Chapter XI. Question 9

SPARAVSSSAASSEBSEASSSSBBAASBABABSASEBARBAEBEERERBEE SEBS BEE EE

CHRISTS KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL AND His Power oF CONTEMPLATION

A. the consideration of Christ’s grace, both personal and capital, we must discuss the question of His knowledge: ¹ What knowledge indeed or what kinds of knowledge did He have? (2) Then we shall inquire into each particular kind of knowledge, namely, His beatific knowledge (q. 10), His imprinted or infused knowledge (q. 11), His acquired knowledge (q. 13), that is, Christ’s intellectual life, even His most sublime contemplation.

It is therefore evident that, as St. Thomas says, “We are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect,” * even that which is not discursive. The most important article of this ninth question is the second, which inquires whether Christ had already in this life the knowledge that the blessed or comprehensors have, namely, the beatific vision. The first article, however, may be considered an introduction to the inquiries about Christ’s created knowledge.

Notice must be taken of the fact that Sacred Scripture, which is a manifestation of divine truth for the purpose of salvation, insists more on the moral and religious than on the intellectual aspects of our Lord’s life as Savior. But the idea of Christ as man is not of one who had the most sublime conception of moral and religious perfection to the exclusion of a proportionate knowledge of God, the soul, the world, the kingdom of God. It is in this way that the theologian is induced to treat of Christ’s knowledge, and he inquires what can be known of Him from Sacred Scripture, tradition, and theological reasoning.”

First ARTICLE

WHETHER CHRIST HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE BESIDES THE DIVINE

State of the question. The meaning of the title is whether Christ had any other knowledge besides the uncreated knowledge. Why is it that any other knowledge is not superfluous since the uncreated knowledge already includes all other kinds of knowledge?

Reply. The answer is in the affirmative, namely, that Christ had created knowledge as well as uncreated knowledge. The conclusion is de fide.

Scriptural proof. That Christ had created knowledge is, indeed, quite clear, for He says of Himself: “I know Him [My Father] and do keep his Word”; * but He kept his Father’s word by created actions as man. Therefore He likewise knew His Father by created knowledge. Moreover, Christ prayed, merited, obeyed, and performed many other human acts, and it is only by acts of the created intellect and of the created will that these can be performed. It was not, indeed, as God that He prayed, merited, and obeyed; for these acts presuppose the subordination of the created will under the guidance of the created intellect to the uncreated will.

Hence the Monothelites were condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople for refusing to admit two wills in Christ, namely, the uncreated will and the created will. This Council defined that Christ “is perfect both in His divine nature and in His human nature, truly God and truly man, of rational soul and body . . . and has two natural wills not contrary to each other . . . , and His human nature is in every respect human, sin absolutely excepted.” *

Medina maintains that it is manifestly heretical to deny that Christ’s soul had created knowledge, at least in act.

As John of St. Thomas observes, concerning the last sentence in the body of this article, it was not indeed defined by the Council that Christ has two kinds of knowledge, but two wills and Operations, and that He had a human nature, and all that belongs to it, except sin. From these definitions, by closer attention to the meaning than to the words, it follows that the Council condemned the view of those who deny two kinds of knowledge in Christ.

Theological proof. It is taken from the argumentative part of this article, and may be expressed in the following syllogistic form.

The human nature is imperfect without its connatural-and proper act of knowledge. But the Son of God assumed a perfect human nature. Therefore the Son of God had the connatural and proper created act of intellective knowledge.

Major. Three reasons are given for its proof.

1. That the intellective soul is imperfect unless it be reduced to its act of understanding, for which it is ordained.

2. That everything is on account of its operation, or as Cajetan explains, operating on account of itself, not that the knowledge is innate, but inasmuch as, when the terms of the principles have been proposed, the intellect naturally adheres to them.

Minor. It is revealed, but it is also clearly stated in the previously quoted canons of the Third Council of Constantinople.” Hence human intelligence would be for no purpose in Christ unless He could make use of it, and in this respect His soul would be more imperfect than the souls of the rest of mankind.

Doubt. Could Christ, as man, understand by communication from the uncreated act of understanding, as the Master of Good Hope thought? ê

Reply. This possibility is generally denied by theologians. For the act of understanding in the soul is a vital act, since it proceeds from an intrinsic principle, from the soul and its faculty. But the Deity cannot function as the soul, or a faculty, or a habit, for example, as the light of glory. In such a case it would not be the form as terminating but as confirming, and hence would be less perfect than the whole composite of which it is a part. Therefore Christ’s soul could not understand by communication from the uncreated intellect.

WHETHER CHRIST HAD KNOWLEDGE WHICH THE BLESSED OR COMPREHENSORS HAVE

State of the question. This article must be fully explained. First of all, it must be noted that Catholic theologians consider as theologically certain the doctrine that Christ’s soul was free from all ignorance, that

5 Ibid. 6 He is so called from the monastery of Good Hope in which he lived. (Tr.)

even from His conception He knew all things in the Word, which God knows by the knowledge of vision. This was formerly denied by several heretics and in our times especially by liberal Protestants and by Modernists.

Let us first consider these denials and their foundation.

The Nestorians, who said there were two persons in Christ, considered Christ as man to have been subject to ignorance and error. The Apollinarians and Anomoeans, who maintained that the Word functions as the mind in the Savior, denied all human knowledge to Christ. Likewise the Monophysites and Monothelites, who taught that there is only one operation in Christ, denied Him human knowledge. Finally, in the sixth century, the Agnoetae, under the leadership of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, contended that Christ, as other men, was subject to the corruption of the flesh and was, as a human being, ignorant.’ They quoted two Gospel texts in their defense: (1) “But of that day or hour [of the judgment], no man knoweth, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son.” $ (2) But of that day and hour no one knoweth, “not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.” °

In our times, particularly the liberal Protestants hold that Christ was ignorant of many things from the beginning, and it was only gradually that He acquired a knowledge of His mission. The disciples of Gunther ° and others, as more recently Dr. Schell, said that Christ’s knowledge was subject to the laws of human progress, and that in the beginning He did not have the beatific vision, but acquired it by His merits. Finally, the Modernists ! boldly asserted that Christ neither knew all things, nor was always conscious of His Messianic dignity, and even in some things He erred, for example, concerning the end of the world.

Against these errors, it is de fide that Christ never erred, that He even could not err, or in other words, that He was already infallible in this life. It is at least the commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine that Christ’s soul was free from ignorance. What follows makes this clear.

