Maverick Philosopher, Scholastic

The Maverick Philosopher takes a turn towards the substance abusers: Here.
See for example, Franciscus de Mayronis, Quodlibet q. 9 arg. prin. 1 (ed. Venezia 1520, ff. 244va): Utrum christianus sufficienter in theologia instructus possit defenere articulum creationis contra adversarios veritatis quantumcumque peritos.

And it is argued first that one such is not able: because it was a common concept among the philosophers that from nothing nothing is made; but that article [ie. creation, an article of faith] posits that something was made from nothing by divine power; therefore that article is against a common concept of the soul. That however which is against a common concept cannot be defened since it is against reason. 

But against: because Catholics firmly hold that God can create something from nothing. If however they are not able to defend this, they are not able to hold it firmly, although they can be convinced; and consequently they can be ripped away from that truth.

Now, most of the Scholastics, when they are wearing their philosopher's hats, deny that creation can be demonstrated, and in this part ways with the MP.  But wearing their theologian's hats they would agree with the MP (indeed, he mentions Aquinas). They explain the tension between the claim that 'from nothing, nothing is made' and creation ex nihilo precisely by appealing to accounts of divine cognition, i.e. the divine ideas.  For Scotus, see this post where he outlines his view of divine cognition. First, the divine intellect cognizes the divine essence, then in a series of stages it generates the essences of creatables in intelligible being, knows the essences, and reflects on them.  In other passages we learn that following the production into intelligible being, these creatable quiddities are generated into possible being in a later instant of nature (only essences containing non-repugnant terms make it into this instant) and in yet a later instant of nature the divine will actualizes some of these essences in actual existence.

Aufredus Gonteri on the Modes of Creaturely Being

The following is a snippet from Gonteri's commentary on the Lombard. Gonteri was a Franciscan from Brittany, and lectured on the Sentences at Barcelona and Paris in the 1320's. His commentary is a good example of the practice of reading the Sentences 'secundum alium', that is copying other scholars' commentaries into one's own.  Gonteri takes material from thinkers such as Henry of Harclay, Francis of Marchia, and Gerard Odonis.  This is illustrated by the question on modes of creaturely being; see Duba-Friedman-Schabel, "Henry of Harclay and Aufredo Gonteri Brito,"  in Medieval Comm. on the Sent. of Peter Lombard, p. 304

Gonteri includes (at least) 15 questions from Gerard of Odonis's commentary on Book II. We have edited Odonis's Book II, dist. 1, part 1, qu. 2, which corresponds to Gonteri's Book II, dist. I, qu. 22. Again, Gonteri's choice is impressive, since this question asks "whether before its creation a creature has any being distinct from the being of its cause," and Odonis outlines nine sorts of being that a creature has before creation, in addition to the one being it receives at creation itself. Of the over 300 lines of text in this realist question, Gonteri copies verbatim about 35%, except for transitional statements where he abbreviates, saying for example, et sic de aliis. These ten modes of being are explained in the first 35% of the question, of which Gonteri copies a full 70%. In the second 35% of the question Odonis presents and responds to some objections; Gonteri omits this section entirely. Gonteri then abbreviates heavily in the last 30% of the question, incorporating only about 30% of that section.

Here are the ten modes:

Aufredus Gonteri, Ordinatio/Compilatio super II Sententiarum d. 1 q. 22 (Pamplona, Archivo de la Catedral, Ms. 5, f. 18vb):

Circa solutionem questionis est primo videndum de modis essendi creature ante sui creationem, circa quod sciendum quod creatura habet ante sui creationem 9 modos, et accipit unum per creationem et tunc* sunt X. Primus est esse producibile et potentiale, secundus esse ydeale, tertius esse intelligibile, quartus esse intellectum, quintus esse voluntabile, sextus esse volutum, septimus esse possibile, octavus esse positivum, nonus esse quidditativum, decimus quem per creationem accipit esse positum.

Concerning the solution of the question, first we must treat of the modes of being of a creature before its creation; concerning which it should be known that a creature has nine modes of being before its creation, and it receives one through creation and then there are ten. The first is producible and potential being, the second ideal being, the third intelligible being, the fourth understood being, the fifth willable being, the sixth willed being, the seventh possible being, the eighth positive being, the ninth quidditative being, the tenth which it receives through creation is posited(?) being

Franciscus de Mayronis, De quatuor signis naturae

This post will be continually updated as I transcribe this treatise of Francis of Meyronnes and as Michael translates it. In this particular redaction it is followed by an abbreviation of Petrus Thomae's De distinctione praedicamentorum redaction A. In the Krakow ms. it is attributed to Petrus Thomae, though this is clearly incorrect.

The treatise is also contained in the following mss. according to O. Weijers ["le travail intellectuel... textes et maitries" vol. 2 p. 98] and various others such as the Hannes Mohle and the Scotist commission:

Bologna, Archig. lat. 96 f. 80v

Erfurt, Amploniana, F 94 ff. 236-238

Krakow, BJ, Cod. 2130, ff. 1ra-4vb(?)

Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I 148 inf.

Oxford, Bodleian library, Canon. Misc. 371 f. 236

Oxford, Merton College Library, Ms. 260, ff. 60r-61v

Praha, KMK, Ms. 1439, ff. 1-10

[Franciscus de Mayronis, De quatuor signis naturae]

K= Krakow, Bib. Jag., Ms. 2130

In creatura sunt quatuor signa principalia. Primum signum est quidditas.
Quidditas enim habet 7 signa que per ordinem hic assignantur: primum est ens, secundum absolutum, tertium est substantia, quartum corpus, quintum corpus animatum, sextum animal, septimum homo.

Secundum signum creature est modus intrinsecus qui distinguitur tam a formalitate cuius est modus quam a formalitate eius que non variat rationem formalem. Modus intrinsecus habet septem signa: primum est realitas, secundum est existentia, tertium est actualitas, quartum est contingentia, quintum est finitas, 6 est vita, 7 est heceitas.

Tertium signum principale creature est per se passionum et corrucorrespondet(?) primo signo nature, ideo tot habet signa quia de quolibet est aliqua passio ut patet intuenti. Passio habet 7 signa. In primo signo sunt passiones entis. In secundo signo sunt passiones modorum intrinsecorum. In tertio gna^o4(?). In quarto passiones subiectorum. In sexto passiones mediorum proximorum vel propinquorum. In alio passiones specialissimorum.

