Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

WHETHER BESIDES THE BEATIFIC SCIENCE CHRIST HAD AN IN- FUSED SCIENCE, WHEREBY HE WOULD KNOW THINGS THEM- SELVES IN THEIR PROPER NATURE.

Note 1. I attribute to Christ a threefold distinct cognition and science of creatures, namely the Beatific, Acquired, and In- fused. The Beatific is that whereby he knows created things in the divine essence; the A- cquired is so called which he acquired by his own study and experience;

the Infused truly is that which God himself implanted in him by imprinting upon his inte- llect species representative of created things. Moreover, science divi- nely implanted is one thing infused per se, and another per accidens. It is called infused per accidens, which, of itself, could in fact be ac- quired through the study and exercise of the intellect; nevertheless it is infused by God, so that he who obtains it may know things not only more promptly and easily, but more perspicaciously. Such was that science which Adam and Solomon had divinely implanted in them concerning natural things, which in the course of time they could have acquired by their own study; but it must neces- sarily be infused by God, such as is the science, or evident cognition, of supernatural things. The question at present, however, is whether Christ had an infused science, not only per se, but also per accidens, whereby he knew not only supernatural things but also natural ones in their proper nature.

Note 2. I establish the distinction between blessed science and sci- ence in its proper genus: not indeed according to the objects known: for the same objects which are known in the Word, or in the divine essence, can also be known in their proper genus: but they are mutually distinguished by diverse media; for the medium of beatific scientific cognition is the di- vine essence itself, inasmuch as representative of things, which it contains eminently and vir- tually, and it has infinite force of representing them: but the medium of in- fused science are intelligible species divinely implanted, which represent the things to be known no otherwise than if those species had been ac- quired by proper labor. Hence beatific cognition has for its im- mediate object the divine essence itself, and for secondary object the very creatures, which are seen in the divine essence. But A- cquired, or Infused cognition is terminated to the creatures themselves as to its pri- mary object, which is seen per se, and not in another, either intuitively or ab- stractively; and by this same reason things are said to be seen in their proper genus. But since the former medium is far clearer and more excellent, things also are seen in the divine essence in a far clearer and more excellent manner than in their proper genus.

Wherefore beatific cognition is called Matutinal; infused or acquired cognition is called Vespertinal. It must further be observed that the objects of infused sciences are either divine, such as those which pertain to God one and trine, and likewise the Incarnation of the Word; or super- natural, such as grace, etc.; or purely natural.

Note 3. That one and the same intelligible species cannot simultaneously represent distinctly many objects, as the Doctor teaches in the course of his treatment in book 2, dist. 3, q. 1. Which indeed he proves by various arguments: most of all because one and the same thing cannot be the natural representation of dissimilar things: but the natures and quiddities of things are mutually very dis- similar: therefore one species cannot be perfectly representative of them. Then, whatever is the ratio cognoscendi of many things distinctly must necessarily have one object in which those many things are perfectly contained and as it were united: which indeed is clear from the example of the divine essence, which is re- presentative of all creatures, and that distinctly and most perfectly, because it most perfectly contains all things and encloses them in its bosom: but one spe- cies has no first object virtually including all other quiddities according to their whole knowability; for there is no creature which virtually contains other creatures according to all manner of their knowability: therefore one species cannot be representative of all whatsoever other quiddities. Finally, the infinity of the divine essence is ga- thered from the infinity of those things which are represented through it: therefore by parity of reason, if there were given any species having force of representing all possible objects, it would claim infinitude to itself: but this is false.

First conclusion. — BESIDES BLESSED SCIENCE, SOME INFUSED SCI- ENCE WHATSOEVER IS ALSO TO BE ADMITTED IN THE INTELLECT OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST.

The Conclusion can be proved by all those texts of Scripture whereby it was proved above that in Christ were all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, among which indeed are the gifts of wisdom and knowledge. Likewise from that passage to the Colossians 2: In whom are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God: now infused knowledge is the noblest portion of supernatural knowledge, and it is chiefly signified by the Apostle under the name of the knowledge of God; hence John 7, when the Jews wondered, saying: How does this man know letters, having never learned? Jesus answered: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me: as if to say: I did not acquire it by my own industry, nor did I learn it from a man tea- ching, but it was implanted in me by my Father.

