Part I (Prima Pars) Part 43 (1/2)

Whether There Is Power in G.o.d?

Objection 1: It seems that power is not in G.o.d. For as primary matter is to power, so G.o.d, who is the first agent, is to act. But primary matter, considered in itself, is devoid of all act. Therefore, the first agent--namely, G.o.d--is devoid of power.

Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vi, 19), better than every power is its act. For form is better than matter; and action than active power, since it is its end. But nothing is better than what is in G.o.d; because whatsoever is in G.o.d, is G.o.d, as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 3). Therefore, there is no power in G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, Power is the principle of operation. But the divine power is G.o.d's essence, since there is nothing accidental in G.o.d: and of the essence of G.o.d there is no principle. Therefore there is no power in G.o.d.

Obj. 4: Further, it was shown above (Q. 14, A. 8; Q. 19, A. 4) that G.o.d's knowledge and will are the cause of things. But the cause and principle of a thing are identical. We ought not, therefore, to a.s.sign power to G.o.d; but only knowledge and will.

_On the contrary,_ It is said: ”Thou art mighty, O Lord, and Thy truth is round about Thee” (Ps. 88:9).

_I answer that,_ Power is twofold--namely, pa.s.sive, which exists not at all in G.o.d; and active, which we must a.s.sign to Him in the highest degree. For it is manifest that everything, according as it is in act and is perfect, is the active principle of something: whereas everything is pa.s.sive according as it is deficient and imperfect. Now it was shown above (Q. 3, A. 2; Q. 4, AA. 1, 2), that G.o.d is pure act, simply and in all ways perfect, nor in Him does any imperfection find place. Whence it most fittingly belongs to Him to be an active principle, and in no way whatsoever to be pa.s.sive. On the other hand, the notion of active principle is consistent with active power. For active power is the principle of acting upon something else; whereas pa.s.sive power is the principle of being acted upon by something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, 17). It remains, therefore, that in G.o.d there is active power in the highest degree.

Reply Obj. 1: Active power is not contrary to act, but is founded upon it, for everything acts according as it is actual: but pa.s.sive power is contrary to act; for a thing is pa.s.sive according as it is potential. Whence this potentiality is not in G.o.d, but only active power.

Reply Obj. 2: Whenever act is distinct from power, act must be n.o.bler than power. But G.o.d's action is not distinct from His power, for both are His divine essence; neither is His existence distinct from His essence. Hence it does not follow that there should be anything in G.o.d n.o.bler than His power.

Reply Obj. 3: In creatures, power is the principle not only of action, but likewise of effect. Thus in G.o.d the idea of power is retained, inasmuch as it is the principle of an effect; not, however, as it is a principle of action, for this is the divine essence itself; except, perchance, after our manner of understanding, inasmuch as the divine essence, which pre-contains in itself all perfection that exists in created things, can be understood either under the notion of action, or under that of power; as also it is understood under the notion of _suppositum_ possessing nature, and under that of nature. Accordingly the notion of power is retained in G.o.d in so far as it is the principle of an effect.

Reply Obj. 4: Power is predicated of G.o.d not as something really distinct from His knowledge and will, but as differing from them logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion of a principle putting into execution what the will commands, and what knowledge directs, which three things in G.o.d are identified. Or we may say, that the knowledge or will of G.o.d, according as it is the effective principle, has the notion of power contained in it. Hence the consideration of the knowledge and will of G.o.d precedes the consideration of His power, as the cause precedes the operation and effect.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 2]

Whether the Power of G.o.d Is Infinite?

Objection 1: It seems that the power of G.o.d is not infinite. For everything that is infinite is imperfect according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6). But the power of G.o.d is far from imperfect. Therefore it is not infinite.

Obj. 2: Further, every power is made known by its effect; otherwise it would be ineffectual. If, then, the power of G.o.d were infinite, it could produce an infinite effect, but this is impossible.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 79) that if the power of any corporeal thing were infinite, it would cause instantaneous movement. G.o.d, however, does not cause instantaneous movement, but moves the spiritual creature in time, and the corporeal creature in place and time, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. 20, 22, 23). Therefore, His power is not infinite.

_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. viii), that ”G.o.d's power is immeasurable. He is the living mighty one.” Now everything that is immeasurable is infinite. Therefore the power of G.o.d is infinite.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), active power exists in G.o.d according to the measure in which He is actual. Now His existence is infinite, inasmuch as it is not limited by anything that receives it, as is clear from what has been said, when we discussed the infinity of the divine essence (Q. 7, A. 1). Wherefore, it is necessary that the active power in G.o.d should be infinite. For in every agent is it found that the more perfectly an agent has the form by which it acts the greater its power to act. For instance, the hotter a thing is, the greater the power has it to give heat; and it would have infinite power to give heat, were its own heat infinite. Whence, since the divine essence, through which G.o.d acts, is infinite, as was shown above (Q. 7, A. 1) it follows that His power likewise is infinite.

Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is here speaking of an infinity in regard to matter not limited by any form; and such infinity belongs to quant.i.ty. But the divine essence is otherwise, as was shown above (Q. 7, A. 1); and consequently so also His power. It does not follow, therefore, that it is imperfect.

Reply Obj. 2: The power of a univocal agent is wholly manifested in its effect. The generative power of man, for example, is not able to do more than beget man. But the power of a non-univocal agent does not wholly manifest itself in the production of its effect: as, for example, the power of the sun does not wholly manifest itself in the production of an animal generated from putrefaction. Now it is clear that G.o.d is not a univocal agent. For nothing agrees with Him either in species or in genus, as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 5; Q. 4, A. 3).

Whence it follows that His effect is always less than His power. It is not necessary, therefore, that the infinite power of G.o.d should be manifested so as to produce an infinite effect. Yet even if it were to produce no effect, the power of G.o.d would not be ineffectual; because a thing is ineffectual which is ordained towards an end to which it does not attain. But the power of G.o.d is not ordered toward its effect as towards an end; rather, it is the end of the effect produced by it.

Reply Obj. 3: The Philosopher (Phys. viii, 79) proves that if a body had infinite power, it would cause a non-temporal movement. And he shows that the power of the mover of heaven is infinite, because it can move in an infinite time. It remains, therefore, according to his reckoning, that the infinite power of a body, if such existed, would move without time; not, however, the power of an incorporeal mover.

The reason of this is that one body moving another is a univocal agent; wherefore it follows that the whole power of the agent is made known in its motion. Since then the greater the power of a moving body, the more quickly does it move; the necessary conclusion is that if its power were infinite, it would move beyond comparison faster, and this is to move without time. An incorporeal mover, however, is not a univocal agent; whence it is not necessary that the whole of its power should be manifested in motion, so as to move without time; and especially since it moves in accordance with the disposition of its will.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 25, Art. 3]

Whether G.o.d Is Omnipotent?

Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d is not omnipotent. For movement and pa.s.siveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with G.o.d, for He is immovable, as was said above (Q. 2, A. 3). Therefore He is not omnipotent.

Obj. 2: Further, sin is an act of some kind. But G.o.d cannot sin, nor ”deny Himself” as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.