|
State of the question. The difficulty is that gifts are given to help
the virtues. But the virtues were most perfect in Christ. Therefore
He did not need this help.
Moreover, Christ had already on this earth the contemplation of
heaven as explained farther on. But the gifts of wisdom, knowledge,
and understanding seem to belong to contemplation in this life, and
apparently these are useless in a soul that already enjoys the beatific
vision.
Conclusion. It is commonly admitted, however, that the soul of
Christ had these gifts in a pre-eminent degree.
Gonet maintains that this conclusion is a certainty of the faith,
because of the text of Isaias quoted in the proof.
Scriptural proof. The prophet says: "The Spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon Him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the
spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of
godliness. And He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the
Lord."[897]
Instead of the words, "the spirit of knowledge and of godliness,"
the Hebrew text reads, "the spirit of knowledge and of fear." Thus
fear is mentioned twice. The Greek version and the Vulgate give
"godliness," which is about the same in meaning as reverential
godliness. The Old Testament does not distinguish so clearly
between. godliness and fear as the New Testament does, which is not
the law of fear, but of love.[898]
The Fathers and Scholastics are generally agreed that this text
concerns Christ's human nature.
Theological proof. Although it has been revealed that Christ had
gifts and still has them, this assertion can also be proved from higher
revealed principles, namely, from the definition of gifts. St.
Thomas says in this article: "The gifts, properly, are certain
perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch as they have a natural
aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost," according to St. Luke,
who says: "And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from
the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert." Hence it is
manifest that the gifts were in Christ in a pre-eminent degree.
The thesis is confirmed by the fact that the gifts of the Holy Ghost
follow from habitual grace and are connected with charity, as St.
Thomas teaches.[899] But Christ had habitual grace in the most
perfect manner and the highest degree of charity. Therefore He also
had pre-eminently the gifts.
The thesis is also confirmed from the solution of the objections.
Reply to first objection. It points out that as a man, however
perfect he may be, needs to be helped by God, so also, no matter how
perfect the virtues are, they need to be helped by the gifts, which
perfect the powers of the soul, inasmuch as these are not controlled by
reason illumined by faith, but by the Holy Spirit. This reply
confirms the teaching of St. Thomas as set forth in a previous
passage[900] where he shows that the infused virtues, even the
highest degree, are specifically distinct from the gifts as regards
their formal object quo or their rule or motive;[901] for to be
ruled by right reason even though illumined by the light of faith
differs from being ruled by the Holy Spirit, which means to be ruled
by His special inspiration, which transcends the discursive process of
reasoning. Thus there is a manifest difference between being ruled by
infused prudence, which proceeds from living faith, and being ruled by
the gift of counsel.
Reply to third objection. It states that the gifts were not useless
in Christ, for He also had earthly knowledge, as will be stated
farther on;[902] for Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor.
He was comprehensor as regards the higher part of the soul, and
wayfarer inasmuch as His soul still was passible and His body passible
and mortal, so that He looked forward to beatitude in all those things
which were wanting to Him of beatitude. Moreover, as explained
elsewhere,[903] the gifts remain in heaven.
As stated in this last citation, this doctrine of the permanence of
the gifts in heaven is affirmed by St. Ambrose,[904] and the
reason is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit perfect the human mind to
follow the prompting of the Holy Spirit, which is especially the case
in heaven. But in heaven, evil and temptation being no more, by the
gifts of the Holy Spirit we are perfected in good, not entirely as
regards the same material object but the gifts will preserve in us
intact the same formal objects both quo and quod of the virtues by which
latter they are specified; for as theologians in heaven will see the
object of theology, either in the Word if in this life they studied it
out of love for God, or outside the Word; so also all the blessed in
heaven will receive special inspirations from the Holy Spirit to know
something special by means of experimental knowledge, according as it
is connaturally related to divine things, for instance, to know for
what wayfarers they must especially pray. The beatific vision precedes
beatific love, whereas the knowledge obtained by the gifts follows this
love. Finally, there is neither succession in knowledge nor
acquisition of anything new, whereas by the gifts it is possible for
the blessed to acquire additional knowledge.
But obscurity and similar imperfections that now actually belong to the
gifts, either of wisdom or counsel, or of other such gifts, do not
belong to the state of glory, nor were these defects in Christ.
Thus the gift of wisdom disposed Christ so as to be moved with
facility by the Holy Spirit to pass certain judgment on divine things
by the highest of causes, in accordance with a connaturalness that is
founded on charity for things.
But the gift of understanding attributed to Him correct and immediate
penetration of those things that pertain to the kingdom of God.
The gift of counsel likewise attributed to Christ the power of
immediately finding out the motive for action.
The gift of knowledge so that even in the consideration of inferior
motives, He might judge with absolute certainty about things that
happened.
The gift of fortitude expelled from Him the fear of death and its
attendant tortures.
Gonet says these conclusions are admitted by all theologians as being
certain and beyond dispute.
|
|
