St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]


Deinde considerandum est de scientia indita vel infusa animae Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.    We must now consider the knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul of Christ, and under this head there are six points of inquiry:
Primo, utrum per hanc scientiam Christus sciat omnia.     (1) Whether Christ knows all things by this knowledge?
Secundo, utrum hac scientia uti potuerit non convertendo se ad phantasmata.     (2) Whether He could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms?
Tertio, utrum haec scientia fuerit collativa.     (3) Whether this knowledge was collative?
Quarto, de comparatione huius scientiae ad scientiam angelicam.     (4) Of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge;
Quinto, utrum fuerit scientia habitualis.     (5) Whether it was a habitual knowledge?
Sexto, utrum fuerit distincta per diversos habitus.     (6) Whether it was distinguished by various habits?


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether by this imprinted or infused knowledge Christ knew all things?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod secundum hanc scientiam Christus non cognoverit omnia. Haec enim scientia indita est Christo ad perfectionem potentiae intellectus eius. Sed intellectus possibilis animae humanae non videtur esse in potentia ad omnia simpliciter, sed ad illa sola in quae potest reduci in actum per intellectum agentem, qui est proprium activum ipsius, quae quidem sunt cognoscibilia secundum rationem naturalem. Ergo secundum hanc scientiam non cognovit ea quae naturalem rationem excedunt.   Objection 1: It would seem that by this knowledge Christ did not know all things. For this knowledge is imprinted upon Christ for the perfection of the passive intellect. Now the passive intellect of the human soul does not seem to be in potentiality to all things simply, but only to those things with regard to which it can be reduced to act by the active intellect, which is its proper motor; and these are knowable by natural reason. Therefore by this knowledge Christ did not know what exceeded the natural reason.
Praeterea, phantasmata se habent ad intellectum humanum sicut colores ad visum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed non pertinet ad perfectionem virtutis visivae cognoscere ea quae sunt omnino absque colore. Ergo neque ad perfectionem intellectus humani pertinet cognoscere ea quorum non possunt esse phantasmata, sicut sunt substantiae separatae. Sic igitur, cum huiusmodi scientia fuerit in Christo ad perfectionem animae intellectivae ipsius, videtur quod per huiusmodi scientiam non cognoverit substantias separatas.   Objection 2: Further, phantasms are to the human intellect as colors to sight, as is said De Anima iii, 18,31,39. But it does not pertain to the perfection of the power of seeing to know what is without color. Therefore it does not pertain to the perfection of human intellect to know things of which there are no phantasms, such as separate substances. Hence, since this knowledge was in Christ for the perfection of His intellective soul, it seems that by this knowledge He did not know separate substances.
Praeterea, ad perfectionem intellectus non pertinet cognoscere singularia. Videtur igitur quod per huiusmodi scientiam anima Christi non cognoverit singularia.   Objection 3: Further, it does not belong to the perfection of the intellect to know singulars. Hence it would seem that by this knowledge the soul of Christ did not know singulars.
Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XI, quod replebit eum spiritus sapientiae et intellectus, scientiae et consilii, sub quibus comprehenduntur omnia cognoscibilia. Nam ad sapientiam pertinet cognitio divinorum omnium; ad intellectum autem pertinet cognitio omnium immaterialium; ad scientiam autem pertinet cognitio omnium conclusionum; ad consilium autem cognitio omnium agibilium. Ergo videtur quod Christus, secundum scientiam sibi inditam per spiritum sanctum, habuerit omnium cognitionem.   On the contrary, It is written (Is. 11:2) that "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of knowledge and counsel shall fill Him [*Vulg.: 'The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel . . . the Spirit of knowledge . . . '; cf. Ecclus. 15:5]," under which are included all that may be known; for the knowledge of all Divine things belongs to wisdom, the knowledge of all immaterial things to understanding, the knowledge of all conclusions to knowledge [scientia], the knowledge of all practical things to counsel. Hence it would seem that by this knowledge Christ had the knowledge of all things.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut prius dictum est, conveniens fuit ut anima Christo per omnia esset perfecta, per hoc quod omnis eius potentialitas sit reducta ad actum. Est autem considerandum quod in anima humana, sicut in qualibet creatura, consideratur duplex potentia passiva, una quidem per comparationem ad agens naturale; alia vero per comparationem ad agens primum, qui potest quamlibet creaturam reducere in actum aliquem altiorem, in quem non reducitur per agens naturale; et haec consuevit vocari potentia obedientiae in creatura. Utraque autem potentia animae Christi fuit reducta in actum secundum hanc scientiam divinitus inditam. Et ideo secundum eam anima Christi primo quidem cognovit quaecumque ab homine cognosci possunt per virtutem luminis intellectus agentis, sicut sunt quaecumque pertinent ad scientias humanas. Secundo vero per hanc scientiam cognovit Christus omnia illa quae per revelationem divinam hominibus innotescunt, sive pertineant ad donum sapientiae, sive ad donum prophetiae, sive ad quodcumque donum spiritus sancti. Omnia enim ista abundantius et plenius ceteris cognovit anima Christi. Ipsam tamen Dei essentiam per hanc scientiam non cognovit, sed solum per primam, de qua supra dictum est.   I answer that, As was said above (Question [9], Article [1]), it was fitting that the soul of Christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its powers reduced to act. Now it must be borne in mind that in the human soul, as in every creature, there is a double passive power: one in comparison with a natural agent; the other in comparison with the first agent, which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a natural agent can reduce it, and this is usually called the obediential power of a creature. Now both powers of Christ's soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge. And hence, by it the soul of Christ knew: First, whatever can be known by force of a man's active intellect, e.g. whatever pertains to human sciences; secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made known to man by Divine revelation, whether they belong to the gift of wisdom or the gift of prophecy, or any other gift of the Holy Ghost; since the soul of Christ knew these things more fully and completely than others. Yet He did not know the Essence of God by this knowledge, but by the first alone, of which we spoke above (Question [10]).
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de actione naturali animae intellectivae, quae scilicet est per comparationem ad agens naturale, quod est intellectus agens.   Reply to Objection 1: This reason refers to the natural power of an intellective soul in comparison with its natural agent, which is the active intellect.
Ad secundum dicendum quod anima humana in statu huius vitae, quando quodammodo est ad corpus obligata, ut sine phantasmate intelligere non possit, non potest intelligere substantias separatas. Sed post statum huius vitae, anima separata poterit aliqualiter substantias separatas per seipsam cognoscere, ut in prima parte dictum est. Et hoc praecipue manifestum est circa animas beatorum. Christus autem, ante passionem, non solum fuit viator, sed etiam comprehensor. Unde anima eius poterat cognoscere substantias separatas, per modum quo cognoscit anima separata.   Reply to Objection 2: The human soul in the state of this life, since it is somewhat fettered by the body, so as to be unable to understand without phantasms, cannot understand separate substances. But after the state of this life the separated soul will be able, in a measure, to know separate substances by itself, as was said in the FP, Question [89], Articles [1],2, and this is especially clear as regards the souls of the blessed. Now before His Passion, Christ was not merely a wayfarer but also a comprehensor; hence His soul could know separate substances in the same way that a separated soul could.
Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio singularium non pertinet ad perfectionem animae intellectivae secundum cognitionem speculativam, pertinet tamen ad perfectionem eius secundum cognitionem practicam, quae non perficitur absque cognitione singularium, in quibus est operatio, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Unde ad prudentiam requiritur memoria praeteritorum, cognitio praesentium, et providentia futurorum, ut Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica. Quia igitur Christus habuit plenitudinem prudentiae, secundum donum consilii, consequens est quod cognovit omnia singularia praeterita, praesentia et futura.   Reply to Objection 3: The knowledge of singulars pertains to the perfection of the intellective soul, not in speculative knowledge, but in practical knowledge, which is imperfect without the knowledge of singulars, in which operations exist, as is said Ethic. vi, 7. Hence for prudence are required the remembrance of past things, knowledge of present things, and foresight of future things, as Tully says (De Invent. ii). Therefore, since Christ had the fulness of prudence by the gift of counsel, He consequently knew all singular things---present, past, and future.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether Christ could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima Christi non potuerit intelligere secundum hanc scientiam nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata. Phantasmata enim comparantur ad animam intellectivam sicut colores ad visum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed potentia visiva Christi non potuit exire in actum nisi convertendo se ad colores. Ergo etiam neque anima eius intellectiva potuit aliquid intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata.   Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ could not understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because, as is stated De Anima iii, 18,31,39, phantasms are compared to man's intellective soul as colors to sight. But Christ's power of seeing could not become actual save by turning to colors. Therefore His intellective soul could understand nothing except by turning to phantasms.
Praeterea, anima Christi est eiusdem naturae cum animabus nostris, alioquin ipse non esset eiusdem speciei nobiscum; contra id quod apostolus dicit, Philipp. II, quod est in similitudinem hominum factus. Sed anima nostra non potest intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata. Ergo nec etiam anima Christi.   Objection 2: Further, Christ's soul is of the same nature as ours. otherwise He would not be of the same species as we, contrary to what the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) " . . . being made in the likeness of men." But our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms. Hence, neither can Christ's soul otherwise understand.
Praeterea, sensus dati sunt homini ut deserviant intellectui. Si igitur anima Christi intelligere potuit absque conversione ad phantasmata, quae per sensus accipiuntur, sequeretur quod sensus frustra fuissent in anima Christi, quod est inconveniens. Videtur igitur quod anima Christi non potuerit intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata.   Objection 3: Further, senses are given to man to help his intellect. Hence, if the soul of Christ could understand without turning to phantasms, which arise in the senses, it would follow that in the soul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting. Therefore it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by turning to phantasms.
Sed contra est quod anima Christi cognovit quaedam quae per phantasmata cognosci non possunt, scilicet substantias separatas. Potuit igitur intelligere non convertendo se ad phantasmata.   On the contrary, The soul of Christ knew certain things which could not be known by the senses, viz. separate substances. Therefore it could understand without turning to phantasms.
Respondeo dicendum quod Christus in statu ante passionem fuit simul viator et comprehensor, ut infra magis patebit. Et praecipue quidem conditiones viatoris habuit ex parte corporis, inquantum fuit passibile, conditiones vero comprehensoris maxime habuit ex parte animae intellectivae. Est autem haec conditio animae comprehensoris, ut nullo modo subdatur suo corpori aut ab eo dependeat, sed totaliter ei dominetur, unde et post resurrectionem ex anima gloria redundabit in corpus. Ex hoc autem anima hominis viatoris indiget ad phantasmata converti, quod est corpori obligata, et quodammodo ei subiecta et ab eo dependens. Et ideo animae beatae, et ante resurrectionem et post, intelligere possunt absque conversione ad phantasmata. Et hoc quidem oportet dicere de anima Christi, quae plene habuit facultatem comprehensoris.   I answer that, In the state before His Passion Christ was at the same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly shown (Question [15], Article [10]). Especially had He the conditions of a wayfarer on the part of the body, which was passible; but the conditions of a comprehensor He had chiefly on the part of the soul. Now this is the condition of the soul of a comprehensor, viz. that it is nowise subject to its body, or dependent upon it, but wholly dominates it. Hence after the resurrection glory will flow from the soul to the body. But the soul of man on earth needs to turn to phantasms, because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject to and dependent upon it. And hence the blessed both before and after the resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this must be said of the soul of Christ, which had fully the capabilities of a comprehensor.