I. As God, Christ is the Lord rather than the Head

of His creatures. As man, He is first and above all the Head of His Church, which, in the words of Su- arez,^'** consists of men and is partly militant here on earth, partly triumphant in Heaven. This is an article of faith clearly expressed in many passages of Holy Scripture, especially in the Epistles of St. Paul. Cfr. Eph. I, 22 sq. : " Et omnia subiecit sub pedibus eius, et ipsum dedit caput supra omnem ecclesiam,^^^ quae est corpus ipsius ^^~ — And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the Church, which is his body." Col. I, 18: " Et ipse est caput corporis ecclesiae,^^^ qui est principium, primo- genitus ex mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens — And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-bom from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy." Christ is the mystic Head of the human race and of His Church in a threefold manner, (i) As the most perfect man who can possibly exist. He excels all His fellowmen by His infinite dignity,^^* and consequently is the Head of hu- mankind in a higher sense even than Adam.^^* (2) In virtue of the Hypostatic Union Christ is by His very nature the King of kings and Lord of lords,^^^ the Ruler of all men. (3) Lastly He is pre-eminently our Head, because of the supernatural influence ^^^ which He exer-
130 Comment, in S. Theol. S. Thomae Aquinatis, III, disp. 23, sect. I, n. 2, ed. Vives, t. XVII, 647, Paris 1859: " Christus est caput totius Ecclesiae, quae ex ho- minibus constat, sive in terra mili- tantis sive in coelo regnantis."
131 *cc oXV virip irdvra rg e/c-
132 xi ffwfta avTov,
133 ^ Kf cKKXijaias.
134 Dignitas.
135 Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.
136 Gubernatio. Cfr. Eph. I, 20 sqq.; i Cor. XV, 21 sqq.
137 Causalitas.
242 UNITY IN DUALITY
cises over those who are actually or potentially united with Him as members of His mystic body.^^^
To ascertain the extension of the true Church it is necessary to distinguish, as theologians commonly do, between actual and potential membership. Unques- tionably all those human beings are in vital communion with Christ as their mystic Head, who are actually united with Him either by the heavenly light of glory j^^" or by sanctifying grace, or at least by internal faith. The Godman Jesus Christ is truly the head and fountain of all graces for the elect in Heaven, for the poor souls in Purgatory, and for all just men as well as all believing sinners on earth. These four classes together constitute the Church. The elect in Heaven behold Him in His transfigured humanity, which to the faithful on earth re- mains hidden under the species of bread and wine.^*" He operates in all through faith or charity, thus binding together the members of the militant with those of the suffering and the triumphant Church into one mystic body, called " Communion of Saints." "^
So far theologians are quite unanimous. But they differ when it comes to determining the line which di- vides the actual members of the Church from those who are merely potential Christians. Apostates and overt heretics can not be actual members of the Church, be- cause they have voluntarily severed the arteries which
138 Cfr. John I, i6, XV, i sqq., 139 On the lumen gloriae see
XVII, 21 sqq.; Eph. IV, ii sqq.; Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability,
I Cor. X, 1 6 sq., XII, i2 sq. Cfr. Essence, and Attributes, pp. loi sqq.
Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, cap. i6 140 Cfr. John VI, 57! i Cor. X,
(Denzjnger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, i6 sq.
n. 809) : " Quum enim tile ipse 141 On the Communion of Saints
lesus tamquam caput in membra et see J. P. Kirsch, The Doctrine of
tamquam vitis in palmites in ipsos the Communion of Saints in the An-
iustificatos iugiter virtutem infiuat, cient Church (tr. by J. R. M'Ke?),
tie," London 191 1.
THE " GRATIA CAPITIS " 243
connected them with the mystic Head. But what about covert heretics? Can they be considered actual mem- bers of the Church? Suarez says no; Bellarmine re- plies in the affirmative.^*- With regard to the heathen, theologians are pretty generally agreed that they belong to the Church potentially (in potentia), because Christ died for them also, and though they have not the true faitli, they receive actual graces through His merits. Even the unborn infants are potential members of the Redeem- er's mystic body, for the reason that, at least mediately, through the prayers of their parents and those of the Church, they are brought under His influence. Christ cannot, however, be called the Head of the reprobate sinners in hell. He is their rigorous Lord and avenging Judge, but not their Head, because, being irrevocably cut off from His mystic body, they are no longer capable of being His members.
It is a matter of debate among divines whether or not Christ was also the Head of the human race in Paradise. The Thomists deny,^*^ whereas the Scotists and Suarez ^** affirm it, either absolutely or hypothetically, each accord- ing to his individual attitude with respect to the pre- destination of the Incarnation.^*^
2. The question whether or not Christ by virtue of the gratia capitis is also the Head of the Angels, is an- swered in the negative by some of the Fathers and Scholastics, who maintain that between Christ as man and the angelic spirits there is lacking that homogeneity of nature and that influence of grace which constitute the essential characteristics of a head in the supernatural
142 Cfr. Palmieri, De Romano 144 Comment, in S. TheoL, III, Pontifice cum Prolegom. de Ecclesia, disp. 23, sect, t, n. 5.
pp. 47 sqq., 2nd ed., Prati 1891. 145 For a discussion of this point
143 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. we must refer the student to Sote- 9, art. 2, § 3. riology.
244 UNITY IN DUALITY
sphere. As Christ became incarnate solely for man's sake, they say, the graces He merited are applicable to men only, the supernatural state of grace and glory en- joyed by the Angels being a gratuitous gift of the Blessed Trinity."^ In the opinion of Billuart, how- ever, with which we are inclined to agree, it is little less than temerarious to deny that, in a certain sense at least, the Godman is also the Head of the angelic hosts. " Christum esse caput angelorum aliquo modo, puta quoad externam guhernationem, sicut Papa dicitur caput Ecclesiae," he says,^*'^ " non videtur posse negari sine errore, turn propter apertissima s. Scripturae testi- monia et s. Patrum, turn quia esset negare Christum esse principem ac Dominum angelorum atque totius Ecclesiae triumphantis, quae ex hominibus et angelis constat." In matter of fact Christ's headship over the Angels can be rigorously demonstrated by a threefold argument. First, He is by dignity the Head not only of men, but of all creatures, which as such owe Him homage, obedience, and adoration, as the Apostle testifies in Heb. I, 6: " Et quum iterum introdiicit primogenitum in orbem ter- rae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angeli — And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him." Again, since that which is more perfect rules over that which is less perfect, there is every reason to assume that the Angels are subject to Christ even qua man. While the infernal spirits tremble with fear and rage because they are compelled to serve Christ, the blessed Angels
146 Thus Gabriel Biel, Driedo, angelorum, explicant hominum esse Soto, and others. Suarez comments caput secundum humanitatem, an- on this opinion as follows: " Cut gclorum vera secundum divinita- sententiae videntur favere multi Pa- tern " (I. c). tres, qui ubicumque Paulus dicit I-IT De Incarn,, diss. 9, art. 3. Christum esse caput hominum et
THE " GRATIA CAPITIS " 245
gladly do His bidding and are proud to acknowledge Him as their Ruler and Lord. Cfr. Matth. IV, 11: "And behold angels came and ministered to him." ^*^
It is somewhat more difficult to decide whether the Godman is the Head of the angelic hosts also from the third point of view, i. e., as the source of grace. The- ologians disagree on this question. One group holds with Scotus that all graces without exception, and con- sequently also the grace bestowed upon the Angels, are exclusively attributable to Christ and His merits. An- other, under the leadership of St. Thomas, defines the grace of Christ purely as redemptive grace in which the Angels do not share. But even in the Thomistic hy- pothesis Christ retains such a far-reaching accidental influence of grace over the Angels that He can still be called their Head. For even if He had not mer- ited for them the full state of grace and glory which they enjoy. He would 3'et undoubtedly be in a position to communicate to them an accidental increase of light and happiness from the infinite thesaurus of His grace. When the angelic intellect turns towards the luminous soul of the Godman, it is flooded with light and enriched with prolific concepts. This truth is entirely independent of the theory of the three " hierarchic acts " (illuminare, purgare, and perficere) which Pseudo-Dionysius attributes to the Angelic intellect."* Since, however, the Angels, unlike the members of tlie human race, are not of the same species with Christ, De Lugo finds the ultimate cause of our Lord's headship over them in the two prerogatives of His infinite dignity and exalted dominion.