Quartum signum principale nature est eorum que accidentaliter insunt rei. Et istud distinguitur in novem signa secundum quod sunt novem predicamenta accidentium eorum que accidentaliter insunt rei. Primum est relatio, secundum quantitas, tertium ubi, quartum quando, quintum situs, 6 actio, septima passio, 8 qualitas, nonum habitus.

Primum signum est entitas que habet passiones quarum alique sunt modi intrinseci. Alie sunt divisiones et passiones sunt quidem(?) scilicet veritas, bonitas, unitas, realitas, aliqualitas; realitas est passio et modus intrinsecus entis. Divisiones autem sunt iste: prima est per respectivum et absolutum. Secunda est per potenciam et actum. Tertia est per dependens et independens. Quarta est per creatum et increatum. Quinta est per finitum et infinitum. 6 est per decem predicamenta. | [K 1rb]

Iste sunt distinctiones quia arguunt distinctas seu diversas realitates et inter diversas realitates oritur distinctio realis.

Secunda est quidditas sci3(?) absolutum habet suas passiones que de ipsa concluduntur demonstrative nam omnes entitates absolute(iter. K) concluduntur de suo subiecto passio autem absoluti est esse a se passio respectivi est esse ad aliud passio autem concluditur de suo subiecto sicut omnis entitas absoluta est ad se absolutum autem est quedam entitas absoluta ergo absolutum est a se idem dico per contrarium(?) de relativo.

Tertia quidditas sci3(?) substantia habet passiones suas que de se ipsa cooncluduntur demonstrative per conceptum superiorem si subiectum non habet diffinitionem ideo passio primo concluditur de ipsa per conceptum superiorem.

Quarta quidditas est corpus de quo passio eius concluditur eodem modo sicut dictum est de aliis quidditatibus et ceteris inferioribus.

Quinta quidditas est corpus animatum et habet passiones suas que de ipso concluduntur demonstrative nam omnis passio concluditur de suo subiecto demonstrative.

Sexta quidditas est animatis et habet passiones suas que de ipso concluduntur demonstrative

[7 quidditas i.m. K]

Secundum signum principale est modorum intrinsecorum qui(?) in septem signa distinguitur. In primo est realitas de quo primo est notandum quod realitas est fundamentum immediatum realis distinctionis nam inter duas formalitates semper cadit distinctio formalis sicut inter duas realtates distinctio realis. Nota quod inter modos intrinsecos creature realitas est communior quia in pluribus reperitur. In secundo est existentia. Circa quam notandum est quod realitas et existentia non causant distinctionem realem nec formalem set modalem solum, verbi gratia anima rationalis alium modum existendi habet extra corpus | [K 1va] et alium(sup. lin. K) in corpore et nichilominus(e. n. sup. lin. K). Iste modus non causat diversitatem in anima cum sit una realitas anime in corpore et extra corpus. Est autem modalis distinctio que oritur inter duos modos intrinsecos eiusdem vel alterius rationis sicut inter existentiam et realitatem. Nota quod existentia non distinguitur a realitate realiter nec formaliter set sicut modus intrinsecus ab alio modo alterius rationis.

In tertio est actualias. Circa quod notandum quod actualitas prout est modus intrinsecus non est actualitas forme set actus essendi cuiuscumque rei in esse reali et actuali. Nota quod actualitas ut actualitas est non causat cum alia actualitate distinctionem realem nec utique actualitati assit alia realitas verbi gratia actualitas forme et actualitas materie non causant distinctionem realem nec pro tanto materie et forme assunt diverse realitates.

In quarto contingentia. circa quod est notandum quod continegentia ut est modus intrinsecus modus est modus accidentis(accit’) vel contingentia possibilis ad esse vel ad non esse set illud quo res contingenter ponitur in esse et non necessario ideo contingentia universi est modus intrinsecus ipsius Dei. Nota etiam quod contingentia creature non distinguitur realiter a creatura set distinguitur ab ea ex natura reisicut modus intrinsecus a formalitate.

In quinto est finitas creata. Circa quod(sup. lin. K) notandum quod finitas et infinitas ut sunt modi intrinseci creatorum vel creature non sunt finitas vel infinitas extensiva quia secundum Philosophum primo Phisicorum quantitati congruunt set ut sunt intrinseci sunt quantitates virtuales(i.m. K) que essentialiter rei conveniunt. Nota etiam quod quantitas virtutis non distinguitur realiter ab esse cuius est modus intrinsecus set disitnguitur ex natura rei sicut est de aliis modis intrinsecis.

In sexto vita. Circa quod est notandum quod vivere est modus intrinsecus non est actus secundus set est actus primus rei viventis quia vivere ut actus secundus realiter | [K 1vb] distinctus a vivente ut autem est actus prmus sive modus intrinsecus non distinguitur realiter a vivente.

In septimo est heceitas ubi notandum est quod heceitas non est quiditas individua quia si esset quidditas individua que distinguuntur per heceitatem distinguerentur quidditative et tunc etiam individua possent diffiniri quod est contra Philosophum. Ex quo relinquitur quod heceitas sit modus intrinsecus cum non variet rationem formalem seu quidditatem.

Tertium signum principale est passio et corvudet(?) primo signo nature etiam tot habet signa quot primum signum quidditatum quia de qualibet quidditate est demonstrabilis aliqua passio ut patet intuenti. Illud ergo signum dividitur seu distinguitur in septem. In primo sunt passiones entis que superius sunt generalissimorum(? i.m. K) posite. In secundo sunt passiones modorum intrinsecorum sive diversorum. In tertio passiones generalissimorum(?) . In quarto sunt passiones subalnatorum(!) positorum remotorum. In quinto sunt passiones subalternorum mediorum. In sexto sunt passiones subalternatorum propinquorum. In alio sunt passiones specialissimorum unde quod cuilibet quidditati corvundet(?) aliqua passio per se et est demonstrabilis demonstratione propter quid. Nota etiam quod secundus modus passionis quidditatum convenit mathematice(?) non distinguitur a suis subicibibus(? sup. lin.) realiter quia maioris abstractionis sunt quam materialies que etiam realiter distinguuntur a suis subiectis sole enim passiones materiales secundum doctorem nostrum scilicet Scotum realiter distinguuntur a suis subiectis. Sunt enim predicte passiones idem realiter cum suis subiectis set distincte ab eis formaliter.