It is proved also by all the Theologians; most especially by our Alen- sian, part 3, q. 13, member 2, where he distinguishes six modes of science in Christ:

Of which the first, he says, is that whereby Christ knows all things because he is God, and this science is not an accident, but substance, and God himself. > > The second mode is that whereby he knows all things by reason of the grace of union, and this mode denotes only a certain excellence of the science of the soul of Christ necessarily due to it, by reason of the grace of hypostatic union. > > The third mode is that whereby he knew all things with the knowledge of comprehensors and of the Blessed, and concerning that mode we disputed in the preceding question. > > The fourth mode is that whereby he knew all things according to the perfection of integral nature, just as Adam knew all things; and this mode is infused science. > > The fifth mode is that whereby he knew some things through experience on the appetitive part, of which mode the Apostle speaks to the Hebrews 5: He learned obedience from those things which he suffered. > > Finally the sixth mode is that whereby he knew some things through experience on the sensitive part; and this sixth mode differs from the fifth in that the fifth mode denotes only the experience of pains and penal sufferings which Christ endured; whence it is called the mode of knowing according to the penal nature assumed; but the sixth mode denotes precisely the intellective cognition acquired through the benefit of the senses, which we shall prove below that Christ possessed.

It is proved moreover by this argument: As grace stands related to the will, so science to the intellect: but in Christ there was fullness of infused grace: therefore also of science, fullness. But there would not be fullness of science unless some were infused: therefore in the soul of Christ there was some infused science.

Moreover, if such infused science were not to be admitted in Christ, chiefly because it conflicts with the blessed science which the intellect of the soul of Christ has in the Word; or at least because, the blessed science being given, an infused science would be given in vain: but neither can be said. Not indeed the first, because according to St. Augustine, q. 26 to Orosius, The cognition of the creature in itself is vespertinal, in God it is matutinal: but from the same St. Augustine, book 4 on

Genesis according to the letter, In the heavenly fatherland there is simultaneously morning and evening: therefore in Christ, as one of the Blessed, there is simultaneously morning and evening. Nor even the se- cond, because, the blessed science being given, the infused is again given, not for knowing simply, but for knowing through distinct media: but truly, the cognition of something having been given through one medium, it is not in vain to be cog- nitive of the same through another medium; as is evident in the case of the earth, whose roundness once proved by a physical medium is not therefore vainly pro- ved by a mathematical medium: therefore, the blessed science being given whereby the intellect of the soul of Christ sees things in the Word, through the Word, as through one medium, an infused science is not given in vain, whereby he knows the same things through infused species, as through another medium.

You will object 1. Science and opinion cannot subsist simultaneously: therefore much less blessed and infused science. The antecedent is evident from Aristotle, book 1 of the Posterior Analytics, and abundantly proved in the third part of our Logic. The consequence is proved: because uncreated and created ratio differ more from each other than two created rationes: but blessed science is had through a me- dium uncreated; infused science truly through a created medium, namely through implanted species; science and opinion are had through created rationes: therefore, etc.

I deny the consequence, and to the proof I say that created and uncreated science indeed differs more than science and opi- nion do in the reason of being, but not of science; for both sciences make the most firm assent, though through distinct rationes; and therefore it does not conflict for blessed and infused science to exist simultaneously in the same intellect: but opinion and science, although they agree in the reason of created being, never- theless disagree most of all in the reason of assent; since opinion makes a doubtful assent: but science an assent altogether certain.

You will say 2: With perfect cognition present, every imperfect cognition is excluded: but infused science compared to beatific science is imperfect: therefore the latter is excluded by the former. Moreover, lesser light is ex- cluded by greater: but the light of infused science is less than that of beatific science: therefore the latter excludes the former. Finally, one and the same faculty cannot elicit two actions simultaneously: therefore neither can the intellect have two cognitions, whereof one is beatific, the other infused.

I answer to the first, distinguishing the major: cognition absolutely im- perfect is excluded by perfect, I concede: that which is only imperfect comparatively, nor does it of itself oppose perfection, I deny. Infused sci- ence is not absolutely imperfect, but only comparatively; nor does it per se op- pose beatific science, and consequently is not excluded by it. To the se- cond I say the major is true, if the greater and lesser lights are of the same order, by which reason the light of the Sun obscures the light of the stars; but false when those lights are of diverse orders: now blessed and infused science are of diverse order and state; since the blessed pertains to the order of glory, infused truly to the order of grace: similarly the blessed belongs to the state of comprehensor, infused truly to the state of wayfarer. To the third finally I distinguish the major: one and the same faculty cannot have two adequate operations, I concede: inadequate ones, I deny. Beatific cognition, or that which is had through the beatific me- dium, namely through the divine essence, and that which is had through the in- fused medium, namely through species divinely implanted, are not ade- quate, but inadequate, since they can be had about the same object through diverse light, and one is subordinated to the other, as it were the less perfect to the more excellent.

Second conclusion. — IT IS PROBABLE THAT CHRIST THE LORD KNEW BY INFUSED SCIENCE THE DIVINE MYSTERIES, NAMELY THAT GOD IS ONE AND TRINE; NOT ONLY AS REGARDS THE QUESTION WHETHER HE BE, BUT ALSO AS REGARDS THE QUESTION WHAT HE IS.

