← Back to Distinction 20

Dist. 20

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 20

Textus Latinus
p. 366

DISTINCTIO XX.

Cap. I. Quod[^1] aliqua personarum non excedit aliam potentia.

Nunc ostendere restat, quomodo aliqua harum personarum aliam non excellat potentia, ut, sicut una et indifferens est magnitudo trium, ita una et indifferens monstretur potentia trium. Sciendum est igitur, quia non est potentior Pater Filio, nec Filius vel Pater Spiritu sancto, nec maiorem potentiam habent duo vel tres simul quam singulus eorum; quia nec plus potest Pater simul et Filius quam solus Spiritus sanctus, nec hi tres simul plus possunt quam singulus eorum, quia omnipotentiam, quam habet Pater, et Filius accepit nascendo et Spiritus sanctus procedendo. Quod Augustinus rationibus et auctoritatibus probabiliter astruit in libro contra Maximinum2, qui dicebat Patrem potentiorem ac meliorem Filio.

Cap. II. Quod non minus potest Filius quam Pater.

«Nihil, inquit3, Patre minus habet ille qui dicit: Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt». «Nam si minus habet in potestate aliquid quam Pater, non sunt eius omnia, quae habet Pater; sed eius sunt omnia quae habet Pater; tantam igitur habet potestatem Filius, quantam Pater»: «aequalis ergo est Patri. Non enim potest qui accepit inaequalis esse ei qui dedit».

p. 367

Cap. III. De obiectionibus haereticis contra hoc et responsionibus catholicis.

«Tu autem hoc de potentia sapis, quod potens sit Filius, sed potentior Pater, ut secundum doctrinam vestram potens potentem potuerit gignere, et non omnipotens omnipotentem. Habet ergo Pater omnipotentiam, quam non habet Filius; at si hoc est, falsum est quod ait Filius: Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt4».

«Sed, inquis, Pater a nemine potentiam accepit, Filius autem a Patre. Fatemur et nos, Filium accepisse potentiam ab illo[?], de quo natus est potens; Patri vero potentiam nullus dedit, quia nullus eum genuit. Gignendo enim dedit potentiam Pater Filio, sicut omnia quae habet in substantia sua, gignendo dedit ei quem genuit de substantia sua5».

«Sed quaeritur, utrum tantam quantam ipsi est potentiam Pater Filio dederit, an minorem. Si tantam, non solum potentem, sed etiam omnipotentem genuisse Omnipotens intelligitur; si vero minorem, quomodo omnia quae habet Pater, Filii sunt? Si Patris omnipotentia Filii non est, non omnia procul dubio, quae habet Pater, Filii sunt6». At omnia Filii sunt; omnipotentia ergo Patris etiam Filii est: non est ergo Pater potentior Filio.

Item, alio modo probat Filium aequalem Patri contra Maximinum7 ita dicens: «Tu dicis, quod Pater genuit Filium minorem se ipso, in quo et Patri derogas, qui si Filium unicum minorem genuit, aut non potuit, aut non voluit gignere aequalem. Si dicis, quia non voluit, eum invidum esse dixisti; si autem non potuit, ubi est omnipotentia Dei Patris? Prorsus ad hunc articulum res colligitur, ut Deus Pater aequalem sibi gignere Filium aut non potuerit, aut noluerit. Si non potuit, infirmus; si noluit, invidus invenitur. Sed utrumque hoc falsum est: Patri igitur Filius verus aequalis est. Genuit ergo Pater sibi aequalem Filium, et ab utroque procedit utrique aequalis Spiritus sanctus8». «Si enim formam suam, ut ait Augustinus contra eundem9, Pater in unico Filio plenam gignere potuit, nec tamen plenam genuit, sed minorem, cogimini Patrem invidum dicere». Plenum ergo Deum et aequalem sibi genuit Filium.

Hoc autem per similitudinem humanam ita esse demonstrat inquiens10: «Homo pater, si potuisset, aequalem Filium genuisset. Quis ergo audeat dicere, quod hoc Omnipotens non potuit? Addo etiam, quia, si posset homo, maiorem melioremque se ipso gigneret Filium. Sed maius vel melius Deo quidquam esse non potest». «Deus ergo cur non aequalem, ut ais, Filium genuit, cui nec anni necessarii fuerunt, per quos adimpleretur aequalitas, nec omnipotentia defuit. An forte noluit? ergo, quod absit, invidit; sed non invidit: aequalem igitur genuit Filium11». «Credamus ergo, Filium ei esse aequalem».