Quartum signum principale est eorum que accidentaliter insunt rei qualia sunt predicamenta accidentis. Et illud distinguitur in novem signa set quod sunt novem predicamenta | [K 2ra] accidentis. In primo est relatio quia relatio creature ad deum immediate fundatur in substantia et relatio idemptitatis secundum Philosophum fundatur super unum in substantia sicut est relatio quantitatis super unum in quantitate. In secundo est quantitas. Circa quod est notandum quod quantitas secundum suas species per accidens inest substantie et idem dico de quolibet predicamento accidentis. Et ideo omnia predicamenta realiter distinguuntur a substantia etiam contra se invicem quia que per accidens insunt alicui distinguuntur ab eo. In tertio est predicamentum ubi quod est ordo parcium in toto ubi vero est circumscrptio corporis locati a loci circumscriptione procedens. Item ex alio differunt quia ubi est secundus modus extrinsecus adveniens potentia autem est in predicamento quantitatis ut est species. In quarto signo est quando. Circa quod est notandum quod quando est illud quod derelinquitur ex adiacencia temporum(i.m. K) et habet habitudinem ad tempus sicut passio quantitatis ad quantitatem. Nota etiam quod predicamentum ubi precedit quando quia ubi est(sup.lin. K) respectus extrinsecus qui innascitur(?) ex habitudinem permanentis ad permanens quando est respectus qui innascitur ex habitudine successivi. In quinto est situs. Circa quod est notandum quod situs est respectus extrinsecus qui innascitur ex habitudine corporis situantis ad situatum. Et differt situs a poe(?) quia situs est habitudo tocius ad totum secundum omnes suas partes. Po(?) est habitudo parcium secundum partes secundum habitudinem tocius ad totum. In sexto est actio que est respectus extrinsecus causatus ex habitudine activi ad passum facta debita approximatione quia agens phisicum(?) non agit nisi in debite approximatum. In septimo est passio qui est respectus extrinsecus causatus ex habitudini activi ad passum et habet se modo opposito quo effectus ad causam. Nam passio est effectus illatio(?) que actionis. In octavo est qualitas que est predicamentum absolutum. Qualitas oritur a substantia. Post istos omnes respectus | [K 2rb] In nono est habitus qui est respectus extrinsecus ex habitudine habentis ad habitum quia habitus alienum predicamentum est et maxime extrinsecum.

[Petrus Thomae, Parve formalitates = abbreviatio questionis de distinctione predicamentorum redactionis A]

In presenti materia declaranda servabitur sequens ordo: in primo tractabitur quot sunt modi distinctionum a doctoribus, secundo qui sit unaqueque illarum distinctionum, tertio ad evidenciam formalitatum plura dicta declarabuntur, quarto ad quesitum principale respondebitur.

Quantum ad primum articulum primo ponam tria dicta, secundo de qualibet distinctione in speciali videbitur.

De primo sit primum istud dictum quod septem sunt modi distinctionum. Prima est distinctio rationis, secunda est ex natura rei, tertia formalis, quarta realis, quinta essencialis, sexta se totum subiective, septima se totum obiective quod omnia que distinguuntur in mundo distinguuntur aliqua istarum distinctionum.

Tertium dictum est quod tot modis dicitur unum oppositorum quot modis et reliquum ut habetur per Philosophum primo Thopicorum. Idem et distinctio sunt opposita ideo quot modis dicitur distinctio sive diversitas tot modis dicitur idemptitas et ergo sicut septem sunt modi distinctionum per oppositum septem sunt ideptitates.

Tertium dictum est quod predicti modi aliter se inferunt cum idemptitate et aliter cum distinctione aliter autem affirmative aliter negative. Ubi est sciendum quod quecumque distinguuntur distinctione(i.m. K) sex precedentibus vel quecumque distinguitur aliis quecumque set non oportet de septima et sic de aliis eodem modo procedendo. Cum idemptitate vero est per oppositum.

Quantum ad secundum dictum principale est sciendum quid sit distinctio rationis, secundo quid sit distinctio ex natura rei, tertio quid sit distinctio formalis | [K 2va] quarto realis quinto essentialis sexto se totum subiective septimo se totum obiective iuxta primum dico quod distinctio rationis est illa que habet esse per actum comparativuum vel collativuum quod idem ipsius intellectus ita quod non habet ex se actum intellectus circumscriptus ideo dependet precise ab opere rationis verbi gratia dicendo sic Petrus est petrus una entitas et una realitas est in subiecto et co(?) et predicato. Ipsa auatem in subiecto ut subiectum est existens. Ubi est notandum quod actus est duplex: primus est rectus seu primus alius est comparativus seu collativus actus primus seu rectus est vel dicitur esse quo fertur intellectus in obiectum non alterum comparando nec etiam componendo et est actus ille qui appellatur ab Aristotele simplicium intelligentia. Actus secundarius sedu collativus vel comparativus est ille quo intellectus fertitur in subiectum ad alterum comparando. Tunc ergo dicitur distinctio rationis quando aliquid disitnguitur ab alio non quidam primo modo sive directo actu intellectus set tantum secundo modo videlicet actu reflexivo ipsius intellectus. Sciendum tamen quod ut dicit quidam doctor distinctio rationis non solum causatur ab actu intelllectus set eciam ab actu collativo cuiuslibet potentie collative cuiusmodi sive(?) voluntas ymago et fantasia utraque enim illarum ponit aliquid aliud comparare.

Sequitur secunda distinctio que est ex natura rei et dicitur quod est quando aliqua duo sic se habent quod unum contradictionis extremorum competit uni et non alteri ex qua distinctione infero aliqua correlaria. Primum est quod genus et differentia differunt ex natura rei. Hoc correlarium primo probo quia genus et | [K 2vb] differentia sic se habent quod unum extremum contradictionis competit uni et non alteri ergo differunt ex natura rei. Consequentia est formalis quia arguitur a diffinitione ad diffinitum. Antecedens probatur quia(?) differentia ex natura rei competit quod sit determinans quia determinat genus et contrahit ipsum et cum termino est deterimnans. Tum etiam generi competit ex natura rei quod sit determinabile et non est semper determinans et sic competutnt extrema contradictionis quia determinans et non determinans determinabile et non determinabile que sunt contradictoria et unum extremorum dicitur de uno et non de alio. Et si aliquis diceret ergo distinguuntur ex natura rei formaliter ex natura ut iam probatum est set formaliter quia diffinitiones sunt diverse etiam etiam quod non valet consequentia quia diffinitiones sunt quid nominis et quod non differant formaliter sic probatur illa distinguuntur formaliter que constituunt unam rationem formalem set genus et differentia sunt huiusmodi ergo etc. Maior est nota set minor probatur quia animal et rationale constituunt rationem formalem hominis. Secundum correlarium est est quod partes diffinitionis et diffinitum differunt ex natura rei. Consequentia est formalis quia arguitur sicut in preterdicti. Et antecedens prbo quia competit partibus diffinitionis quod constituunt diffinitum quia ex animali et rationali constituitur homo et sic competit partibus quod sunt constituentes et quod quelibet sit constituens et non constituta nec constitute et diffinitionem quod sit constitutum et non constituens set constituens et non constituens constitutum et non constitutum sunt contradictoria et unum extremorum de uno sequitur et on dicitur de alio ergo differunt ex natura rei.

