II. To the Principal Arguments

108. To the first principal argument [n.52] the answer is plain from what has been said [nn.94-99], that the first supposit precedes the second in origin, and yet they are simultaneous in nature as is required for relatives.

109. And you argue that the first supposit precedes generation, therefore the second does too [n.52], - I reply that in the antecedent both active and passive generation can be understood. If active generation, I deny the antecedent, nay the first supposit is subsistent active generation; because, however this relation is understood, there is no difference in reality when saying ‘the Father subsists’ or ‘generation subsists’ or ‘generativity subsists’. But if in the antecedent the understanding is about passive generation, I concede that the first person, as he precedes the Son in origin, so he precedes passive generation in origin.

110. And when you argue ‘therefore the Son precedes the same passive generation because he is simultaneous with the Father’ [n.53], - this inference is not valid, because he is not simultaneous with the Father in the way in which the Father is prior to passive generation; for the Son is simultaneous in nature with the Father (as pertains to correlatives), but the Father precedes passive generation not in this way but in origin. But now this proposition ‘when certain things are simultaneous, in whatever way one of them is prior the other is too’ [n.53] is false, unless it be understood of simultaneity of the same idea as the priority and posteriority; just as this proposition is false ‘if certain things are simultaneous in time, whatever is prior in nature to one is prior in nature also to the other’; but this proposition is true ‘they are simultaneous in time, - therefore what is prior in time to one is prior in time also to the other’.

111. To the second argument [n.54] I say that the major is true in the order of essences, because there it is understood in quidditative perfections, and a stand is made at infinite quidditative perfection, which is absolute. But in persons that have the same nature, and are distinct only in origin (as one must understand in the issue at hand, according to the common opinion), the major proposition is false, because there ‘first’ is precisely that which is formally precise in relation to the second.a

a [Note by Duns Scotus] Whether there are only five notions. - That there are not: ‘from another’ is not, because it needs a correlative, - one, because it belongs to several; no ‘able to inspirit’ [sc. filiation and paternity are not notions because they need another; inspiriting, active and passive, is not because it needs others (the Father and Son); able to inspirit, whether of Father or Son, is not; therefore only unable to be born is a notion]. - On the contrary: On the Trinity V ch.6 n.7 [“one notion is whereby begetter is understood, another whereby begotten is”]. - Solution: notion is fundamentally, formally, accidentally; ‘because of which’ is a notional person or also the idea of personality. In the first way all essential properties (or properties according to essence) are notions; we are speaking in the second way here (formally); third, because quiddity becomes a notion. In the second way, because the notions are ‘because of which’ the essence is. - A doubt about able to inspirit. A power for the second production.