II. What one Should Think about the Third Opinion

67. And if it be objected against this way [sc. the third] that it cannot stand along with the faith, because the Savior, when expressing the whole truth of the faith, named the three persons (Matthew 28.19) Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and blessed John in his first canonical letter 5.7 says ‘there are three who give testimony in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’, - and the saints, when later treating of this matter, base themselves on these words of the canon [of Scripture] and seem always expressly to say that the persons are not distinguished formally save by relations, as was argued for the second opinion [nn.18-22]:

68. One could here say that the Savior taught three persons and that they are relatives by these relations, and that a person receives essence from a person - and this indeed is not denied by the present opinion [n.56]; yet the inference does not follow that ‘the Savior did not say that the divine persons were constituted by anything absolute, therefore they are not so constituted’ (for the place taken from the authority does not hold negatively), just as the inference does not hold, ‘I speak with the bishop and the official and the archdeacon, therefore these are distinguished in their personal being by these relations’. And perhaps the Savior, seeing that we cannot conceive the proper absolute realities, if there are any, by which the divine persons are formally constituted in their personal being, wanted to express them to us by names more intelligible to us; for we can in some way conceive those relations of origin from relations of origin in creatures. And perhaps another reason could be assigned, that in this way [sc. through relations of origin] more of the faith is expressed at once than in the other way [sc. through absolutes]; for if the persons are absolute and are constituted by absolute properties (a, b, c) and can be named by their names - if the Savior had expressed them [sc. absolute names], he would precisely thereby have expressed the distinction of the persons and not the origin of person from person; yet, by expressing the persons with relative names, he expressed both facts by them, namely distinction and origin.

69. But that the divine persons could be named and expressed by some absolute names seems able to be shown by Scripture, - as in Proverbs 30.4 where Solomon (after the many questions he moves about God) asks: “What is his name and what the name of his Son, if you know?” - If the first name of ‘his Son’ is ‘Son’ (which it should be, if he is constituted in being by filiation), this question seems to be empty, because every question supposes something certain and asks about something doubtful (from Metaphysics 7.17.1041a10-16). The question then would be empty, because it would suppose and ask about the same thing; for it supposes that he is Son and asks ‘what is his name’, - and likewise it supposes, through the nature of relation, that ‘that of which he is relative’ is the Father and asks about the name. One could reply to Solomon: you are asking about the name of the Father and of the Son, and you state their first names!

70. Therefore it seems one could say that if the New Scripture [Testament] expressly intends them to be relative persons, and that this is of the substance of the faith, yet nothing express is found that the relations are the first forms, constituting and distinguishing the persons first, - nor has the Church declared this. Neither in the Apostles’ Creed nor in the Nicene Creed nor in the General Council under Innocent III is this declared (as to the article ‘On the Trinity’, an ‘Extra’ is set down, ‘On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith’, “Firmly”); nor in the General Council of Lyons under Gregory X (which, as to the matter ‘On the Trinity’, is set down an ‘Extra’, ‘On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith’, “Firmly”, and it is today in the sixth book of the Decretals), nor in any other Council is what may hitherto seem manifestly handed down in any authentic Scripture made clear.

71. If therefore Christ did not teach this nor has the Church declared it, namely that the persons are first distinguished by relations, neither Christ nor the Church then seem to assert that this is of the faith, because, if is not true [sc. that the persons are distinguished first by relations], it is not reverently said of the divine persons that they are only ‘subsistent relations’ [Henry of Ghent]; if however it is true, yet it is not handed down as a certain truth, it does not seem safe to assert that this is to be held as a certain truth. And although it be true that the persons are distinguished by relations (and it is while holding to this in general that the saints have labored on how a distinction of persons can stand with unity of essence), yet one should not deny that any other distinction, which will also concede this distinction, may be posited as prior, - such that every way holds this affirmative to be true, namely that the divine persons are distinguished by relations, although some way says that this distinction is as it were preceded by some real distinction. Nor should one restrict an article of faith handed down in general to one particular meaning, as if the general meaning could not be true save in the particular one; and just as one should not restrict this article, that ‘the Word of God was made man’, to one determinate mode (which is not expressed in the canonical Scripture or by the Church), such that it could not be true unless that mode were true; for this is to reduce an article of faith to incertitude, if anything is uncertain that has not been handed down as an article of faith (for what cannot be held without some uncertainty seems to be uncertain).

If this position [n.56] be held, one should say that this absolute reality -constituting and distinguishing the person - would not be a reality for itself as the essentials are for themselves, but a reality that is personal and for itself in the second way [n.59], according to the distinction of that master which was set down at the beginning of the opinion [n.57].