II. Scotus’ own Response to the Second Question

23. To solve this question [n.1] (because things in the intellect are more manifest [sc. than those in the will]), one must first reply to the second question [n.6].

And first let us look at our own intellect:

For there memory generates actual knowledge, which has a double relation to memory; namely ‘of generated to generating’ and this relation belongs to the second mode of relatives and is mutual - and the other ‘of declaring to declared’, and this belongs to the third mode of relatives and is not mutual [d.30 n.31]. But just as generated knowledge declares formally the object that lies in the memory, so that which produces actual knowledge and gives it this power of declaring can be said ‘to declare by this knowledge’ as if by way of efficient cause; for if someone produces a mirror and images appearing in it, although the mirror formally declares those appearing images, yet the ‘one producing the mirror’ declares them by efficient causality. And this is more evident if acts of the soul, which are not truly makings, were signified by neutral, non active verbs (but now they are signified by active verbs, because of the disposition they have to the object into which they pass as into their term, although they cause nothing in the object); for then, if they were neutral verbs, they would signify formally that the reality is in the subject from which they are imposed, and then active verbs of this sort could be imposed by the same forms, which would signify the production of them; and then ‘generated knowledge’ would be formally declarative of the object, but ‘the one producing’ would be said to be efficient cause of the form (just as was said elsewhere that likeness can be in that on which the relation of active and passive is founded, so that ‘making like’ is a giving of likeness [I d.19 n.28]), and then ‘declaring’ - taken actively -would be efficient cause of the formal declaration in the act of the soul or in the subject of that act.

24. To the issue at hand:

The divine Word is expressed by the Father, and this expression is a relation of origin; but to this expressed word is communicated by force of its production infinite knowledge, which - from this fact - is declarative of everything declarable. It has therefore a real relation to what expresses it, from which it is born, but the other relation - namely of the declarer - it has not only to itself but, because it is infinite, it has this respect of ‘declarative’ to itself and to it and to everything else; and this is only a relation of reason, because it is not only to creatures but also to itself; and if there is no real relation to creatures (from distinction 30 nn.49-51]), much more then is there not a real relation of the same thing to itself.a But this ‘to declare’ belongs formally to the Word, but it belongs by way of principal to the producer (just as in us it belonged to the memory as efficient cause), - and then the Word formally declares everything declarable; but the Father declares by the Word not formally but by way of principal, insofar as he communicates to him infinite actual knowledge, by which the Word actually declares.

a [Interpolation, from Appendix A] The word declares the object, ‘saying’ it clarifies the object by the word, by which is indicated that the word has the idea of the sub-authentic principle with respect to that which agrees with itself formally and with another by way of being principle; just as the Father creates by the Word by which the Word is indicated to have sub-authority with respect to action, because the action belongs to each as agent.

25. Applying this reality then to this verb which is ‘to say’, I say that ‘to say’a can signify the relation of origin which is ‘of generating to generated’ and in this way only the Father says, - not indeed by the Word but he says the Word; and in this way Richard [of St. Victor] says On the Trinity VI ch.12 that “only the Father says,” and as Augustine said “the Word, by which he has disposed all things.” In another way, ‘to say’ can signify the disposition of reason which is ‘to declare’, and this insofar as ‘to declare’ belongs to something formally, - and in this way the Word says all declarable things and by himself formally; and about this Augustine speaks ibid., VII ch.3 n.4: “For if this word is our temporal word etc.”b In the third way it can signify the same disposition of the declarer, insofar is it belongs to it not formally but by way of principal, and in this way it is said of the Father that ‘he says by the Word’, - and in this third way Augustine says ibid. that ‘the Father says by the Word’; in this way too he says ibid. XV ch.14 n.23 that “the Father saying himself generated the Son equal to himself,” where the takes ‘to say’ for ‘to declare by way of principal’, although he does not add there the principle by which the Father says.c, d

a [Interpolation, from Appendix A] in one way it is taken essentially, as is plain from Anselm Monologion ch.63 (and Augustine does not speak thus, On the Trinity VII ch.1 n.1); because according to Anselm the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one sayer, and any person says formally and with no other person in the ablative. In another way it is taken personally, and thus.

