Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Note 1. By the name of acquired science, we here understand that which of its own nature is acquirable by the proper study of the knower concerning natural things: which although in fact it is sometimes infused (as the Theologians commonly teach that all natural sciences were infused into Adam from the instant of his formation), can nevertheless per se be compared by the forces of nature: hence when it is infused, it is said to be merely infused per accidens, because namely by its own nature it demands to be acquired by its own acts. In this it chiefly differs from the science of supernatural things, whose cognition transcends the forces of nature, nor could it in any way be had unless God should infuse it by gratuitous favor. Although however it is certain among all Theologians that that acquired science truly existed in Christ, as the Apostle openly signifies to the Hebrews 5, when he says of Christ: He learned obedience from those things which he suffered, nevertheless all do not agree as to the mode whereby he obtained it, whether namely through divine infusion, as Adam; or through human study and labor, as other men expert in natural things; or through both together. Some indeed with the Seraphic Doctor in book 2, dist. 11, art. 3, quest. 2 teach that Christ had from the beginning divinely infused in him that acquirable science, lest he ever lack natural knowledge of very many natural objects, which he perceived through such science; so that besides that habitual science there was no other habitual science in his intellect, but only experimental and intuitive: to which opinion the Subtle Doctor also assents, as we shall demonstrate below. Others indeed with St. Thomas, q. 12, art. 2, commonly teach that although Christ the Lord from the beginning of his formation knew all things through infused science, nevertheless he newly acquired for himself acquired science by his own acts, in almost the same manner as other men acquire it; not indeed through discipline drawn from Angels or men, but by the most excellent acumen of mind wherewith he excelled in perceiving and penetrating things, lest namely the agent intellect in him remain idle and fruitless. Thus teach all Thomists and very many of the more Recent. There are also some who wish, with Hurtado dist. 8, diff. 22, that that science acquirable by the forces of nature was in the intellect of Christ partly acquired by his own labor, partly infused divinely per accidens.

Note 2. That infused and acquired cognition are not of themselves precisely specifically distinguished, as the Doctor teaches dist. 14, q. 3, n. 2: Because, he says, acquired and infused cognition can have the same object, and differ only according to efficient causes, as man created and naturally begotten: but such a distinction of causes does not distinguish cognition formally, according to St. Augustine, epistle to Deogratias, and Ambrose in the book On the Incarnation, saying that disparity of origin makes no distinction of nature, as is evident of Adam and us. Thence the Doctor gathers that infused science per accidens and acquirable science in Christ are not specifically distinguished. Likewise that if Christ, as St. Thomas wishes, had infused science of all things in their proper genus, he could not anew compare to himself science of the same things by his own acts, for St. Thomas teaches that two accidents distinct solely in number cannot subsist simultaneously in the same subject; for one or other would be useless and idle for informing and affecting the subject: thus, e.g., two bipedal quantities would be fruitless in the same part of wood: and consequently since acquired and infused science of natural things differ of themselves only numerically, because they are not specified by the principle through which they are obtained but by objects, therefore either it is false what the Thomists commonly teach, that two accidents of the same species cannot subsist in the same subject: or Christ did not have scientific knowledge of natural things: or he could not by his own powers compare to himself another scientific knowledge of the same things.

Note 3. Experimental cognition is distinguished from scientific in most respects. For first, scientific cognition, being certain and continually persisting, is occupied chiefly with universal things considered in the abstract: experience truly is concerned only with individual things present and moving through their presence to that experimental cognition of themselves; whence experimental cognition is always intuitive. Secondly, scientific cognition of itself can be divinely infused independently from all experience whatsoever; for although experience by the nature of the thing contributes toward acquiring natural science, yet it does not depend wholly and per se upon it; because it does not rest upon experience as in its own principle, but is only as it were a certain way whereby one naturally proceeds from imperfect to perfect: thus Adam in the state of innocence had science of many things which he could not experience for that state. Experimental knowledge truly does not seem able to be infused, but only acquired through experience itself: partly because species serving for experience pertain either to intuitive cognition of presents, or memory of pasts, or conjecture of futures, as the Doctor teaches in the place cited n. 4. Whence, that true and certain experimental knowledge be formed, it is fitting that the intellect know the thing to have been already such as it experiences it in fact; which indeed cannot be accomplished through infused species, for, as we said with the Doctor, infused species is indifferent to representing the thing as existing or non-existing; whence it comes about that if an experimental species were infused, it could lead into false cognition by representing something as perceived through sense, which would not have been so known. Finally, the species which science uses in its representation and cognition abstract from time and from any preceding cognition: but the species which serve experiment represent the present thing, which falls under experience with order to past time, and to intuitive or sensible past cognition; for experience is long-continued and exact observation of singulars, from which certain and constant cognition is gathered.

These things thus premised, three things remain to be established: First, that Christ truly had acquired science. Second, that he had it infused divinely from the beginning of his formation. Third, that it was not of all whatsoever things in individuo.