It is proved: There must be granted to Christ, by infused science, knowledge of all those objects which import with themselves no repugnan- ce or indecorum: but nothing prevents Christ from knowing the divine mysteries through that science: therefore it must be confessed that he knew them.

The major is evident from several statements; namely, that so greatly must the humanity of Christ be dignified and celebrated, and his perfection, as far as can be done without any repugnance. But the minor is proved: if anything prevented the soul of Christ from knowing these divine mysteries by infused science, chiefly since, as the modern Theologians will, the mystery of the Trinity cannot be known quidditatively, for example, unless it also be known intui- tively: but this argument is null. It is proved: quidditative knowledge in ge- neral ought not necessarily to be intuitive; otherwise we would nowhere know the essences of things quidditatively; since it scarcely ever happens that we know them intuitively: therefore neither ought quidditative cognition of a divine object necessarily be intuitive. The antecedent stands. The conse- quence is proved by the Subtle Doctor in book 2, dist. 3, qq. 9 and 10, and we also proved it with him in the Treatise On the Angels, where, treating of the cognition of Angels, we taught that Angels still wayfarers had impressed species, through which they knew God one and trine truly quid- ditatively, yet not intuitively but abstractively. It is proved moreover: if there be any reason why knowledge of God must necessarily be intuitive, especially, as the more Recent hold, because the existence of God is of his intrinsic ratio, and consequently, God seen quidditatively must also be seen inasmuch as actually existing: yet this reason is null. First, because it is not certain that the divine existence is a gra- de formally constitutive of the divine essence: since very many Theo- logians teach it to be merely an intrinsic mode primarily surrounding and affecting the divine essence itself. Then, even if truly the divine existence be of the essence of God, thence it is not consequent that God seen quidditatively and existing essentially must necessarily be seen intuitively; since for quidditative cognition of singulars it suffices that they be known abstractively, especially since they are not per se present to the knowing faculty, although known as actually existing: but God can be known by a created intellect not as present to the knowing faculty, and nevertheless as existing actually, just as he was known quidditatively by the Angels while yet wayfarers through impressed species, which exhibited the divine essence clearly and distinctly to them: therefore although divine existence be an essential predicate of God, thence it does not follow that if God is known quidditatively he must necessarily be known intuitively: and con- sequently the intellect of Christ could know divine mysteries quidditatively through infused science.

It is confirmed from the doctrine of the Subtle Doctor in book 1, q. 3, where he teaches that a Blessed one could have in memory an act of recollection of his beatific vision, provided that vision were not continued: but through that act he could know abstractively divine objects, which through beatific science he knows intuitively. Hence the Doctor himself in book 2, dist. 3, q. 9 teaches that St. Paul, recollecting the past vision of God which he had in ecstasy, could know the divine Trinity distinctly through those species of the past vision preserved in memory: therefore by parity of reason, through infused science, and species divinely implanted in him, the intellect of Christ could know clearly and distinctly the mystery of the Trinity and other divine mysteries.

It is further confirmed: the intellect of the soul of Christ, precisely considered according to the state of wayfarer, ought to have known those things which conduced most to the perfection and delights of that soul, with the hypostatic union safe, and its due circum- stances: but that cognition of divine mysteries conduced most to the perfection of the soul of Christ and its delights, and in no way conflicted with his hypostatic union or its circum- stances: therefore etc. The minor stands as regards the first part; for if perfection, and a certain delight of mind, be found in knowing some natural truth, far greater and ampler will it be to know the supreme truth, namely God and his divine mysteries. But it is proved as regards the second part: for this reason the more recent Theologians deny infused science of divine mysteries to the soul of Christ, either because they judge it superfluous, or because they hold it incompossible with the beatific vision: but neither of those arguments is valid. Not indeed the first: since, as we already said, one and the same thing is not known in vain when perceived by the same intellect under diverse light, through diverse media, and by diverse cognitions. Nor even the second, for no reason of such incompossibility appears. For since Christ the Lord was simultaneously comprehensor and wayfarer, thence it comes that, although as comprehensor he should have knowledge of the mystery of the Trinity as pre- sent; nevertheless as wayfarer he could have abstractive knowledge of that mystery, and know it not under the aspect of present and moving to its cognition by its presence; but he could obtain this either through the species of the light of glory; for perfectly and adequately knowing the light of glory, he could have an impressed species of it and know all its habitudes; and since the light of glory has an intrinsic habitude to God as Trine and One, inasmuch as seen in himself and through himself, therefore the intellect of the soul of Christ, seeing that light of glory, could also see that habitude; and consequently the terminus of the same habitude, which is God as Trine and One: or he could know that mystery through impressed species possible of representing it, not indeed as absent or as present, but merely precisely in itself, abstracting from its absence or presence: therefore nothing prevents, either on the part of the beatific vision, or on the part of that circumstance, that Christ could have known divine mysteries through infused science.

