|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ----------------------------
| + | #REDIRECT [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-I-1-6.htm] |
| − | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS I - VI
| |
| − | ----------------------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa Theologiae|Index]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q1a1|Question 1.1 The Nature of Sacred Doctrine]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a2|Question 1.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a3|Question 1.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a4|Question 1.4]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a5|Question 1.5]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a6|Question 1.6]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a7|Question 1.7]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a8|Question 1.8]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a9|Question 1.9]]
| |
| − | *[[#q1a10|Question 1.10]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q2a1|Question 2.1 The Existence of God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q2a2|Question 2.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q2a3|Question 2.3]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q3a1|Question 3.1 The Simplicity of God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a2|Question 3.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a3|Question 3.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a4|Question 3.4]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a5|Question 3.5]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a6|Question 3.6]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a7|Question 3.7]]
| |
| − | *[[#q3a8|Question 3.8]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q4a1|Question 4.1 The Perfection of God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q4a2|Question 4.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q4a3|Question 4.3]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q5a1|Question 5.1 Of Goodness in General]]
| |
| − | *[[#q5a2|Question 5.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q5a3|Question 5.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q5a4|Question 5.4]]
| |
| − | *[[#q5a5|Question 5.5]]
| |
| − | *[[#q5a6|Question 5.6]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q6a1|Question 6.1 The Goodness of God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q6a2|Question 6.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q6a3|Question 6.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q6a4|Question 6.4]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=46%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=54%|Latin
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 pr. </b>Et ut intentio nostra sub aliquibus certis limitibus comprehendatur, necessarium est primo investigare de ipsa sacra doctrina, qualis sit, et ad quae se extendat. Circa quae quaerenda sunt decem. Primo, de necessitate huius doctrinae. Secundo, utrum sit scientia. Tertio, utrum sit una vel plures. Quarto, utrum sit speculativa vel practica. Quinto, de comparatione eius ad alias scientias. Sexto, utrum sit sapientia. Septimo, quid sit subiectum eius. Octavo, utrum sit argumentativa. Nono, utrum uti debeat metaphoricis vel symbolicis locutionibus. Decimo, utrum Scriptura sacra huius doctrinae sit secundum plures sensus exponenda. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a1"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi. Ad ea enim quae supra rationem sunt, homo non debet conari, secundum illud Eccli. III, altiora te ne quaesieris. Sed ea quae rationi subduntur, sufficienter traduntur in philosophicis disciplinis. Superfluum igitur videtur, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi. ||Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, doctrina non potest esse nisi de ente, nihil enim scitur nisi verum, quod cum ente convertitur. Sed de omnibus entibus tractatur in philosophicis disciplinis, et etiam de Deo, unde quaedam pars philosophiae dicitur theologia, sive scientia divina, ut patet per philosophum in VI Metaphys. Non fuit igitur necessarium, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, aliam doctrinam haberi. ||Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur II ad Tim. III, omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum ad iustitiam. Scriptura autem divinitus inspirata non pertinet ad philosophicas disciplinas, quae sunt secundum rationem humanam inventae. Utile igitur est, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, esse aliam scientiam divinitus inspiratam. ||On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod necessarium fuit ad humanam salutem, esse doctrinam quandam secundum revelationem divinam, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, quae ratione humana investigantur. Primo quidem, quia homo ordinatur ad Deum sicut ad quendam finem qui comprehensionem rationis excedit, secundum illud Isaiae LXIV, oculus non vidit Deus absque te, quae praeparasti diligentibus te. Finem autem oportet esse praecognitum hominibus, qui suas intentiones et actiones debent ordinare in finem. Unde necessarium fuit homini ad salutem, quod ei nota fierent quaedam per revelationem divinam, quae rationem humanam excedunt. Ad ea etiam quae de Deo ratione humana investigari possunt, necessarium fuit hominem instrui revelatione divina. Quia veritas de Deo, per rationem investigata, a paucis, et per longum tempus, et cum admixtione multorum errorum, homini proveniret, a cuius tamen veritatis cognitione dependet tota hominis salus, quae in Deo est. Ut igitur salus hominibus et convenientius et certius proveniat, necessarium fuit quod de divinis per divinam revelationem instruantur. Necessarium igitur fuit, praeter philosophicas disciplinas, quae per rationem investigantur, sacram doctrinam per revelationem haberi. ||I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt tamen, a Deo revelata, suscipienda per fidem. Unde et ibidem subditur, plurima supra sensum hominum ostensa sunt tibi. Et in huiusmodi sacra doctrina consistit. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod diversa ratio cognoscibilis diversitatem scientiarum inducit. Eandem enim conclusionem demonstrat astrologus et naturalis, puta quod terra est rotunda, sed astrologus per medium mathematicum, idest a materia abstractum; naturalis autem per medium circa materiam consideratum. Unde nihil prohibet de eisdem rebus, de quibus philosophicae disciplinae tractant secundum quod sunt cognoscibilia lumine naturalis rationis, et aliam scientiam tractare secundum quod cognoscuntur lumine divinae revelationis. Unde theologia quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinet, differt secundum genus ab illa theologia quae pars philosophiae ponitur. ||Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a2"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit scientia. Omnis enim scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis. Sed sacra doctrina procedit ex articulis fidei, qui non sunt per se noti, cum non ab omnibus concedantur, non enim omnium est fides, ut dicitur II Thessalon. III. Non igitur sacra doctrina est scientia. ||Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, scientia non est singularium. Sed sacra doctrina tractat de singularibus, puta de gestis Abrahae, Isaac et Iacob, et similibus. Ergo sacra doctrina non est scientia. ||Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIV de Trinitate, huic scientiae attribuitur illud tantummodo quo fides saluberrima gignitur, nutritur, defenditur, roboratur. Hoc autem ad nullam scientiam pertinet nisi ad sacram doctrinam. Ergo sacra doctrina est scientia. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est quod duplex est scientiarum genus. Quaedam enim sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturali intellectus, sicut arithmetica, geometria, et huiusmodi. Quaedam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, sicut perspectiva procedit ex principiis notificatis per geometriam, et musica ex principiis per arithmeticam notis. Et hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia, quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum. Unde sicut musica credit principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a Deo. ||I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principia cuiuslibet scientiae vel sunt nota per se, vel reducuntur ad notitiam superioris scientiae. Et talia sunt principia sacrae doctrinae, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod singularia traduntur in sacra doctrina, non quia de eis principaliter tractetur, sed introducuntur tum in exemplum vitae, sicut in scientiis moralibus; tum etiam ad declarandum auctoritatem virorum per quos ad nos revelatio divina processit, super quam fundatur sacra Scriptura seu doctrina. ||Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a3"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit una scientia. Quia secundum philosophum in I Poster., una scientia est quae est unius generis subiecti. Creator autem et creatura, de quibus in sacra doctrina tractatur, non continentur sub uno genere subiecti. Ergo sacra doctrina non est una scientia. ||Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) "that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects." But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, in sacra doctrina tractatur de Angelis, de creaturis corporalibus, de moribus hominum. Huiusmodi autem ad diversas scientias philosophicas pertinent. Igitur sacra doctrina non est una scientia. ||Objection 2. Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod sacra Scriptura de ea loquitur sicut de una scientia, dicitur enim Sap. X, dedit illi scientiam sanctorum. ||On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: "Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things" (Wisdom 10:10).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum sacram doctrinam unam scientiam esse. Est enim unitas potentiae et habitus consideranda secundum obiectum, non quidem materialiter, sed secundum rationem formalem obiecti, puta homo, asinus et lapis conveniunt in una formali ratione colorati, quod est obiectum visus. Quia igitur sacra Scriptura considerat aliqua secundum quod sunt divinitus revelata, secundum quod dictum est, omnia quaecumque sunt divinitus revelabilia, communicant in una ratione formali obiecti huius scientiae. Et ideo comprehenduntur sub sacra doctrina sicut sub scientia una. ||I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ass, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacra doctrina non determinat de Deo et de creaturis ex aequo, sed de Deo principaliter, et de creaturis secundum quod referuntur ad Deum, ut ad principium vel finem. Unde unitas scientiae non impeditur. ||Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet inferiores potentias vel habitus diversificari circa illas materias, quae communiter cadunt sub una potentia vel habitu superiori, quia superior potentia vel habitus respicit obiectum sub universaliori ratione formali. Sicut obiectum sensus communis est sensibile, quod comprehendit sub se visibile et audibile, unde sensus communis, cum sit una potentia, extendit se ad omnia obiecta quinque sensuum. Et similiter ea quae in diversis scientiis philosophicis tractantur, potest sacra doctrina, una existens, considerare sub una ratione, inquantum scilicet sunt divinitus revelabilia, ut sic sacra doctrina sit velut quaedam impressio divinae scientiae, quae est una et simplex omnium. ||Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the "common sense" is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the "common sense," although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a4"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina sit scientia practica. Finis enim practicae est operatio, secundum philosophum in II Metaphys. Sacra autem doctrina ad operationem ordinatur, secundum illud Iac. I, estote factores verbi, et non auditores tantum. Ergo sacra doctrina est practica scientia. ||Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, sacra doctrina dividitur per legem veterem et novam. Lex autem pertinet ad scientiam moralem, quae est scientia practica. Ergo sacra doctrina est scientia practica. ||Objection 2. Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra, omnis scientia practica est de rebus operabilibus ab homine; ut moralis de actibus hominum, et aedificativa de aedificiis. Sacra autem doctrina est principaliter de Deo, cuius magis homines sunt opera. Non ergo est scientia practica, sed magis speculativa. ||On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a speculative science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod sacra doctrina, ut dictum est, una existens, se extendit ad ea quae pertinent ad diversas scientias philosophicas, propter rationem formalem quam in diversis attendit, scilicet prout sunt divino lumine cognoscibilia. Unde licet in scientiis philosophicis alia sit speculativa et alia practica, sacra tamen doctrina comprehendit sub se utramque; sicut et Deus eadem scientia se cognoscit, et ea quae facit. Magis tamen est speculativa quam practica, quia principalius agit de rebus divinis quam de actibus humanis; de quibus agit secundum quod per eos ordinatur homo ad perfectam Dei cognitionem, in qua aeterna beatitudo consistit. ||I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 4 ad arg. </b>Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. ||This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a5"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 arg. 1 </b>Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra doctrina non sit dignior aliis scientiis. Certitudo enim pertinet ad dignitatem scientiae. Sed aliae scientiae, de quarum principiis dubitari non potest, videntur esse certiores sacra doctrina, cuius principia, scilicet articuli fidei, dubitationem recipiunt. Aliae igitur scientiae videntur ista digniores. ||Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; for its principles--namely, articles of faith--can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, inferioris scientiae est a superiori accipere, sicut musicus ab arithmetico. Sed sacra doctrina accipit aliquid a philosophicis disciplinis, dicit enim Hieronymus in epistola ad magnum oratorem urbis Romae, quod doctores antiqui intantum philosophorum doctrinis atque sententiis suos resperserunt libros, ut nescias quid in illis prius admirari debeas, eruditionem saeculi, an scientiam Scripturarum. Ergo sacra doctrina est inferior aliis scientiis. ||Objection 2. Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that "the ancient doctors so enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or their scriptural learning." Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod aliae scientiae dicuntur ancillae huius, Prov. IX, misit ancillas suas vocare ad arcem. ||On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower" (Proverbs 9:3).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, cum ista scientia quantum ad aliquid sit speculativa, et quantum ad aliquid sit practica, omnes alias transcendit tam speculativas quam practicas. Speculativarum enim scientiarum una altera dignior dicitur, tum propter certitudinem, tum propter dignitatem materiae. Et quantum ad utrumque, haec scientia alias speculativas scientias excedit. Secundum certitudinem quidem, quia aliae scientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae, quae potest errare, haec autem certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest. Secundum dignitatem vero materiae, quia ista scientia est principaliter de his quae sua altitudine rationem transcendunt, aliae vero scientiae considerant ea tantum quae rationi subduntur. Practicarum vero scientiarum illa dignior est, quae ad ulteriorem finem ordinatur, sicut civilis militari, nam bonum exercitus ad bonum civitatis ordinatur. Finis autem huius doctrinae inquantum est practica, est beatitudo aeterna, ad quam sicut ad ultimum finem ordinantur omnes alii fines scientiarum practicarum. Unde manifestum est, secundum omnem modum, eam digniorem esse aliis. ||I answer that, Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason's grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet id quod est certius secundum naturam, esse quoad nos minus certum, propter debilitatem intellectus nostri, qui se habet ad manifestissima naturae, sicut oculus noctuae ad lumen solis, sicut dicitur in II Metaphys. Unde dubitatio quae accidit in aliquibus circa articulos fidei, non est propter incertitudinem rei, sed propter debilitatem intellectus humani. Et tamen minimum quod potest haberi de cognitione rerum altissimarum, desiderabilius est quam certissima cognitio quae habetur de minimis rebus, ut dicitur in XI de animalibus. ||Reply to Objection 1. It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, "which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun" (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de Animalibus xi.