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod similitudo illa quam philosophus ponit, non attenditur quantum ad omnia. Manifestum est enim quod finis potentiae visivae est cognoscere colores, finis autem potentiae intellectivae non est cognoscere phantasmata, sed cognoscere species intelligibiles, quas apprehendit a phantasmatibus et in phantasmatibus, secundum statum praesentis vitae. Est igitur similitudo quantum ad hoc ad quod aspicit utraque potentia, non autem quantum ad hoc in quod utriusque potentiae conditio terminatur. Nihil autem prohibet, secundum diversos status, ex diversis rem aliquam ad suum finem tendere, finis autem proprius alicuius rei semper est unus. Et ideo, licet visus nihil cognoscat absque colore, intellectus tamen, secundum aliquem statum, potest cognoscere absque phantasmate, sed non absque specie intelligibili.   Reply to Objection 1: This likeness which the Philosopher asserts is not with regard to everything. For it is manifest that the end of the power of seeing is to know colors; but the end of the intellective power is not to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species, which it apprehends from and in phantasms, according to the state of the present life. Therefore there is a likeness in respect of what both powers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition of both powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in different states from reaching its end by different ways: albeit there is never but one proper end of a thing. Hence, although the sight knows nothing without color; nevertheless in a certain state the intellect can know without phantasms, but not without intelligible species.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet anima Christi fuerit eiusdem naturae cum animabus nostris, habuit tamen aliquem statum quem animae nostrae non habent nunc in re, sed solum in spe, scilicet statum comprehensionis.   Reply to Objection 2: Although the soul of Christ was of the same nature as our souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact, but only in hope, i.e. the state of comprehension.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet anima Christi potuerit intelligere non convertendo se ad phantasmata, poterat tamen intelligere se ad phantasmata convertendo. Et ideo sensus non fuerunt frustra in ipso, praesertim cum sensus non dentur homini solum ad scientiam intellectivam, sed etiam ad necessitatem vitae animalis.   Reply to Objection 3: Although the soul of Christ could understand without turning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning to phantasms. Hence the senses were not useless in it; especially as the senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge, but for the need of animal life.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether this knowledge is collative?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod anima Christi non habuit hanc scientiam per modum collationis. Dicit enim Damascenus, in III libro, in Christo non dicimus consilium neque electionem. Non autem removentur haec a Christo nisi inquantum important collationem et discursum. Ergo videtur quod in Christo non fuerit scientia collativa vel discursiva.   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.
Praeterea, homo indiget collatione et discursu rationis ad inquirenda ea quae ignorat. Sed anima Christi cognovit omnia, ut supra dictum est. Non igitur fuit in eo scientia discursiva vel collativa.   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.
Praeterea, scientia animae Christi se habuit per modum comprehensorum, qui Angelis conformantur, ut dicitur Matth. XXII. Sed in Angelis non est scientia discursiva seu collativa, ut patet per Dionysium, VII cap. de Div. Nom. Non ergo in anima Christi fuit scientia discursiva seu collativa.   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.
Sed contra, Christus habuit animam rationalem, ut supra habitum est. Propria autem operatio animae rationalis est conferre et discurrere ab uno in aliud. Ergo in Christo fuit scientia discursiva vel collativa.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod aliqua scientia potest esse discursiva vel collativa dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad scientiae acquisitionem, sicut accidit in nobis, qui procedimus ad cognoscendum unum per aliud, sicut effectus per causas, et e converso. Et hoc modo scientia animae Christi non fuit discursiva vel collativa, quia haec scientia de qua nunc loquimur, fuit sibi divinitus indita, non per investigationem rationis acquisita. Alio modo potest dici scientia discursiva vel collativa quantum ad usum, sicut scientes interdum ex causis concludunt effectus, non ut de novo addiscant, sed volentes uti scientia quam iam habent. Et hoc modo scientia animae Christi poterat esse collativa et discursiva, poterat enim ex uno aliud concludere, sicut sibi placebat. Sicut, Matth. XVII, cum dominus quaesivisset a Petro a quibus reges terrae tributum acciperent, a filiis suis an ab alienis, Petro respondente quod ab alienis, conclusit, ergo liberi sunt filii.   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."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod a Christo excluditur consilium quod est cum dubitatione, et per consequens electio, quae in sui ratione tale consilium includit. Non autem a Christo excluditur usus consiliandi.   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.
Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de discursu et collatione prout ordinatur ad scientiam acquirendam.   Reply to Objection 2: This reason rests upon discursion and comparison, as used to acquire knowledge.
Ad tertium dicendum quod beati conformantur Angelis quantum ad dona gratiarum, manet tamen differentia quae est secundum naturam. Et ideo uti collatione et discursu est connaturale animabus beatorum, non autem Angelis.   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.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether in Christ this knowledge was greater than the knowledge of the angels?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo huiusmodi scientia fuerit minor quam in Angelis. Perfectio enim proportionatur perfectibili. Sed anima humana, secundum ordinem naturae, est infra naturam angelicam. Cum igitur scientia de qua nunc loquimur, sit indita animae Christi ad perfectionem ipsius, videtur quod huiusmodi scientia fuerit infra scientiam qua perficitur natura angelica.   Objection 1: It would seem that this knowledge was not greater in Christ than in the angels. For perfection is proportioned to the thing perfected. But the human soul in the order of nature is below the angelic nature. Therefore since the knowledge we are now speaking of is imprinted upon Christ's soul for its perfection, it seems that this knowledge is less than the knowledge by which the angelic nature is perfected.
Praeterea, scientia animae Christi fuit aliquo modo collativa et discursiva, quod non potest dici de scientia Angelorum. Ergo scientia animae Christi fuit inferior scientia Angelorum.   Objection 2: Further, the knowledge of Christ's soul was in a measure comparative and discursive, which cannot be said of the angelic knowledge. Therefore the knowledge of Christ's soul was less than the knowledge of the angels.
Praeterea, quanto aliqua scientia est magis immaterialis, tanto est potior. Sed scientia Angelorum est immaterialior quam scientia animae Christi, quia anima Christi est actus corporis et habet conversionem ad phantasmata, quod de Angelis dici non potest. Ergo scientia Angelorum est potior quam scientia animae Christi.   Objection 3: Further, the more immaterial knowledge is, the greater it is. But the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the knowledge of Christ's soul, since the soul of Christ is the act of a body, and turns to phantasms, which cannot be said of the angels. Therefore the knowledge of angels is greater than the knowledge of Christ's soul.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Heb. II, eum qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est, videmus Iesum, propter passionem mortis, gloria et honore coronatum. Ex quo apparet quod propter solam passionem mortis dicatur Christus ab Angelis minoratus. Non ergo propter scientiam.   On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): "For we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor"; from which it is plain that Christ is said to be lower than the angels only in regard to the suffering of death. And hence, not in knowledge.
Respondeo dicendum quod scientia indita animae Christi potest considerari dupliciter, uno modo, secundum id quod habuit a causa influente; alio modo, secundum id quod habuit ex subiecto recipiente. Quantum igitur ad primum, scientia indita animae Christi fuit excellentior quam scientia Angelorum, et quantum ad multitudinem cognitorum, et quantum ad scientiae certitudinem, quia lumen spirituale quod est inditum animae Christi, est multo excellentius quam lumen quod pertinet ad naturam angelicam. Quantum autem ad secundum, scientia indita animae Christi est infra scientiam angelicam, scilicet quantum ad modum cognoscendi qui est naturalis animae humanae, qui scilicet est per conversionem ad phantasmata et per collationem et discursum.   I answer that, The knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul may be looked at in two ways: First, as regards what it has from the inflowing cause; secondly, as regards what it has from the subject receiving it. Now with regard to the first, the knowledge imprinted upon the soul of Christ was more excellent than the knowledge of the angels, both in the number of things known and in the certainty of the knowledge; since the spiritual light, which is imprinted on the soul of Christ, is much more excellent than the light which pertains to the angelic nature. But as regards the second, the knowledge imprinted on the soul of Christ is less than the angelic knowledge, in the manner of knowing that is natural to the human soul, i.e. by turning to phantasms, and by comparison and discursion.
Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.    And hereby the reply to the objections is made clear.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 5  [<< | >>]

Whether this knowledge was habitual?

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Christo non fuerit habitualis scientia. Dictum est enim quod animam Christi decuit maxima perfectio. Sed maior est perfectio scientiae existentis in actu quam praeexistentis in habitu. Ergo conveniens fuisse videtur quod omnia sciret in actu. Ergo non habuit habitualem scientiam.   Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no habitual knowledge. For it has been said (Question [9], Article [1]) that the highest perfection of knowledge befitted Christ's soul. But the perfection of an actually existing knowledge is greater than that of a potentially or habitually existing knowledge. Therefore it was fitting for Him to know all things actually. Therefore He had not habitual knowledge.
Praeterea, cum habitus ordinetur ad actum, frustra videtur esse habitualis scientia quae nunquam in actum reducitur. Cum autem Christus sciverit omnia, sicut iam dictum est, non potuisset omnia illa actu considerare unum post aliud cognoscendo, quia infinita non est enumerando pertransire. Frustra ergo fuisset in eo scientia habitualis, quod est inconveniens. Habuit igitur actualem scientiam omnium quae scivit, et non habitualem.   Objection 2: Further, since habits are ordained to acts, a habitual knowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless. Now, since Christ knew all things, as was said Question [10], Article [2], He could not have considered all things actually, thinking over one after another, since the infinite cannot be passed over by enumeration. Therefore the habitual knowledge of certain things would have been useless to Him---which is unfitting. Therefore He had an actual and not a habitual knowledge of what He knew.
Praeterea, scientia habitualis est quaedam perfectio scientis. Perfectio autem est nobilior perfectibili. Si igitur in anima Christi fuit aliquis habitus scientiae creatus, sequeretur quod aliquid creatum esset nobilius anima Christi. Non igitur in anima Christi fuit scientia habitualis.   Objection 3: Further, habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower. But perfection is more noble than the thing perfected. If, therefore, in the soul of Christ there was any created habit of knowledge, it would follow that this created thing was nobler than the soul of Christ. Therefore there was no habitual knowledge in Christ's soul.
Sed contra, scientia Christi de qua nunc loquimur, univoca fuit scientiae nostrae, sicut et anima eius fuit unius speciei cum anima nostra. Sed scientia nostra est in genere habitus. Ergo et scientia Christi fuit habitualis.   On the contrary, The knowledge of Christ we are now speaking about was univocal with our knowledge, even as His soul was of the same species as ours. But our knowledge is in the genus of habit. Therefore the knowledge of Christ was habitual.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, modus huius scientiae inditae animae Christi fuit conveniens ipsi subiecto recipienti, nam receptum est in recipiente per modum recipientis. Est autem hic modus connaturalis animae humanae, ut quandoque sit intellectus actu, quandoque in potentia. Medium autem inter puram potentiam et actum completum est habitus. Eiusdem autem generis est medium et extrema. Et sic patet quod modus connaturalis animae humanae est ut recipiat scientiam per modum habitus. Et ideo dicendum est quod scientia indita animae Christi fuit habitualis, poterat enim ea uti quando volebat.   I answer that, As stated above (Article [4]), the mode of the knowledge impressed on the soul of Christ befitted the subject receiving it. For the received is in the recipient after the mode of the recipient. Now the connatural mode of the human soul is that it should understand sometimes actually, and sometimes potentially. But the medium between a pure power and a completed act is a habit: and extremes and medium are of the same genus. Thus it is plain that it is the connatural mode of the human soul to receive knowledge as a habit. Hence it must be said that the knowledge imprinted on the soul of Christ was habitual, for He could use it when He pleased.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in anima Christi fuit duplex cognitio, et utraque suo modo perfectissima. Una quidem excedens modum naturae humanae, qua scilicet vidit Dei essentiam et alia in ipsa. Et haec fuit perfectissima simpliciter. Et talis cognitio non fuit habitualis, sed actualis respectu omnium quae hoc modo cognovit. Alia autem cognitio fuit in Christo secundum modum proportionatum humanae naturae, prout scilicet cognovit res per species sibi divinitus inditas, de qua cognitione nunc loquimur. Et haec cognitio non fuit simpliciter perfectissima, sed perfectissima in genere humanae cognitionis. Unde non oportuit quod semper esset in actu.   Reply to Objection 1: In Christ's soul there was a twofold knowledge---each most perfect of its kind: the first exceeding the mode of human nature, as by it He saw the Essence of God, and other things in It, and this was the most perfect, simply. Nor was this knowledge habitual, but actual with respect to everything He knew in this way. But the second knowledge was in Christ in a manner proportioned to human nature, i.e. inasmuch as He knew things by species divinely imprinted upon Him, and of this knowledge we are now speaking. Now this knowledge was not most perfect, simply, but merely in the genus of human knowledge; hence it did not behoove it to be always in act.
