection here supposed (because now there is here a diversity of communicated heat and the communication is not adequate, but then there would be an identity of communicated heat and the communication would be adequate); and yet - on the basis of this hypothesis - the wood would not be able to heat by heat; for it would not be able to heat itself, because it receives heat from the heating which comes from the heat in question, and so it would have heat before it had heat, - nor would it be able to heat something else, because the heating of the wood is posited as adequate, in idea of active principle, to the heat. - Thus must one understand things in the intended proposal, because that which would be posited as the principle of another heating, if the communication were made with numerical diversity and not adequately, this same thing should now be posited as the principle when a communication is made of the same thing and a communication adequate to the productive principle.

42. Second I prove the same: something absolute is the formal term of generation, therefore something absolute is the formal idea by which the agent acts. - The antecedent was proved in distinction 5 question 2, in the first reason against the first opinion [I d.5 nn.64-69]. - I prove the consequence by the fact that it is impossible for an ‘agent’ to communicate the formal term of production unless it act, if it acts univocally, by an equally perfect form, - or, if it acts equivocally, by a more perfect form; but in divine reality nothing is more perfect than the absolute, because the ‘absolute’ is formally infinite, but the relation is not;     therefore etc     .

43. [Instance] - Against this reason [n.42] it is instanced that the consequence is only valid in univocal generation. But this generation [sc. the one in divine reality] is proved to be equivocal, first on the part of the persons, second from the productions, and third from the idea of specific difference.

44. The first way is as follows: paternity and filiation differ in species, therefore the persons constituted by them differ in species. - The proof of the antecedent is that they differ in their quiddities, and such difference is specific; and also that they are pure acts, but the difference of act and form is specific. - The proof of the consequence is, first, that there is no greater distinction in the principles than in the things they are principles of; second, the difference is the same for that in accord with which certain things are precisely different as it is for the differing things themselves; third, that the relations are the same for the divine essence as for the person, - therefore a specific difference will not by this be denied for the persons just as it is not denied for the relations either; fourth, that there is the same difference for the formal constituents as for the things constituted.

45. In the second way (about productions) the argument is: in divine reality the productions differ in genus, therefore so do the products. - The antecedent is plain, because in divine reality there is no production of a single idea save a single one. -The proof of the consequence is, first, that otherwise there would not be a proportion of the productions to the products; also, second, that productions are of the same idea as the products; and, third, that powers of a different idea require objects of a different idea, - therefore, if they were to produce their own products, they would produce products of a different idea; therefore, just as will and intellect presuppose that ‘good’ and ‘true’ are formally distinct, so they will produce formally distinct termini, or they will be that by which such distinct termini are produced.

46. In the third way (about specific difference) the argument is as follows: specific difference seems to be more perfect than numerical difference, - the proof of which is that the distinction of species belongs to the per se perfection of the universe, but the distinction of individuals does not; therefore specific difference, in the way it is more perfect, seems it should be posited in divine reality.

47. [Against the instance] - To these arguments I reply that, whether generation is set down as equivocal or univocal, the argument is not affected, because in equivocal generation the productive principle must be more perfect than the terminating form; but nothing is more perfect than the absolute, and specifically no relation is more perfect; for it seems most absurd to say that relation virtually contains the divine essence.

48. The conclusion, however, to which these reasonings [n.43] lead, namely about equivocal generation, seems to be false, because since in the first term of generation - namely in the product itself - two things come together, namely nature and the relation proper of the product itself by which it is a ‘this’, -generation is called equivocal or univocal either by some formal term of generation, or by some formal term proper to the produced supposit itself. If in the first way, since nature -which is the formal term of this production - is the same in producer and produced, univocity follows, because the likeness is most perfect. If in the second way, then no generation is univocal, because nothing generated is assimilated in its own individual form to the one generating. - That is, and it is to argue in another and almost the same way, that generation both assimilates and distinguishes, - as is plain, because thus is generation from the form under the idea of form and not under the idea by which it is a ‘this’, and the idea of form is more perfect in the supposit than this individual difference is. If in the case of generation its being assimilative is more perfect, then it will according to this be called univocal or equivocal. For if it were said to be of the former or latter sort insofar as it distinguishes, any generation at all would be called equivocal, because any generation at all distinguishes, - and this idea of distinguishing is in generation more imperfect, because it belongs to the most imperfect generation. Therefore not by this is univocal generation distinguished from equivocal.

