Tertia Pars
Lecture 32: Christ's Knowledge: Divine and Created

Transcript
================================================================================

Now, what about Benedict XVI here now? I'm going to find out about him. To the sixth one goes forward thus. It seems that to be head of the church is not private to Christ. For it is said in the first king, chapter 50, when you were little in your eyes, you were made head in the tribes of Israel. Therefore, it seems for the same reason that another man besides Christ can be the head of the church. Moreover, from this, Christ is said to be the head of the church, that he pours grace upon the members of the church. But thus also to others it pertains to what? Give grace to others, according to that of Ephesians 4. Let what? Let no bad speech proceed from your mouth. But if there is someone that is good to the building up of faith, that you give grace to those hearing, right? That's what you should say. Therefore, it seems that there are others than Christ to whom it belongs to be the head of the church. Moreover, Christ, from the fact that he presides in the church, not only is said to be the head, but also the pastor and the foundation of the church. But not only to himself does Christ retain the name of pastor, according to that of 1 Peter 5, when there appears the prince of pastors, right, who receive a, what, unfading crown of glory. Or even the name of foundation, according to that of Apocalypse 21. The wall of the city having 12 foundations, that's the 12 apostles. That's why when Thomas talks about the 12 articles of the faith, sometimes he playfully attributes one article to each of the apostles. Each of them are, you know, a role in emphasizing that. Which is why I follow the division into 12 rather than into 14. I like to keep the apostles there. Kind of foundation there. Therefore, it seems also that the name of, in addition to the name of head, be retained solely for him, right? But against this is what is said in Colossians 2. The head of the church is that from which the body, through the connections and the nerves and so on, one is, what, constructed and administered, growing in the growth of, what, God. That this belongs to Christ alone. Thomas says, I answer it should be said that the head flows upon the other members in two ways. In one way by a, what, inside, huh? Flowing in. Insofar as the moving power and the sensitive power from the head is derived to the other members. In another way, according to a certain exterior governing, according as, according to sight of the senses, which are rooted in the head, a man is directed in his, what, exterior actions, huh? Now, the interior flowing in of grace cannot be from anyone except from Christ alone, whose humanity, from the fact that it is joined to the divinity, has the power of, what, justifying. But the flowing in upon the members of the church as regards the exterior governing can also belong to others, huh? And according to this, some others can be called, what, heads of the church, huh? According to that of Amos VI, the highest, what, heads of the people, right? The excellent, or most excellent heads of the people. But nevertheless, in a different way from Christ, huh? First, as regards this, that Christ is the head of all of those who pertain to the church, according to every place and time and state. Other men are said to be heads, according to some special places, as the bishops of their, what, churches. Or even according to a determined time, as the pope is the head of the whole church, in the time, that is to say, of his, what, pontificate. And according to a, what, determined status, as they are in the state of the wayfarer, huh? Another way, according as Christ is the head of the church by his own virtue and authority. But others are said to be heads insofar as they, what, yeah, their face to Egypt, so. According to that is 2 Corinthians 2, for I also, what I have given, right? If I have given anything, on account of you and the person of Christ. And we, what? Our legates of Christ, huh? As it were, exhorting you to God through us, right? Or as it were, God exhorting you to us, right? So, right, we're a tool, right, of being used by God, huh? So, in some sense, he admits heads, right? But these qualifications, right? You're head of the church for a time. Or you're head of this diocese, right? Or you're, what? A head to my authority, huh? Now, that word in Kings, that was quoted in the first objection, he says, that word should be understood according as the notion of head is considered from exterior governing, as a king is said to be the head of his, what? Kingdom, huh? And the second objection about grace. Man does not give grace by flowing in inwardly, but by persuading in exterior way to those things which are of, what? Grace, huh? Now, what about the next thing about pastors and fundamental? To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says, upon John, if those, what? Placed before, right, in the church are pastors, in what way is a one pastor? Except because all those are, what? Yeah, so we're all, we said, the one pastor is Christ, huh? And likewise, others are said to be foundations and heads, in so far as they are members of the one head and the one, what? Foundation, huh? And, and nevertheless, as Augustine says there, huh? What is a pastor gives, what? To his members, right? But to be the gate, right? None of us