III. To the Principal Arguments

82. To the principal arguments [nn.1-5].

To the first [n.1] I say that it seems to conclude against those who posit that the quasi-subject of generation is the divine essence, for since generation in creatures is natural from the inclination of the passive principle, but not from the reason of the active principle (because if my will were to generate fire from the matter, the passive generation would be natural because of the inclination of the passive power to the form, although the active principle would be free), so it seems that, if the divine essence were the quasisubject in divine reality with respect to the personal properties - since the essence as naturally inclines to the property of the Holy Spirit as to the property of the Son -, the passive production of the Holy Spirit would be as natural as that of the Son, although this production and that would be from a different productive principle; but it does not conclude against me, because I deny generation there under the idea of change, and deny altogether anything passive with respect to act (as is clear in distinction 5 nn.97, 113, 118, 131-132, 137-138), but I posit there precisely generation under the idea of production, whose terms are the producer and the produced; so there precisely will generation be called natural, because the relation between producer and produced is natural, and the naturalness of this sort of relation is on the part of the naturalness of the producer itself, because it produces by a principle naturally inclining to act, - and the Father does not inspirit in this way. Alternatively it is said that generation is in one way taken for the generation of substance, or in another way specifically for the production of the living from the living (and in this way is an animal said to be generated but not fire), and in this latter way there commonly concurs on the part of the agent a natural inclination or a natural form, which is the principle of generating; and it is in this latter way that generation in divine reality seems to exist. - The first response [earlier in his paragraph] is better, perhaps.

83. To the second [n.2] I say that, when two things are compared to an unlimited or indeterminate third thing, the union of them among themselves does not follow from their union in the third thing. An example: ‘if I am with God here and the Pope is with God in Rome, therefore I am together with the Pope’ does not follow, because God is unlimited as to the presence by which he is present at places; so too it does not follow that ‘I am with eternity, and Abraham was with eternity, therefore I am together with Abraham’, because God is eternal and his eternity is unlimited. So do I say in the intended proposition that the Father has in himself a double fecundity perfectly, but each production corresponds precisely to one fecundity; and therefore the Father is, with respect to the two productions, a sort of thing unlimited, or as it were indeterminate, as compared to determinate things, - and therefore it does not follow that, if both productions are univocal with such an unlimited third thing, these productions are univocal among themselves.

84. Against this there is an argument as follows:

If the productions are not univocal but are of different ideas, therefore the terms too will be of different ideas, - from the Physics [n.1]; but if the produced terms require such a formal distinction, the terms will not be univocal to some third thing; therefore from the opposite, if the terms are univocal to some third thing, the productions too will be univocal among themselves.

85. Further, the intellect and will, insofar as they are operative powers, require a formal distinction in their objects, and if they were, in respect of their objects, productive powers, they would produce such a distinction in their objects;     therefore , since the produced terms require such a formal distinction, the terms will not be univocal [sc. to some third thing].

86. Further, what is produced through the intellect is, from the force of its production, generated knowledge, while what is produced through the mode of will is proceeding love; but knowledge as knowledge and love as love seem to be of formally different ideas; therefore etc     .

87. To the first [n.84] I say that the proposition about motions and terms - which is adduced for the intended proposition - is only true when two other propositions are true, namely that ‘the form in flux, according to which there is motion, is of the same idea as the terminating form’ [n.11], and ‘motion is of the same idea as the form in flux’ [I d.2 n.339]. Now applying this to the proposition, there is no flux nor a form in flux, but this production is not of the same idea as the form which is the formal term of production, because the formal term of the production is something essential, but the production is formally a relation; and therefore one should not conclude from a distinction of productions to a formal distinction of objects or terms. An example of what has been said about motions is plain from the Physics 5.4.227b14-18, because the same ‘where’ can be acquired by motion in a straight line or circular motion, which are altogether of a different species, as is proved in Physics 7.4.248a10-13, 248b4-6 “because they are not comparable.” But in this case the form according to which there is flux in the form of motion, if it is of the same idea as the term, is not for this reason distinctive of the idea of motions. - This response was touched on above in distinction 2 in the question ‘On productions’ [I d.2 n.339], for the argument of the Commentator [ibid., n.212].