49. Therefore to the intended proposal. Since generation assimilates insofar as the same nature is communicated, and distinguishes insofar as it is of a generated thing distinct from a generator that is distinct, it follows that univocity is located in the nature of the thing coming to be and come to be, and not in the distinction of generator and generated.

50. Second, one applies this to the intended proposal, that if the individual differences - which are diverse first - constitute products not diverse first but between which there is univocal generation (because of their likeness in nature), if these individual differences were species of a different genus, they would still not constitute things distinct with as much distinction as they would have in their own genus, because then the individual differences would constitute things diverse first. But that the things ‘constituted’ now are not diverse first is because of the nature, in which nature the individuals agree; so they would also then agree in the same nature, although the constituting differences would be species of a different genus. Therefore the constituted things would then be of the same species, as they now are.

51. So to the arguments for the opposite [sc. for the opposite conclusion, that the generation is equivocal, nn.43-46]:

To the first [n.44] one must say that there is properly neither genus nor species there, nor specific difference. But I do well concede that paternity and filiation are relations of a different species and of a different idea, because they are opposites and are not founded on unity - even immediately - as are likeness and equality; there is also a greater distinction between paternity and filiation than been paternity and paternity. But when you infer that ‘therefore the things constituted too are of a different idea quasi-specifically’, I deny the consequence.

52. And, on account of the proof of the consequence, one must understand that some things are sometimes said to be more distinguished because of a greater repugnance or incompossibility between them, as contraries are said to be more distinguished, like white and black, than disparate things are, like man and white, - and in this way it is not said properly that ‘some things are more distinguished’; for those things are more ‘properly distinguished’ which agree less in some respect; and thus things distinct in the most general genus are more distinguished than contraries which are of the same species, even though contraries are more repugnant.

53. Hence universally: the distinction of distinct things is as great as is the distinction, that is, the repugnance, of what constitutes or formally distinguishes them, because if white and black are incompossible, the things constituted by them are also incompossible. And so it is in the intended proposal: the incompossibility of Father and Son, such that the Father is not the Son, is as great as is the incompossibility of paternity and filiation - because of which paternity is not filiation.

54. But in the second way of taking it [sc. ‘more distinguished’, n.52], never do the distinguishing things agree as much as do the things distinguished by them, as is plain by running through all the things that distinguish. For specific differences do not include the genus in which they agree, but the species distinguished by them do include the genus in which they agree; and the reason is that the distinguishing things presuppose something in the distinct things that the distinguishing things do not include in their understanding, but the things distinguished by them do include it; therefore the distinguished things agree in it, but the distinguishing things do not agree in it.

55. From this [n.54] the response is plain to the arguments and the proofs [n.44]. -When you speak of ‘the principles and the things they are principles of’, I say that there can be a greater distinction - that is, a greater non-agreement (that is, an agreement in fewer things) - between principles than between the things they are principles of, just as specific differences, which are the principles of species, do not agree in the genus in which the species themselves agree; and so is it also in the case of individual differences and individuals in respect of the specific nature.

56. From this [n.54] the answer is plain to what is said about ‘formal constitutives and things precisely distinct’ [n.44]; for, in the case of all of them, it is false that the difference of the things constituted is as great as the distinction or difference of the formal constituents.

57. But I consider the argument further: because these relations - those in the intended proposal - are subsistent, therefore they have as much difference insofar as they are subsistent as they have in their proper ideas; but the subsistent relations are persons, therefore the persons have as much difference as the relations have. - And in addition to this: the persons differ by some formal difference, and by none save by the difference that the relations have, because they have no other; but the difference the relations have is specific, - therefore the difference of the persons will be in species or in nothing.

