15. To that which is objected, that a point, on account of its simplicity, is neither composed nor numbered by its relations: it must be said that the case is not similar, because the relations of a point are to what is outside, but the personal relations are to what is within: therefore, although a point can be called a beginning and an end with respect to diverse lines, nevertheless no hypostasis can simultaneously be called Father and Son, because none can be to itself a principle of being begotten.
16. To that which is objected, that the absolute is prior to the relative, and therefore distinction according to an absolute property is prior to that which is according to a relative property: it must be said that this does not hold, because every distinction includes some respect and moreover, that distinction which recedes less from the first and highest unity is indeed prior: but this distinction is that in which unity is not multiplied, and such cannot be essential but only relative. Whence it can be said either that that argument does not conclude, or that that proposition holds true of the relative which imports some dependence. But this genus of the relative is not posited regarding the distinction of the eternal persons: and therefore it does not cause a recession from the nature of the most simple, just as neither from the nature of the first and most absolute, as is clear from what has been established above.