Question 3. Whether the being of being produced can stand in something along with the divine essence

201. And, because a plurality of divine persons is made clear from production, I     therefore ask about production in the divine nature, and first in general, whether the being of being produced can stand in something along with the divine essence; and in the Lectura [Reportatio I A d.2 n.107] in this way: whether any intrinsic real production whatever is repugnant to the divine essence.

I argue no according to the first form of the question, and this is to argue yes according to the second form, because nothing produced is of itself necessary; but whatever subsists in the divine essence is of itself necessary; therefore etc     .

202. The major is plain in five ways:

First, because nothing is at the same time necessary of itself and by another; but what is produced, if it is necessary, is necessary from another; therefore it is not necessary of itself. The proof of the major of this syllogism is that if it is necessary of itself then it is necessary when everything else is removed; but if it is necessary from another it is not necessary when that other is removed.

203. Second, a proof of the first major [n.201] is that everything produced was capable of being produced, otherwise a thing incapable of being produced was produced;     therefore everything produced includes in it some possibility; also that every possibility is repugnant to what is necessary of itself; therefore etc     .

204. Again, third, the produced terminus is posterior in some way to the thing producing, because production cannot be understood without some order; in that prior moment in which the producer is understood the thing produced is not understood, because then the producer would not be first; therefore in that prior moment the thing produced is understood not to exist, and in the next moment it is understood to exist; therefore there is a change from not-being to being.

105. There is a proof, fourth, that the divine essence, when all production is removed, does not have the thing produced; but it has the thing produced by production; therefore by production the divine essence becomes from not having the thing produced to having it, and so there is change.

206. Fifth, because generation seems to be essentially a change, in the way a species essentially includes the genus; but production into being by way of nature is generation; therefore production cannot be understood without change.

207. Again on the principal point, second, in this way: if it is produced therefore it is dependent; the consequent is false, therefore the antecedent is too. The proof of the consequence is that if the produced depends in no way on the producer, then each would have its nature on an equal basis; and from this further, that the produced would first require for its production and existence that the producer first have its nature would not be more the case than the reverse, which is contrary to the nature of production.

208. Again third on the principal point, because other changes, which do not involve in their idea as much imperfection as generation involves, could not exist in divine reality;     therefore not generation either.

The consequence is plain, because we remove from God whatever there is of imperfection. The proof of the antecedent is that local motion and alteration according to Aristotle, Physics 8.7.260a26-261a20, do not involve as much imperfection as generation, and that is why many perfect beings can be altered and locally moved that cannot be generated [to wit the heavenly bodies]; but no change of place or alteration is conceded to exist in God; therefore etc     .

209. To the opposite is Augustine On the Trinity IV ch.20 n.29: “The Father is the principle of the whole deity,” only by production.

210. Again Psalm 2.7: “The Lord said to me: Thou art my son, today have I begotten thee.”

211. Look for other authorities in the text [Sentences I d.2 ch.4-5].