Tertia Pars · The Incarnation

Of the Acquired or Empiric Knowledge of Christ's Soul

III, q. 12 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de scientia animae Christi acquisita vel experimentali. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum secundum hanc scientiam Christus cognoverit omnia. Secundo, utrum in hac scientia profecerit. Tertio, utrum aliquid ab homine didicerit. Quarto, utrum acceperit aliquid ab Angelis.

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?

1 Whether Christ Knew All Things by This Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?
2 Whether Christ Advanced in Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?
3 Whether Christ Learned Anything from Man?
4 Whether Christ Received Knowledge from the Angels?

Articulus I

Whether Christ Knew All Things by This Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod secundum hanc scientiam Christus non omnia cognovit. Huiusmodi enim scientia per experientiam acquiritur. Sed Christus non omnia expertus est. Non igitur omnia secundum hanc scientiam scivit.

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.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, scientiam acquirit homo per sensum. Sed non omnia sensibilia sensibus corporalibus Christi fuerunt subiecta. Non igitur secundum hanc scientiam omnia cognovit.

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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, quantitas scientiae attenditur secundum scibilia. Si igitur secundum hanc scientiam Christus omnia scivisset, esset in eo scientia acquisita aequalis scientiae infusae et scientiae beatae, quod est inconveniens. Non ergo secundum hanc scientiam Christus omnia scivit.

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.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod nihil imperfectum fuit in Christo quantum ad animam. Fuisset autem imperfecta haec eius scientia, si secundum eam non scivisset omnia, quia imperfectum est cui potest fieri additio. Ergo secundum hanc scientiam Christus omnia scivit.

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.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod scientia acquisita ponitur in anima Christi, ut supra dictum est, propter convenientiam intellectus agentis, ne eius actio sit otiosa, qua facit intelligibilia actu, sicut etiam scientia indita vel infusa ponitur in anima Christi ad perfectionem intellectus possibilis. Sicut autem intellectus possibilis est quo est omnia fieri, ita intellectus agens est quo est omnia facere, ut dicitur in III de anima. Et ideo, sicut per scientiam inditam scivit anima Christi omnia illa ad quae intellectus possibilis est quocumque modo in potentia, ita per scientiam acquisitam scivit omnia illa quae possunt sciri per actionem intellectus agentis.

I answer that, Acquired knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul, as we have said (Q. 9, A. 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.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod scientia rerum acquiri potest non solum per experientiam ipsarum, sed etiam per experientiam quarundam aliarum rerum, cum ex virtute luminis intellectus agentis possit homo procedere ad intelligendum effectus per causas, et causas per effectus, et similia per similia, et contraria per contraria. Sic igitur, licet Christus non fuerit omnia expertus, ex his tamen quae expertus est, in omnium devenit notitiam.

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.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet corporalibus sensibus Christi non fuerint subiecta omnia sensibilia, fuerunt tamen sensibus eius subiecta aliqua sensibilia ex quibus, propter excellentissimam vim rationis eius, potuit in aliorum notitiam devenire per modum praedictum. Sicut, videndo corpora caelestia, potuit comprehendere eorum virtutes, et effectus quos habent in istis inferioribus, qui eius sensibus non subiacebant. Et, eadem ratione, ex quibuscumque aliis in aliorum notitiam devenire potuit.

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.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum istam scientiam anima Christi non simpliciter cognovit omnia, sed illa omnia quae per lumen intellectus agentis hominis sunt cognoscibilia. Unde per hanc scientiam non cognovit essentias substantiarum separatarum; nec etiam singularia praeterita vel futura. Quae tamen cognovit per scientiam inditam, ut supra dictum est.

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 (Q. 11).

Articulus II

Whether Christ Advanced in Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod secundum hanc scientiam Christus non profecerit. Sicut enim secundum scientiam beatitudinis vel secundum scientiam infusam Christus cognovit omnia, ita secundum hanc scientiam acquisitam, ut ex dictis patet. Sed secundum illas scientias non profecit. Ergo nec secundum istam.

It would seem that Christ did not advance in this knowledge. For even as Christ knew all things by His beatific and His infused knowledge, so also did He by this acquired knowledge, as is plain from what has been said (A. 1). But He did not advance in these knowledges. Therefore neither in this.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, proficere est imperfecti, quia perfectum additionem non recipit. Sed in Christo non est ponere scientiam imperfectam. Ergo secundum hanc scientiam Christus non profecit.

