C. Third Opinion

16. In another way it is posited that these productions are distinguished by the fact that one production goes along with another and with its opposite, such that the idea of the distinction of disparate relations is the distinction of opposite relations, namely insofar as one disparate relation is compatible with two other opposite relations - just as the force of inspiriting stands along with active and passive generation, and is therefore distinguished from each of them.Note by Scotus: “Godfrey of Fontaines Quodlibet VII q.4: ‘On the contrary [to the opinion of n.16]: essence stands along with opposites, therefore it is distinguished from both. - Response: essence is not opposed to anything from which the generator and the generated are really distinguished; the one inspiriting is thus opposed.’” ⁵

17. Against this [n.16] one can argue as against the preceding opinion [n.12]; for this opinion does not give a reason that there are not infinite numbers of persons, because a later relation may always stand with the prior opposite relations; further, there would not be a primary diversity between this production and that, because this production

[inspiriting] would exist along with one opposite, its own, while the other [active generation] does not stand with its own opposite [passive generation], and so this would not be the primary reason for distinction, because the primary idea of distinction is an idea of things primarily distinct.

18. Against this way and the other preceding one I argue together as follows:

I ask why active inspiriting can stand with active and with passive generation, and active generation cannot stand with passive generation? - There is no reason other than the distinction of active inspiriting from active generation. For this is why something is compossible or incompossible with something else, because it is such in itself and not conversely, because the truth of the negative is confirmed and founded on the truth of the affirmative; for that is why man is not an ass, because man is man, - On Interpretation 2.14.24b3 and Metaphysics 4.41008a16-18. So there is first some distinction between active generation and active inspiriting, because of which the former is incompossible with passive generation and the latter not, before there is this compossibility or incompossibility.     Therefore this compossibility and non-compossibility is not the first reason for the distinction of productions.

19. Further, these productions are distinguished by the fact that one exists by way of nature and the other by way of will; but this distinction of productions does not come precisely from the producing supposits, nor because one relation stands with one relation, and another with another, but the distinction is taken from the distinction of productive principles, which have opposites modes of being principle; therefore etc     .

20. The one who holds this opinion [n.16] replies that one of the productions exists by way and the other by way of will “not because one person is naturally produced and the other not,” but because one production is like natural production and the other is like voluntary production. For a natural agent produces without presupposing another production, and this speaking generally, although per accidens one natural agent presupposes another that produces prior to itself; for in this way the production of the Son is by way of nature, because it does not presuppose another production. For the production of will presupposes another production, namely the one which is by way of nature and intellect; and in this way the production of the Holy Spirit is by way of will, because the Holy Spirit is produced in a similar way to the production which is properly called the production of will, namely ‘by presupposing another distinction’.

21. This exposition [n.20] does not seem valid against the intention of the saints who attribute these productions properly to the intellect and the will; because if these productions must be understood to be distinguished by the fact that one of them presupposes another production while the other does not presuppose another production, there seems no reason that from these productions the Son should be more Son or Word -by force of his production - than the Holy Spirit, nor that the Holy Spirit should, by force of his production, be more love than the Son, which seems absurd.

22. Again, many other productions can be posited, whether with presupposition or without presupposition of another production - just as production by way of art seems to presuppose another production, namely the production of the inner word in the mind of the artist; therefore the Holy Spirit could be produced by way of art, which is false.

23. And there is proof, as was argued in distinctions 2 and 10 [I d.2 nn.75-88, 221-226, 300-303, d.10 nn.6-9], because, from the fact that in God there is properly intellect and will, and each of these is a sufficient productive principle along with the object when present to itself, one person is truly produced by act of intellect as productive principle, and another person is produced by act of will as productive principle - and not merely metaphorically, because of such an extrinsic likeness, namely ‘being produced when another production is presupposed or not presupposed’.