1*8 SiijKorovr avria. Cfr. De St. Thomas, Comment, in Quatuor
Lugo, De Mysl, Incarn., disp. 30, Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 13, qu. 2,
sect. I, n. 7. art. 2.
149 De Gael. Hier., VII, 3; cfr.
246 UNITY IN DUALITY
3. As regards the third and last category of creatures, viz.: those which constitute the material universe, the infinite dignity and supreme dominion of the Godman undoubtedly give Him a natural claim to rule as pri- mogenitus omnis creaturae et primatum tenens over the entire universe. Inasmuch, however, as the title of " headship " connotes a certain willingness, docility, and manageableness on the part of the subject members, it is more appropriate to call Christ the Lord than the Head of material creatures. And the same prin- ciple applies to His headship over the demons and repro- bate sinners in hell. He is their Lord rather than their Head. The devils, who are intelligent creatures, will not obey Him; the irrational brutes and matter, being destitute of reason, can not obey Him. Both serve Him under compulsion.
Some theologians hold that Christ's humanity exer- cises a physical influence over all creatures without ex- ception. But this theory rests on false assumptions and is philosophically untenable. For, as Suarez pertinently observes," hoc non pertinet ad dignitatem assumptae hu- manitatis nee est necessarium ad manifestationem no- minis Christi." ^®" It will be sufficient to say, therefore, that Christ, as man, ranks infinitely above the created universe, and that all creatures are subject to Him and compelled to do His bidding. Cfr. Matth. VIII, 27: " The winds and the sea obey him." ^°^
Readings: — Bougaud-Currie, The Divinity of Christ, pp. 66 sqq., New York 1906. — * L. Atzberger, Die Unsiindlichkeit Christi, Mijnchen 1883. — K. Hennemann, Die Heiligkeit Jesu als Beweis
160 Comment, in Quatuor Libros L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. Sent., Ill, disp. 23, sect, i, n. 9. I, pp. 374 sqq.; Fraazelin, De
161 On the gratia capitis cfr. St. Verba Incarn., thes. 41; Stentrup, Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 8; also Soteriologia, thes. 169 sqq.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 247
seiner Gottheit, Wurzburg 1898. — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 149 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1901. — W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 238 sqq., London
s. a.
ARTICLE 2
THE HUMAN KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST
Having dealt in a previous treatise with the di- vine knowledge of Christ, qua Logos (x. e. God),^ we may here confine ourselves to a consideration of His human knowledge.
The nature and extent of Christ's human knowledge is one of the most difficult problems in Christology. While the Church in her contro- versies with various heretics was repeatedly com- pelled to concern herself in a special manner with the will of our Divine Lord, she never had any particular occasion to decide the questions that have arisen in regard to His intellect.
The Hypostatic Union is the source and fountainhead of all the prerogatives and graces with which the soul of Jesus is endowed. It goes without saying that these prerogatives and graces are the highest and noblest of which a creature is capable. Since, however, no crea- ture can ever become God, (this would involve a con- tradiction), the humanity of Christ is not God. The Hypostatic Union did not result in an apotheosis of the assumed manhood, but only in what is technically termed O&nroirjavi. The mystery enveloping the Hypostatic
1 Pohle-Prenss, Cod: His Knowabilify, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 327 sqq.
248 UNITY IN DUALITY
Union makes it difficult for us to find the correct mean between these two extremes. It is probably due to this circumstance that certain theologians ^ have left the beaten track of traditional teaching in this important ques- tion. There can be no doubt that the universal and con- stant teaching of Catholic theologians in matters of faith constitutes the best source of certainty.
Generally speaking, man is capable of a three- fold knowledge : ( i ) that derived from the bea- tific vision of God, (2) infused knowledge, and (3) acquired or experimental knowledge, derived from sense perception and experience. The first kind of knowledge (scientia beata) is a preroga- tive of the elect in Heaven, who participate in the divine knowledge of the Blessed Trinity through the medium of the so-called lumen gloriae. Ac- quired or experimental knowledge is conditioned by the present constitution of human nattire and therefore peculiar to man as a wayfarer. The supernatural gifts of faith and grace do not dis- pense him from dependence on the material world. Midway between these two species stands the knowledge infused by God (scientia infnsa). This kind of knowledge is connatural to the an- gelic intellect, and theologians commonly hold that it was conferred as a supernatural gift on Adam and Solomon.
2 This group comprises the school unquestioned loyalty to the Church, of Giinther, the Modernists, H. e. g., Klee and Laurent. Schell, and also a few divines of
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 249
The soul of Christ simultaneously possessed all three kinds of knowledge, as we shall now pro- ceed to demonstrate.
Thesis I: From the first moment of its existence in a human body the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ en- joyed the beatific vision of God.
If the soul of Christ on earth was constituted in the possession of the beatific vision, and of such knowledge of God and the created universe as that vision implies, then His state, in this respect, was not so much that of a wayfarer, but rather the status termini proper to the elect in Heaven.
Hence the theological axiom : " Chrlstus erat viator simul et comprehensor." Modernistic theologians con- tend that this axiom involves a contradiction, or at least that the simultaneous possession of these two kinds of knowledge is incompatible with the life and passion of our Lord in His capacity as Mediator between God and man. To escape this alleged contradiction they deny Him the visio beata. As Sacred Scripture and Tradition teach nothing definite on the matter and the Church has never put forth a formal definition, this denial does not in- volve heresy; but it runs counter to a theological con- clusion which, supported as it is by the unanimous consent of older theologians and the belief of the faith- ful, may be regarded as certain. Suarez says : " I re- gard the contrary opinion as erroneous, nay even as bordering on heresy (proximam haeresi), because the testimony of Sacred Scripture in connection with the teaching of the Fathers and the consensus of all
250 UNITY IN DUALITY
Catholic doctors is sufficient to produce certainty."* One may think this censure too rigorous, but it is hard to escape the force of the argument formulated by such a cautious and unprejudiced theologian as Petavius: "Nemo hactenus bond Me christianus, i. e. catholicus scriptor exstitit/' he says, " qui de Christo aliter existi- maret quam eum numquam, ex quo vivere coepit, divino aspectu caruisse; nee hodie quisquam est, rudis licet literarum et idiota, qui si utcumque quid Christus sit noverit, non idem de eo rogatus respondeat." * A fur- ther motive for adhering to the traditional teaching is that the Scholastics and later theologians, though fully cog- nizant of the difficulties which prompt modern writers to reject the older view, never swerved from the path mapped out by the Fathers.
Proof. — a) To construct a solid Scriptural ar- gument we must find texts which treat expressly of the human knowledge of Jesus ; such as merely prove His divine knowledge,^ or can be inter- preted by the Communication of Idioms,^ are manifestly inconclusive.
Some divines' appeal to John III, 13: "Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius hominis qui est in coelo — No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." To " be in heaven," they say, means to " be constituted in the possession of the beatific vision." But this interpretation is by no means cogent.
iDe Incarn., disp. 2Sf sect. i. «£. g., John XII, 26, XIV, 3.
