PROPOSITION LVI.

The aptitude, which any given Nature possesses, to be in more entities than one, is a sort of indifference, or absence of repugnance, which has a real foundation in the Nature itself; but, nevertheless, does not belong to such Nature really and actually, till the said Nature has been submitted to a process of intellectual abstraction.

In this Thesis the question is mooted touching the nature of that aptitude to be in many, which is proper to a Universal. It is obvious, from the doctrine established in preceding Propositions, that this aptitude is nothing which belongs to a nature as really and actually existing, though it may have a real foundation in the nature. It remains to determine what such aptitude precisely is.

I. IN THE FIRST MEMBER the aptitude of any given nature to be in more subjects than one, is described as a sort of indifference or absence of repugnance; and most justly. For, wherever aptitude of such a kind is conceived to belong to a Form or Nature, plainly enough such Form is not as yet determined to one; if it were, it would not be capable of being participated by many. But, if it is not as yet determined to one Subject; it is indifferent to being in this or that, to being in one or more. So, again, if the Nature is not as yet determined to one, that is to say, individuated; there is no repugnance in our conceiving it as participable by many. To give an instance: Man is a Nature which, as it is conceived by our intellect, is not as yet determined to James, or Charley, or Henry. As such, therefore, it is indifferent to being in one of the three, rather than in either of the other two. Furthermore, there is no repugnance in the concept of its being in all three, and in others besides: whereas, if it were considered as it is really and formally in Charles, it would be this man; and the Nature, thus determined, would exhibit a repugnance of communicability to any other. For the same real, actuated, human nature, which is in Charles, could never be conceived as existing in Henry or James.

So far, the matter is clear; but the investigation must be pursued farther. Is this aptitude, or indifference, or absence of repugnance, a real positive Mode of any given Nature; or is it a negative Mode, so to speak, consequent upon conceptual abstraction? Is it something in the Nature itself; or is it the result of an intellectual operation? This question is resolved in the third member of the present Proposition.

II. But it will be necessary, before entering on this somewhat difficult discussion, to refer to the SECOND MEMBER, wherein it is stated that the aptitude, which a given nature possesses to be in more subjects than one, 'has a real foundation in the nature itself.' This part of the Thesis need not delay us long, since it has been sufficiently evolved in preceding Propositions, coupled with the Lemma which heads the present Chapter; and its consideration will recur in the next Proposition. Let it suffice here, therefore, to remind the reader that, in each existing Being, there are certain essential notes, distinct from the differential or individual, which are the primary object of the intellect; and that, in the instance of many individuals appertaining to one common nature, those notes are precisely similar in each individual. Those notes which, in their combination, constitute the Essence, or certain Nature, in a definite grade of Being, and that actual similarity of notes in the ease of individuals existing under one determined Species, are, both of them, a reality, and the real foundation to the intellect of man for conceiving a common nature which has an aptitude for existing in more subjects than one. Of these the former are the primary object of a direct Universal; the latter is rather the object of a reflex and philosophical Universal. But of these two kinds of Universals, and of the process of the mind in the genesis of each, more will be said in the succeeding Thesis.

III. THE THIRD MEMBER declares that 'this aptitude does not belong to such nature really and actually, till the said nature has seen submitted to a process of intellectual abstraction. Such is the solution of the question proposed above; the demonstration in proof is as follows. Everything that is real in itself either actually exists or has a transcendental relation to existence; so that it could exist, if an efficient cause were ready to produce it. Yet, an aptitude to exist in many subjects, neither exists nor could exist as such; because all that is existent, is individual. But the determined and singular cannot be undetermined and common; so that an aptitude to be in many, could not possibly exist. It has been maintained, however, by the fautors of the opposite opinion, that though such aptitude cannot possibly exist in actual Being, (which the argument just given sufficiently proves), yet it may for all that be a real positive Mode; because it can belong to such Nature in its state of objective possibility, though lost when that possible Essence is actuated. But, first of all, it has been seen in a preceding Chapter, that purely possible Being is nothing intrinsically in itself, and, consequently, cannot have a real positive Mode or modification of itself, as is clear; for a Mode of nothing is no Mode. Again, the primary argument already given comes back with undiminished force, as touching such a hypothesis. For it is granted, that this supposed Mode cannot by any possibility exist; but, if it has no transcendental relation to existence, it cannot be real and positive. Moreover, it may be added, in confirmation of this last argument, that if it be a real positive Mode, essentially belonging to every Nature; it looks like a contradiction in terms to admit, at the same time, that this Mode is irrecoverably lost, as soon as it is actuated and exists outside its causes. Lastly, what is to be said as to the Unity of this positive Mode? Is it numerically one, or is it specifically one and capable of individual multiplication? The latter cannot be maintained. For, in such case, it would follow, that this Mode would be capable of individual multiplication in the individual; which is absurd. The former, i.e. that it should be numerically one, is simply inconceivable. For, if it were numerically one, it would have its own individual Difference; and how is it possible to conceive, that an individual Difference should be capable of belonging to more Entities than one? Hence it is just to conclude, that the said aptitude to exist in many subjects, does not really and actually belong to any Nature prior to, and independently of, all operation of the intellect.