II. To the Principal Arguments of the Third Question

258. By holding onto the four reasons [nn.221, 238, 239, 240-241] and especially the first two [nn.221, 238] for the affirmative conclusion to the question, I respond to the arguments for the opposite conclusion [nn.201-208].

To the first [nn.201-206] by denying the major.

259. When it is proved first through the necessary of itself and the necessary from another [n.202], I say that if the same genus of cause is meant by these two, ‘of itself’ and ‘from another’, it is true that in this way nothing is necessary of itself and from another; but if another genus of cause is meant, to wit through the ‘of itself’ the formal cause and through the ‘from another’ the effective or productive cause, it is not discordant for the same thing to be necessary of itself in one way and from another in another way.

260. When the major of the prosyllogism [n.202] is proved, I say that what is necessary of itself formally cannot not exist when any other thing is removed whose removal does not include incompossibility with the positing of something else existing; but ‘necessary of itself formally’ follows ‘being able not to be’ when any other thing is removed through incompossibility, just as from the positing of one incompossible another incompossible follows.

261. But then there is a doubt what the difference is between necessary of itself as applied to the Son according to the theologians and as applied to the necessarily produced creature according to philosophers.

I respond: the philosophers, when positing that creatures are necessarily produced, had to say that creatures had an entity whereby they were formally necessary, although in that entity they depended on a cause that necessarily produced; but the Son has a formally necessary entity and the same entity as the producer. A creature, then, if it was necessary of itself, could not fail to be when everything else was removed whose removal does not involve a contradiction, although, when the cause other than itself was removed through incompossibility, it could fail to be; but the Son could not fail to be when everything else as to entity was removed, because it could only fail to be when the person producing was removed, and the producer is not other as to entity than the produced. Hence if the Father produced a creature naturally and necessarily, he would produce it to be formally necessary, and yet it would not then be necessary with as much necessity as the Son nowInterpolation: “but it is not a supreme that is univocally similar, because then it could produce another God.” ¹⁷⁰ is necessary.

262. To the second proof of the major [n.203] I say that logical possibility differs from real possibility, as is plain from the Philosopher Metaphysics 5.12.1019b28-30. Logical possibility is a mode of composition formed by the intellect whose terms do not involve contradiction, and so this proposition is possible: ‘God exists’, ‘God can be produced’, and ‘God is God’; but real possibility is what is received from some real power as from a power inhering in something or determined to something as to its term.

But the Son is not possible with real possibility or with a possibility inhering in something or determined to him, because possibility, whether active or passive, is to another thing in nature, as is plain from the definition of active and passive power at Metaphysics 5.12.1019a15-20, because it is a principle of changing another either from another insofar as it is other, or from another or insofar as it is other. But the Son is the term of productive power, which abstracts from the idea of effective power, and if that power be called simply power, the term of that power can be called simply possible; but that possibility is not repugnant to being formally necessary, although perhaps the possibility of which the philosophers speak, of active and passive power, is properly repugnant to necessity of itself; but this doubt concerns active power, if they posited that something necessary has a productive principle.

263. To the third proof, when it is said ‘there is order then, so the first person is understood when the second person is not understood’ [n.204], I reply that in the first understanding the second person is not necessarily understood along with the first person if that first person is absolute; but it does not follow from this that, if the first person is understood with the second not understood, therefore the second person is understood not to exist,Interpolation: “but this is impossible, because there cannot be several Gods, as was shown in the question about the unity of God” [nn.165-181]. ¹⁷¹ just as it does not follow ‘the animal which is in man is understood when rational is not understood, therefore man is understood not to be rational’.Text cancelled by Scotus: “A stand therefore is made in the Son that he is formally necessary of himself, and yet from another producing him by efficacy [interpolation: or originally], together with whom he has the same necessary entity [interpolation: for necessary formally and non-necessary in origin are not contradictory].” ¹⁷²

264. When, however, you infer change from the opposed terms [n.204], you take it as if the produced was understood not to be when the producer is, which is false; you are changing abstraction without falsehood, which is by not considering the thing from which the abstraction is made, into false abstraction, which is by considering the thing not to exist from which abstraction is made.

265. To the fourth proof [n.205] I say that the person would not be in essence without production; for it has essence through production. The consequence is not: ‘therefore the essence becomes from not having the person to having it’, but the consequence is: ‘therefore the essence, which of its idea does not include person’ (which is true if person is relative, first because then there is something when the relative is taken away, according to Augustine On the Trinity VII ch.1 n.2, and second because a respect is not of the idea of an absolute) - the essence, I say - has ‘that production, or through production it has the person in which it subsists’, which person or production, however, is not of the idea of essence. But change does not follow from the fact that something is in something which is not of the idea of it, but change requires that something be in something in which the opposite of it first was, which does not hold in this case.

266. To the fifth proof [n.206] I say that also in generation in creatures two ideas come together, namely that generation is a change and that it is a production; but as it is a change it is the form of the changed subject, and as it is a production it is as the process of the produced term. These ideas do not include each other essentially even in creatures, because they have a regard first to diverse things. Therefore without contradiction the idea of production can be understood without the idea of change, and so generation is transferred to divine reality under the idea of production, although not under the idea of change.

267. To the second principal argument [n.207] I say that this does not follow ‘it is from another therefore it is dependent’. When it is proved I concede that nature exists equally independently in producer and produced.Interpolation: “for here the intellect, by abstracting in this way, does not merely abstract but also divides what exists in reality.” ¹⁷³ When it is argued from independence that there will not be a pre-requirement, I deny the consequence, because dependence follows the formal entity of what depends on that on which it depends; when therefore it has the same entity, there is not in that case dependence, although there can be a prerequirement if one supposit has it from another.

268. To the final argument [n.208] I say that changes other than generation are in their formal idea more imperfect than generation, becauseInterpolation: “For it is not the same thing to understand animal without rational when understanding by way of a proposition that it is not rational, and not to understand animal to be rational by way of abstraction. Hence this is the order in the intellect: first not to be understood to be, second to be understood to be; but in real existence there is no order. But on the contrary: in the first stage one must understand that the thing is not, because in that first stage it does not have being, otherwise it would have a priority of being along with that first stage. To this objection, which is set down in the Reportatio IA d.2 n.142, I reply as follows: it is not understood in that prior stage not to be absolutely but not to be in prior stage of origin, that is, not to be of itself, and it is in this way understood to exist in that prior stage, and absolutely, because that is prior; but in the later stage of origin it is understood to have been produced, because it is from another.” ¹⁷⁴ the terms introduced are more imperfect than the terms of generation; yet the other changes do not require, as to what they presuppose, as much imperfection in the subject as generation requires, and this in the way generation is a change, because generation requires in the subject a being in potency, and potency to existence simply, but the other changes do not.

269. Applying this to the intended proposition, I say that generation is not transferred to divine reality as to what generation presupposes, to wit a changeable subject, which is a matter of imperfection, because in the way it is a change it is not in divine reality, - but it is transferred to divine reality insofar as it is a production, under the idea in which production is of a term, which term is more perfect than the terms of other changes; and thus can essence well be taken through generation as the most perfect term in divine reality, although there could not be taken through some other change some other term of other changes, because this other term would include composition and imperfection, because the term of any other change would be an accident combinable with a subject.