You will say: That cognition of divine mysteries would be either clear or obscure: but it could not be obscure; partly because obscure and ine- vident knowledge of an object cannot subsist with beatific cognition of it, and therefore we said that faith has no place in the intellect of Christ: nor clear either, because clear abstractive cognition of God would be had either through the cognition of some creature, as through impressed species of the Trinity, and of divine mysteries; or through the inevidence in the attesting and re- vealing party, not indeed obscurely, but evidently, namely in some light: but none of these three can be asserted. Not indeed the first, because there is no creature which has a connection in the reason of effect with the divine Trinity, and other divine mysteries, such that from the cognition of itself a created intellect could be led to the cognition of the cause whose it is, and with which it has a necessary connection. Nor even the second, because no impressed species is possible whereby it represents the divine Trinity, since God as Trine is always and everywhere really present through presence and power, and consequently no impressed species is required to represent him; since this only serves as the vicar of the object representing him, when he is not present; for to be represented is to make a thing present. Finally, not the third, because from the evidence in the attesting party evidence of the attested thing is not had: therefore from no head could that cognition be clear and evi- dent: nor consequently scientific.

I answer that this cognition was indeed clear, by reason namely of the impressed species, whose possibility we abundantly and perspicuously proved in treating of beatific vision in the former volume, and likewise in the Treatise On the Angels, and we resolved all the instances which adversaries are wont to form against it; which it would be tedious and idle here to recite and renew.

FROM THESE I GATHER that by that infused science Christ the Lord also knew his own Incarnation; for this cognition conduced most to the perfection of the soul of Christ, nor did it in any way beseem his state. Add that through infused science he could know the extremes united in the Incarnation, namely the Word, and humanity: he could likewise know the actual union itself; since these seem less difficult to know than the mystery of the Trinity; for they are of a somewhat inferior order, if you distinguish the hypostatic order in some manner from the order of the Divinity.

Third conclusion. — THE INTELLECT OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST BY SCIEN- TIFIC KNOWLEDGE INFUSED KNEW ALL ENTITIES WHICH PER SE ARE SUPERNATU- RAL, SUCH AS ARE THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES, GRACE, THE LIGHT OF GLORY, BEATIFIC VISION, ETC. This is common among Theologians, and

It is proved: Of all these Christ had cognition through infused science, whose species can be had infused per se: but of those supernatural entities infused species can be had: therefore etc.

The major stands: since Christ ought to have been endowed with cognition of those things which conferred most upon the honor of his soul: but knowledge of supernatural things contributed most to illustrating the soul of Christ: therefore etc. But the minor is proved; because supernatural created entities are of finite and limited entity, and consequently have finite representability, and hence can be clearly and distinctly represented through a created species.

Then, their quiddity is clearly perceived through finite cognition; since it is known through the beatific vision, which is created and finite cognition; why therefore should it not by parity of reason be represented and attained through species divinely implanted?

Finally, if those objects could not be represented quidditatively, chiefly (as some of the more Recent hold, even from among our own) because that science is terminated to God as he is in himself: yet this reason is null; partly because, as we shall presently say, God himself as One and Trine can also be quidditatively represented and known through that infused science; partly because even if that order were not thus known which supernatural entities bear to God, it would not prevent these from being known; since, in order that they be so known, it was not necessary that God also be co- gnized quidditatively, for the order of dependence of creatures upon God is known quidditatively without God being so known.

You will say 1: Sanctifying grace, and the light of glory are superna- tural entities: but they cannot be known through infused science; grace indeed, because it is a certain participation of the divine essence, according to 2 Peter 1: He has granted us most great and precious promises, that by these we may be made partakers of the divine nature: therefore sanctifying grace cannot be known quidditatively unless the divine essence, of which it is the participation, be likewise known: but this cannot be known through infused science: therefore neither that. The same holds of the light of glory, since the light of glory exceeds every other created light and is of superior order to it, inasmuch as it pertains to the beatific order, which is supreme among created entities, it cannot be known through another light inferior to it, such as infused science: therefore not all supernatural entities will be able to be known quidditatively through infused science by the intel- lect of Christ.

I deny the minor, and to the first I say that since grace is not a substantial and entitative participation of the divine es- sence, for that is indivisible, but only through a certain imitation, therefore it is not necessary that, for grace to be known quidditatively, the divine essence must also be known quidditatively, and as regards the question what it is: but it suffices that it be known as regards the question whether it is. Then, all creatures according to natural entity are certain participations of divine entity: but these can be known without God being known quidditatively: therefore for the participating thing to be known quidditatively it is not necessary that the participable be by parity of reason known. To the second I say that although the light of glory exceeds every created light: nevertheless it can be known through inferior light: since through that very light God is known intuitively, who nevertheless is of far higher order than that light: therefore through inferior light a thing of higher order can be seen.