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 5 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod haec scientia accipere potest aliquid a philosophicis disciplinis, non quod ex necessitate eis indigeat, sed ad maiorem manifestationem eorum quae in hac scientia traduntur. Non enim accipit sua principia ab aliis scientiis, sed immediate a Deo per revelationem. Et ideo non accipit ab aliis scientiis tanquam a superioribus, sed utitur eis tanquam inferioribus et ancillis; sicut architectonicae utuntur subministrantibus, ut civilis militari. Et hoc ipsum quod sic utitur eis, non est propter defectum vel insufficientiam eius, sed propter defectum intellectus nostri; qui ex his quae per naturalem rationem (ex qua procedunt aliae scientiae) cognoscuntur, facilius manuducitur in ea quae sunt supra rationem, quae in hac scientia traduntur. ||Reply to Objection 2. This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a6"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 arg. 1 </b>Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec doctrina non sit sapientia. Nulla enim doctrina quae supponit sua principia aliunde, digna est nomine sapientiae, quia sapientis est ordinare, et non ordinari (I Metaphys.). Sed haec doctrina supponit principia sua aliunde, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo haec doctrina non est sapientia. ||Objection 1. It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph. i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore this science is not wisdom.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, ad sapientiam pertinet probare principia aliarum scientiarum, unde ut caput dicitur scientiarum, ut VI Ethic. patet. Sed haec doctrina non probat principia aliarum scientiarum. Ergo non est sapientia. ||Objection 2. Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, haec doctrina per studium acquiritur. Sapientia autem per infusionem habetur, unde inter septem dona spiritus sancti connumeratur, ut patet Isaiae XI. Ergo haec doctrina non est sapientia. ||Objection 3. Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas wisdom is acquired by God's inspiration; so that it is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). Therefore this doctrine is not the same as wisdom.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. IV, in principio legis, haec est nostra sapientia et intellectus coram populis. ||On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 4:6): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod haec doctrina maxime sapientia est inter omnes sapientias humanas, non quidem in aliquo genere tantum, sed simpliciter. Cum enim sapientis sit ordinare et iudicare, iudicium autem per altiorem causam de inferioribus habeatur; ille sapiens dicitur in unoquoque genere, qui considerat causam altissimam illius generis. Ut in genere aedificii, artifex qui disponit formam domus, dicitur sapiens et architector, respectu inferiorum artificum, qui dolant ligna vel parant lapides, unde dicitur I Cor. III, ut sapiens architector fundamentum posui. Et rursus, in genere totius humanae vitae, prudens sapiens dicitur, inquantum ordinat humanos actus ad debitum finem, unde dicitur Prov. X, sapientia est viro prudentia. Ille igitur qui considerat simpliciter altissimam causam totius universi, quae Deus est, maxime sapiens dicitur, unde et sapientia dicitur esse divinorum cognitio, ut patet per Augustinum, XII de Trinitate. Sacra autem doctrina propriissime determinat de Deo secundum quod est altissima causa, quia non solum quantum ad illud quod est per creaturas cognoscibile (quod philosophi cognoverunt, ut dicitur Rom. I, quod notum est Dei, manifestum est illis); sed etiam quantum ad id quod notum est sibi soli de seipso, et aliis per revelationem communicatum. Unde sacra doctrina maxime dicitur sapientia. ||I answer that, This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers who trim the wood and make ready the stones: "As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation" (1 Corinthians 3:10). Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: "Wisdom is prudence to a man" (Proverbs 10:23). Therefore he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe, namely God, is most of all called wise. Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause--not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him--"That which is known of God is manifest in them" (Romans 1:19)--but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sacra doctrina non supponit sua principia ab aliqua scientia humana, sed a scientia divina, a qua, sicut a summa sapientia, omnis nostra cognitio ordinatur. ||Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod aliarum scientiarum principia vel sunt per se nota, et probari non possunt, vel per aliquam rationem naturalem probantur in aliqua alia scientia. Propria autem huius scientiae cognitio est, quae est per revelationem, non autem quae est per naturalem rationem. Et ideo non pertinet ad eam probare principia aliarum scientiarum, sed solum iudicare de eis, quidquid enim in aliis scientiis invenitur veritati huius scientiae repugnans, totum condemnatur ut falsum, unde dicitur II Cor. X, consilia destruentes, et omnem altitudinem extollentem se adversus scientiam Dei. ||Reply to Objection 2. The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 6 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum iudicium ad sapientem pertineat, secundum duplicem modum iudicandi, dupliciter sapientia accipitur. Contingit enim aliquem iudicare, uno modo per modum inclinationis, sicut qui habet habitum virtutis, recte iudicat de his quae sunt secundum virtutem agenda, inquantum ad illa inclinatur, unde et in X Ethic. dicitur quod virtuosus est mensura et regula actuum humanorum. Alio modo, per modum cognitionis, sicut aliquis instructus in scientia morali, posset iudicare de actibus virtutis, etiam si virtutem non haberet. Primus igitur modus iudicandi de rebus divinis, pertinet ad sapientiam quae ponitur donum spiritus sancti secundum illud I Cor. II, spiritualis homo iudicat omnia, etc., et Dionysius dicit, II cap. de divinis nominibus, Hierotheus doctus est non solum discens, sed et patiens divina. Secundus autem modus iudicandi pertinet ad hanc doctrinam, secundum quod per studium habetur; licet eius principia ex revelatione habeantur. ||Reply to Objection 3. Since judgment appertains to wisdom, the twofold manner of judging produces a twofold wisdom. A man may judge in one way by inclination, as whoever has the habit of a virtue judges rightly of what concerns that virtue by his very inclination towards it. Hence it is the virtuous man, as we read, who is the measure and rule of human acts. In another way, by knowledge, just as a man learned in moral science might be able to judge rightly about virtuous acts, though he had not the virtue. The first manner of judging divine things belongs to that wisdom which is set down among the gifts of the Holy Ghost: "The spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15). And Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "Hierotheus is taught not by mere learning, but by experience of divine things." The second manner of judging belongs to this doctrine which is acquired by study, though its principles are obtained by revelation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a7"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 arg. 1 </b>Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit subiectum huius scientiae. In qualibet enim scientia oportet supponere de subiecto quid est, secundum philosophum in I Poster. Sed haec scientia non supponit de Deo quid est, dicit enim Damascenus, in Deo quid est, dicere impossibile est. Ergo Deus non est subiectum huius scientiae. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is not the object of this science. For in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omnia quae determinantur in aliqua scientia, comprehenduntur sub subiecto illius scientiae. Sed in sacra Scriptura determinatur de multis aliis quam de Deo, puta de creaturis, et de moribus hominum. Ergo Deus non est subiectum huius scientiae. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality. Therefore God is not the object of this science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 s. c. </b>Sed contra, illud est subiectum scientiae, de quo est sermo in scientia. Sed in hac scientia fit sermo de Deo, dicitur enim theologia, quasi sermo de Deo. Ergo Deus est subiectum huius scientiae. ||On the contrary, The object of the science is that of which it principally treats. But in this science, the treatment is mainly about God; for it is called theology, as treating of God. Therefore God is the object of this science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deus est subiectum huius scientiae. Sic enim se habet subiectum ad scientiam, sicut obiectum ad potentiam vel habitum. Proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius potentiae vel habitus, sub cuius ratione omnia referuntur ad potentiam vel habitum, sicut homo et lapis referuntur ad visum inquantum sunt colorata, unde coloratum est proprium obiectum visus. Omnia autem pertractantur in sacra doctrina sub ratione Dei, vel quia sunt ipse Deus; vel quia habent ordinem ad Deum, ut ad principium et finem. Unde sequitur quod Deus vere sit subiectum huius scientiae. Quod etiam manifestum fit ex principiis huius scientiae, quae sunt articuli fidei, quae est de Deo, idem autem est subiectum principiorum et totius scientiae, cum tota scientia virtute contineatur in principiis. Quidam vero, attendentes ad ea quae in ista scientia tractantur, et non ad rationem secundum quam considerantur, assignaverunt aliter subiectum huius scientiae, vel res et signa; vel opera reparationis; vel totum Christum, idest caput et membra. De omnibus enim istis tractatur in ista scientia, sed secundum ordinem ad Deum. ||I answer that, God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God--that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet de Deo non possimus scire quid est, utimur tamen eius effectu, in hac doctrina, vel naturae vel gratiae, loco definitionis, ad ea quae de Deo in hac doctrina considerantur, sicut et in aliquibus scientiis philosophicis demonstratur aliquid de causa per effectum, accipiendo effectum loco definitionis causae. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 7 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod omnia alia quae determinantur in sacra doctrina, comprehenduntur sub Deo, non ut partes vel species vel accidentia, sed ut ordinata aliqualiter ad ipsum. ||Reply to Objection 2. Whatever other conclusions are reached in this sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents but as in some way related to Him.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a8"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 arg. 1 </b>Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec doctrina non sit argumentativa. Dicit enim Ambrosius in libro I de fide Catholica, tolle argumenta, ubi fides quaeritur. Sed in hac doctrina praecipue fides quaeritur, unde dicitur Ioan. XX, haec scripta sunt ut credatis. Ergo sacra doctrina non est argumentativa. ||Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, si sit argumentativa, aut argumentatur ex auctoritate, aut ex ratione. Si ex auctoritate, non videtur hoc congruere eius dignitati, nam locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus, secundum Boetium. Si etiam ex ratione, hoc non congruit eius fini, quia secundum Gregorium in homilia, fides non habet meritum, ubi humana ratio praebet experimentum. Ergo sacra doctrina non est argumentativa. ||Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur ad Titum I, de episcopo, amplectentem eum qui secundum doctrinam est, fidelem sermonem, ut potens sit exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere. ||On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut aliae scientiae non argumentantur ad sua principia probanda, sed ex principiis argumentantur ad ostendendum alia in ipsis scientiis; ita haec doctrina non argumentatur ad sua principia probanda, quae sunt articuli fidei; sed ex eis procedit ad aliquid aliud ostendendum; sicut apostolus, I ad Cor. XV, ex resurrectione Christi argumentatur ad resurrectionem communem probandam. Sed tamen considerandum est in scientiis philosophicis, quod inferiores scientiae nec probant sua principia, nec contra negantem principia disputant, sed hoc relinquunt superiori scientiae, suprema vero inter eas, scilicet metaphysica, disputat contra negantem sua principia, si adversarius aliquid concedit, si autem nihil concedit, non potest cum eo disputare, potest tamen solvere rationes ipsius. Unde sacra Scriptura, cum non habeat superiorem, disputat cum negante sua principia, argumentando quidem, si adversarius aliquid concedat eorum quae per divinam revelationem habentur; sicut per auctoritates sacrae doctrinae disputamus contra haereticos, et per unum articulum contra negantes alium. Si vero adversarius nihil credat eorum quae divinitus revelantur, non remanet amplius via ad probandum articulos fidei per rationes, sed ad solvendum rationes, si quas inducit, contra fidem. Cum enim fides infallibili veritati innitatur, impossibile autem sit de vero demonstrari contrarium, manifestum est probationes quae contra fidem inducuntur, non esse demonstrationes, sed solubilia argumenta. ||I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet argumenta rationis humanae non habeant locum ad probandum quae fidei sunt, tamen ex articulis fidei haec doctrina ad alia argumentatur, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 8 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod argumentari ex auctoritate est maxime proprium huius doctrinae, eo quod principia huius doctrinae per revelationem habentur, et sic oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus revelatio facta est. Nec hoc derogat dignitati huius doctrinae, nam licet locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super ratione humana, sit infirmissimus; locus tamen ab auctoritate quae fundatur super revelatione divina, est efficacissimus. Utitur tamen sacra doctrina etiam ratione humana, non quidem ad probandum fidem, quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei; sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia quae traduntur in hac doctrina. Cum enim gratia non tollat naturam, sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis ratio subserviat fidei; sicut et naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur caritati. Unde et apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. X, in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. Et inde est quod etiam auctoritatibus philosophorum sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per rationem naturalem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt; sicut Paulus, actuum XVII, inducit verbum Arati, dicens, sicut et quidam poetarum vestrorum dixerunt, genus Dei sumus. Sed tamen sacra doctrina huiusmodi auctoritatibus utitur quasi extraneis argumentis, et probabilibus. Auctoritatibus autem canonicae Scripturae utitur proprie, ex necessitate argumentando. Auctoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum Ecclesiae, quasi arguendo ex propriis, sed probabiliter. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis et prophetis factae, qui canonicos libros scripserunt, non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta. Unde dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Hieronymum, solis eis Scripturarum libris qui canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem deferre, ut nullum auctorem eorum in scribendo errasse aliquid firmissime credam. Alios autem ita lego, ut, quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipsi ita senserunt vel scripserunt. ||Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a9"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 arg. 1 </b>Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra Scriptura non debeat uti metaphoris. Illud enim quod est proprium infimae doctrinae, non videtur competere huic scientiae, quae inter alias tenet locum supremum, ut iam dictum est. Procedere autem per similitudines varias et repraesentationes, est proprium poeticae, quae est infima inter omnes doctrinas. Ergo huiusmodi similitudinibus uti, non est conveniens huic scientiae. ||Objection 1. It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, haec doctrina videtur esse ordinata ad veritatis manifestationem, unde et manifestatoribus eius praemium promittitur, Eccli. XXIV, qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt. Sed per huiusmodi similitudines veritas occultatur. Non ergo competit huic doctrinae divina tradere sub similitudine corporalium rerum. ||Objection 2. Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: "They that explain me shall have life everlasting" (Sirach 24:31). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, quanto aliquae creaturae sunt sublimiores, tanto magis ad divinam similitudinem accedunt. Si igitur aliquae ex creaturis transumerentur ad Deum, tunc oporteret talem transumptionem maxime fieri ex sublimioribus creaturis, et non ex infimis. Quod tamen in Scripturis frequenter invenitur. ||Objection 3. Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in Scriptures.