4 De Incarn., IX, c. 4, n. 8. XVII, 24.
8 For example, Matth. XI, 27; ^ Prominent among them Cardi-
Luke X, 22. nal Billot.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 251
By virtue of the Communication of Idioms the " Son of man " is as much " in heaven " as the " Son of God," because both are identical with the Divine Person of the Logos.*
A more apposite text is John I, 17-18: "Quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et Veritas per lesum Chri- stum facta est. Detitn nemo vidit unquam, tinigenitus Filius, qui est in sinii Patris, ipse enarravit — For the law was given by Moses ; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Though this passage refers primarily to the divine vision of the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, the Evangelist seems to include also the human vision of His soul. Had he meant only the divine vision of the Logos as such, " He who declares the Father " would be either a mere automaton or at best a prophet enlightened by Revelation, In the former hypothesis Christ would rank beneath Moses, in the latter assumption He would certainly not surpass that inspired Jewish law-giver, be- cause without divine inspiration it is impossible for any prophet to declare the mysteries of God. But what the Evangelist wishes to accentuate in the above quoted passage is precisely that Christ's superiority over IMoses is not merely one of degree, but essentially differ- ent, as different as the Old Testament is from the New. Wherein does this essential difference consist ? " He who declares," i. e., the Son of man as such, really saw God. Consequently the soul of Christ was consti- tuted in the possession of the beatific vision.
8 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelecl. Dog- burgi 1909; L. Janssens, De Deo- mat.. Vol. IV, 3d ed., p. 139, Fri- Homine, Vol. I, pp. 410 sq.
17
252 UNITY IN DUALITY
St. Thomas Aquinas ^ successfully appeals to John VIII, 55: " Et non cognovistis eum [scil. Patrem], ego autem novi eum}° Et si dixero quia non scio eum, era similis vobis mendax. Sed scio eum ^^ et sermonem eius servo — You have not known him [i. e., the Father], but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word." In this passage the phrase " I know him " describes a clear, intuitive knowledge of the Father, and consequently of the entire Trinity ; but such knowledge is impossible except through the beatific vision. Now our Divine Saviour claims this knowledge not only as God, but also as man, for it is only as man that He can " keep the word " of His Heavenly Father and say of Himself, as He does in the verse immediately preceding: "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me." ^^
b) The Patristic texts that can be adduced in confirmation of our thesis are too meagre to allow us to speak of a strict argument from the writings of the Fathers.
St. Augustine in his allegorical explanation of the resuscitation of Lazarus observes that Lazarus lying in the tomb and wrapped in a shroud is a figure of our earthly knowledge of God, whereas Lazarus released from his grave and restored to life symbolizes the knowledge of God which we are to enjoy in Heaven.^* He adds that this simile applies to all men with the sole exception of Christ, who enjoyed the beatific vision as a wayfarer here on earth.^*
9 S. Thcol., 3a, qu. 9, art 2. 12 John VIII, 54.
10 olSa avriv, 13 Cfr. i Cor. XIII, 12.
11 ol5o aiT6i', 1* Lib. 83 Quaesl., qu. 65 : " Ipse
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 253
Pope St. Leo the Great teaches: " Quum simplex et incommutabilis natura deitatis tota sit semper in sua essentia nee damnum sui recipiens nee augmentum et sie naturam assumptam beatifieans, tit glorifieata in glori- ficante permaneat." ^^
The only ecclesiastical writer who has treated this question ex professo is St. Fulgentius of Ritspe. He holds that the soul of Christ, because of its divine dignity derived from the Hypostatic Union, must nec- essarily have been constituted in the possession of the beatific vision : " Caveamus ne, quum anima Christi to- tum Patrem nosse non ereditur, ipsi uni Christo ex aliqua parte non solum Patris, sed etiam sui et Spiritus S. cognitio denegetur; perquam vero durum est et a sanitate fidei alienum, ut dicamus animam Christi non plenam suae deitatis habere notitiam, cum qua naturaliter ereditur habere personam "^^ Had St. Fulgentius con- tented himself with explaining, as St. Thomas did several centuries later, that the soul of Christ on earth saw, but did not adequately comprehend the Blessed Trinit>', — be- cause no creature can have an adequate comprehension of the Godhead, — he would deserve to be called, in respect of Christolog}', " a Scholastic before the days of Scholas- ticism." But he grossly exaggerates when in the process of his argument he identifies simple vision with adequate comprehension, — a proceeding which has scandalized more than one later theologian." Fulgentius himself appears to have realized that he had overshot the mark, since he says further on : " Possumus plane dicere, ani-
solus in came non tantum in monu- 16 Ep. 14 ad Ferrand., n. 26.
mento non est opprcssus, ut aliquod 17 E. g., Petavius {De Incarn.
peccatum in eo inveniretur, sed nee VI, 3, i sqq.), Thomassin (De In-
linteis implicatus, ut eum aliquid cam., 1. VII), Ruiz (De Scientia
lateret out ab itinere retardaret." Dei, disp. 6, sect. 2), and Stentnip
15 Ep. zs ad lulian, {Christologia, thes, 72).
254 UNITY IN DUALITY
mam Christi habere plenam notitiam deitatis suae; nescio tamen, utrum deheamiis dicere quod anima Christi sic suam deitatem noverit, quemadmodum se ipsa deitas no- vit, an hoc potius dicendum est, quia novit quantum ilia, sed non sicut illaf . . . Anima vero ilia ah ipsa deitate, quam plene novit, accepit ut noverit." ^® Needless to add, this distinction does not sufficiently safeguard the dogma of God's absolute incomprehensibility.^''
For the rest, we may claim the authority of the Fathers in favor of our thesis at least in so far as they teach: (i) That Christ made no intrinsic advance in either His divine or His human knowledge -° any more than in holiness or grace, and (2) that His human intellect did not admit of ignorance in the strict sense of the term, as claimed by the Agnoetae. Of these two propositions the first postulates, while the second favors the doctrine that the human soul of our Lord enjoyed the beatific vision.^^ Since the Fathers base these two propositions on the Hypostatic Union, they must have held that Christ was constituted in the possession of the beatific vision at the instant of His conception, i. e., the creation of His soul.
c) As the reader will have inferred, the ar- gument for our thesis rests mainly on theological grounds, and these grounds are very weighty indeed.
a) The Hypostatic Union is the principle and
18 Ep. 14 ad Ferrand., n. 31. rule see Third Thesis, infra, pp.
IB Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 273 sqq. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 21 For the necessary Patristic
butes, pp. 107 sqq, texts consult Chr. Pesch, Praelect.
20 On the one exception to this Dogmat., Vol, IV, pp. 141 sqq., 153
sqq.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 255
measure of our Lord's human knowledge in the same way in which it is the principle and measure of His created holiness.
Though the beatific vision is not a metaphysically neces- sary effect of the gratia unionis, the moral claim which the soul of Christ has to that vision is so strong that the burden of proof rests entirely with those who deny it. It is unthinkable that the soul of Christ should not from the very beginning of its existence have known the Logos with whom it was united in the most intimate manner con- ceivable, i. e., by Hypostatic Union, And if Christ's sa- cred humanity was endowed with the sublimest of all gifts in the order of grace, viz.: personal communion with the Godhead, it could not possibly have been deprived of the lesser gift of beatific vision in the light of glory. The soul of our Lord was constituted in the full possession of created sanctity and the perfection of grace,-- and conse- quently was elevated to the highest summit of accidental grace, which is the beatific vision of the Divine Essence. It is a theological axiom that " Glory is grace consum- mated." ^^ " The man Jesus," says Kleutgen, " is true God by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, because by this union His humanity is elevated, not to a higher degree of di- vine resemblance, but to the personal being of the Son of God. The Hypostatic Union, therefore, is not, like the beatific vision of God, a consummation of sanctifying grace. It is something far superior to both. Conse- quently grace cannot be the cause but must be an effect of the Hypostatic Union. . . . This is the only cor- rect conception of the relation between grace and the Hj-postatic Union, and it naturally leads us to conceive
