|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father
in power. For it is said (Jn. 5:19): "The Son cannot do
anything of Himself but what He seeth the Father doing." But the
Father can act of Himself. Therefore the Father's power is greater
than the Son's.
Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and
teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the
Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me
commandment so do I." The Father also teaches the Son: "The
Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself
doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son hears: "As I hear, so
I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has greater power
than the Son.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the Father's omnipotence to
be able to beget a Son equal to Himself. For Augustine says
(Contra Maxim. iii, 7), "Were He unable to beget one equal to
Himself, where would be the omnipotence of God the Father?" But
the Son cannot beget a Son, as proved above (Question 41,
Article 6). Therefore the Son cannot do all that belongs to the
Father's omnipotence; and hence He is not equal to Him power.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:19): "Whatsoever things
the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner."
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in
power. Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In
creatures, for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the
greater power is there for action. Now it was shown above (Article
4) that the very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires
that the Son should be the Father's equal in greatness---that is,
in perfection of nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to
the Father in power; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in
relation to both.
Reply to Objection 1: The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do
anything," do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the
Father, since it is immediately added, "Whatsoever things the
Father doth, the Son doth in like manner"; but their meaning is to
show that the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He
receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says (De Trin. ix), "The
unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself
[per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se]."
Reply to Objection 2: The Father's "showing" and the Son's
"hearing" are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates
knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command
of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from
eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better
still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature.
Reply to Objection 3: As the same essence is paternity in the
Father, and filiation in the Son: so by the same power the Father
begets, and the Son is begotten. Hence it is clear that the Son can
do whatever the Father can do; yet it does not follow that the Son
can beget; for to argue thus would imply transition from substance to
relation, for generation signifies a divine relation. So the Son has
the same omnipotence as the Father, but with another relation; the
Father possessing power as "giving" signified when we say that He is
able to beget; while the Son possesses the power of "receiving,"
signified by saying that He can be begotten.
|
|