It is de fide that Christ, as man, was free from all error in His

knowledge, that Christ, in fact, the founder of the Church, even in this life was infallible, just as He was impeccable.

1. Sacred Scripture is evidence of this, inasmuch as Christ says of Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life.” 1? As God, He is truth and life; as man He is the way to essential truth, inasmuch as His human nature and His whole human intellectual life is personally united with essential truth. Thus, as man, He is presented to us as the master of truth, whom we must hear. “Neither be ye called masters, for one is your master, Christ,” ** and as the leader, following whom we never walk in darkness; ** who, in establishing His Church, made her infallible in her teaching, saying: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” 15 But if it had been possible for Christ to err, a fortiori the Church He established could err in her teaching.

2. Christ was not only infallible in the doctrine He delivered to His apostles, but also in His acts, as is evident from the Gospel narrative, for it says that Christ, already in this life, saw and knew the thoughts of men, and had complete knowledge of the free future, foretelling the events long before the time. Thus He foretold the circumstances of His passion, the destruction of Jerusalem, the continuance of His Church until the end of time.’®

Finally and especially in the Gospel it is recorded that Christ is the Word of God made flesh, “full of grace and truth.” ** That Christ was infallible, as we have seen, not only in the doctrine He delivered, and the events affirmed by Him, but this also follows as universally established by reason of the hypostatic union. The Word, indeed, assumed the complete human nature, but free from error and sin, for as sin is evil of the will, error is evil of the intellect; and as it is absolutely repugnant, as will be stated farther on, that the Word incarnate sinned or even was able to sin, so it was repugnant that He erred or even was able to err. For error would reflect on the very person of the Word in accordance with the adage: actions are attributed to the supposita. Hence error and sin cannot be attributed to the Word of God, who is essentially truth and holiness. Thus it is com-

monly said to be de fide that Christ, as man, the founder of the infallible Church, was infallible. To show the truth of this discursion by the explanatory method suffices, namely, an explanation of the terms of revelation, for an objectively illative method of reasoning is not necessary, namely, one by which a new truth is acquired that is not in itself revealed.

It is at least commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine, that Christ's knowledge was absolutely exempt from all ignorance and not only from error.

St. Thomas proves this, presupposing that Christ had both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge.’® But it is first fitting to manifest the truth of this assertion from Sacred Scripture and tradition, so that by a quasi a posterori method it may afterward be clearly seen how it befitted Him to have this beatific knowledge even in this life.

Sacred Scripture. The texts already quoted state clearly that Christ’s knowledge was absolutely exempt from all ignorance. Thus Christ is declared “full of grace and truth.” 1° He also knew the secrets of hearts,” as also distant objects and the free future.2* These texts, however, do not refer to His uncreated knowledge, but to His human knowledge, which governed His human operation. Therefore Christ as man was exempt from all ignorance. Thus as man He was, as He Himself said, the way that leads to the truth and life.

Tradition likewise establishes more clearly that Christ’s knowledge was immune from ignorance, especially from the declaration of St. Gregory the Great to the patriarch of Alexandria against the Agnoetae. The Pope says: “[But] concerning what is written: ‘of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,’ 2” this has been most correctly understood by your beatitude, since this text most certainly refers not to the Son, inasmuch as He is the head [of the Church], but to His body which we are. [St. Augustine] also says . . . that it can be understood of the Son, because the omnipotent God does speak at times in a human way, as when He said to Abraham: ‘Now I know that thou fearest God. ?3 It is not because then God Himself knew that He was feared but because then He

made Abraham acknowledge that he feared God. For just as we declare a day joyful, not that the day itself is joyful, but because it makes us joyful, so the omnipotent Son says that He does not know the day which He causes to be unknown, not because He does not know it, but because He does not at all permit it to be known. . . . And so the knowledge He did not have according to His human nature, which made Him, like the angels, a creature, this knowledge along with the angels who are creatures He said He did not have. There. fore He who is God and man knows the day and the hour of judgment; but the reason for this is because God is man. But the issue is most manifest, for whoever is not a Nestorian can nowise be an Agnoete. For anyone who confesses the very incarnate wisdom of God, how can he say there is anything that the wisdom of God does not know? It is also written: ‘Jesus knowing that the Father had given Him all things into His hands.’ ** If He knows all things, assuredly He knows the day and the hour of the judgment; therefore who is so foolish as to say that the Son received into His hands what He was ignorant of ?” 75

In accordance with this doctrine thus explicitly formulated by Pope St. Gregory the Great, the common teaching of theologians will always be that Christ knew the day of judgment in His human nature, but not by reason of His human nature, which means that He did not know it by the natural light of the created intellect. Thus the angels, too, know this day only if they are supernaturally enlightened.?°

Before the time of St. Gregory several Fathers spoke in a similar manner, namely, that Christ knows all things, even the day and hour of the judgment; but He is silent about this latter event, or He says He does not know because He does not permit it to be known, and because it is not expedient that men be informed about it.27 St. Augustine teaches that ignorance can in no way be attributed to that Infant in whom the Word was made flesh.?°

Sophronius *° is of the same opinion, and St. John Damascene says: “TE the flesh from the moment of conception was immediately united

27 Such are the comments of St. Basil, Adv. Eunom., Bk. IV, chap. 3.

?8 De peccatorum meritis et remissione, Bk. II, chap. 48. 29 Ep. ad Sergium, Rouet de Journel, no. 2290.

with God ... and the two constituted one identical suppositum, then how can it be that it was not endowed with absolutely all the gifts of wisdom and grace?” *° It is in this sense that the Fathers interpreted the words “full of grace and truth,” *’ concerning the Word incarnate.

In our times there are several Modernist propositions that have been condemned by the Church concerning Christ’s knowledge.*? Among these are: “The natural sense of the Gospel texts cannot be reconciled with what our theologians teach about the consciousness and infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.” ** “Christ was not always conscious of His Messianic dignity.” **

Also later on the Holy Office declared that the following propositions cannot be safely taught: (1) “There is no evidence that Christ’s soul in this life possessed that knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have; (2) That opinion cannot be called certain that concludes Christ’s soul was exempt from ignorance, but knew everything in the Word, past, present, and future, from the moment of His conception, or that He knew everything God knows by His knowledge of vision; (3) The opinion of certain more recent theologians about Christ’s limited knowledge is equally to be accepted in Catholic schools, as the opinion of the ancient theologians concerning Christ’s universal knowledge.” *°

We shall see later on, in the explanation of the article, the theological reasons given by St. Thomas for maintaining the universality of Christ’s knowledge.

