FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 1]

Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence.

For Ambrose [*Gloss, Ord.] says on Luke 1:32: "The power which the

Son of God had naturally, the Man was about to receive in time." Now

this would seem to regard the soul principally, since it is the chief

part of man. Hence since the Son of God had omnipotence from all

eternity, it would seem that the soul of Christ received omnipotence

in time.

Obj. 2: Further, as the power of God is infinite, so is His

knowledge. But the soul of Christ in a manner had the knowledge of

all that God knows, as was said above (Q. 10, A. 2). Therefore He had

all power; and thus He was omnipotent.

Obj. 3: Further, the soul of Christ has all knowledge. Now knowledge

is either practical or speculative. Therefore He has a practical

knowledge of what He knows, i.e. He knew how to do what He knows; and

thus it seems that He can do all things.

_On the contrary,_ What is proper to God cannot belong to any

creature. But it is proper to God to be omnipotent, according to Ex.

15:2, 3: "He is my God and I will glorify Him," and further on,

"Almighty is His name." Therefore the soul of Christ, as being a

creature, has not omnipotence.

_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1; Q. 10, A. 1) in the

mystery of the Incarnation the union in person so took place that

there still remained the distinction of natures, each nature still

retaining what belonged to it. Now the active principle of a thing

follows its form, which is the principle of action. But the form is

either the very nature of the thing, as in simple things; or is the

constituent of the nature of the thing; as in such as are composed of

matter and form.

And it is in this way that omnipotence flows, so to say, from the

Divine Nature. For since the Divine Nature is the very

uncircumscribed Being of God, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom.

v), it has an active power over everything that can have the nature

of being; and this is to have omnipotence; just as every other thing

has an active power over such things as the perfection of its nature

extends to; as what is hot gives heat. Therefore since the soul of

Christ is a part of human nature, it cannot possibly have omnipotence.

Reply Obj. 1: By union with the Person, the Man receives omnipotence

in time, which the Son of God had from eternity; the result of which

union is that as the Man is said to be God, so is He said to be

omnipotent; not that the omnipotence of the Man is distinct (as

neither is His Godhead) from that of the Son of God, but because

there is one Person of God and man.

Reply Obj. 2: According to some, knowledge and active power are not

in the same ratio; for an active power flows from the very nature of

the thing, inasmuch as action is considered to come forth from the

agent; but knowledge is not always possessed by the very essence or

form of the knower, since it may be had by assimilation of the knower

to the thing known by the aid of received species. But this reason

seems not to suffice, because even as we may understand by a likeness

obtained from another, so also may we act by a form obtained from

another, as water or iron heats, by heat borrowed from fire. Hence

there would be no reason why the soul of Christ, as it can know all

things by the similitudes of all things impressed upon it by God,

cannot do these things by the same similitudes.

It has, therefore, to be further considered that what is received in

the lower nature from the higher is possessed in an inferior manner;

for heat is not received by water in the perfection and strength it

had in fire. Therefore, since the soul of Christ is of an inferior

nature to the Divine Nature, the similitudes of things are not

received in the soul of Christ in the perfection and strength they

had in the Divine Nature. And hence it is that the knowledge of

Christ's soul is inferior to Divine knowledge as regards the manner

of knowing, for God knows (things) more perfectly than the soul of

Christ; and also as regards the number of things known, since the

soul of Christ does not know all that God can do, and these God knows

by the knowledge of simple intelligence; although it knows all things

present, past, and future, which God knows by the knowledge of

vision. So, too, the similitudes of things infused into Christ's soul

do not equal the Divine power in acting, i.e. so as to do all that

God can do, or to do in the same manner as God does, Who acts with an

infinite might whereof the creature is not capable. Now there is no

thing, to know which in some way an infinite power is needed,

although a certain kind of knowledge belongs to an infinite power;

yet there are things which can be done only by an infinite power, as

creation and the like, as is plain from what has been said in the

First Part (Q. 45). Hence Christ's soul which, being a creature, is

finite in might, can know, indeed, all things, but not in every way;

yet it cannot do all things, which pertains to the nature of

omnipotence; and, amongst other things, it is clear it cannot create

itself.

Reply Obj. 3: Christ's soul has practical and speculative knowledge;

yet it is not necessary that it should have practical knowledge of

those things of which it has speculative knowledge. Because for

speculative knowledge a mere conformity or assimilation of the knower

to the thing known suffices; whereas for practical knowledge it is

required that the forms of the things in the intellect should be

operative. Now to have a form and to impress this form upon something

else is more than merely to have the form; as to be lightsome and to

enlighten is more than merely to be lightsome. Hence the soul of

Christ has a speculative knowledge of creation (for it knows the mode

of God's creation), but it has no practical knowledge of this mode,

since it has no knowledge operative of creation.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 103 / 654 题