 Question 11 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 11 of the Knowledge Imprinted or Infused in the Soul of Christ in six articles. We must now consider the Knowledge Imprinted or Infused in the Soul of Christ, and under this head there are six points of inquiry. First, whether Christ knows all things by this knowledge. Second, whether He could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms. Third, whether this knowledge was collative. Fourth, of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge. Fifth, whether it was a habitual knowledge. Sixth, whether it was distinguished by various habits. First article, whether by this imprinted or infused knowledge Christ knew all things. Objection One. You would seem that by this knowledge Christ did not know all things. For this knowledge is imprinted upon Christ for the perfection of the passive intellect. Now the passive intellect of the human soul does not seem to be in potentiality to all things simply, but only to those things with regard to which it can be reduced to act by the active intellect, which is its proper motor, and these are knowable by natural reason. Therefore, by this knowledge Christ did not know what exceeded the natural reason. Objection Two further. Phantasms are to the human intellect as colors decide, as is said in On the Soul Three. But it does not pertain to the perfection of the power of seeing to know what is without color. Therefore, it does not pertain to the perfection of human intellect, to know things of which there are no phantasms such as separate substances. Hence, since this knowledge was in Christ for the perfection of his intellect of soul, it seems that by this knowledge he did not know separate substances. Objection Three further. It does not belong to the perfection of the intellect to know singulars. Hence, it would seem that by this knowledge the soul of Christ did not know singulars. On the contrary, it is written in Isaiah 11 to that, the spirit of wisdom and understanding and of knowledge and counsel shall fill him, under which are included all that may be known, for the knowledge of all divine things belongs to wisdom, the knowledge of all immaterial things to understanding, the knowledge of all conclusions to knowledge, sciencia, the knowledge of all practical things to counsel. Hence, it would seem that by this knowledge Christ had the knowledge of all things. I answer that as was said above in Question Nine, Article One. It was fitting that the soul of Christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its powers reduced to act. Now it must be borne in mind that in the human soul, as in every creature, there is a double passive power, one in comparison with a natural agent, the other in comparison with the first agent, which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a natural agent can reduce it. And this is usually called the obediential power of a creature. Now both powers of Christ's soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge. And hence, by it, the soul of Christ knew. First, whatever can be known by force of a man's active intellect, for example, whatever pertains to human sciences. Secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made known to man by divine revelation, whether they belong to the gift of wisdom or the gift of prophecy or any other gift of the Holy Ghost. Since the soul of Christ knew these things more fully and completely than others. Yet, he did not know the essence of God by this knowledge, but by the first alone of which we spoke above in Question Ten. Reply to Objection One. This reason refers to the natural power of an intellect of soul in comparison with its natural agent, which is the active intellect. Reply to Objection Two. The human soul in the state of this life, since it is somewhat fettered by the body so as to be unable to understand without fantasms, cannot understand separate substances. But after the state of this life, the separated soul will be able, in a measure, to know separate substances by itself, as was said in the first part, Question 89, Articles 1 and 2. And this is especially clear as regards the souls of the Blessed. Now, before his passion, Christ was not merely a wayfarer, but also a comprehensor. Hence his soul could know separate substances in the same way that a separated soul could. Reply to Objection Three. The knowledge of Singulars pertains to the perfection of the intellect of soul, not in speculative knowledge, but in practical knowledge, which is imperfect without the knowledge of Singulars in which operations exist, as is said in Ethics Six-Seven. Hence for prudence are required the remembrance of past things, knowledge of present things, and foresight of future things, as Tully says, in On Invention 2. Therefore, since Christ had the fullness of prudence by the gift of counsel, he consequently knew all singular things, past, present, and future. Second Article. Whether Christ could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms? Objection One. It would seem that the soul of Christ could not understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because, as is stated in On the Soul Three, phantasms are compared to man's intellect of soul as colours to sight. But Christ's power of seeing could not become actual, saved by turning to colours? Therefore, his intellect of soul could understand nothing except by turning to phantasms. Objection Two Further. Christ's soul is of the same nature as ours, otherwise he would not be of the same species as we, contrary to what the Apostle says in Philippians 2.7, being made in the likeness of men. But our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms? Hence, neither can Christ's soul otherwise understand. Objection Three Further. Senses are given to man to help his intellect. Hence, if the soul of Christ could understand without turning to phantasms, which arise in the senses, he would follow that in the soul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting. Therefore, it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by turning to phantasms. On the contrary, the soul of Christ knew certain things which could not be known by the senses, notably separate substances. Therefore, it could understand without turning to phantasms. I answer that, in the state before his passion, Christ was at the same time a Wayfarer and a Comprehensor, as will be more clearly shown in Question 15, Article 10. Especially had he the conditions of a Wayfarer on the part of the body which was passable, but the conditions of a Comprehensor he had chiefly on the part of the soul. Now, this is the condition of the soul of a Comprehensor, notably, that it is no wise subject to its body or dependent upon it, but wholly dominates it. Hence, after the resurrection, glory will flow from the soul to the body. But the soul of man on earth needs to turn to phantasms because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject and dependent upon it. And hence the blessed both before and after the resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this must be said of the soul of Christ which had fully the capabilities of a Comprehensor. Reply to