Modernist objections. On the one hand, the Modernists assert that Christ erred in announcing that the end of the world was near; on the other hand, He said that He did not know the judgment day. These two objections are contradictory.

First objection. It has been examined at length by us in our work on apologetics," and there is no need to dwell upon it here. The difficulty arises from two Gospel texts. After foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and the day of judgment, Jesus says: “This genera-

33 Proposition 32.

tion shall not pass till all these things be done.” ê? In the other text it is recorded that before the transfiguration of Jesus, He said: “There are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.” 38

Reply. This last text more probably alludes to the future and proximate resurrection of Christ.** But other texts quoted from Sacred Scripture on this subject are indeed difficult to reconcile, for in this same discourse Christ spoke of both the end of Jerusalem and the end of the world, and although the first event is a figure of the second, it is difficult to detect what belongs to the first event, and what to the second. But what any particularly learned author has to say on this topic must be understood, if possible, as showing that there is no contradiction between the texts. However, as Catholic exegetes show,*® and several conservative Protestants, such as Godet and Sanday, the rationalist and Modernist interpretation is not founded on the Gospel texts, but is very much in contradiction to it.

1. Christ not only sent His apostles to the people of Israel, but He said to them: “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” ** and “Going therefore teach ye all nations.” *? He expressly says: “And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached,” ** before the second coming. Also: “And . . . many shall come from the east and the west. . . .” ** But Christ did not announce these events as taking place in the immediate future.

2. He even distinguished in point of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, saying: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, till the times of the nations be fulfilled,” *° and de facto it is trodden down. Christ especially refused to state precisely when the end of the world would be, but He said: “It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power.” *°

39 For already Christ gloriously risen from the dead, by divers aparitions, came forth as victor over the devil, sin, and death in His kingdom.

Second objection. Some of the earlier Fathers, such as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, say that Christ was ignorant of the Judgment Day.*?

Reply. These earlier Fathers were refuting the Arians and their only purpose was to bring out clearly the divinity of Christ in these texts, exempting it of every defect attributed to it, especially ignorance. Hence they said: If Christ was ignorant of the Judgment Day, He was ignorant of it not as the Word, but as man. The question of the perfection of Christ’s human knowledge had not as yet been agitated. Hence no wonder that these earlier Fathers spoke somewhat inexactly on this subject.

Moreover, we shall see that also the more recent doctors and even Scholastics say that Christ knew the Judgment Day not from His human nature, that is, not by the natural light of the created intellect, but only by supernatural enlightenment.

Third objection. Some, too, have proposed the difficulty that the Gospel records that Christ often asked questions of men, such as, what they thought of Him, where the body of Lazarus was laid, and other such questions. They say that He even expressed amazement, for example, at the faith of the centurion and the incredulity of the people.

Reply. It is evident from the Gospel narrative that Christ asked questions in a human way, and likewise expressed admiration, but this was not from lack of knowledge, for the Evangelist says: “He needed not that any should give testimony of men; for He knew what was in man.” *

It is therefore clearly established from all these texts that Christ was exempt from all error, which is de fide, and from all ignornace, which is at least theologically certain. Thus we gain a clearer understanding why the question is put about whether Christ already in this life enjoyed the beatific vision.

Did Christ, during His mortal life, enjoy the beatific vision?

Reply. The answer is that Christ did, and ever since the twelfth century it has been the traditional teaching of all theologians, so that it is at least a theologically certain truth.*®

*° Cf. Salmanticenses, De incarn., disp. 17, dub. 4, nos. 42, 44; Melchior Cano, Loe. theol., Bk. XII, chap. 14; S. R. Bellarminus, De anima Christi, Bk. I, chaps. 1, 8; Suarez, De incarn., disp. 25.

Hence the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared (June 7, 1918) that the following proposition cannot be safely taught: “There is no evidence that Christ, living among men, had in His soul the knoweldge the blessed or comprehensors have.” °°

Scriptural proof. There are, indeed, several texts in the New Testament from which it is evident that the Son of God, as God, sees the Father. Thus Jesus says of Himself: “As the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father,” 5! and “No one knoweth the Son but the Father; neither doth anyone know the Father, but the Son.” 5?

It is considerably difficult to show from these texts that Christ even as man, already in this life, saw God immediately in His essence. But there are texts in the Fourth Gospel which make it sufficiently clear that Christ as man, already in this life, saw the Father.

For in this Gospel we read: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” 5? And again: “He that cometh from above is above all... . And what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth.” * Also: “I speak that which I have seen with My Father.” 5 Hence the common method of argumentation among theologians may be expressed in the following syllogistic form.

What Christ preached as man, He knew as man, for human speech is the result of human intellectual knowledge; otherwise the Word would take the place of the rational soul in Christ, which was the contention of Appollinaris. But as man, Christ declared what He saw with the Father and in the bosom of the Father. Therefore Christ saw those things in the bosom of the Father, as man, and it is also said that He heard them, which properly belongs not to God inasmuch as He is God, but to man.

Moreover, all knowledge of divine things, exclusive of the beatific vision, pertains to the order of faith. Hence, if Christ did not see those truths that are in God, we should have to say He believed them, and thus as man He would not have known many and most sublime truths. It would have to be said of Him that concerning God He had known what He is not, instead of what He is. But we have already

seen that Christ, as man, was exempt from ignorance. Nevertheless there is truly a difference between nescience and ignorance, and it would be possible for one to say that Christ did not know the secret of God’s intimate life, but not that He was ignorant of it, simply because it was not as yet fitting for Him to know it. On the contrary, this fittingness will be clarified farther on in the theological proof from reason.

This argument is confirmed by the following Gospel text: “Not that any man hath seen the Father, but He who is of God, He hath seen the Father.” 5°

This means that He not only saw the secrets of the Father in His hidden life, but He also saw the Father Himself. The word “Vidit” is Written as a quasi-preterite so as to make it clear that this vision transcends time, or, as the theologians say, it is measured by participated eternity.