88. And if you object that at least the first terms, namely the formal terms, will not be univocal, whereby the productions are not univocal, and so the persons - which are the first terms - will not be univocal among themselves, and so they will not be univocal in a third thing, - I respond:

Production does not formally include the divine essence, but the person does formally include it, because the person is not only a property or a relation but a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, - just as Socrates does not only include the individual property but also human nature. Although, therefore, the first terms are of the same idea as the productions as to the fact that the first terms include the relations (because the productions are relations), yet they are not of the same idea quasi-adequately, because the first terms do not only include the relations but also the absolute reality; and then the persons must not only be distinguished as the productions are distinguished, because what includes certain distinguishing things must not only be distinguished as the distinguishing things are (as was said above in distinction 8 in the question ‘Whether God is in a genus’ n.106), because the differences are primarily diverse, but the things that primarily include them are not primarily diverse.

89. To the other point, about powers [n.85], I say that as they are operative powers they do not require a distinct formal object. Rather, the same thing that is the first object of the divine intellect is also the first and formal object of the divine will, such that each power is beatified in the same first object, according to the same formal idea of the first object. For no perfection quasi-founded in the divine essence is primarily beatific of the divine intellect or the divine will, but the essence is, under any sort of first idea (namely as it is the foundation of every perfection in divine reality), such that the argument is to the opposite, because just as there is not also required a formal distinction in the objects as they are operative powers, so neither in the products as they are productive.

90. To the third argument [n.86] I say that it is not to the purpose, because those who hold that generation in divine reality is equivocal in itself say that it is in itself equivocal because of the equivocation of the produced term with the producer, - and likewise, they have to say that inspiriting is in itself equivocal because of the difference of the inspirited from the inspiriter. This conclusion therefore would not be sufficient for them, that the generated and the inspirited are equivocal. - But the argument in itself, if it proves anything, only proves a distinction of the generated and inspirited or of the formal terms of generation and inspiriting, - and so not their intended proposition.

91. But on the contrary I argue as follows: it can be said that the assumption, namely that ‘the generated, from the force of its production - namely of its generation -is actual knowledge’ [n.86] can be distinguished about the primacy of origin and about the primacy of adequacy. If it is understood about the primacy of origin, it can be denied, because then the three persons would not be uniformly God; for in the Father deity is understood to be in him a quasi-principle and foundation of any perfection, and then, if knowledge is pre-understood in the Son before the essence, the Son would not have essence before anything else in himself but would have knowledge, and so he would not be God uniformly with the Father.

93. As to this primacy, then, although it is not one of origin, yet it does correspond to the primacy of origin of several perfections in one creature; and it can be said that the first thing in any person is the essence, because when something contains in itself many communicable perfections, when it communicates that one first thing, it communicates all the perfections in the order in which they are of a nature to be in that one thing. An example, both in the distinction of things and in the distinction of nonthings (though on the part of the thing): first indeed - if fire were to generate the whole fire and were to produce both the matter and the form, it would communicate the matter first in origin before it communicated the form (in the order namely in which these are in the generator); an example of the second is - fire is a corporeal and inanimate substance and element. Just as these then exist in order in the generating fire, so they are communicated in a like order to the generated fire, and yet the first term in adequacy is fire as it is fire, because this is what is principally intended by the generating fire and in which the generated fire (namely fire as fire) is most perfectly made like it. So can it be said in the proposed case, that although the divine essence in any person is altogether first, a quasi-foundation of any essential perfection, - the first person, however, has memory appropriately, and by virtue of that productive principle it produces adequately with a first production the second person, and the second person quasi-adequately by its own productive principle produces as it is actual knowledge, and the Holy Spirit, being quasi-adequate to this own productive principle, is produced as actual love.

94. But then the argument [n.91] still seems to stand, because equivocation or non-univocation seem to be proved more from the primacy of adequacy than from the primacy of origin; for although the sun is a substance and a worm is a substance, yet not for this reason is there univocal generation of a worm by the sun, because the sun does not assimilate the term to itself in its specific form; so therefore there seems to be equivocation here, from which the first adequate produced term is not altogether univocally of the same idea as the productive principle.

95. I say that there is not equivocal production if the productive principle is not of the same idea as the produced formal term - speaking of the first productive principle and of the first produced formal term - but there is required that that which is the productive principle not be of the same idea in the generated thing, nor that that which is the form term in the product be of the same idea in the producer; but the opposite of this is in the intended proposition, because memory is both formally in actual generated knowledge, and actual knowledge is formally in the generating person, although neither of these is the first reason of acting and the first reason of terminating the production. An example of this is: if an ass generates an ass, although the specific form is the first principle of producing, the generation is not for this reason equivocal or non-univocal, because that which is the per se formal term of generation is also of the same idea in the generator, although it is not for it the idea of generating; but that something of the same idea is first in this (as in the producer) or first in that (as in the produced term) is not required for univocal generation. Thus can be posited an example about animate flesh, generating animate flesh naturally by the virtue of heat, where however the soul itself - or whatever other form be granted - is not necessarily the first principle of producing and the first formal term in the product; therefore this is not required for univocity of generation.

