Opuſculum..xvi.

enī ſic eſt ens ſicut eſt vnū vt dicitur in. 4. methaphiſice. Sicut igit̉ eſſe aīe eſt quidē in corꝑe inqͣtū eſt forma corꝑis nec eſt ante corpus tn̄ deſtructo corꝑe adhuc remanet in ſuo eſſe it a vnaq̄qꝫaīa remanet in ſua vnitate ⁊ per ꝯn̄s ml̓te animein ſua multitudine. ¶ Ualde aūt ruditer argum̄tantur ad oſtēdendū ꝙ deus facere non poſſet ꝙſint multi intellectꝰ etuſdē ſpēi credēt eſ hoc includere ꝯtradictionē. Dato .n. ꝙ nō eſſet de naturaintellectus ꝙ multiplicaret̉ nō ꝓpter hoc oporteret ꝙ intellectū multiplicari īcluderet ꝯtradictionē. Nihil enī ꝓhibet aliꝗd nō habere in ſua natura cām alicuiꝰ qd̓ tn̄ habet illud ex alia cā. Sicutgraue habet ex ſua natura ꝙ non ſit ſurſum tn̄ graue eſſe ſurſum: non includit ꝯtradictioneꝫ. Sedgraue eſſe ſurſum ẜm ſuā naͣm ꝯtradictionē includeret. Sic ergo ſi intellectꝰ naͣliter eſſet vnus oīum qꝛ nō haberet naturalē cām multiplicationiſpoſſet tn̄ ſortiri multiplicationē ex ſuꝑnaturali cānec eſſet implicatio cōtradictiōis: qd̓ nō tm̄ dicimus ꝓpter ꝓpoſitū: ſed magis ne h̓ argumētādiforma ad alia extendat̉: ſic enī poſſent cōcludereꝙ deus nō poteſt facere ꝙ mortui reſurgāt ⁊ ꝙ ceci ad viſum reꝑentur. ¶ Adhuc aūt ad munimētum ſui erroris aliā rōnem inducūt. Querūt eniꝫvtrū intellectū in me ⁊ in te eſt vnuꝫ penitus autduo in numero ⁊ vnū in ſpecie. Si enī vnū intellectū tunc vnus erit intellectꝰ. Si duo in numero ⁊ vnū in ſpecie ſeꝗtur ꝙ intellecta habebūt reꝫintellectā. Quecūqꝫ enī ſūt duo in numero ⁊ vnūin ſpecie ſūt vnū intellectū: qꝛ eſt vna quiditas ꝑquā intelligūtur ⁊ ſic p̄cedetur in infinitū qd̓ eſt īpoſſibile. Ergo īpoſſibile eſt ꝙ ſint duo intellectanumero in me ⁊ in te. Eſt ergo vnū tantū ⁊ vnusintellectꝰ numero tm̄ in oībus hoībus. Querēdūeſt aūt ab hijs qui taꝫ ſubtiliter ſe argumētari putant: vtrum eſſe duo intellecta in numero ⁊ vnūin ſpecie ſit ꝯtra rōnē intellecti inqͣꝫtuꝫ eſt intellectu: aut inqͣꝫtum eſt intellectū ab hoīe. Et manifeſtum eſt ẜm rōnem quā ponūt ꝙ hͦ eſt cōtra rōneintellecti inquātū eſt intellectū. De rōne enī intelecti inquātū huiuſmodi eſt ꝙ non indigeat ꝙ abeo aliꝗd abſtrahat̉ ad hoc ꝙ ſit intellectuꝫ. Ergoẜm eoꝝ rōnē ſimpliciter cōcludere poſſumꝰ ꝙ fitvnū intellectū tantū ⁊ non ſolū vnū intellectu aboībus hoībus. Et ſi eſt vnū intellectū tantū ẜꝫ eorū rōnem ſequit̉ ꝙ ſit vnus tm̄ intellectus in totomūdo: ⁊ nō ſolū in hoībus. Ergo intellectꝰ noſternō ſolū eſt ſubſtātia ſeꝑata: ſed etiā eſt ipſe deus ⁊vniuerſaliter tollit̉ pluralitas ſubſtātiarū ſeꝑat arum. Si quis aūt vellet rn̄dere ꝙ intellectuꝫ abvna ſubſtātia ſeꝑata ⁊ intellectū ab alia nō ē vnuꝫſpē qꝛ intellectus differūt ſpecie ſeip̄m deciperetqꝛ id qd̓ intelligit̉ ꝯꝑatur ad intelligere ⁊ ad intellectū ſicut obiectu ad actū ⁊ potētiā. obiectū autē

