|
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
|
|