Scotus on the formal term, adequate term, and primary term of generation.

My translation:

Scotus, Ord. 1.5.2.un. nn. 94-97 [Vat. 4: 60-62].

[94] /60/ Generation in creatures occurs in two ways: by change or by production.
These two have formal definitions which can be separated without contradiction.

[95] Production formally pertains to a product, and it so happens that it comes about with a change of one of the parts of the composite, as is clear in creation. But change formally pertains to the act of the 'changeable', which passes from privation (to act).

But in creatures, change occurs with production, and this on account of the imperfection of the productive power which cannot give total being to the product. Thus, something of the product is presupposed, and that's what's changed by another of its parts. In this way, it produces a composite. Therefore, change and mutation can be separated without contradiction, and they can be really separated by looking to a perfect productive power.

[96] This is apparent in creation, where the perfection of the productive power which is first posited in total being entails that there really is the nature of a production, for the term acquires existence by that production. But there is no change here, for a change is said of some substratum 'now existing in a different way than it did before', from Physics VI [Z.3-4 234b5-7, 10-13], and in creation there is no substratum.

[97] To the proposed claim. Nothing imperfect should be posited in God. Only total perfection should be posited in God, and change is by definition said to be imperfect, for it entails potentiality in being changeable. A change is even said to be imperfect with respect to the active power of the changer, since the active power necessarily requires a co-cause to bring about the product (though not that there is here some imperfection. [So this kind of imperfection is not said of God]. Nor do we apply to God the imperfection associated with /62/ a passive power, nor even some imperfection in the active power. Rather, only the highest perfection [is said of God]. Thus, in no way is there posited here a generation with the character of a change nor quasi-change. In the divinity, there is only a generation that is a production, and this only in the sense that something acquires existence by that production. For this reason, divine generation occurs without matter, and thus only a term is assigned to divine generation, but no matter nor quasi-matter. This term is either the total or primary term, i.e., the adequate term – which, namely, primarily is produced – or the formal term, according to which the first term formally acquires its existence.


Scotus, Ord. 1.5.1.un. n. 28 [Vat. 4: 25-27].

[27] /25/ To the definition of 'to communicate', I say that the product of a production is the primary term, and I say that this 'primary term' /26/ is the adequate term. In this way, the Philosopher says in Metaphysics VII [Z.8 1033b16-18] that a composite [of matter and form] is generated primarily, since that is what primarily has existence by the production, so this is the adequate term [of production].

[28] In a composite [of matter and form], the form is the formal term of generation, but not a term per accidens. This is clear from the Philosopher in Physics II [B.1 193b12-18] where he proves that the form is the nature when he says that 'generation is natural because it is the way into a nature, and since it is the way into a form, then etc.'. Such a thing would not be if the form were only a per accidens term of generation. In the same way, the Philosopher wishes to say that the form and the end coincide in the same thing, which is true of the end – not of the generator, but rather of the generated thing. Therefore, the form is the end of a generation.

[29] Thus, the generator is related in one way to the primary term (which is the product or the generated thing), and in another way to the formal term. In creatures both of these relations are real, since there are two really distinct relations to, and both of these are really dependent on, the producer. But in the proposed claim, the producer has one real relation to the product, since it is a real distinction or real origin, /27/ though it does not have a real relation to the formal term in the product, since there is no real distinction [there], and without a real distinction there is no real relation. Therefore, 'to produce' in the divinity is called a real relation, 'but to communicate is called a relation of origin and quasi [a relation] of reason, concomitant to the real relation'.An example of this is the principle 'from which' [quo]. In creatures, it is really related to the product, just as the [principle] 'what' [quod] (for the same genus of cause pertains to art and to the artist, according to Metaphysics V [D.2 1013b20-33]), but the 'from which' does not have a real relation to the product because it is not distinct (according to [what is said in] distinction 7 [n. 13]). Nor the converse true, [namely, that] the formal term [is really related] to the producer.

[30] Therefore, when it is said that these are opposite relations, namely to communicate and to be communicated, I say that they are relations of reason, for they have opposite definitions, although they are necessarily concomitant with some real opposite relations, namely to produce and to be produced. But nevertheless, they are not formally 'these' and 'those' of the same relatives.

