|
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."[1201] 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,"[1202]
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,"[1203] 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.
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.[1204]
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 themselves 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."[1205] 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."[1206] 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.[1207] Similar extraordinary knowledge was granted to
other saints,[1208] 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.[1209] 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 two
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
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.
|
|