You will insist. If Christ could have known the light of glory through infused science, by parity of reason he would also have known the beatific vision eli- cited both by himself and by other Blessed ones; but it is false that the soul of Christ could know the beatific vision through infused science: therefore etc. The major stands from parity of reason: but the minor is proved: whoever knows the vision whereby the object is seen intuitively also knows that object intuitively: but through infused science Christ could not intuitively know God: therefore neither the vision whereby God is seen.

I deny the minor, and likewise the minor of its proof: for it is false that whoever sees the medium whereby an object is perceived also perceives that object: for that medium whereby the object is perceived is not the ratio cognoscendi of that object to every intellect: but only to that in which it is formally according to its proper entity; wherefore, just as Raphael, for example, seeing some species representative of the divine essence existing in the intellect of Gabriel, does not on that account see the divine essence, because such species is not the representative ratio of the divine essence in the intellect of Raphael, since it exists in him only objectively and not formally; so the intellect of the soul of Christ seeing beatific vi- sions existing in other intellects, and terminated by their nature to God, does not therefore follow that he saw God, at least intuitively, but at most abstractively; for the beatific vision is not terminated immediately to God clearly seen unless inasmuch as he is in the intellect formally seeing through it: but the intellect of the soul of Christ does not see formally through the visions of others: therefore however much he may know them through spe- cies, it does not nevertheless follow that he knows God through it, at least intuitively.

Fourth conclusion. — THE SOUL OF CHRIST THROUGH INFUSED SCIEN- CE KNEW THE THOUGHTS OF HEARTS, AND LIKEWISE FUTURE THINGS, EVEN CONTINGENT ONES. This Conclusion is likewise more common among Theologians: most especially as regards the first part, which

It is proved by the authorities of Sacred Scripture, from which it stands that Christ the Lord knew the interior affects of men, and the thoughts of hearts. Thus Matthew 9: And Jesus seeing their thoughts said: Why do you think evil in your hearts? And chapter 12: But Jesus knowing their thoughts, etc.; nor is anything more frequent among the holy Evangelists than that that adorable Savior knew all the secrets of the human heart. Hence St. John chapter 2, where he says that when Christ was at Jerusalem at the Passover, on the festival day, many believed in his name seeing the signs which he did, he immediately adds: But Jesus did not trust himself to them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any should give testimony to man; for he knew what was in man.

Reason also favors this; since that knowledge of the secrets of the heart most befitted the ministry of Christ the Lord. For first he was Judge not only of exterior man but chiefly of interior: but a most rigorous judge must know all those things of which he is about to give sentence. Similarly he was Doctor and master destined for men: consequently he needed to know both those things which pertain to interior acts in order to eternal life, and also those which pertain to exterior acts, that he might provide the means and remedies conducing to that end. Finally, he held supreme dominion over all the actions of man; for he ought to influence the souls of men as head into members: but a lord must know all and singular things which are subject to his dominion: therefore Christ insofar as Judge, Doctor, and Lord ought to know the thoughts of hearts.

The second part also stands: Indeed Christ the Lord knew many future things, as is evident from all his prophecies. Thus Matthew 26, in the night of the passion he said to Peter: Before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice. And Luke 19, Seeing the city he wept over it saying: because if you had known, and that indeed in this your day, the things that are to your peace, but now they are hidden from your eyes: for the days shall come upon you, and your enemies shall cast a trench about you, and compass you round, and straiten you on every side, and beat you flat to the ground, and your children who are in you, and they will not leave in you a stone upon a stone, because you have not known the time of your visitation. To these, there is the same reason as now intimated, namely that he was about to be Judge of all. Add that these things pertained to the perfection of his prudence; for a prudent man ought not only to contemplate present things, but also to remember past ones and foresee future ones, and as much as prudence excels, so much more perfectly and more many past and future things ought he to know.

The third part also appears, namely, that whereas Christ knew future contingents as contingent, or inasmuch as they hang upon the free will of men, not only those which were truly going to occur, but also those which would come conditionally, if such condition were posited. It is evident, I say, concerning future contingents truly going to occur in some difference of time; for Matthew chapter 26 he pronounced to Peter: Before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice: but that threefold denial was a contingent future wholly freely hanging upon the liberty of Peter; yet it came to pass: therefore Christ knew such future contingents.

But that he also knew futures conditionally contingent is similarly evident from that celebrated reproach, imprinting upon the heart of the inhabitants of Bethsaida and Corozain, and rebuking their hardened mind, where he says Luke 10: Woe to you, Corozain, woe to you, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they would long ago have done penance sitting in sackcloth and ashes. By which words he expresses the conditional future repentance of Tyre and Sidon: therefore he knew it.