22 V. supra, pp. 207 sqq.
23 " Gloria est consummata gratia,"
256 UNITY IN DUALITY
of grace in Christ as in the state of consummation. For grace was not given to Christ, qua man, to enable Him to attain to a certain predestined dignity, but because He had already attained to the highest dignity which it is possible for us to conceive. Grace in its consummation is precisely the light of glory which elevates the soul to the vision of God. If, on the contrary, the Hypostatic Union be wrongly defined as a vital commerce efifected by intel- lectual activity, we fail to distinguish its nature from that union with God into which grace permits the soul to enter. We should then be easily tempted to assume a gradual ad- vance in both, and, to be consistent, should have to place the consummation of the Hypostatic Union in the beatific vision. From all of which it is easy to see why the school of Gunther, though it does not expressly draw this infer- ence, yet hotly attacks the thesis which we defend." ^*
/^) St. Thomas argues that Christ "would not be the Head of all creatures if some creature at any time surpassed Him in mental perfection." ^^
Jesus was the Mediator between God and man, and as such was to introduce men to the beatific vision of the Divine Essence. Hence it was necessary that His human nature (as the instrumentum coniunctum divini- tatis) should enjoy the highest and fullest measure of that eternal life which He was to communicate to others. " Let it not be said," writes Kleutgen,-* " that He does not dispense eternal life until after His glorifi- cation ; for it was not in His glorification that He was
24 Theologie der Vorseit, Vol. 26 Theologie der Vorseit, Vol. Ill, III, 2nd ed., p. 276, Miinster 1870. 2nd ed., p. 280.
25 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, II, p. 147.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 257
the author of our salvation, but in the hardships and pains He endured from the manger to the Cross."
It has been objected that if a passible Saviour was able to merit for us the glory of the Resurrection, there is no reason why the beatific vision should not come to us through the merits of a Redeemer who Himself lacked this prerogative. There is no parity between the two cases. Christ's mediatorial office, which was incompat- ible with a glorified life in the body, made it neces- sary for Him to postpone His bodily transfiguration until after the Resurrection. The beatific vision, however, did not interfere with the possibility of our Lord's agonizing passion and death, and, on account of His dignity and mission as the caput gratiae, had to be His from the very moment of His conception. Hence Aquinas justly argues : " Homo est in potentia ad scientiam beatorum, quae in Dei vusione consistit et ad earn ordinatur sicut ad finem. . . . Ad hiinc aiitem fineni beatitiidinis homines reducimtur per Christi humanitatem, secundum illud (Heb. 2, 10): ' Decebat eum, propter quern omnia et per quern omnia, qui multos filios in gloriam adduxerat, auctorem salutis eorum per passionem consummari.' Et ideo oportuit quod cognitio beata in Dei visione con- sistens excellentissime Christo homini conveniret, quia semper causam oportet esse potiorem causato." -'
But how are we to reconcile Christ's life and suffer- ing on earth, especially the agony of His sacred Pas- sion, with the beatitude essentially involved in the immediate vision of God? Some theologians attempt to solve this difficulty by saying that the human soul of our Lord was filled with beatific joy in its upper, while sad- ness and pain and sorrow afflicted its lower region.-* But
27 S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 9, art. 2. a. i6f)g ab Innocentio XII (Den-
28 Cfr. Prop. IS Fenelonii damn. zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.
258 UNITY IN DUALITY
this theory hardly deserves serious consideration. Joy and sadness, happiness and sorrow, may co-exist in the spiritual soul of man, if they are due to different mo- tives and directed towards different formal objects. The blessed martyrs exulted in the midst of cruel tortures. However, we must draw a sharp distinction between spir- itual joy and bodily pain on the one hand, and spiritual joy and spiritual pain on the other. Spiritual joy is com- patible with bodily pain,^'* but the simultaneous co-exist- ence of spiritual joy and spiritual affliction has always been regarded as a most difficult problem in Christology. The fact that theologians generally have ranged it among the inscrutable mysteries rather than recede from their po- sition, is a strong proof of the vital importance which they attach to the doctrine we are expounding. Among the manifold solutions that have been offered probably the most widely known is that of Melchior Canus. Canus draws a real distinction between the action of the intellect (actus intellectus = znsio) and the action of the will {actus voluntatis = gaudium) in the visio beatifica, and holds that Jesus on the cross continued to enjoy the vision of God, though without the beatitude ordinarily attending it.*" This not altogether unlikely explanation had been adumbrated by St. Ambrose ®^ and was adopted by Greg-
1339): "Inferior Christi pars in 80 Cfr. De J^ocis Theol., XII, 13:
cruce non communicavit superiori " Sicut per totam vitam Dominus
suas involuntarias perturbationes." gloriam animae quasi premebat, ne
29 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, in corpus efflueret, sic saltern in
qu. JS, art. 5, ad 3: " Virtute cruce retinuit [=reprcssit] gau-
divinitatis Christi dispensative sic dium, quod suapte natura ex clara
beatitudo in anima contincbatur, Dei notitia prodirct."
quod non dcrivabatur ad corpus, ne Si In Luc, 1. 10, n. 56: "Pro
eius passibilitas et mortalitas tol- me doluit, qui pro se nihil habuit
leretur; et eadem ratione dclcctatio quod doleret et sequestratd dclecta-
contemplationis sic rctincbatur in tione divinitatis aeternae, taedio
mente, quod non dcrivabatur ad tneae infirmitatis afficitur," vires scnsibiles, ne per hoc dolor sensibilis tolleretur."
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 259
ory of Valentia, Salmeron, and ^laldonattis. But it hardly satisfies the enquiring mind. The intuitive vision of God is so inseparably connected with beatitude that, so far as we know, neither can exist apart from the other. A way out of the difficulty is offered by the the- ory that the will of the Elect reacts differently, (i) towards the uncreated Good and (2) towards created good. Besides the essential happiness which flows from the beatific vision, the Elect in Heaven also enjoy a spe- cies of accidental happiness derived from the spiritual con- templation of created goodness. Like their respective ob- jects, these two operations are numerically and formally distinct, though in the blessed state both rigorously ex- clude sorrow and sadness. Yet, the incompatibility of joy and sadness is due to a natural rather than an es- sential contrariety. There is at least no ontological reason why the soul of Christ, though in the full en- joyment of the beatific vision, should not have been plunged into sadness and sorrow at contemplating the innumerable sins of mankind and the painful way of the Cross. A miracle of divine omnipotence may have tem- porarily suspended the natural, though not essential, nexus between essential and accidental beatitude.^^
y) A third argument is related to the problem concerning the origin of the Messianic and divine consciousness of Christ. Our Saviour must have been fully conscious of His Divinity and Messiah- ship from the very beginning, else there would be reason to doubt the infallibility of His testimony to the truths of salvation, especially to His own
32 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 146 sqq.
26o UNITY IN DUALITY
divine Sonship and Divinity, and the meritorious- ness of the atonement.
