Dist. 20, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/20/q/bon-sent-I-d20-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.

#### *Whether in the divine persons there is equality as to the intensity of power.*

Secondly it is asked, whether in the divine [persons] there is equality as to the intensity of power. And that it is so, is shown in this manner.

1. Nothing is more powerful than its own virtue; but Christ is the virtue of God: therefore the Father is not more powerful than the Son; likewise by parity of reason neither [is] the Son [more powerful] than the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, of an equally noble substance [there] is an equally noble and excellent power; but the substance is equally noble in the Son as in the Father, therefore also the power [is] equally noble: therefore the Father can [do] nothing more powerful than the Son.

3. Likewise, than that power by which someone is able [to act] over an infinite and supreme distance, nothing is more powerful; but the power of the Word is able [to act] over an infinite and supreme distance, which is between being and non-being, since *all things were made through him*: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, than that power which nothing can resist nor anything can hinder, nothing is more powerful; but nothing can hinder the power of the Son nor can anything resist it, since he acts suddenly and freely, the Psalm: *He spoke, and things were made*: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The power in him who only is able to act is more powerful than [the power] in him who [is able] to act and to be acted upon; but in the Father there is only acting, in the Son acting and being acted upon: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, that which is the first principle is able to do something more powerful than that which is not the first, since «every primary cause influences more than the second»; but the Father is the first principle: therefore the Father can [do] one and the same thing more powerfully than the Son.

3. Likewise, he who has power from himself can [do] more powerfully than he who [has it] from another; for he who has something from himself has [it] much better than he who receives [it] from another: therefore since the Son has [his] power-to-be from the Father, but the Father [has it] through himself and from himself, therefore etc.

4. Likewise, he who is able [to act] both through himself and through another can [do] more than he who [is able] only through himself; but the Father can operate through the Son, [whereas] the Holy Spirit cannot [operate] through the Son, nor even the Son himself, properly speaking: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** *Power in the divine persons is equally intense.*

**I respond:** It must be said, that the power in the Father and the Son is equally intense, since in both it is supreme and equally noble, since in both [it is] one through nature, not degenerating — likewise also in the Holy Spirit — and this, speaking of the Son according to the divine nature, according to which he is equal to the Father.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the Son can be acted upon; it must be said, that this is not according to the divine power, but according to human infirmity; and according to that he is inferior to the Father and less powerful; but according to the divine [nature] he cannot be acted upon, just as neither [can] the Father.

2. To that which is objected secondly, that the first principle is more able; it must be said, that *first* and *principle* either expresses only order, or substantial difference. If only order, since there is one and the same [thing] in both, it is not more powerful here than there. But if [it expresses] substantial difference together with order, in this way it is true that the first is more powerful than the second, since the second adds something over and above the first, which, while it makes [it] more composite, renders [it] more limited, and so less powerful.

3. To that which is objected thirdly, [the answer] is already resolved: because to have from another is either by a substantial difference, or a personal one. If substantially, in this way it is true, since when he has from another by essence, he does not have essentially, but by participation; but when he has from another personally, yet by the same [thing] essentially, then he has equally nobly, because totally and essentially. Whence in John the fifth: *As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son* etc.

4. To that which is objected fourthly, that the Father can [act] through himself and through another; it must be said, that to-be-able through another is in two ways: either through another inferior cause acting at the same time, or through another person. In the first way it is more powerful to be able [to act] through oneself and through another, than through oneself only; since to be able through another expresses dominion, and so power; but to be able through another as through a consubstantial person does not express dominion, but only authority. But authority does not express majority, but only expresses origin, just as to-be-able from another and not from another does not express minority in power, but only sub-authority and origin; and so it is to be understood in the present matter concerning to-be-able through another and not-to-be-able through another.