Reply Obj. 1: From Christ is excluded that counsel which is with doubt; and consequently choice, which essentially includes such counsel; but the practice of using counsel is not excluded from Christ.
Reply Obj. 2: This reason rests upon discursion and comparison, as used to acquire knowledge.
Reply Obj. 3: The blessed are likened to the angels in the gifts of graces; yet there still remains the difference of natures. And hence to use comparison and discursion is connatural to the souls of the blessed, but not to angels.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 4]
Whether in Christ This Knowledge Was Greater Than the Knowledge of the Angels?
Objection 1: It would seem that this knowledge was not greater in Christ than in the angels. For perfection is proportioned to the thing perfected. But the human soul in the order of nature is below the angelic nature. Therefore since the knowledge we are now speaking of is imprinted upon Christ"s soul for its perfection, it seems that this knowledge is less than the knowledge by which the angelic nature is perfected.
Obj. 2: Further, the knowledge of Christ"s soul was in a measure comparative and discursive, which cannot be said of the angelic knowledge. Therefore the knowledge of Christ"s soul was less than the knowledge of the angels.
Obj. 3: Further, the more immaterial knowledge is, the greater it is.
But the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the knowledge of Christ"s soul, since the soul of Christ is the act of a body, and turns to phantasms, which cannot be said of the angels. Therefore the knowledge of angels is greater than the knowledge of Christ"s soul.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): "For we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor"; from which it is plain that Christ is said to be lower than the angels only in regard to the suffering of death. And hence, not in knowledge.
_I answer that,_ The knowledge imprinted on Christ"s soul may be looked at in two ways: First, as regards what it has from the inflowing cause; secondly, as regards what it has from the subject receiving it. Now with regard to the first, the knowledge imprinted upon the soul of Christ was more excellent than the knowledge of the angels, both in the number of things known and in the certainty of the knowledge; since the spiritual light, which is imprinted on the soul of Christ, is much more excellent than the light which pertains to the angelic nature. But as regards the second, the knowledge imprinted on the soul of Christ is less than the angelic knowledge, in the manner of knowing that is natural to the human soul, i.e. by turning to phantasms, and by comparison and discursion.
And hereby the reply to the objections is made clear.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 5]
Whether This Knowledge Was Habitual?
Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no habitual knowledge. For it has been said (Q. 9, A. 1) that the highest perfection of knowledge befitted Christ"s soul. But the perfection of an actually existing knowledge is greater than that of a potentially or habitually existing knowledge. Therefore it was fitting for Him to know all things actually. Therefore He had not habitual knowledge.
Obj. 2: Further, since habits are ordained to acts, a habitual knowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless. Now, since Christ knew all things, as was said (Q. 10, A. 2), He could not have considered all things actually, thinking over one after another, since the infinite cannot be pa.s.sed over by enumeration. Therefore the habitual knowledge of certain things would have been useless to Him--which is unfitting. Therefore He had an actual and not a habitual knowledge of what He knew.
Obj. 3: Further, habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower.
But perfection is more n.o.ble than the thing perfected. If, therefore, in the soul of Christ there was any created habit of knowledge, it would follow that this created thing was n.o.bler than the soul of Christ. Therefore there was no habitual knowledge in Christ"s soul.
_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of Christ we are now speaking about was univocal with our knowledge, even as His soul was of the same species as ours. But our knowledge is in the genus of habit.
Therefore the knowledge of Christ was habitual.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), the mode of the knowledge impressed on the soul of Christ befitted the subject receiving it.
For the received is in the recipient after the mode of the recipient.
Now the connatural mode of the human soul is that it should understand sometimes actually, and sometimes potentially. But the medium between a pure power and a completed act is a habit: and extremes and medium are of the same genus. Thus it is plain that it is the connatural mode of the human soul to receive knowledge as a habit. Hence it must be said that the knowledge imprinted on the soul of Christ was habitual, for He could use it when He pleased.
Reply Obj. 1: In Christ"s soul there was a twofold knowledge--each most perfect of its kind: the first exceeding the mode of human nature, as by it He saw the Essence of G.o.d, and other things in It, and this was the most perfect, simply. Nor was this knowledge habitual, but actual with respect to everything He knew in this way.
But the second knowledge was in Christ in a manner proportioned to human nature, i.e. inasmuch as He knew things by species divinely imprinted upon Him, and of this knowledge we are now speaking. Now this knowledge was not most perfect, simply, but merely in the genus of human knowledge; hence it did not behoove it to be always in act.