First conclusion. — BESIDES THE BEATIFIC AND INFUSED SCIENCE, CHRIST ALSO HAD ACQUIRED SCIENCE. This is common among Theologians.

It is proved first by the authority of Sacred Scripture, Isaiah 7, where the Prophet speaking of Christ says: Before he knows to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria: which words St. Ambrose expounds thus in the book On the Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord, where having said: The sense of man advanced; for Christ advanced: as it is written, and Jesus advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace with God and men. How did the Wisdom of God advance? Let the order of words teach you: there was advance of age and advance of wisdom, but of human wisdom: therefore he set age before it, that you believe the word spoken according to man: for age belongs not to divinity but to body. Therefore if he advanced in age, he advanced in human wisdom; but wisdom advances through sense, because wisdom comes from sense. By which he openly teaches that Christ compared to himself some wisdom and science through the senses; which a little after he proves by the oracle of Isaiah just cited, and adds: For futures and hidden things do not deceive the wise: but infancy, devoid of cognition, through human prudence surely does not know what it has not yet learned. By which words St. Ambrose attributes ignorance to Christ not simply, since in book 5 On the Faith, chapter 7, he openly denies that; but attributes to Christ only nescience opposed to that science which arises from experience and sense: he grants therefore that the Prophet here signifies some science in Christ gradually acquired through the benefit of the senses.

Moreover the same Prophet expresses this more luminously when he says there: He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse evil and choose good: which words St. Jerome expounds thus in the same place: Still wrapped in swaddling clothes, fed with butter and honey, he shall have judgment of good and evil, that refusing evil he may choose good: not that he did, refused, or chose this, but that he knew to refuse and choose: that by these words we may know that the infancy of the human body did no prejudice to divine wisdom. — It is proved also by that passage Luke 2: Jesus advanced in age and wisdom before God and men: which advance surely was not made according to infused science, whose fullness of every kind he had received from the beginning: therefore it must be attended to merely in respect of experimental science; for that advance, as some will, must not be attended to only according to appearance: because, as St. Augustine teaches book 83, q. 8, the words of Evangelists narrating histories are to be taken as they are expressed, and consequently true advance is here signified.

The Seraphic Doctor cited above proves the Conclusion q. 1: From this that the soul of Christ, he says, ought to have been perfect, not only according to the superior portion, but also according to the inferior, and according to the sensible part, not only as regards the state of fatherland, but also as regards the state of the way, which is twofold: namely of innocence and of fallen nature. And accordingly Christ had a triple cognition suited to that triple state, namely the cognition of glory, the cognition of integral nature, and the cognition of penal experience, that he might have something in himself of each state. Again, because the soul of Christ was perfect as regards cognition, not only with respect to things knowable, but also with respect to modes of knowing; therefore since things are knowable in a threefold manner, according as they have a threefold manner of being; they have being in the Word, they have being in created intellect, nevertheless they also have being in their own genus: therefore in order that the intellect of the soul of Christ might have full cognition of things, he knew them with this triple cognition. And thus it is evident that the soul of Christ had not only cognition of things in the Word, but also of things from the Word; cognition, I say, not only of simple knowledge, but also of experience. Also evident is the sufficiency, necessity, and distinction of these three cognitions, which can be taken either from the part of the powers, namely superior reason, interior, and sensuality: or from the part of the states, namely glory, innocence, and fallen nature: or from the part of the modes of knowing, namely in the Word, in itself, and in the proper genus. And thus it is evident that the soul of Christ besides the cognition which she had in the Word had cognition of things in themselves and in their proper genus; and thus further it is evident that the soul of Christ, besides the cognition which she had in the Word, had another cognition from the Word.

You will object 1. The Holy Fathers openly teach that Christ did not truly advance at all, nor have increase of science and interior knowledge, but that his advance in science is to be attended to only in external manifestation of science or divinity. Thus Athanasius in Oration 4 against the Arians, where although at first he seems to acknowledge true progression of science in Christ; yet presently he expressly denies it; for he says: That proper advance of the body then, for while it advanced, the manifestation of divinity in him advanced before those who gazed: but as much more as the divinity was disclosed, so much more abundantly was it increased among all men. By which he signifies that progress of this kind consisted in giving more evident signs of divine wisdom and power; whence he adds: What is that advance, namely, as I said, that Deification, and grace communicated to men by wisdom, while sin and inherent corruption were blotted out in them unto similitude and cognition of the Word: for thus with the body growing according to age, the manifestation of divinity also grew in him, and it was openly shown to all that the temple itself was God's, and God in the body. To the same writes St. Gregory Oration 25: Christ, he says, advanced both in age and in wisdom and grace; not that these took increase, for what could that be which from the beginning existed perfect become more perfect? But that they were gradually disclosed and displayed themselves. This also declares most abundantly St. Bernard Homily 2 on Missus est, where he demonstrates that Christ had in his soul no increment of perfection, for he says: Nor had less wisdom: or rather the wisdom of Jesus conceived was not less than born, small than great: whether therefore hidden in the womb, or crying in the manger, or somewhat grown questioning the Doctors in the temple, or of already perfect age teaching in the people, equally perfectly he was full of the Holy Spirit; nor was there an hour in whatever age of his in which of that fullness which he received in his conception in the womb anything was diminished or anything added to it: but perfect from the beginning, from the beginning, I say, full was he of the spirit of wisdom and understanding, spirit of counsel and fortitude, spirit of knowledge and piety and spirit of fear of the Lord. Presently declaring that word of the Evangelist about the advance of Christ: it is to be understood not according to what he was, but according to what he appeared: not because namely something new happened to him which before he had not; but that it seemed to happen whenever he himself willed that it seem. You, man, when you advance, do not advance when or as much as you will; but without your knowing your advance is moderated, your life disposed. But truly the boy Jesus, who disposes yours, himself disposed also his own; and when he willed, and to whom he willed, wiser: when and to whom he willed, wisest: although in himself he never was otherwise than wisest: similarly also though he was always full of all grace, whether that which he should have before God or before men, yet at his own pleasure he now showed it more, now less, as he knew it congrue with the merits of beholders or expedient for their salvation*. Such are the words of St. Bernard.