«Sed forte dices: eo ipso maior est Pater Filio, quia de nullo genitus genuit tamen aequalem. Ad quod cito respondebo: immo ideo non est maior Pater Filio, quia aequalem genuit. Originis enim quaestio ista est, quis de quo sit; aequalitatis autem, qualis aut quantus sit12», quod est dicere: ad originem pertinet quaestio, qua quaeritur, quis de quo sit; ad aequalitatem vero illa qua quaeritur, qualis aut quantus quis sit. «Nec cum dicitur Filius a Patre genitus, ostenditur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae, non quo alter prior esset altero, sed quo alter est ex altero». Non ergo secundum hoc, quod Pater genuit, et Filius genitus est, vel Spiritus sanctus ab utroque procedit, aequalitas vel inaequalitas ibi existit, quia non secundum hoc alia persona alii aequalis vel inaequalis dicitur. Ecce aequalitas Trinitatis et una eademque substantia, quantum breviter potuimus, demonstrata est in superioribus13, qualiter scilicet aliqua trium personarum quamlibet aliam nec aeternitate nec magnitudine nec potentia excellat.

---

English Translation

DISTINCTION XX.

Cap. I. That[^1] none of the persons exceeds another in power.

It now remains to show how none of these persons excels another in power, so that, just as the magnitude of the three is one and undifferentiated, so also the power of the three may be shown to be one and undifferentiated. It must therefore be known that the Father is not more powerful than the Son, nor the Son or the Father than the Holy Spirit, nor do two or three together have greater power than any one of them; since neither can the Father together with the Son do more than the Holy Spirit alone, nor can these three together do more than any one of them, because the omnipotence which the Father has, the Son also received by being born and the Holy Spirit by proceeding. This Augustine probably establishes by reasonings and authorities in the book Against Maximinus2, who used to say that the Father was more powerful and better than the Son.

Cap. II. That the Son can no less than the Father.

"Nothing," he says3, "less than the Father has He who says: All things which the Father has are mine." "For if He has anything less in power than the Father, then not all things which the Father has are His; but His are all things which the Father has; therefore the Son has as much power as the Father": "He is therefore equal to the Father. For He who has received cannot be unequal to Him who gave."

p. 367

Cap. III. On heretical objections against this and the Catholic responses.

"But you understand this concerning power, that the Son is powerful, but the Father is more powerful, so that according to your doctrine a powerful one has been able to beget a powerful one, and not an omnipotent one an omnipotent. The Father therefore has an omnipotence which the Son does not have; but if this is so, false is what the Son says: All things which the Father has are mine4."

"But, you say, the Father has received power from no one, but the Son from the Father. We too confess that the Son has received power from Him[?] from whom He is born powerful; but to the Father no one gave power, since no one begot Him. For by begetting the Father gave power to the Son, just as all things which He has in His substance, by begetting He gave to Him whom He begot from His own substance5."

"But it is asked whether the Father gave the Son as much power as is His own, or less. If as much, the Omnipotent is understood to have begotten not only a powerful one, but also an omnipotent one; but if less, how are all things which the Father has the Son's? If the Father's omnipotence is not the Son's, then without doubt not all things which the Father has are the Son's6." But all things are the Son's; therefore the Father's omnipotence is also the Son's: therefore the Father is not more powerful than the Son.

Likewise, in another way he proves the Son equal to the Father against Maximinus7, saying thus: "You say that the Father begot the Son lesser than Himself, in which you also detract from the Father, who, if He begot the only-begotten Son lesser, either could not, or did not will to beget Him equal. If you say that He did not will, you have called Him envious; but if He could not, where is the omnipotence of God the Father? Plainly the matter is gathered down to this point, that God the Father either could not, or would not, beget a Son equal to Himself. If He could not, He is found weak; if He would not, envious. But both of these are false: the Son therefore is the true equal of the Father. Therefore the Father begot a Son equal to Himself, and from both proceeds the Holy Spirit equal to both8." "For if His form, as Augustine says against the same person9, the Father in His only Son could beget full, and yet did not beget full, but lesser, you are forced to call the Father envious." Therefore He begot a full God and one equal to Himself as Son.

This he also demonstrates to be so by a human likeness, saying10: "A human father, if he could, would have begotten an equal son. Who therefore would dare to say that the Omnipotent could not do this? I add also that, if a man could, he would beget a son greater and better than himself. But nothing can be greater or better than God." "Why therefore did God not beget, as you say, an equal Son — He for whom no years were necessary through which equality might be filled out, nor did omnipotence fail? Or did He perhaps not will? Then, far be it, He envied; but He did not envy: therefore He begot an equal Son11." "Let us therefore believe the Son to be equal to Him."