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Osee XII, ego visionem multiplicavi eis, et in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Tradere autem aliquid sub similitudine, est metaphoricum. Ergo ad sacram doctrinam pertinet uti metaphoris. ||On the contrary, It is written (Hosea 12:10): "I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets." But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens est sacrae Scripturae divina et spiritualia sub similitudine corporalium tradere. Deus enim omnibus providet secundum quod competit eorum naturae. Est autem naturale homini ut per sensibilia ad intelligibilia veniat, quia omnis nostra cognitio a sensu initium habet. Unde convenienter in sacra Scriptura traduntur nobis spiritualia sub metaphoris corporalium. Et hoc est quod dicit Dionysius, I cap. caelestis hierarchiae, impossibile est nobis aliter lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum. Convenit etiam sacrae Scripturae, quae communiter omnibus proponitur (secundum illud ad Rom. I, sapientibus et insipientibus debitor sum), ut spiritualia sub similitudinibus corporalium proponantur; ut saltem vel sic rudes eam capiant, qui ad intelligibilia secundum se capienda non sunt idonei. ||I answer that, It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons--"To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14)--that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod poeta utitur metaphoris propter repraesentationem, repraesentatio enim naturaliter homini delectabilis est. Sed sacra doctrina utitur metaphoris propter necessitatem et utilitatem, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod radius divinae revelationis non destruitur propter figuras sensibiles quibus circumvelatur, ut dicit Dionysius, sed remanet in sua veritate; ut mentes quibus fit revelatio, non permittat in similitudinibus permanere, sed elevet eas ad cognitionem intelligibilium; et per eos quibus revelatio facta est, alii etiam circa haec instruantur. Unde ea quae in uno loco Scripturae traduntur sub metaphoris, in aliis locis expressius exponuntur. Et ipsa etiam occultatio figurarum utilis est, ad exercitium studiosorum, et contra irrisiones infidelium, de quibus dicitur, Matth. VII, nolite sanctum dare canibus. ||Reply to Objection 2. The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 9 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut docet Dionysius, cap. II Cael. Hier., magis est conveniens quod divina in Scripturis tradantur sub figuris vilium corporum, quam corporum nobilium. Et hoc propter tria. Primo, quia per hoc magis liberatur humanus animus ab errore. Manifestum enim apparet quod haec secundum proprietatem non dicuntur de divinis, quod posset esse dubium, si sub figuris nobilium corporum describerentur divina; maxime apud illos qui nihil aliud a corporibus nobilius excogitare noverunt. Secundo, quia hic modus convenientior est cognitioni quam de Deo habemus in hac vita. Magis enim manifestatur nobis de ipso quid non est, quam quid est, et ideo similitudines illarum rerum quae magis elongantur a Deo, veriorem nobis faciunt aestimationem quod sit supra illud quod de Deo dicimus vel cogitamus. Tertio, quia per huiusmodi, divina magis occultantur indignis. ||Reply to Objection 3. As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly, because thereby men's minds are the better preserved from error. For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him. Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q1a10"><b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 arg. 1 </b>Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacra Scriptura sub una littera non habeat plures sensus, qui sunt historicus vel litteralis, allegoricus, tropologicus sive moralis, et anagogicus. Multiplicitas enim sensuum in una Scriptura parit confusionem et deceptionem, et tollit arguendi firmitatem, unde ex multiplicibus propositionibus non procedit argumentatio, sed secundum hoc aliquae fallaciae assignantur. Sacra autem Scriptura debet esse efficax ad ostendendam veritatem absque omni fallacia. Ergo non debent in ea sub una littera plures sensus tradi. ||Objection 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro de utilitate credendi, quod Scriptura quae testamentum vetus vocatur, quadrifariam traditur, scilicet, secundum historiam, secundum aetiologiam, secundum analogiam, secundum allegoriam. Quae quidem quatuor a quatuor praedictis videntur esse aliena omnino. Non igitur conveniens videtur quod eadem littera sacrae Scripturae secundum quatuor sensus praedictos exponatur. ||Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, praeter praedictos sensus, invenitur sensus parabolicus, qui inter illos sensus quatuor non continetur. ||Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Gregorius, XX Moralium, sacra Scriptura omnes scientias ipso locutionis suae more transcendit, quia uno eodemque sermone, dum narrat gestum, prodit mysterium. ||On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus, in cuius potestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas. Et ideo, cum in omnibus scientiis voces significent, hoc habet proprium ista scientia, quod ipsae res significatae per voces, etiam significant aliquid. Illa ergo prima significatio, qua voces significant res, pertinet ad primum sensum, qui est sensus historicus vel litteralis. Illa vero significatio qua res significatae per voces, iterum res alias significant, dicitur sensus spiritualis; qui super litteralem fundatur, et eum supponit. Hic autem sensus spiritualis trifariam dividitur. Sicut enim dicit apostolus, ad Hebr. VII, lex vetus figura est novae legis, et ipsa nova lex, ut dicit Dionysius in ecclesiastica hierarchia, est figura futurae gloriae, in nova etiam lege, ea quae in capite sunt gesta, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus. Secundum ergo quod ea quae sunt veteris legis, significant ea quae sunt novae legis, est sensus allegoricus, secundum vero quod ea quae in Christo sunt facta, vel in his quae Christum significant, sunt signa eorum quae nos agere debemus, est sensus moralis, prout vero significant ea quae sunt in aeterna gloria, est sensus anagogicus. Quia vero sensus litteralis est, quem auctor intendit, auctor autem sacrae Scripturae Deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit, non est inconveniens, ut dicit Augustinus XII confessionum, si etiam secundum litteralem sensum in una littera Scripturae plures sint sensus. ||I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod multiplicitas horum sensuum non facit aequivocationem, aut aliam speciem multiplicitatis, quia, sicut iam dictum est, sensus isti non multiplicantur propter hoc quod una vox multa significet; sed quia ipsae res significatae per voces, aliarum rerum possunt esse signa. Et ita etiam nulla confusio sequitur in sacra Scriptura, cum omnes sensus fundentur super unum, scilicet litteralem; ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum, non autem ex his quae secundum allegoriam dicuntur, ut dicit Augustinus in epistola contra Vincentium Donatistam. Non tamen ex hoc aliquid deperit sacrae Scripturae, quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod Scriptura per litteralem sensum alicubi manifeste non tradat. ||Reply to Objection 1. The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one--the literal--from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod illa tria, historia, aetiologia, analogia, ad unum litteralem sensum pertinent. Nam historia est, ut ipse Augustinus exponit, cum simpliciter aliquid proponitur, aetiologia vero, cum causa dicti assignatur, sicut cum dominus assignavit causam quare Moyses permisit licentiam repudiandi uxores, scilicet propter duritiam cordis ipsorum, Matt. XIX, analogia vero est, cum veritas unius Scripturae ostenditur veritati alterius non repugnare. Sola autem allegoria, inter illa quatuor, pro tribus spiritualibus sensibus ponitur. Sicut et Hugo de sancto Victore sub sensu allegorico etiam anagogicum comprehendit, ponens in tertio suarum sententiarum solum tres sensus, scilicet historicum, allegoricum et tropologicum. ||Reply to Objection 2. These three--history, etiology, analogy--are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives--namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only--the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 1 a. 10 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod sensus parabolicus sub litterali continetur, nam per voces significatur aliquid proprie, et aliquid figurative; nec est litteralis sensus ipsa figura, sed id quod est figuratum. Non enim cum Scriptura nominat Dei brachium, est litteralis sensus quod in Deo sit membrum huiusmodi corporale, sed id quod per hoc membrum significatur, scilicet virtus operativa. In quo patet quod sensui litterali sacrae Scripturae nunquam potest subesse falsum. ||Reply to Objection 3. The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q2a1"><b>IЄ q. 2 pr. </b>Quia igitur principalis intentio huius sacrae doctrinae est Dei cognitionem tradere, et non solum secundum quod in se est, sed etiam secundum quod est principium rerum et finis earum, et specialiter rationalis creaturae, ut ex dictis est manifestum; ad huius doctrinae expositionem intendentes, primo tractabimus de Deo; secundo, de motu rationalis creaturae in Deum; tertio, de Christo, qui, secundum quod homo, via est nobis tendendi in Deum. Consideratio autem de Deo tripartita erit. Primo namque considerabimus ea quae ad essentiam divinam pertinent; secundo, ea quae pertinent ad distinctionem personarum; tertio, ea quae pertinent ad processum creaturarum ab ipso. Circa essentiam vero divinam, primo considerandum est an Deus sit; secundo, quomodo sit, vel potius quomodo non sit; tertio considerandum erit de his quae ad operationem ipsius pertinent, scilicet de scientia et de voluntate et potentia. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Deum esse sit per se notum. Secundo, utrum sit demonstrabile. Tertio, an Deus sit. ||Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is at the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavour to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God: (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God: (3) of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God. In treating of God there will be a threefold division:- For we shall consider (1) whatever concerns the Divine Essence. (2) Whatever concerns the distinction of Persons. (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him. Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider:- (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence. (3) Whatever concerns His operations _ namely, His knowledge, will, power. Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:- (1) Whether the proposition 'God exists' is self-evident? (2) Whether it is demonstrable? (3) Whether God exists?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deum esse sit per se notum. Illa enim nobis dicuntur per se nota, quorum cognitio nobis naturaliter inest, sicut patet de primis principiis. Sed, sicut dicit Damascenus in principio libri sui, omnibus cognitio existendi Deum naturaliter est inserta. Ergo Deum esse est per se notum. ||We proceed thus to the first article. Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, illa dicuntur esse per se nota, quae statim, cognitis terminis, cognoscuntur, quod philosophus attribuit primis demonstrationis principiis, in I Poster., scito enim quid est totum et quid pars, statim scitur quod omne totum maius est sua parte. Sed intellecto quid significet hoc nomen Deus, statim habetur quod Deus est. Significatur enim hoc nomine id quo maius significari non potest, maius autem est quod est in re et intellectu, quam quod est in intellectu tantum, unde cum, intellecto hoc nomine Deus, statim sit in intellectu, sequitur etiam quod sit in re. Ergo Deum esse est per se notum. ||Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, veritatem esse est per se notum, quia qui negat veritatem esse, concedit veritatem esse, si enim veritas non est, verum est veritatem non esse. Si autem est aliquid verum, oportet quod veritas sit. Deus autem est ipsa veritas, Ioann. XIV, ego sum via, veritas et vita. Ergo Deum esse est per se notum. ||Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra, nullus potest cogitare oppositum eius quod est per se notum ut patet per philosophum, in IV Metaphys. et I Poster., circa prima demonstrationis principia. Cogitari autem potest oppositum eius quod est Deum esse, secundum illud Psalmi LII, dixit insipiens in corde suo, non est Deus. Ergo Deum esse non est per se notum. ||On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod contingit aliquid esse per se notum dupliciter, uno modo, secundum se et non quoad nos; alio modo, secundum se et quoad nos. Ex hoc enim aliqua propositio est per se nota, quod praedicatum includitur in ratione subiecti, ut homo est animal, nam animal est de ratione hominis. Si igitur notum sit omnibus de praedicato et de subiecto quid sit, propositio illa erit omnibus per se nota, sicut patet in primis demonstrationum principiis, quorum termini sunt quaedam communia quae nullus ignorat, ut ens et non ens, totum et pars, et similia. Si autem apud aliquos notum non sit de praedicato et subiecto quid sit, propositio quidem quantum in se est, erit per se nota, non tamen apud illos qui praedicatum et subiectum propositionis ignorant. Et ideo contingit, ut dicit Boetius in libro de hebdomadibus, quod quaedam sunt communes animi conceptiones et per se notae, apud sapientes tantum, ut incorporalia in loco non esse. Dico ergo quod haec propositio, Deus est, quantum in se est, per se nota est, quia praedicatum est idem cum subiecto; Deus enim est suum esse, ut infra patebit. Sed quia nos non scimus de Deo quid est, non est nobis per se nota, sed indiget demonstrari per ea quae sunt magis nota quoad nos, et minus nota quoad naturam, scilicet per effectus. ||I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature--namely, by effects.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cognoscere Deum esse in aliquo communi, sub quadam confusione, est nobis naturaliter insertum, inquantum scilicet Deus est hominis beatitudo, homo enim naturaliter desiderat beatitudinem, et quod naturaliter desideratur ab homine, naturaliter cognoscitur ab eodem. Sed hoc non est simpliciter cognoscere Deum esse; sicut cognoscere venientem, non est cognoscere Petrum, quamvis sit Petrus veniens, multi enim perfectum hominis bonum, quod est beatitudo, existimant divitias; quidam vero voluptates; quidam autem aliquid aliud. ||Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod forte ille qui audit hoc nomen Deus, non intelligit significari aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit, cum quidam crediderint Deum esse corpus. Dato etiam quod quilibet intelligat hoc nomine Deus significari hoc quod dicitur, scilicet illud quo maius cogitari non potest; non tamen propter hoc sequitur quod intelligat id quod significatur per nomen, esse in rerum natura; sed in apprehensione intellectus tantum. Nec potest argui quod sit in re, nisi daretur quod sit in re aliquid quo maius cogitari non potest, quod non est datum a ponentibus Deum non esse. ||Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod veritatem esse in communi, est per se notum, sed primam veritatem esse, hoc non est per se notum quoad nos. ||Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q2a2"><b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deum esse non sit demonstrabile. Deum enim esse est articulus fidei. Sed ea quae sunt fidei, non sunt demonstrabilia, quia demonstratio facit scire, fides autem de non apparentibus est, ut patet per apostolum, ad Hebr. XI. Ergo Deum esse non est demonstrabile. ||We proceed thus to the second article. Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, medium demonstrationis est quod quid est. Sed de Deo non possumus scire quid est, sed solum quid non est, ut dicit Damascenus. Ergo non possumus demonstrare Deum esse. ||Objection 2. Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si demonstraretur Deum esse, hoc non esset nisi ex effectibus eius. Sed effectus eius non sunt proportionati ei, cum ipse sit infinitus, et effectus finiti; finiti autem ad infinitum non est proportio. Cum ergo causa non possit demonstrari per effectum sibi non proportionatum, videtur quod Deum esse non possit demonstrari. ||Objection 3. Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur. Sed hoc non esset, nisi per ea quae facta sunt, posset demonstrari Deum esse, primum enim quod oportet intelligi de aliquo, est an sit. ||On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est demonstratio. Una quae est per causam, et dicitur propter quid, et haec est per priora simpliciter. Alia est per effectum, et dicitur demonstratio quia, et haec est per ea quae sunt priora quoad nos, cum enim effectus aliquis nobis est manifestior quam sua causa, per effectum procedimus ad cognitionem causae. Ex quolibet autem effectu potest demonstrari propriam causam eius esse (si tamen eius effectus sint magis noti quoad nos), quia, cum effectus dependeant a causa, posito effectu necesse est causam praeexistere. Unde Deum esse, secundum quod non est per se notum quoad nos, demonstrabile est per effectus nobis notos. ||I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deum esse, et alia huiusmodi quae per rationem naturalem nota possunt esse de Deo, ut dicitur Rom. I non sunt articuli fidei, sed praeambula ad articulos, sic enim fides praesupponit cognitionem naturalem, sicut gratia naturam, et ut perfectio perfectibile. Nihil tamen prohibet illud quod secundum se demonstrabile est et scibile, ab aliquo accipi ut credibile, qui demonstrationem non capit. ||Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod cum demonstratur causa per effectum, necesse est uti effectu loco definitionis causae, ad probandum causam esse, et hoc maxime contingit in Deo. Quia ad probandum aliquid esse, necesse est accipere pro medio quid significet nomen non autem quod quid est, quia quaestio quid est, sequitur ad quaestionem an est. Nomina autem Dei imponuntur ab effectibus, ut postea ostendetur, unde, demonstrando Deum esse per effectum, accipere possumus pro medio quid significet hoc nomen Deus. ||Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod per effectus non proportionatos causae, non potest perfecta cognitio de causa haberi, sed tamen ex quocumque effectu potest manifeste nobis demonstrari causam esse, ut dictum est. Et sic ex effectibus Dei potest demonstrari Deum esse, licet per eos non perfecte possimus eum cognoscere secundum suam essentiam. ||Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q2a3"><b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit. Quia si unum contrariorum fuerit infinitum, totaliter destruetur aliud. Sed hoc intelligitur in hoc nomine Deus, scilicet quod sit quoddam bonum infinitum. Si ergo Deus esset, nullum malum inveniretur. Invenitur autem malum in mundo. Ergo Deus non est. ||Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit, quia ea quae sunt naturalia, reducuntur in principium quod est natura; ea vero quae sunt a proposito, reducuntur in principium quod est ratio humana vel voluntas. Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse. ||Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Exodi III, ex persona Dei, ego sum qui sum ||On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 1 </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest. ||I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 2 </b>Prima autem et manifestior via est, quae sumitur ex parte motus. Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo. Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Nihil enim movetur, nisi secundum quod est in potentia ad illud ad quod movetur, movet autem aliquid secundum quod est actu. Movere enim nihil aliud est quam educere aliquid de potentia in actum, de potentia autem non potest aliquid reduci in actum, nisi per aliquod ens in actu, sicut calidum in actu, ut ignis, facit lignum, quod est calidum in potentia, esse actu calidum, et per hoc movet et alterat ipsum. Non autem est possibile ut idem sit simul in actu et potentia secundum idem, sed solum secundum diversa, quod enim est calidum in actu, non potest simul esse calidum in potentia, sed est simul frigidum in potentia. Impossibile est ergo quod, secundum idem et eodem modo, aliquid sit movens et motum, vel quod moveat seipsum. Omne ergo quod movetur, oportet ab alio moveri. Si ergo id a quo movetur, moveatur, oportet et ipsum ab alio moveri et illud ab alio. Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset aliquod primum movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens, quia moventia secunda non movent nisi per hoc quod sunt mota a primo movente, sicut baculus non movet nisi per hoc quod est motus a manu. Ergo necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum movens, quod a nullo movetur, et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum. ||The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 3 </b>Secunda via est ex ratione causae efficientis. Invenimus enim in istis sensibilibus esse ordinem causarum efficientium, nec tamen invenitur, nec est possibile, quod aliquid sit causa efficiens sui ipsius; quia sic esset prius seipso, quod est impossibile. Non autem est possibile quod in causis efficientibus procedatur in infinitum. Quia in omnibus causis efficientibus ordinatis, primum est causa medii, et medium est causa ultimi, sive media sint plura sive unum tantum, remota autem causa, removetur effectus, ergo, si non fuerit primum in causis efficientibus, non erit ultimum nec medium. Sed si procedatur in infinitum in causis efficientibus, non erit prima causa efficiens, et sic non erit nec effectus ultimus, nec causae efficientes mediae, quod patet esse falsum. Ergo est necesse ponere aliquam causam efficientem primam, quam omnes Deum nominant. ||The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 4 </b>Tertia via est sumpta ex possibili et necessario, quae talis est. Invenimus enim in rebus quaedam quae sunt possibilia esse et non esse, cum quaedam inveniantur generari et corrumpi, et per consequens possibilia esse et non esse. Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est. Si igitur omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus. Sed si hoc est verum, etiam nunc nihil esset, quia quod non est, non incipit esse nisi per aliquid quod est; si igitur nihil fuit ens, impossibile fuit quod aliquid inciperet esse, et sic modo nihil esset, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo omnia entia sunt possibilia, sed oportet aliquid esse necessarium in rebus. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suae necessitatis aliunde, vel non habet. Non est autem possibile quod procedatur in infinitum in necessariis quae habent causam suae necessitatis, sicut nec in causis efficientibus, ut probatum est. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquid quod sit per se necessarium, non habens causam necessitatis aliunde, sed quod est causa necessitatis aliis, quod omnes dicunt Deum. ||The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 5 </b>Quarta via sumitur ex gradibus qui in rebus inveniuntur. Invenitur enim in rebus aliquid magis et minus bonum, et verum, et nobile, et sic de aliis huiusmodi. Sed magis et minus dicuntur de diversis secundum quod appropinquant diversimode ad aliquid quod maxime est, sicut magis calidum est, quod magis appropinquat maxime calido. Est igitur aliquid quod est verissimum, et optimum, et nobilissimum, et per consequens maxime ens, nam quae sunt maxime vera, sunt maxime entia, ut dicitur II Metaphys. Quod autem dicitur maxime tale in aliquo genere, est causa omnium quae sunt illius generis, sicut ignis, qui est maxime calidus, est causa omnium calidorum, ut in eodem libro dicitur. Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum. ||The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 co. 6 </b>Quinta via sumitur ex gubernatione rerum. Videmus enim quod aliqua quae cognitione carent, scilicet corpora naturalia, operantur propter finem, quod apparet ex hoc quod semper aut frequentius eodem modo operantur, ut consequantur id quod est optimum; unde patet quod non a casu, sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem. Ea autem quae non habent cognitionem, non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente et intelligente, sicut sagitta a sagittante. Ergo est aliquid intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem, et hoc dicimus Deum. ||The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in Enchiridio, Deus, cum sit summe bonus, nullo modo sineret aliquid mali esse in operibus suis, nisi esset adeo omnipotens et bonus, ut bene faceret etiam de malo. Hoc ergo ad infinitam Dei bonitatem pertinet, ut esse permittat mala, et ex eis eliciat bona. ||Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 2 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum natura propter determinatum finem operetur ex directione alicuius superioris agentis, necesse est ea quae a natura fiunt, etiam in Deum reducere, sicut in primam causam. Similiter etiam quae ex proposito fiunt, oportet reducere in aliquam altiorem causam, quae non sit ratio et voluntas humana, quia haec mutabilia sunt et defectibilia; oportet autem omnia mobilia et deficere possibilia reduci in aliquod primum principium immobile et per se necessarium, sicut ostensum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a1"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1</b>Cognito de aliquo an sit, inquirendum restat quomodo sit, ut sciatur de eo quid sit. Sed quia de Deo scire non possumus quid sit, sed quid non sit, non possumus considerare de Deo quomodo sit, sed potius quomodo non sit. Primo ergo considerandum est quomodo non sit; secundo, quomodo a nobis cognoscatur; tertio, quomodo nominetur. Potest autem ostendi de Deo quomodo non sit, removendo ab eo ea quae ei non conveniunt, utpote compositionem, motum, et alia huiusmodi. Primo ergo inquiratur de simplicitate ipsius, per quam removetur ab eo compositio. Et quia simplicia in rebus corporalibus sunt imperfecta et partes, secundo inquiretur de perfectione ipsius; tertio, de infinitate eius; quarto, de immutabilitate; quinto, de unitate. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum Deus sit corpus. Secundo, utrum sit in eo compositio formae et materiae. Tertio, utrum sit in eo compositio quidditatis, sive essentiae, vel naturae, et subiecti. Quarto, utrum sit in eo compositio quae est ex essentia et esse. Quinto, utrum sit in eo compositio generis et differentiae. Sexto, utrum sit in eo compositio subiecti et accidentis. Septimo, utrum sit quocumque modo compositus, vel totaliter simplex. Octavo, utrum veniat in compositionem cum aliis. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus sit corpus. Corpus enim est quod habet trinam dimensionem. Sed sacra Scriptura attribuit Deo trinam dimensionem, dicitur enim Iob XI, excelsior caelo est, et quid facies? Profundior Inferno, et unde cognosces? Longior terra mensura eius, et latior mari. Ergo Deus est corpus. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: "He is higher than Heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea" (Job 11:8-9). Therefore God is a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omne figuratum est corpus, cum figura sit qualitas circa quantitatem. Sed Deus videtur esse figuratus, cum scriptum sit Gen. I, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, figura enim imago dicitur, secundum illud Hebr. I, cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius, idest imago. Ergo Deus est corpus. ||Objection 2. Further, everything that has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it is written: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Now a figure is called an image, according to the text: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure," i.e. the image, "of His substance" (Hebrews 1:3). Therefore God is a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, omne quod habet partes corporeas, est corpus. Sed Scriptura attribuit Deo partes corporeas, dicitur enim Iob XL, si habes brachium ut Deus; et in Psalmo, oculi domini super iustos; et, dextera domini fecit virtutem. Ergo Deus est corpus. ||Objection 3. Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a body. Now Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. "Hast thou an arm like God?" (Job 40:4); and "The eyes of the Lord are upon the just" (Psalm 33:16); and "The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength" (Psalm 117:16). Therefore God is a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, situs non convenit nisi corpori. Sed ea quae ad situm pertinent, in Scripturis dicuntur de Deo, dicitur enim Isaiae VI, vidi dominum sedentem; et Isaiae III, stat ad iudicandum dominus. Ergo Deus est corpus. ||Objection 4. Further, posture belongs only to bodies. But something which supposes posture is said of God in the Scriptures: "I saw the Lord sitting" (Isaiah 6:1), and "He standeth up to judge" (Isaiah 3:13). Therefore God is a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, nihil potest esse terminus localis a quo vel ad quem, nisi sit corpus vel aliquod corporeum. Sed Deus in Scriptura dicitur esse terminus localis ut ad quem, secundum illud Psalmi, accedite ad eum, et illuminamini; et ut a quo, secundum illud Hierem. XVII, recedentes a te in terra scribentur. Ergo Deus est corpus. ||Objection 5. Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local term "wherefrom" or "whereto." But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as a local term "whereto," according to the words, "Come ye to Him and be enlightened" (Psalm 33:6), and as a term "wherefrom": "All they that depart from Thee shall be written in the earth" (Jeremiah 17:13). Therefore God is a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. IV, spiritus est Deus. ||On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): "God is a spirit."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum absolute Deum non esse corpus. Quod tripliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia nullum corpus movet non motum, ut patet inducendo per singula. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum movens immobile. Unde manifestum est quod Deus non est corpus. Secundo, quia necesse est id quod est primum ens, esse in actu, et nullo modo in potentia. Licet enim in uno et eodem quod exit de potentia in actum, prius sit potentia quam actus tempore, simpliciter tamen actus prior est potentia, quia quod est in potentia, non reducitur in actum nisi per ens actu. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum ens. Impossibile est igitur quod in Deo sit aliquid in potentia. Omne autem corpus est in potentia, quia continuum, inquantum huiusmodi, divisibile est in infinitum. Impossibile est igitur Deum esse corpus. Tertio, quia Deus est id quod est nobilissimum in entibus, ut ex dictis patet. Impossibile est autem aliquod corpus esse nobilissimum in entibus. Quia corpus aut est vivum, aut non vivum. Corpus autem vivum, manifestum est quod est nobilius corpore non vivo. Corpus autem vivum non vivit inquantum corpus, quia sic omne corpus viveret, oportet igitur quod vivat per aliquid aliud, sicut corpus nostrum vivit per animam. Illud autem per quod vivit corpus, est nobilius quam corpus. Impossibile est igitur Deum esse corpus. ||I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways. First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (2, 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body. Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body. Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacra Scriptura tradit nobis spiritualia et divina sub similitudinibus corporalium. Unde, cum trinam dimensionem Deo attribuit, sub similitudine quantitatis corporeae, quantitatem virtualem ipsius designat, utpote per profunditatem, virtutem ad cognoscendum occulta; per altitudinem, excellentiam virtutis super omnia; per longitudinem, durationem sui esse; per latitudinem, affectum dilectionis ad omnia. Vel, ut dicit Dionysius, cap. IX de Div. Nom., per profunditatem Dei intelligitur incomprehensibilitas ipsius essentiae; per longitudinem, processus virtutis eius, omnia penetrantis; per latitudinem vero, superextensio eius ad omnia, inquantum scilicet sub eius protectione omnia continentur. ||Reply to Objection 1. As we have said above (1, 9), Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His excelling power; by length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or, as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod homo dicitur esse ad imaginem Dei, non secundum corpus, sed secundum id quo homo excellit alia animalia, unde, Gen. I, postquam dictum est, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, subditur, ut praesit piscibus maris, et cetera. Excellit autem homo omnia animalia quantum ad rationem et intellectum. Unde secundum intellectum et rationem, quae sunt incorporea, homo est ad imaginem Dei. ||Reply to Objection 2. Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness", it is added, "And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea" (Genesis 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod partes corporeae attribuuntur Deo in Scripturis ratione suorum actuum, secundum quandam similitudinem. Sicut actus oculi est videre, unde oculus de Deo dictus, significat virtutem eius ad videndum modo intelligibili, non sensibili. Et simile est de aliis partibus. ||Reply to Objection 3. Corporeal parts are attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see; hence the eye attributed to God signifies His power of seeing intellectually, not sensibly; and so on with the other parts.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod etiam ea quae ad situm pertinent, non attribuuntur Deo nisi secundum quandam similitudinem, sicut dicitur sedens, propter suam immobilitatem et auctoritatem; et stans, propter suam fortitudinem ad debellandum omne quod adversatur. ||Reply to Objection 4. Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 1 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod ad Deum non acceditur passibus corporalibus, cum ubique sit, sed affectibus mentis, et eodem modo ab eo receditur. Et sic accessus et recessus, sub similitudine localis motus, designant spiritualem affectum. ||Reply to Objection 5. We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a2"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo sit compositio formae et materiae. Omne enim quod habet animam, est compositum ex materia et forma, quia anima est forma corporis. Sed Scriptura attribuit animam Deo, introducitur enim ad Hebr. X, ex persona Dei, iustus autem meus ex fide vivit; quod si subtraxerit se, non placebit animae meae. Ergo Deus est compositus ex materia et forma. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is composed of matter and form. For whatever has a soul is composed of matter and form; since the soul is the form of the body. But Scripture attributes a soul to God; for it is mentioned in Hebrews (Hebrews 10:38), where God says: "But My just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please My soul." Therefore God is composed of matter and form.