58. To these arguments I reply. - To the first [n.57], that although the relations are subsistent, yet the persons do not only include the relations but also the very nature in which they subsist, - but the relations do not formally include the nature. The persons then formally agree in something in which the relations formally do not agree, and so there is not as great a distinction in the former as in the latter.

59. To the second [n.57] I say that this consequence does not follow: ‘by these relations precisely are they distinguished, and the relations are distinguished in species, therefore the persons are distinguished in species’, - just as neither does it follow about individual differences with respect to individuals. And when you say ‘then there will be no difference between the distinct things, since what belongs to the distinguishing things does not belong to the distinct things, nor anything else that comes through them’ [n.57], I say that through them there can be some distinction of the distinct things, different from the distinction of the distinguishing things, - and a lesser one, just as by the individual differences there is some distinction between individuals, different from the distinction of those individual differences, because the differences are diverse first; but the ‘distinct things’ are not diverse first, but they are only distinct in number within the same species. So here, in the intended proposal, by relations distinct in species, or in quasi-genus (to which, however, insofar as they are distinct, distinction in species is an accident), some things can be distinguished only in person within the same species or within the same nature.

60. As to the second way, about productions [n.45], I deny the consequence, because in divine reality there can, from the perfection of the divine nature, be some principles of a different idea yet communicative of the essence itself, - which does not happen in any imperfect nature. And because of the distinction of these formal principles, there can be productions of a different idea and yet products of the same idea, because of the unity of the formal term, namely of the nature which is communicated.

61. When the consequence is proved first, through proportion [n.45], - I say that the proportion ‘of the production to the formal term’ is that by it the formal term is communicated. But such proportion is not required for the production to be of one idea, provided the formal term is of one idea, because productions can be distinguished by their ideas otherwise than they are by the formal terms, as they are here [sc. in divine reality], by their formal principles. An example of this is whenever the same form can be acquired by changes of a different idea, just as the same ‘where’ can be acquired by straight or circular local motion over an extended magnitude, which motions are so of different idea that they are not comparable, according to the Philosopher Physics

7.4.248a10-b6, 5.4.228b19-21; so would it be if the same health could be induced immediately by art and immediately by nature.

62. When this consequence is proved, second, by the fact that ‘productions are of the same idea as their products’ [n.45], - I say that to this extent are they of the same idea, that just as productions are relations so products are relatives; but because the products are subsistent in the same nature, and the productions are not formally supposits subsistent in that nature, therefore the products can have some unity formally in the nature - communicated to them by the productions - which the productions do not formally have.

63. When it is argued, third, about the distinction of powers and distinct objects, that the distinction of the objects is similar to that of the powers [n.45], - the response was plain from distincton 2 question 4, ‘Whether there are in divine reality only two productions’ [I d.2 nn.342-344].

64. About the third way, namely ‘about the perfection of the specific difference’ [n.46], - I say that specific difference is not more perfect than is specific identity in divine reality. But in creatures it is a mark of perfection. - For once limitation in creatures is posited, there cannot be a total perfection in creatures without specific distinction, but if in some one nature there were an infinite perfection, specific distinction would not be there required for perfection simply. Therefore in creatures specific difference is a perfection supplying for an imperfection, but in divine reality - where nature is simply perfect - there is no need to posit such ‘a perfection supplying for an imperfection’, because there is no imperfection there for which it might supply. An example: generation in creatures is ‘a perfection supplying for an imperfection’ in corruptible things, which without generation could not be conserved either the same numerically or of the same species, - but in divine reality there is no need to posit such ‘a perfection supplying for some imperfection’ which may exist there, or exist in any eternal thing.

