|
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
I answer that, Acquired knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul,
as we have said Question 9, Article 4, by reason of the active
intellect, lest its action, which is to make things actually
intelligible, should be wanting; even as imprinted or infused
knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul for the perfection of the
passive intellect. Now as the passive intellect is that by which "all
things are in potentiality," so the active intellect is that by which
"all are in act," as is said De Anima iii, 18. And hence, as
the soul of Christ knew by infused knowledge all things to which the
passive intellect is in any way in potentiality, so by acquired
knowledge it knew whatever can be known by the action of the active
intellect.
Reply to Objection 1: The knowledge of things may be acquired not
merely by experiencing the things themselves, but by experiencing other
things; since by virtue of the light of the active intellect man can go
on to understand effects from causes, and causes from effects, like
from like, contrary from contrary. Therefore Christ, though He did
not experience all things, came to the knowledge of all things from
what He did experience.
Reply to Objection 2: Although all sensible things were not
subjected to Christ's bodily senses, yet other sensible things were
subjected to His senses; and from this He could come to know other
things by the most excellent force of His reason, in the manner
described in the previous reply; just as in seeing heavenly bodies He
could comprehend their powers and the effects they have upon things here
below, which were not subjected to His senses; and for the same
reason, from any other things whatsoever, He could come to the
knowledge of yet other things.
Reply to Objection 3: By this knowledge the soul of Christ did not
know all things simply, but all such as are knowable by the light of
man's active intellect. Hence by this knowledge He did not know the
essences of separate substances, nor past, present, or future
singulars, which, nevertheless, He knew by infused knowledge, as
was said above (Question 11).
|
|