Bonaventure

Quaestio II.

Utrum recte dici possit: Pater est potens potentia sive virtute, quam genuit.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).

Secundo quaeritur, utrum haec locutio sit admittenda: Pater est potens potentia, quam genuit, sive virtute. Et videtur quod sic:

1. Quia quicumque operatur per aliquem et non potest operari sine eo, habet potentiam ab eo¹; sed Pater operatur per Filium et non potest operari sine Filio²: ergo etc.

2. Item, in divinis idem est virtus et operatio³; ergo cum Pater operetur per Filium, potest per Filium; sed quicumque potest per alterum, est potens potentia illius: ergo Pater est potens potentia genita.

3. Item, sicut se habet nosse ad sapientiam, ita operari ad potentiam; sed bene sequitur: iste novit per illum, ergo est sapiens per illum⁴: ergo bene sequitur: iste operatur per illum, ergo habet potentiam ab illo sive per illum: ergo etc.

4. Item, cum dicitur: Pater operatur per Filium, haec praepositio per aut importat causam, aut instrumentum. Non instrumentum, quia tunc Filius non vere cooperaretur Patri; et iterum, esset indigens, si ageret per instrumentum: ergo in ratione causae. Et si hoc, ergo Filius dat operari Patri: ergo et potentiam operandi⁵. Si tu dicas quod non dicit rationem causalitatis sed subauctoritatis; cum ergo similiter habeat Spiritus sanctus subauctoritatem in operando, sicut Filius, qua ratione dicitur Pater operari per Filium, eadem ratione et per Spiritum sanctum. Si dicas, quod hoc est dictum per appropriationem; quaero rationem appropriandi. Cum enim operatio sit per potentiam, et potentia approprietur Patri, non Filio, non ergo Filio poterit appropriari⁶ operari per Filium.

5. Item, cum immediata causa operationis sit voluntas, et illa approprietur Spiritui sancto, videtur, quod magis debeat dici operari per Spiritum sanctum, quam per Filium.

Contra:

1. Idem est me potentem quod me: ergo si Pater est potens potentia genita, ergo habet esse ab illa.

2. Item, potentia appropriatur Patri, ergo nec per proprietatem nec per appropriationem convenit Filio: ergo talis locutio magis est impropria quam ista: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita.

3. Item, potentia, qua aliquis est potens, secundum ordinem intelligendi antecedit posse; sed generatio secundum ordinem intelligendi sequitur posse: ergo haec est omnino falsa: Pater est potens potentia genita.

Conclusio.

Locutio: Pater est potens potentia genita, est simpliciter falsa; sed alia est vera: Pater operatur per Filium.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec est simpliciter falsa: Pater est potens potentia genita, et magis impropria quam aliqua praedictarum. — Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum notandum, quod haec regula consuevit dari de hac praepositione per, quod cum verbo absoluto importat auctoritatem, ut cum dicitur: iste est bonus per illum, vel sapiens vel potens. Cum verbo vero transitivo importat subauctoritatem, ut rex punit per ballivum⁷. Dicendum est igitur, quod haec est falsa: Pater est potens per Filium; haec tamen est vera: Pater operatur per Filium. Et non valet argumentum: operatur per illum, ergo potest per illum, quia per primo importat causalitatem respectu effectus, et postmodum respectu Patris.

Ad argumenta...

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod qui operatur per aliquem, potest per illum; dicendum, quod hoc falsum est, quia hoc non est, quod habeat potentiam ab illo, sed quod habet potentiam cum illo indivisam et dat illi posse; ideo per illum operatur et non potest sine illo.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non differt operatio et potentia in Deo; dicendum quod verum est per comparationem ad Deum; differt tamen quantum ad effectum connotatum.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sequitur: novit per Filium, ergo est sapiens per Filium⁴: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile de nosse et operari. Quamvis enim nosse sit verbum transitivum, tamen non connotat effectum sicut operari; et ideo per non potest cum ipso importare subauctoritatem; ubi enim est subauctoritas, notatur, quod aliquid sit a duobus et ab uno per alterum. Et sic patet illud.

Ad 4 et 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum dicat rationem causae vel instrumenti; dicendum, quod neutrum dicit proprie, sed subauctoritatem, quae importat rationem utriusque quantum ad id quod est ibi completionis. — Quod obiicitur, quod Filio non appropriatur operari per ipsum, quod operatio est per virtutem, responsio est, quod virtus appropriatur Filio sicut et dicitur primae ad Corinthios primo⁸: Christum dicimus Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Ratio autem, quare virtus Filio appropriatur, est, quia virtus est ultimum potentiae sive est potentia ultimata⁹. Quoniam igitur Filius producitur a Patre secundum omnimodam perfectionem potentiae, quia generare est actus perfectae potentiae — «perfectum est enim unumquodque, quando potest generare tale quale ipsum est» — quia igitur Filius accipit potentiam producendi aeque perfectum, sicut ipse et Pater est, ut Spiritum sanctum: ideo virtus ei appropriatur; ideo dicitur virtus Patris et dextera¹⁰, et Pater operari per Filium.