C. To the Form of the Question

65. Now as to the form of the question, by which the question asked about the power of generating is ‘whether it is something absolute’ [n.1], - I reply that the gerundive construction [in Latin] with ‘power’ [sc. ‘power of acting’] indicates the act as coming from the same supposit as the power is attributed to. The like is true of science and will when these are construed with the gerundive; for then they indicate the act as coming from the supposit that the science or will is attributed to. For which reason one does not allow the proposition ‘the Son has the science or the will of generating’ in the way one allows that ‘the Son knows the generation of the Father and wills it’. - Nay, the first one seems it should be denied, just as also these, ‘he knows how to generate’ and ‘he wills to generate’, - because ‘to will to act’ seems to be the same thing as ‘to have the will of acting’; but ‘to will action’ does not seem to be the same as these, because it does not include willing the action as action belongs to the one willing, which the other [‘to will to act’] does seem to map out.

III. To the Arguments

A. To the Principal Arguments

66. To the arguments. First to the principal ones [nn.1-5]. - First, as to Augustine [n.1], I say that he understands the ‘by the fact that’ formally, not foundationally or causally; an example: we say that Socrates is similar by similarity formally, but he is said to be similar by whiteness foundationally or causally. So in the proposal, the Father generates by generation formally, but we are not asking in this way by what he generates, but we are asking by what the generation is elicited as by formal elicitive principle, namely what is the proximate foundation of this relation. Therefore Augustine intends that ‘he is Father by the fact he has a Son’, that is, by that notion, - this is to say that the Father is not called Father in relation to himself but in relation to the Son; but Augustine does not there understand that by which the Father is Father - or that by which he generates - as the elicitive principle of generation, as is plain there from his text.

67. To the second [n.3] I say that from a form common in the first modeAn interpolated text is here worth quoting: “community of form can be understood in a double way: one is the universal, which is by identity to many particulars under it, each of which is ‘it’ (in the way a universal is communicated to singulars), the other is by relation to many things each of which is ‘by it’ (in the way a form is communicated to matter) but is not ‘it’, - as was said above [I d.2 nn.379-380].” See also below, n.71, where it is pointed out that the second mode does not exist in creatures without the first mode. ³³ there is a common operation, because if some form taken universally is followed by some operation taken universally, any singular form under it will be followed by a singular operation of the same idea, unless some singular form is imperfect. But if we are speaking of the second kind of community, which is of the form with respect to what participates it, I say that it is not necessary that the common form be the principle of a common operation, and especially when it is possessed by many supposits in order, such that it is communicated to one by another, and this by adequate communication, as was made clear in the example adduced in the first reason to the affirmative part of the solution [n.41].

68. To the proposal I say that the major ‘the operation proper is from the proper form’ [n.3] is false, when speaking of appropriation in the second mode [n.67], which is the sort of appropriation - or at least no other one - that can be understood in the proposal.

69. And when the first proposition is proved, first because “it is the proper form, therefore, because it gives being, it gives acting” [n.3], - I deny the consequence; for there are many forms giving being which yet are not active and which in no way give second act; the such is paternity, just as also filiation.

70. But what is the reason for some forms being active and others not?

It is difficult to assign a common reason, because some substantial forms are active, and some qualities are active, but some substantial forms and some qualities are not active, - and yet qualities and qualities agree more in some common concept than do qualities and substances. Likewise, some of the more imperfect substantial forms are active, such as the elementary ones, and some of the more perfect ones are not active, as the forms of mixed things, as of stone and other inanimate objects, - some forms too of the mixed and perfect things are active, as the forms of animate things; however some of the more perfect forms are not communicative of themselves, as the forms of celestial bodies and angelic forms. There does not then seem to be a reason why some forms in general are active and some not - just as, in a specific case, there does not seem to be any reason why heat heats save that heat is heat; and thus it seems that this proposition is immediate ‘heat is effective of heat’. Thus too it seems that all forms of the genus of quantity, and all relations (about which the discussion now is), are not active, and about such it is not valid that ‘if they give first act therefore they give second act’.

71. When the second consequence is proved through the Philosopher in the Physics and Metaphysics [n.3], - I say that he is speaking of universal and particular speaking in the first mode of ‘common’, but not taking it in the second mode, namely insofar as the same form in number is common to the things that participate it; for this commonness is not in creatures, nor a ‘universal’ commonness to the things that participate without a ‘universal’ commonness said in the first way [n.67].

