More on Unitive Containment and the Formal Distinction

From the last volume of the Ordinatio, which has just arrived at my library. The segment here translated is from a question on the distinction between justice and mercy in God (the standard 12th c. examples, used, for example, by the Lombard). Here's a first stab at translation.

Ordinatio IV d. 46 q. 3 ad arg. princ. 4 (ed. Vat. XIV, 215-217):

To the second, it is said that mercy connotes something other than justice, although those two are unqualifiedly [simpliciter = realiter] the same as each other.

But against this: that connotation does not require some distinction of this kind from that as it is in itself, but only as it is understood [accipitur] and signified, because connotation is required for this. The argument, however, requires that there is some distinction between them [justice and mercy] as they are causes of distinct effects. Nor does the distinction of reason suffice for this, because a relation of reason is not that by which some effect is really made [efficitur], rather, generally, no real distinction in an effect depends on a relation of reason in a cause, just as was proved in d. 13 of the first book. That distinction of effects depends essentially on a distinction in the cause, therefore that is not only one of reason.

I concede, therefore, to that argument that just as in God the intellect is not formally the will, nor contrariwise, although one is the same as the other by the truest identity of simplicity, so also justice is not formally the same as mercy or contrariwise. And according to this formal non-identity, that [= mercy] can be the proximate principle of some external [= extra] effect, of which the other [= justice] is not the principle, in the way in which just as if this and that [= mercy and justice] were two things [res] because to be a formal principle befalls each as it is formally such.

Contra: the divine esse is most actual, therefore it includes every divine perfection; but it would not include, if there were a formal distinction there, because everything distinct formally is there actually, and consequently, as distinct, it is there in act, and so the essence as distinct does not include every act. 

Again, if there are there real distinct formalities, therefore there are distinct realities there, and so distinct things [res]. Proof of the first consequence: because formality is distinct by its own reality.

To the first: the divine esse contains every actuality of the divine essence unitively. [Entities] are not contained unitively which are contained without all distinction, becuase union is not wihout all distinction; nor are they contained unitively which are contained as unqualifiedly [simpliciter] really distinct, because are contained in a multiple manner or separately [dispersim]. Therefore this term 'unitive' includes some distinction of the [entities] contained, which suffices for union, and nevertheless such a union which is repugnant toall composition and aggregation of the distinct [entities]. This can not be unless there be posited formal non-identity with real identity.

To the argument, therefore, I concede that the essence contains every actuality, and consequently every formality, but not as formally the same, becaues then they would not be contained unitively.

To the second it can be said that as many formalities as are there, so many are there realities and things [res]; but each reality is only qualified [secundum quid], just as was shown there [Ord. I d. 13, according to the Vat. editors]. Otherwise, that consequence can be denied: 'many real formalities, therefore many realities', just as 'many divine persons, therefore many deities', is denied. But the first response is more real [realier]. 

Alnwick on Virtual Containment

I've been writing on Alnwick's theories of containment lately. He has three: exemplaric containment in the divine intellect, eminent/perfectional containment in the divine essence, and virtual containment in the divine omnipotence.  Here I am going to post some arguments he makes about virtual containment, one of those scholastic notions that has a neo-Platonic origin at least as far back as the pseudo-Dionysius (and therefore Proclus) and gets ridiculed from time to time today. The basic point from the pseudo-D. is that effects are contained in their cause in a more noble manner than they exist as effects. Scotus builds his notion of unitive containment on this notion, and several other versions of Dionysian containment were developed by other Scotists during the early fourteenth century.

The arguments Alnwick makes are meant to defend the claim that "the creatures contained in God virtually according to their perfection are distinguished from God really and formally". Recall that the various modes of containment are attempts to explain how and in what way creatures pre-exist in God prior to their creation.

