A. On the Distinction of Powers

27. I respond to the question, then, by first making a distinction about ‘power’.

For in one way there is said to be ‘logical power [possibility]’, which states the mode of composition made by the intellect, - and this indicates the non-repugnance of the terms; about which the Philosopher says Metaphysics 5.12.1019b30-32: “That is possible whose contrary is not by necessity true.” - And if in this way one asks about ‘power’ in divine reality I say that it exists by comparing generation to any act non-repugnant to generation; and then power, or possibility, is of the Father or of God to the predicate that is ‘to generate’, because these terms are not repugnant; but there is an impossibility that the Son or Holy Spirit generate, because these terms are repugnant. And if one ask what is the power of generating in divine reality, there is in this way [sc. of logical possibility] no need to give some principle by which someone is able to generate, - for the sole non-repugnance of the terms suffices; just as if, before the creation of the world, the world not only was not but, per incompossibile, God was not but began of himself to be, and then was able to create the world, - if there had been an intellect before the world combining the proposition ‘the world will exist’, this proposition would have been possible because the terms were not repugnant, not however because of any principle in possible reality, or any active principle, corresponding to it; nor even so was this proposition ‘the world will be’ possible - formally speaking - by the power of God, but by the possibility that was the non-repugnance of the terms, because the terms would be non-repugnant, although the non-repugnance would be concomitant with the power that is active in respect of this possibility.

28. In another way there is said to be ‘power as divided against act’ [Metaphysics 9.8.1050a15-16], - and this power is not in God.

29. So there is left ‘real power’ - which is said to be ‘principle of doing or suffering’ [ibid. 5.12.1019a15-20; I d.2 n.262] - as the proximate foundation of relations, because this noun ‘power’ is not abstract with ultimate abstraction, but is concrete with concretion in a foundation (although not with concretion in a subject), - which multiple abstraction in relatives was spoken of above in distinction 5 [I d.5 n.21]. Here however the question is only about the power of acting.

30. And then I draw a distinction, because this noun ‘power’ can be taken for that which it per se signifies, or for that which it denominates - which is ‘proximate foundation of such relation’.

31. Power taken in the first way [n.30] I say signifies relation, just as does potentiality or being a principle, - and in this way the question has no difficulty, because ‘the power of generating in divine reality’ essentially states a relation.

32. In the second way [n.30] the question does have a difficulty when one inquires what that ‘absolute’ is which is the proximate foundation of this relation. And then (speaking always precisely of active or productive power, which is what the discussion is now about [n.29]) I draw a further distinction that ‘power denominatively taken’ is sometimes taken for the foundation precisely, but sometimes for the foundation along with all the other things that come together so that it can elicit the act, namely the things that are required for the idea of proximate power - of which sort in creatures are the coming near of the passive thing and the removal of an impediment.

33. This last distinction of power, of power taken for the foundation precisely or for the foundation along with the other concurring things, is taken from the Philosopher Metaphysics 5.12.1019a15-16 and 9.1.1046a10-11. For the definition of power that he there sets down is of power taken in the first way. But power taken in the second way he himself manifestly expresses in Metaphysics 9.5.1047b35-8a2, 5-7, 16-21: “Since,” he says, “the possible is something possible, and when, and how, and anything else that must be present in the definition;” and he subjoins: “in the case of such powers” (namely the irrational powers) “it must be that, when they approach each other so that they can be active and passive, the former must act and the latter must undergo.” And if it be objected against Aristotle that these irrational powers can be impeded, he says excluding this: “When no outside thing impedes, there is no need to add anything further, - for it has power as it is a power of making; now it is not present absolutely but in things that are disposed in some way, where what hinders from outside is excluded; for these - some of the things placed in the definition - remove it” (he means to say that ‘some of the things’ pertaining to the definition of active and possible power exclude impediment, but ‘active power’ here - according to him - is taken ‘along with all the things that come together for proximate possibility of acting’).

34. Again, third, ‘power of generating’ signifies the principle of eliciting the act by the supposit that has the principle. Therefore it connotes a double relation, one the relation of principle to act, and another the relation of act to supposit, - which is to say: it notes the relation of the principle ‘in which’ to the act and it connotes the relation of the act to the principle ‘which’; and perhaps, third, it connotes the relation of the principle ‘in which’ to the principle ‘which’. Whether there are two relations or three, they are only relations of reason, because of the lack of distinction of the extremes (the first [sc. the relation of principle to act] belongs to paternity as to proximate foundation). - What BoethiusWhat text of Boethius is here referred to is unclear. The name ‘Boethius’ may possibly be an error and perhaps a reference to an ‘argument’ is meant, as to that in n.22 [Vatican editors]. ³² says, then, that the idea of original principle is directed ‘within’, is true in respect of the person originated, but not in respect of the origin or act of originating, save according to reason only.