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, ira, gaudium, et huiusmodi, sunt passiones coniuncti, ut dicitur I de anima. Sed huiusmodi attribuuntur Deo in Scriptura dicitur enim in Psalmo, iratus est furore dominus in populum suum. Ergo Deus ex materia et forma est compositus. ||Objection 2. Further, anger, joy and the like are passions of the composite. But these are attributed to God in Scripture: "The Lord was exceeding angry with His people" (Psalm 105:40). Therefore God is composed of matter and form.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, materia est principium individuationis. Sed Deus videtur esse individuum, non enim de multis praedicatur. Ergo est compositus ex materia et forma. ||Objection 3. Further, matter is the principle of individualization. But God seems to be individual, for He cannot be predicated of many. Therefore He is composed of matter and form.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra, omne compositum ex materia et forma est corpus, quantitas enim dimensiva est quae primo inhaeret materiae. Sed Deus non est corpus, ut ostensum est. Ergo Deus non est compositus ex materia et forma. ||On the contrary, Whatever is composed of matter and form is a body; for dimensive quantity is the first property of matter. But God is not a body as proved in the preceding Article; therefore He is not composed of matter and form.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est in Deo esse materiam. Primo quidem, quia materia est id quod est in potentia. Ostensum est autem quod Deus est purus actus, non habens aliquid de potentialitate. Unde impossibile est quod Deus sit compositus ex materia et forma. Secundo, quia omne compositum ex materia et forma est perfectum et bonum per suam formam, unde oportet quod sit bonum per participationem, secundum quod materia participat formam. Primum autem quod est bonum et optimum, quod Deus est, non est bonum per participationem, quia bonum per essentiam, prius est bono per participationem. Unde impossibile est quod Deus sit compositus ex materia et forma. Tertio, quia unumquodque agens agit per suam formam, unde secundum quod aliquid se habet ad suam formam, sic se habet ad hoc quod sit agens. Quod igitur primum est et per se agens, oportet quod sit primo et per se forma. Deus autem est primum agens, cum sit prima causa efficiens, ut ostensum est. Est igitur per essentiam suam forma; et non compositus ex materia et forma. ||I answer that, It is impossible that matter should exist in God. First, because matter is in potentiality. But we have shown (2, 3) that God is pure act, without any potentiality. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form. Secondly, because everything composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness to its form; therefore its goodness is participated, inasmuch as matter participates the form. Now the first good and the best--viz. God--is not a participated good, because the essential good is prior to the participated good. Hence it is impossible that God should be composed of matter and form. Thirdly, because every agent acts by its form; hence the manner in which it has its form is the manner in which it is an agent. Therefore whatever is primarily and essentially an agent must be primarily and essentially form. Now God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause. He is therefore of His essence a form; and not composed of matter and form.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod anima attribuitur Deo per similitudinem actus. Quod enim volumus aliquid nobis, ex anima nostra est, unde illud dicitur esse placitum animae Dei, quod est placitum voluntati ipsius. ||Reply to Objection 1. A soul is attributed to God because His acts resemble the acts of a soul; for, that we will anything, is due to our soul. Hence what is pleasing to His will is said to be pleasing to His soul.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod ira et huiusmodi attribuuntur Deo secundum similitudinem effectus, quia enim proprium est irati punire, ira eius punitio metaphorice vocatur. ||Reply to Objection 2. Anger and the like are attributed to God on account of a similitude of effect. Thus, because to punish is properly the act of an angry man, God's punishment is metaphorically spoken of as His anger.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod formae quae sunt receptibiles in materia individuantur per materiam, quae non potest esse in alio, cum sit primum subiectum substans, forma vero, quantum est de se, nisi aliquid aliud impediat, recipi potest a pluribus. Sed illa forma quae non est receptibilis in materia, sed est per se subsistens, ex hoc ipso individuatur, quod non potest recipi in alio, et huiusmodi forma est Deus. Unde non sequitur quod habeat materiam. ||Reply to Objection 3. Forms which can be received in matter are individualized by matter, which cannot be in another as in a subject since it is the first underlying subject; although form of itself, unless something else prevents it, can be received by many. But that form which cannot be received in matter, but is self-subsisting, is individualized precisely because it cannot be received in a subject; and such a form is God. Hence it does not follow that matter exists in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a3"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit idem Deus quod sua essentia vel natura. Nihil enim est in seipso. Sed essentia vel natura Dei, quae est deitas, dicitur esse in Deo. Ergo videtur quod Deus non sit idem quod sua essentia vel natura. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is not the same as His essence or nature. For nothing can be in itself. But the substance or nature of God--i.e. the Godhead--is said to be in God. Therefore it seems that God is not the same as His essence or nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, effectus assimilatur suae causae, quia omne agens agit sibi simile. Sed in rebus creatis non est idem suppositum quod sua natura, non enim idem est homo quod sua humanitas. Ergo nec Deus est idem quod sua deitas. ||Objection 2. Further, the effect is assimilated to its cause; for every agent produces its like. But in created things the "suppositum" is not identical with its nature; for a man is not the same as his humanity. Therefore God is not the same as His Godhead.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 s. c. </b>Contra, de Deo dicitur quod est vita, et non solum quod est vivens, ut patet Ioan. XIV, ego sum via, veritas et vita. Sicut autem se habet vita ad viventem, ita deitas ad Deum. Ergo Deus est ipsa deitas. ||On the contrary, It is said of God that He is life itself, and not only that He is a living thing: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Now the relation between Godhead and God is the same as the relation between life and a living thing. Therefore God is His very Godhead.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deus est idem quod sua essentia vel natura. Ad cuius intellectum sciendum est, quod in rebus compositis ex materia et forma, necesse est quod differant natura vel essentia et suppositum. Quia essentia vel natura comprehendit in se illa tantum quae cadunt in definitione speciei, sicut humanitas comprehendit in se ea quae cadunt in definitione hominis, his enim homo est homo, et hoc significat humanitas, hoc scilicet quo homo est homo. Sed materia individualis, cum accidentibus omnibus individuantibus ipsam, non cadit in definitione speciei, non enim cadunt in definitione hominis hae carnes et haec ossa, aut albedo vel nigredo, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Unde hae carnes et haec ossa, et accidentia designantia hanc materiam, non concluduntur in humanitate. Et tamen in eo quod est homo, includuntur, unde id quod est homo, habet in se aliquid quod non habet humanitas. Et propter hoc non est totaliter idem homo et humanitas, sed humanitas significatur ut pars formalis hominis; quia principia definientia habent se formaliter, respectu materiae individuantis. In his igitur quae non sunt composita ex materia et forma, in quibus individuatio non est per materiam individualem, idest per hanc materiam, sed ipsae formae per se individuantur, oportet quod ipsae formae sint supposita subsistentia. Unde in eis non differt suppositum et natura. Et sic, cum Deus non sit compositus ex materia et forma, ut ostensum est, oportet quod Deus sit sua deitas, sua vita, et quidquid aliud sic de Deo praedicatur. ||I answer that, God is the same as His essence or nature. To understand this, it must be noted that in things composed of matter and form, the nature or essence must differ from the "suppositum," because the essence or nature connotes only what is included in the definition of the species; as, humanity connotes all that is included in the definition of man, for it is by this that man is man, and it is this that humanity signifies, that, namely, whereby man is man. Now individual matter, with all the individualizing accidents, is not included in the definition of the species. For this particular flesh, these bones, this blackness or whiteness, etc., are not included in the definition of a man. Therefore this flesh, these bones, and the accidental qualities distinguishing this particular matter, are not included in humanity; and yet they are included in the thing which is man. Hence the thing which is a man has something more in it than has humanity. Consequently humanity and a man are not wholly identical; but humanity is taken to mean the formal part of a man, because the principles whereby a thing is defined are regarded as the formal constituent in regard to the individualizing matter. On the other hand, in things not composed of matter and form, in which individualization is not due to individual matter--that is to say, to "this" matter--the very forms being individualized of themselves--it is necessary the forms themselves should be subsisting "supposita." Therefore "suppositum" and nature in them are identified. Since God then is not composed of matter and form, He must be His own Godhead, His own Life, and whatever else is thus predicated of Him.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de rebus simplicibus loqui non possumus, nisi per modum compositorum, a quibus cognitionem accipimus. Et ideo, de Deo loquentes, utimur nominibus concretis, ut significemus eius subsistentiam, quia apud nos non subsistunt nisi composita, et utimur nominibus abstractis, ut significemus eius simplicitatem. Quod ergo dicitur deitas vel vita, vel aliquid huiusmodi, esse in Deo, referendum est ad diversitatem quae est in acceptione intellectus nostri; et non ad aliquam diversitatem rei. ||Reply to Objection 1. We can speak of simple things only as though they were like the composite things from which we derive our knowledge. Therefore in speaking of God, we use concrete nouns to signify His subsistence, because with us only those things subsist which are composite; and we use abstract nouns to signify His simplicity. In saying therefore that Godhead, or life, or the like are in God, we indicate the composite way in which our intellect understands, but not that there is any composition in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod effectus Dei imitantur ipsum, non perfecte, sed secundum quod possunt. Et hoc ad defectum imitationis pertinet, quod id quod est simplex et unum, non potest repraesentari nisi per multa, et sic accidit in eis compositio, ex qua provenit quod in eis non est idem suppositum quod natura. ||Reply to Objection 2. The effects of God do not imitate Him perfectly, but only as far as they are able; and the imitation is here defective, precisely because what is simple and one, can only be represented by divers things; consequently, composition is accidental to them, and therefore, in them "suppositum" is not the same as nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a4"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sit idem essentia et esse. Si enim hoc sit, tunc ad esse divinum nihil additur. Sed esse cui nulla fit additio, est esse commune quod de omnibus praedicatur, sequitur ergo quod Deus sit ens commune praedicabile de omnibus. Hoc autem est falsum, secundum illud Sap. XIV, incommunicabile nomen lignis et lapidibus imposuerunt. Ergo esse Dei non est eius essentia. ||Objection 1. It seems that essence and existence are not the same in God. For if it be so, then the divine being has nothing added to it. Now being to which no addition is made is universal being which is predicated of all things. Therefore it follows that God is being in general which can be predicated of everything. But this is false: "For men gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood" (Wisdom 14:21). Therefore God's existence is not His essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, de Deo scire possumus an sit, ut supra dictum est. Non autem possumus scire quid sit. Ergo non est idem esse Dei, et quod quid est eius, sive quidditas vel natura. ||Objection 2. Further, we can know "whether" God exists as said above (2, 2); but we cannot know "what" He is. Therefore God's existence is not the same as His essence--that is, as His quiddity or nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit in VII de Trin., esse non est accidens in Deo, sed subsistens veritas. Id ergo quod subsistit in Deo, est suum esse. ||On the contrary, Hilary says (Trin. vii): "In God existence is not an accidental quality, but subsisting truth." Therefore what subsists in God is His existence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deus non solum est sua essentia, ut ostensum est, sed etiam suum esse. Quod quidem multipliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia quidquid est in aliquo quod est praeter essentiam eius, oportet esse causatum vel a principiis essentiae, sicut accidentia propria consequentia speciem, ut risibile consequitur hominem et causatur ex principiis essentialibus speciei; vel ab aliquo exteriori, sicut calor in aqua causatur ab igne. Si igitur ipsum esse rei sit aliud ab eius essentia, necesse est quod esse illius rei vel sit causatum ab aliquo exteriori, vel a principiis essentialibus eiusdem rei. Impossibile est autem quod esse sit causatum tantum ex principiis essentialibus rei, quia nulla res sufficit quod sit sibi causa essendi, si habeat esse causatum. Oportet ergo quod illud cuius esse est aliud ab essentia sua, habeat esse causatum ab alio. Hoc autem non potest dici de Deo, quia Deum dicimus esse primam causam efficientem. Impossibile est ergo quod in Deo sit aliud esse, et aliud eius essentia. Secundo, quia esse est actualitas omnis formae vel naturae, non enim bonitas vel humanitas significatur in actu, nisi prout significamus eam esse. Oportet igitur quod ipsum esse comparetur ad essentiam quae est aliud ab ipso, sicut actus ad potentiam. Cum igitur in Deo nihil sit potentiale, ut ostensum est supra, sequitur quod non sit aliud in eo essentia quam suum esse. Sua igitur essentia est suum esse. Tertio, quia sicut illud quod habet ignem et non est ignis, est ignitum per participationem, ita illud quod habet esse et non est esse, est ens per participationem. Deus autem est sua essentia, ut ostensum est. Si igitur non sit suum esse, erit ens per participationem, et non per essentiam. Non ergo erit primum ens, quod absurdum est dicere. Est igitur Deus suum esse, et non solum sua essentia. ||I answer that, God is not only His own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in several ways. First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species--as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man--and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent--as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence. Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence. Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shown above (3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being--which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliquid cui non fit additio potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, ut de ratione eius sit quod non fiat ei additio; sicut de ratione animalis irrationalis est, ut sit sine ratione. Alio modo intelligitur aliquid cui non fit additio, quia non est de ratione eius quod sibi fiat additio, sicut animal commune est sine ratione, quia non est de ratione animalis communis ut habeat rationem; sed nec de ratione eius est ut careat ratione. Primo igitur modo, esse sine additione, est esse divinum, secundo modo, esse sine additione, est esse commune. ||Reply to Objection 1. A thing that has nothing added to it can be of two kinds. Either its essence precludes any addition; thus, for example, it is of the essence of an irrational animal to be without reason. Or we may understand a thing to have nothing added to it, inasmuch as its essence does not require that anything should be added to it; thus the genus animal is without reason, because it is not of the essence of animal in general to have reason; but neither is it to lack reason. And so the divine being has nothing added to it in the first sense; whereas universal being has nothing added to it in the second sense.