Nunc restat declare quid sit distincito formalis. Distinctio formalis est distinctio formalium | [K 3ra] rationum distinctarum ita quod illa que habent distinctas rationes formales dicuntur distincta formaliter set oportet videre quot modis investigatur presens distinctio. Et dicitur quod tripliciter primo modo per viam diffinitionis quia quando aliquid ponitur in diffinitione alicuius quod ponitur in diffinitione alterius talia distinguuntur formaliter ex quo infero aliqua correlaria primo quod homo et asinus distinguuntur formaliter quia aliquid ponitur in diffinitione hominis quod non ponitur in diffinitione asini et sic de aliis speciebus. Secundum corellarium quod attributa in divinis disitnguuntur formaliter quia aliquid ponitur in diffinitione unius quod non ponitur in diffinitione alterius. Secundo modo investigatur per viam divisionis per aliquas differentias et unum cadit sub una et aliud sub alia distinguuntur formaliter sicut animal dividitur per rationale et irrationale et ideo dicit illud quod cadit sub rationali distinguitur formaliter ab illo quod cadit sub irrationali sicut etiam de omnibus predicabilibus et predicamentis et consequentia formali et materiali et ens dividitur per absolutum et respectivum et illud quod cadit sub absoluto distinguitur formaliter ab illo quod cadit sub respectivo et ideo dicamus quod differentia que est absoluta distinguitur formaliter a proprietate que est ad aliud. 3^o investigatur per viam reduplicationis ut si aliquid conveniat alicui cum reduplicatione quod quod non convenit alteri illa distinguuntur formaliter ut homo inquantum homo est rationalis ex quo squitur quod homo et lapis distinguuntur formaliter.

Sequitur quarta distinctio scilicet realis. Est ergo notandum quod illa distinguuntur realiter que sic se habent quod quodlibet est aliqua entitas positiva et | [K 3rb] realis et unum ab alio non potest de eo predicari nec ipsum includit propter hoc quod dicitur quod quodlibet sit entitas positiva excludunt negationes et privationes quia cum non dicant aliquam entitatem positive non distinguuntur realiter quanvis connotant aliquid positivuum et aliquam entitatem realem positivam proprie non distinguuntur realiter per hoc quod dicit realis excluduntur encia rationis que tamen non sint encia realia nec inter se nec ab aliquo alio realiter distinguuntur ut sumatur res communiter et transcendenter et dicitur in diffinitione unum aba lio ultimate abstrahunt. Pro evidentia huius partis abstrahitur notandum quid sit ultima abstractio dicitur quod ultima abstractio est secundum quam aliquid abstrahitur in omni eo quod in eius ratione quidditativa nullo modo includitur. Et est sciendum quod quatuor modis investagatur huius abstractionis. Distinctio primo modo via originis quia quandocumque aliquid originatur ab aliquo illud realiter distinguuntur ab illo quia per beatum augustinum primo de trinitate idem non gignit seipsum et sic investigatur ista distinctio inter personas divinas. Secundo via generationis quia quecumque sic se habent quod uno generato reliquum non generatur talia distinguuntur realiter et isto modo investigatur inter materiam et formam forma autem generatur materia autem minime. Tertio modo investigatur via corruptionis quia quando aliquid corrumpitur alio non corrupto taliam realiter distinguujntur quia idem non potest simul esse et non esse ideo quodlibet individuum realiter distinguitur ab alio et fundamentum et relatio quia corrupta relatione fundamentum non corrumpitur quarto modo via separationis quia quandocumque | [K 3va] aliquid separatur vel potest separari ab alio realiter distinguuntur et quod separatur realiter distinguitur ab illo a quo separatur quia idem non separatur a seipso ideo ratio quare accidentia separatur a substantia in sacramento altaris est quia distinguitur a subiecto realiter. Sequitur quinta distinctio que dicitur essencialis et est quando aliqua duo sic se habent quod actuali existentia per aloiquam potentiam possunt separari sicut accidens et substantia materia et forma et sic de aliis. Et est sciendum quod quatuoru modis investigatur predicta distinctio primo modo ex predicamentali coordinatione quia quandocumque aliqua predicantur in diversis predicamentis talia distinguuntur essncialiter quia ut habetur per Philosophum primo Posteriorum essencie predicamentorum sunt impermixte. Secundo investigatur ex diversitate specifica nam diverse species essentialiter distinguuntur illo modo investigatur diversitas essentialis essenciali dependencia etiam isto modo dicimus quod causa distinguitur essencialiter a suo effectu saltem de causis extrinsecis etiam deus a creatura quarto modo investigatur via existencie quia quando aliqua sic se habent quod unum existit in rerum natura et aliud non talia distinguuntur essencialiter. Et isto modo investigatur et diversitas essencialis inter creaturas creatorum ordine essenciali sequitur distinctio que dicitur se totum subiective et sunt ista que sic se habent quod eorum realitates sunt distincti numeri vel indistincti vel eciam actuali existencia vel quando realiter sunt divisa vel particularizata a realitate alterius sic Plato, sortes et alia individua eisudem speciei. Sequitur septima distinctio que est se totum obiective et dicitur quod illa distinguuntur se totis obiective que non conveniunt in aliqua realitate vel | [K 3vb] quidditativa ratio vel a quibus non potest abstrahi aliquis conceptus realis et unus [inser. ? i.m. K] cuius seu prime intentionis sicut dicere ultime individuales. Unde secundum mentem Scoti differe ultime sunt heceitas que sunt distincte se totis obiective quia in nullo conceptu quidditativo conveniunt conceptus enim earum sunt simplices ex quibus concludo tale corellarium quod deus et creatura se totis subiective distinguuntur non autem obiective hec omnia patent ex 6 et septima et hec de secundo principali.