Objection 1. This likeness which the philosopher asserts is not with regard to everything, for it is manifest that the end of the power of seeing is to know colours, but the end of the intellect of power is not to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species which it apprehends from and in phantasms according to the state of this present life. Therefore, there is a likeness in respect of what both powers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition of both powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in different states from reaching its end by different ways, albeit there is never but one proper end of a thing. Hence although the sight knows nothing without colour, nevertheless in a certain state the intellect can know without phantasms, but not without intelligible species. Reply to Objection 2. Although the soul of Christ was of the same nature as our souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact, but only in hope, that is the state of comprehension. Reply to Objection 3. Although the soul of Christ could understand without turning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning to phantasms. Hence the senses were not useless in it, especially as the senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge, but for the need of animal life. Third Article. Whether this knowledge is collative. Objection 1. It would seem that the soul of Christ had not this knowledge by way of comparison. For Damascene says in On the True Faith 314, We do not uphold counsel or choice in Christ. Now these things are withheld from Christ only in as much as they imply comparison and discursion. Therefore it seems that there was no collative or discursive knowledge in Christ. Objection 2 further. Man needs comparison and discursion of reason in order to find out the unknown. But the soul of Christ knew everything as was shown above in Question 10 Article 2. Hence there was no discursive or collative knowledge in Him. Objection 3 further. The knowledge in Christ's soul was like that of comprehensors who are likened to the angels according to Matthew 2230. Now there is no collative or discursive knowledge in the angels as Dionysius shows in On the Divine Names 7. Therefore there was no discursive or collative knowledge in the soul of Christ. On the contrary, Christ had a rational soul as was shown in Question 5 Article 4. Now the proper operation of a rational soul consists in comparison and discursion from one thing to another. Therefore there was collative and discursive knowledge in Christ. I answer that knowledge may be discursive or collative in two ways. First, in the acquisition of the knowledge as happens to us who proceed from one thing to the knowledge of another as from causes to effects and conversely. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's soul was not discursive or collative since this knowledge which we are now considering is divinely infused and not acquired by a process of reasoning. Secondly, knowledge may be called discursive or collative in use as at times those who know reason from cause to effect not in order to learn anew but wishing to use the knowledge they have. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's soul could be collative or discursive and could conclude one thing from another as in Matthew 17 verses 24 and 25 when our Lord asked Peter of whom do the kings of earth receive tribute of their own children or of strangers? On Peter replying of strangers he concluded then the children are free. Reply to Objection 1 From Christ is excluded that council which is with doubt and consequently choice which essentially includes such council but the practice of using council is not excluded from Christ. Reply to Objection 2 This reason rests upon discursion and comparison as used to acquire knowledge. Reply to Objection 3 The blessed are likened to the angels in the gifts of graces but there still remains the difference of natures and hence to use comparison and discursion is conatural to the souls of the blessed but not to angels. Fourth article 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 and 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 in Hebrews 2.9 For we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour. 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 that is by turning to phantasms and by comparison and discretion. And hereby the reply to the objections is made clear. Fifth article whether this knowledge was habitual Objection one it would seem that in Christ there was no habitual knowledge for it has been said in Question 9 Article 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 Objection two further since habits are ordained to acts habitual knowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless now since Christ knew all things as was said in Question 10 Article 2 he could not have considered all things actually thinking over one after the other since the infinite cannot be passed 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 Objection three further habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower but perfection is more noble than the thing perfected if therefore in the soul of Christ there was any created habit of knowledge he would follow that this created thing was nobler 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 in Article 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 con-natural 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 con-natural 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 to Objection 1 in Christ's soul there was a two-fold knowledge each most perfect of its kind the first exceeding the mode of human nature as by it he saw the essence of God 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 that is in as much as he knew things by species and 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 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 whether this knowledge was distinguished by diverse 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 more universal forms as was said in the first part question 55 article 3 now Christ's knowledge was most perfect therefore it was most one therefore it was not distinguished by several habits Objection 2 further our faith is derived from Christ's knowledge hence it is written in Hebrews 12 to 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 in the parts question 4 article 6 much more therefore was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ Objection 3 further knowledge is distinguished by the diverse formalities of noble things but the soul of Christ knew everything under one formality that is by a divinely infused light therefore in Christ there was only one habit of knowledge on the contrary it is written in Zechariah 3 9 that on one stone that is 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 in articles 4 and 5 the knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul has a mode conatural to a human soul now it is conatural 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 classes of knowable things in as much as what are in one genus are known by one habit thus it is said in the posterior analytics 142 that one science is