Reply Obj. 2: Habits are reduced to act by the command of the will, since a habit is that "with which we act when we wish." Now the will is indeterminate in regard to infinite things. Yet it is not useless, even when it does not actually tend to all; provided it actually tends to everything in fitting place and time. And hence neither is a habit useless, even if all that it extends to is not reduced to act; provided that that which befits the due end of the will be reduced to act according as the matter in hand and the time require.
Reply Obj. 3: Goodness and being are taken in two ways: First, simply; and thus a substance, which subsists in its being and goodness, is a good and a being; secondly, being and goodness are taken relatively, and in this way an accident is a being and a good, not that it has being and goodness, but that its subject is a being and a good. And hence habitual knowledge is not simply better or more excellent than the soul of Christ; but relatively, since the whole goodness of habitual knowledge is added to the goodness of the subject.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 6]
Whether This Knowledge Was Distinguished by Divers Habits?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the soul of Christ there was only one habit of knowledge. For the more perfect knowledge is, the more united it is; hence the higher angels understand by the more universal forms, as was said in the First Part (Q. 55, A. 3). Now Christ"s knowledge was most perfect. Therefore it was most one.
Therefore it was not distinguished by several habits.
Obj. 2: Further, our faith is derived from Christ"s knowledge; hence it is written (Heb. 12:2): "Looking on Jesus the author and finisher of faith." But there is only one habit of faith about all things believed, as was said in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 4, A. 6). Much more, therefore, was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ.
Obj. 3: Further, knowledge is distinguished by the divers formalities of knowable things. But the soul of Christ knew everything under one formality, i.e. by a divinely infused light. Therefore in Christ there was only one habit of knowledge.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Zech. 3:9) that on "one" stone, i.e. Christ, "there are seven eyes." Now by the eye is understood knowledge. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were several habits of knowledge.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 4, 5), the knowledge imprinted on Christ"s soul has a mode connatural to a human soul. Now it is connatural to a human soul to receive species of a lesser universality than the angels receive; so that it knows different specific natures by different intelligible species. But it so happens that we have different habits of knowledge, because there are different cla.s.ses of knowable things, inasmuch as what are in one genus are known by one habit; thus it is said (Poster. i, 42) that "one science is of one cla.s.s of object." And hence the knowledge imprinted on Christ"s soul was distinguished by different habits.
Reply Obj. 1: As was said (A. 4), the knowledge of Christ"s soul is most perfect, and exceeds the knowledge of angels with regard to what is in it on the part of G.o.d"s gift; but it is below the angelic knowledge as regards the mode of the recipient. And it pertains to this mode that this knowledge is distinguished by various habits, inasmuch as it regards more particular species.
Reply Obj. 2: Our faith rests upon the First Truth; and hence Christ is the author of our faith by the Divine knowledge, which is simply one.
Reply Obj. 3: The divinely infused light is the common formality for understanding what is divinely revealed, as the light of the active intellect is with regard to what is naturally known. Hence, in the soul of Christ there must be the proper species of singular things, in order to know each with proper knowledge; and in this way there must be divers habits of knowledge in Christ"s soul, as stated above.
_______________________
QUESTION 12
OF THE ACQUIRED OR EMPIRIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST"S SOUL (In Four Articles)
We must now consider the acquired or empiric knowledge of Christ"s soul; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ knew all things by this knowledge?
(2) Whether He advanced in this knowledge?
(3) Whether He learned anything from man?
(4) Whether He received anything from angels?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 1]
Whether Christ Knew All Things by This Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not know everything by this knowledge. For this knowledge is acquired by experience. But Christ did not experience everything. Therefore He did not know everything by this knowledge.
Obj. 2: Further, man acquires knowledge through the senses. But not all sensible things were subjected to Christ"s bodily senses.
Therefore Christ did not know everything by this knowledge.
Obj. 3: Further, the extent of knowledge depends on the things knowable. Therefore if Christ knew all things by this knowledge, His acquired knowledge would have been equal to His infused and beatific knowledge; which is not fitting. Therefore Christ did not know all things by this knowledge.
_On the contrary,_ Nothing imperfect was in Christ"s soul. Now this knowledge of His would have been imperfect if He had not known all things by it, since the imperfect is that to which addition may be made. Hence Christ knew all things by this knowledge.