Nunc autem ponitur tertius modus principalis ubi sunt aliqua dicta declaranda ad evidenciam formalitatum. Primo est sciendum quod omnis distinctio aut est rationis aut ex natura ex natura rei tamquam universale quod dividitur in distinctionem formalem realem se totis subiective et se totis obiective. Secuno notandum quod forma dicitur multis modis uno modo dicitur forma prout est altera pars compositi et sic vocatur forma principalis. Secundo modo dicitur forma pro forma tocius puta pro tota ipsa natura ut humanitas dicitur forma tocius non pro informacione ipsius materie set ex qua ext suppositum ipsius quidditative tertio modo dicitur forma omnis substantia immaterialis sicut deus et intelligencie dicuntur forme quarto modo pro ratione contractum(?) quidditativam et ab ista forma ultimo dicta sumitur formalitas de qua intendimus hic. Tertio est notandum quod una et eadem res civersimodi potest movere intellectum spacium quod inter sursum et deorsum potest movere intellectum diversimode uno modo ut est deorsum in sursum alio modo ut est assu(?) deorsum et iste sunt diverse rationes tenentes se | [K 4ra] ex parte obiecti cum eadem res possit apprehendi diversimodi ab intellectu convenit consequenter eadem quidditas per diversas rationes dico ergo quod licet una et eadem et res habeat diversas rationes non tamen habet diversas quidditates sermo eadem quidditas potest assignari per diversas rationes que quidem quidditas diversimode apprehensa ab intellectu et hec de tertio articulo.

Nota quod aliquid potest esse magis notum alio dupliciter uno modo simpliciter et secundum suam essenciam et hoc modo simplicissimus et principia sunt nociora et magis nota compositis et posterioribus et quanto sunt simpliciora et priora tantum secundum se sunt nociora et quia deus est simplicissimus et primus omnium ideo de se est maxime notus alio modo potest aliquid esse magis notum eciam quo ad nos et isto modo composita sunt nociora simplicibus et prioribus et quanto sunt magis composita posteriora tanto nobis nociora sicut ait Aristotiles in primo phisicorum innata est nobis via a nocioribus nobis ad ignociora nature procedere.

Expliciun formalitates parve petri thome provincie sancti iacobi

Nota quod in fia sequenti quando discendimus cum distinctione dicimus quod omnia illa que distinguuntur se totis obiective si fas est dicere disitnguuntur se totis obiective essencialiter realiter formaliter ex natura rei et ratione | [K 4rb] nota quod quando ascendimus cum ideptitate sunt omnibus aliis ydeptitatibus idem scilicet rationis etiam ex natura rei et sic de aliis.

Translation

In creatures there are four principle signs. The first sign is quiddity.

For quiddity has seven signs which are are assigned here.

The first is being; the second is the absolute; the third is substance; the fourth, body; the fifth, animate body; the sixth, animal; the seventh, man.

The second sign of a creature is the intrinsic mode, which is distinguished both from the formality of which it is the mode and from the formality which does not vary its formal ratio. The intrinsic mode has seven signs. The first is reality; the second is existence; the third is actuality; the fourth is contingency; the fifth is finitude; the sixth is life; the seventh is haecceity.

The third principle sign of a creature is the per se property, and it corresponds to the firth sign of nature; therefore it has the same number of signs, because everything has some property, as is clear if you look. The property has seven signs. In the first sign are the properties of being. In the second sign are the properties of intrinsic modes. In the third is [. . . ?] In the fourth, the properties of the subject. In the sixth, the properties of the proximate or neighboring means. In the other [seventh] the properties of the most special species.

The fourth principle sign of nature is that of those things which are in a thing accidentally. And this is distinguished in nine signs, according to the fact that there are nine predicaments of accidents of those things which are in a thing accidentally. The first is relation; the second, quantity; the third, place; the fourth, time; the fifth, position; the sixth, action; the seventh, passion; the eighth, quality; the ninth, habit.

The first sign is entity, which has properties, some of which are intrinsic modes. There are [also] some other divisions and properties, namely, truth, goodness, unity, reality, precision [? aliqualitas ?], reality. And these are the divisions of the intrinsic modes of being. The first is by relative and absolute; the second is by potency and act; the third is by dependent and independent; the fourth is by created and uncreated; the fifth is by finite and infinite; the sixth is by the ten predicaments.

Henry of Ghent on Instants of Nature

Henricus de Gandavo, Quodlibet V q.1 (ed. Badius, f. 153r):

"...primo et simplici intelligentia concipit ipsam essentiam sub ratione essentiae, et deinde negotiando circa essentiam conceptam concipit eam ut intellecta est, et ut intelligens est, et ut ratio intelligendi et quia in cognoscendo et intelligendo seipsam complacet ei in seipsa, deinde concipit eam ut volitum, volens et ratio volendi."

"First, by simple understanding he (God) conceives his essence under the aspect of essence, and then by engaging with the essence as conceived he conceives it as it is understood, and as it is understanding and as it is a means of understanding. And because in knowing and understanding himself he is pleased in himself, then he conceives his essence as willed, willing, and as a means of willing."

Here we have yet another example of Henry's profound influence on Duns Scotus. Scotus, as you may well recall, uses this type of language which posits quasi-temporal stages in the divine nature in his discussion of the production of created essences in intelligible being as well as his treatment of predestination. This became quite common after Scotus and Henry, as we saw from the Alnwick quote I posted several months ago, and was even adopted by some Thomists such as Hervaeus Natalis (whom I posted on earlier this month), one of the instrumental figures in Aquinas' canonization process. I am not sure if Henry originated this conceptual tool or not. It can, I think, like Scotus' version, be distinguished into four instants:

(1) God conceives the divine essence qua essence

(2) The divine intellect "moves" over the essence, knows it as known, knowing, and a means of understanding.

(3) God is pleased in or delights in his essence

(4) God conceives his essence as will, willed and a means of willing.

The divine attributes are distinguished by the divine intellect at (2); and attribute, on Henry's view, is the essence known under a specific ratio; the essence as the foundation of the attribute keeps the divine intellects concepts from being vain, while the differing rationes keep the divine attributes from being synonymous. Henry is quite clear that he thinks all of this goes on in the divine intellect, not the divine essence. All the attributes are relations of reason. However, in another passage, he admits there is a "quasi" potency prior to the act of divine understanding, which I think would have to be a real quasi potency, as Henry accepts the dictum that being is divided primarily into being inside the mind and outside the mind, and this potency is prior to the operation of the intellect. It is but a small step from here to Scotus' position that the divine attributes are distinct ex natura rei prior to the operation of the divine intellect, even in God's intuitive cognition of the divine essence. But more on this another time.