If we deny that Christ was constituted in the pos- session of the beatific vision from the first moment of His existence, we shall find it difficult to determine in what manner and at what time His soul attained to an infallible consciousness of its Messiahship and personal union with the Godhead. We shall have to face this dilemma: Either Christ's human conscious- ness was originally and inseparably bound up with His Messianic and divine consciousness, or there was a time when His self-conscious soul was not yet aware of its being constituted in the possession of the Messianic dig- nity and the Hypostatic Union with the Divine Logos. In the first assumption there existed no other, surely no safer or more direct way of attaining to divine con- sciousness than the beatific vision of Grod, which would include the contemplation of the Logos and the Hypo- static Union. Any other means of communication in- ferior to this one would have compelled the soul of Christ to walk in the obscurity of faith with regard to its own Divinity, and for thirty-three long years firmly to hold it as a mere truth of faith, not as a mat- ter of intuitive knowledge. Such an assumption is hardly compatible with Christ's repeated assertion (which sharply dififerentiates Him from all the prophets) that he testified only to that which He had Himself seen.^' Let it not be objected that He testified as man to what He had seen as God; for it is not the Divine Logos that speaks and testifies in such passages as John III, II sqq., Ill, 27 sqq., VIII, 38, etc., but the man
88 Cfr. John I, 17, III, 11 sqq., merous other passages of similai III, 37 sqq., VIII, 38 sqq., and nu- tenor.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE
261
Jesus, and He speaks and testifies as one who understands perfectly what He has seen. Even Schell, probably the ablest defender of the new theory, admits that " faith had no room in Christ, but its place was taken by a most penetrating knowledge," ^* This " penetrating knowl- edge," freed from the limitations of faith, must be con- ceived as intuitive vision, for intuitive vision alone annuls faith.
To hold that Christ's human consciousness awoke be- fore His divine consciousness, or to assert with the Mod- ernists that " Christ did not always possess the conscious- ness of His Messianic dignity," ^^ is equivalent to saying that the soul of the Redeemer had to learn the fact of His Messiahship from elsewhere, since, according to this theor}"", it never enjoyed the beatific vision on earth. From what source could such knowledge have come? Not from a study of the prophets who had clearly pre- dicted our Lord's Messiahship and Divinity, for Holy Scripture tells us that Jesus without any schooling knew " His Father " at the age of twelve, and had a thorough command of Sacred Scripture. He did not receive this knowledge by divine illumination from within. Apart from the beatific vision, in what could such illumination have consisted except enlightened faith? But faith, no matter how enlightened, does not see or know; it gropes in the dark amid doubts and temptations.
Consequently, the divine consciousness in the human soul of our Saviour can have been derived from no other source than the beatific vision. As this divine con-
34 Dogmatik, Vol. Ill, i, 183, Paderborn 1892.
35 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- chiridion, n. 2035. The best refu- tation of this Modernist error is by Hilarin Felder, O. M. Cap., Jesus
Christus. Apologie seiner Messiani- tat und Gottheit gegenUber der neuesten ungldubigen Jesus-For- schung. Vol. I: "Das Bewusstsein Jesu," Paderborn 191 1.
262 UNITY IN DUALITY
sciousness is intimately bound up with Christ's human consciousness, which reaches back to His childhood, nay to the very instant of His conception, the divine con- sciousness of our Lord and the beatific vision with which He was endowed, must have had their inception at pre- cisely the same moment.^*
d) Of considerably less importance than the questions just discussed are the Scholastic spec- ulations regarding the extent of Christ's knowl- edge of God and the created universe, as included in the visio heatiUca.
It is of faith that God is absolutely incomprehensible to the created intellect even in the state of glory.^^ The soul of Christ was a finite creature, and therefore the beatific knowledge which it enjoyed, no matter how highly it may be rated, cannot have been equivalent to an adequate comprehension of the Divine Essence. The true doctrine of the Church on this point was trenchantly defended by St. Thomas against Fulgentius,^^ Alcuin,^" and Hugh of St. Victor.*" "Est impossible" says the Angelic Doctor, " quod aliqua creatura comprehendat divi- nam essentiam, eo quod infinitum non comprehenditur a
36 Cfr. Concil. Colon, a. i860, tit. sqq., Freiburg 1908. Cfr. also H.
5, cap. 19 {Collectio Lacensis, t. Felder, Jesus Christus, Vol. I: Das
V, p. 308): " Fuisse in anima Bewusstsein Jesu, pp. 144 sqq.,
Christi praeter scientiam acquisitam Paderborn 19:1, and F. G. Hall,
etiatn scientiam infusam, imo et The Kcnotic Theory, New York
visionem beatorum, et quidetn inde 1898.
ab ortu, magna consensu docent 37 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
theologi." — The embarrassment of Knowability, Essence, and Attri-
modern Protestant theology' through butes, pp. 107 sqq.
its false conception of the Messianic S8 V. supra, pp. 253 sq.
consciousness of Christ, is well so Dc Trinit., II, 12.
described by A. Seitz, Das Evan- 40 Opusculum de Scienlia Animae
gelium vom Gottessohn, pp. 194 Christi.
CHRIST'S HU:vIAN KNOWLEDGE 263
finito. Et ideo diceudiim est quod anima Christi nuUo modo comprehendit divinam essentiam." " Justly, there- fore, did the Council of Basle reject the proposition of Augustine of Nazareth, that " the soul of Christ sees God as clearly and intensely as God sees Himself." *-
This decision also affords us a key for the solution of the question whether or not the soul of our Lord was endowed with the scientia simplicis intelligentiae, i. e., a knowledge of those things which are possible to God's omnipotence, but never realized. To affirm this proposition would be to attribute to the human soul of Christ an adequate comprehension of the Divine Es- sence itself.*^ The affirmative opinion is therefore quite generally rejected. Theologians are agreed, however, that Christ had a knowledge of all those things which fall under the scientia visionis, i. e., all really existing things, past, present, and future, including the most hidden cogi- tations of the human heart,** This eminent though finite mode of knowledge safeguards the creatural character of the soul of Christ and corresponds to His twofold capa- city of Head of the present economy and Judge of the living and the dead.*'
Thesis II: Besides the scientia beata, the soul of Christ from the moment of its conception also pos- sessed a knowledge immediately infused by God (sci- entia infusa).
Proof. Beatific knowledge is the immediate or intuitive vision, through the lumen gloriae, of
41 S. TheoL, 3a, qu. lo, art. i. comprehendere divinam virtutem et
42 " Anima Christi videt Deum per consequens divinam essentiam." tarn dare et intense, sicut Deus 44 Luke IX, 47. Cfr. W. Hmn- videt seipsum." (Sess. XXII.) phrey, "His Di-Ane Majesty," pp.
43 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5. TheoL, 3a, 268 sqq.
qu. 10, art. 2: "Hoc enim esset 45 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5". TheoL, 3a,
264 UNITY IN DUALITY
God and His creatures as mirrored in His Es- sence. Infused knowledge is a knowledge of those creatures in themselves. Infused like bea- tific knowledge is independent of the senses, though it cannot dispense with intellectual con- cepts {species intelligibiles) .
As distinct from acquired or experimental knowledge, infused knowledge is connatural to the Angels, whereas man can enjoy it only as a preternatural prerogative of grace.*^ St. Augustine calls it " evening knowledge " (co- gnitio vespertina) in contradistinction to the " morning knowledge" (cognitio matutina) by which the Angels intue all things natural and supernatural immediately in the Divine Essence. Infused knowledge, therefore, differs widely from our ordinary knowledge, which de- pends on sense perception and intellectual concepts ab- stracted from phantasms. When granted to a human soul (as it was granted, for instance, to Adam and Solo- mon), infused knowledge adapts itself to the specific na- ture of the recipient. St. Thomas says of the infused knowledge of Christ : " Et ideo sicut in angelis secundum eundem Augustinum ponitur duplex cognitio, una scil. ma- tutina, per quam cognoscunt res in Verbo, et alia ves-
qu, 10, art. 2: " Unusquisque intel- est, ut dicitur lo, 5, 27; et ideo
lectus creatus in Verbo cognoscit anima Christi in Verbo cognoscit
nan quidem omnia simpliciter, sed omnia existentia secundum quod-
tanlo plura, qttanto perfectius videt cumquc tempus, et etiam hominum
Verbum. Nulli tamen intellectui cogitatus, quorum est iudex." On
beato deest, quin cognoscat in Verbo the views of St. Bonaventure with
omnia quae ad ipsum spectant. Ad regard to this question see L. Jans-
Christum autem et ad eius digni- sens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp.