It is confirmed: for the soul of Christ through infused science knows those things which pertain most to its state and mi- nistry: but some of the conditionally and freely contingent futures can pertain to the state and ministry of Christ the Lord; the aforesaid conversion of the Tyrians and Sidonians pertained to confirming the preaching of his Gospel, and to convicting the singular hardness and obstinacy of those to whom he announced the Gospel: therefore it was very fitting that the soul of Christ the Lord should have cognition of these conditional futures.

You will object 1. The cognition of the thoughts and affects of the heart is proper to God alone, and is attributed to him himself as a mark of divinity: thus 1 Kings chapter 16: Man sees those things that appear. But God beholds the heart. And Jeremiah 17: The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable; who can know it? I the Lord searching hearts. Whence the Holy Fathers proved above all the Divinity of Christ the Lord from this, that he knew and revealed the most secret thoughts of all. So St. Ambrose, book 5 on Luke, upon those words of the Gospel, And he saw their thoughts. So likewise St. Jerome expounding chapter 9 of St. Matthew. The same must be said of futures: for their cognition and revelation pertains to God alone, according to Isaiah 41: Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods: whence Tertullian in the Apologeticus chapter 20 says excellently: A fitting proof of divinity, I think, is the truth of divination: but infused science befits Christ not as God, but as man: therefore he knew neither the thought- s of hearts, nor future contingents through that infused science; but either through uncreated science insofar as God and Word, or at most through blessed science, whereby he saw certain creatures shining forth and represented to him in the divine essence: therefore he did not know these things through sci- ence infused.

I answer, distinguishing the major: It is proper to God alone inasmuch as it naturally befits him alone to have co- gnition of free thoughts and future things, I concede: inasmuch as out of his singular favor it could not also be communicated to another created intellect, as its dignity and condition require, to which it is elevated by him, I deny. Therefore I confess that that cognition indeed is proper to God alone after the manner of naturally due cognition; nevertheless out of privilege it could be conferred upon Christ on account of the dignity and ministry for which he was destined, most especially by reason of hypostatic union, on account of which that cognition was attributed to him in a far more excellent manner than ever it was conceded or to be conceded to anyone else. Whence the Holy Fathers from that cognition meritedly inferred the Divinity of Christ the Lord himself, because no mere man ever with such perspicacity and such certitude penetrated and unlocked the hidden things of the human heart and the future events of things, as Christ the Lord himself; nevertheless the Holy Fathers did not deny that some less perfect cognition of those thoughts or future things could be attributed to some pure creature; for this St. Ambrose testifies in book 2 on Luke from the testimony of St. Paul

1. Corinthians 14, wherein he shows that certain men knew secret thoughts of hearts through special power communicated to them by God. Which is also confirmed by many examples of Saints, who were endowed with that very cognition and revelation.

You will object 2. Christ knows the thoughts of hearts and future con- tingents through beatific science: therefore it is superfluous to admit in him also an infused science whereby he might uncover these.

I deny the consequence: for it helps a thing to be known through many media and modes, when that multiplicity of cognition does not hinder the more excellent cognition: but infused science does not hinder beatific science, nor the hypostatic state of Christ, nay it conduces most of all to illustrating his soul: therefore although Christ knew the secrets of hearts and future contingents through beatific science, he did not idly nor uselessly know them also through infused science.

You will insist: No perfection is to be attributed to Christ unless it can be held due to created intellect according to the order of nature or grace: but cognition of secrets of the heart and of contingent futures is not due to created intellect according to either order: therefore it must not be asserted in the soul of Christ. I answer, first,

that the major can be denied, since Christ by reason of hypostatic union was elevated to an order far more excellent than the order of nature and grace, and consequently was also to be endowed with a more preeminent dignity and knowledge. I answer, secondly, distinguishing the minor: cognition of secrets of heart and of futures is not due to the common order of grace, I concede: to an extraordinary and most preeminent order and state of grace, I deny: for as Christ, by reason of the fullness of grace which he possesses, is far more acceptable to God than all other just men whatsoever, thence it ought not seem wonderful if he is likewise laden with a far more excellent favor of God, and endowed with a more perspicacious knowledge of things.