Scotus on Instants in Divine Cognition

One of the controversial claims Scotus makes in I Ord. d.36 is that the main difference between the human intellect and the divine is that the divine intellect produces created things in intelligible being. He was not followed in this by his disciples, who argue against him outright on this point (See Francis of Meyronnes, Peter Thomae, even William of Alnwick). Francis just says "non capio" and moves on, Peter tries to restrict the intelligible being of creatures to the divine essence, and I'm not sure what Alnwick does. A post for another time. Here is an equally controversial bit from d.35, also about the status of the divine ideas in the divine mind.

Ordinatio I d.35 q. un

n.32:

"Hoc potest poni sic: Deus in primo instanti intelligit essentiam suam sub ratione mere absoluta; in secundo instanti producit lapidem in esse intelligibili et intelligit lapidem, ita quod ibi est relatio in lapide intellecto ad intellectionem divinam, sud nulla adhuc in intellectione divina ad lapidem, sed intellectio divina terminat relationem lapidis ut intellecti ad ipsam; in tertio instanti, forte, intellectus divinus potest comparare suam intellectionem ad quodcumque intelligibile ad quod nos possumus comparare, et tunc comparando se ad lapidem intellectum, potest causare in se relationem rationis; et in quarto instanti potest quasi reflecti super istam relationem cuasatam in tertio instanti, et tunc illa relatio rationis erit cognita. Sic ergo non est relatio rationis necessaria ad intelligendum lapidem-tamquam prior lapide-ut obiectum, immo ipsa ut causata est posterior (in tertio instanti), et adhuc posterior erit ipsa ut cognita, quia in quarto instanti"

This can be posited thus: God in the first instant understands his essence under a merely absolute conception; in the second instant he produces the stone in intelligible being and understands the stone, to that there is a relation in the understood stone to the divine intellection, but still none in the divine intellection to the stone. But the divine intellection terminates the relation of the stone as understood to itself. In the third instant, the divine intellect can compare its own intellection to any other intelligible to which we can compare, and then by comparing itself to the understood stone can cause in itself a relation of reason. And in the fourth instant it can quasi reflect over that relation caused in the third instant, and then that relation of reason will be known. So therefore there is not a necessary relation of reason for understanding the stone-just as prior to the stone-as object, indeed it as caused is posterior (in the third instant), and it will still be posterior as known, because in the fourth instant.


n.49:

"Et ita, intelligo quod in primo instanti est a sub ratione absoluti; in secundo est b sub ratione absoluiti, habens esse per a; in tertio b refertur ad a sub ratione absoluti, si est relatio non mutua, - vel a et b referuntur relationibus mutuis. Hic ergo, in primo instanti intellectus est in actu per essentiam ut mere absolutam, tamquam in actu primo, sufficiente ad producendum quodlibet in esse intelligibili; in secundo instanti producit lapiedem in esse intellecto, ita quod terminus ille est et habet respectum ad intellectionem divinam: nullus autem est respectus e converso in intellectu divino, quia respectus non est mutuus.

Scotus on Predestination Ia

Ordinatio I d. 41 q. unica n. 40-51 [VI 332-36]:

It can be said otherwise that there is no reason for predestination [praedestinationis nulla est ratio] from the part of the predestined, in some way prior to that predestination. Nevertheless there is something prior to reprobation, not indeed on account of which God effectively reprobates insofar as this is an action of God (just as was argued in the preceding opinion, because "then God would be passive"), but on account of which that action so terminates to this object and not to that.

The first is proved, because one ordinately willing the end and those things which are to the end, first wills the end than something of beings to the end, and account of that end wills other things. Therefore when in the total process by which beatifiable creatures are led to the perfect end, the ultimate end is perfect beatitude, God - willing something of that order to somone - first wills an end for this beatifiable creature, and quasi posterior wills other things for him, which are in the order of those which pertain to that end. But grace, faith, merit, and the good use of free choice, all those are to that end (although certain of them more remotely, others more closely). Therefore God first wills the beatitude of that one than something of these other things. And first he wills for him whatsoever of those which he foresees him to have in the future [habiturum], therefore on account of none of them foreseen does he will beatitude to him.

The second is proved, because damnation does not seem good unless because it is just, for - according to Augustine Super Genesim IX - "God is not first an avenger before someone is a sinner" (for it seems cruel to punish someone with no fault pre-existing in him); therefore similarly, God does not first will to punish than he sees someone to be a sinner. Therefore the first act of the divine will, concerning Judas, is not to will to damn Judas inasmuch as Judas is offered in pure nature (because then he would seem to will to damn without fault), but it seems that it is necessary that Judas be offerred to the divine will under the aspect of a sinner before God wills to damn him. Therefore reprobation has a reason from the side of the object, namely the final sin foreseen.

This is confirmed by the authority of Augustine in the book De praedestinatione sanctorum and is in the text [of Peter Lombard's Sentences].

Against that. Peter and Judas are equal in nature [naturalibus], willed by God in the being of existence [esse exsistentiae], in that instant in which they are offered to the divine will in natural and equal existence: God - according to you [sc. Scotus] - first wills beatitude for Peter; I ask then what does he will for Judas? If damnation, I have what is argued, namely, "he reprobates without any reason", - if beatitude, therefore he predestines Judas.

[Scotus's response] It can be said that in that instant he wills nothing for Judas. There is only there the negation of the willing for glory. And likewise, as if in the second instant of nature, when he wills grace to Peter, still there is no positive act of the divine will concerning Judas, but only a negative one. In the third instant, when he wills to permit Pter to be of the mass of perdition or worthy of perdition (and this either on account of original sin or on account of actual sin), then he wills to permit Judas in a similar manner to be a son of perdition. And here is the first positive act - indeed uniform - around Peter and Judas, but from that act that is true, "Judas will be finally a sinner", with those negations posited, namely that he does not will to give him either grace or glory. Therefore in the fourth instant Judas is offered to the divine will as a sinning finally, and then he wills justly to punish and reprobate Judas.

Nor is it a cause for wonder that a similar process is not posited for predestination and reprobation, because all good things are attributed to God principally, evil however to us. And so it is fitting for God's goodness to "predestine without reason" but "to will to damn" does not seem immediately able to be attributed to him [God] with respect to the object as known in its pure nature, but only with respect to the object as known in final mortal sin.