Guillelmus de Alnwick, Quodlibet q. 8 (ed. Ledoux, 448-9):

Every positive perfection is contained in God formally or virtually; but the perfection of a creature, inasmuch as it is distinguished from God, is some positive perfection, because creatures are distinguished from God by their positive perfections; therefore, the perfection of a creature, inasmuch as it is distinguished from God, is contained in God virtually or formally. Not formally, for so then it would not be distinguished from God absolutely (simpliciter); therefore it is contained as such in God virtually. Then I arguo thus: the perfection of a creature, inasmuch as it is distinguished from God, is contained by God virtually, as now has been proved; therefore the perfection of a creature, inasmuch as it is contained in God virtually, is not the same as God. And so it is clear that the perfection of a creature, insofar as it is contained in God from the side of itself [ex parte sui], is not the same as God.

Again, fourth: whatever is produceable by some agent is contained in it virtually, because nothing is produced by something which is not contained first in its produtive power; but a stone according to its own proper nature is produceable by God; therefore a stone according to its own proper nature is contained in God virtually. But it is clear tha a stone according to its own proper nature is not God, therefore a stone, inasmuch as it is virtually contained in God, is not God but is distinguished from him.

Petrus Thomae on Modes of Containment

This is a follow-up post to the one on Scotus' views of unitive containment.  Peter Thomae gives a more systematic discussion of the various modes of containment in a question in his Quodlibet, entitled 'whether it is the same for something to be contained in another virtually, really, eminently, and unitively'.  It is a lengthy question and here I give only the basic description of the different ways something can be contained.  One can find similar accounts in Alnwick's Quodlibet.

Petrus Thomae, Quodlibet, pt. 1 q. 5 a. 1 (ed. Buytaert-Hooper, 67-69):

The second statement (dictum) is that 'containment' is sufficiently divided by quidditative, concomitive, viritual, and eminent containment.

The third statement is that quidditative containment is that which is of quidditative rationes or of those perfecting in primary being [recall Aristotelian distinction between primary and secondary being]. In this mode every inferior contains the rationes of all its superiors.

The fourth statement is that concomitive containment is that which is of those perfections or rationes perfecting in secondary being, in the way in which being contains truth, goodness, and unity, just as also whatever subject contains its proper passions. In that mode as well the divine essence contains attributes.  This containment is called 'concomitive' because it necessarily is subsequent to quidditative containment, for the perfections perfecting in primary being follow upon the perfections perfecting in secondary being.

The fifth statement is that to virtually contain is to have the power or force of the contained, both in being and in operation, and this with excess.  For evidence of this it should be known that just as force or power is diversified, so also the mode of containment.  Force is diversified in several ways, and so also virtual containment.  Whence the thing containing sometimes exceeds the contained in effective power.  Whence the containing sometings exceeds the contained in effective power, sometimes in formal or perfective power, sometimes in final or conservative power.  An example of the first is of the first being, God, who in that mode contains virtually the being of every creature.  In that mode also every equivocal agent contains its effect, for it contains it as far as being and as far as operation is concerned, and this with excess.  It contains as far as being is concerned, because it is able to produce it in being; it contains as far as operation is concerned, because everything which the secondary cause can do, the first cause can do...

The sixth statement is that eminential containment is that by which a more perfect being is said to contain the less perfect, or a superior species contains inferiors.

On Unitive Containment

I came across the following quote in the Reportatio the other day while trying to tease out the intricacies of Scotus' theory of divine ydeas.  It is quoted in QQ. in Met. IV q. 2 (OPh IV 355-6) by the editors (though they make transcription and emendation errors).

The title of the question is Utrum imago Trinitatis in anima rationali subsistat in tribus potentiis realiter distinctis is Rep. II d. 16 q. un. (Oxford, Merton College Library, Ms. 61, not foliated/ff. 179v-180r according to the Scotus editors. The following transcription is mine):