I answer that the Holy Fathers wish nothing else than that Christ the Lord had no increase of wisdom and science in respect of divinity, but only in respect of humanity: as Rupert expressly explains book 1 on Genesis chapter 21, where treating the passage of Isaiah 11 in which it is said that over Christ rested the spirit of wisdom and understanding, he writes thus: Because he of whom these things are said, being not only man but God, although according to humanity he advanced in wisdom, age, and grace, nevertheless according to that which he is and was God, he had no advance. Whence also St. Athanasius in the place cited in the objection says that if anyone struggle more pertinaciously to contend that advance in wisdom and age was true, he says this is to be conceded to such extent that it be thought said not of his divinity but of human nature. Yet yet, he says, if they persist more contentiously in that Christ questioned, let them hear from us that in divinity there is no ignorance, but it is proper to flesh to be ignorant.

Or I say the Holy Fathers are to be understood in that manner wherein we shall say in the following Conclusion, namely that Christ the Lord knew all things through infused science, even natural ones; nevertheless he could still know some of them through experimental science, not indeed habitually but actually.

You will object 2. It is superfluous to do through more things what can sufficiently be done through fewer: but Christ through infused science alone, not only sufficiently but far more perfectly, knew all that which he could know through acquired science: therefore this latter in him was fruitless.

I deny the minor: for the perfection of the intellect of Christ pertains not only to knowing all objects but also according to every mode whereby they are knowable; hence since things, chiefly sensible ones, can be known otherwise through phantasms abstracted from them than through species infused by God; thence it is that as in the soul of Christ besides the blessed science, whereby she contemplates things in the Word, infused science is admitted, whereby she may know them outside the Word, because they are knowable in both these modes, so since natural things can be known not only through species infused by God but also through those abstracted from phantasms, therefore this mode of knowing must be asserted in Christ, especially since it is most connatural to the soul of Christ inasmuch as joined to a human body.

You will object 3. Acquired science is incompossible with beatific vision, as gathered from that passage 1 Corinthians 13: Whether prophecies shall be made void, whether tongues shall cease, whether knowledge shall be destroyed: which is understood chiefly of science acquired and compared through phantasms: but Christ had beatific science: therefore he could not have acquired science.

I answer first, as we said elsewhere, that the Apostle is to be understood of the destruction of science not in respect of habit but of act and exercise tending to instruction of others. Secondly, I say that even if the Apostle were to be understood of acquired science, he would signify only that in the state of beatitude, as the soul separated from body knows through acquired science, there will be no need of turning oneself toward phantasms.

Second conclusion. — IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT CHRIST KNEW THE QUIDDITIES OF NATURAL THINGS FROM THE INSTANT OF HIS CONCEPTION THROUGH HABIT INFUSED IN HIM, WHICH HE COULD HAVE COMPARED BY HIS OWN ACTS HAD HE NOT OBTAINED IT THROUGH INFUSION: NEVERTHELESS SOME THINGS HE COULD KNOW ANEW WITH INTUITIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL COGNITION.

This, as it seems to me, is the genuine doctrine of the Subtle Doctor, as regards both parts, as will appear below.

The first part is proved first by the authority of the Holy Fathers, who attribute to Christ fullness of every kind of science even as an infant, and deny that he, even as a little boy, knew anything not. Thus St. Augustine book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, c. 29, where he teaches that no ignorance indeed existed in that infant, nor those other unquiet motions redolent of the original stain of guilt: Which ignorance plainly, he says, I would by no means believe to have been in that Infant in whom the Word was made flesh to dwell among us, nor should I have suspected in the little Christ that infirmity of mind which we see in little children. This truth Eulogius Alexandrian Patriarch lucidly hands down in the book against the Agnoetae, where treating this question copiously and learnedly he says: To affirm that ignorance existed in him neither according to divinity nor according to humanity is devoid of perilous temerity: which book St. Gregory praises and approves book 8 of Letters, epistle 12, which he wrote to him: Because, he says, in your doctrine impugning the heretics who are called Agnoetae, there was much to admire, but nothing however displeasing. The same truth stands from the Holy Fathers cited in the first objection of the superior Conclusion; for they constantly affirm that no ignorance ever existed in Christ even as man; but it would have been necessary for him to be ignorant of many things if he had not had infused science of natural things, which can be learned and known through study and labor: therefore he must be said truly to have had it.