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod esse dupliciter dicitur, uno modo, significat actum essendi; alio modo, significat compositionem propositionis, quam anima adinvenit coniungens praedicatum subiecto. Primo igitur modo accipiendo esse, non possumus scire esse Dei, sicut nec eius essentiam, sed solum secundo modo. Scimus enim quod haec propositio quam formamus de Deo, cum dicimus Deus est, vera est. Et hoc scimus ex eius effectibus, ut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. "To be" can mean either of two things. It may mean the act of essence, or it may mean the composition of a proposition effected by the mind in joining a predicate to a subject. Taking "to be" in the first sense, we cannot understand God's existence nor His essence; but only in the second sense. We know that this proposition which we form about God when we say "God is," is true; and this we know from His effects (2, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a5"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 arg. 1 </b>Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus sit in genere aliquo. Substantia enim est ens per se subsistens. Hoc autem maxime convenit Deo. Ergo Deus est in genere substantiae. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is contained in a genus. For a substance is a being that subsists of itself. But this is especially true of God. Therefore God is in a genus of substance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, unumquodque mensuratur per aliquid sui generis; sicut longitudines per longitudinem, et numeri per numerum. Sed Deus est mensura omnium substantiarum, ut patet per Commentatorem, X Metaphys. Ergo Deus est in genere substantiae. ||Objection 2. Further, nothing can be measured save by something of its own genus; as length is measured by length and numbers by number. But God is the measure of all substances, as the Commentator shows (Metaph. x). Therefore God is in the genus of substance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 s. c. </b>Sed contra, genus est prius, secundum intellectum, eo quod in genere continetur. Sed nihil est prius Deo, nec secundum rem, nec secundum intellectum. Ergo Deus non est in aliquo genere. ||On the contrary, In the mind, genus is prior to what it contains. But nothing is prior to God either really or mentally. Therefore God is not in any genus.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid est in genere dupliciter. Uno modo simpliciter et proprie; sicut species, quae sub genere continentur. Alio modo, per reductionem, sicut principia et privationes, sicut punctus et unitas reducuntur ad genus quantitatis, sicut principia; caecitas autem, et omnis privatio, reducitur ad genus sui habitus. Neutro autem modo Deus est in genere. Quod enim non possit esse species alicuius generis, tripliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia species constituitur ex genere et differentia. Semper autem id a quo sumitur differentia constituens speciem, se habet ad illud unde sumitur genus, sicut actus ad potentiam. Animal enim sumitur a natura sensitiva per modum concretionis; hoc enim dicitur animal, quod naturam sensitivam habet, rationale vero sumitur a natura intellectiva, quia rationale est quod naturam intellectivam habet, intellectivum autem comparatur ad sensitivum, sicut actus ad potentiam. Et similiter manifestum est in aliis. Unde, cum in Deo non adiungatur potentia actui, impossibile est quod sit in genere tanquam species. Secundo, quia, cum esse Dei sit eius essentia, ut ostensum est, si Deus esset in aliquo genere, oporteret quod genus eius esset ens, nam genus significat essentiam rei, cum praedicetur in eo quod quid est. Ostendit autem philosophus in III Metaphys., quod ens non potest esse genus alicuius, omne enim genus habet differentias quae sunt extra essentiam generis; nulla autem differentia posset inveniri, quae esset extra ens; quia non ens non potest esse differentia. Unde relinquitur quod Deus non sit in genere. Tertio, quia omnia quae sunt in genere uno, communicant in quidditate vel essentia generis, quod praedicatur de eis in eo quod quid est. Differunt autem secundum esse, non enim idem est esse hominis et equi, nec huius hominis et illius hominis. Et sic oportet quod quaecumque sunt in genere, differant in eis esse et quod quid est, idest essentia. In Deo autem non differt, ut ostensum est. Unde manifestum est quod Deus non est in genere sicut species. Et ex hoc patet quod non habet genus, neque differentias; neque est definitio ipsius; neque demonstratio, nisi per effectum, quia definitio est ex genere et differentia, demonstrationis autem medium est definitio. Quod autem Deus non sit in genere per reductionem ut principium, manifestum est ex eo quod principium quod reducitur in aliquod genus, non se extendit ultra genus illud, sicut punctum non est principium nisi quantitatis continuae, et unitas quantitatis discretae. Deus autem est principium totius esse, ut infra ostendetur. Unde non continetur in aliquo genere sicut principium. ||I answer that, A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either absolutely and properly, as a species contained under a genus; or as being reducible to it, as principles and privations. For example, a point and unity are reduced to the genus of quantity, as its principles; while blindness and all other privations are reduced to the genus of habit. But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways. First, because a species is constituted of genus and difference. Now that from which the difference constituting the species is derived, is always related to that from which the genus is derived, as actuality is related to potentiality. For animal is derived from sensitive nature, by concretion as it were, for that is animal, which has a sensitive nature. Rational being, on the other hand, is derived from intellectual nature, because that is rational, which has an intellectual nature, and intelligence is compared to sense, as actuality is to potentiality. The same argument holds good in other things. Hence since in God actuality is not added to potentiality, it is impossible that He should be in any genus as a species. Secondly, since the existence of God is His essence, if God were in any genus, He would be the genus "being", because, since genus is predicated as an essential it refers to the essence of a thing. But the Philosopher has shown (Metaph. iii) that being cannot be a genus, for every genus has differences distinct from its generic essence. Now no difference can exist distinct from being; for non-being cannot be a difference. It follows then that God is not in a genus. Thirdly, because all in one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus, existence and quiddity--i.e. essence--must differ. But in God they do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition. That God is not in a genus, as reducible to it as its principle, is clear from this, that a principle reducible to any genus does not extend beyond that genus; as, a point is the principle of continuous quantity alone; and unity, of discontinuous quantity. But God is the principle of all being. Therefore He is not contained in any genus as its principle.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantiae nomen non significat hoc solum quod est per se esse, quia hoc quod est esse, non potest per se esse genus, ut ostensum est. Sed significat essentiam cui competit sic esse, idest per se esse, quod tamen esse non est ipsa eius essentia. Et sic patet quod Deus non est in genere substantiae. ||Reply to Objection 1. The word substance signifies not only what exists of itself--for existence cannot of itself be a genus, as shown in the body of the article; but, it also signifies an essence that has the property of existing in this way--namely, of existing of itself; this existence, however, is not its essence. Thus it is clear that God is not in the genus of substance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 5 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de mensura proportionata, hanc enim oportet esse homogeneam mensurato. Deus autem non est mensura proportionata alicui. Dicitur tamen mensura omnium, ex eo quod unumquodque tantum habet de esse, quantum ei appropinquat. ||Reply to Objection 2. This objection turns upon proportionate measure which must be homogeneous with what is measured. Now, God is not a measure proportionate to anything. Still, He is called the measure of all things, in the sense that everything has being only according as it resembles Him.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a6"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 arg. 1 </b>Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo sint aliqua accidentia. Substantia enim nulli est accidens, ut dicitur in I Physic. Quod ergo in uno est accidens, non potest in alio esse substantia, sicut probatur quod calor non sit forma substantialis ignis, quia in aliis est accidens. Sed sapientia, virtus, et huiusmodi, quae in nobis sunt accidentia, Deo attribuuntur. Ergo et in Deo sunt accidentia. ||Objection 1. It seems that there are accidents in God. For substance cannot be an accident, as Aristotle says (Phys. i). Therefore that which is an accident in one, cannot, in another, be a substance. Thus it is proved that heat cannot be the substantial form of fire, because it is an accident in other things. But wisdom, virtue, and the like, which are accidents in us, are attributes of God. Therefore in God there are accidents.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, in quolibet genere est unum primum. Multa autem sunt genera accidentium. Si igitur prima illorum generum non sunt in Deo, erunt multa prima extra Deum, quod est inconveniens. ||Objection 2. Further, in every genus there is a first principle. But there are many "genera" of accidents. If, therefore, the primal members of these genera are not in God, there will be many primal beings other than God--which is absurd.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 s. c. </b>Sed contra, omne accidens in subiecto est. Deus autem non potest esse subiectum, quia forma simplex non potest esse subiectum, ut dicit Boetius in Lib. de Trin. Ergo in Deo non potest esse accidens. ||On the contrary, Every accident is in a subject. But God cannot be a subject, for "no simple form can be a subject", as Boethius says (De Trin.). Therefore in God there cannot be any accident.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum praemissa, manifeste apparet quod in Deo accidens esse non potest. Primo quidem, quia subiectum comparatur ad accidens, sicut potentia ad actum, subiectum enim secundum accidens est aliquo modo in actu. Esse autem in potentia, omnino removetur a Deo, ut ex praedictis patet. Secundo, quia Deus est suum esse, et, ut Boetius dicit in Lib. de Hebdomad., licet id quod est, aliquid aliud possit habere adiunctum, tamen ipsum esse nihil aliud adiunctum habere potest, sicut quod est calidum, potest habere aliquid extraneum quam calidum, ut albedinem; sed ipse calor nihil habet praeter calorem. Tertio, quia omne quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per accidens. Unde, cum Deus sit simpliciter primum ens, in eo non potest esse aliquid per accidens. Sed nec accidentia per se in eo esse possunt, sicut risibile est per se accidens hominis. Quia huiusmodi accidentia causantur ex principiis subiecti, in Deo autem nihil potest esse causatum, cum sit causa prima. Unde relinquitur quod in Deo nullum sit accidens. ||I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no accident in God. First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its accidents. But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2, 3). Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it, this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless absolute heat can have nothing else than heat. Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental. Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing accidental. Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. Now there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. Hence it follows that there is no accident in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus et sapientia non univoce dicuntur de Deo et de nobis, ut infra patebit. Unde non sequitur quod accidentia sint in Deo, sicut in nobis. ||Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and wisdom are not predicated of God and of us univocally. Hence it does not follow that there are accidents in God as there are in us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 6 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum substantia sit prior accidentibus, principia accidentium reducuntur in principia substantiae sicut in priora. Quamvis Deus non sit primum contentum in genere substantiae, sed primum extra omne genus, respectu totius esse. ||Reply to Objection 2. Since substance is prior to its accidents, the principles of accidents are reducible to the principles of the substance as to that which is prior; although God is not first as if contained in the genus of substance; yet He is first in respect to all being, outside of every genus.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a7"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 arg. 1 </b>Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit omnino simplex. Ea enim quae sunt a Deo, imitantur ipsum, unde a primo ente sunt omnia entia, et a primo bono sunt omnia bona. Sed in rebus quae sunt a Deo, nihil est omnino simplex. Ergo Deus non est omnino simplex. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is not altogether simple. For whatever is from God must imitate Him. Thus from the first being are all beings; and from the first good is all good. But in the things which God has made, nothing is altogether simple. Therefore neither is God altogether simple.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omne quod est melius, Deo attribuendum est. Sed, apud nos, composita sunt meliora simplicibus, sicut corpora mixta elementis, et elementa suis partibus. Ergo non est dicendum quod Deus sit omnino simplex. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever is best must be attributed to God. But with us that which is composite is better than that which is simple; thus, chemical compounds are better than simple elements, and animals than the parts that compose them. Therefore it cannot be said that God is altogether simple.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., quod Deus vere et summe simplex est. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and absolutely simple."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deum omnino esse simplicem, multipliciter potest esse manifestum. Primo quidem per supradicta. Cum enim in Deo non sit compositio, neque quantitativarum partium, quia corpus non est; neque compositio formae et materiae, neque in eo sit aliud natura et suppositum; neque aliud essentia et esse, neque in eo sit compositio generis et differentiae; neque subiecti et accidentis, manifestum est quod Deus nullo modo compositus est, sed est omnino simplex. Secundo, quia omne compositum est posterius suis componentibus, et dependens ex eis. Deus autem est primum ens, ut supra ostensum est. Tertio, quia omne compositum causam habet, quae enim secundum se diversa sunt, non conveniunt in aliquod unum nisi per aliquam causam adunantem ipsa. Deus autem non habet causam, ut supra ostensum est, cum sit prima causa efficiens. Quarto, quia in omni composito oportet esse potentiam et actum, quod in Deo non est, quia vel una partium est actus respectu alterius; vel saltem omnes partes sunt sicut in potentia respectu totius. Quinto, quia omne compositum est aliquid quod non convenit alicui suarum partium. Et quidem in totis dissimilium partium, manifestum est, nulla enim partium hominis est homo, neque aliqua partium pedis est pes. In totis vero similium partium, licet aliquid quod dicitur de toto, dicatur de parte, sicut pars aeris est aer, et aquae aqua; aliquid tamen dicitur de toto, quod non convenit alicui partium, non enim si tota aqua est bicubita, et pars eius. Sic igitur in omni composito est aliquid quod non est ipsum. Hoc autem etsi possit dici de habente formam, quod scilicet habeat aliquid quod non est ipsum (puta in albo est aliquid quod non pertinet ad rationem albi), tamen in ipsa forma nihil est alienum. Unde, cum Deus sit ipsa forma, vel potius ipsum esse, nullo modo compositus esse potest. Et hanc rationem tangit Hilarius, VII de Trin., dicens, Deus, qui virtus est, ex infirmis non continetur, neque qui lux est, ex obscuris coaptatur. ||I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His "suppositum"; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple. Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above (2, 3). Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown above (2, 3), since He is the first efficient cause. Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole. Fifthly, because nothing composite can be predicated of any single one of its parts. And this is evident in a whole made up of dissimilar parts; for no part of a man is a man, nor any of the parts of the foot, a foot. But in wholes made up of similar parts, although something which is predicated of the whole may be predicated of a part (as a part of the air is air, and a part of water, water), nevertheless certain things are predicable of the whole which cannot be predicated of any of the parts; for instance, if the whole volume of water is two cubits, no part of it can be two cubits. Thus in every composite there is something which is not it itself. But, even if this could be said of whatever has a form, viz. that it has something which is not it itself, as in a white object there is something which does not belong to the essence of white; nevertheless in the form itself, there is nothing besides itself. And so, since God is absolute form, or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite. Hilary implies this argument, when he says (De Trin. vii): "God, Who is strength, is not made up of things that are weak; nor is He Who is light, composed of things that are dim."