of one class of object and hence the knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul was distinguished by different habits reply to objection 1 as was said in article 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 God'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 in as much as it regards more particular species reply to objection 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 to objection 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 diverse habits of knowledge in Christ's soul as stated above End of question 11 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC Question 12 of Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province 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 First, whether Christ knew all things by this knowledge Second, whether he advanced in this knowledge Third, whether he learned anything from man Fourth, whether he received anything from angels First article 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 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 in Question 9 Article 4 By reason of the act of 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 act of intellect is that by which all are in act as is said in on the Soul 3 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 act of 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 act of 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 a man's active intellect Hence by this knowledge he did not know the essences of separate substances in the past, present or future singulars which nevertheless he knew by infused knowledge as was said above in Question 11 Second Article Whether Christ advanced in acquired or empiric knowledge Objection 1 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 in Article 1 but he did not advance in these knowledges therefore neither in this Objection 2 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 Objection 3 further Damascene says in On the True Faith 322 Whoever say that Christ advanced in wisdom and grace as if receiving additional sensations do not venerate the union which is in hypothesis but it is impious not to venerate this union therefore it is impious to say that his knowledge received increase On the contrary, it is written in Luke 2 verse 52 Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men and Ambrose says that he advanced in human wisdom Now human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human manner that is by the light of the active intellect therefore Christ advanced in this knowledge I answer that there is a twofold advancement in knowledge one in essence in as much as the habit of knowledge is increased the other in effect for example if someone were with one and the same habit of knowledge it is true 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 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 question 14 article 15 we have already said that his divine knowledge could not increase therefore if in the soul of Christ there was no habit of inquired knowledge beyond the habit of infused knowledge as appears to some for example Blessed Albert the Great Alexander of Hales Saint Bonaventure and sometime appeared to me when I wrote the sentences 3d14 no knowledge in Christ increased in essence but merely by experience that is by comparing the infused intelligible species with phantasms but in this way they maintain that Christ's knowledge grew in experience for example 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 in as much as the active intellect after abstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms could abstract others and others again reply to objection one 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 that is in his perfect age and this is plain from what the evangelist says notably that he increased in knowledge and age together reply to objection two 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 reply to objection three regards those who say absolutely that addition was made to Christ's knowledge that is as regards to any knowledge of his and especially as regards the infused knowledge which is caused in Christ's soul by the union with the word but it does not regard the increase of knowledge caused by the natural agent third article objection one it would seem that Christ learned something from man for it is written in Luke 2 46 that hearing them and asking them questions but to ask questions and to reply pertains to a learner therefore Christ learned something from a man objection two 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 insensible things the intelligible species are only in potentiality now Christ received empiric knowledge from sensible things as stated above in article two more therefore could he receive knowledge by learning from men objection three further by empiric knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning but advanced in it as was said above in article two 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 contrary it is written in Psalm 45 verse 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 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 alternative is not itself altered now Christ is established by God the head of the church yea of all men as was said above in question eight article three 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 in John 1837 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 be fit his dignity that he should be taught by any man reply to objection one as origin says in a homily on the Gospel of Luke 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 reply to objection two 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 our creatures formed by God signs of his wisdom hence it is written in Ecclesiasticus 110 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 reply to objection three Christ advanced in empiric knowledge as an age as stated above in article two 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 on becoming 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 in his commentary upon the book of Ezekiel 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 fourth article received knowledge from the angels he would seem that Christ received knowledge from the angels for it is written in 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 four verses three and four behold thou hast taught many and has strengthened the weary hand thy words have confirmed them that were staggering therefore Christ was taught by angels objection to further Dionysius says in on the celestial hierarchy for for I see that even Jesus the super substantial substance of super celestial 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 objection three 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 super celestial spirits on the contrary Dionysius says in on the celestial hierarchy seven 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 I answer that since the human soul is midway between spiritual substances and corporeal things it is perfected naturally 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 in On the literal meaning of Genesis 2.8 reply to Objection 1 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 