Aliter potest dici, quod virtus dicit immediatiorem ordinationem ad actum quam potentia, quia potentia ordinatur ad opus per dispositionem, et Filio appropriatur dispositio, ideo et potentia disposita. Et sic patent omnia quaesita.

Question II.

Whether it can rightly be said: The Father is powerful with the power or virtue which he begot.

Second, it is asked whether this locution is to be admitted: The Father is powerful with the power, or with the virtue, which he begot. And it seems that he is:

1. Because whoever works through someone and cannot work without him, has power from him¹; but the Father works through the Son and cannot work without the Son²: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the divine [things] virtue and operation are the same³; therefore since the Father works through the Son, he can [act] through the Son; but whoever can [act] through another, is powerful with the power of that one: therefore the Father is powerful with begotten power.

3. Likewise, as to know stands to wisdom, so does to work to power; but it well follows: this one knows through him, therefore he is wise through him⁴: therefore it well follows: this one works through him, therefore he has power from him or through him: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, when it is said: The Father works through the Son, this preposition per ("through") imports either cause or instrument. Not instrument, because then the Son would not truly cooperate with the Father; and again, [the Father] would be in need, if he were to act through an instrument: therefore [it is] in the account of cause. And if so, then the Son gives to the Father the power to work: therefore also the power of working⁵. If you say that it does not state an account of causality but of sub-authority; then since the Holy Spirit likewise has sub-authority in working just as the Son does, by whatever account the Father is said to work through the Son, by the same account [he works] also through the Holy Spirit. If you say that this is said by appropriation; I ask the reason for the appropriation. For since operation is through power, and power is appropriated to the Father, not to the Son, it will not therefore be possible for to work through the Son to be appropriated⁶ to the Son.

5. Likewise, since the immediate cause of operation is the will, and this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, it seems that one ought rather to say to work through the Holy Spirit, than through the Son.

On the contrary:

1. Me being powerful is the same as me: therefore if the Father is powerful with begotten power, then he has being from it.

2. Likewise, power is appropriated to the Father, therefore it belongs to the Son neither by proprietas nor by appropriation: therefore such a locution is more improper than this: The Father is wise with begotten wisdom.

3. Likewise, the power by which someone is powerful, according to the order of understanding, precedes the being-able; but generation, according to the order of understanding, follows the being-able: therefore this is wholly false: The Father is powerful with begotten power.

Conclusion.

The locution "The Father is powerful with begotten power" is simply false; but the other is true: "The Father works through the Son."

I respond: It must be said that this is simply false: The Father is powerful with begotten power, and more improper than any of the foregoing. — But for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that this rule is wont to be given concerning this preposition per ("through"), that with an absolute verb it imports authority, as when it is said: that one is good through him, or wise or powerful. But with a transitive verb it imports sub-authority, as the king punishes through the bailiff⁷. It must therefore be said that this is false: The Father is powerful through the Son; this however is true: The Father works through the Son. And the argument is not valid: he works through him, therefore he can [act] through him, because per primarily imports causality with respect to the effect, and afterward with respect to the Father.

To the arguments...

To 1. To that which is first objected, that he who works through someone can [act] through him; it must be said that this is false, because the case is not that he has power from him, but that he has power undivided with him and gives to him the being-able; and so [the Father] works through him and cannot [work] without him.

To 2. To that which is objected, that operation and power do not differ in God; it must be said that this is true by comparison to God; nevertheless they differ as to the connoted effect.

To 3. To that which is objected, that it follows: he knows through the Son, therefore he is wise through the Son⁴: therefore etc.; it must be said that the case of knowing and of working is not similar. For although to know is a transitive verb, it nevertheless does not connote an effect as to work does; and therefore per cannot import sub-authority along with it [i.e. with to know]; for where there is sub-authority, it is denoted that something is from two and from one through the other. And so that [point] is clear.

To 4 and 5. To that which is objected, whether [per] expresses an account of cause or of instrument; it must be said that it expresses neither properly, but sub-authority, which imports the account of both as far as concerns what there is in it of completion. — As for what is objected, that to work through him is not appropriated to the Son, since operation is through virtue, the response is that virtue is appropriated to the Son, just as it is also said in First Corinthians, chapter 1⁸: We preach Christ the virtue of God and the wisdom of God. And the reason why virtue is appropriated to the Son is that virtue is the ultimate of power, or is ultimate power⁹. Since therefore the Son is produced by the Father according to every kind of perfection of power — for to generate is an act of perfect power, "for each thing is perfect when it can generate such as itself is" — since therefore the Son receives the power of producing what is equally perfect, just as he himself and the Father is, namely the Holy Spirit: therefore virtue is appropriated to him; therefore he is called the virtue of the Father and the right hand¹⁰, and the Father [is said] to work through the Son.

In another way it can be said that virtue expresses a more immediate ordination to the act than power does, because power is ordained to the work through disposition, and disposition is appropriated to the Son, [and] therefore also disposed power. And thus all the points sought are clear.