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt a Deo, imitantur Deum sicut causata primam causam. Est autem hoc de ratione causati, quod sit aliquo modo compositum, quia ad minus esse eius est aliud quam quod quid est, ut infra patebit. ||Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is from God imitates Him, as caused things imitate the first cause. But it is of the essence of a thing to be in some sort composite; because at least its existence differs from its essence, as will be shown hereafter, (4, 3).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 7 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod apud nos composita sunt meliora simplicibus, quia perfectio bonitatis creaturae non invenitur in uno simplici, sed in multis. Sed perfectio divinae bonitatis invenitur in uno simplici, ut infra ostendetur. ||Reply to Objection 2. With us composite things are better than simple things, because the perfections of created goodness cannot be found in one simple thing, but in many things. But the perfection of divine goodness is found in one simple thing (4, 1 and 6, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q3a8"><b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 arg. 1 </b>Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus in compositionem aliorum veniat. Dicit enim Dionysius, IV cap. Cael. Hier., esse omnium est, quae super esse est deitas. Sed esse omnium intrat compositionem uniuscuiusque. Ergo Deus in compositionem aliorum venit. ||Objection 1. It seems that God enters into the composition of other things, for Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "The being of all things is that which is above being--the Godhead." But the being of all things enters into the composition of everything. Therefore God enters into the composition of other things.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Deus est forma, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de verbis domini, quod verbum Dei (quod est Deus) est forma quaedam non formata. Sed forma est pars compositi. Ergo Deus est pars alicuius compositi. ||Objection 2. Further, God is a form; for Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., [Serm. xxxviii) that, "the word of God, which is God, is an uncreated form." But a form is part of a compound. Therefore God is part of some compound.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, quaecumque sunt et nullo modo differunt, sunt idem. Sed Deus et materia prima sunt, et nullo modo differunt. Ergo penitus sunt idem. Sed materia prima intrat compositionem rerum. Ergo et Deus. Probatio mediae, quaecumque differunt, aliquibus differentiis differunt, et ita oportet ea esse composita; sed Deus et materia prima sunt omnino simplicia; ergo nullo modo differunt. ||Objection 3. Further, whatever things exist, in no way differing from each other, are the same. But God and primary matter exist, and in no way differ from each other. Therefore they are absolutely the same. But primary matter enters into the composition things. Therefore also does God. Proof of the minor--whatever things differ, they differ by some differences, and therefore must be composite. But God and primary matter are altogether simple. Therefore they nowise differ from each other.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 s. c. 1 </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, II cap. de Div. Nom., quod neque tactus est eius (scilicet Dei), neque alia quaedam ad partes commiscendi communio. ||On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): "There can be no touching Him," i.e. God, "nor any other union with Him by mingling part with part."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 s. c. 2 </b>Praeterea, dicitur in libro de causis, quod causa prima regit omnes res, praeterquam commisceatur eis. ||Further, the first cause rules all things without commingling with them, as the Philosopher says (De Causis).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc fuerunt tres errores. Quidam enim posuerunt quod Deus esset anima mundi, ut patet per Augustinum in Lib. VII de civitate Dei, et ad hoc etiam reducitur, quod quidam dixerunt Deum esse animam primi caeli. Alii autem dixerunt Deum esse principium formale omnium rerum. Et haec dicitur fuisse opinio Almarianorum. Sed tertius error fuit David de Dinando, qui stultissime posuit Deum esse materiam primam. Omnia enim haec manifestam continent falsitatem, neque est possibile Deum aliquo modo in compositionem alicuius venire, nec sicut principium formale, nec sicut principium materiale. Primo quidem, quia supra diximus Deum esse primam causam efficientem. Causa autem efficiens cum forma rei factae non incidit in idem numero, sed solum in idem specie, homo enim generat hominem. Materia vero cum causa efficiente non incidit in idem numero, nec in idem specie, quia hoc est in potentia, illud vero in actu. Secundo, quia cum Deus sit prima causa efficiens, eius est primo et per se agere. Quod autem venit in compositionem alicuius, non est primo et per se agens, sed magis compositum, non enim manus agit, sed homo per manum; et ignis calefacit per calorem. Unde Deus non potest esse pars alicuius compositi. Tertio, quia nulla pars compositi potest esse simpliciter prima in entibus; neque etiam materia et forma, quae sunt primae partes compositorum. Nam materia est in potentia, potentia autem est posterior actu simpliciter, ut ex dictis patet. Forma autem quae est pars compositi, est forma participata, sicut autem participans est posterius eo quod est per essentiam, ita et ipsum participatum; sicut ignis in ignitis est posterior eo quod est per essentiam. Ostensum est autem quod Deus est primum ens simpliciter. ||I answer that, On this point there have been three errors. Some have affirmed that God is the world-soul, as is clear from Augustine (De Civ. Dei vii, 6). This is practically the same as the opinion of those who assert that God is the soul of the highest heaven. Again, others have said that God is the formal principle of all things; and this was the theory of the Almaricians. The third error is that of David of Dinant, who most absurdly taught that God was primary matter. Now all these contain manifest untruth; since it is not possible for God to enter into the composition of anything, either as a formal or a material principle. First, because God is the first efficient cause. Now the efficient cause is not identical numerically with the form of the thing caused, but only specifically: for man begets man. But primary matter can be neither numerically nor specifically identical with an efficient cause; for the former is merely potential, while the latter is actual. Secondly, because, since God is the first efficient cause, to act belongs to Him primarily and essentially. But that which enters into composition with anything does not act primarily and essentially, but rather the composite so acts; for the hand does not act, but the man by his hand; and, fire warms by its heat. Hence God cannot be part of a compound. Thirdly, because no part of a compound can be absolutely primal among beings--not even matter, nor form, though they are the primal parts of every compound. For matter is merely potential; and potentiality is absolutely posterior to actuality, as is clear from the foregoing (3, 1): while a form which is part of a compound is a participated form; and as that which participates is posterior to that which is essential, so likewise is that which is participated; as fire in ignited objects is posterior to fire that is essentially such. Now it has been proved that God is absolutely primal being (2, 3).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod deitas dicitur esse omnium effective et exemplariter, non autem per essentiam. ||Reply to Objection 1. The Godhead is called the being of all things, as their efficient and exemplar cause, but not as being their essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum est forma exemplaris, non autem forma quae est pars compositi. ||Reply to Objection 2. The Word is an exemplar form; but not a form that is part of a compound.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 3 a. 8 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod simplicia non differunt aliquibus aliis differentiis, hoc enim compositorum est. Homo enim et equus differunt rationali et irrationali differentiis, quae quidem differentiae non differunt amplius ab invicem aliis differentiis. Unde, si fiat vis in verbo, non proprie dicuntur differre, sed diversa esse, nam, secundum philosophum X Metaphys., diversum absolute dicitur, sed omne differens aliquo differt. Unde, si fiat vis in verbo, materia prima et Deus non differunt, sed sunt diversa seipsis. Unde non sequitur quod sint idem. ||Reply to Objection 3. Simple things do not differ by added differences--for this is the property of compounds. Thus man and horse differ by their differences, rational and irrational; which differences, however, do not differ from each other by other differences. Hence, to be quite accurate, it is better to say that they are, not different, but diverse. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x), "things which are diverse are absolutely distinct, but things which are different differ by something." Therefore, strictly speaking, primary matter and God do not differ, but are by their very being, diverse. Hence it does not follow they are the same.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 pr. </b>Post considerationem divinae simplicitatis, de perfectione ipsius Dei dicendum est. Et quia unumquodque, secundum quod perfectum est, sic dicitur bonum, primo agendum est de perfectione divina; secundo de eius bonitate. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Deus sit perfectus. Secundo, utrum Deus sit universaliter perfectus omnium in se perfectiones habens. Tertio, utrum creaturae similes Deo dici possint. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q4a1"><b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse perfectum non conveniat Deo. Perfectum enim dicitur quasi totaliter factum. Sed Deo non convenit esse factum. Ergo nec esse perfectum. ||Objection 1. It seems that perfection does not belong to God. For we say a thing is perfect if it is completely made. But it does not befit God to be made. Therefore He is not perfect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Deus est primum rerum principium. Sed principia rerum videntur esse imperfecta, semen enim est principium animalium et plantarum. Ergo Deus est imperfectus. ||Objection 2. Further, God is the first beginning of things. But the beginnings of things seem to be imperfect, as seed is the beginning of animal and vegetable life. Therefore God is imperfect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, ostensum est supra quod essentia Dei est ipsum esse. Sed ipsum esse videtur esse imperfectissimum, cum sit communissimum, et recipiens omnium additiones. Ergo Deus est imperfectus. ||Objection 3. Further, as shown above (3, 4), God's essence is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is imperfect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Matt. V, estote perfecti, sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est. ||On the contrary, It is written: "Be you perfect as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus narrat in XII Metaphys., quidam antiqui philosophi, scilicet Pythagorici et Speusippus, non attribuerunt optimum et perfectissimum primo principio. Cuius ratio est, quia philosophi antiqui consideraverunt principium materiale tantum, primum autem principium materiale imperfectissimum est. Cum enim materia, inquantum huiusmodi, sit in potentia, oportet quod primum principium materiale sit maxime in potentia; et ita maxime imperfectum. Deus autem ponitur primum principium, non materiale, sed in genere causae efficientis, et hoc oportet esse perfectissimum. Sicut enim materia, inquantum huiusmodi, est in potentia; ita agens, inquantum huiusmodi, est in actu. Unde primum principium activum oportet maxime esse in actu, et per consequens maxime esse perfectum. Secundum hoc enim dicitur aliquid esse perfectum, secundum quod est actu, nam perfectum dicitur, cui nihil deest secundum modum suae perfectionis. ||I answer that, As the Philosopher relates (Metaph. xii), some ancient philosophers, namely, the Pythagoreans and Leucippus, did not predicate "best" and "most perfect" of the first principle. The reason was that the ancient philosophers considered only a material principle; and a material principle is most imperfect. For since matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Gregorius, balbutiendo ut possumus, excelsa Dei resonamus, quod enim factum non est, perfectum proprie dici non potest. Sed quia in his quae fiunt, tunc dicitur esse aliquid perfectum, cum de potentia educitur in actum; transumitur hoc nomen perfectum ad significandum omne illud cui non deest esse in actu, sive hoc habeat per modum factionis, sive non. ||Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says (Moral. v, 26,29): "Though our lips can only stammer, we yet chant the high things of God." For that which is not made is improperly called perfect. Nevertheless because created things are then called perfect, when from potentiality they are brought into actuality, this word "perfect" signifies whatever is not wanting in actuality, whether this be by way of perfection or not.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod principium materiale, quod apud nos imperfectum invenitur, non potest esse simpliciter primum, sed praeceditur ab alio perfecto. Nam semen, licet sit principium animalis generati ex semine, tamen habet ante se animal vel plantam unde deciditur. Oportet enim ante id quod est in potentia, esse aliquid actu, cum ens in potentia non reducatur in actum, nisi per aliquod ens in actu. ||Reply to Objection 2. The material principle which with us is found to be imperfect, cannot be absolutely primal; but must be preceded by something perfect. For seed, though it be the principle of animal life reproduced through seed, has previous to it, the animal or plant from which is came. Because, previous to that which is potential, must be that which is actual; since a potential being can only be reduced into act by some being already actual.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod ipsum esse est perfectissimum omnium, comparatur enim ad omnia ut actus. Nihil enim habet actualitatem, nisi inquantum est, unde ipsum esse est actualitas omnium rerum, et etiam ipsarum formarum. Unde non comparatur ad alia sicut recipiens ad receptum, sed magis sicut receptum ad recipiens. Cum enim dico esse hominis, vel equi, vel cuiuscumque alterius, ipsum esse consideratur ut formale et receptum, non autem ut illud cui competit esse. ||Reply to Objection 3. Existence is the most perfect of all things, for it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual; for nothing has actuality except so far as it exists. Hence existence is that which actuates all things, even their forms. Therefore it is not compared to other things as the receiver is to the received; but rather as the received to the receiver. When therefore I speak of the existence of man, or horse, or anything else, existence is considered a formal principle, and as something received; and not as that which exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q4a2"><b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint perfectiones omnium rerum. Deus enim simplex est, ut ostensum est. Sed perfectiones rerum sunt multae et diversae. Ergo in Deo non sunt omnes perfectiones rerum. ||Objection 1. It seems that the perfections of all things are not in God. For God is simple, as shown above (3, 7); whereas the perfections of things are many and diverse. Therefore the perfections of all things are not in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, opposita non possunt esse in eodem. Sed perfectiones rerum sunt oppositae, unaquaeque enim species perficitur per suam differentiam specificam; differentiae autem quibus dividitur genus et constituuntur species, sunt oppositae. Cum ergo opposita non possint simul esse in eodem, videtur quod non omnes rerum perfectiones sint in Deo. ||Objection 2. Further, opposites cannot coexist. Now the perfections of things are opposed to each other, for each thing is perfected by its specific difference. But the differences by which "genera" are divided, and "species" constituted, are opposed to each other. Therefore because opposites cannot coexist in the same subject, it seems that the perfections of all things are not in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, vivens est perfectius quam ens, et sapiens quam vivens, ergo et vivere est perfectius quam esse, et sapere quam vivere. Sed essentia Dei est ipsum esse. Ergo non habet in se perfectionem vitae et sapientiae, et alias huiusmodi perfectiones. ||Objection 3. Further, a living thing is more perfect than what merely exists; and an intelligent thing than what merely lives. Therefore life is more perfect than existence; and knowledge than life. But the essence of God is existence itself. Therefore He has not the perfections of life, and knowledge, and other similar perfections.