B. The Father’s Power of Generating is Something Absolute

35. Speaking then of power, that is, of the proximate foundation precisely taken of this relation, - I say the Father’s power of generating is not a relation but something absolute.

36. [Proof] - The negative part I prove:

First, because every relation seems to regard equally naturally its proper correlative, therefore the relation of inspiriting will equally naturally regard its correlative just as the relation of generating will regards its own; but in divine reality productions are not distinguished by way of nature and will, except because the principle ‘by which the producer produces’ is disposed differently to the production and to the product, because it is of this one naturally and of that one freely;     therefore they would not then be two productions formally distinct by way of nature and of will.

37. Second, because then [sc. if the Father’s power were a relation] the same relation would be the principle of itself, because there is in the Father only a single relation to the Son, and it is the principle ‘by which’ with respect to generation, -which is the same relation, although differently named; therefore etc     .

38. Third, because then paternity would be simply more perfect than filiation. Proof of the consequence, in two ways. First, because that by which the producer produces, if it is not of the same idea as the form of the product, contains the form virtually and is more perfect than it; therefore if paternity is that by which the Father acts, and it is not of the same idea as filiation, it contains filiation virtually and is more perfect than it. Second, because filiation does not give to the Son what it does; therefore if the Father acts by paternity formally, paternity will be something more perfect than filiation.

39. The affirmative part of the solution [that the Father’s power is something absolute, n.35] I prove thus:

What is of perfection in the productive principle does not take the idea of productive principle away from anything; but to communicate itself in numerical identity, and with a communication adequate to itself, posits a perfection in the productive principle; therefore this does not take the idea of productive principle away from anything. But if God, per incompossibile, were to generate another God, and that other a third, deity would be posited as the productive principle of the other [sc. the third] and not as a relation of it; and then deity would not communicate itself in numerical identity, nor would it communicate itself with a communication adequate to itself in idea of productive principle, because deity would be able to be the principle of another communication, namely the one done -per incompossibile - by the second god. Therefore since, as things are now, deity is communicated in numerical identity and with a communication adequate to itself, such that by deity there cannot be a numerically further communication of the same idea as the first, - it follows that the productive principle should now much more be posited as absolute than it would then be posited as being.

40. In brief: if a form were communicated that was not the same in number, nor communicated adequately, it would be posited as the principle of communicating; therefore if now it is more perfectly communicated, it - or something more perfect - will be the principle of communicating in this more perfect way.

41. An example of this is if heat in fire were to communicate itself the same in number to a piece of wood, and with an adequate communication, such that the heat could not be the principle of another heating, one would not deny that the heat of the fire was the productive principle of heat in the wood, since now in fact the heat is posited as the principle of it, and this with a double imperfection, opposed to the double perfection here supposed (because now there is here a diversity of communicated heat and the communication is not adequate, but then there would be an identity of communicated heat and the communication would be adequate); and yet - on the basis of this hypothesis - the wood would not be able to heat by heat; for it would not be able to heat itself, because it receives heat from the heating which comes from the heat in question, and so it would have heat before it had heat, - nor would it be able to heat something else, because the heating of the wood is posited as adequate, in idea of active principle, to the heat. - Thus must one understand things in the intended proposal, because that which would be posited as the principle of another heating, if the communication were made with numerical diversity and not adequately, this same thing should now be posited as the principle when a communication is made of the same thing and a communication adequate to the productive principle.

42. Second I prove the same: something absolute is the formal term of generation, therefore something absolute is the formal idea by which the agent acts. - The antecedent was proved in distinction 5 question 2, in the first reason against the first opinion [I d.5 nn.64-69]. - I prove the consequence by the fact that it is impossible for an ‘agent’ to communicate the formal term of production unless it act, if it acts univocally, by an equally perfect form, - or, if it acts equivocally, by a more perfect form; but in divine reality nothing is more perfect than the absolute, because the ‘absolute’ is formally infinite, but the relation is not;     therefore etc     .

43. [Instance] - Against this reason [n.42] it is instanced that the consequence is only valid in univocal generation. But this generation [sc. the one in divine reality] is proved to be equivocal, first on the part of the persons, second from the productions, and third from the idea of specific difference.

44. The first way is as follows: paternity and filiation differ in species, therefore the persons constituted by them differ in species. - The proof of the antecedent is that they differ in their quiddities, and such difference is specific; and also that they are pure acts, but the difference of act and form is specific. - The proof of the consequence is, first, that there is no greater distinction in the principles than in the things they are principles of; second, the difference is the same for that in accord with which certain things are precisely different as it is for the differing things themselves; third, that the relations are the same for the divine essence as for the person, - therefore a specific difference will not by this be denied for the persons just as it is not denied for the relations either; fourth, that there is the same difference for the formal constituents as for the things constituted.