Further, to advance belongs to the imperfect, since the perfect cannot be added to. Now we cannot suppose an imperfect knowledge in Christ. Therefore Christ did not advance in this knowledge.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, qui proficere dicunt Christum sapientia et gratia ut additamentum suscipientem, non venerantur unionem. Non venerari autem unionem est impium. Ergo impium est dicere quod scientia eius additamentum acceperit.

Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 22): "Whoever say that Christ advanced in wisdom and grace, as if receiving additional sensations, do not venerate the union which is in hypostasis." But it is impious not to venerate this union. Therefore it is impious to say that His knowledge received increase.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod habetur Luc. II, quod Iesus proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia, apud Deum et homines. Et Ambrosius dicit quod proficiebat secundum sapientiam humanam. Humana autem sapientia est quae humano modo acquiritur, scilicet per lumen intellectus agentis. Ergo Christus secundum hanc scientiam profecit.

On the contrary, It is written (Luke 2:52): "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men"; and Ambrose says (De Incar. Dom. vii) that "He advanced in human wisdom." Now human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human manner, i.e. by the light of the active intellect. Therefore Christ advanced in this knowledge.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est profectus scientiae. Unus quidem secundum essentiam, prout scilicet ipse habitus scientiae augetur. Alius autem secundum effectum, puta si aliquis, secundum eundem et aequalem scientiae habitum, primo minora aliis demonstret, et postea maiora et subtiliora. Hoc autem secundo modo, manifestum est quod Christus in scientia et gratia profecit, sicut et in aetate, quia scilicet, secundum augmentum aetatis, opera maiora faciebat, quae maiorem sapientiam et gratiam demonstrabant. Sed quantum ad ipsum habitum scientiae, manifestum est quod habitus scientiae infusae in eo non est augmentatus, cum a principio plenarie sibi fuerit omnis scientia infusa. Et multo minus scientia beata in eo augeri potuit. De scientia autem divina quod non possit augeri, supra in prima parte dictum est. Si igitur, praeter habitum scientiae infusum, non sit in anima Christi habitus aliquis scientiae acquisitae, ut quibusdam videtur, et mihi aliquando visum est; nulla scientia in Christo augmentata fuit secundum suam essentiam, sed solum per experientiam, idest per conversionem specierum intelligibilium inditarum ad phantasmata. Et secundum hoc, dicunt quod scientia Christi profecit secundum experientiam, convertendo scilicet species intelligibiles inditas ad ea quae de novo per sensum accepit. Sed quia inconveniens videtur quod aliqua naturalis actio intelligibilis Christo deesset, cum extrahere species intelligibiles a phantasmatibus sit quaedam naturalis actio hominis secundum intellectum agentem, conveniens videtur hanc etiam actionem in Christo ponere. Et ex hoc sequitur quod in anima Christi aliquis habitus scientiae fuit qui per huiusmodi abstractionem specierum potuerit augmentari, ex hoc scilicet quod intellectus agens, post primas species intelligibiles abstractas a phantasmatibus, poterat etiam alias abstrahere.

I answer that, There is a twofold advancement in knowledge: one in essence, inasmuch as the habit of knowledge is increased; the other in effect—e.g. if someone were with one and the same habit of knowledge to prove to someone else some minor truths at first, and afterwards greater and more subtle conclusions. Now in this second way it is plain that Christ advanced in knowledge and grace, even as in age, since as His age increased He wrought greater deeds, and showed greater knowledge and grace.

But as regards the habit of knowledge, it is plain that His habit of infused knowledge did not increase, since from the beginning He had perfect infused knowledge of all things; and still less could His beatific knowledge increase; while in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 15), we have already said that His Divine knowledge could not increase. Therefore, if in the soul of Christ there was no habit of acquired knowledge, beyond the habit of infused knowledge, as appears to some [Blessed Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure], and sometime appeared to me (Sent. iii, D, xiv), no knowledge in Christ increased in essence, but merely by experience, i.e. by comparing the infused intelligible species with phantasms. And in this way they maintain that Christ's knowledge grew in experience, e.g. by comparing the infused intelligible species with what He received through the senses for the first time. But because it seems unfitting that any natural intelligible action should be wanting to Christ, and because to extract intelligible species from phantasms is a natural action of man's active intellect, it seems becoming to place even this action in Christ. And it follows from this that in the soul of Christ there was a habit of knowledge which could increase by this abstraction of species; inasmuch as the active intellect, after abstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms, could abstract others, and others again.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod tam scientia infusa animae Christi, quam scientia beata, fuit effectus agentis infinitae virtutis, qui potest simul totum operari, et ita in neutra scientia Christus profecit, sed a principio habuit eam perfectam. Sed scientia acquisita est tantum ab intellectu agente, qui non simul totum operatur, sed successive. Et ideo secundum hanc scientiam Christus non a principio scivit omnia, sed paulatim et post aliquod tempus, scilicet in perfecta aetate. Quod patet ex hoc quod Evangelista simul dicit eum profecisse scientia et aetate.

Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ's soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power, which could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. that He increased in "knowledge and age" together.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod haec etiam scientia in Christo fuit semper perfecta secundum tempus, licet non fuerit perfecta simpliciter et secundum naturam. Et ideo potuit habere augmentum.

Even this knowledge was always perfect for the time being, although it was not always perfect, simply and in comparison to the nature; hence it could increase.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod verbum Damasceni intelligitur quantum ad illos qui dicunt simpliciter factam fuisse additionem scientiae Christi, scilicet secundum quamcumque eius scientiam; et praecipue secundum infusam, quae causatur in anima Christi ex unione ad verbum. Non autem intelligitur de augmento scientiae quae ex naturali agente causatur.

This saying of Damascene regards those who say absolutely that addition was made to Christ's knowledge, i.e. as regards any knowledge of His, and especially as regards the infused knowledge which is caused in Christ's soul by union with the Word; but it does not regard the increase of knowledge caused by the natural agent.

Articulus III

Whether Christ Learned Anything from Man?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus aliquid ab hominibus didicerit. Dicitur enim Luc. II quod invenerunt eum in templo in medio doctorum, interrogantem illos et respondentem. Interrogare vero et respondere est addiscentis. Ergo Christus ab hominibus aliquid didicit.

It would seem that Christ learned something from man. For it is written (Luke 2:46, 47) that, "They found Him in the temple in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions." But to ask questions and to reply pertains to a learner. Therefore Christ learned something from man.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, acquirere scientiam ab homine docente videtur esse nobilius quam acquirere a sensibus, quia in anima hominis docentis sunt species intelligibiles in actu, in rebus autem sensibilibus sunt species intelligibiles solum in potentia. Sed Christus accipiebat scientiam experimentalem ex rebus sensibilibus, ut dictum est. Ergo multo magis poterat accipere scientiam addiscendo ab hominibus.

Further, to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems more noble than to acquire it from sensible things, since in the soul of the man who teaches the intelligible species are in act; but in sensible things the intelligible species are only in potentiality. Now Christ received empiric knowledge from sensible things, as stated above (A. 2). Much more, therefore, could He receive knowledge by learning from men.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Christus secundum scientiam experimentalem a principio non omnia scivit, sed in ea profecit, ut dictum est. Sed quilibet audiens sermonem significativum alicuius, potest addiscere quod nescit. Ergo Christus potuit ab hominibus aliqua addiscere quae secundum hanc scientiam nesciebat.

Further, by empiric knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but advanced in it, as was said above (A. 2). But anyone hearing words which mean something, may learn something he does not know. Therefore Christ could learn from men something He did not know by this knowledge.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae LV, ecce, testem populis dedi eum, ducem ac praeceptorem gentibus. Praeceptoris autem non est doceri, sed docere. Ergo Christus non accepit aliquam scientiam per doctrinam alicuius hominis.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 45:4): "Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles." Now a master is not taught, but teaches. Therefore Christ did not receive any knowledge by the teaching of any man.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod in quolibet genere id quod est primum movens non movetur secundum illam speciem motus, sicut primum alterans non alteratur. Christus autem constitutus est caput Ecclesiae, quinimmo omnium hominum, ut supra dictum est, ut non solum omnes homines per ipsum gratiam acciperent, sed etiam ut omnes ab eo doctrinam veritatis reciperent. Unde ipse dicit, Ioan. XVIII, in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Et ideo non fuit conveniens eius dignitati ut a quocumque hominum doceretur.

I answer that, In every genus that which is the first mover is not moved according to the same species of movement; just as the first alterative is not itself altered. Now Christ is established by God the Head of the Church—yea, of all men, as was said above (Q. 8, A. 3), so that not only all might receive grace through Him, but that all might receive the doctrine of Truth from Him. Hence He Himself says (John 18:37): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." And thus it did not befit His dignity that He should be taught by any man.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Origenes dicit, super Luc., dominus interrogabat, non ut aliquid disceret, sed ut interrogatus erudiret. Ex uno quippe doctrinae fonte manat et interrogare et respondere sapienter. Unde et ibidem in Evangelio sequitur quod stupebant omnes qui eum audiebant super prudentia et responsis eius.

