IV. To the Principal Arguments

48. To the arguments.

To the first, when an argument is made about the nexus [n.1], - I say that the Father and the Son have a nexus in the Holy Spirit as in a common product; for although they are distinct (otherwise the two would not have a nexus), yet they do not have a common product insofar as they are distinct, but insofar as they are one; hence the one product is from them insofar as they are one producing, and so the authority in question [sc. from Augustine] is to the opposite side.

49. To the second [n.2] I say that action is ‘of a per se existent singular’ - but it need not be of any incommunicable per se existent singular, as was said in distinction 4 [I d.4 nn.11-13].

In the way that this proposition is true ‘God creates’ or ‘God is Father and Son and Holy Spirit’, so is it posited that there is some ‘this inspiriter’ to whom it first belongs - that is adequately belongs - to inspirit, and who is somehow pre-understood in the Father and in the Son, to whom the act of inspiriting belongs, because both are ‘this inspiriter’; and then it would be said of this ‘per se existent’, which is as it were something common in real being to the Father and to the Son, that there is one action, although it is not one supposit (that is, incommunicable), just as neither is the Trinity one supposit, yet it does create with one creation.

50. This does not seem as probable here as ‘God creates’ is there, because there does not seem to be here someone per se existent, common to the Father and to the Son but not to the Holy Spirit, because then that singular per se existent would, although not incommunicably, yet really be referred to the Holy Spirit, and it would be something really related inwardly prior in some way to the first person being understood, and so not every real relation inwardly would be of a person, which would not seem probable.

51. In another way it could be said that action denominates with ultimate denomination only the supposit, or something having the mode of a supposit. I say ‘mode of a supposit’ for the separated soul and for accidents separated by miracle, which are denominated by action with ultimate denomination, because they per se exist, - although not incommunicably, because they are of a nature to communicate being to supposits; but while they are communicating nothing, nothing is denominated by their action save by ultimate denomination itself. But every form, existing in another as a form, just as it gives that other being so it gives it to be in some way denominated by the form’s action, not however with ultimate denomination, but there is denomination further of the supposit by the same action; but if some per se existing form were of a nature to have some proper action, and if it were to give the same being to several supposits, then, from the fact that the supposits are not denominated by the action of the form save because they have being through the form, they would be denominated by the same action, just as they would have the same being of that active form (an example: if one whiteness were in two surfaces, the surfaces would cause a change [sc. in the eye] with one change); so therefore, since ‘fecund will’ is one principle of inspiriting, whatever is denominated by this action would, by the fact that it has being by this form, be denominated by the same action. When therefore he [sc. Henry] says [n.2] that ‘action belongs to a supposit, therefore several actions belong to several supposits’, I deny the consequence, except when that is multiplied in them which is the idea of the acting, by which, when it gives being, they are said denominatively to act.

52. And if you object that from the one soul of a man there are many distinct operations (as to understand and to will), and also many operations of the sensitive parts (as to see, to hear, and many such), and, if these parts were supposits, there would be many actions of them when they are acting, - I reply that one thing is not always one idea of acting; rather, one thing can include in itself several ideas of acting, as will be said of the soul in respect of its powers, if question is made about this [II Suppl. d.16 q. un nn.15-19], IV d.49 p.1 qq.1-2 n.18]. But it was said in the response already given [n.51] what sort of idea there is in the Father and the Son with respect to the production or the producing of the Holy Spirit.

53. To the third [n.3] I say that the Father and the Son inspirit the Holy Spirit insofar as they are altogether one; and not insofar as they are one in essence, nor insofar as they are one in person, but insofar as they are one in inspiriting force. And when you infer ‘therefore the Father would be two productive principles, because of the double fecundity in him’ [n.3], I deny the consequence, because in order to say ‘several producers’ a numbering of the supposits is required; for someone is not said to be ‘several knowers’ although he has several sciences, but there would have to be several supposits for this to follow (about this elsewhere, in book III, where the question is raised ‘whether, if several natures were assumed by the Word, he would be one or several men’ [III d.1 q.3 n.3]).