45. In the second way (about productions) the argument is: in divine reality the productions differ in genus, therefore so do the products. - The antecedent is plain, because in divine reality there is no production of a single idea save a single one. -The proof of the consequence is, first, that otherwise there would not be a proportion of the productions to the products; also, second, that productions are of the same idea as the products; and, third, that powers of a different idea require objects of a different idea, - therefore, if they were to produce their own products, they would produce products of a different idea; therefore, just as will and intellect presuppose that ‘good’ and ‘true’ are formally distinct, so they will produce formally distinct termini, or they will be that by which such distinct termini are produced.

46. In the third way (about specific difference) the argument is as follows: specific difference seems to be more perfect than numerical difference, - the proof of which is that the distinction of species belongs to the per se perfection of the universe, but the distinction of individuals does not; therefore specific difference, in the way it is more perfect, seems it should be posited in divine reality.

47. [Against the instance] - To these arguments I reply that, whether generation is set down as equivocal or univocal, the argument is not affected, because in equivocal generation the productive principle must be more perfect than the terminating form; but nothing is more perfect than the absolute, and specifically no relation is more perfect; for it seems most absurd to say that relation virtually contains the divine essence.

48. The conclusion, however, to which these reasonings [n.43] lead, namely about equivocal generation, seems to be false, because since in the first term of generation - namely in the product itself - two things come together, namely nature and the relation proper of the product itself by which it is a ‘this’, -generation is called equivocal or univocal either by some formal term of generation, or by some formal term proper to the produced supposit itself. If in the first way, since nature -which is the formal term of this production - is the same in producer and produced, univocity follows, because the likeness is most perfect. If in the second way, then no generation is univocal, because nothing generated is assimilated in its own individual form to the one generating. - That is, and it is to argue in another and almost the same way, that generation both assimilates and distinguishes, - as is plain, because thus is generation from the form under the idea of form and not under the idea by which it is a ‘this’, and the idea of form is more perfect in the supposit than this individual difference is. If in the case of generation its being assimilative is more perfect, then it will according to this be called univocal or equivocal. For if it were said to be of the former or latter sort insofar as it distinguishes, any generation at all would be called equivocal, because any generation at all distinguishes, - and this idea of distinguishing is in generation more imperfect, because it belongs to the most imperfect generation. Therefore not by this is univocal generation distinguished from equivocal.

49. Therefore to the intended proposal. Since generation assimilates insofar as the same nature is communicated, and distinguishes insofar as it is of a generated thing distinct from a generator that is distinct, it follows that univocity is located in the nature of the thing coming to be and come to be, and not in the distinction of generator and generated.

50. Second, one applies this to the intended proposal, that if the individual differences - which are diverse first - constitute products not diverse first but between which there is univocal generation (because of their likeness in nature), if these individual differences were species of a different genus, they would still not constitute things distinct with as much distinction as they would have in their own genus, because then the individual differences would constitute things diverse first. But that the things ‘constituted’ now are not diverse first is because of the nature, in which nature the individuals agree; so they would also then agree in the same nature, although the constituting differences would be species of a different genus. Therefore the constituted things would then be of the same species, as they now are.

51. So to the arguments for the opposite [sc. for the opposite conclusion, that the generation is equivocal, nn.43-46]:

To the first [n.44] one must say that there is properly neither genus nor species there, nor specific difference. But I do well concede that paternity and filiation are relations of a different species and of a different idea, because they are opposites and are not founded on unity - even immediately - as are likeness and equality; there is also a greater distinction between paternity and filiation than been paternity and paternity. But when you infer that ‘therefore the things constituted too are of a different idea quasi-specifically’, I deny the consequence.

52. And, on account of the proof of the consequence, one must understand that some things are sometimes said to be more distinguished because of a greater repugnance or incompossibility between them, as contraries are said to be more distinguished, like white and black, than disparate things are, like man and white, - and in this way it is not said properly that ‘some things are more distinguished’; for those things are more ‘properly distinguished’ which agree less in some respect; and thus things distinct in the most general genus are more distinguished than contraries which are of the same species, even though contraries are more repugnant.

53. Hence universally: the distinction of distinct things is as great as is the distinction, that is, the repugnance, of what constitutes or formally distinguishes them, because if white and black are incompossible, the things constituted by them are also incompossible. And so it is in the intended proposal: the incompossibility of Father and Son, such that the Father is not the Son, is as great as is the incompossibility of paternity and filiation - because of which paternity is not filiation.

54. But in the second way of taking it [sc. ‘more distinguished’, n.52], never do the distinguishing things agree as much as do the things distinguished by them, as is plain by running through all the things that distinguish. For specific differences do not include the genus in which they agree, but the species distinguished by them do include the genus in which they agree; and the reason is that the distinguishing things presuppose something in the distinct things that the distinguishing things do not include in their understanding, but the things distinguished by them do include it; therefore the distinguished things agree in it, but the distinguishing things do not agree in it.