72. When the argument is given, third, about potency and act [n.5], I say that there is an equivocation about potency. For the major is true as potency is a difference of being, dividing it jointly against act, because thus not only is being in general divided into act and potency, but also thus divided is any genus of being and any species and any individual, because thus is the same whiteness first in potency and later in act, - and in this way act and potency belong to the same genus; and in this way, properly speaking, there is no potency of generating in divine reality, namely a potency which may be opposed to act, because that generation is simply necessary and in act, and therefore it is not in potency as potency is repugnant to act. But here the discussion is about potency or power as it is a principle, and in this way the proposition is false which says that ‘power is of the same genus as act’; for a substantial form can be a principle of action in the genus of action and of action in the genus of quality - as was touched on above in distinction 3 question on ‘generated knowledge’ [I d.3 n.518], and this subject [sc. substantial form] is the per se cause of its proper passion.

73. When the argument is made ‘about the middle and the extremes’ [n.4], I say that there is a thing which is a middle by participation in each extreme, as grey is a middle between white and black, which middle is from the nature of the thing, and of such a middle it is true that it is in the same genus as the extremes, as the Philosopher proves Metaphysics 10.7.1057a18-26. Another middle is in a way taken accidentally, as is operation between the operator and the term; this middle need not be of the same genus as the extremes because, when the soul understands itself, its understanding is a quality, and yet the operator and the object are substances; such a middle is what is taken -namely in the intended proposition - as the ‘by which’ between the generating supposit and the generated supposit. Or one can in another way say that the ‘by which’ is not properly a middle but keeps itself to the side of one of the extremes, namely of the generator; but the proper middle, if it be granted, can be said to be generation, and about this it is true that is of the same idea as the extremes, because it is a relation, just as the extremes are relatives.

B. To the Arguments against the First Opinion

74. Now because some of the arguments ‘against the first opinion’ are against me, I respond to them.

To the first [n.11] I reply that the major proposition has a greater probability in divine reality than in creatures, because the form in question is per se such that there corresponds to it its proper ‘what’, and this has the power to act, - to wit ‘this God’, who in some way precedes the relations and so acts; the thing is plain because he thus first understands and wills; therefore it seems he would have power for every action of which his ‘in what’ is the proper formal principle, and so ‘this God’ generates first.

75. But about the elicitive principle the major is false, since the elicitive principle - if it exists per se - cannot be the proper power for operation. An example: the visible species - if one posits an elicitive principle for the operation of seeing in the eye - could not, if it per se existed, be the principle of that operation, and the reason would be that it could not be in proximate potency to acting because it could not have the thing that undergoes the act near to it, for coming near to - as was said before [n.32] - is required for the idea of proximate power. But just as there is required in creatures a coming near and a removal of impediments, so has it been said that in the intended proposition there is required a supposit suited to acting [n.32]. Therefore the form, which would be the principle of action in a distinct supposit, if it was per se existent, would not be a supposit or a distinct principle, nor would it be in a distinct supposit suited to generation, and, from the fact that that supposit is required for proximate potency to act, such a form could not act per se. But something ‘essential’, if it were to exist per se in some instant of nature before it was understood to exist in a supposit or a person, it is not in that prior instant an acting supposit in proximate potency to acting; for the act requires a distinction of certain things in the nature, which distinction can only be of supposits. Therefore a supposit suited to this action is a distinct supposit, existing in this nature; in no such thing does nature exist insofar as nature is understood to be per se, although it would in some way be per se before it was in a person - and therefore it will not be able ‘to act per se’ by this action.

76. Note that ‘a form existing per se’ can be understood in three ways: in one way such that ‘per se’ excludes ‘the being in of a form’ in matter, whether the being in is of an accidental or a substantial form; in another way ‘the being in of a quiddity or a nature’ in the supposit itself, and this actually so; in a third way ‘aptitudinal’ or ‘potential’ - each a case of being in.