It is proved also by reason. First, indeed, by that which St. Damascene used book 3 On the Faith chapter 22, where he proves that Christ truly could not, not even according to humanity, have any increment of science, on account of his intimate conjunction with the Word. *For if flesh truly is conjoined to God the Word from the very beginning of existing; or rather existed in him and had hypostatic identity with him; how could it happen that it was not enriched perfectly with all wisdom and grace? Not that itself should participate grace, nor that through grace it be admitted into communion of things pertaining to the Word: but rather for this reason, that on account of hypostatic union, all human and divine things being made proper to one Christ (since God and man were simultaneously one), that very flesh poured forth grace and wisdom, and full abundance of all goods into the world like a fountain. From which one may thus reason: Christ by reason of his union to the Word ought to have full abundance of all goods, and consequently wisdom from that instant at which his humanity was united to the Word: but if he had not through infusion all natural sciences, which can be compared through study and labor, he would not have had full abundance of all goods: therefore from then he ought to have had them.

It is confirmed: hypostatic union demands from its dignity that the assumed nature be perfect in the first instant with every natural perfection not conflicting with its state: yet natural sciences are certain perfections of human intellect, nor do they conflict with the state of Christ; because if they conflicted, chiefly either from defect of use of reason, or because intellect depends upon phantasms and possible species to use natural science, which can be compared through acquisition: but from neither head do natural sciences conflict with Christ from the instant of his formation. Not indeed from the first head, for, as stands from the cited Holy Fathers, Christ even in his mother's womb had perfect use of reason, wherefore Jeremiah chapter 31 calls him while still existing in his mother's womb a man: A woman, he says, shall compass a man: which words St. Jerome expounds thus: According to the increase of age, he says, through the times of birth and infancy, wisdom seems to advance together with age: but the perfect man was contained within the months usual to females. Or as St. Bernard said above, Not less was the wisdom of Jesus conceived than born, small than great, etc.

Some Thomists reply with Cajetan that although Christ did not have infused in him all natural sciences from the beginning of his formation: nevertheless with easy labor he could compare them, by reason of acumen of genius wherewith he excelled before other men, and whereby he could comprehend natures of things, so that having known heaven, e.g., he would know all its effects, and having known one individual he would know others.

Against which, however much anyone excels in genius, he cannot in brief time compare knowledge of natural things to himself: partly because it exceeds natural forces of genius that seeing one or another individual one might gather what is to be thought about others; since many individuals are found similar to themselves, as experience shows concerning medicine for curing diseases; for on account of diverse complexion of men diverse remedies are to be applied for curing the same disease. Add that human science cannot be compared except dependently upon senses and phantasms: wherefore since all things and effects did not occur to the senses of Christ, nay nor could many occur except through long succession of time, it does not appear how Christ could compare their knowledge to himself by his own acts.

They reply again, that phantasms of natural things necessary for this science, chiefly of those which commonly do not occur, were represented to the senses and imagination of Christ by Angels.

Against which, it does not appear how so diverse and so many sensibles could be applied to the senses of Christ by Angels: but Angels cannot infuse phantasms, for as the Theologians commonly teach they can only produce local motion, move phantasms previously produced, and apply actives to passives. Isambert adds, that it is far easier to recur to simple infusion for acquisition of sciences of this kind than to such a congregation of objects done through ministry of an Angel; partly also because these sciences must be admitted in Christ the Lord far more perfect than in any mere man: but from bare supply of some singular objects, done by an Angel out of individual species, this science cannot, even by force of acutest genius, be compared in some brief time in a state so most perfect, insofar as it was acquired by some singular man, e.g. Aristotle, through discipline founded in long experience and the great study of most learned men; especially since individual singulars do not always represent their proper differences so that they can be known without error: therefore since Christ the Lord ought to have had these sciences perfect in the whole latitude of objects, nor is he of worse condition than our first parent, nor could he have had them otherwise than through infusion, he had all of them in fact through infusion.

It is proved secondly: Christ ought not to have been less illuminated by divine charisms and gifts than Adam, since he had come to repair the losses of the former Adam: but Adam from the beginning of his formation had infused in him cognition of all natural things: therefore Christ also ought to have had them.