is called, right? For this he keeps as, what? Proper to himself, huh? This is in those, what? Chapters of the Last Supper, right? In John, where he says, I'm the gate, too, right? And this, because in the ostium, that's the gate, isn't it? Implies the, what? Chief authority, huh? Insofar as the gate is that through which all come into the, what? House. And Christ alone is the one to whom we have access in his, in the grace in which we, what, stand, huh? But through the other four said names that could be implied an authority not only principle, but also a secondary one, huh? Well, we should go on to the eel here. Sure. A little timer. A little timer. A little timer. A little timer. I'm really interested in one who my head is. To the seventh one goes forward thus, it seems that the devil is not the head of the bad, right? For to the notion of head pertains that he pour in sense and motion members, as is said by certain gloss on that passage in Ephesians 1, he gave the head and so on. But the devil does not have the power of what? Pouring in the evil sin, which proceeds from the will of the one sinning. Therefore, the devil cannot be said to be the head of the bad. Something they can put down there. Moreover, through each sin, a man becomes what? Bad, right? But not all sins are from the devil, which is manifest from the sins of the what? Demons? The sin, not from the... Yeah. He's playing with regard to the demons, who did not sin through the persuasion of one another. Sin on their own, following all those sin on their own. Likewise, nor does every sin of man proceed from the devil. For he said in the book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas, not all of our bad thoughts are always, what, aroused by the instinct of the devil, right? But sometimes they emerge from the motion of our own, what, judgment. Therefore, the devil is not the head of all those who are bad, huh? Get bad on your own, huh? That's what he says about the very name of it. You don't need the devil to sin every time you sin, you can do it by yourself. Mm-hmm. Perfect people. Moreover, one head is what? Moreover, one body? But the whole multitude of those who are bad, evil, does not seem to have something in which they're united. Because bad is, what, sometimes contrary to the bad, huh? But happens from diverse defects, as Darnitius said. Therefore, the devil cannot be said to be the head of all. We're bad, right? But against this is what is said upon that of Job 18. The memory of him perishes on the earth. And the gloss says there, and the gloss here is what? From Gregory, I guess. I don't know what my footnote says. About each one who is bad is said as to his head, that is to the devil turned back to him, right? So, somebody as great as Gregory the Great? Calling him the head, huh? I answer it should be said that, as has been said above, A head not only, what, interiorly or inwardly flows into members, but also it governs them in a, what, outward way, right? Directing their acts to some, what, end, huh? Thus, therefore, it is able to be said that some head of some multitude, somebody said to be the head of some multitude, or according to both, right? According to an inward inflowing and an outward governing. And thus, Christ is said to be the head of the church. Or according to own and exterior governing. And thus, each prince or preliate is the head of the multitude subject to him. And in this way, the devil is said to be the head of all bad. For he said, Job 41, He is the king over all the sons of pride. That's a beautiful passage there, right? That's the original sin of the devil, right? His pride, huh? They're on his envy for us, and so on. But he's said here, very strong, about his being a ruler here. He is the king, right? C.S. Rex, over all the sons of pride. It pertains over to the governor that those whom he governs, he leads them to his end. But the end of the devil is a turning away of the reasonable creature from God. Whence in the beginning he tempted man away from the obedience of the divine precept, right? Or he tempted him away from obeying that. Now, this is very interesting. That aversion from God has the ratio of an end insofar as is desired under the likeness of liberty. I'll say, have you kind of careful about this democracy? Liberty, egalite, egalite. From the ages you broke the, what? Yoke, huh? You bonds. You said, I will not serve, huh? Insofar, therefore, as some are led to this end by sinning, they fall under the, what? Rule and governing of the devil. And from this he is said to be their, what? Head, huh? And the first objection he says, well, although the devil does not flow inwardly to the rational mind, nevertheless, by suggestion, he induces to evil. Shakespeare says, sweet, suggesting love, huh? From Shakespeare? Yeah. Do you remember? Not offhand, no. Yeah. The second one is about the, what? Not all sins are from the devil. To the second it should be said, that the governor does not always suggest to each one that, what? To his will. But he proposes to all a sign of his will, right? To the following of which, some are roused to be led, right? Others by, what? Their own spontaneity, right? Just as it's clear in the leader of the army, whose sign, right? The soldiers follow, even with no one persuaded, right? Thus, therefore, the first sin, the devil, who from the beginning sinned, as it said in 1 John, verse 3, is proposed to all, for what? To