De continentia unitiva loquitur Dionysius V De divinis nominibus quia continentia unitiva non est omnino eiusdem ita quod idem omnino contineat se unitive nec esse omnino manentium distincte; requirit ergo unitatem et distinctionem. Est ergo continentia unitiva duplex: uno modo sicut inferius continet superiora essentialia et ibi contenta sunt de essentia continentis sicut eadem est realitas a qua accipitur differentia in albedine et a qua genus proximum ut color et qualitas sensibilis et qualitas et quamquam essent res alie, unitive continentur in albedine. Alia est continentia unitiva quando subiectum unitive continet alia que sunt quasi passiones sicut passiones entis non sunt res alia ab ente quia quecumque detur ipsa, res est ens, vera et bona; ergo ut oportet dicere quod non sunt res alie ab ente vel quod ens non habet passiones reales, quod est contra Aristotelem IV Metaphysice expresse, nec tamen magis sunt tales passiones de essentia nec idem quidditatem quam si essent res alia, ideo non sunt potentie idem formaliter vel quidditative nec inter se nec esse[etiam?] essentie anime nec tamen sunt res alie, sed idem identice. Ideo talia habent talem distinctionem secundum rationes formales qualem haberent realem distinctionem si essent res alie realiter distincte. Principium ergo volendi et intelligendi immediatum est in secundo instanti nature et ista principia sunt unitive in essentia anime que est in primo instanti nature quasi pasiones unitive contente.

[...]

In divinis enim quamquam in supposito sint essentia et relatio et essentia continet relationem, non tamen e contra in proposito; nec intellectus continet voluntatem nec e contra, ideo ista sunt idem idemptice, quia in contente solum, non quia ipsa inter se sunt idem sicut sunt attributa divina non solum idem idemptice sed inter se. Similiter quia quelibet persona in divinis est intrinsece infinita ideo perfecte continet intrinsece quamlibet perfectionem simpliciter que est in alia non sic continet intelligentia memoriam, sed solum concomitantur.

Translation:

Dionysius, V On Divine Names, speaks about unitive containment, that unitive containment is not entirely of the same [thing] so that entirely the same [thing] contains itself unitively, nor is it of things remaining entirely distinct; it requires, therefore, but unity and distinction.

Unitive containment is twofold. In one way, as the inferior contains its essential superiors and there the containment is of the essence of the containing just as it is the same reality from which the difference in whiteness is taken and from which the proximate genus, as color and sensible quality and quality, and although there might be other things unitively contained in whiteness.  The other unitive containment is when when a subject unitively contains other things which are quasi attributions/passions just as the attributes of being are not other things than being because whichever one is granted, the thing is being, true and good; therefore either it is necessary to say that they are not other things than being or that being does not have real attributes which is expressly contrary to Aristotle, IV Metaphysics; nevertheless such attributes are not more of the essence nor the same quiddity than if they would be other things. Therefore [the intellect and will] are not formally the same powers or quidditatively, nor between each other nor are they of the essence of the soul nor are they other things [than the soul]; but [they are] the same identically.  Therefore such have such a distinction according to their formal definitions of the sort that would have a real distinction if they would be other things really distinct.

[...]

In the divine, although the essence and the relation are in the supposit and the essence contains the relation, nevertheless it is not to be taken contrariwise in the matter at hand; neeither does the intellect contain the will nor contrariwise, therefore they are identically the same, because they are in the containing along, not becuse between them they are the same just as are the divine attributes, not only identically but among each other.  Likewise, because whichever of the divine persons is intrinsically infinite therefore perfectly contains every absolute perfection found in another [person]; not so does the intelligence contain the memory, but only accompanies it.

Summary:

Unitive containment is a tool at times employed by Scotus derived directly from pseudo-Dionysius.  It is not of the same thing containing itself, nor is it of distinct things remaining completely distinct.  Consequently, it requires recourse to both unity and distinction. There are two kinds of unitive containment: one in which an inferior (in the categorical/predicamental line) contains its superior.  On this kind, there is a similarity of essence.  The second is when the things contained have different essences, and these essences remain formally distinct from each other and from whatever does the containing.