The Thomists reply by denying parity, and Gonetus with others produces a threefold reason of disparity:

First indeed, that whereas Adam was created by God in perfect age, as head and Doctor of the human race, that he might immediately have those sciences which would be necessary in a man of that age for exercising those offices; Christ although he be head and Doctor of the whole Church and Lord of all, because nevertheless he was born in infantile age, so that not immediately as a perfect man would he converse in this world; there was no need that science acquirable by its own nature should through infusion be received from the beginning; but gradually, like other men, he ought to compare it to himself through the senses. Secondly, Adam was given as Doctor to the whole human race in natural things, and therefore it was fitting that from the beginning of his production he have all natural sciences, even as that he immediately be a perfect man as regards quantity and disposition of body: but Christ was given as Doctor of mysteries of grace, not of natural things. For the Apostle says 1 Corinthians 15: The first man was of earth earthly, the second man from heaven heavenly. And Truth herself says John 3: He who is of the earth speaks of earth, he who comes from heaven is above all, and what he saw and heard this he testifies; and therefore it was fitting that Christ immediately have infused science of mysteries of grace, but truly not science per se acquirable of natural things, even as neither perfect quantity of body. Thirdly, Adam lacked beatific vision, and presently after creation was to be deprived of science infused per se; whence it was fitting that he immediately from the beginning receive natural science infused per accidens, not only according to measure proportioned to the age in which he was created by God, but also as far as bore necessity whereby both he and all his posterity would have labored unless he had been liberally anticipated by that favor of God; but in Christ no such necessity existed, and shining beatific and infused science could abundantly supply him every use of infused science per accidens.

Truly these three replies do not dissolve the force of the argument, nor establish sufficient disparity. Not indeed the first, for although Christ from the first beginning of his formation did not have perfect age, yet truly he had manly mind, and was a man according to the aforesaid prophecy of Jeremiah, that is, he had manly judgment of reason, as befits a man, as St. Jerome teaches: therefore since natural sciences chiefly beseem a man for that state or time at which he has perfect judgment of reason, it was most fitting that even for that time the soul of Christ be illuminated by natural sciences; whence since then he could not acquire them by his own acts, it was necessary that he have them through infusion.

Secondly likewise the reason of disparity is null, for although Christ were destined to be Doctor of grace and justice, truly not of natural sciences, thence it does not follow that he ought not to have perfect knowledge of natural things: partly because natural things chiefly serve toward knowledge of spiritual things: since, says St. Paul to Romans 1: The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by those things that are made, etc.; whence Christ needed knowledge of them, that he might make known the mysteries of the kingdom of God through similitudes and parables drawn from things and natural sciences, which he uses most frequently in the Gospel: partly because, as we said, those natural sciences served chiefly toward illustrating the mind of Christ.

To the third I say, it stands alike for the cognition of natural things whether Christ had beatific and infused science; for as besides beatific science infused per se was necessary in him, whereby he himself might know in their proper genus things in their supernatural entity and such as cannot be known through human study, so besides that infused per se it was necessary that he have also infused science per accidens, whereby he would know excellently and most expertly natural things whose cognition can be acquired.

It is proved thirdly: Christ had through infusion moral virtues which conduced to illustrating and perfecting his will: therefore by parity of reason he ought to have intellectual virtues, or natural sciences, infused divinely in him. The antecedent stands from what was said. The consequence is proved from parity of reason, because lack of natural sciences derogates no less from the perfection of the soul of Christ than lack of moral virtues.

The Thomists deny parity, and Gonetus produces a twofold reason of disparity, whereof the first is that natural sciences do not render the subject good simply, but only in some respect; and consequently from lack of them there is not constituted one not-good simply in any order; whence further no more is derogated from the perfection of Christ through lack of natural sciences for a time than accrues to him from connatural acquisition of them; whose opposite happens in acquired virtues, as stands from what was said above. The second reason of discrimination which they produce is that if sciences per se acquirable had been infused into the humanity of Christ per accidens from the first instant of his conception, the agent intellect of the soul of Christ would have remained perpetually deprived of its own proper function and office, which is to abstract intelligible species from senses by illuminating phantasms, as Philosophers teach in the books On the Soul: but it was a great indecency that any power remain in the soul of Christ perpetually deprived of act proper and connatural to itself. From the fact however that Christ received through infusion all moral virtues from the first instant of his conception, it does not follow that synderesis or another power of the soul of Christ was idle in him and perpetually deprived of its proper office; for the powers of the soul of Christ, once informed by those virtues, produced acts of the same species about matters of moral virtues, such as they would have elicited through moral virtues compared by themselves. Such is the word of Cajetan.

Against which first, as moral virtues contribute to perfection of will, so intellectual ones to perfection of intellect: therefore just as Christ would be called imperfect in moral genus if he did not have all moral virtues, so he would be called imperfect in respect of understanding if he did not have all intellectual virtues. Add that prudence is one among moral virtues: but perfect prudence, since it consists in practical cognition, supposes perfect speculative cognition, not only of first principles but also of universal conclusions, upon which judgment in singular events depends: therefore he had moral science of all these things, and consequently he had other sciences; for he was not more impeded toward others, nor can one science without fellowship of others be perfect on every side. For they are somehow connected, like virtues.