commenting on Luke 22.43 in testimony of both natures are the angels said to have ministered to him and to have strengthened him later did not help from his creature but having become man even as it was for our own sake that he was sad so was it for our sake that he was strengthened that is in order that our faith in the incarnation might be strengthened reply to Objection 2 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 by Joseph to the angels and again his return to Judea from Egypt reply to Objection 3 the son of God assumed a passable body as will be said here in question 14 article 1 and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace and for question 14 article 1 first reply and article 4 hence his body was rightly subject to the impressions of heavenly bodies but his soul was not subject to the impression of heavenly spirits End of question 12 read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC Summa Theologica tertia pars triates on the saviour this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica tertia pars triates on the saviour by Saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province Question 13 of the power of Christ's soul in four articles we must now consider the power of Christ's soul and under this head there are four points of inquiry first whether he had omnipotence simply second whether he had omnipotence with regard to corporeal creatures third whether he had omnipotence with regard to his own body fourth whether he had omnipotence as regards the execution of his own will first article whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence objection one it would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence for Ambrose says on Luke 132 the power which the Son of God had naturally the man was about to receive in time now this would seem to regard the soul principally since it is the chief part of man hence since the Son of God had omnipotence from all eternity it would seem that the soul of Christ received omnipotence in time objection two further the power of God is infinite so is his knowledge Christ in a manner had the knowledge of all that God knows as was said above in question 10 article 2 therefore he had all power and thus he was omnipotent objection three further the soul of Christ has all knowledge now knowledge is either practical or speculative therefore he has a practical knowledge of what he knows that is he knew how to do what he knows and thus it seems that he can do all things on the contrary what is proper to God cannot belong to any creature but it is proper to God to be omnipotent according to Exodus 15 verses 2 and 3 he is my God and I will glorify him and further on almighty is his name therefore the soul of Christ as being a creature has not omnipotence I answer that as was said above in question 2 article 1 as well as in question 10 article 1 in the mystery of the Incarnation the union in person so took place that there still remained the distinction of natures each nature still retaining what belong to it now the active principle of a thing follows its form which is the principle of action but the form is either the very nature of the thing as in simple things or is the constituent of the nature of the thing as in such as are composed of matter and form and it is in this way that omnipotence flows so to say from the divine nature for since the divine nature is the very uncircumstribed being of God as is plain from Dionysius in on the divine names five it has an active power over everything that can have the nature of being and this is to have omnipotence justice every other thing has an active power over such things as the perfection of its nature extends to as what is hot gives heat therefore since the soul of Christ is a part of human nature it cannot possibly have omnipotence reply to objection one by union with the person the man receives omnipotence in time which the son of God had from eternity the result of which union is that as the man is said to be God so is he said to be omnipotent not that the omnipotence of the man is distinct as neither is his Godhead from that of the son of God but because there is one person of God and man reply to objection to according to some knowledge and active power are not in the same ratio for an active power flows from the very nature of the thing in as much as action is considered to come forth from the agent but knowledge is not always possessed by the very essence or form of the knower since it may be had by assimilation of the knower to the thing known by the aid of received species but this reason seems not to suffice because even as we may understand by a likeness obtained from another so also may we act by a form obtained from another as water or iron heats by heat borrowed from fire hence there would be no reason why the soul of Christ as it can know all things by the similitudes of all things impressed upon it by God cannot do these things by the same similitudes it has therefore to be further considered that what is received in the lower nature from the higher is possessed in an inferior manner for heat is not received by water in the perfection and strength it had in fire therefore since the soul of Christ is of an inferior nature to the divine nature the similitudes of things are not received in the soul of Christ in the perfection and strength they had in the divine nature and hence it is that the knowledge of Christ's soul is inferior to divine knowledge as regards the manner of knowing for God knows things more perfectly than the soul of Christ and also as regards the number of things known since the soul of Christ does not know all that God can do and these God knows by the knowledge of simple intelligence although it knows all things present past and future which God knows by the knowledge of vision so too the similitudes of things infused into Christ's soul do not equal the divine power in acting that is so as to do all that God can do or to do in the same manner as God does who acts with an infinite might whereof the creature is not capable now there is no thing to know which in some way an infinite power is needed although a certain kind of knowledge belongs to an infinite power yet there are things which can be done only by an infinite power as creation and the like as is plain from what has been said in the first part question 45 it is Christ's soul which being a creature is finite in might can know indeed all things but not in every way yet it cannot do all things which pertains to the nature of omnipotence and amongst other things it is clear it cannot create itself reply to Objection 3 Christ's soul has practical and speculative knowledge yet it is not necessary that it should have practical knowledge of those things of which it has speculative knowledge because for speculative knowledge a mere conformity or assimilation of the knower to the thing known suffices whereas for practical knowledge it is required that the forms of the things in the intellect should be operative now to have a form and to impress this form upon something else is more than merely to be the form as to be light some and to enlighten is more than merely to be light some hence