Some translations

I'm teaching a class this term on medieval trinitarian theology. The sub-topic on which we're focusing is 'the constitution of a divine person'. Here are a few translations I've done for the class:

Henry of Ghent, Summae Quaestionum Ordinariarum, article 56
John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, book 1, distinction 26
William Ockham, Ordinatio, book 1, distinction 26

Peter of Tartaretus on Scotus, Ord. 1.5.2.un. nn. 129-138

More of Peter Tartaretus's 15th century exposition of the third difficulty Scotus brings up in the Ordinatio 1.5.2.un. nn. 129-138 (translated here). As is usual with Peter, these explanations make some of Scotus's more elliptical passages a bit clearer for me. Of course, this is a rough translation, and anytime I quickly translate a text, I'm bound to make some glaring, rudimentary errors. But the general ideas are here, for anyone interested.

[From Peter's Lucidissima Commentaria, bk. 1, dist. 5, quest. 2, art. 3, p. 202-203 of the 1583 Venetiis edition.]

The third difficulty is in the manner of the argument. Wherever one identifies the foundation of a relation and the relation which is founded in the foundation, one identifies some potentiality, because a foundation is in potentiality to any relation which actuates the foundation. In the divinity, the divine essence is the foundation of relations of origin, so the divine essence will be potential with respect to such relations. Therefore, Lord Scotus, since you posit real relations and the essence in the divinity, you posit potentiality and actuality.

Scotus responds with a distinction as the first point. The order of generation, and the order of perfection in creatures are opposites, as is clear from Metaphysics 9, because those things which are prior by generation are posterior by perfection, and those things which are prior by perfection, are posterior by generation. This should be understood for things in the same genus, for an accidental form is by generation induced in a composite after the substantial form, but nevertheless it is not prior in perfection, as is clear from Scotus's Quodlibet, question 13.

The second point is that in the order of generation and the order of perfection, that which is simply speaking first, is possessed by these orders uniformly. That is, in the divinity, what is strictly speaking first is possessed uniformly by both orders: namely, that which is first in one order is also first in the other order. In the divinity, what is first in origin is most perfectly first. In creatures the order goes from potentiality to act, and thus from imperfection to perfection. This is why the things that are prior by generation are posterior by perfection. But it is not this way in the divinity ad intra (although ad extra God could order nature otherwise)

The third point is that if in creatures these two orders uniformly coincide in what is first, that is, if they are simultaneous, we do not seek the matter first and the form second. Rather, we seek the form first and afterwards the matter, and this is because it is not presupposed that a natural agent acts by producing a form.

The fourth point is that in the divinity, one should imagine two instants of nature. When we do this, in the first instant there is the divine essence as the most actual being, existing de se and ex se. This is not how created natures exist, since they do not exist de se like this. They have actuality in their singulars. From this it follows that in this first instant of nature, we do not imagine the divine essence as a subject receptive of an act. When we imagine its existence in the second instant of nature, the properties and relations, which have existence from the divine essence itself, and the relations of origin spring forth, not as products, nor as really distinct, nor even as supposita [i.e. singular instances of the divine essence].

The fifth point is that the relations of origin do not spring forth as forms enforming the divine essence. Rather, they spring forth as things which are naturally identified with the divine essence, as will be said later. Something can be a foundation in two ways: as a material foundation, in which case it is receptive, or as a formal foundation, in which case it is perfective. The first sort of foundation is entirely receptive in creatures, and maximally so if the relation is distinct from the foundation. But when something is a formal and perfective foundation, it gives existence to its relations, and it makes those relations be ordered to it and spring forth from it. In this way, the divine essence is the foundation of the relations, because it is that by which the relations of origin are the same, namely that by which the relations are the same God.

Then Scotus moves to the form of the argument. He concedes the major premise for receptive foundations, but he denies this for formal and perfective foundations. In the way he says there is a formal and perfective foundation in the divinity, there is not a receptive and potential foundation there, and in this way the solution to the argument of this whole difficulty is clear.

An example of this can be taken from creatures. It is said that the relations of origin spring forth from the divine essence and are in the divine essence, but not as forms which actuate the divine essence. Rather, it is such that the divine essence gives existence to them. For the purpose of explaining this, we can take some examples from creatures, but since we can't know everything about God from creatures, we'll suppose something per impossibile.