I deny likewise the second reason of disparity, for as the Doctor observes dist. 14, q. 3, n. 3, the agent intellect was in Adam and remains in the Blessed, nor is it said to be fruitless in them although it does not abstract species from phantasms: just as neither are the nutritive, augmentative, and generative faculties said to be fruitless in bodies of the Blessed, although those faculties exercise no act and no operation; since they are ordered not only to operation congruent to themselves but even to integrity of human nature: therefore by parity of reason Christ the Lord could have an agent and passive intellect, inasmuch as it conduced to integrity of human nature, and had force of coining intelligible species serving for cognition of natural things, had he not elsewhere had that cognition. Add that the agent intellect could serve for receiving and forming species serving experimental cognition, in which Christ could advance.

Nor does it avail to reply with Cajetan, namely that not always from lack of proper operation of some power is it rightly deduced to be fruitless in its subject, but only from lack of operation due for the state and time. Whence agent intellect was not owed to Adam for the state of first creation, because since he had been formed perfect both according to soul and body, he had no need of the agent intellect itself whereby the intellect grows and is perfected in science, abstracting species from phantasms; whence although he lacked such operation, nevertheless the agent intellect was not fruitless in him. He says the same of the Blessed, because they, he says, are not in a state of acquiring science, whence although they do not lack agent intellect, nevertheless in them agent intellect is not said to be fruitless. This reply, I say, is null: partly because it supposes as certain what is moved into controversy; namely that Christ was not produced from whatever source perfect according to intellect as Adam; for this we contend, which he with other

Thomists denies without foundation: partly because no faculty is held fruitless for whatsoever state although it does not produce its act, because it already has it produced elsewhere; for, as the Doctor just cited says, powers for whatsoever state are not said useless and fruitless which of themselves have force of producing their own act and effect, unless they had it already produced by another cause. Thus e.g. augmentative faculty cannot exercise itself in accretion of the body of a Blessed one, just as neither could it in Adam, because the body of Adam and of the Blessed divinely had produced the perfect state of accretion, to which nothing was left to be added justly: therefore it suffices, that Christ be said to have had agent intellect, that that intellect of itself was capable of producing scientific cognition of natural things had God not implanted it in him.

You will object 1. All those authorities of Scripture and of the holy Fathers, and above all the authority of St. Ambrose, who teaches that Christ advanced in the knowledge received from the senses: therefore Christ could in truth acquire knowledge from natural things by his own study and labor.

I answer that those authorities are to be expounded as concerning progress in experimental knowledge acquired, which certainly depended upon the senses, and daily became greater in the order of experimental knowledge so as to meet objections; but not according to the order of true science; for Christ already had elsewhere that perfect infused science of natural things. Now one is said to have progressed in that knowledge just as a physician, for example, who already knows perfectly through his theoretical science the virtue of a remedy he has prepared, is said to know that virtue better when he experiences it in himself and proves it to be true. Add that if that progress of Christ be understood according to true and perfect science, it may be understood in the manner in which the other holy Fathers explain it, namely as progress in the external and sensible manifestation of that science, whose fullness Christ possessed.

You will object 2. Christ as wayfarer ought to have had knowledge in the manner befitting a wayfarer: but it becomes the state of a wayfarer to acquire knowledge through many acts and experiences: therefore in like manner Christ ought to have obtained it.

I answer first, that the major can be denied: for although Christ was truly a wayfarer, yet since he was at the same time a comprehensor, and since his humanity was hypostatically united to the Word, he ought on that account to have far more ample and nobler prerogatives than other wayfarers. Hence, just as he had infused knowledge of natural things, and an intellect and will expedited for operation from the instant of his formation, which does not belong to other wayfarers, so also he could have acquired knowledge in another manner than other wayfarers.

I answer second with the Doctor praised above, num. 8, by distinguishing the minor: Intuitive and experimental cognition belonging to a wayfarer arises from many acts and experiences — this I pass over; that abstractive cognition is acquired through many acts and experiences, this I deny: for it can be had through infused and abstractive sciences. Christ acquired the former by his own acts, but not the latter.

You will urge: Christ ought not only to have had knowledge, but ought to have had it according to its own and connatural mode, in which it can be had; for thus he is perfect not only through diverse sciences and perfections, but also through diverse modes: therefore just as he had blessed knowledge according to its own proper mode, namely permanent and not merely transient, as perhaps some wayfarers had, and just as he had per se infused knowledge according to its own proper mode, namely by infusion, so he ought to have had human knowledge, or knowledge acquirable by nature, in a human mode, namely by acquisition.

I distinguish the antecedent: he ought to have had it in a connatural mode, if he could not otherwise have it in a more perfect way — this I concede; otherwise, I deny. But it is more perfect to have sciences from the instant of conception by infusion than to acquire them by long labor: therefore it was far more excellent for Christ to have the sciences by infusion than to acquire them gradually.