the soul of Christ has a speculative knowledge of creation for it knows the mode of God's creation but it has no practical knowledge of this mode since it has no knowledge operative of creation second article whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures objection one you would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures for he himself says in Matthew 28 18 all power is given to me in heaven and on earth now by the words heaven and earth are meant to all creatures as is plain from Genesis 1 1 in the beginning God created heaven and earth therefore it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures objection two further the soul of Christ is the most perfect of all creatures but every creature can be moved by another creature for Augustine says in on the Trinity 34 that even as the denser and lower bodies are ruled in a fixed way by the subtler and stronger bodies so are all bodies by the spirit of life and the irrational spirit of life by the rational spirit of life and the true want and sinful rational spirit of life by the rational loyal and righteous spirit of life but the soul of Christ moves even the highest spirits enlightening them as Dionysius says in on the celestial hierarchy seven therefore it seems that the soul of Christ has omnipotence with regards to the transmutation of creatures objection three further Christ soul had in its highest degree the grace of miracles or works of might but every transmutation of the creature can belong to the grace of miracles since even the heavenly bodies were miraculously changed from their course as Dionysius proves in his letter to Polycarp therefore Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures on the contrary to transmute creatures belongs to him who preserves them now this belongs to God alone according to Hebrews 3 upholding all things by the word of his power therefore God alone has omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures therefore this does not belong to Christ's soul I answer that two distinctions are here needed of these the first is with respect to the transmutation of creatures which is three fold the first is natural being brought about by the proper agent naturally the second is miraculous being brought about by a supernatural agent above the wanted order and course of nature as to raise the dead the third is in as much as every creature may be brought to nothing the second distinction has to do with Christ's soul which may be looked at in two ways first in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of grace secondly as it is the instrument of the word of God personally united to him therefore if we speak of the soul of Christ in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of grace it had power to cause those effects proper to a soul for example to rule the body and direct human acts and also by the fullness of grace and knowledge to enlighten all rational creatures falling short of its perfection in a manner befitting a rational creature but if we speak of the soul of Christ as it is the instrument of the word united to him it had an instrumental power to affect all the miraculous transmutations ordainable to the end of the incarnation which is to reestablish all things that are in heaven and on earth but the transmutation of creatures in as much as they may be brought to nothing corresponds to their creation whereby they were brought from nothing and hence even as God alone can create so too he alone can bring creatures to nothing and hence even as God alone can create so too he alone can bring creatures to nothing and he alone upholds them in being lest they fall back to nothing and thus it must be said that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures reply to objection one as Jerome says on the text quoted power is given to him that is to Christ and man who a little while before was crucified buried in the tomb and afterwards rose again but power is said to have been given him by reason of the union whereby it was brought about that a man was omnipotent as was said above in article one first reply and although this was made known to the angels before the resurrection yet after the resurrection it was made known to all men as Ramidius says in the Catena Aurea now things are said to happen when they are made known as Hugh of Saint Victor was known to say hence after the resurrection our Lord says that all power is given to him in heaven and on earth reply to objection to although every creature is transmutable by some other creature except indeed the highest angel and even it can be enlightened by Christ's soul yet not every transmutation that can be made in a creature can be made by a creature since some transmutations can be made by God alone yet all transmutations that can be made in creatures can be made by the soul of Christ as the instrument of the word but not in its proper nature and power since some of these transmutations are given to the soul neither in the order of nature nor in the order of grace reply to objection 3 as was said in the second part question 178 article one first reply the grace of mighty works or miracles is given to the soul of a saint so that these miracles are wrought not by his own but by divine power now this grace was bestowed on Christ's soul most frequently that is not only that he might work miracles but also that he might communicate this grace to others hence it is written in Matthew 10 verse 1 that having called his 12 disciples together he gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out and to heal all manner of diseases and all manner of infirmities 3rd article whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to his own body objection 1 he would seem that Christ soul had omnipotence with regard to his own body for Damascene says in on the true faith 3 20 and 23 that all natural things were voluntary to Christ he will to hunger he will to thirst he will to fear he will to die now God is omnipotent because he has done all things whatsoever he would according to Psalm 113 verse 11 therefore it seems that Christ soul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the body objection 2 further human nature was more perfect in Christ than in Adam who had a body entirely subject to the soul so that nothing could happen to the body against the will of the soul and on this account of the original justice which it had in the state of innocence much more therefore had Christ's soul omnipotence with regard to his body objection 3 further the body is naturally changed by the imaginations of the soul and so much more changed the stronger the soul's imagination as was said in the first part question 117 article 3 3rd reply now the soul of Christ had most perfect strength as regards both the imagination and the other powers therefore the soul of Christ was omnipotent with regard to his own body on the contrary it is written in Hebrews 2 verse 17 that it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren and especially as regards what belongs to the condition of human nature but it belongs to the condition of human nature that the health of the body and its nourishment and growth are not subject to the