Ad secundum dicendum quod habitus reducitur in actum ad imperium voluntatis, nam habitus est quo quis agit cum voluerit. Voluntas autem se habet ad infinita indeterminate. Et tamen hoc non est frustra, licet non in omnia actualiter tendat, dummodo tendat actualiter in id quod convenit loco et tempori. Et ideo etiam habitus non est frustra, licet non omnia reducantur in actum quae habitui subiacent, dummodo reducatur in actum id quod congruit ad debitum finem voluntatis secundum exigentiam negotiorum et temporis.   Reply to Objection 2: Habits are reduced to act by the command of the will, since a habit is that "with which we act when we wish." Now the will is indeterminate in regard to infinite things. Yet it is not useless, even when it does not actually tend to all; provided it actually tends to everything in fitting place and time. And hence neither is a habit useless, even if all that it extends to is not reduced to act; provided that that which befits the due end of the will be reduced to act according as the matter in hand and the time require.
Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum et ens dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, simpliciter. Et sic bonum et ens dicitur substantia, quae in suo esse et in sua bonitate subsistit. Alio modo dicitur ens et bonum secundum quid. Et hoc modo dicitur ens accidens, non quia ipsum habeat esse et bonitatem, sed quia eo subiectum est ens et bonum. Sic igitur scientia habitualis non est simpliciter melior aut dignior quam anima Christi, sed secundum quid, nam tota bonitas habitualis scientiae cedit in bonitatem subiecti.   Reply to Objection 3: Goodness and being are taken in two ways: First, simply; and thus a substance, which subsists in its being and goodness, is a good and a being; secondly, being and goodness are taken relatively, and in this way an accident is a being and a good, not that it has being and goodness, but that its subject is a being and a good. And hence habitual knowledge is not simply better or more excellent than the soul of Christ; but relatively, since the whole goodness of habitual knowledge is added to the goodness of the subject.


Index  [<< | >>]
Third Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 11  [<< | >>]
Article: 6  [<< | >>]

Whether this knowledge was distinguished by divers habits?

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in anima Christi non fuerit nisi unus habitus scientiae. Quanto enim scientia est perfectior, tanto est magis unita, unde et Angeli superiores per formas magis universales cognoscunt, ut in prima parte dictum est. Sed scientia Christi fuit perfectissima. Ergo fuit maxime una. Non ergo fuit distincta per plures habitus.   Objection 1: It would seem that in the soul of Christ there was only one habit of knowledge. For the more perfect knowledge is, the more united it is; hence the higher angels understand by the more universal forms, as was said in the FP, Question [55], Article [3]. Now Christ's knowledge was most perfect. Therefore it was most one. Therefore it was not distinguished by several habits.