b [Interpolation, from Appendix A] And thus it is an essential and is appropriated to one person; for any person declares his own intelligibles that are in him, - yet it is appropriated to the Son, as is plain from the following doubt.

c [Interpolation] and thus the principal signified thing is an essential feature of it, but it connotes a notional feature, as was said above about gift [Reportatio IA d.32 n.35] - With what disposition is it construed? I say that if it were the same as ‘to create’ it would denote that it has the idea of authentic formal principle, and it is construed with the disposition of such principle.

d [Note by Duns Scotus] To say is purely an essential (Monologion 64 [nn.6, 30]). Purely a personal (‘to verbalize’): thus does the Father say the Son, not ‘by the Word’ unless it is dative (‘for the Word’) and by taking ‘to say’ as ‘to communicate by expressing’. In the third way, to declare formally: thus it is an essential (as in the first way), and thus does any of them here say by his own actual knowledge, as in the first way any of them says by his own intelligence; but in the third way it is appropriated to the Word, and first of the Father. In the fourth way, to declare by way of principle; which connotes a personal by the ‘by way of principle’, and it signifies an essential by ‘to declare’.

26. But then there is a doubt, whether to declare formally everything declarable is proper to the Word.

27. Some say that it is, because this belongs to him by force of his production.

28. But this was discussed above, in distinction 27 question 1 nn.100-101; and generally, since this verb ‘to declare’ states a relation of reason, and no such relation is proper to any person nor is included in what is proper to any person, it will not be the ‘to declare’ that is proper to the Word, but it is only appropriated to him by the fact that the Word, by force of his production, has actual knowledge communicated to him; but the Father, although he has it, yet, by the force by which he produces, he is memory, and he does not produce insofar as he is actual knowledge; but to actual knowledge - whereby it is actual - it belongs to declare, and therefore ‘to declare’ more belongs with a property of the Son than with a property of the other persons, and so it is more appropriated to him. But it truly is in every other person, because any person has actual declaration insofar as it is actual knowledge, and has it as equally declarative really as the actual knowledge is which is ‘word’. Therefore the Father formally declares everything by himself, just as the Son and the Holy Spirit formally declare everything each by himself. Therefore the Father and Son declare by the Holy Spirit by way of principle, although these ways of taking ‘to declare’ - formally and by way of principle - are not as much in use as those by which the Word is said to declare formally and the Father to do so by the Son by way of principle; and the reason for the greater use of these words is the appropriation of actual knowledge to the Word.

29. To the second question, then, I concede the negative part of the question, because of the reason of Augustine ibid. [n.2].a

a [Interpolation] The declaration of this is as follows: an essential act cannot belong to any supposit by mediation of any principle as a ‘by which’, unless it is to such person the formal principle of existence (as the Father is wise by ungenerated wisdom), or the originating principle for it of existence (in which way the Master concedes [I d.32 ch.2 n.287] that the Son is wise by ungenerated wisdom, from which he has the fact that he is wise), or the sub-authentic principle with respect to such act (in which way it is conceded that the Father creates by the Word); but the Son - or generated wisdom - is not for the F ather the formal principle of existence, nor the originating principle, nor the sub-authentic active principle, with respect to his essential act, -because he does not produce that act in himself (but it is communicated to him and to [from?] the Son), and the sub-authentic active principle has the idea of producer with respect to the act with respect to which it is called such a principle. But to be wise is an essential act,     therefore the Father is not wise with generated wisdom. - But this he [sc. Scotus] said at first [Reportatio IA d.32 n.27], and then, so that the solution of the question may be better seen, one must first see it as it is contained above [nn.23.25] etc     .