You will press. It is more excellent to have knowledge by acquisition than by infusion, both on the part of the science and on the part of the knower: therefore the solution proposed above is worthless. The antecedent is evident: on the part of the science indeed, because the acquisition of a science is a generation of such a science per se, while infusion is a generation of a science per accidens; likewise on the part of the knower, for as Aristotle teaches, 1 Ethics, c. 5, citing Hesiod, He is best of all who knows all things of himself: therefore, etc. — I deny the subsumption: for speaking simply and absolutely, it is more perfect never to lack some knowledge suitable to oneself, even if it must be received from God alone, than at some time not to have it, so that it be obtained through one's own acts, especially since this mode of obtaining knowledge adds nothing of perfection. Add that, according to Suárez, d. 30, sect. 2, whatever reason Christ had this infused knowledge by, he must be said to have it from himself, not as something adventitious, but as a connatural property by reason of the union, just as has been said above of grace and the other gifts. And this is secondly explained and confirmed thus: because if Christ had assumed human nature in a state per se due to union without the defects which he assumed in his body for the sake of our redemption, without doubt he would have assumed it perfect with this science, as with the other perfections: therefore now too in fact he assumed it with this perfection upon that principle, since the lack of this science is neither necessarily conjoined with a passible body nor does it per se contribute to the end of redemption.

You will object 3. Christ was discursive: therefore by means of discourse he could come to know anew some scientific conclusions, and acquire knowledge for himself. — The Doctor soon to be cited answers that discourse does not always operate so that one comes to know a conclusion he did not previously know, but so that one knows actually what he previously knew habitually. Hence if Christ did not know all natural things in their proper genus, he could acquire for himself through discourse knowledge of unknown things, but not otherwise, since he had that knowledge infused. Then too Christ could know a scientific conclusion even though he had pre-existing quidditative knowledge of the terms, which knowledge Aristotle calls science, although, says the Doctor, it is not properly the habit of a conclusion.

You will object 1. The Subtle Doctor in the place cited, num. 6, teaches openly that Christ progressed in the knowledge of natural things; for he says:

That intuitive cognition, actual or habitual, in its proper genus cannot be given to that soul concerning all things; and in this respect it is necessary to say > that he progressed, as did another soul, because he knew different objects in different ways, etc.

I answer that the Doctor means nothing else than that Christ did not know all things through intuitive knowledge by means of infused species; nay, that he did not even know contingents, because infused species, since they represent an absent thing no less than a present one, and always exhibit it in the same manner, cannot serve for certain and intuitive knowledge of contingent and present things: hence it was necessary either that Christ know contingent things in the Word, or that he acquire their knowledge. Hence the Doctor concludes that, in order for Christ to have intuitive and experimental knowledge of things, it was necessary that he acquire it by his own acts, and by phantasms and species taken from the senses:

Because, he says in the same place, of a present thing not only is a sensible species left in the phantasy, but also one in the memorative power; and those powers know the object under different aspects: for one knows the object in itself absolutely, apprehending its quiddity; the other apprehends the object as apprehended in the past, so that the past apprehension is the immediate object, and the immediate object of that past apprehension is the mediated object of recollection. So too, even while some sensible thing is present to sense, by virtue of it a twofold cognition can be caused in the intellect: one abstractive, whereby the agent intellect abstracts the species of the quiddity, as quiddity is, from the species in the phantasm, which represents the object absolutely, not as existing here and now, or then; and another can be in the intellect an intuitive cognition, which cooperates with the intellect; and from this there can be left a habitual intuitive cognition impressed upon the intellectual memory, which is not of the absolute quiddity, as was the other, but of the thing known as existing when it was being apprehended in the past, as having passed away. In this way Christ is said to have learned many things by experience, that is through intuitive cognitions, that is of those things known with respect to existence, and through the memories left by them.

Thus the Doctor. In which words he clearly teaches that Christ indeed progressed in experimental and intuitive knowledge, but not in habitual and abstractive knowledge.

Corollary. — From these things gather first that Christ knew through acquired science the quiddities of all existing things; for species and quiddities are finite in number, and consequently they could all be perceived by the intellect of Christ without difficulty; nay, he knew even the most noble individuals of the whole universe of things: but the rest, whose knowledge did not greatly conduce to the dignity of his science, it is not unfitting to assert he did not know by that science innate and acquirable in him, but only through experimental or intuitive knowledge.

Gather secondly. That he did not have that knowledge of the quiddities of things through universal species, which he acquired with the passage of time, so that at once and once for all he had a twofold acquirable knowledge of things: one indeed infused per accidens, the other truly acquired by his own study and labor, as St. Thomas holds: because, as the Doctor subtly argues with an argument ad hominem, two accidents of the same species, distinct only in number, cannot be in the same subject according to the doctrine of St. Thomas; but knowledge infused per accidens and knowledge acquired per se concerning one and the same object in species are two accidents of the same species, distinct only in number; for either they are species, or similitudes, of that object, of which one is had by infusion and the other acquired by acquisition, or habits, which are no more distinct than the species: therefore in the doctrine of St. Thomas there cannot be given an infused science and an acquired science of one object in the same intellect: but according to St. Thomas there was already in the intellect of the soul of Christ an infused science of quiddities not only of all supernatural things but even of natural ones: therefore in that very intellect there must not be admitted an acquired science of the same quiddities.