You will object 3. Future contingents cannot be known by the intellect of Christ except either in their cause; or in the testimony of God saying and revealing them, as he revealed them to the Prophets; or in the decree of divine will determining their futurition, in which manner the Blessed, and God himself know future contingents; or finally in themselves immediately, namely if the cognition of the soul of Christ were terminated immediately to those futures in themselves, and not through some object first known: but by none of these four modes could he know those future contingents. Not indeed in their cause, because the productive cause of those contingent effects is wholly indifferent of itself to producing them or not producing them: but from an indifferent principle nothing can be known certainly and determinately: then because future contingents, as they are in causes, do not have determinate truth, just as neither entity, because contingent causes are no more determined to those effects than to opposites: therefore they cannot any more be rationes cognoscendi some effect than its opposite. Nor even the second, because what is known through testimony of God saying or revealing is known only through an extrinsic medium: but cognition through an extrinsic medium is not scientific: since scientific cognition is inferred through an intrinsic medium, evidently known to the knower. Hence every cognition had through revelation pertains either to faith or to prophecy, but not to science. Nor even the third, because objects ought to be known otherwise through infused science than through the blessed one: but through blessed science they are known in the decree of God, or at least in the divine essence, inasmuch as it has infinite force of representing whatsoever objects. Finally, not the fourth, because future contingents are not representable in themselves through any created species; for that which has no determinate being is not representable through some proper species; since representation of species, being natural, cannot certainly determine that which is indifferent to being or not being. A contingent future, e.g. the threefold denial of Peter, had no determinate being, but was wholly indifferent to being or not being: therefore it could not certainly be represented through some species.

I deny the minor: for truly future contingents were known in themselves through representative species of them, as the Doctor seems to teach in book 3, dist. 14, quest. 3, n. 4, where speaking of Christ he says: It can be said that this soul knew habitually and abstractively certain singulars through proper infused species, and did not know others habitually. By which words he grants that the intellect of Christ had cognition of certain singular contingents: for there he does not speak of necessary singulars, but contingent ones, since he adds: Yet he could know them habitually if they should come into real existence: therefore he speaks not only of singular possibles or existing necessaries, but also of contingents: which indeed is confirmed, because through infused science the soul of Christ knows through proper species all those things which are representable in themselves through proper species; but future contingents are representable through their own proper species: therefore etc. The major stands. The minor is proved: every entity under the aspect whereby it is entity is intelligible: but futurity and contingency truly are something, and consequently entity, and hence intelligible. Then, entity as future and as past is intelligible, therefore also as future contingent. The antecedent is evident per se. The consequence is proved; for as futurity is the relation of future time to present, and as pastness is the relation of past time to present, so contingency is the relation of effect to cause, as in first act indifferent; therefore both futurity and contingency are knowable entities. Nor does it matter that they have no determinate being inasmuch as considered in themselves and as viewed in their cause, which inasmuch as considered in first act is indifferent to the effect contingently posited or not posited: for it suffices that they have some determinate being in the decree of God, not at the time at which it is said to be contingently future, but at the time at which God freely decreed that contingent future to exist: for from this determination of divine will supposed, that future is said to have some determinate being: which thus can be represented through created species supernaturally infused by God, and certainly can underlie cognition, and consequently can be known through some supernatural science.

You will say. The Subtle Doctor in the same place n. 6 absolutely denies that a contingent future can be known: If it be said, he says, that he could have this through infused species, that is false: therefore our opinion is opposed to him.

I deny the consequence; for there he speaks not of abstractive cognition, with which we deal, but of intuitive, which he affirms cannot be had through species: Partly because, he says, infused species represents the object as abstracting from act and existence, for it represents the object in the same manner whether it exist or not exist, and consequently is not the ratio cognoscendi as existing: partly because truths knowable intuitively about existents, as existent, namely contingent truths, cannot be known through whatever innate species: for from cognition of terms the truth of contingent complexes cannot be known concerning those terms, etc. From which one may reason thus: the Doctor holds, according to his mind, that infused species represent the object in the same manner whether it exists or not exists: therefore from that we have that even if a contingent future does not exist, it can be known through species infused per se; not only the very substance of the future, but also its futurity and contingency, and consequently not only specificatively but also reduplicatively.

ADVERT HOWEVER, that the Subtle Doctor in book 2, dist. 3, q. 11 deservedly teaches against St. Thomas that an Angel cannot know a contingent future through universal species, nay not even through species simply and solitarily, because species serve only for simple apprehension of extremes, not for rendering judgment. Wherefore for this, that the intellect of the soul of Christ could render judgment upon this proposition whereby addressing Peter he said: Thrice you shall deny me, besides the species representing Peter and the denial, something conjoining these extremes was necessary; and that was a certain revelation and manifestation through some light.

You ask first: whether that infused science of Christ was actual or habitual?

I answer, that it is the common opinion of Theologians that it was habitual, and persisting continually in his intellect after the manner of a quality concurring with the same intellect toward actual cognition. The reason of which is: that science is habitual whereby the knower is only in first act, and uses such science at pleasure for eliciting act: but the soul of Christ through infused science sometimes was only in first act, and used it at pleasure: therefore it was habitual. Such is admitted by all. The minor is proved: herein besides other differences infused science differs from blessed science, that the latter is always actual; for the intellect of the Blessed cannot suspend or interrupt its act of beatific vision, just as neither can the will suspend the act of love: but the intellect of Christ can suspend and cease from the act of cognition through infused science; for since the state of the soul of Christ, and its mode of understanding outside the beatific vision, is such as to operate in human mode, that is voluntary and free, it was fitting that the intellect of the soul of Christ through infused science be sometimes in second act, sometimes indeed only in first act; for since this science per se infused is ordered solely to perfecting the intellect of Christ inasmuch as he was wayfarer, it was fitting that he have free use of it, even as we have use of sciences which we acquire by our labor; for neither did the intellect of Christ have any principle whereby it would be necessitated to exercise always the act of some science.