Praeterea, fides nostra derivatur a scientia Christi, unde dicitur Heb. XII, aspicientes in auctorem fidei et consummatorem, Iesum. Sed unus est habitus fidei de omnibus credibilibus, ut in secunda parte dictum est. Ergo multo magis in Christo non fuit nisi unus habitus scientiae.   Objection 2: Further, our faith is derived from Christ's knowledge; hence it is written (Heb. 12:2): "Looking on Jesus the author and finisher of faith." But there is only one habit of faith about all things believed, as was said in the SS, Question [4], Article [6]. Much more, therefore, was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ.
Praeterea, scientiae distinguuntur secundum diversas rationes scibilium. Sed anima Christi omnia scivit secundum unam rationem, scilicet secundum lumen divinitus infusum. Ergo in Christo fuit tantum unus habitus scientiae.   Objection 3: Further, knowledge is distinguished by the divers formalities of knowable things. But the soul of Christ knew everything under one formality, i.e. by a divinely infused light. Therefore in Christ there was only one habit of knowledge.
Sed contra est quod Zach. III dicitur quod super lapidem unum, idest Christum, sunt septem oculi. Per oculum autem scientia intelligitur. Ergo videtur quod in Christo fuerunt plures habitus scientiae.   On the contrary, It is written (Zach. 3:9) that on "one" stone, i.e. Christ, "there are seven eyes." Now by the eye is understood knowledge. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were several habits of knowledge.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, scientia indita animae Christi habuit modum connaturalem animae humanae. Est autem connaturale animae humanae ut recipiat species in minori universalitate quam Angeli, ita scilicet quod diversas naturas specificas per diversas intelligibiles species cognoscat. Ex hoc autem contingit quod in nobis sunt diversi habitus scientiarum, quia sunt diversa scibilium genera, inquantum scilicet ea quae reducuntur in unum genus, eodem habitu scientiae cognoscuntur; sicut dicitur in I Poster. quod una scientia est quae est unius generis subiecti. Et ideo scientia indita animae Christi fuit distincta secundum diversos habitus.   I answer that, As stated above (Articles [4],5), the knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul has a mode connatural to a human soul. Now it is connatural to a human soul to receive species of a lesser universality than the angels receive; so that it knows different specific natures by different intelligible species. But it so happens that we have different habits of knowledge, because there are different classes of knowable things, inasmuch as what are in one genus are known by one habit; thus it is said (Poster. i, 42) that "one science is of one class of object." And hence the knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul was distinguished by different habits.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, scientia animae Christi est perfectissima, et excedens scientiam Angelorum, quantum ad id quod consideratur in ea ex parte Dei influentis, est tamen infra scientiam angelicam quantum ad modum recipientis. Et ad huiusmodi modum pertinet quod scientia illa per multos habitus distinguatur, quasi per species magis particulares existens.   Reply to Objection 1: As was said (Article [4]), the knowledge of Christ's soul is most perfect, and exceeds the knowledge of angels with regard to what is in it on the part of God's gift; but it is below the angelic knowledge as regards the mode of the recipient. And it pertains to this mode that this knowledge is distinguished by various habits, inasmuch as it regards more particular species.
Ad secundum dicendum quod fides nostra innititur primae veritati. Et ideo Christus est auctor fidei nostrae secundum divinam scientiam, quae est simpliciter una.   Reply to Objection 2: Our faith rests upon the First Truth; and hence Christ is the author of our faith by the Divine knowledge, which is simply one.
Ad tertium dicendum quod lumen divinitus infusum est ratio intelligendi communis ea quae divinitus revelantur, sicut et lumen intellectus eorum quae naturaliter cognoscuntur. Et ideo oportuit in anima Christi species singularum rerum ponere ad cognoscendum cognitione propria unumquodque. Et secundum hoc, oportuit esse diversos habitus scientiae in anima Christi, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 3: The divinely infused light is the common formality for understanding what is divinely revealed, as the light of the active intellect is with regard to what is naturally known. Hence, in the soul of Christ there must be the proper species of singular things, in order to know each with proper knowledge; and in this way there must be divers habits of knowledge in Christ's soul, as stated above.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:40 1998.