As Origen says (Hom. xix in Luc.): "Our Lord asked questions not in order to learn anything, but in order to teach by questioning. For from the same well of knowledge came the question and the wise reply." Hence the Gospel goes on to say that "all that heard Him were astonished at His wisdom and His answers."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ille qui addiscit ab homine non accipit inmediate scientiam a speciebus intelligibilibus quae sunt in mente ipsius, sed mediantibus sensibilibus vocibus, tanquam signis intellectualium conceptionum. Sicut autem voces ab homine formatae sunt signa intellectualis scientiae ipsius, ita creaturae a Deo conditae sunt signa sapientiae eius, unde Eccli. I dicitur quod Deus effudit sapientiam suam super omnia opera sua. Sicut igitur dignius est doceri a Deo quam ab homine, ita dignius est accipere scientiam per sensibiles creaturas quam per hominis doctrinam.

Whoever learns from man does not receive knowledge immediately from the intelligible species which are in his mind, but through sensible words, which are signs of intelligible concepts. Now as words formed by a man are signs of his intellectual knowledge; so are creatures, formed by God, signs of His wisdom. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 1:10) that God "poured" wisdom "out upon all His works." Hence, just as it is better to be taught by God than by man, so it is better to receive our knowledge from sensible creatures and not by man's teaching.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Iesus proficiebat in scientia experimentali sicut etiam in aetate, ut dictum est. Sicut autem aetas opportuna requiritur ad hoc quod homo accipiat scientiam per inventionem, ita etiam ad hoc quod accipiat scientiam per disciplinam. Dominus autem nihil fecit quod non congrueret eius aetati. Et ideo audiendis doctrinae sermonibus non accommodavit auditum nisi illo tempore quo poterat etiam per viam experientiae talem scientiae gradum attigisse. Unde Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., duodecimo anno aetatis suae dignatus est homines interrogare in terra, quia, iuxta rationis usum, doctrinae sermo non suppetit nisi in aetate perfecta.

Jesus advanced in empiric knowledge, as in age, as stated above (A. 2). Now as a fitting age is required for a man to acquire knowledge by discovery, so also that he may acquire it by being taught. But our Lord did nothing unbecoming to His age; and hence He did not give ear to hearing the lessons of doctrine until such time as He was able to have reached that grade of knowledge by way of experience. Hence Gregory says (Sup. Ezech. Lib. i, Hom. ii): "In the twelfth year of His age He deigned to question men on earth, since in the course of reason, the word of doctrine is not vouchsafed before the age of perfection."

Articulus IV

Whether Christ Received Knowledge from the Angels?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus ab Angelis scientiam acceperit. Dicitur enim Luc. XXII quod apparuit Christo Angelus de caelo confortans eum. Sed confortatio fit per verba exhortatoria docentis, secundum illud Iob IV, ecce, docuisti plurimos, et manus lassas roborasti, vacillantes confirmaverunt sermones tui. Ergo Christus ab Angelis doctus est.

It would seem that Christ received knowledge from the angels. For it is written (Luke 22:43) that "there appeared to Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him." But we are strengthened by the comforting words of a teacher, according to Job 4:3, 4: "Behold thou hast taught many and hast strengthened the weary hand. Thy words have confirmed them that were staggering." Therefore Christ was taught by angels.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. Cael. Hier., video enim quod et ipse Iesus, supercaelestium substantiarum supersubstantialis substantia, ad nostram intransmutabiliter veniens, obedienter subiicitur patris et Dei per Angelos formationibus. Videtur igitur quod ipse Christus ordinationi legis divinae subiici voluerit, per quam homines, mediantibus Angelis, erudiuntur.

Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "For I see that even Jesus—the super-substantial substance of supercelestial substances—when without change He took our substance upon Himself, was subject in obedience to the instructions of the Father and God by the angels." Hence it seems that even Christ wished to be subject to the ordinations of the Divine law, whereby men are taught by means of angels.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut corpus humanum naturali ordine subiicitur corporibus caelestibus, ita etiam humana mens angelicis mentibus. Sed corpus Christi subiectum fuit impressionibus caelestium corporum, passus est enim calorem in aestate et frigus in hieme, sicut et alias humanas passiones. Ergo et eius mens humana subiacebat illuminationibus supercaelestium spirituum.