That response can be confirmed similarly: let us posit two people, equally graced from the part of themselves, of which I love one and not the other. And him whom I love, I preorder to some good through which he may be able to please me; him however whom I do not love, I do not preorder to such good. If so it would be that in my power it would be [possible] to permit them to be able to offend, I might be able to will to permit each to offend - and from which I do not will to lead him to that through which it would be possible to please me, I foreknow his offense to be perpetual (and so I rightly punish him); I foreknow the offense of the other to which I will [him to be able to please me] that it is about be to remitted or commuted.

But against that it is objected:
Because God certitudinally does not foresee Judas to be evil, accoridng to that way - for the permission of some act and the certitude of permission do not make certitude about that act, because it is necessary to have some effective cause. Therefore from this alone that God foreknows himself to will to permitt Judas to sin, he is not certain that Judas will sin; or we can speak about a good or evil angel (which were not in original sin): from this alone I say it does not seem that he knows that Lucifer will sin, and from this it seems that Lucifer is not offerred to him as a sinner.

Furthermore, what is that "to will to permit Lucifer to sin"? If this is some positive act of the will with respect to sin, therefore it seems that he wills him to sin. If there is not a positive act with respect to the act of sin but with repsect to the act of permission, then it will be a reflex act - and then we will have to ask about that permission, whose act it is. If it is a positive act of the will, therefore it seems still that God would have a positive act with repsect to the sin which he permits.

[Scotus's response] The first of those is solved by this that God foreknows himself to be about to cooperate with Lucifer to the substance of that act which will be sin (he foreknows this, because he wills to cooperate with him, if it is a sin of commission), or he foreknows himself not to be about to cooperate to some act if he does not will it (and this, if that first act is a sin of omission); and by knowing himself to be about to cooperate to such substance of the act (not with the required circumstances), or not to be about to cooperate with him for a negative act (and consequently, which he omits), he knows that one to be about to sin: so that he knows "this one about to sin" no only because he knows himself to be about to permit this, but because he knows himself to be about to cooperate with this one for the substance of the act not to the circumstances [? circumstantionati], and consequently that one will commit it - or not to be about to cooperate with him for a negative act, and consequently that one will omit it.

The second argument seeks a difficulty touching on the divine will which we do not discuss here but elsewhere.

Moving Day

I'm moving into some new digs today, with the result that lately I've been packing and not reading. Here's a quote, which I don't have time to translate, but enjoy.

Ordinatio III d. 32 q. unica nn. 19-22

*Update*

I have added a very rough translation, which precedes the latin. The text is somewhat relevant to my previous post on Fr. Schall, as one sees the will having both metaphysical priority and willing in accordance with reason. So what exactly is voluntarism? Is it a useful term? I would say yes, as long as we don't use it as a blanket cipher for Scotus and Muslim fundamentalists; As we should remember that "intellectualism" does not indicate exactly the same thing in Thomas, his predecessors or successors.

"The third is apparent, because there is one power and one first object, and he has one infinite act adequated to himself. Nor is it necessary for that one act to be of all things, as if all things were required for the perfection of this act, but only from the perfection of this act follows this which perfectly tends into the first term; it tends also into all things around which the first term is the total means of acting. Essentia alone is able to be the first means of acting both to the divine intellect and the divine will, because if something else could be the first means, that power would be lowered.

From this it follows that there is not inequality in God's loving of all things, by conparing the act to the agent.

But by comparing the act to connotated objects (?) or to those things over which it passes, there is inequality, not only because those willed things are inequal or inequal goods are willed for them, but also because according to every grade something passes over; for every rationally willing agent, first wills the end, and second immediately that which attains the end, and third other things which are more remotely ordered to attaining the end. so also god most rationally, although not by diverse acts, but by a single act, insofar as he in various ways tends over ordered objects, first wills the end, and in this there is a most perfect act and his intellect is perfect and his willed is blessed; in the second he wills those things which are immediately ordered into him, namely by predestining the elect, who immediately attain him, and this as if by relfecting, by willing others to love the same object with himself; for he first loves himself ordinately (and as a consequence not disordinately by zeal or jealousy), in the second he wills others to have co-lovers, and this is to will others to have his own love in themselves - and this is to predestinate them, if he should willthem to have a good of this sort finally and eternally; third however he wills those which are necessary for attaining this end, namely the goods of grace; fourth he wills - on account of them - other things which are more removed, for example, this sensible world for others so that they might serve them, and so it is true what is said in Book II of the Physics, "in a certain way man is the end of all things," indeed of sensible things, because on account of him willed by God as if in the second instant of nature, are all sensible th ings willed as if in the fourth moment; that also which is nearer to the ultimate end, is accustomed to be called the end of those which are more removed. Either therefore because God willed the sensible world to be as ordered to predestined man, or because he more immediately willed man to love himself than that the sensible world should be, man will be the end of the sensible world.

And so appears the inequality of willable things - as far as the things willed - not as volition is of the one willing, but as it passes over the aforesaid objects. nevertheless, that inequality is not in act on account of the presupposed goodness in whatever objects other than himself, which is a quasi reason wherefore such and such a thing is to be willed, but the reason is in the divine will alone; for because he accepts something in such a grade, therefore they are good in such a grade, not vice versa. Or if it be granted that in them - as they are shown by the intellect - there is some grade of essential goodness, according to which rationally they ought to please the will ordinately, at least this is certain that they are pleasing, as far as actual existence, merely from the divine will, without any reason determining on their part."

In Latine:

tertium apparet, quia una est potentia et unum obiectum primum, et habet unum actum infinitum adaequatum sibi. Nec oportet istum unum actum esse omnium, quasi omnia requirantur ad prefectionem huius actus, sed solummodo ex perfectione huius actus consequitur hoc quod perfecte tendit in primum terminum; tendit etiam in omnia circa quae primus terminus est totalis ratio agendi. Tam autem intellectui divino quam voluntati sola essentia potest esse prima ratio agendi, quia si aliquid aliud posset esse prima ratio, vilesceret illa potentia.

Ex hoc patet quod non est inaequalitas Dei in diligendo omnia, comparando actum ad agentis.

