Rinteln and Cassel soften the dogma: the human nature is not itself omniscient, yet is personally so in the Word
We already saw in the Protheoria (p. 319) a kinder reading of this dogma from the Rinteln theologians, and their agreement with the Cassel men at the root of the matter.
Put with other matching declarations, the sum is this: 1. Christ's human nature as God-man is not itself — and is not called — omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, whether subjectively or inwardly by inherence (ἐνύπαρξις), or essentially by an essential property, or naturally by an act of that nature, or originally from itself, or by conversion, mixture, or confusion with the divine nature.
2. Yet it is called — and is — such personally, in the Word (Λόγος), because of the personal union with him. By an act of the person the human nature becomes sharer and partaker (κοινωνὸς καὶ μέτοχος) of every working proper to the divinity, and the like.
What is then said of that nature is said by an outward naming, through a communication as real as the hypostatic union of the two natures itself.
Latin
Benigniorem interpretationem hujus dogmatis, ex mente Rintelensium Theologorum, horumque in fundamento ipso consensum cum Cassellanis, vidimus in Protheoria, p. 319. Summa ejus, confonis aliorum declarationibus, huc redit, 1. Naturam Humanam Christi Θεανθρώπῳ nec subjective, vel intrinsice per ἐνύπαρξιν, nec essentialiter seu proprietate essentiali, nec naturaliter seu actu ipsius Naturae, nec originaliter a se ipsa, nec per conversionem, commixtionem, confusionem cum Natura Divina, esse aut dici Omnisciam, Omnipotentem, Omnipraesentem. 2. Talem vero dici & esse personaliter, in Λόγῳ; Ob Unionem cum eo personalem, actu personae, quo fit Nat. Humana κοινωνὸς καὶ μέτοχος omnium Operationum quae propriae Divinitatis, &c. Quae hinc de ea praedicantur, per denominationem extrinsecam, communicatione tam reali, quam realis est unio Hypostatica utriusque Naturae.