There are two other texts from the Gospel which make it manifest that Christ had consciousness of and not merely faith in His divine nature and personality. For the Evangelist records Jesus as saying: “Although I give testimony of Myself, My testimony is true, for I know whence I came and whither I go”; *’ I know and not only believe. And again He says: “I came out from God. I came forth from the Father and am come into the world.” "°, When Christ says, “I know whence I came,” He was conscious not only of His mission, but also of His divine nature and personality. But this clear consciousness of His divine nature transcends the supernatural knowledge of faith, for faith is of things not seen, and above the supernatural knowledge of faith there is only the beatific vision, as will be more clearly seen farther on.

Finally, there is another Gospel text in which Christ speaks more clearly as man when He says: “No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” °° The Son of man is Christ as man, and it is said of Him that He has already ascended into heaven, and that He is now in heaven, which means in paradise or in the beatific state. It cannot be said that He is already in heaven solely by means of the hypostatic union, for

the whole context is concerned with ascent in the order of knowledge; for in the text that immediately precedes, Jesus had said: “If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I shall speak to you of heavenly things.” °° Christ, in calling others to the faith, never says that He Himself believes, but that He sees, and knows whence He came, namely, by the knowledge of vision, and that already “He is in heaven.” This text is confirmed by another, in which Jesus says: “Father, I will that where I am, they also whom Thou hast given Me may be with Me; that they may see My glory, which Thou hast given Me.” °?

Proof from tradition. The above-mentioned texts of Sacred Scripture are furthermore declared and explained by tradition. The Second Council of Constantinople implicitly affirms Christ’s beatific vision in this life, when it says that “He did not increase in holiness as He advanced in the performance of good works.” © If He did not have the beatific vision from the beginning of His existence, He would have very much increased in holiness, by passing from the state of faith and of wayfarer to that of vision, and to the final state of glory in heaven. The Fathers likewise in various ways affirming that Christ did not increase in holiness, implicitly teach that He was from the beginning of His existence both comprehensor and wayfarer, which we find afterward is the common teaching, especially since the twelfth century.

Rouet de Journel °? quotes several patristic texts that explicitly affirm Christ’s beatific vision in this life. Thus Eusebius of Caesarea says: “Then, too, when [Christ] was living among men, He nevertheless accomplished everything, in the meantime being with the Father and in the Father, and at the same time He likewise took care of all things, both celestial and terrestrial, nowhere without that presence, which is in all things, our way excluded, nor hindered by the divine presence from acting in His accustomed way.” ** St. Basil clearly enough affirms that Christ, our Savior, already had the beatific knowledge in the highest degree.”°

This is more clearly asserted by St. Fulgentius, who writes: “How

harsh it is and entirely incompatible with sound faith to say that Christ’s soul, even in this life, did not have complete knowledge of His divine nature, with which we believe that He naturally constituted one person.” °° And he adds: “That soul knew His divine nature completely, yet the soul is not the divine nature. Therefore that very divine nature is naturally known to it, but that soul received from the divine nature, which it knew, the power to know It.” °

Finally, St. Augustine maintains that Paul, who was rapt to the third heaven, saw the divine essence and not merely a certain refulgence of this brightness.°* But if, as St. Augustine says, St. Paul had the beatific vision transiently, already in this life, then a fortiori Christ Himself must have had it, and not merely in a transient way.

Theological proof. The first argument is taken from the end of the Incarnation. It is one of fitness and from this point is most convincing. It may be expressed by the following syllogism.

What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act. But men are in potentiality to see God to which they are ordained by God, and to which they must be brought by Christ’s human nature. Therefore Christ as man most fittingly had the beatific vision.

Major. It is evident, for it enunciates the very principle of causality. Thus nothing becomes hot except by what is actually hot; and the cause must always be more efficacious than its ¢ffect.°°

It is, of course, true that Christ’s soul is only the instrumental cause of glory in the blessed, not by its own power, but by the power of the principal agent, namely, the Deity. Nevertheless it is a most excellent instrument, which is capable of being instrumental in producing the form which is beatitude. Therefore it is fitting for the soul actually to have this beatitude. Hence St. Thomas does not infer that this was strictly necessary but that it was proper because it was becoming.”°

We thus have from this application of the major to Christ’s humanity an argument of fitness. It must also be said, however, that what is more fitting and more excellent must be granted to Christ, unless it be incompatible with the end of the Incarnation, and especially if

683 Epist. 147, chap. 13; also Super Gen. ad litt., Bk. XII, chap. 27, which is quoted by St. Thomas in Ia Iae, q. 175, a. 3.

10 The Dominicans have translated “oportuit” by “necessary,” but perhaps they mean “necessary” in a broad sense. (Tr.)

“es CHRIST’S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 355 it manifestly contributes to this end, as will be explained in the minor. Christ is, of course, the most perfect Redeemer.

Minor. It is de fide, both as to the ordaining of men to the beatific vision, and as to Christ’s influence as Savior on them, in bringing them to eternal life. Christ said; “I am the way and the truth and the life.” 7 He is the way as man, and as God He is the truth and the life. Similarly a text from St. Paul is quoted in this article, which says: “It became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by His passion.” *? For Him to bring men into glory, He most fittingly had it already in this life.

The force of this argument of fitness is more clearly seen when Christ as man is compared with the apostles, the great doctors of later times, and the higher contemplatives. The Savior of all, as we said, the head of the Church, both militant, suffering, and triumphant; He was the supreme doctor in divine matters, the Master of all masters and contemplatives, from whom we have received the fullness of the revelation of life. In other words, already on earth, He was, as man, the supreme witness of divine truth, already transcending the beatified angels,** so that St. Paul speaking in Christ’s name, could say: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” 74 Thus Christ as the Master of all masters and higher contemplatives is the most perfect leader to beatitude even to the end of time, which means that He will be surpassed by no master. Therefore it was most becoming to him, as man, that He should give testimony as an ocular witness concerning the beatific vision, and that He should have complete knowledge of the ultimate end to which He must bring all wayfarers of all times in this life.”°

15 Plato, speaking of the ideal teacher, says (in his Banquet, chap. 29): “Do we not think it would be a fortunate sight, if man had eyes to see the true beauty, the divine beauty, I mean, pure and clear and unalloyed, not clogged with the pollutions of mortality and all the colors and vanities of human life? Do you not think such a man would produce not the semblances of virtues, since He attains not to the image but to the reality, and since he begets and feeds upon true virtue, will be made the friend of God and of all other men, he will be immortal in the highest degree?” But this finds its verification in Christ already in this life.