bidding of reason or will since natural things are subject to God alone who is the author of nature therefore they were not subject in Christ therefore Christ's soul was not omnipotent with regard to his own body as stated above in article 2 first in its proper nature and power and in this way as it was incapable of making exterior bodies swerve from the course and order of nature so too was it incapable of changing its own body from its natural disposition since the soul of its own nature has a determinate relation to its body secondly Christ's soul may be viewed as an instrument united in the person to God's word and thus every disposition of his own body was wholly subject to his power nevertheless since the power of an action is not properly attributed to the instrument but to the principal agent this omnipotence is attributed to the word of God rather than to its soul reply to objection 1 this saying of Damascene refers to the divine will of Christ since as he says in the preceding chapter in On the True Faith 19 14 and 15 it was by the consent of the divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what was proper to it reply to objection 2 it was no part of the original justice which Adam had in his state of innocence that a man's soul should have the power of changing his own body to any form but that it should keep it from any hurt yet Christ could have assumed even this power if he had wished but since man has three states notably innocence sin and glory even as from the state of glory he assumed comprehension and from the state of innocence freedom from sin so also from the state of sin did he assume the necessity of being under the penalties of this life as will be said in question 14 article 2 reply to objection 3 if the imagination be strong the body obeys naturally in some things for example as regards falling from a beam set on high since the imagination was formed to be a principle of local motion as is said in On the Soul of the body 9 and 10 so too as regards alteration in heat and cold and their consequences for the passions of the soul where with the heart is moved naturally follow the imagination and thus by commotion of the spirits the whole body is altered but the other corporeal dispositions which have no natural relation to the imagination are not transmuted by the imagination however strong it is for example the shape of the hand or foot or such like 4th article whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence as regards the execution of his will objection 1 he would seem that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence as regards the execution of his own will for it is written in Mark 7 24 that entering into a house he would that no man should know it could not be hid therefore he could not carry out the purpose of his will in all things objection 2 further a command is a sign of will as was said in the first part question 19 article 12 but our Lord commanded certain things to be done and the contrary came to pass for it is written in Matthew 9 verses 30 and 31 that Jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been opened saying see that no man know this but they going out to spread his fame abroad in all that country therefore he could not carry out the purpose of his will in everything objection 3 further a man does not ask from another for what he can do himself but our Lord besought the father praying for what he wished to be done for it is written in Luke 6 verse 12 he went out into the mountain to pray and he passed the whole night in the prayer of God therefore he could not carry out the purpose of his will in all things on the contrary Augustine says in on questions of the Old and New Testament question 87 it is impossible for the will of the Savior not to be fulfilled nor is it possible for him to will what he knows ought not to come to pass I answer that Christ's soul willed things in two ways first what was to be brought about by himself and it must be said that he was capable of whatever he willed thus since it would not be fit his wisdom if he willed to do anything of himself that was not subject to his will secondly he wished things to be brought about by the divine power as the resurrection of his own body and such like miraculous deeds which he could not affect by his own power except as the instrument of the Godhead as was said above in article 2 reply to objection 1 as Augustine says in his questions on the Old and New Testament question 77 what came to pass this Christ must be said to have willed for it must be remarked that this happened in the country of the Gentiles to whom it was not yet time to preach yet it would have been invidious not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith hence he did not wish to be heralded by his own and yet he wished to be sought and so it came to pass or it may be said that this will of Christ was not with regard to what was to be carried out by it but with regard to what was to be done by others which did not come under his human will hence in the letter of Pope Agatha which was approved in the 6th council we read when he the creator and redeemer of all wished to be hid and could not must not this be referred only to his human will which he deigned to assume in time reply to objection 2 as Gregory says in his commentary in Job 19 by the fact that our Lord charged his mighty works to be kept secret he gave an example to his servants coming after him that they should wish their miracles to be hidden and yet that others may profit by their example they are made public against their will and thus this command signified his will to fly from human glory according to John 8 verse 50 yet he wished absolutely and especially by his divine will that the miracle wrought should be published for the good of others reply to objection 3 Christ prayed both for things that were to be brought about by divine power and for what he himself was to do by his human will since the power and operation of Christ's soul depend on God who works in all both to be able and to accomplish as is stated in Philippians 213 End of question 13 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC Question 14 of Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Savior This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit Summa Theologica Terziapars Treaties on the Savior Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican province Question 14 of the defects of body Assumed by the Son of God We must now consider the defects Christ assumed in the human nature and first of the defects of body Secondly, of the defects of soul Under the first head there are four points of inquiry First, whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature defects of body Second, whether he assumed the obligation of being subject to these defects Third, whether he contracted these defects Fourth, whether he assumed all these defects First article, whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of body Objection one, it would seem that the Son of God ought not to have assumed human nature with defects of body For as his soul is personally united to the Word of God so also is his body But the soul of Christ had