The first example comes from the type of generation which is growth. As the Philosopher clearly sees, this supposes a suppositum. Suppose, per impossibile, that there is someone's hand, and that its matter remains under the form of the hand while it simultaneously acquires some other form, as for example when the hand grows. Here something new is induced in the matter, but the matter remaining under the form of the hand simultaneously acquires some other form. It is clear here that the acquired form does not give existence to that matter, because the matter already has its existence under the pre-existing form, and it remains so. It is similar in the proposition, although there is imperfection in this example because this sort of thing cannot happen unless there is a change, since such matter does not first have such a form, and then later does have such a form. In the proposition, by separating the imperfection of change, the divine essence is understood to already possess from its formal nature actuated being, and it is infinite being, in the first instant of nature. In the second instant of nature, the relations of origin are understood to spring forth from the divine essence, not as enforming relations so as to give existence to the divine essence, since the essence is already understood in the first instant of nature to have actuated existence, and infinite existence. Rather, the divine essence is why the relations of origin have existence. This example does not entirely attend to the proposition, but it does attend to some aspect of the proposition, as was said.

A second example: suppose that the soul enforms the heart, as the principle part [that it enforms], and then afterwards the soul becomes present to other organic parts like the head or the hand such that the soul gives existence to the head or the hand without changing itself. It is clear that the soul receives nothing, even though it did not initially have those parts but later did. Similarly, we say that the divine essence, in the second instant of nature, gives existence to the relations of origin, but not such that the divine nature itself receives existence from them, since in the first instant of nature it is understood to have infinite and actuated existence. This example is more apt than the first.

A third example is again more about matter, but it is more apt than the first. Suppose that the matter of the animated heart, itself remaining under the form of the heart, could communicate itself to diverse forms such as those of the hand, the head, and so on for other organic parts, and suppose that this could be such that the animated heart produced these composites from its communicated matter and these forms. If this happened, they would have the same matter by the communicated production and the communication of that matter such that the matter would be the basis for the existence of many. Similarly, the divine essence would be the basis for the existence of the relations. But this example does not attend much more to the proposition, since although the matter is the same in number and the basis for the existence of many parts, it would receive those forms by undergoing a change.

For this reason, there is a fourth example about form. Suppose that the soul, which is unlimited with respect to its parts, is communicated to the hand, the head, the foot, and so on, such that those parts were not those things unless the soul gave existence to them, and without changing itself. Similarly, the divine essence gives existence to the relations, without changing itself.

One could say that these examples do not attend very well to the proposition, and especially the two examples about matter do not explain the proposition very well, and neither do the two examples about form. But as for the example of the soul, suppose that, per impossibile, the soul is the basis for the existence of the head, the hand, and the foot, but not by enformation. This would be like saying that I am a man by humanity, but not by enformation, since humanity would not [according to this example] enform me. Secondly, suppose that in the examples some part has the nature of a whole, and that it exists per se. Then we would have per se subsistences, or supposita, and then the example would attend to the proposition because the same thing would be the basis for the existence of many without any change to itself. This is because it would not receive existence, nor would it receive something from them, and those parts would have existence, and the soul would not be called imperfect on that grounds that it wouldn't enform them.

Similarly, according to the proposition, the divine essence is the giver of existence, and it is the form by which the relations exist, and this is not by enformation. The divine essence is the form by which such relations have existence, and for this reason the divine essence does not have the nature of matter, nor the nature of a subject. From this, the argument that the divine essence does not have the nature of matter is clear. The divine essence has the nature of form. It is not the foundation, as matter is, but more as form is. Thus, the divine essence has the nature more of form.

This is confirmed by Damascus. The relation does not determine the nature. The hypostasis does not actuate the divine essence. Rather, the divine essence determines the hypostasis, because it constitutes the suppositum, as the Father is Father by paternity (holding that the divine persons are constituted by relations of origin). This explains that the divine essence is not a foundation in potentiality.

It should be known that for one thing to be related to another thing can be understood in two ways. In one way formally, as the Father is formally the Father by paternity, and something is formally similar by similarity. In another way, one thing is related to another thing foundationally, just as Socrates is similar to Plato foundationally by whiteness, by color, or by knowledge. But this is to be similar formally by similarity. If the divine essence were a foundation in potentiality to the divine relations of origin, then the Father would be related to the Son by the divine essence as the foundation, which is false. It is clear that this is false, since we say that the Father is Father to the Son, we do not say the essence is related to [i.e., is the Father to] the Son, as the foundation, because the divine essence is that by which the Father is ad se and not ad alterum. The Father's act of generating is related to the essence foundationally [rather than formally, and in this way] the divine essence can be called the most perfect foundation of the relations.

Scotus, Ord. 1.5.2.un. n. 129-138

Here's Scotus, Ordinatio, 1.5.2.un. n. 129-138 (the third of four difficulties he discusses. The first difficulty was translated here, the second difficulty was translated here, and Peter Tartaretus's commentary on the second difficulty was translated here).


