Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 18 (1/2)

(2) Whether He had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have?

(3) Whether He had an imprinted or infused knowledge?

(4) Whether He had any acquired knowledge?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 1]

Whether Christ Had Any Knowledge Besides the Divine?

Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no knowledge except the Divine. For knowledge is necessary that things may be known thereby. But by His Divine knowledge Christ knew all things.

Therefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in Him.

Obj. 2: Further, the lesser light is dimmed by the greater. But all created knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge of G.o.d is as the lesser to the greater light. Therefore there shone in Christ no other knowledge except the Divine.

Obj. 3: Further, the union of the human nature with the Divine took place in the Person, as is clear from Q. 2, A. 2. Now, according to some there is in Christ a certain ”knowledge of the union,” whereby Christ knew what belongs to the mystery of the Incarnation more fully than anyone else. Hence, since the personal union contains two natures, it would seem that there are not two knowledges in Christ, but one only, pertaining to both natures.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Incarnat. vii): ”G.o.d a.s.sumed the perfection of human nature in the flesh; He took upon Himself the sense of man, but not the swollen sense of the flesh.” But created knowledge pertains to the sense of man. Therefore in Christ there was created knowledge.

_I answer that,_ As said above (Q. 5), the Son of G.o.d a.s.sumed an entire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore it behooved Him to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account of the soul's perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like ”a tablet on which nothing is written,” and yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said _De Anima_ iii, 18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of G.o.d should a.s.sume, not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature, since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since everything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. ii, 17, Christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had not understood by it; and this pertains to created knowledge.

Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, viz. that whereby we naturally know first principles; since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect. Now nothing natural was wanting to Christ, since He took the whole human nature, as stated above (Q. 5). And hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4] condemned the opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of G.o.d; since G.o.d's understanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph.

xii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have known nothing; and thus it would have been a.s.sumed to no purpose, since everything is on account of its operation.

Reply Obj. 2: If the two lights are supposed to be in the same order, the lesser is dimmed by the greater, as the light of the sun dims the light of a candle, both being in the cla.s.s of illuminants. But if we suppose two lights, one of which is in the cla.s.s of illuminants and the other in the cla.s.s of illuminated, the lesser light is not dimmed by the greater, but rather is strengthened, as the light of the air by the light of the sun. And in this manner the light of knowledge is not dimmed, but rather is heightened in the soul of Christ by the light of the Divine knowledge, which is ”the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world,” as is written John 1:9.

Reply Obj. 3: On the part of what are united we hold there is a knowledge in Christ, both as to His Divine and as to His human nature; so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one hypostasis of G.o.d and man, the things of G.o.d are attributed to man, and the things of man are attributed to G.o.d, as was said above (Q. 3, AA. 1, 6). But on the part of the union itself we cannot admit any knowledge in Christ. For this union is in personal being, and knowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 2]

Whether Christ Had the Knowledge Which the Blessed or Comprehensors Have?

Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed or comprehensors. For the knowledge of the blessed is a partic.i.p.ation of Divine light, according to Ps. 35:10: ”In Thy light we shall see light.” Now Christ had not a partic.i.p.ated light, but He had the G.o.dhead Itself substantially abiding in Him, according to Col. 2:9: ”For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the G.o.dhead corporeally.” Therefore in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed.

Obj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed, according to John 17:3: ”This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true G.o.d, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent.” But this Man was blessed through being united to G.o.d in person, according to Ps. 64:5: ”Blessed is He Whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee.”

Therefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed in Him.

Obj. 3: Further, to man belongs a double knowledge--one by nature, one above nature. Now the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of G.o.d, is not natural to man, but above his nature. But in Christ there was another and much higher supernatural knowledge, i.e. the Divine knowledge. Therefore there was no need of the knowledge of the blessed in Christ.

_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of G.o.d. But He knew G.o.d fully, even as He was man, according to John 8:55: ”I do know Him, and do keep His word.”

Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed.

_I answer that,_ What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act; for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot. Now man is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of G.o.d; and is ordained to it as to an end; since the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge, inasmuch as he is made in the image of G.o.d. Now men are brought to this end of beat.i.tude by the humanity of Christ, according to Heb.

2:10: ”For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, Who had brought many children unto glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by His pa.s.sion.” And hence it was necessary that the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of G.o.d, should belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect.

Reply Obj. 1: The G.o.dhead is united to the manhood of Christ in Person, not in essence or nature; yet with the unity of Person remains the distinction of natures. And therefore the soul of Christ, which is a part of human nature, through a light partic.i.p.ated from the Divine Nature, is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby it sees G.o.d in essence.