nō recipit ſpēm ab actu neqꝫ a potētia ſed magisecōuerſo. Eſt ergo ſimpliciter ꝯcedēdū ꝙ intellectū vnius rei puta lapidē eſt vnū tm̄ non ſoluꝫ inoībus hoībus: ſed etiam in oībus intellectibus.Sed inquirēdū reſtat quid ſit ip̄m intellectum.Si enī dicāt ꝙ intellectū eſt vna ſpēs īmaͣlis exiſtens in intellectu poſſibili latet ip̄os ꝙ quodammō trāſeūt in dogma platōonis qui poſuit ꝙ de rebꝰ ſenſibilibꝰ nulla ſcīa pōt haberi ſed oīs ſcīa habetur de forma vna ſeꝑata. Nihil eniꝫ refert adꝓpoſitum vtrum aliquis dicat ſcīa que habeturde lapide habetur de vna forma lapidis ſeꝑata:aut de vna forma lapidis q̄ eſt in intellectu. vtrobiqꝫ enī ſequit̉ ꝙ ſcīe nō ſunt de rebus que ſūt hicſed de rebus ſeparatis ſolum. Sed qꝛ plato poſuit huiuſmodi formas īmaͣles per ſe ſubſiſtētespoterat etiā cuꝫ hoc ponere plures intellectꝰ participātes ab vna forma ſeꝑat a vniꝰ veritatis cognitionē. Iſti aūt qui ponūt huiuſmōi formas immateriales quas dicūt eſſe intellecta neceſſe habent ponere ꝙ ſit vnus intellectus tm̄ nō ſolū omniū hoīum ſed etiā ſimpliciter. Eſt ergo dd̓m ẜmſnīam ariſtotelis ꝙ intellectū qd̓ eſt vnuꝫ eſt ipſanatura vel quiditas rei. ¶ De rebus enim ē ſcientia naturalis ⁊ alie ſcientie non de ſpēbuſ intellectis. Si enī intellectū eſſet nō ipſa natura lapidis que eſt in rebus ſed ſpecies que eſt in intellectu ſequeret̉ ꝙ ego non intelligerem rem que eſtlapis ſed ſolū intentionē que eſt abſtracta a lapide. Sed veꝝ eſt ꝙ lapidis natura ꝓut eſt in ſingularibus eſt intellecta in potētia: ſed ſit intellecta īactu per hoc ꝙ ſpēs a rebus ſenſibilibus mediantibus ſenſibus vt ad fantaſiam perueniūt ⁊ ꝑ v̓tutē intellectꝰ agentis ſpēs intelligibiles abſtrahunt̉ que ſunt in intellectu poſſibili. Hec aūt ſpēsnō ſe habēt ad intellectū poſſibilē vt intellecta ſꝫſicut ſpēs quibus ītellectꝰ intelligit ſicut etiā ſpecies q̄ ſūt in viſu nō ſunt ipſa viſa: ſed ea quibꝰ viſus videt niſi inqͣꝫtum intellectus reflectit̉ ſupraſeip̄m qd̓ in ſenſu accidere nō pōt. Si aūt intelligere eſſet actio trāſiens in exteriorē maͣꝫ ſicut cōburere ⁊ mouere: ſequeret̉ ꝙ intelligere eſſet ẜmmodū quo natura realiter habet eſſe in ſingularibus ſicut cōbuſtio ignis ē ẜꝫ modū ꝯbuſtibil̓. Sqꝛ intelligere eſt actio in ipſo intelligēte manensvt ariſtoteles dicit. 9. meth̓. ſequit̉ ꝙ intelligereſit ẜm modū intelligētis .i. ẜm exigētiā ſpēi qua ītellectus intelligit. Hec aūt cū ſit abſtracta a pͥncipijs indiuiduātibꝰ nō repn̄tat rem ẜm ꝯditōesindiuiduales ſed ẜm naͣm vniuerſalē tantū. Nihil enī ꝓhibet ſi aliqua duo coniungūtur in re ꝗnvnum eoꝝ repn̄tari poſſit etiā in ſenſu ſine altero. Unde color mellis vel pomi videt̉ a viſu ſineeius ſapore. Sic igit̉ intellectuſ intelligit naturāvniuerſal ē per abſtractionē ab indiuidualibꝰ pͥn