|
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not this
knowledge by way of comparison. For Damascene says (De Fide
Orth. iii, 14): "We do not uphold counsel or choice in
Christ." Now these things are withheld from Christ only inasmuch as
they imply comparison and discursion. Therefore it seems that there
was no collative or discursive knowledge in Christ.
Objection 2: Further, man needs comparison and discursion of reason
in order to find out the unknown. But the soul of Christ knew
everything, as was said above (Question 10, Article 2). Hence
there was no discursive or collative knowledge in Him.
Objection 3: Further, the knowledge in Christ's soul was like
that of comprehensors, who are likened to the angels, according to
Mt. 22:30. Now there is no collative or discursive knowledge in
the angels, as Dionysius shows (Div. Nom. vii). Therefore
there was no discursive or collative knowledge in the soul of Christ.
On the contrary, Christ had a rational soul, as was shown
(Question 5, Article 4). Now the proper operation of a rational
soul consists in comparison and discursion from one thing to another.
Therefore there was collative and discursive knowledge in Christ.
I answer that, Knowledge may be discursive or collative in two ways.
First, in the acquisition of the knowledge, as happens to us, who
proceed from one thing to the knowledge of another, as from causes to
effects, and conversely. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's
soul was not discursive or collative, since this knowledge which we are
now considering was divinely infused, and not acquired by a process of
reasoning. Secondly, knowledge may be called discursive or collative
in use; as at times those who know, reason from cause to effect, not
in order to learn anew, but wishing to use the knowledge they have.
And in this way the knowledge in Christ's soul could be collative or
discursive; since it could conclude one thing from another, as it
pleased, as in Mt. 17:24,25, when our Lord asked Peter:
"Of whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute, of their own
children, or of strangers?" On Peter replying: "Of strangers,"
He concluded: "Then the children are free."
Reply to Objection 1: From Christ is excluded that counsel which
is with doubt; and consequently choice, which essentially includes
such counsel; but the practice of using counsel is not excluded from
Christ.
Reply to Objection 2: This reason rests upon discursion and
comparison, as used to acquire knowledge.
Reply to Objection 3: The blessed are likened to the angels in the
gifts of graces; yet there still remains the difference of natures.
And hence to use comparison and discursion is connatural to the souls
of the blessed, but not to angels.
|
|