tatem spectant quodammodo omnia, 444 sqq.
inquantum ei subiecta sunt omnia. 4« Off. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au-
Ipse etiam est omnium iudex con- thor of Nature and the Supernal-
stitutus a Deo, quia Filius hominis ural, pp. 207 sqq.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 265
pertina, per qiiam cognoscunt res in propria natura per species sibi inditas [ = infiisas], ita praeter scientiam diznnam et increatam est in Christo secundum eius animam scientia beata, qua cognoscit Verbum et res in Verba, et scientia infusa sive indita, per quam co- gnoscit res in propria natura per species intelligibiles humanae menti proportionatas." " This passage effec- tively refutes Schell's objection that " the body is merely an external additament designed to create the semblance of a human nature. A spirit who incidentally happens to have a body, even though he animates this body as his substantial form, is at most a compound of angel and" man." ** The unity and harmony of the inner life of the soul is no more disturbed by the possession of two higher modes of cognition than by the coexistence of sense and intellect. For the soul even after its separa- tion from the body attains to heavenly beatitude in two ways : primarily through the vision of God, and sec- ondarily through a twofold knowledge of the objects which are distinct from God, first as mirrored in the Divine Logos, and secondly as they are in themselves. After the resurrection of the flesh man will possess a third kind of knowledge, i. e., an experimental knowl- edge which depends on sense impressions (see Eschatol- ogy). Why should these three modes of knowledge be incompatible in Qirist?
We do not propose this thesis as theologically cer- tain. But whoever admits that the soul of Christ was constituted in the possession of the beatific vision from the moment of its creation, cannot consistently deny that it was also endowed with infused knowledge. A denial of the latter proposition would not, however, incur
47 5". Theol., 3a, qu. 9, art. 3. a Dogmatik, III, i, iii.
2(^ UNITY IN DUALITY
theological censure, because we are dealing with a specu- lative deduction and not a revealed truth. The case would be otherwise were one to assert that the human soul of Christ possessed neither beatific nor infused, but only acquired or experimental knowledge. This would be re- pugnant to the Catholic faith. The Church has always held against Nestorius, Leporius, and the Agnoetae, that the human nature of Christ was endowed with the highest wisdom and absolutely exempt from ignorance and error. It is the common teaching of theologians that our Lord's human knowledge was both beatific and in- fused.
a) While our thesis cannot be rigorously demonstrated from Sacred Scripture, it derives a high degree of probability from such texts as Is. XI, 2 : "Requiescet super eum Spiritus Domini, spiritus sapientiae et intellectus . . . cotisilii . . . scientiae — And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of un- derstanding, the spirit of counsel, and ... of knowledge." St. Thomas comments upon this manifestly Messianic passage as follows : "... sub quibus comprehenduntur omnia cognoscibilia; nam ad sapientiam pertinet cognitio omnium di- vinorum; ad intellectum autem pertinet cognitio omnium immaterialium ; ad scientiam autem per- tinet cognitio omnium conclusionum, ad consilium autem cognitio omnium agibilium" ^° "The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" means that
*9 S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 11, art. i.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 267
Christ shall be constituted in the possession of all knowledge and that His knowledge shall be in- fused.^^
The human knowledge of Christ is relatively- infinite in extent, i. e., it is the highest and most complete knowledge which it is possible for any creature to have in the present economy, and consequently, both with regard to natural and su- pernatural things, it is the ideal of all knowledge.
This conclusion is confirmed by the words of St. John the Baptist as recorded in John IH, 34: " Quern enim misit Dens, verba Dei loquitur; non enim ad men- suram^^ dat Deus spiritum — For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God : for God doth not give the spirit by measure." St. Fulgentius commentates this text as follows: "Ipse enim est qui dat, ipse est qui accipit; et quia potens est ah mensuram dare, ideo non potuit ad mensuram accipere. In forma enim Dei manens Spiritum dat, formam servi accipiens Spiritum accepit; sed quia ipse ad mensuram dat, ideo non ipse ad mensuram accepit; ipsum enim, quern ad mensuram dat, totum accepit." °^
Whether Col. H, 3 can be quoted in support of our thesis is more than doubtful.^'
b) Ecclesiastical Tradition favors the proposi- tion that the soul of Christ had an inerrant knowl- edge of all things past, present, and future, and that this knowledge positively excluded igno-
50 Cfr. John I, 14, II, 23, VII, 15. 53 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol.. 3a,
51 eK fierpov, qu. 9, art. 3. 62 Ep. 14 ad Ferrand.
18
268 UNITY IN DUALITY
ranee. But it is not so deeisive on the question whether this knowledge is derived from the scientia ' beata, or the scientia infusa, or both. Though the main point of contention between the Agnoetae and the Church has not yet been fully cleared up,^* the history of this heretical sect jus- tifies certain important conclusions.
a) A sort of Agnoetism was propagated by the Arians,^^ and also by the Nestorians,'^^ but the name of Agnoetae °^ is commonly applied to a sixth-century sect, whose chief tenet is supposed to have been that Christ was ignorant ^* of certain things, especially the day of judgment.^^ It is, however, uncertain whether the subject to which they attributed this ignorance was the human nature of our Lord or a fictitious Monophysitic compound of Divinity and humanity. Whereas the Monophysite opponents of Themistius, e. g., Timothy and Theodosius, represent Agnoetism as consistently Monophysitic, the Severians and Nicephorus Callistus *" understood them as attributing ignorance to the sacred humanity of Jesus, In any case it is certain that the champions of Catholic orthodoxy against the Ag- noetae rigorously excluded all error and ignorance from
B4 Cfr. Fr. Schmid in the Inns- 07 They are also called Themis-
bruck Zeitschrift fiir katholische tians, from their founder, Themis-
Theologie, 1895, pp. 651 sqq. For tius, a Monophysite deacon of Alex-
a well documented sketch of the andria.
Agnoetae and their condemnation 68 iyvoia ignorantia.
the student is referred to J. Lebre- 69 Cfr. Mark XIII, 32.
ton, Les Origines du Dogme de la 60 Cfr. Nicephor. Callist., Hist.
TrinitS, pp. 458 sqq., Paris 1910. Eccles., XVIII, 50: ot ko2 X^7oi;
66 E. g., Eudoxius of Constanti- rbv Qthv A6yoi> iravra ixiv yivuff-
nople. K€ip> TT&tnroWa Sk dyvoelf riif
68 E. g., Theodore of Mopsuestia iivufiivrjv avri^ Kud' vir6(TTaai»
and Ncstorius himself. dvOpwirdTiiTa.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 269
the human soul of Christ by ascribing to it a relative omniscience in regard to all actually existing things, due to its Hypostatic Union with the Logos. Agnoetism they regarded as a positive heresy. The most prominent and the ablest among these champions of Catholic or- thodoxy was Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria,^^ who, according to Photius,"^ taught that " Neque humanitas Christi ^ in unam inaccessibilis et substantialis sapientiae hypostasim admissa quidquam tit reriim praesentimn ita ftittirarum poterit ignorare.^* . . . Qiiicumque enitn vel divinitati ipsius vel hutnanitati ignorantiam adscribit, numquam certissimae temeritatis crimen effugiet" ** St. Sophronius calls Themistius " ignorantiae pater et genitor atque seminator nefandissimus." °' Pope St. Gregory the Great in two letters extolled Eulogius as a brave and clever champion of the Catholic faith. " De doctrina vestra contra haereticos, qui dicuntur Agno- itae," he says, " ftiit valde quod admiraremur, quod autem displiceret, non fuit. . . . Ita autem doctrina vestra per omnia latinis Patribus concordavit, ut mirum mihi non esset, quod in diversis Unguis Spiritus non fuerit diz'ersus. . . . Res autem est valde manifesta, quia quis- quis Nestorianus non est, Agnoita esse nullatenus po- test." ^^ The last sentence is very important. In point of fact, though of Monophysitic origin, Agnoetism is ultimately reducible either to Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Christ, or to Nestorianism, which rejects the Hypostatic Union. If Christ were a mere creature, as the Arians hold. He would necessarily be subject to
61 Died 608. Cfr. Bardenhewer- irapovrosv outco Sii oiSkv twv fieX-
Shahan, Patrology, pp. 575 sq. Xovrwv,
92 Bibl. Cod., 230, n. 10 (Migne, 65 Cfr. Lebreton, Les Origines du
P. G., cm, 1069 sqq.). Dogme de la Trinite, pp. 460 sq.
63 rb dvOpuiriyov. 66 Ep. Syn. ad Sergium.