Confirmation. This argument of fitness is all the more convincing when we consider either the sublime contemplation of St. John the Evangelist concerning the Word, in the Prologue of his Gospel, or that of St. Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles, who says: “I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I know not, or out of the body, I know not, God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.” And I know such a man, whether in the body or out of the body, I know not, God knoweth, that he was caught up into paradise, and heard secret word which it is not granted to man to utter.” ** But if St. Paul, that he might be the doctor of the Gentiles, and might always have more, by his preaching, in his mind and heart than in utterance, received such a gift of contemplation, so that his preaching came from the fullness of his contemplation, as St. Thomas says,"* what must be thought of Christ’s contemplation, so that He might fittingly be the supreme Doctor of all generations of men? Christ must have, however, what is most fitting for Him to have.

Moreover, it must be noted that St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, maintains that St. Paul, when in rapture, “saw the very essence of God and not a certain reflection of His clarity”; 7° and so he concludes: “Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in His essence.” °° St. Thomas considers this view the more probable one. But if such was the case, then a fortiori, Christ already in this life saw the Deity.*?

St. Thomas, too, because of his sublime contemplation, toward the end of his life became incapable of dictating any more of his Theological Summa, which appeared to him as straw, and not wheat; yet Christ’s contemplation was far more sublime. It certainly transcended Adam’s contemplation in the state of innocence, concerning which St. Thomas says: “Adam did not see God in His essence. . . . The difference between the vision the blessed enjoy and that granted

18 The Jews distinguished between three heavens: (1) the aerial or atmospheric heavens; (2) the astronomical or ethereal heaven; (3) the spiritual or empyrean heaven where God dwells and is seen by the angels.

8° Ibid., (about end). Cf. P. Sales, O.P., Le lettere degli Apostoli, II Cor. 12:4.

81 See also P. B. Allo, O.P., Commentaire sur la Ile Ep. aux Corinthiens, 12:4. Allo says that St. Paul was raised to the highest form of contemplation, and he refers to the interpretation given by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, having nothing to say against it, merely remarking that it is not admitted by Estius and Cornelius a Lapide.

ae CHRIST’S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 357 to the wayfarer does not consist in this, that the former sees more perfectly and the other less perfectly, but in this, that the former sees God and the latter does not see Him.” ** To believe is not to see, for faith is of things not seen. Adam’s contemplation in the state of innocence remained within the order of faith, whereas Christ’s contemplation in this life transcended this order.

Thus we understand how Christ’s preaching is both most sublime and most simple and beyond all possibility of contradiction. Moreover, it is adapted to all minds, to most learned or simple minds; whereas, on the contrary, human teachers often speak in a terminology that is not accessible to all, because they do not sufficiently realize the relations that should exist between the doctrine to be explained and the more profound aspiration of the human heart. On this subject Bossuet remarks: “Who would not admire the condescension He shows in adapting the sublimity of His doctrine to His audience? It is milk for children and entirely bread for the strong. We see Him filled with God’s secrets, but He is not astonished at this, as other mortals are to whom He communicates Himself. He speaks in a natural way of them, as though born to these secrets and this glory. What He has beyond measure,** this He imparts to others by degrees, so that our weakness may be able to bear it.” **

He is the supreme Master, of unique and incomparable authority. Thus with the greatest simplicity He enlightens the mind, fills the heart with holy joy, and efficaciously moves the will to upright and holy action.*® This preaching must come from the plenitude of most sublime contemplation.

Finally, this argument would find its corroboration by considering what such mystics as St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa have to say about most sublime mystic contemplation in this life, and the intellectual vision of the Most Holy Trinity by means of infused species. This vision, so far as God is not yet seen directly as He is in His essence, belongs to the order of faith.®® There is not yet intrinsic evidence of the mystery of the Trinity, so that it is quite evident that God could

84 Discours sur l'histoire universelle, Part I, chap. 19.

85 It is in this way that apologetics develops the argument taken from the sublimity of Christ’s doctrine and His manner of preaching. Cf. the author’s work De revelatione,

Bk. II, chap. 8. 88 Cf, Ia, q. 12, a. 2: “The essence of God cannot be seen by any created likeness whatever.”

not be God if He were not the triune God. But Christ already in this iife certainly had a sublimer contemplation of the Trinity than that of the most sublime contemplative, even, as we shall see farther on, He was not without it when dying on the cross. Hence St. Paul says that in Christ Jesus “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” **

This argument is derived from the end of the Incarnation. There are other arguments that have their foundation in the divine personality of Christ, and His consciousness of this personality.

Second argument. It rests on the consciousness Christ had of His divine nature and of His divine personality. He said, as we already remarked: “Although I give testimony of Myself, My testimony is true, for I know whence I came and whither I go.” 8 And again: “I came out from God. I came forth from the Father and am come into the world.” *° From these texts it is clearly enough established that Christ was conscious of His divine nature, for He does not say “I believe,” but “I know whence I came.” There is also another text in which He says: “I speak that which I have seen with My Father.” °° He spoke as man, therefore He sees as man.

But this consciousness would not transcend the order of faith unless it were the direct vision of the Deity; for above the order of faith illuminated by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as we find in saints who are still wayfarers, there is only the beatific vision.” Therefore, if Christ did not have this beatific vision, then He only believed in His divine nature and divine personality, just as the saints believe in the indwelling of the most Holy Trinity in the souls of the just.

Objection. The saints who are still wayfarers have a quasi-experimental knowledge of this presence of the most Holy Trinity through the filial love God enkindles in their hearts, as St. Thomas says, for concerning the following text of St. Paul, “The Spirit Himself giveth

89 Ibid., 16:28 £. The expression “I came from the Father” can signify, indeed, the particular and eternal generation of the Word, but the following words, “I came into the world,” signify the very incarnation of the Word. But Christ says: “I know whence I came”; therefore He does not believe but sees the mystery of the Incarnation and His own divine personality.