every perfection Both of grace and truth as was said above in Question 7 Article 9 as well as in Question 9 Hence, his body also ought to have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it Objection two further The soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision as was said above in Question 9 Article 2 And thus the soul of Christ was blessed Now by the beatification of the soul, the body is glorified Since as Augustine says in a letter God made the soul of a nature so strong That from the fullness of its blessedness, there pours over even into the lower nature That is the body That is the vigor of incorruptibility Therefore the body of Christ was incorruptible and without any defect Objection three further Penalty is the consequence of fault But there was no fault in Christ according to 1 Peter 2, 22 Who did no guile Objection four Objection four Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his proper end But by such like bodily defects the end of the incarnation seems to be hindered in many ways First, because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing him According to Isaiah 53 verses 2 and 3 There was no sightliness that we should be desirous of him Despised and the most abject of men A man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity And his look was, as it were, hidden and despised Whereupon we esteemed him not Secondly, because the desire of the fathers would not seem to be fulfilled In whose person it is written in Isaiah 51 9 Arise, arise, put on thy strength O thou arm of the Lord Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the devil's power to be overcome And man's weakness healed By strength than by weakness Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting that the Son of God assumed human nature with infirmities On the contrary, it is written in Hebrews 2.18 For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succor them also that are tempted Now he came to succor us Hence David said of him in Psalm 120 verse 1 I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains From whence help shall come to me Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us I answer that It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects and especially for three reasons First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God having taken flesh came into the world Now one satisfies for another sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other But these bodily defects to which death, hunger, thirst and the like are the punishment of sin which was brought into the world by Adam according to Romans 5.12 By one man sin entered into this world and by sin death Hence it was useful for the end of the incarnation that he should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead according to Isaiah 53 verse 4 Surely he hath born our infirmities Secondly, in order to cause belief in the incarnation for since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects If the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects he would not have seemed to be true man nor to have true but imaginary flesh as the Manicheans held And so as is said in Philippians 2.7 He emptied himself taking the form of a servant being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man Hence Thomas by the sight of his wounds was recalled by faith as related in John 20 verse 26 Thirdly, in order to show us an example of patients by valiantly bearing up against human passability and defects and so it is said in Hebrews 12.3 that he endured such opposition from sinners against himself that you be not worried fainting in your minds Reply to Objection 1. The penalties one suffers for sin are the matter as it were of the satisfaction for that sin But the principle is the habit of soul whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity as will be explained in the Supplementum 14.2 Hence it behoved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards the habit of knowledge and virtue in order to have the power of satisfying but his body was subject to infirmities that the matter of satisfaction should not be wanting Reply to Objection 2. From the natural relationship which is between the soul and the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory Yet this natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of his Godhead and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in the soul and did not flow into the body But the flesh suffered what belongs to a passable nature as Damascene says in On the True Faith 3.15 that it was by the consent of the divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it. Reply to Objection 3 Punishment always follows sin actual or original, sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers the punishment satisfies And so it was with Christ according to Isaiah 53 verse 5 He was wounded for our iniquities He was bruised for our sins Reply to Objection 4. The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede but greatly furthered the end of the incarnation as above stated And although these infirmities concealed his Godhead, they made known his manhood which is the way of coming to the Godhead according to Romans 5.1 By Jesus Christ we have access to God Moreover, the ancient fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ but spiritual strength wherewith he vanquished the devil of human weakness. Second article Whether Christ was of necessity subject to these defects Objection 1. You would see that Christ was not of necessity subject to these defects for it is written in Isaiah 53.7 He was offered because it was his own will And the prophet is speaking of the offering of the passion and the will is opposed to necessity Therefore Christ was not of necessity subject to bodily defects Objection 2 further Damascene says in On the True Faith 3.20 Nothing obligatory is seen in Christ all is voluntary Now what is voluntary is not necessary Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ Objection 3 further Necessity is induced by something more powerful but no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ to which it pertained to preserve his own body Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ On the contrary the apostle says in Romans 8.3 Now it is the condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying and suffering other like passions Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in Christ's flesh I answer that necessity is two fold One is a necessity of constraint brought about by an external agent which is contrary to both nature and will since these flow from an internal principle The other is natural necessity resulting from the natural principles either the form or the matter as it is necessary for a body composed of contraries to be dissolved Hence with this necessity which results from the matter Christ's body was subject to the necessity of death and other like defects since as we said in article 1 second reply It was by the consent of the divine will that the flesh was allowed to do and suffer what belonged to it and this necessity results from the principles of human nature as was said above in this article But if we speak of