Further, as in the natural order the human body is subject to the celestial bodies, so likewise is the human mind to angelic minds. Now Christ's body was subject to the impressions of the heavenly bodies, for He felt the heat in summer and the cold in winter, and other human passions. Therefore His human mind was subject to the illuminations of supercelestial spirits.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, VII cap. Cael. Hier., quod supremi Angeli ad ipsum Iesum quaestionem faciunt, et ipsius divinae operationis pro nobis scientiam discunt, et eas ipse Iesus sine medio docet. Non est autem eiusdem docere et doceri. Ergo Christus non accepit scientiam ab Angelis.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that "the highest angels question Jesus, and learn the knowledge of His Divine work, and of the flesh assumed for us; and Jesus teaches them directly." Now to teach and to be taught do not belong to the same. Therefore Christ did not receive knowledge from the angels.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod anima humana, sicut media inter substantias spirituales et res corporales existit, ita duobus modis nata est perfici, uno quidem modo, per scientiam acceptam ex rebus sensibilibus; alio modo, per scientiam inditam sive impressam ex illuminatione spiritualium substantiarum. Utroque autem modo anima Christi fuit perfecta, ex sensibilibus quidem, secundum scientiam experimentalem, ad quam quidem non requiritur lumen angelicum, sed sufficit lumen intellectus agentis; ex impressione vero superiori, secundum scientiam infusam, quam est immediate adeptus a Deo. Sicut enim supra communem modum creaturae anima illa unita est verbo in unitate personae, ita, supra communem modum hominum, immediate ab ipso Dei verbo repleta est scientia et gratia, non autem mediantibus Angelis, qui etiam ex influentia verbi rerum scientiam in sui principio acceperunt, sicut in II libro super Gen. ad Litt. Augustinus dicit.

I answer that, Since the human soul is midway between spiritual substances and corporeal things, it is perfected naturally in two ways. First by knowledge received from sensible things; secondly, by knowledge imprinted or infused by the illumination of spiritual substances. Now in both these ways the soul of Christ was perfected; first by empirical knowledge of sensible things, for which there is no need of angelic light, since the light of the active intellect suffices; secondly, by the higher impression of infused knowledge, which He received directly from God. For as His soul was united to the Word above the common mode, in unity of person, so above the common manner of men was it filled with knowledge and grace by the Word of God Himself; and not by the medium of angels, who in their beginning received the knowledge of things by the influence of the Word, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8).

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa confortatio Angeli non fuit per modum instructionis, sed ad demonstrandum proprietatem humanae naturae. Unde Beda dicit, super Luc., in documento utriusque naturae, et Angeli ei ministrasse, et eum confortasse dicuntur. Creator enim suae creaturae non eguit praesidio, sed, homo factus, sicut propter nos tristis est, ita propter nos confortatur; ut scilicet in nobis fides incarnationis ipsius confirmetur.

This strengthening by the angel was for the purpose not of instructing Him, but of proving the truth of His human nature. Hence Bede says (on Luke 22:43): "In testimony of both natures are the angels said to have ministered to Him and to have strengthened Him. For the Creator did not need help from His creature; but having become man, even as it was for our sake that He was sad, so was it for our sake that He was strengthened," i.e. in order that our faith in the Incarnation might be strengthened.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Dionysius dicit Christum angelicis formationibus fuisse subiectum, non ratione sui ipsius, sed ratione eorum quae circa eius incarnationem agebantur, et circa ministrationem in infantili aetate constituti. Unde ibidem subdit quod per medios Angelos nuntiatur Ioseph a patre dispensata Iesu ad Aegyptum recessio, et rursum ad Iudaeam de Aegypto traductio.

Dionysius says that Christ was subject to the angelic instructions, not by reason of Himself, but by reason of what happened at His Incarnation, and as regards the care of Him whilst He was a child. Hence in the same place he adds that "Jesus' withdrawal to Egypt decreed by the Father is announced to Joseph by angels, and again His return to Judaea from Egypt."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod filius Dei assumpsit corpus passibile, ut infra dicetur, sed animam perfectam scientia et gratia. Et ideo corpus eius fuit convenienter subiectum impressioni caelestium corporum, anima vero eius non fuit subiecta impressioni caelestium spirituum.

The Son of God assumed a passible body (as will be said hereafter (Q. 14, A. 1)) and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 1; A. 4). Hence His body was rightly subject to the impression of heavenly bodies; but His soul was not subject to the impression of heavenly spirits.

Showing Thomas's answers only.