55. From this [n.54] the response is plain to the arguments and the proofs [n.44]. -When you speak of ‘the principles and the things they are principles of’, I say that there can be a greater distinction - that is, a greater non-agreement (that is, an agreement in fewer things) - between principles than between the things they are principles of, just as specific differences, which are the principles of species, do not agree in the genus in which the species themselves agree; and so is it also in the case of individual differences and individuals in respect of the specific nature.

56. From this [n.54] the answer is plain to what is said about ‘formal constitutives and things precisely distinct’ [n.44]; for, in the case of all of them, it is false that the difference of the things constituted is as great as the distinction or difference of the formal constituents.

57. But I consider the argument further: because these relations - those in the intended proposal - are subsistent, therefore they have as much difference insofar as they are subsistent as they have in their proper ideas; but the subsistent relations are persons, therefore the persons have as much difference as the relations have. - And in addition to this: the persons differ by some formal difference, and by none save by the difference that the relations have, because they have no other; but the difference the relations have is specific, - therefore the difference of the persons will be in species or in nothing.

58. To these arguments I reply. - To the first [n.57], that although the relations are subsistent, yet the persons do not only include the relations but also the very nature in which they subsist, - but the relations do not formally include the nature. The persons then formally agree in something in which the relations formally do not agree, and so there is not as great a distinction in the former as in the latter.

59. To the second [n.57] I say that this consequence does not follow: ‘by these relations precisely are they distinguished, and the relations are distinguished in species, therefore the persons are distinguished in species’, - just as neither does it follow about individual differences with respect to individuals. And when you say ‘then there will be no difference between the distinct things, since what belongs to the distinguishing things does not belong to the distinct things, nor anything else that comes through them’ [n.57], I say that through them there can be some distinction of the distinct things, different from the distinction of the distinguishing things, - and a lesser one, just as by the individual differences there is some distinction between individuals, different from the distinction of those individual differences, because the differences are diverse first; but the ‘distinct things’ are not diverse first, but they are only distinct in number within the same species. So here, in the intended proposal, by relations distinct in species, or in quasi-genus (to which, however, insofar as they are distinct, distinction in species is an accident), some things can be distinguished only in person within the same species or within the same nature.

60. As to the second way, about productions [n.45], I deny the consequence, because in divine reality there can, from the perfection of the divine nature, be some principles of a different idea yet communicative of the essence itself, - which does not happen in any imperfect nature. And because of the distinction of these formal principles, there can be productions of a different idea and yet products of the same idea, because of the unity of the formal term, namely of the nature which is communicated.

61. When the consequence is proved first, through proportion [n.45], - I say that the proportion ‘of the production to the formal term’ is that by it the formal term is communicated. But such proportion is not required for the production to be of one idea, provided the formal term is of one idea, because productions can be distinguished by their ideas otherwise than they are by the formal terms, as they are here [sc. in divine reality], by their formal principles. An example of this is whenever the same form can be acquired by changes of a different idea, just as the same ‘where’ can be acquired by straight or circular local motion over an extended magnitude, which motions are so of different idea that they are not comparable, according to the Philosopher Physics

7.4.248a10-b6, 5.4.228b19-21; so would it be if the same health could be induced immediately by art and immediately by nature.

62. When this consequence is proved, second, by the fact that ‘productions are of the same idea as their products’ [n.45], - I say that to this extent are they of the same idea, that just as productions are relations so products are relatives; but because the products are subsistent in the same nature, and the productions are not formally supposits subsistent in that nature, therefore the products can have some unity formally in the nature - communicated to them by the productions - which the productions do not formally have.

63. When it is argued, third, about the distinction of powers and distinct objects, that the distinction of the objects is similar to that of the powers [n.45], - the response was plain from distincton 2 question 4, ‘Whether there are in divine reality only two productions’ [I d.2 nn.342-344].

64. About the third way, namely ‘about the perfection of the specific difference’ [n.46], - I say that specific difference is not more perfect than is specific identity in divine reality. But in creatures it is a mark of perfection. - For once limitation in creatures is posited, there cannot be a total perfection in creatures without specific distinction, but if in some one nature there were an infinite perfection, specific distinction would not be there required for perfection simply. Therefore in creatures specific difference is a perfection supplying for an imperfection, but in divine reality - where nature is simply perfect - there is no need to posit such ‘a perfection supplying for an imperfection’, because there is no imperfection there for which it might supply. An example: generation in creatures is ‘a perfection supplying for an imperfection’ in corruptible things, which without generation could not be conserved either the same numerically or of the same species, - but in divine reality there is no need to posit such ‘a perfection supplying for some imperfection’ which may exist there, or exist in any eternal thing.