Dist. 32, Art. 2, 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/32/q/bon-sent-I-d32-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 him; but the Father works through the Son and cannot work without the Son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the divine [things] virtue and operation are the same; 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 him*: 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 working. 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 appropriated 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 bailiff*. 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 Son*: 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 1: *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 power. 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 hand, 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.