[Third difficulty]

[n. 129] The third difficulty concerns how there could be a relation that does not require the proper basis of a foundation. A foundation seems to be prior to a relation, and quasi perfectible by it, not the converse, since a relation does not seem to be perfected by its foundation, because then it would presuppose its foundation. Therefore, since the divine essence is the foundation of these relations, it seems that it is quasi-matter.

[n. 130] I respond: in creatures, the order of generation and the order of perfection are contraries, as is clear from Metaphysics 9: 'those things which are prior in generation are posterior in perfection'. The reason is that creatures proceed from potency to act, and thus from imperfection to perfection. For this reason, the way of generation goes through the imperfect before the perfect. But by attending, simply speaking, to the first, it is necessary that the same thing be first, simply speaking, both in origin and in perfection (even according to the Philosopher, in the same place), since the whole order of generation is reduced to some first perfect thing [Vat. eds. note: first in the order of perfection], just as to the first of the whole [order of] origin.

[n. 131] Therefore, just as in creatures, if these two orders uniformly concur, we do not ask first about the matter which is the substrate of form. Rather, we ask first about the form which naturally gives actuality to matter, and secondly we ask about the matter which naturally receives being from form (or the suppositum which naturally subsists by that form). So also in the divinity. By beginning from the first instant of nature, the divine essence – as it exists per se and ex se – occurs entirely first. This does not pertain to any created nature, since no created nature has existence naturally prior to existence in a suppositum. But the divine essence, according to Augustine in De Trinitate book 7, is that by which the Father exists and that by which the Son exists, although it is not that by which the Father is the Father and that by which the Son is the Son. Therefore, per se existence pertains to the divine essence, considered most abstractly. In this first instant then, it occurs not as something receptive of some perfection, but rather as infinite perfection, able in the second instant of nature to be communicated to something, though not as a form enforming matter, but rather as a quiddity is communicated to a suppositum, as much as it [the suppositum] has existence by it [the quiddity]. And so the relations 'spring forth' – as a certain theologian [Henry] puts it – from it [the divine essence], and the persons 'spring forth' in it [the divine essence]. Not as certain quasi forms, giving existence to it, but as certain quasi supposita, in which it [the divine essence] receives the existence which is, simply speaking, its own, but in which supposita it gives 'existence' as that by which those supposita formally are, and that by which they are God. And so the relation which is springing forth, if it is a per se subsistent, springs forth not as the form of the essence but such that it is naturally God by that deity formally, although not such that it enforms it but such that it exists as the same thing as it by a most perfect identity. However, in no way, and the same is true of the converse, is the relation related to the essence as that by which the essence is formally determined or contracted, or in some actuated by it, because this is entirely repugnant to the infinity of the divine essence as it first occurs under the aspect of an infinite act.

[n. 132] I concede then that the essence is the foundation of those relations, but not a foundation quasi-potentially receiving them. Rather, as a foundation quasi in the manner of form, in which these forms naturally subsist – not, indeed, by enformation, as a similarity relation is in whiteness, but as subsistence is said to to be in a nature, just as Socrates is said to subsist in humanity because 'Socrates is a man by his humanity'. Therefore, you will not have the basis for potentiality or quasi potentiality in the divine essence from the nature of a foundation. Rather, you will have precisely the basis for form such that the relation which is founded in it [the divine essence] is, simply speaking, God.

[n. 133] An example of this can be taken from creatures by positing here a certain 'per impossibile'. Growth occurs because nourishment reaches a corrupted body, and its [the body's] matter receives the form of meat, and in this way it [the matter] is enformed by the soul. Now suppose that the same matter, remaining naturally [under the form of the body], receives another part of the form [of the same meat] (just as it is posited in rarefaction). Here the matter remains one, and it was enformed before but now is enformed by a new form. Nevertheless, this is formally a real change, because there is a change from privation to form. Suppose, as another example, that the same soul perfects first one part of the body (such as the heart), and afterwards it reaches another part of the organic body, a part which is perfectible by the soul. The soul then perfects that part newly reached, but nevertheless the soul itself is not changed, because there is no privation in it first and form afterwards. For privation is a lacking, and in this it is suitably meant to receive. But the soul, first un-enformed and afterwards enformed, is not meant to receive anything but rather to give [form to the parts of the body].

[n. 134] In both of these examples, there is a real production of some product, though in the first there is a change, and in the second there is not.