*? Even the most sublime prophetic illumination and the more exalted intellectual visions of the mystics do not go beyond the order of faith.

vee CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 359 testimony to our spirit,” °” he remarks: “He gives testimony by means of the filial love He enkindles in our hearts.” °°

Reply. This quasi-experimental knowledge does not rise above the order of faith, for it is the result of faith illumined by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, especially the gift of wisdom, and so it is faith penetrating and tasting the mysteries of God in accordance with the text: “Taste and see that the Lord is sweet.” °* But these saints who are still wayfarers do not see the Trinity present in themselves, but they have a certain experimental knowledge and belief of this presence. On the contrary, Christ said: “I know whence I came.” *° “I speak that which I have seen with My Father.” °°

Third argument. It has its foundation in the influences of the hypostatic union. By the very fact of the hypostatic union, which in itself is more exalted than the beatific vision, Christ’s soul was in the state of comprehensor. But this state of comprehensor pertains to the beatific vision. Therefore it was fitting for Christ to be both wayfarer and comprehensor, as all theologians commonly admit, especially after the twelfth century.

This argument is corroborated by considering the overflow from this grace of union. For the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more it partakes of its influence, as already stated in discussing the fullness of habitual grace in Christ.?” But Christ’s human nature was united personally to the Word of God. Therefore it was supremely fitting for Christ as man, even in this life, to participate in this most perfect grace, which is the grace that is consummated by glory.

Fourth argument. It is founded on natural sonship. Christ as man, was predestined not to divine adoptive sonship, but to divine natural sonship, which surpasses even glory.°* But divine natural filiation implies the right to divine heirship, even to the immediate attainment of this heirship, which consists in the intuitive vision of God. Therefore the beatific vision was befitting to Christ as man, even in this life.

96 Ihid., 8:38. See St. Thomas, De veritate, q. 18, a. I. 9? Cf. IHa., q. 7, a 1, 9.

As we have already stated, what was befitting to Christ must be attributed to Him, especially if this serves, as we have seen, the end of the redemptive Incarnation, so that Christ may be the ideal Master of all masters even to the end of the world.

It must be noted that this doctrine is also confirmed from what St. Thomas teaches concerning the knowledge of the apostles.°®

The theologically certain conclusions to be deduced from all these arguments is that Christ already in this life had the beatific vision, and truly was, as commonly admitted by theologians since the twelfth century, both wayfarer and comprehensor. Thus Christ already in this life clearly saw the Trinity and all mysteries of grace, such as that efficacious grace is not only reconciled with free will, but is also the reason why the choice is free.

Doubt. Did Christ have the beatific vision from the first moment of His conception?

Reply. St. Thomas answers this question in the affirmative +° þecause Christ’s human nature from the first moment of its creation was assumed by the Word, and the beatific vision befitted Christ as man, inasmuch as, by virtue of the hypostatic union, He was the head of the Church. Hence all the preceding proofs apply with equal force for the first moment of conception. For this was in no way repugnant to the end of the Incarnation; it was even befitting to this end. Moreover, the Council of Constantinople condemned the proposition that Christ would have become better; but He would have become better if He had received the beatific vision in the course of the present hfe!

Objection. It is more perfect to merit the glory of heaven than to

99 Cf. Tabula aurea, under the word “Apostle.” Here the holy doctor shows that the apostles were more perfect than the other saints, having all knowledge of things pertaining to faith and morals, inasmuch as this was expedient for the conversion of the world. The Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth that was necessary for salvation, but not all future happenings. The words of the apostles are the result of intimate revelation received from the Holy Ghost and from Christ. Therefore they must be retained, because they belong to the canon of the Scripture, which forbids us to believe that it contains anything false. God gave the apostles knowledge of the scriptures and of divers tongues, which men can acquire by study or by accustoming themselves to speak the language, although they do not succeed in speaking it so perfectly. But if the apostles were so illumined concerning divine truth, Christ Himself must have been far more illumined concerning God’s intimate life and more than all doctors and contemplatives after His time,

anal CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 361 have it without merit, and Christ’s merits were completed only by His death. In fact, Jesus said, as recorded in the Gospel: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?” 1°? Therefore Christ entered into glory only after His death.

Reply. With St. Thomas, I distinguish the antecedent, namely, that it is also more perfect for Christ to have a thing by merit than without merit “unless it be of such a nature [for example, a gift] that its want would detract from Christ’s dignity and perfection more than would accrue to Him by merit. Hence He merited neither grace nor knowledge, nor the beatitude of His soul, nor the Godhead . . . , the want of which would have diminished Christ’s dignity more than His merits would have increased it. But the glory of the body and the like are less than the dignity of meriting which pertains to the virtue of charity.” 1° Thus Christ merited the glory of His body, which is the sense of the text quoted above from St. Luke.°*

Second objection. Utmost joy is incompatible with utmost sorrow. But Christ said in the Garden of Gethsemane: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” 1° Therefore at this time He had neither this beatific joy, nor hence the beatific vision, to which this joy is the necessary sequel.

Reply. In answer to this, we say with St. Thomas: '®° that utmost joy is incompatible with utmost sorrow concerning absolutely the same object considered in the same aspect, I concede; otherwise, I subdistinguish; naturally incompatible, I concede; supernaturally so, I deny. But Christ was supernaturally both wayfarer, inasmuch as His human nature was passible, and comprehensor in the higher part of the mind. Nay, even as we showed in another work,"®* His utmost joy and His utmost sorrow were the result of this same plenitude of grace. On the one hand, from the plenitude of consummated grace there

107 Cf. The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, 1, 189-223. From this plenitude of grace there resulted in Christ, on the one hand, the light of glory and beatific charity, and on the other hand, utmost zeal for God’s glory and the salvation of souls, by which He willed most perfectly to fulfill His redemptive mission by His holocaust on the cross offered with utmost grief of soul, as a better manifestation of His love for the human race.

resulted the light of glory, the beatific vision, the highest degree of love of God, and supreme joy. On the other hand, from this same plenitude of Christ’s grace as wayfarer, and from His utmost love for God and for us, there resulted the utmost of supernatural grief for the sins of men, inasmuch as they are an offense against God and bring supernatural death to our souls. Moreover, because of His utmost love for God and for us, Christ willed as priest and voluntary victim to offer Himself as a most perfect holocaust; and for this reason, in virtue of His love, He most freely delivered Himself up to grief, by preventing the overflow of glory from the higher part of His mind into the lower parts and allowed Himself to be overwhelmed by all manner of grief in His sensitive nature. Herein is the miracle consequent upon the unique state of Christ as both wayfarer and comprehensor.