follow, right? Which some imitate by suggestion of him, right? Some by their own, what? Spontaneous will, right? Without any suggestion, right? And thus, he is ahead of all the bad, the devil, insofar as they, what? Imitate him, right? According to that of Wisdom, Chapter 2. By the end of the devil, death entered into the world, and they imitate him, who are of his side. Now, what do all these sins have in common? Because they're all, quite often, different things. All sins come together in turning away from God, right? Although they differ from each other, by their turning towards, what? Different, changeable goods, right, huh? But it's abortion business, you know, you think the devil's really ahead of this, and it's kind of, you know, leading us to hate ourselves, right? In the abortion, of course, he's the one who chiefly hates us. But it's devilish that he would lead us, if he could, those he hates, to hate themselves. Special hatred of the mother. And Shakespeare said, this above all, to the own self be true. It must follow us the night, the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. So in a sense, the woman, she chooses abortion, she's being false to herself, right? And consequently, false to her baby, and false to her husband, yeah. There's so many different levels of self-loathing within the culture that have been propagated, you know, for centuries now. And, yeah, it's stung. How much people can hate me, yeah? Those even come close, how much I hate myself. When he was known in prison. Look at this last one here now. Whether the Antichrist is the head of the evil, right? To this eighth one goes forward thus. It seems that the Antichrist is not the head of the evil. For of one body there are not diverse heads. But the devil is the head of the multitude of those who are bad. Therefore the Antichrist is not their head. Moreover, Antichrist is a member of the devil. But the head is distinguished from the members. Therefore the Antichrist is not the head of the evil. Moreover, the head has influence on the members. But the Antichrist has no influence upon the bad men who came before him. Therefore the Antichrist is not the head of the bad. But against this is what Job, upon that verse 29, asked him, right, about the wayfarers. The glass says, When one speaks about the body of all the bad, suddenly to the, what, head of all the bad, one turns the words, right? But who is that head? The Antichrist, huh? So, who is this glass now? It's Gregory again, right? Yeah. I guess the Morali a lot is based on Job, isn't it, huh? It's Morali and Job. Thomas quotes a lot of Morali in the second part there when he's talking. Because you have the species of pride in there and all kinds of wonderful things. Well, Thomas wrote the greatest work on evil, right? The question is disputate de malo. That's really it. You want to know about evil, don't you? The powers of opposites. Yeah. The answer should be said, as has been said above, in a natural head, three things are found. Order, perfection, right? And the power of flowing in or influencing. Now, as regards the order of time, the Antichrist is not said to be the head of the bad, as a word that his, what, sin precedes, as there preceded the sin of the devil, right? So, in that sense, the devil is more of the head, right? Likewise, he's not said to be the head of the bad on account of the power of flowing into them or influencing them. If, however, some of his time he converts to the evil, inducing them to do so in an exterior way, huh? Not, however, those who were, what, before him were led by him to evil, right? Nor do they imitate his evil like they imitated the evil of the devil, huh? Whence, in this way, he cannot be said to be the head of all the bad, but of some, right? It remains, therefore, that he's said to be the head of all the evil on account of the perfection of his, what, malice, huh? Whence, upon that, is 2 Thessalonians 2, 4. Showing himself, as it were, God, right, huh? Just as in Christ, the gloss says, huh? All fullness of the divinity inhabits, so in the Antichrist, the fullness of all, what, malice, huh? Not that his humanity is assumed by the devil and the unity of a person, as the humanity of Christ was by the Son of God, huh? But because the devil, his evil, more eminently, flows into him, by way of suggestion, than all others, huh? And according to this, all other, what, evil ones who preceded are, as it were, a figure of the Antichrist, right? Because he has it in the fullness, right? According to that, in 2 Thessalonians, the mystery of iniquity, he, what? So it's something we look forward to, the Antichrist. Well, sometimes the apostles say he's already in the world, right? You know, there's some kind of thing. Now, what about there being two heads? Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the devil and the Antichrist are not two heads, but one, right? Why? Because the Antichrist is said to be a head insofar as most fully in him is impressed the evil of the, what? The malice of the devil, right? Whence upon that of 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4, showing himself as it were God, right? The gloss says, In him will be the, what? The head of all evils to wit the devil, right? Who is the king? Or upon all sons of what? Right. This text says that it is so to be the same as the last one. But it is not said to be in him through a personal union, right? Nor by an intrinsic habitation, right? Because the Trinity alone is, what? Inside the mind, right? But through the effect of his, what? Malice, right? Is this relating to possession? Well, it's a bit like, you know, when Judas is about to betray our Lord, right? And the devil entered into him, right? And Thomas says, Well, it's not in the way which God enters into us, right? But he's under his, what? Control or power, right? So, there's a little difference there, right? Like a comparison, huh? My head is distinguished to the members and so on. Head of a head, huh? To the second, it should be said that just as the head of Christ is God, and nevertheless, Christ is the head of the church, right? So the Antichrist is a member of the devil, and nevertheless, he is, in some sense, the, what? Head of the evil, right? What about the, what? Influence, right, huh? Well, and especially in regard to those who came before. To the third, it should be said that the Antichrist is not said to be the head of all, what? The wicked, on account of the likeness of influence, but on account of the likeness of perfection. In him, right, the devil, as it were, right, brings his, what? Evil to a head. In the way in which someone is said to, what? Bring his attention to a head, right? When he, what? Perfects it, right? So, a couple of worthies there, we heard about him at the last two, two articles here, huh? And one is even worse than the other. Now, a teacher could say, don't try and be as bad as the devil, you just can't, you won't succeed. He can't be as good as God, obviously. He can't even be as bad as the devil. Your choice for preeminence in either direction is cut off. We should be the other. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Praise for us. And help us to understand what you've written. Father, thank you. So after question nine now, he's going to take up the knowledge of Christ. Then we're not to consider about the knowledge of Christ. And about this, two things are to be considered. First, what knowledge did Christ have? What kind of knowledge did he have? And apparently there's going to be more than one kind of knowledge that he has. And secondly, about each one of these, what? Yeah. So this is about the knowledge in general. So about the first four things are asked. First, whether Christ had some knowledge besides the knowledge he had as God. Secondly, whether he had the knowledge which the blessed have, or those who have grasped the end, the comprehensores. Third, whether he had a, what? Innate knowledge, right? Or one that was poured into him, huh? And third, whether he had some acquired knowledge, huh? We've come through experience and so on. So the first article. Whether in Christ there was some knowledge besides the divine. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that in Christ there was not any knowledge besides his divine knowledge. Because knowledge is necessary for this, that through it some things are known. Well, that's pretty hard to deny. But Christ, through the divine knowledge, knew all things, huh? And therefore it was superfluous, it would be superfluous for there to be in him some other knowledge, huh? I suppose you could ask that question about the blessed, right? If they see God face to face and do all these things and seeing him, why would they still have my Euclidean geometry and so on in my head? It'd still be there? Moreover, a lesser light is, what? Blocked out, so to speak, through a greater light, huh? But it's like the light of the stars isn't seen in the day because of the greater light of the sun. But every created knowledge is compared to the uncreated knowledge of God as a lesser light, very lesser light. To a greater light, huh? Therefore, in Christ there did not, what? Shine forth any other knowledge than the, what? Divine, huh? Moreover, this is the third objection now, the union of human nature to the divine was made in the person, huh? As is clear from the things said above. But there is placed in Christ, according to some, a certain knowledge of the union, huh? By which to wit Christ, to those things which pertain to the misincarnation, those things which pertain to the misincarnation, he knew more fully right than anyone else. Since, therefore, the personal union contains two natures, it would seem that in Christ there are not two knowledges, but only one knowledge pertaining to both natures. That's a little hard to see that. It's the force of that argument, huh? I suppose that scienza unionis means that, what? Tied up with the hypostatic union. There's only one person there. There's only one knowledge, huh? But against this is what the great Ambrose says, one of the four major doctors, or four or five doctors of the Western Church, in the book about the incarnation, huh? That God, in the flesh, took on the perfection of human nature. He took on the, what? Yeah, sense of man, but not a, what? Inflated sense of flesh, huh? Isn't that what we got? Therefore, to the sense of man pertains created knowledge. Therefore, in him, there was some other knowledge besides the, what? Divine, huh? He says, I answer it should be said, that this is clear from the thing said before, that the Son of God took on a, what? Complete human nature. That is not a body only, but also a, what? Soul. There were some heretics who said that the divinity was in place of the soul, but no. That he would not have taken on in complete human nature. Not