Sed comparando actum ad connotata sive ad ea super quae transit, est inaequalitas, non tantum quia illa volita sunt inaequalia vel inaequalia bona sunt eis volita, sed etiam quia secundum ordinem quemdam transit super ea: nam omnis rationabiliter volens, primo vult finem, et secundo immediate illud quod attingit finem, et tertio alia quae sunt remotius ordinata ad attingendum finem. Sic etiam Deus rationabilissime, licet non diversis actibus, unico tamen actu, in quantum ille diversimode tendit super obiecta ordinata, primo vult finem, et in hoc est actus suus perfectus et intellectus eius perfectus et voluntas eius beata; secundo vult illa quae immediate ordinantur in ipsum, praedestinando scilicet electos, qui scilicet immediate attingunt eum, et hoc quasi reflectendo, volendo alios condiligere idem obiectum secum: qui enim primo se amat ordinate (et per consequens non inordinate, zelando vel invidendo), secundo vult alios habere condilegentes, et hoc est velle alios habere amorem suum in se, - et hoc est praedestinare eos, si velit eos habere huiusmodi bonum finaliter et aeternaliter; tertio autem vult illa quae sunt necessaria ad attingendum hunc finem, scilicet bona gratiae; quarto vult – propter ista – alia quae sunt remotiora, puta hunc mundum sensibilem pro aliis ut serviant eis, ut sic verum sit illud II Physicorum “homo quodammodo est finis omnium,” sensibilium quidem, quia propter ipsum volitum a Deo quasi in secundo signo naturae, sunt omnia sensibilia volita quasi in quarto signo; illud etiam quod est propinquius fini ultimo, consuevit dici finis eorum quae sunt remotiora. Sive ergo quia in ordine ad hominem praedestinatum vult Deus mundum sensibilem esse, sive quia quodammodo immediatius vult hominem amare se quam mundum sensibilem esse, homo erit finis mundi sensibilis.

Et ita patet inaequalitas volibilium – quantum ad ipsa volita – non ut volitio est ipsius volentis, sed ut transit super obiecta modo praedicto. Nec tamen ista inaequalitas in actu est propter bonitatem praesuppositam in obiectis quibuscumque aliis a se, quae sit quasi ratio quare sit sic vel sic volenda, sed ratio est in ipsa voluntate divina sola: quia enim ipsa acceptat aliqua in tali gradu, ideo ipsa sunt bona in tali gradu, non e converso. Vel si detur quod in eis – ut ostensa sunt ab intellectu – sit aliquis gradus bonitatis essentialis, secundum quem rationabiliter debent ordinate complacere voluntati, saltem hoc certum est quod beneplacentia eorum, quantum ad actualem exsistentiam, mere est ex voluntate divina, absque aliqua ratione determinante ex parte eorum.

Instants of Nature

The instants of nature (signum naturae, instans naturae) are an analytic tool employed by Scotus. I am unclear as to its origin, however. Vos, in his recent book, mentioned a name or two and then ran on to something else without giving much explanation. I have seen it in Henry of Ghent, though I don't recall ever seeing it in Thomas or Bonaventure. Basically, it seems to amount to analyzing the divine nature through logical or conceptural divisions in divine processes. By processes I mean cognition and volition, not Trinitarian relations or processions. If one is unfamiliar with this, it sounds as if it amounts to saying God can change. But Scotus would clearly deny this; for as we have hopefully shown already on previous blogs, he is very sensitive (far more so than any other scholastic I have read to date) to explicit doctrinal positions that must be held on authority of Church or Scripture. Furthermore, back around d.8 of book I of the Ordinatio he had a question in which he denied that God can change. So at least in his own mind, he's absolved of the charge. He also uses this mode of analysis without calling attention to it, which is also telling. This is to say, he doesn't ever (that I have seen) make an argument for its appropriateness or try to show that it doesn't involved heresy. In his mind, its part of the scholastic package he's inherited from Henry et al. This is confirmed by various places where he does go against the tradition, such as in d. 2 where he introduces the formal distinction/formal non-identity, or d.26 where he advances the idea that the Trinitarian persons are consituted by something absolute, not relative. In the former case, he advances his postion without "prejudicio" and submits it to the judgment of the Church. In the latter, though in the Ord. it is ambiguous, he seems to be saying that it is more probable than the common opinion but gives different sets of answers to the initial objections from both perspectives. In the Lectura he is more explicit and also says that he holds his opinion without prejudice to the common one (or so say the vatican editors; i skimmed through the section but didn't see it). I should probably admit, however, that in d.2 in the Lectura he is a little more brazen about his opinion and says something like "he has understanding, let him undestand. There is no doubt in my mind". Anyway, here's a quote that seems typical of his use of instants of nature. I give this particular quote because it is the first time I've seen "instantibus naturae" paired with "signum naturae" which may or may not be significant.

Here is the objection [almost unintelligible] that he responds to, Ord. I d. 39 q. un. n.8:

"Et praeterea, si primo offeratur intellectui divino aliqua lex universalis (puta esse glorificandum, esse gratificandum), et istam acceptat voluntas divina (et ex hoc statuitur lex sapientiae), et secundo offerat intellectus voluntati Petrum esse beatificandum, - si voluntas illum acceptet, videtur ex hoc intellectum cognoscere Petrum esse glorificandum, et hoc cognitione dictativa, non accepta in se formaliter a voluntate, licet voluntas verificaverit praemissas ex quibus intellectus istam habet."

And furthermore, if some universal law is first offered to the divine intellect (for example, that something should be glorified or gratified/graced [i'm lazy], and the divine will accepts that (and from this the law of wisdom is established), and second the intellect offers to the will that Peter should be beatified - if the will accepts that, it seems from this that the intellect knows that Peter should be glorified, and this by dictative [?] cognition, not received in itself formally from the will, although the will will have verified the premises from which the intellect has it.

Ord. I d. 38 q. un n.10:

"Ad secundum dico quod intellectus divinus non sic cognoscit aliqua, discurrendo, sicut procedit argumentum; sed distinguendo de instantibus naturae, in primo apprehendit quodcumque operabile (ita illa quae sunt principia operabilium, sicut operabilia particularia), et in secundo offert omnia ista voluntati (quorum omnium aliqua acceptat, tam principiorum practicorum quam particularium operabilium), et tunc in tertio signo intellectus scit aeque immediate illa particularia sicut illa universalia, et ita non acquirit cognitionem illorum particularium ex principiis praedeterminatis per voluntatem. Hoc magis patebit in quaestione De scientia Dei respectu futuorum contingentium."

To the second, I say that the divine intellect does not so understand somethings, discursively, as the argument alleges; but by distinguishing out of instants of nature, in the first he apprehends whatever operable (those which are the principles of operables, just as particular operables), and in the second he offers all those to the will (some of all those he accepts, both of practical principles as of particular operables), and then in the third instant the intellect knows equally immediately those particulars just as those universals, and so he does not acquire the cognition of those particulars from principles predetermined by the will. This will be clearer in the question about God's knowledge of future congingents.