SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 2]

Whether Christ Could Use This Knowledge by Turning to Phantasms?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ could not

understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because,

as is stated _De Anima_ iii, 18, 31, 39, phantasms are compared to

man's intellective soul as colors to sight. But Christ's power of

seeing could not become actual save by turning to colors. Therefore

His intellective soul could understand nothing except by turning to

phantasms.

Obj. 2: Further, Christ's soul is of the same nature as ours.

otherwise He would not be of the same species as we, contrary to what

the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) " . . . being made in the likeness of

men." But our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms.

Hence, neither can Christ's soul otherwise understand.

Obj. 3: Further, senses are given to man to help his intellect.

Hence, if the soul of Christ could understand without turning to

phantasms, which arise in the senses, it would follow that in the

soul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting.

Therefore it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by

turning to phantasms.

_On the contrary,_ The soul of Christ knew certain things which could

not be known by the senses, viz. separate substances. Therefore it

could understand without turning to phantasms.

_I answer that,_ In the state before His Passion Christ was at the

same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly

shown (Q. 15, A. 10). Especially had He the conditions of a wayfarer

on the part of the body, which was passible; but the conditions of a

comprehensor He had chiefly on the part of the soul. Now this is the

condition of the soul of a comprehensor, viz. that it is nowise

subject to its body, or dependent upon it, but wholly dominates it.

Hence after the resurrection glory will flow from the soul to the

body. But the soul of man on earth needs to turn to phantasms,

because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject to and

dependent upon it. And hence the blessed both before and after the

resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this

must be said of the soul of Christ, which had fully the capabilities

of a comprehensor.

Reply Obj. 1: This likeness which the Philosopher asserts is not with

regard to everything. For it is manifest that the end of the power of

seeing is to know colors; but the end of the intellective power is

not to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species, which it

apprehends from and in phantasms, according to the state of the

present life. Therefore there is a likeness in respect of what both

powers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition of

both powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in different

states from reaching its end by different ways: albeit there is never

but one proper end of a thing. Hence, although the sight knows

nothing without color; nevertheless in a certain state the intellect

can know without phantasms, but not without intelligible species.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the soul of Christ was of the same nature as

our souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact,

but only in hope, i.e. the state of comprehension.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the soul of Christ could understand without

turning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning to

phantasms. Hence the senses were not useless in it; especially as the

senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge, but

for the need of animal life.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 92 / 654 题