The Thomists will perhaps say, that infused science and acquired knowledge of the same object are distinguished just as morning knowledge and evening knowledge are distinguished, that is knowledge in the Word and in its proper genus: but morning and evening knowledge can be given concerning the same object in species: therefore also infused and acquired science. — The Doctor answers truly that the case is far unlike, because morning knowledge and evening knowledge are compared through diverse means, or under diverse aspects: morning knowledge namely through the Word, which is both the object known and the reason of knowing; evening knowledge indeed through its own created similitude infused or acquired, which is not the object known, but only the reason of knowing; whereas the infused and the acquired science, which St. Thomas admits of one and the same object in species, are distinguished neither by object, nor by the reason under which, nor by the reason sub qua, nor by the reason through which, but only by various efficient causes, which do not suffice to constitute a specific distinction between certain effects: therefore however much morning and evening knowledge may be given concerning one object in species, still infused and acquired science cannot be given. All these things are confirmed: for if two cognitions of exactly the same species were in Christ, either both would be imperfect, or both perfect, or at least one of them: but to say both are imperfect is to posit imperfection in the cognitions of Christ without necessity; to posit both as perfect is to say that the other, whenever any object is perfectly known, is superfluous, since when a thing is known as far as it is knowable by one cognition, another cognition afterwards given of the same object is superfluous. To say finally that one of them is perfect and the other imperfect seems to be said gratuitously, because each can be proved to be perfect in its genus.

He concludes finally. That Christ learned nothing, neither from men nor from Angels: First, because it was not fitting that he be taught by them whose office is Doctor and not disciple: yet Christ was the Doctor of men and Angels, and not their disciple. Secondly, he properly learns who, being ignorant of something, received the knowledge of it from the teaching, and, since he has not from himself a sufficient principle, acquires species dependently on the concept of the master expounded by him, which like a certain light illuminates and determines him: but Christ was not illuminated by Angels nor by men: rather, when he heard anything from them, he bore himself in the manner of a preceptor to whom a disciple reads out of a book those things which he himself knew.

You will say. To acquire knowledge from a man teaching seems nobler than to acquire it from sensible things: because in the soul of the man teaching there are intelligible species in act; but in sensible things the intelligible species are only in potency: yet Christ received acquired knowledge from sensible things. — I answer: that it is more worthy to receive knowledge from sensible things than from a man: First, because sensible creatures are as it were the voices of God, and therefore to abstract species from them is to be taught by God; secondly, because the knowledge which is had from sensible things is acquired by the mode of discovery without the help of another, and from one's own powers; whereas that which is from men is acquired by the help of teachers.

You will say 2. Anyone hearing the significant speech of another can come to know what he does not know: therefore Christ could learn from men those things which he did not know according to this science. — I answer: the antecedent is true unless at the very time when he hears he knows in another manner that about which he hears, or knew it at a preceding time: such is the condition of Christ, who, since through acquired science he knew all things which according to place and time it was fitting that he not be ignorant of, consequently did not learn from men, but through experience and the ministry of the senses came to know them as soon as it was fitting that they be known by him.

You will say 3. Luke 22 records that an Angel appeared to Christ in the garden, comforting him: but comfort is brought about through comforting words of one teaching, according to that of Job 2, Behold, thou hast taught many, and thou hast strengthened the weary hands: thy words have confirmed the staggering: therefore Christ was taught by an Angel. — I answer, that some Catholics have at times doubted the truth of this history, as is evident from St. Hilary, book 10, De Trinitate, and Jerome, book 1, Contra Pelagianos, who write that in their times it was not found in Greek and Latin codices. And Epiphanius himself in the Ancoratus is witness that some of the orthodox and pious, out of simple zeal but not according to knowledge, erased that history from their codices, because they feared it might favor the Arians. The Anabaptists agreed with them. Nevertheless it must be held certain, especially from the time of the Council of Trent, whose definition is this, session 4, But if anyone shall not receive these books, whole with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical, let him be anathema. And certainly Epiphanius in the place cited, and Augustine, book 3, De consensu Evangelistarum, cap. 4, acknowledged this passage of Luke as Gospel, and others likewise. Hilary himself did not deny it, nor Jerome; wherefore, supposing the truth of this passage, he answers in two ways: First, the Angel is said to have comforted Christ, not because he added strength to him, but because he praised the virtue and strength of his spirit. Thus St. Chrysostom, Homily On the Trinity: How did he receive strength from an Angel? He received no strength, but the glorification of the Angel saying: Thine is the kingdom and the power, Lord. In the same sense is Epiphanius above. Secondly, he is said to be comforted by the Angel just as a friend is wont to lighten the sadness of a friend by words and familiar conversation, even though he teach his friend nothing at all: moreover Christ allowed himself to be comforted by an Angel, say the holy Fathers, both that he might teach the truth of human nature, which is more interior than the angelic, and thus faith in his Incarnation might be confirmed in us; and also that he might thereby teach men the usefulness of prayer.