human nature at all, really. Nor only a sensing soul, right? Which some said that, you know, they modified it a bit and said, well, he had a sensing soul, but his understanding was only in his divinity. But then again, he would not be a man, right? Right, he'd be a beast, yeah. But he took on a, what? Rational, a reasonable soul, right? Assuming that, or taking that for granted. And therefore, it's necessary that he would have, because of that, created knowledge. And this, an account of three reasons, huh? And the first, he says, is for the sake of the perfection of his soul. For the soul, considered by itself, right? Is in ability, in potency, to knowing, what? Understandable things, huh? But sometimes we actually understand, sometimes we understand only in, what? Ability, right? So originally, we're in ability. And therefore, Aristotle, in the third book about the soul, compares it to a, what? Tabula, table. It's a paper, in a sense. In which nothing has yet been, what? Written in the beginning, huh? And nevertheless, it is possible to write in it, huh? On account of the possible understanding, in which, as he says there in the third book on the soul, all things can, what? When Aristotle instead, he gets through talking about the senses and reason or the understanding of the third book, then he comes back to the soul and says that the soul is, in some way, all things, huh? And because by sensing and understanding, you take in the natures of other things and the qualities of other things. And I was reading in the 46th chapter this morning of the Summa Kantu Gentiles, which is the beginning of the third part of the second book, the 46th chapter. And he's talking about how, for the perfection of the universe, you need intellectual creatures like you and me and the angels, huh? And he gives, you know, six different reasons for this. But the sixth reason, he says that in things well-ordered, right, the relation of the first to the second, huh, is like that of the second to the, what? Third. Or maybe vice versa, second is to the third, like the first to the second. Well, it's kind of interesting that Aristotle should say that the highest thing in the material world, the human soul, right, is in some way all things. That's like God, right? And God, in a much more perfect way, is all things, right? So God is to the whole of creation, like all things, right? And our soul is to the rest of the material world in some way as, what, all things, huh? Interesting proportion there. So Shakespeare defines reason, first of all, as a capability, right? And that's something, an ability, right? Well, what is an ability but not an act is, what, imperfect, right? So he says, what is an ability is imperfect unless it be reduced to act. But it would not be suitable that the Son of God took on, what, an imperfect human nature. But it would not be suitable that the Son of God took on, what, an imperfect human nature. But it would not be suitable that the Son of God took on, what, an imperfect human nature. But it would not be suitable that the Son of God took on, what, an imperfect human nature. perfect one, right? Why? Because by means of this human nature he took on, he was going to what? Bring the whole human race to perfection. Well, it's the perfect that brings the imperfect to perfection, it's not the imperfect. And therefore it's necessary that the soul of Christ was perfect to some knowledge which was its own what? Perfection. And therefore it was necessary in Christ that there be some knowledge apart from the divine knowledge. Otherwise the soul of Christ would be more imperfect than all the souls of other men. I'm convinced by that argument. He's going to give us two more. Moreover since each thing is for the sake of its own what? Operation. As is said in the second book about the what? The universe is actually a title of Aristotle's work. But they call it in Latin today, Chelo Mundo, right? But the word Chelo which is used to translate the Greek word, the Greek word can mean the heavens or can mean the whole universe. So Aristotle's work was actually a title of Greek about the universe. But it got translated about the heavens and said well it's not just about the heavens, it's about the earth too. So they call that work. That's the second book in natural philosophy, after the books of natural hearing. What did Aristotle mean by that said each thing was because of its operation? Yeah, in other words, the eyes for the sake of seeing, right? Yeah, it's operation, right? And the abilities for the sake of that. The abilities for the sake of playing piano, and so on. So that's the end or purpose, right? You see, on the account of the sake of. Therefore, Christ would have an understanding soul in vain, right? Fustra. If you did not understand something, buy it, huh? And this pertains to what? Created knowledge, huh? Third, he says, huh? Because some created knowledge belongs to the nature of the human soul, to wit, that to which we naturally know the first, what? Beginnings. For we take here, in a large sense, right? Knowledge for any knowledge of the, what? Human soul. That's what I was translating, sciencia. Not by science, but by knowledge. So some things that our reason naturally knows, or naturally comes to know. And these are the, what? Called the axioms in philosophy sometimes. Like the whole is more than a part, right? That nothing is a beginning of itself. So nothing of