"But perhaps you will say: by this very fact the Father is greater than the Son, because, begotten of no one, He nevertheless begot an equal. To which I will quickly reply: rather, for this reason the Father is not greater than the Son, because He begot an equal. For the question of origin is this: who is from whom; but the question of equality is: of what sort or how great he is12," which is to say: to origin pertains the question by which it is asked, who is from whom; but to equality, that by which it is asked, of what sort or how great anyone is. "Nor when the Son is said to be begotten by the Father is inequality of substance shown, but the order of nature — not by which the one is prior to the other, but by which the one is from the other." Therefore not according to this — that the Father begot, and the Son was begotten, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from both — does equality or inequality there exist, since not according to this is one person said to be equal or unequal to another. Behold, the equality of the Trinity and one and the same substance has been demonstrated, as briefly as we could, in the foregoing13 — namely, how no one of the three persons excels any of the others in eternity, in magnitude, or in power.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Edd. 5, 8 quod.
    Editions 5, 8 read quod.
  2. Vat. et aliae edd. in libro tertio contra Maximinum; codd. et ed. 1 sic: in libro contra Maxim. In edd. impressis Augustini duo tantum sunt libri contra Maximinum. Sed in antiquis mss. exemplaribus huius operis opusculum Collatio Augustini cum Maximino inscribebatur primus liber c. M., et illi duo secundus et tertius. Textus sequentes sunt ex secundo libro iuxta computationem modernam.
    The Vatican edition and other editions read in libro tertio contra Maximinum ("in the third book against Maximinus"); the manuscripts and edition 1 thus: in libro contra Maxim. In the printed editions of Augustine there are only two books Against Maximinus. But in ancient manuscript copies of this work the little treatise Collatio Augustini cum Maximino ("Augustine's Conference with Maximinus") was entitled the first book Contra Maximinum, and those two [printed] the second and third. The texts that follow are from the second book according to the modern reckoning.
  3. Libr. II, c. 14, n. 7. — Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 16, 15. Duo loci sequentes Augustini sunt ibid. n. 9 et 7.
    Book II, c. 14, n. 7. — The Scripture passage is John 16:15. The two following passages of Augustine are at the same place, n. 9 and n. 7.
  4. Ibid. c. 12, n. 1. — In hoc textu Augustini Vat. cum pluribus edd. verbo gignere praemittit generare vel, contra codd. et originale.
    Same place, c. 12, n. 1. — In this text of Augustine, the Vatican edition with several editions prefixes to the word gignere the word generare vel ("generate or"), against the manuscripts and the original.
  5. Loc. cit. paucis interpositis. — Hic codd. ABC et ed. 1 Fateamur pro Fatemur.
    Same place, with a few words intervening. — Here codices ABC and edition 1 read Fateamur in place of Fatemur.
  6. Ibid. immediate post. — In principio textus post utrum Vat. cum paucis edd. male addit ei. Finito textu, post omnia Vat. cum aliis edd. contra 1, 2, 3, 7 et omnes codd. addit quae habet Pater, quod facile ex praecedentibus suppleri potest.
    Same place, immediately after. — At the beginning of the text, after utrum, the Vatican edition with a few editions wrongly adds ei. At the end of the text, after omnia, the Vatican edition with other editions, against 1, 2, 3, 7 and all the manuscripts, adds quae habet Pater ("which the Father has"), which can easily be supplied from what precedes.
  7. Libr. II, c. 7 et 5. Eadem docet Augustinus in libr. LXXXIII Quaest., q. 50.
    Book II, c. 7 and 5. Augustine teaches the same thing in Eighty-Three Questions, q. 50.
  8. Ibid. cap. 15, n. 1.
    Same place, c. 15, n. 1.
  9. Ibid. cap. 18, n. 3, ubi Vat. et plures edd. post Addo etiam omittunt quia, refragantibus codd. BCDE, ed. 1 et originali.
    Same place, c. 18, n. 3, where the Vatican edition and several editions, after Addo etiam, omit quia, against codices BCDE, edition 1, and the original.
  10. Ibid. c. 15, n. 8. — Quae sequuntur, leguntur ibid. c. 18, n. 3.
    Same place, c. 15, n. 8. — What follows is read at the same place, c. 18, n. 3.
  11. Ibid. immediate post, ubi Vat. et edd. 4, 8, 9 post quia aequalem adiiciunt sibi, contra alias edd., codd. et originale.
    Same place, immediately after, where the Vatican edition and editions 4, 8, 9 after quia aequalem add sibi, against the other editions, manuscripts, and the original.
  12. Ibid. cap. 14, n. 8. — Solummodo Vat. post prior male legit est pro esset.
    Same place, c. 14, n. 8. — The Vatican edition alone, after prior, wrongly reads est in place of esset.
  13. Scilicet in hac et praecedente dist.
    Namely, in this and the preceding distinction.
Dist. 20, Divisio Textus→