St. Thomas says: “Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, according to Isaias 53:4: ‘Surely He hath carried our sorrows.’ ” 1°8

St. Thomas says likewise in another treatise about Christ’s passion: “These same things about which [Christ] grieved according to the senses, imagination, and lower reason, in the higher [reason] were a source of joy, inasmuch as He referred them to the order of divine wisdom. . . . He allowed each of the lower powers to be moved by its own impulse,” *°° and He experienced sadness in the highest degree so that He might become a perfect holocaust. Thus He rejoiced in His passion inasmuch as it contributed to the redemption of the human race, and it made Him sad inasmuch as it was contrary to nature. Thus He most freely abandoned Himself to grief, limiting the beatific joy to the summit of His mind and preventing it from overflowing into the lower part of His mind and into His sensitive nature. Thus, by most freely abandoning Himself to grief, as a most generous and voluntary victim, He prevented the overflow of joy of | the higher part of the mind into the lower. But this grief ceased when Christ was no longer a wayfarer. Hence Christ suffering in His hu-

ee CHRIST’S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 363 man nature is like a mountain, the summit of which is poised in the clear sky, the base of which is made desolate by stormy weather.

WHETHER CHRIST HAD IMPRINTED OR INFUSED KNOWLEDGE

State of the question. Besides the beatific vision, did Christ have knowledge infused by God, which is also called imprinted knowledge, inasmuch as it is given to the soul along with the nature as in the angels? The question concerns knowledge that is not only per accidens infused, but also per se, namely, that can be caused only by God, and cannot be acquired by one’s own acts.

The difficulty is: (1) It seems that the beatific vision, since it is perfect knowledge, excludes that which is imperfect, and so it excludes faith; (2) it seems that infused knowledge is at least superfluous, just as the disposition for a form is superfluous, when it is already present; (3) finally, just as matter cannot receive simultaneously two forms, so also the intellect cannot simultaneously receive these two kinds of knowledge, the beatific and the infused.

Conclusion. It befitted Christ as man to have infused knowledge besides the beatific vision.

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “In Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” 1° But included in these treasures is infused knowledge as found in the angels and in disembodied spirits, a knowledge which several of the saints also received in this life for the perfect exercise of their mission. Thus the apostles received the gift of tongues, but this knowledge of languages was in them only per accidens infused, because they could have learned these languages by their own efforts. Yet some saints also received knowledge that was at least per se infused concerning certain things, as mystic theologians show especially when they treat of intellectual visions that take place through the intermediary of infused species. St. Paul, too, who heard “the secret words of God” *™ received either the beatific vision as a transient act, which is the opinion of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, or else a sublime form of infused knowledge, transmitted by means of infused species. Therefore infused knowledge pertains to these

“treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” 1? which St. Paul speaks of.

The Fathers often speak of Christ’s imprinted knowledge, but they do not as yet explicitly distinguish it from beatific knowledge. But from the time of Peter Lombard, theologians commonly admit three kinds of knowledge in Christ, namely, beatific, infused, and acquired. This common consent of the theologians, however, would have for us the force of a certain argument from tradition if they were to assert that this doctrine is de fide; this, however, they do not assert. Hence it is only a theological conclusion that is commonly admitted by the Scholastics, which does not appear to be definable by the Church as doctrine that pertains to the faith, because it is the result of a strictly illative process of reasoning, and is not merely explicative. This consent of the theologians gives at least great probability to this opinion about the kinds of knowledge in Christ, as being a commonly accepted opinion.

Theological proof. It was fitting that the nature assumed by the Word should not be imperfect. But it would have been imperfect without infused knowledge. Therefore it was fitting that Christ as man should have infused knowledge. i

Major. It expresses a certain moral necessity, which presupposes the hypostatic union, namely, that what is more worthy and more excellent and is not repugnant to the end of the Incarnation, must be granted to Christ. In other words, only corporal defects are to be attributed to Christ, such as passibility, death, thirst, and such defects that are necessary for our redemption by the sacrifice on the cross, as will be stated farther on.!

This moral necessity did not lessen, as some said, the divine liberty, because it depends on the most free decree of the redemptive Incarnation. But this decree being posited, then the great fitness of the Incarnation follows as a necessary consequence, and it was necessary because it was fitting. In other words, it was necessary to grant the Word of God incarnate what manifestly befits Him. Thus the conclusion is proved and is not merely a persuasive argument.

Minor. It is proved by the following syllogism. Everything in potentiality is imperfect unless it be reduced to act. But the possible human intellect is in potentiality to all intelligible things, and to know them not only in the Word by the beatific vision, or merely in them-

aa" CHRIST’S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL 365 selves by acquired knowledge, but in themselves by infused knowledge, as the angels and disembodied spirits know them. Therefore the soul of Christ had infused knowledge inasmuch as His possible human intellect was in potentiality to know intelligible things as the angels and disembodied spirits know them, which is by infused species.

This knowledge befitted Christ even in this life, before the separation of His soul from the body, because He was not only wayfarer but also comprehensor. Hence St. Thomas says: “Since Christ was both comprehensor and wayfarer, He had each way of considering things, one by which He was like the angels, inasmuch as He considered things without process of reasoning, the other by having recourse to phantasms.” '** Thus anyone who has the gift of tongues can actually make use of it without having to study the grammar of the language, but this can also be studied. Hence, as St. Thomas says: “Even as in the angels, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit., Bk. IV, chaps. 22, 24, 30), there is a double knowledge: one the morning knowledge, whereby they know things in the Word; the other the evening knowledge, whereby they know things in their proper natures by infused species, so also there was this twofold knowledge in Christ.” *’° These species were imprinted on the minds of the angels by the Word of God, and it equally befitted the Word of God to perfect Christ’s soul, which was personally united to the Word. Finally, Christ’s soul would have been made more perfect if it had received these infused species only after its separation from the body. It was not fitting for Christ in this mortal life to be lacking in experimental knowledge of the mode of cognition pertaining to disembodied spirits, for whom He merited and grieved, and for whom He died. When in the parable of the wicked rich man He spoke of the state of the soul separated from the body, this shows that He had experimental knowledge of the mode of cognition of these souls.

This thesis finds its confirmation from the extraordinary events in the lives of the saints, for example, in the life of St. Catherine of Siena, for our Lord gave her infused knowledge concerning the hidden lives of several saints, and marvelous spiritual insight in doctrinal matters, a doctrine which she dictated when in ecstasy, and which is preserved for us in her Dialogue; she also learned to read and write not by her own efforts, but our Lord Himself was her teacher; even the secrets

of hearts and distant events she often knew by infused knowledge.**® Similar extraordinary knowledge was granted to other saints,"!’ and a fortiori this was the prerogative of the most holy soul of Christ.