[n. 135] The [first] example would seem more apt if we suppose that the same matter of the animated heart could be communicated to different forms, such as the hand and the foot, and this in virtue of the activity of the animated heart so as to produce this composites [namely, the hand and foot composites] from its communicated matter and from these forms. Here there would be a real production of the whole, having the same matter, though this would occur with a change of the matter. But if, to take the other example, we suppose that the soul, on account of unlimited nature with respect to act and form, could be communicated to many parts, and so in virtue of the soul in the heart, it could be communicated to the hand and the foot, produced by the animated heart, then there would be here a real production of many things consubstantial in form, without any change in that form.

[n. 136] In both examples, it is supposed that the products are per se subsistences, not parts of the same thing, since to be a part is an imperfect. But by supposing this, the second example, in both of its versions, namely the example of communication the form to the product, perfectly represents production in God (the first example does not, since it is about the communication of matter). But still, by adding this to the position – namely that the soul in the heart and the hand and the foot is not an enforming form, since componibility includes imperfection, but rather is the whole form by which these subsistences are animated – then it is understood that deity is not communicated quasi-materially, but rather deity is communicated in the manner of form to the subsistent relations (if the persons are supposed to be relative), not as an enforming form but as that by which the relation or relative subsistent is God.

[n. 137] Therefore, the essence does not enform a relation, nor is it the converse. Rather, there is perfect identity here. But the essence possesses the manner of form with respect to relation, just as a nature does with respect to a suppositum, in as much as it is that by which the relation subsists and is God. Conversely, the relation is in no way the act of the essence, because just as (Damascus says) the relation 'determines the hypostasis, not the nature', so also is it the act of the hypostasis, not the nature. Similarly, when a relation enforms a foundation, the suppositum is said to be related in the second manner of per se predication according to that foundation, just as Socrates is similar according to [his] whiteness or by [his] whiteness [Vat. eds. note: cf. Henry, SQO 60.2 in corp. (Bad. 2: 162B)]. However, the Father is not the Father by deity, according to Augustine in De Trinitate book 7, chapter 4, so here there is no such manner of relation to the foundation of the sort that there is in other things, because here the foundation is not actuated by a relation. Rather, it is only the act of the suppositum or [it just is] the suppositum.

[n. 138] I say briefly then that relation and essence are both in a person but neither is a form enforming the other. Rather, they are perfectly the same, although not formally. Nevertheless, since they are not formally the same, a relation in no way perfects the essence, nor is it the formal term received in the essence. The essence is in this way the form of the relation, because it is that by which the relation exists and similarly is God. The essence is the formal term of generation, just as in creatures a nature is the formal term of generation, not an individual act [Vat. eds. note: cf. Henry, SQO 56.4 in corp. (Bad. 2: 116F-G)].

Scotus, Ord. 1.5.2.un. n. 107-125

Here's Scotus, Ordinatio, 1.5.2.un. n. 107-125 (the first of four fascinating difficulties he discusses. The second difficulty can be found in translation here, and Peter Tartaretus' 15th century commentary on the second difficulty can be found here).

[n. 107] There are four difficulties here. First, how is a divine person one when one thing [the essence or the personal property] is not the act of the other potential thing?

[n. 108] To this, I say the following. First, a created quiddity is that by which something is a quidditative entity, and this does not pertain to imperfection, for it pertains to a quiddity from the nature of quiddity.

[n. 109] Nevertheless, an imperfect actuality pertains to a created quiddity – humanity, let's say – because it is divisible by that which contracts it to an individual – say an individual property, whatever that is, let's call it a – and [the quiddity] receives from a some actuality (either unity or individisibility) which it possesses in the individual and does not have in itself. That contracting thing, namely a, is not only in Socrates as 'that by which Socrates is formally Socrates', but is in some formal with respect to a nature, and that nature is in some way potential with respect to a. Whence, and this is the second point, a nature is contracted and determined by some a.

[n. 110] Third, although the humanity in Socrates is some act, and precisely by receiving humanity and by being distinguishing against itself by a, humanity is more perfectly an act than a is, although a is more properly an act and in some way an act of nature in as much as it determines a nature.

[n. 111] That which pertains to imperfection is left behind by applying these three points to the divinity.

[n. 112] First, deity is, from itself, that by which God is God, and also the subsisting 'of that which properly is a' is formally God, since to be 'that by which' in this way does not pertain to imperfection in creatures but rather pertains to the quiditity by which something is a quidditiy.