necessity of constraint as repugnant to the bodily nature Thus again was Christ's body in its own natural condition subject to necessity in regard to the nail that pierced and the scourge that struck Yet in as much as necessity is repugnant to the will it is clear that in Christ these defects were not of necessity as regards either the divine will or the human will of Christ considered absolutely as following the deliberation of reason and the natural movement of the will in as much as it naturally shrinks from death and bodily hurt Christ is said to be offered because it was his own will that is divine will and deliberate human will although death was contrary to the natural movement of his human will as Damascene says in On the True Faith 3 Reply to Objection 2 Nothing was more powerful than Christ's soul absolutely yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more powerful in regard to this or that effect as a nail for piercing and this I say insofar as Christ's soul is considered in its own proper nature and power Objection 1 it would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects for we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth but Christ together with human nature derived his bodily defects and infirmities through his birth from his mother whose flesh was subject to these defects therefore it seems that he contracted these defects Objection 2 further what is caused by the principles of nature is derived together with nature and hence is contracted now these penalties are caused by the principles of human nature therefore Christ contracted them Objection 3 further Christ is likened to other men in these defects as is written in Hebrews 2.17 but other men contract these defects therefore it seems that Christ contracted these defects on the contrary these defects are contracted through sin according to Romans 512 by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death now sin had no place in Christ therefore Christ did not contract these defects I answer that in the verb to contract is understood the relation of effect to cause that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin since by sin death entered into this world according to Romans 512 and hence they who incur these defects as due to sin are properly said to contract them now Christ had not these defects as due to sin since as Augustine expounding upon John 3.31 he that cometh from above is above all says Christ came from above that is from the height of human nature which it had before the fall of the first man for he received human nature without sin in the purity which it had in the state of innocence in the same way he might have assumed human nature without defects thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon himself as due to sin but by his own will reply to objection one the flesh of the virgin was conceived in original sin translators note see introductory note to question 27 he never contracted these defects but from the virgin Christ's flesh assumed the nature without sin and he might likewise have assumed the nature without its penalties but he wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out the work of our redemption as stated above in article one therefore he had these defects not that he contracted them but that he assumed them reply to objection two cause of death and other corporeal defects of human nature is twofold the first is remote and results from the material principles of the human body in as much as it is made up of contraries but this cause was held in check by original justice hence the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin whereby original justice is withdrawn and thus because Christ was without sin not to have contracted these defects but to have assumed them reply to objection three Christ was made like to other men in the quality and not in the cause of these defects and hence unlike others he did not contract them fourth article whether Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of man objection one but Christ came to cure all our defects therefore he ought to have assumed all our defects objection two further it was said in article one that in order to satisfy for sins Christ ought to have had perfective men but Christ came to cure all our defects therefore he ought to have assumed all our defects he ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of body now as regards the soul he assumed the fullness of all grace therefore as regards the body he ought to have assumed all defects objection three further amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief place now Christ assumed death much more therefore ought he to have assumed other defects on the contrary contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the same now some infirmities are contrary to each other being caused by contrary principles hence it could not be that Christ assumed all human infirmities I answer that as stated above in articles one and two Christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature and for this it was necessary for him to have the fullness of knowledge and grace in his soul hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace and thus it was not fitting for him to assume all human defects or infirmities for there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace as ignorance a pronuss towards evil and a difficulty in well-doing some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent but are caused in some men by certain particular causes as leprosy epilepsy and the like and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of man in ordinate eating sometimes by a defect in the formative power now neither of these pertains to Christ since his flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost who has infinite wisdom and power and cannot air or fail and he himself did nothing wrong in order of his life but there are some third defects to be found amongst all men in common the perfection of the sin of our first parent as death, hunger, thirst and the like and all these defects Christ assumed which damascene in on the true faith 111 and 320 calls natural and indetractable passions natural as following all human age from common indetractable as implying no defect of knowledge or grace reply to objection one all particular defects of men are caused by the corruptibility and passability of the body some particular causes being added and since Christ healed the passability and corruptibility of our body by assuming it he consequently healed all other defects reply to objection two the fullness of all grace and knowledge was due to Christ's soul of itself from the fact of its being assumed by the word of God and hence Christ assumed all the fullness of knowledge and wisdom absolutely but he assumed our defects economically in order to satisfy for our sin and not that they belong to him or himself hence it was not necessary for him to assume them all but only such as suffice to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature reply to objection three death comes to all men from the sin of our first parent but not other defects although they are less than death hence there is no priority.