3. Likewise, it is impossible for there to be or to be understood any corruption without change: but generation or production is directly opposed to corruption, because just as the latter tends toward non-being, so the former tends toward being : therefore it is nowhere without change: therefore neither in the divine persons.
4. Likewise, if something follows upon something, then with the same addition it still follows in both cases; but it follows: there is generation in time, therefore change in time: therefore by equal or stronger reason, generation in eternity entails change in eternity: therefore it does not stand together with immutability.
5. Furthermore, Augustine says that it follows: if the Holy Spirit could be begotten, He could be changed. Therefore in the divine persons, to be begotten entails to be changed, and therefore it cannot stand together with its opposite. But its opposite is supreme immutability. Therefore, etc.
6. Furthermore, if there is production in the divine persons, it is either by necessity or by will. If by necessity, then there is not supreme liberality nor power there. If by will, then what is produced can fail to be produced, and therefore fail to exist, and thereby be changed. Therefore the same as before.
7. Furthermore, what is repugnant to something on account of an imperfect state is much more strongly so according to a perfect state. But in creatures there is only a half-full immutability, and yet in perpetual and incorporeal substances there cannot be multiplication through the production of like from like. Therefore neither can there be in God.
8. Furthermore, what is repugnant to the cause is repugnant to the effect. But the reason why generative power was given to things is "on account of their being far distant from the First and on account of corruption." Therefore, if supreme immutability is repugnant to corruption, then also to production through generation. The minor is proved through the Philosopher.
9. Furthermore, it is impossible that God should produce something from another's substance without the change of that substance. But God has as much power over other things as over Himself or concerning Himself. Therefore neither can He produce from His own substance without the change of His own substance. Therefore, if the Trinity is through production, etc.
10. Furthermore, nothing recedes further from the notion of mutability than something, and therefore also the production of a thing from nothing more than the production from something. For nothing is in no way mutable. But it is impossible for something to be produced from nothing without its mutability. Therefore likewise from something.
11. Furthermore, according to the order of understanding, form is simpler and prior to supposit, and nature to person. But it is impossible for any form to be produced from something without the change of itself and of that from which it comes. Therefore by equal reasoning it is impossible for a supposit or person to be produced without change.
12. Furthermore, as part relates to part, so whole relates to whole. But if the Father were to produce the Son from a part of the substance, the substance would necessarily be changed according to that part. Therefore, since He produces from the whole, the substance itself must necessarily be changed according to the whole. Therefore, etc.
On the contrary: 1. The production of person from person in the Trinity is compatible with supreme simplicity, as is clear from the preceding arguments. But where there is supreme simplicity, there is invariability and immutability in every way. Therefore the Trinity and the emanation befitting it are not repugnant to immutability.
2. Furthermore, the emanation of person from person is compatible with supreme actuality. But where there is supreme actuality, there is immutability in every way, because "motion is the actuality of a being in potency," and everything mutable is in some way possible. But what is compatible with the antecedent is necessarily compatible with the consequent. Therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, in supreme eternity there can be no variability, because every motion involves a before and after, either in time or in nature; but the trinity of persons and their production is compatible with eternity: therefore with supreme immutability.
4. Likewise, "in the category of relation there is no motion"; but it is relation that constitutes the trinity and plurality of persons, according to what Boethius says: "Relation multiplies the Trinity"; therefore it is impossible on this account to posit change or motion there: therefore it is compatible with supreme immutability.
5. Likewise, in that in which being produced and having been produced are simultaneous, there is no before and after, neither in duration nor in nature nor in reality: but this is found in every change: therefore, etc.
6. Likewise, it is possible for God to produce a creature without any change in himself, because he produces by himself: therefore similarly the Father can produce a person without change to his person or nature: therefore by equal reasoning the Son can also be produced without change: therefore production does not compel anything there to be changed.
7. Likewise, God understands himself without any change in himself; but by understanding himself he speaks, and by speaking he generates the Word: therefore without any change he generates the Word, and by equal reasoning spirates the Holy Spirit: therefore, etc.
CONCLUSION.
The trinity of persons is compatible with supreme immutability.
I respond: It must be said that the trinity of persons, which exists in the divine through the emanation of one from another, is compatible with supreme immutability.
And the reason for this is twofold, namely supreme eternity and supreme simplicity. Supreme eternity does not allow any change to exist there; supreme simplicity does not allow anything changeable to exist there. If therefore the trinity exists with simplicity and eternity; and where there is eternity, there is no change, and where there is supreme simplicity, nothing is changeable: and with these removed, all mutability is taken away: necessarily the trinity and supreme immutability coexist.
And this is evident as follows. For where there is eternity, nothing is beginning, nothing is succeeding: therefore no inception, no succession, no failing. But every change is either from non-being to being, or from being to non-being, or from one mode of being to another mode of being ; but change toward being is not without inception, change from being is not without failing, change in being cannot be without some kind of succession, because it is not without variation. Therefore eternity excludes every change; but eternity is compatible with the trinity: therefore in the excellence of the Trinity there is no change by reason of eternity.
Nothing mutable is present by reason of simplicity. For there is there the highest simplicity of nature and of person and of both compared to each other. On account of the simplicity of nature, there can be no division in that from which production comes: on account of the simplicity of person, there can be no composition in what is produced; by reason of simplicity in both, there can be no separation from the productive principle. From this, therefore, it is gathered that nothing there is mutable, neither he who is produced, nor he who produces, nor that from which he is produced. For from the fact that there is no casting off of what is had on the part of the principle, nor introduction of anything new on the part of what is produced, nor division of the undivided on the part of the foundation from which production is understood to occur, neither materially nor causally, but substantially; there is nothing that can be changed.
If, therefore, the highest Trinity is understood in the highest simplicity and eternity, it is necessarily fitting that it be equally understood as consisting in every manner of immutability.
Furthermore, since actual immutability together with the highest simplicity and eternity posits the highest actuality, and the highest actuality is through the full turning of the same upon itself by understanding and loving, and understanding includes the Word, and love includes the Bond: just as it is not only not repugnant to the immutability of the first principle to understand and love itself, but rather is consonant with it, so it is not repugnant, indeed it is consonant, to generate the Word and to spirate Love. For both belong to it immutably and always in act. Therefore, if immutability is rightly understood, it not only does not exclude, but includes the most blessed Trinity: and this because the supremely immutable must necessarily be simple, eternal, and actual according to the fullness of unbounded and perfect actuality.