77. The third way sets down what is to be thus per se a complete supposit, and therefore to take it like this in the major [nn.74-75] is to take contradictories, because the form, which is, for the thing that has the form, the principle by which it acts, cannot thus be per se. Therefore per se in the major is understood in the first two ways, - and thus do I prove the major, because there is only required for ‘acting’ actuality and ‘per se existence’; the first is possessed equally in an inherent form and in a per se being, the second is possessed sufficiently if it is per se in the first two ways (otherwise the separated soul would not be an agent).

78. There is also a confirmation, because if the nature assumed by the Word were let go without any positive action concerning it, it would not be per se in the third way (because then it would be un-assumable, as such), and yet ‘this man’ could do every act which the Word now possesses by means of this nature, - nay if, according to the article of the first distinction in book 3 (III d.1 q.1 nn.6,9], nothing positive constitutes the created supposit, it is certain that the idea of the supposit gives nothing positive to anything for acting; but neither does it give order in relation to other passive things, as

Averroes imagines in Metaphysics VII com.31, that a [Platonic] idea cannot move a body or matter because of lack of order.

79. Against this [sc. what Averroes says, n.78], that it is accidental that the order of agent to patient insofar as it is consequent to ‘this existent’ exists ‘incommunicably’.

Therefore one can reply in another way, that the major [nn.74-75] is true, because the form is active with respect to a term distinct of itself (but not when it is with respect to a term not distinct, because then, although it could be that by which the supposit produces, it cannot however be the producer, because it is not distinct from the term, which is required for it to be producer; but this is not required for it to be that ‘by which’).

80. More plainly said, the major is true of immanent acting and making, and universally of the production of a term distinct from the productive form. Here the term is not distinct from the form by which it produces [sc.     therefore the major is not true here].

81. On the contrary. If deity or ‘this God’ creates, therefore it acts by the action that necessarily precedes creating;Note by Scotus: “Note this for the order of production inwardly and outwardly.” ³⁴ of this sort is generating.

Proof of the first consequence: what is simply first does not require any ‘acting later’ for it to have power for an action proper to itself; ‘this God’ is in some way prior to the relative person; therefore etc     .

82. This argument requires one to posit an order by which ‘this God’ is in the persons before there can be a power proximate for creating; not because of impotence in ‘this God’ for creating (even if, as the gentiles imagine, he did not exist in persons), but because of a greater closeness of the persons than of creation to the essence, according to that ancient rule: ‘about any two things, compared according to an order to some same first thing, the power is not proximate to the second unless the first has already been posited’ [Aristotle Metaphysics 5.11.1018b9-12, 22-23; Averroes ad loc.; also n.22 above].

83. Therefore ‘this God’ understands too not precisely as he is in the persons, because essential action is as it were prior to relation, and so is more immediate, - nay altogether first; second, ‘this God’ is per se unlimited existence, and in the [second] moment of nature [n.82] is first in the three persons (that moment does however have the signs of origin); in the third moment of nature ‘this God’ has power proximate for action outwardly.

84. Therefore let the minor [n.81] be denied, because deity never exists per se in such a way that it is not in a supposit, except in the intellect.

85. On the contrary. What belongs to something first of itself formally is in some way prior outside the intellect to that which does not belong to it from itself formally; (a) deity is altogether first, because it is a ‘sea’ [I d.8 n.200], and (b) to it belongs of itself formally per se existence; (c) but it is not of itself formally in this relative supposit, therefore it is first per se before it is in this supposit.

The proof of (b) is that the same thing is the per se existence of the three persons, - On the Trinity VII ch.4 nn.7-8; there is also the proof that otherwise it would have that relation in anything, because it has everywhere what belongs to it from its own formal idea.