what is natural was, what? Lacking in Christ, huh? Because he took the whole human nature, as has been said above. And therefore, in the sixth, what? Synod, huh? Was condemned, huh? The position of those denying that in Christ there were two, what? What? Knowledge is, or two, what? Wisdoms, right? Yeah, that's nice, huh? That's nice to the argument, huh? Beautiful, right? I couldn't say it better myself. I agree. The first argument, I'm not going to understand what he means by, he wouldn't be right for him to assume imperfect human nature. If the human nature, he assumed, didn't have any knowledge in it, like, when we get our human nature, we don't have any knowledge. No, no. But Christ is going to perfect us in knowledge and in grace, right? So therefore, it pertained to him to have, what? Both knowledge and grace in his human nature. So he could, what? His human nature could be a tool, right, of his divinity for perfecting us in grace and in knowledge. Okay. So he is saying that he had perfect knowledge from the beginning. Yeah, right? Yeah, yeah. But my point is, he wouldn't have an imperfect human nature. A human nature born without knowledge is not an imperfect human nature, right? That's the way human nature is. Yeah, he'll come to talk later on when he breaks down in various kinds. He's also going to have a knowledge, I think, that he acquires in the course of time, right? Which would be a completely human knowledge, right? Okay? Because the beatetic vision, right, is something his human soul has, right? And that's not the knowledge that he has in his divinity of himself, right? And he's going to have also a kind of infused knowledge like the angels have, right? Right. He's also going to have the human, right? Right. Okay? But from the very beginning of his incarnation, right, he's the source for us of all these things. So Thomas will say, I mean, St. John will say, right, we saw him as the only begotten Son of God, right? Full of grace and truth as if one necessarily, what, follows upon the other, right? Right. So whenever any human being is from potency to act in the realm of knowledge, Christ is causing it? Well, we'll see what he says about that in particular, about how he does this, right? But he is the source of the higher knowledge for us, huh? Supernatural knowledge, I think? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Will he be the source of natural knowledge? Well, as God he is, yeah. He's the light who enlightens every man who comes into this world, right? And sometimes I take that as being said, first of all, the natural light of reason. But because not everybody is enlightened by the light of faith, huh? But you might say that's being said of the word in his divinity, right? Okay. But he's going to, you know, he says he came to teach us, right? And so on. It's also, in terms of the distinction between the natural light which is where he gives us by his divinity, and the supernatural light of faith. Because our Lord says elsewhere in the same gospel, John says, the light came into the world and men preferred darkness. That's a different light. I just think, you know, we have a brother here who was influenced by a certain philosopher who mentioned her name. Heretic. Yeah, Heretic. So, it seems to me that the first argument is an argument in fittingness, right? It's not, it's convenient, it's fitting. Yeah, but even more than that, though, it's the idea that the perfect is what perfects other things, right? So, if Christ is going to perfect other things, then he has a perfection whereby he can do that, yeah. Yeah, because he had another argument in fittingness, saying, but isn't there a certain fittingness in Christ not having been born of perfect knowledge so that he could be like us in all things except sin? That would be... Yeah, well, you've got to be careful about that, I mean, because you don't want to attribute to Christ, you know, the imperfection of us in terms of temptation where we can fall and so on. Right, but it isn't an imperfection to be born without knowledge. It's not a human imperfection. Well, you can say, nevertheless, our mind is imperfect. I mean, it's not a privation in the strict sense, right? Imprivation is not having what you're able to have and should have and so on. So, like Thomas is always saying, I don't know if this is true about dogs, but the dog can't see until the ninth day. Because the eyes don't. Yeah, something like that. And Thomas said, but you don't call the dog blind in those first nine days in the strictest sense of blind because he's not apt to have sight in those first nine days, right? But if he gets beyond that, he still can't see, well then he'd say maybe he's blind or some deficiency, right? Or a newborn little baby boy, you can't generate, you know? You say he's impotent, you know? Now you wouldn't say it in the sense of a privation or a lack, right? Because he's not apt to be able to do this until a certain age, right? But nevertheless, there's an imperfection in the mind, right? Of the child is born, right? It's like a blank tablet upon which nothing has been written on. So even that kind of imperfection wouldn't be fitting for Christ to take on himself. You know, that seems to be like this idea of a dog, right? That can't... You've got to realize that when Christ takes on human nature, he's taking it on as a tool of his divinity, right? To perfect us in grace and knowledge and so on.