6. To that which is objected, that in God being and enduring are the same: it must be said that principle of enduring is said in two ways: in one way through the production and communication of duration, in another way through the inception of duration. If principle is taken in the first way: just as the Father is the principle of being to the Son, so also of enduring: for just as He gives Him being, so He gives Him being always. If however it is understood in the second way, then it does not hold true, nor does that argument conclude, on account of the diverse acceptation of principle .
7. To that which is objected, that the person is not of greater power nor actuality than the essence: it must be said that the case is not similar, because the divine essence cannot produce another essence from itself nor from any other coeternal with it and equally first: and through this it is necessary that it produce from nothing: and hence it is that it is necessary for that essence so produced to have being after non-being, and to begin to be, since it has proceeded from non-being into being. But it is otherwise in the production of a person from a person: because the producing person and the produced person share in essence and nature: therefore it is not necessary that there be any inception there by reason of the production of one person from another, on account of the one and undivided essence.
8. To that which is objected, that every being is either created or uncreated, and similarly every being is either from itself or from another: it must be said that being from another is said in two ways: either from another essentially, or from another personally. Taking it in the first way, according to essential otherness, it corresponds to the other division, which is of being into created and uncreated, which indeed are extremes differing essentially. In the second way it does not correspond; rather, if one proceeds from one division to the other, a figure of speech arises from a change in the mode of predication, because what is changed into who, and such a mode of predication does not hold in divine things.
9. To that which is objected, that when an infinite power according to the totality of its potency exerts itself into some act, it cannot simultaneously and at once go forth into another: it must be said that this holds true when it totally exerts itself both as to the producing power and as to the mode of producing; but then the assumption is false: because, although the Father produces the Son according to His immense power, He nevertheless generates, not spirates: and therefore according to another mode of producing, which is through spiration, there is simultaneously with the Son the production of another person, for the reason that those productions are not repugnant but naturally co-connected. Just as it is evident in the mind that the actual consideration of the intellect does not impede but rather induces the affection to be borne toward the known and seen good: so neither does the generation of the Word proceeding from the mind impede the spiration of the love embracing both.
10. To that which is objected, that where there is production, there is reception from another: it must be said that just as there is a certain production, in which to be produced and to have been produced differ: and a certain production, in which they are entirely the same: similarly reception is also twofold: in one way, in which to receive and to have received differ, and another, in which they are entirely the same: the first corresponds to the first production, the second to the second. Concerning the first, the objection holds true; concerning the second, it does not: and in this way the Son receives being from the Father. For He has always received and always receives, because the Father always begets Him and has always begotten Him, as is manifestly gathered from what has been said above.
11. To that which is objected, that eternity denotes the present, and generation is better expressed through the past tense: it must be said that that eternal generation is always most actual and most complete: although the actuality of any act is better expressed through the present tense, the completion and perfection of an act is most fully expressed through the past tense. Hence that eternal generation cannot be sufficiently expressed through any single tense; rather, it is necessary to employ diverse tenses for its expression, because it is above all time and has in itself whatever completeness can be signified through any tense. Hence by reason of completion the past tense befits it, by reason of actuality the present tense befits it, by reason of continuation and unceasingness the future tense befits it.
But by that reason by which all these are one in it, it is sufficiently expressed through no word whatsoever: for it is no wonder if the clamor of temporal words does not suffice to express that most quiet silence of eternity and of eternal generation, which is better understood than spoken: better believed in the present than understood: and will be better seen in the future than it is now believed: for, as the Savior says, this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent: to which we can in no way attain unless our intellect is more fully elevated above the variations of time and above the cloudiness of phantasms into the freedom of supercelestial rest.