** dyvoijffei out*, uairep ruy 67 Epist., 1, X, 39.
270 UNITY IN DUALITY
ignorance and error; the same would follow from the Nestorian assumption that He was a person distinct from the omniscient Logos. It was for this reason, no doubt, that long before the time of Themistius the African bishops compelled the Gallic monk Leporius, who had incurred suspicion, to abjure Agnoetism as heretical. Among other things in which Leporius had gone astray is the question of the human knowledge of Christ. He states that when he had heard Christ charged with igno- rance, he had always considered it a sufficient answer to say that the Lord was ignorant " secundum hominem," but now he anathematized this opinion.^^
Since, according to ecclesiastical Tradition, the rela- tive omniscience of Christ, as man, has its source, prin- ciple, and 'measure in the Hypostatic Union, it follows that it must have begun simultaneously with the Hypo- static Union, i. e., at the moment of His conception.®®
/S) The Fathers differed in their interpretation of Mark XIII, 32 : "But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father."
As long as it was necessary to combat the Arian heresy that the Logos was subject to " ignorance " because He was a creature, the Fathers confined themselves to de- es Cfr. Leporius, Lihell. Emend., teaching of Gunther, J. Kleutgen, n. 10 (Migne, P. L., XXXI, 1229): Theologie der Vorseit. Vol. Ill, pp. "Nunc non solum dicere non prae- 244 sqq., Miinster 1870; on the view sumo, verum etiam priorem ana- defended by H. Schell, L. Janssens, thematiso in hac parte senlentiam, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 418 quia did non licet, etiam secundum sqq., Freiburg 1901; on the errors hominem ignorasse Dominum pro- of the Modernists see the Syllabus phetarum." of Pius X (Denzinger-Bannwart, 69 On the Agnoetism of the Prot- Enchiridion, n. 2032 sqq.) and Fcl- estant Reformers cfr. Bellarmine, der, Jesus Christus, Vol. I. De Christo, IV, 1-5; on the false
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 271
fending Christ's divine nature against the charge of ig- norance, and some passages in their writings create the impression that they did it at the expense of His sacred humanitj'. Leontius Byzantinus in his contro- versies with the Agnoetae went so far as to admit that the testimony of the earlier Fathers ^° was practically worth- less in consequence of their having made this mistake. Eulogius excused them on the plea that " If sundry Fathers have admitted ignorance in the humanity of our Saviour, they have not set it down as an article of faith, but [made this admission] merely to reject the folly of the Arians, who shifted all human attributes to the Divinity in order to prove that the Divine Logos is a creature." ^^ Petavius ^^ takes a similar view, while Suarez,'^ Kleutgen,'* and Stentrup,^^ vigorously defend the orthodoxy of the early Fathers.
Some of the Fathers explain Mark XIII, 32 in a mystic sense, referring Christ's " ignorance " to His mystic body, i. e., the Church,'^^ Others hold that when Christ said he did not know the day of judgment, He meant that He had no knowledge which He was free to communicate {scientia communicahilis) ,''' nor any knowledge derived from His human intellect, abstracting from the Hy- postatic Union.^* Of these three interpretations the second and third are simple and natural, whereas the first strikes one as factitious. It is perfectly consonant with the economy of salvation as proclaimed by our
"0 Notably Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria.
71 In Photius' Cod., 240.
12 De Incarn., XI, 1.
73 In Summam Theol., Ill, qu. 10, art. 2.
74 Theologie der Vorseit, VoL III, pp. 258 sqq.
75 Ckristologia, thes. 73.
76 Thus Origen, Gregory the Great, etc.
77 This theory is held by St. Hilary, St. Augustine, and others.
78 Thus Gregory Nazianzen, John Damascene, and others.
272 UNITY IN DUALITY
Lord on other occasions/® that the determination of the time of the last judgment should be reserved to the official sphere of the Father, and that the Son had con- sequently no right to reveal it.^'* On the other hand it is obvious that the humanity of Christ, being a creature, could not of itself know the hidden counsels of Provi- dence, though our Lord no doubt possessed this knowl- edge by and through the Hypostatic Union, because He was the " Son of man " and destined to be the Judge of the living and the dead.*^
c) The theological argument for our thesis is based on the fact that, though a true man, Christ was not a mere man, but the Godman. As Godman He had a formal claim to the most per- fect knowledge of which His soul was capable.^^ As a wayfarer He cannot have been less perfect than Adam, who was endowed with infused knowledge,^^ nor less wise than Solo- mon, whose mind was directly enlightened by God.
79 Cfr. Matth. XX, 23; Acts I, 7. pp. 157 sqq. — On the exegetical in-
80 Cfr. St. Augustine, Enarr. in terpretation of Mark XIII, 32, see Ps., 36, Serm. I, 1 : " Quia vera A. Seitz, Das Evangelium vom Got- Dominus noster lesus Christus ma- tessohn, pp. 251 sqq., Freiburg 1908; gister nobis missus est, etiam Fiiius W. T, C. Sheppard, O. S. B., " The hominis dixit se nescire ilium diem, ' Kenosis ' according to St. Mark," quia in magisterio eius non erat, in the Irish Theological Quarterly, ut per eum sciretur a nobis." Vol. V (1910), No. 19; J. Lebreton,
81 Cfr. Gregory the Great, Ep., Les Origines du Dogme de la X, 39: "In natura quidem hu- Trinitc, pp. 447-458.
manitatis novit diem ct horam iudicii, 82 St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu.
sed tamen hunc non ex natura hu- 9, art. 3.
fnanitatis novit." — Additional argu- 83 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the
ments in Kleutgen's Theologie der Author of Nature and the Super'
Vorseit, Vol. Ill, pp. 256 sqq.; Chr. natural, pp. 207 sqq.
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV,
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 2-]^
St. Paul teaches that Christ was from the very instant of His conception elevated to the headship of the angelic creation,** and that it was therefore congruous that His soul should know the purely spiritual beings subject to His rule not per species alienas, but per species proprias infusas, though of course only in so far as this angelic mode of knowledge is supematurally communicable to a human soul.*'
Thesis III: The soul of Christ likewise possessed a progressive experimental or empiric knowledge (scientia acquisita).
This thesis may be said to voice the common teaching of theologians.
Proof. Besides the divine knowledge which Jesus, qua man, enjoyed by virtue of the beatific vision, and besides-the angelic knowledge infused immediately into His human .soul. He also pos- sessed acquired knowledge, i. e., that specifically human knowledge which is gained through sense perception and the natural use of reason.
This kind of knowledge was not, it is true, indispen- sable to the perfection of His intellect. But along with the state which was His by virtue of the beatific vision, Christ had also assiuned what theologians call the way- faring state, namely that in which men are constituted during their mortal lives here upon earth, while on
84 V. supra, pp. 243 sq. distinction between scUntia infuta
85 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, per se and per accidens, and the qti. II, art. 4. On the extent of controversies incident thereto, see this infused knowledge cfr. Suarez, De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., diap. De Incarn., disp. 27 sq.; on the 21, sect. i.