[n. 113] Second, there is disimilarity here, because deity itself is not determined or contracted by a personal property, nor is it actuated in some way, since that would pertain to the imperfection and potentiality of created natures. Similarly, deity of itself is a 'this', and so just as it has ultimate unity of itself, so also does it have actuality. Therefore, the personal property is a proper of a person, but nevertheless it is not an act of the divine nature which in some way perfects or enforms it.

[n. 114] Third, there is some similarity here, because a relation is the proper act of a person, and the essence is not the proper act of a person (but it is some act). Nevertheless, the essence is formally an infinite act, but the relaton is not of its formal nature an infinite act.

[n. 115] But how can these two acts concur in the constitution of one thing, if neither is the act of the other? For it is necessary that one thing be in another, since if not, each would be a per se subsistent thing, and then they would not be in the same per se subsistent thing. Similarly, the unity of any sort of distinct things only seems to obtain, according to Aristotle, on the basis of act and potentiality.

[n. 116] I respond that the unity of a composite necessarily is from the basis of act and potentiality, just as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 7.7 and the final chapter of book 8. But a divine person is not a composite, nor is it quasi composite. It is, rather, simple, and it is really simple just as the divine essence is considered in itself, having no real composition nor quasi composition. Nevertheless, the formal nature of the divin essence is not the formal nature of the relation, nor the converse, just as was said above on the trinity in the solution to distinction 2, question 1.

[n. 117] But how is it that the when the nature of the relation in the thing is not formally the same as the nature of the essence but yet they concur in the same thing but do not constitute a composite? The reason is that the nature [of the relation] is perfectly the same as that [of the essence], for on account of the infinity of that one nature [viz., of the essence], whatever can be with it is perfectly the same as it. Therefore, perfect identity excludes any composition or quasi composition, and that identity is on account of infinity – and nevertheless, the infinity does not destroy the formal natures which are not the same as that of the infinite nature.

[n. 118] Therefore, there is no quasi composition [that can be inferred] from these [viz., from the essenec and a property]. For this reason, there can be no inference to a composite from act and potentiality. Rather, there is one most simple thing [that can be inferred] from these, since one nature is perfectly, indeed most perfectly, the same as the other, even though they are not formally the same. But it does not follow that 'they are perfectly the same by an identity of simplicity, therefore they are formally the same', just as was held concerning identity in the aforementioned question [Ord. 1.2.2.1-4 nn. 408, 411, 413-14] and will be held below in distinction 8 [n. 209 and 217]. That same perfect identity excludes any aggregation, because the same thing is not aggregated to itself.

[n. 119] And when it is added that 'one thing must be in another', I concede this in the sense that a relation is in a foundation or a source, but not in the sense that an act is in potentiality. Rather, as they are identically contained in an infinite sea.

[n. 120] In this way, it could be said that all of these are true: 'deity is in the Father, paternity is in the Father', 'the Father is in deity or the divine nature, paternity is in deity', but nevertheless, the word 'in' here does not have the sense of an act being in potentiality.

[n. 121] Now, the first of these is true as a nature is in a suppositum, having quidditative being by it (since it pertains to a quiddity whence it is a quiddity), but this is not on account of a form enforming a suppositum, even in creatures.

[n. 122] The second of these is true as a hypostatic form is in a hypostasis. But not as [a hypostatic form] enforms a hypostasis. For just as much as a quiddity, a hypostatic form, even in creatures, is not an enforming form, even though it is the form of a suppositum. It is here rather a quasi part [Vat. eds. note: e.g., in creatures, socrateity-humanity in Socrates]. However, here [in the divine case] there is, as it were, one formal nature concurring with another, formally, in the same simple thing, but possessing in itself many formal natures.

[n. 123] The third of these is true as a suppositum is in a nature, and it is clear that it is not as an enforming [form]'.

[n. 124] The fourth of these is true in the same way, since the way in which a whole is first in something, the part is per se in the same way, although not first in the same thing. This is clear of being in a place. Therefore, if the Father is first in a nature, as a suppositum of nature, then paternity 'will be per se in the same nature', in the same way of being 'in', although not in the first.

[n. 125] Further, what was said [in n. 119] in my earlier response gives the manner of 'in' – namely the manner in which a relation is in a foundation – which is not reduced to being the form in matter except where the foundation is limited, in as much as it does not have that relation in itself by perfect identity.

Discussion on Ockham

I've been contributing to a little conversation on Ockham's nominalism and belief in whether God could create a Picasso without Picasso.

http://usuphilosophy.com/2007/07/19/could-god-have-made-a-picasso/