William of Alnwick on Virtual Containment

Here are some lines from Scotus' secretary Guillelmus de Alnwick on virtual containment, a development of Scotus' theory of unitive containment, which in turn is rooted in the pseudo-Denys.  In Scotus' writings, the notion appears during his Parisian period, that is, from 1302.  In this passage, William also lays out most of the causal theory assumed by the scholastics.  Note that we are not talking about how the divine attributes are in God, but how creatures and the perfections of creatures are contained in God.

Guillelmus de Alnwick, Quodlibet q. 8 (ed. Ledoux, BFS 10, 445-6):

The third question concerning the containment of the perfections of creatures in God is that, namely, whether the perfections of creatures, inasmuch as they are contained in God, are virtually distinguished from God and among themselves formally or intentionally from the nature of the thing.

Concerning the solution of that question I proceed thus: first I will declare what it is to contain another and to be contained by another virtually, second I will show that creatures, inasmuch as they are contained in God virtually, according to their contained perfection, are distinguished from God formally and really, third, I will show that the perfections of creatures, inasmuch as they are virtually contained in God, according to the perfection of the containing [being], are not distinguished from God formally or really, fourth, the arguments of the contrary opinion will be refuted.

[art. 1]

As far as the first is concerned, it should be known that to contain something virtually is to have the perfection and the nature of the contained in its own power or effective causality. For power is ordered to operation and action, and therefore what contains another and not in effective causality does not contain it virtually, although it may contain it eminently, just as a final cause, or in the fashion of an exemplar, just as an exemplar form, or potentially, just as a material cause. Therefore only the effective cause of some effect contains properly virtually that effect, through whose power such an effect is produceable and conservable.  An effective cause is twofold, namely univocal and equivocal. An effective univocal cause contains its effect virtually in the power adequate to the effect. Whence a univocal cause contains its effect adequately, because the perfection of a univocal cause does not exceed its effect in perfection. An effective equivocal cause contains its effect virtually in excessive power, because it contains the effect in its power with an excess of perfection.  God however with respect to the caused is an equivocal cause and does not properly contain all creatures virtually, because he contains their perfections in his effective power with an infinite excess.

So, nevertheless, to contain some effect virtually, whether by univocal power or equivocal, comes about doubly: in one mode rootedly [radicaliter], just as a remote cause, in another mode sufficiently, just as a proximate, complete and ultimated [ultimata] cause. In the first mode the divine essence contains the perfections of creatures virtually, because rootedly and quasi remotely. For the divine essence is the root of all perfections in God and of the divine power, whether ad intra or ad extra, just as an infinite sea of perfection, because the divine essence, inasmuch as it is distinguished against other perfections in God, does not immediately produce a creature; for if so it would produce a creature in the mode of nature.  Therefore the divine essence is not a quasi proximate power for producing an effect, nor consequently does it contain the effect virtually in proximate power. On account of the same, the divine knowledge and the divine intellect contain a creature virtually not in proximate power and executive power, but in dispositive power, and so in a certain way it contains a creature in its power remotely and not proximately [de proximo]. But creatures are contained virtually in the divine will in proximate and executive power, because, according to Augustine III De trinitate cap. 6, "the divine will is the highest cause of all", for its efficacious willing is to produce a creature. Whence the divine will virtually contains the perfection of whatsoever creature in proximate and immediate power, and therefore the divine will properly is said to contain all creatures virtually.

According to this it is clear what it means to be contained in something virtually, because it is to be contained in its causative power according to its total causal being [??] and because the first cause is the effective cause of all others than itself, therefore all others are contained in the effective power of the first cause, for every effect is either immediately caused by the first cause or by a second cause, one or many. If the first way, since whatever perfection there is in the effect necessarily is in the total cause, otherwise there would be something of perfection in a creature which would not be caused, it follows that every effect  immediately from the first cause according to its total causal being is contained in its [the first cause's] causative power. If however it is caused immediately by a second cause, one or many, since the causative power of the second cause is contained in the power of the first cause, otherwise the second cause would not be the second, but the first, it follows that every effect caused by the second cause, univocal or equivocal, one or many, is contained in the effective power of the first cause, and consequently that all other beings than the first cause are contained virtually in the first cause.