You will say. It is more excellent to be always in second act than in first act: therefore since the infused science of Christ was in a most perfect state, it ought to be always in second act. The antecedent is proved: first act is ordered to second as less perfect to more perfect; since the faculty is completed and perfected through second act.

I distinguish the antecedent. That this is more perfect according to every state, I deny; according to the state of comprehensor, I concede: for perfection ought to be proportioned to the state to which it belongs: but the state of wayfarer does not require being always in second act, as the state of comprehensor does, because a wayfarer ought at pleasure to use his faculties and habits; whence it is no small perfection in him that he be most free in eliciting his actions, and consequently that he use his habits at pleasure.

You ask secondly: whether by one unique or by several repeated acts the soul of Christ knew all objects through infused science?

I answer, that the acts were manifold according to the diversity of objects: partly because where there are many intelligible species representing specifically distinct objects, the intellect cannot perceive those specifically distinct objects through a single act by means of those diverse species; for act depends not only upon power, but also upon object: but of specifically diverse objects there were diverse species; since through the species of one object another specifically distinct object cannot be represented, for neither can blackness be represented through the species of whiteness: therefore not through a single act, but through several acts, the soul of Christ must have known those objects.

Then, the act of this science ought to be less perfect even according to intensity than is the act of beatific vision; since it is of inferior order: yet the act of beatific vision has this proper to it, that it is single, commensurate and adequate to all subjects seen by the Blessed: therefore the act of infused science ought not have been single.

Finally, unity or multiplicity of act is sought either from unity of object, or of medium, in which objects are contained and shine forth. Hence beatific act is single: because all objects perceived by the Blessed are united and shine forth in the divine essence representing them: but there is no medium in which all objects to be perceived through infused science are united and shine forth; for if there were such a medium, chiefly some intelligible species of so great perfection and power as to represent all possible objects simultaneously, and render the intellect of Christ ready and prompt to know them: but it is not so; for species are similitudes of objects; hence since objects are specifically distinct, nay even generically, one species cannot simultaneously refer all those objects and express their similitude: hence, as was proved in treating of the knowledge of Angels, universal and generic species are not given which refer objects of specifically distinct inferiors: therefore much less can one species be given which would represent distinctly and clearly so many and so varied objects, diverse even in genus.

You ask thirdly: whether that science was discursive?

I answer affirmatively, since according to the doctrine of the Doctor, for the precise formal reason of discourse only this is required, that there be two propositions, whereof one is inferred through the other: for it is not necessary that the unknown be inferred from the more known, as we proved elsewhere: yet the soul of Christ, using this science, could have two actual cognitions, whereof the prior would be cause of the posterior; for since the species concurring to that science were subjected to his liberty, and represented things at his nod, he could bring it about that the species of some nature first represent that nature, inasmuch as he knew that nature actually; then that the species of the property of that nature represent the nature itself as to be known actually, and thus from the essence known he could gather the actual existence of the property. Moreover, the soul of Christ was rational, and consequently ratiocinative, even as ours: therefore truly he could use the scientific habit infused in him for reasoning and discoursing, even as we can use the same. The consequence is evident: for the soul can use at pleasure cognition inherent in it, especially when that is ordered to perfecting and completing its activity: but infused science is given to the soul of Christ to complete its active potentiality: therefore it could use it in a manner connatural to itself: but the connatural mode of understanding of a rational soul is through discourse: therefore the soul of Christ through infused science could reason.

You ask fourthly: whether the infused science of the soul of Christ was more excellent and more perfect than the science of Angels?

The Doctor seems to affirm this in dist. 14, q. 3, where, supposing the angelic intellect to be specifically distinguished from human intellect, and the intellect of an Angel to be of more excellent activity than the human; he indeed grants that the intellect of Christ could not elicit more excellent cognition than the angelic could with equal infused science, because since the angelic intellect is of greater activity than the human, even with equal light it will be able to perceive things more perfectly unless God elsewhere supply the lesser activity of human intellect through more abundant light and through more infused species: but since Christ is head of the Angels, and through hypostatic union had a mode of being far more excellent than an Angel's, he ought also to have had a far more excellent mode of operating; consequently it was fitting that God supply the lesser activity of that intellect through more abundant and more perfect species.