86. To the other, about ‘what’ and ‘by which’ [n.13], I say that the saying of the Philosopher is true of the cause and the thing caused, because there is a real distinction there of the cause, and of the principle by which it causes, from the thing caused; there is also essential dependence there of the caused thing on the causative thing just as also on the cause, and the reason there is that the causative principle is only single, in one supposit. In the proposed case, however, things are the opposite, because the producing supposit is distinct, but that by which it produces is not distinct, - and so the product is not referred really to the principle ‘by which’ as it is referred to the principle ‘which’ produces, and therefore in the proposed case there is no real relation of the productive principle to the product; but of the producer there is a real relation, while of the productive principle a relation of reason, as was said before about the communicated and the communicating in distinction 5 question 1 [I d.5 n.29].

87. To the third [n.14] I say that the form ‘according to its being that in which the generator is assimilated to the generated’ is not only a being of reason but also has some unity preceding every act of intellect, because in no existing act of intellect would fire generate fire and corrupt water, and this on account of the natural likeness here [sc. in the intellect] and the contrariety there [sc. in reality]. This will be plainer in the question about individuation [II d.3 q.1 nn.3-7]. - To Damascene [n.14] I say that he understands commonness of something one in nature and in number (just as divine essence is common to the three persons), but there is now no such commonness in the creature. There is however a commonness of something one by a unity less than numerical unity [II d.3 q.1 nn.8-9].

88. To the remark ‘ the form is the principle of acting insofar as it is a this’ [n.15] - the conclusion is on my side, because the absolute thing that is the Father’s power of generating is not a power of generating for the Son.

89. And when it is argued that generation distinguishes before it assimilates, and that, from this, the form is elicitive first as a ‘this’ prior to being so as form [n.16], - I respond that ‘prior’ in consequence is not always ‘prior’ in causality. An example: this conclusion follows, ‘fire, therefore hot’, and not conversely; therefore hot is prior in consequence and yet fire is prior in causality to the heat. And thus I concede that to distinguish is prior to assimilate, that is, it is more common, because many things distinguish that do not assimilate, - but to distinguish is not more perfect in generation than to assimilate, because to distinguish belongs to generation (even the most imperfect) insofar as it is from a form as a ‘this’, and to assimilate belongs to it insofar as it is from a form absolutely, and the idea of form is more perfect than the idea of singularity.

90. I concede the argument ‘against the opinion positing only a distinction of reason’, because it does not conclude against me, as will be clear in distinction 8 [I d.8 n.169, 185].[From the Vatican editors:] The text of n.90 is a response to an argument that is lacking in this question of the Ordinatio, but it is found in the Lectura I d.7 n.21: “Further, against the one who has this opinion [cf. Ordinatio I d.7 nn.9-10], there is the following argument from his own words: for he himself posits that nature and will and everything essential in divine reality are only distinguished by reason, through an operation of intellect. If therefore - according to him - the principle of the generation of the Son is essential and, for the same reason, the principle of the inspiriting of the Holy Spirit is essential, then the principle of each production in divine reality will be essential, and consequently - according to him - the principles of each production are distinguished by reason. But that two real productions ‘of different reason’ are from the same principle simply - differing only in reason -, when the thing from the principle is adequate to the principle, is altogether impossible; therefore it is impossible that the essence be the formal production of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. It will not then be the case that the essence alone is the principle of producing.” The remark ‘from his own words’ points to Aquinas Sentences I d.13 q.1 a.2 and d.2 q.1 aa.2-3. ³⁵

91. The instance ‘about heat and the vegetative soul’ [n.17] is not valid, because there each form is communicated - both the principal active form [sc. the vegetative soul] and the immediate form [sc. heat]; for the generated flesh is animated, and it has some natural generated heat; also each form is a principle of generation, although one is mediate and the other immediate. But the other instance ‘about the generation of the brute’ seems more difficult, if the sensitive soul does not there have any operation but only the vegetative soul.Text cancelled by Scotus: “and about this in book 2 [II d.18 q. un n.10 - although this reference corresponds not to the words here in n.91 but to the text of the Lectura I d.7 n.95], where there will be a discussion about seminal reasons, ‘how there can be univocal generation in animals’.” ³⁶