96. To the second principal argumentThe second principal argument [n.2] was in fact responded to already [n.83]; the argument responded to here is only found in the Lectura I d.13 n.4. ¹¹ I say that active generation and active inspiriting are the formally the same, nor are the first formal terms of them (namely actual knowledge and actual love) formally the same; yet the first terms, produced by these productions, are both univocal among themselves and the producer, because the produced persons have the same absolute perfection, both with each other and with the producer.

97. To the other I say that the antecedent ‘about the distinction of principles by reason alone’ is false [nn.64-67].

98. To the first proof, when it is argued that ‘the opposite would not stand with the divine simplicity’, the response was given often before in distinctions 2 and 8 [nn.191-127, 388-410], where mention was made about formal non-identity without real distinction.

99. To the second proof, when it is argued ‘otherwise there would be a real relation between intellect and understanding’ [n.6], I reply that the intellect is both an operative power and a productive power; but insofar as it is an operative power, neither the intellect, nor the supposit of which it is the operation, has a real relation to real operation, but this happens in us, because in us there is a real difference between the intellect and the operation for which it is; but as it is a productive principle, although it does not have a real relation to the product (because it is the same as the product), nor to the production (for the same reason), yet the producer itself has a real relation to the product, and this is enough for the production to be real. But such relation is not required between the intellect and understanding, because there is no real distinction between this and that; nor does the fact that the intellect is for the Father the principle for understanding indicate a real relation of the intellect itself to the intellection that is in the Father himself according to the principle, because this is seen more in the case of generation than of intellection (because generation requires a greater distinction), yet neither when it is said that ‘the intellect is for the Father the principle of saying’ is a real relation indicated between the intellect and saying.

100. And when it is argued that ‘he would not understand more with the intellect than with the will’ [n.4] the consequence is not valid. Nor does ‘to understand with the intellect’ indicate that there is a real relation of the intellect or of the Father according to the intellect to understanding, but only that this is some operative perfection, according to which such operation belongs to the Father, - nor does it follow that ‘he does not understand more with the intellect than with the will’, because this operation which is to understand is of a nature to belong first to the intellect and is not thus of a nature to belong to the will, nor is there any other reason save that the intellect is intellect and the will is will; for to any operative principle, from the fact that it is such, whether it is a per se thing or is contained unitively in something, its proper operation is of a nature to belong.

101. On the contrary: it is conceded that in the Father the intellect is for him the principle of understanding; to be principle implies some relation, and if it is principle from the nature of the thing, it will be a relation from the nature of the thing, and consequently it will be a real relation.

Response: whatever would really belong to something - if it were a thing -, this same thing should belong to it (and not to another) when it is a reason or in accord with reason; in this way is there intellect in the Father in respect of understanding, because the principle is altogether the same as understanding, really.

102. To the other proof - about unequals and about adding the same thing - that the first consequence should still hold, in the proposed case [n.5], I reply:

Just as in consequences it is said that, when the same thing is added, if the consequence holds, it will still hold (this is true, when the same added thing does not destroy the idea of the consequence, as when it is said ‘man, therefore animal, - every man, therefore every animal’) with respect to any predicate, or conversely negatively, -so in the intended proposition I say that the inequality of intellection and intellect is because of the limitation of the extremes, because of which (or without which not) the one exceeds the other; but when an infinite thing is added to both extremes, it takes away limitation, and so inequality, from both extremes, - and then it does not follow that they are unequal, nay infinite intellect and ‘infinite understanding’ are of equal perfection.

103. And if it is objected against this that infinity does not take away all inequality, because infinite whiteness would exceed infinite blackness, - I say that infinity added to something of itself limited is infinity in a certain respect (of the sort that can belong to the idea of such a limited thing), because it does not state infinity or illimitation save in the idea of that to which it is added, which in this case cannot be simply infinite; but infinity added to some perfection simply (namely to which infinity simply is not repugnant), there is infinity in that idea, and so infinity simply. But understanding and intellect are formally ‘perfections simply’, and do not involve limitation, - and therefore infinity added to each states infinity simply; not only in these ideas but also concomitantly in being and truth and goodness, and in every perfection simply, because all ‘perfections simply’ mutually and unitively include each other; and therefore ‘infinite understanding’ is simply equal to infinite intellect.