Doubt. Is this knowledge only per accidens infused, or is it per se infused ?

Reply. It is per accidens infused so far as it concerns things that can be known by human efforts, and it is per se infused so far as it concerns things that cannot be acquired by human efforts and are therefore beyond the powers of our intellect. In fact, we must, in the same way, distinguish in Christ between two kinds of subordinated infused knowledge, just as in the just there are two kinds of prudence, one infused and of the supernatural order, specified by a supernatural object, the other acquired and of the natural order, specified by a natural object. Thus a musician has in a certain manner the art of music in the practical intellect, but the ability to play is in the hands. Indeed, Christ could by His infused knowledge of supernatural things know also by this eminent knowledge natural things in their relation to supernatural things, but it befitted Him also to know these things in another way, namely, by knowledge that is per accidens infused to which His intellect was in potentiality.’’® Thus Christ knew the supernatural secrets of hearts by knowledge that is per se infused, just as in our times He speaks in an exceptional way to certain saints, who are still wayfarers, in their own language or dialect.

Confirmation of this doctrine from the solution of the objections of this article.

Reply to first objection. The beatific vision excludes faith, which is of things not seen, but it does not exclude infused knowledge; for the same intellect can by two distinct means see things in two ways: first, in the Word, and secondly in themselves. Thus there are twe ways, either by physics or by mathematics, whereby we can know the same conclusion, for example, the rotundity of the earth.

Reply to second objection. As he who knew some conclusion by a

116 Thus the saints even in this life sometimes knew the secrets of hearts as if they saw another person not only exactly as in the flesh, but also had complete knowledge of the interior disposition of such a person, a quasi-photograph of the other person’s soul, so that they could detect whether the acts of such a person were the result of true or false humility.

"47 St, Angela de Foligno saw her own soul, just as the angels see themselves.

118 Several saints had knowledge that is per se infused concerning the secrets of hearts, and knowledge of languages that is per accidens infused.

probable argument, and afterward knows it by a demonstrative argument, can still consider the probable argument; although he no longer holds it as an opinion that he fears may be wrong, that is, he no longer wavers between uncertainty and certainty, so Christ can have simultaneously both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge.

Reply to third objection. The beatific vision does not render infused knowledge superfluous; for the ineffable knowledge of things in the Word does not make the knowledge of them in themselves superfluous. Moreover, these two acts can be simultaneous, provided that there is subordination, just as we can have knowledge of principle and conclusion. The Blessed Virgin Mary also had infused knowledge on this earth.

WHETHER CHRIST HAD ANY ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE

State of the question. This article concerns the habit of experimental knowledge acquired by the intellect through species abstracted from phantasms, or obtained gradually by individual acts.

The difficulty is: (1) If Christ had this knowledge, then He did not have it perfectly, because He never studied. (2) This acquired knowledge seems superfluous if Christ already had directly infused knowledge of created things, and especially if He already had accidentally infused knowledge of sensible things.

Conclusion. Christ had knowledge that is essentially capable of being acquired, and that was also actually acquired by Him.

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “Whereas, indeed, He was the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered,” +° that is, by what He experienced. Farther on,'*® St. Thomas quotes the following Gospel text: “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men,” !*1 which He explains as resulting from an increase of acquired knowledge.

St. Thomas himself admits in the present article that he corrects what he wrote in an earlier work on this subject,’ in which he taught that Christ had knowledge that is essentially acquirable, yet it was not acquired by His own acts, but was accidentally infused, as in the case

of Adam who was created completely developed. But now St. Thomas maintains that, as it was fitting for Christ’s body to develop gradually, so also it was proper for His soul to advance gradually in the knowledge of natural things. Hence the Evangelist says: “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age.” **®

Theological proof. Nothing that God planted in our nature was wanting to the human nature of Christ, among which is the active intellect or the connatural active principle of intellectual knowledge.

But the active intellect would have been useless in Christ, lacking in its own and special operation, if He did not have knowledge acquired by His own acts by abstracting intelligible species from phantasms.

Therefore Christ had this knowledge.

Objection. Scotus maintains that the active intellect neither was useless in Adam, nor is it so in the blessed. The purpose of the active intellect is not only to abstract species, but it also serves the purpose of illustrating principles to be made use of in conclusions.

Reply. The Thomists point out that there is a difference between Christ and Adam, who was created not as a child, but as fully developed, as there is a difference between Christ and disembodied spirits that no longer have the connatural mode of understanding by turning to phantasms. If Christ had not acquired knowledge by repeated acts of the intellect, His active intellect would have been useless, not absolutely so, but as regards its connatural mode of operating; for it would be deprived of that act to which it is entitled in such a state and at such a time.

Moreover, it was no imperfection for Christ that as a child He was deprived of speech, or that He was unable as yet to acquire perfect knowledge of things. He already had by the beatific knowledge superabundant cognition for the perfect knowledge of divine things and of other things in the Word. Therefore Christ in a certain sense progressed intellectually, but not morally.

The solution of the objections of this article confirms the reply of St. Thomas.

Reply to first objection. “It was more fitting for Christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery than by being taught,” hence He acquired acquirable knowledge not by learning, but rather by discovery, by a consideration of nature and men.

Reply to second objection. “It behooved Christ’s intellect to be also perfected with regard to phantasms,” although it was already perfected by infused knowledge. For this is a new and connatural mode of knowing. Someone may already have certainty of knowledge by the gift of prophecy that death will come on a certain day; in another way, however, there is experimental knowledge of the moment of death.

Reply to third objection. There was also a distinction between this acquired knowledge and infused knowledge concerning sensible things, for this second kind of knowledge, coming as it does from on high, is not proportioned to phantasms. Thus he who sings the melody of a musical composition solely from memory, not having studied music, can afterward in another way know this melody by distinguishing the various parts and notes of the musical score, reading it even to the least detail. Previously he knew the musical composition as some general melody, but now he knows its parts and the way these are distinctly related to the whole.

Thus, then, it is the common teaching of theologians since the time of Peter Lombard, that there were three kinds of knowledge in Christ: the beatific, infused, and acquired knowledge.

Each particular knowledge must now be considered briefly.

Footnotes

1. Cf, Ia, q. 9, a. 1 (about end). 2 Dict. théol. cath., art. “Jésus-Christ,” cols. 1273 f. See also “Science du Christ.” 341 ↩