274 UNITY IN DUALITY
the way to their heavenly home.^^ As a wayfarer He was entitled to the mode of knowledge appropriate to the state of earthly pilgrimage. Although by virtue of the scientia beata and the scientia infusa Christ knew everything that experience could teach Him, still He was after a fashion able to " learn," that is, to become acquainted with what He already knew, as it were from a different point of view, i. e., that of human ex- perience. Such a knowledge, though limited in value, is not without its usefulness. As the " morning knowl- edge " of the Angels by no means renders their infe- rior " evening knowledge " valueless, though .the two differ only in mode and origin but not in content, so the acquired knowledge of Jesus may have added new and valuable momenta to what He already knew from other sources. Was not His personal experience of actual suffering something totally different from the concept of His Passion previously existing in His human intellect? Cfr. Heb. V, 8: " Et quidem quum esset Filius Dei, didicit ^^ ex Us, quae passus est, obedientiam — And whereas indeed He was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered."
a) That our Lord really possessed acquired knowledge can be proved from the fact that He was a perfectly organized man, equipped with all the natural faculties of a human being, both sen- sitive and intellectual. His nature demanded experimental knowledge. To deny this would savor of Docetism.®^
8« Cfr. W. Humphrey, S. J., The 88 The Docetae held that the sa-
One Mediator, p. 262. cred humanity was fictitious and
87 ifjtaOev. apparitional. F. supra, pp. 41 sqq.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNO\\T£DGE 275
Basing his argument on the Aristotelian and Scholastic distinction between the intellect us agens and the inteU lectus possibilis,^^ St. Thomas argues out this point as follows: "Nihil eorum, quae Deus in nostra natura platitGfit, defuit naturae assumptae a Dei Verbo. Mani- festum est autem, quod in humana natura Deus plantavit non solum intellectum possibilem, sed etiam intellectum agentem. Unde necesse est dicere, quod in anima Christi fuit non solum intellectus possibilis, sed etiam intellectus agens. Si autem in aliis Deus et natura nihil frustra faciunt, . . . multo minus in anima Christi aliquid fuit frustra. Frustra autem est, quod non habet propriam operationem. . . . Propria autem operatio intellectus agentis est facere species intelligibiles actu, abstrahendo eas a phantasmatibus [= process of abstraction]. Sic igitur necesse est dicere, quod in Christo fuerint aliquae species intelligibiles per actionem intellectus agentis in intellectu possibili eius receptae: quod est esse in ipso scientiam acquisitam, quam quidem experimentalem vacant."^ Expressed in modem terms this means: The human soul of Qirist, like any other human soul, ac- quired universal ideas by abstracting intellectual concepts from sensible phantasms. St. Luke tells us "^ that Jesus " advanced in wisdom," which, when applied to natural experience, must be tmderstood not merely of a grad- ual outward manifestation, but of real inward increase.^^ " Quomodo proficiebat sapientia Deif " asks St. Ambrose, and answers: " Doceat te ordo zerborum. Profectus est aetatis et profectus sapientiae, sed humanae est. Ideo aetatem ante praemisit, ut secundum hominem
89 On the Aristotelian theory of »0 5". Theol., 3a, qu. 9, art. 4.
abstraction as developed by the Si Lake II, 52: xp»eic»rre v^i^
Scholastics, cfr. M. Maher, S. J., ical i/KiKla, Psychology, pp. 303 sqq., 8th ed., 92 V. supra, p. 237.
London 1906.
276 UNITY IN DUALITY
crederes dictum; aetas enim non divinitatis, sed corporis est. Ergo si proficiebat aetate hominis, proficiebat sa- pientid hominis, sapientia autem sensu proficit." ^^ St. Thomas says : " Tam scientia infusa animae Christi quam scientia beata fuit effectus agentis iniinitae virtutis, qui potest simul totum operari; et ita in neutra scientia Christus profecit, sed a principio earn perfectam habuit. Sed scientia acquisita causatur ab intellectu agente, qui non simul totum operatur, sed successive; et ideo se- cundum hanc scientiam Christus non a principio scivit omnia, sed paulatim et post aliquod tempus, scil. in per- fecta aetate: quod patet ex hoc quod Evangelista simul dicit eum profecisse scientia et aetate." ^*
b) As appears from the last sentence of the preced- ing quotation, the Angelic Doctor holds that there was a true advance in the experimental knowledge of Christ, and that this knowledge gradually increased until it had exhausted all those objects which can be known by means of the intellectus agens. In order to show the possibility of such a " natural omniscience " (which is not omniscience in the strict sense of the term) sundry theologians have had recourse to more or less fan- tastic theories. Suarez, De Lugo, and among mod- ern writers Tepe, adopted the theory of a scientia per accidens infusa, which St. Thomas had taught in his youth but retracted in the Summa Theologica.^^ Others, like Cardinal Cajetan, held that the natural ex- perimental knowledge of Christ was brought to the highest state of perfection by the successive presentation to His senses (through the ministry of angels) of all the various objects that go to make up the physical uni- verse (fish, birds, brute beasts, the stars, etc.). Duran-
OZ De Incarn., VII, 71. 06 Cfr. also S. Theol., 3a, qu. 12,
94 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 12, art. 2, art. i. ad I. 06 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 9, art. 4.
CHRIST'S HUMAN KNOWLEDGE 2^^
dus, Marsilius, Gabriel Biel, and Cardinal Toletus took middle ground between these two extremes. They main- tained that the knowledge which our Lord gained by the exercise of His natural faculties, though ineffably perfect, was not and never became absolutely infinite. It seems indeed suflficient to hold that Christ represents the unat- tainable ideal of all empirical knowledge and natural sci- ence. What Adam and Solomon were unable to learn by natural means and knew only by virtue of the scientia per accidens infusa, was part of the connatural perfection of Christ and acquired by Him gradually in proportion to His advance in age. This theory safeguards the dig- nity of the Divine Logos and at the same time does full justice to the dogma of the genuinity of the himian nature of Jesus. Experimental knowledge is comparatively less perfect than either beatific or infused knowledge, but even though finite, it perfects and ennobles its possessor .''
Readings : — W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 252 sqq., London s. a. — J. Kirschkamp, Das menschliche Wissen Christi, Wiirzburg 1873. — J- M- Harty, " The Modem Kenotic Theory," in tlie Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. I (1906), Nos. I and 2. — For the history of the " Kenotic problem " consult E. J. Hanna, " The Human Knowledge of Christ " in the Nezc York Reziew, Vol. I (1905-6), Xos. 3 and 4; VoL HI (1908), Nos. 4 and 5; also K Schulte, O. F. M., Die Entivicklung der Lehre vom menschlichen Wissen Christi bis sum Beginn der Scholastik, Paderborn 1914. — Lepicier, De Incarn. Verbi, VoL I, pp. 395 sqq. — M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, Philadelphia 1910. — J. Kleut- gen, S. J., Theologie der Vorseit, Vol. HI, pp. 244 sqq., Miinster 1870. — Bellarmine, Controversiae de Christo, 1. IV, c. 1-5. — J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogr.ie de la Trinite, Note C, pp. 447 sqq., Paris 1910. — F. J. Hall (Anglican), The Kenotic Theory, pp. 176 sqq., New York 1898. — M. Waldhauser, Die Kenose und die moderne prot. Chrisfologie, Mainz 1912. — J. Marie, De Agnoetarum Doctrina. Zagreb (Croatia) 1914.
97 Cfr. Vasquez, III, disp. 43. c. Homo, 1. IV, sect. 2, c. 1 ; Tepe, 2; Theoph. Raynaud, Christtu Deus- Instit. Theol., Vol. Ill, pp. 564 sqq.
278 UNITY IN DUALITY.
ARTICLE 3
THE ADORABLENESS OF CHRIST's HUMANITY