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, cap. V de Div. Nom., quod Deus in uno existentia omnia praehabet. ||On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that "God in His one existence prepossesses all things."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod in Deo sunt perfectiones omnium rerum. Unde et dicitur universaliter perfectus, quia non deest ei aliqua nobilitas quae inveniatur in aliquo genere, ut dicit Commentator in V Metaphys. Et hoc quidem ex duobus considerari potest. Primo quidem, per hoc quod quidquid perfectionis est in effectu, oportet inveniri in causa effectiva, vel secundum eandem rationem, si sit agens univocum, ut homo generat hominem; vel eminentiori modo, si sit, agens aequivocum, sicut in sole est similitudo eorum quae generantur per virtutem solis. Manifestum est enim quod effectus praeexistit virtute in causa agente, praeexistere autem in virtute causae agentis, non est praeexistere imperfectiori modo, sed perfectiori; licet praeexistere in potentia causae materialis, sit praeexistere imperfectiori modo, eo quod materia, inquantum huiusmodi, est imperfecta; agens vero, inquantum huiusmodi, est perfectum. Cum ergo Deus sit prima causa effectiva rerum, oportet omnium rerum perfectiones praeexistere in Deo secundum eminentiorem modum. Et hanc rationem tangit Dionysius, cap. V de Div. Nom., dicens de Deo quod non hoc quidem est, hoc autem non est, sed omnia est, ut omnium causa. Secundo vero, ex hoc quod supra ostensum est, quod Deus est ipsum esse per se subsistens, ex quo oportet quod totam perfectionem essendi in se contineat. Manifestum est enim quod, si aliquod calidum non habeat totam perfectionem calidi, hoc ideo est, quia calor non participatur secundum perfectam rationem, sed si calor esset per se subsistens, non posset ei aliquid deesse de virtute caloris. Unde, cum Deus sit ipsum esse subsistens, nihil de perfectione essendi potest ei deesse. Omnium autem perfectiones pertinent ad perfectionem essendi, secundum hoc enim aliqua perfecta sunt, quod aliquo modo esse habent. Unde sequitur quod nullius rei perfectio Deo desit. Et hanc etiam rationem tangit Dionysius, cap. V de Div. Nom., dicens quod Deus non quodammodo est existens, sed simpliciter et incircumscripte totum in seipso uniformiter esse praeaccipit, et postea subdit quod ipse est esse subsistentibus. ||I answer that, All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator, Metaph. v) any excellence which may be found in any genus. This may be seen from two considerations. First, because whatever perfection exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the same formality, if it is a univocal agent--as when man reproduces man; or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent--thus in the sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun's power. Now it is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause: and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect, and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. v): "It is not that He is this and not that, but that He is all, as the cause of all." Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (3, 4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, "God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly;" and afterwards he adds that, "He is the very existence to subsisting things."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut sol, ut dicit Dionysius, cap. V de Div. Nom., sensibilium substantias et qualitates multas et differentes, ipse unus existens et uniformiter lucendo, in seipso uniformiter praeaccipit; ita multo magis in causa omnium necesse est praeexistere omnia secundum naturalem unionem. Et sic, quae sunt diversa et opposita in seipsis, in Deo praeexistunt ut unum, absque detrimento simplicitatis ipsius. ||Reply to Objection 1. Even as the sun (as Dionysius remarks, (Div. Nom. v)), while remaining one and shining uniformly, contains within itself first and uniformly the substances of sensible things, and many and diverse qualities; "a fortiori" should all things in a kind of natural unity pre-exist in the cause of all things; and thus things diverse and in themselves opposed to each other, pre-exist in God as one, without injury to His simplicity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum. ||This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in eodem capite idem Dionysius dicit, licet ipsum esse sit perfectius quam vita, et ipsa vita quam ipsa sapientia, si considerentur secundum quod distinguuntur ratione, tamen vivens est perfectius quam ens tantum, quia vivens etiam est ens; et sapiens est ens et vivens. Licet igitur ens non includat in se vivens et sapiens, quia non oportet quod illud quod participat esse, participet ipsum secundum omnem modum essendi, tamen ipsum esse Dei includit in se vitam et sapientiam; quia nulla de perfectionibus essendi potest deesse ei quod est ipsum esse subsistens. ||Reply to Objection 3. The same Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that, although existence is more perfect than life, and life than wisdom, if they are considered as distinguished in idea; nevertheless, a living thing is more perfect than what merely exists, because living things also exist and intelligent things both exist and live. Although therefore existence does not include life and wisdom, because that which participates in existence need not participate in every mode of existence; nevertheless God's existence includes in itself life and wisdom, because nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him who is subsisting being itself.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q4a3"><b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nulla creatura possit esse similis Deo. Dicitur enim in Psalmo, non est similis tui in diis, domine. Sed inter omnes creaturas, excellentiores sunt quae dicuntur dii participative. Multo ergo minus aliae creaturae possunt dici Deo similes. ||Objection 1. It seems that no creature can be like God. For it is written (Psalm 85:8): "There is none among the gods like unto Thee, O Lord." But of all creatures the most excellent are those which are called participation gods. Therefore still less can other creatures be said to be like God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, similitudo est comparatio quaedam. Non est autem comparatio eorum quae sunt diversorum generum; ergo nec similitudo, non enim dicimus quod dulcedo sit similis albedini. Sed nulla creatura est eiusdem generis cum Deo, cum Deus non sit in genere, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo nulla creatura est similis Deo. ||Objection 2. Further, likeness implies comparison. But there can be no comparison between things in a different "genus." Therefore neither can there be any likeness. Thus we do not say that sweetness is like whiteness. But no creature is in the same "genus" as God: since God is no "genus," as shown above (3, 5). Therefore no creature is like God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, similia dicuntur quae conveniunt in forma. Sed nihil convenit cum Deo in forma, nullius enim rei essentia est ipsum esse, nisi solius Dei. Ergo nulla creatura potest esse similis Deo. ||Objection 3. Further, we speak of those things as like which agree in form. But nothing can agree with God in form; for, save in God alone, essence and existence differ. Therefore no creature can be like to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, in similibus est mutua similitudo, nam simile est simili simile. Si igitur aliqua creatura est similis Deo, et Deus erit similis alicui creaturae. Quod est contra id quod dicitur Isaiae XL, cui similem fecistis Deum? ||Objection 4. Further, among like things there is mutual likeness; for like is like to like. If therefore any creature is like God, God will be like some creature, which is against what is said by Isaias: "To whom have you likened God?" (Isaiah 40:18).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; et I Ioann. III, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus. ||On the contrary, It is written: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26), and: "When He shall appear we shall be like to Him" (1 John 3:2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, cum similitudo attendatur secundum convenientiam vel communicationem in forma, multiplex est similitudo, secundum multos modos communicandi in forma. Quaedam enim dicuntur similia, quae communicant in eadem forma secundum eandem rationem, et secundum eundem modum, et haec non solum dicuntur similia, sed aequalia in sua similitudine; sicut duo aequaliter alba, dicuntur similia in albedine. Et haec est perfectissima similitudo. Alio modo dicuntur similia, quae communicant in forma secundum eandem rationem, et non secundum eundem modum, sed secundum magis et minus; ut minus album dicitur simile magis albo. Et haec est similitudo imperfecta. Tertio modo dicuntur aliqua similia, quae communicant in eadem forma, sed non secundum eandem rationem; ut patet in agentibus non univocis. Cum enim omne agens agat sibi simile inquantum est agens, agit autem unumquodque secundum suam formam, necesse est quod in effectu sit similitudo formae agentis. Si ergo agens sit contentum in eadem specie cum suo effectu, erit similitudo inter faciens et factum in forma, secundum eandem rationem speciei; sicut homo generat hominem. Si autem agens non sit contentum in eadem specie, erit similitudo, sed non secundum eandem rationem speciei, sicut ea quae generantur ex virtute solis, accedunt quidem ad aliquam similitudinem solis, non tamen ut recipiant formam solis secundum similitudinem speciei, sed secundum similitudinem generis. Si igitur sit aliquod agens, quod non in genere contineatur, effectus eius adhuc magis accedent remote ad similitudinem formae agentis, non tamen ita quod participent similitudinem formae agentis secundum eandem rationem speciei aut generis, sed secundum aliqualem analogiam, sicut ipsum esse est commune omnibus. Et hoc modo illa quae sunt a Deo, assimilantur ei inquantum sunt entia, ut primo et universali principio totius esse. ||I answer that, Since likeness is based upon agreement or communication in form, it varies according to the many modes of communication in form. Some things are said to be like, which communicate in the same form according to the same formality, and according to the same mode; and these are said to be not merely like, but equal in their likeness; as two things equally white are said to be alike in whiteness; and this is the most perfect likeness. In another way, we speak of things as alike which communicate in form according to the same formality, though not according to the same measure, but according to more or less, as something less white is said to be like another thing more white; and this is imperfect likeness. In a third way some things are said to be alike which communicate in the same form, but not according to the same formality; as we see in non-univocal agents. For since every agent reproduces itself so far as it is an agent, and everything acts according to the manner of its form, the effect must in some way resemble the form of the agent. If therefore the agent is contained in the same species as its effect, there will be a likeness in form between that which makes and that which is made, according to the same formality of the species; as man reproduces man. If, however, the agent and its effect are not contained in the same species, there will be a likeness, but not according to the formality of the same species; as things generated by the sun's heat may be in some sort spoken of as like the sun, not as though they received the form of the sun in its specific likeness, but in its generic likeness. Therefore if there is an agent not contained in any "genus," its effect will still more distantly reproduce the form of the agent, not, that is, so as to participate in the likeness of the agent's form according to the same specific or generic formality, but only according to some sort of analogy; as existence is common to all. In this way all created things, so far as they are beings, are like God as the first and universal principle of all being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Dionysius cap. IX de Div. Nom., cum sacra Scriptura dicit aliquid non esse simile Deo, non est contrarium assimilationi ad ipsum. Eadem enim sunt similia Deo, et dissimilia, similia quidem secundum quod imitantur ipsum, prout contingit eum imitari qui non perfecte imitabilis est dissimilia vero, secundum quod deficiunt a sua causa; non solum secundum intensionem et remissionem, sicut minus album deficit a magis albo; sed quia non est convenientia nec secundum speciem nec secundum genus. ||Reply to Objection 1. As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix), when Holy Writ declares that nothing is like God, it does not mean to deny all likeness to Him. For, "the same things can be like and unlike to God: like, according as they imitate Him, as far as He, Who is not perfectly imitable, can be imitated; unlike according as they fall short of their cause," not merely in intensity and remission, as that which is less white falls short of that which is more white; but because they are not in agreement, specifically or generically.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non se habet ad creaturas sicut res diversorum generum, sed sicut id quod est extra omne genus, et principium omnium generum. ||Reply to Objection 2. God is not related to creatures as though belonging to a different "genus," but as transcending every "genus," and as the principle of all "genera."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod non dicitur esse similitudo creaturae ad Deum propter communicantiam in forma secundum eandem rationem generis et speciei, sed secundum analogiam tantum; prout scilicet Deus est ens per essentiam, et alia per participationem. ||Reply to Objection 3. Likeness of creatures to God is not affirmed on account of agreement in form according to the formality of the same genus or species, but solely according to analogy, inasmuch as God is essential being, whereas other things are beings by participation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 4 a. 3 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet aliquo modo concedatur quod creatura sit similis Deo, nullo tamen modo concedendum est quod Deus sit similis creaturae, quia, ut dicit Dionysius cap. IX de Div. Nom., in his quae unius ordinis sunt, recipitur mutua similitudo, non autem in causa et causato, dicimus enim quod imago sit similis homini, et non e converso. Et similiter dici potest aliquo modo quod creatura sit similis Deo, non tamen quod Deus sit similis creaturae. ||Reply to Objection 4. Although it may be admitted that creatures are in some sort like God, it must nowise be admitted that God is like creatures; because, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix): "A mutual likeness may be found between things of the same order, but not between a cause and that which is caused." For, we say that a statue is like a man, but not conversely; so also a creature can be spoken of as in some sort like God; but not that God is like a creature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 pr. </b>Deinde quaeritur de bono, et primo de bono in communi; secundo de bonitate Dei. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum bonum et ens sint idem secundum rem. Secundo, supposito quod differant ratione tantum, quid sit prius secundum rationem, utrum bonum vel ens. Tertio, supposito quod ens sit prius, utrum omne ens sit bonum. Quarto, ad quam causam ratio boni reducatur. Quinto, utrum ratio boni consistat in modo, specie et ordine. Sexto, quomodo dividatur bonum in honestum, utile et delectabile. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a1"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonum differat secundum rem ab ente. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Hebdom., intueor in rebus aliud esse quod sunt bona, et aliud esse quod sunt. Ergo bonum et ens differunt secundum rem. ||Objection 1. It seems that goodness differs really from being. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "I perceive that in nature the fact that things are good is one thing: that they are is another." Therefore goodness and being really differ.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, nihil informatur seipso. Sed bonum dicitur per informationem entis, ut habetur in commento libri de causis. Ergo bonum differt secundum rem ab ente. ||Objection 2. Further, nothing can be its own form. "But that is called good which has the form of being", according to the commentary on De Causis. Therefore goodness differs really from being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, bonum suscipit magis et minus. Esse autem non suscipit magis et minus. Ergo bonum differt secundum rem ab ente. ||Objection 3. Further, goodness can be more or less. But being cannot be more or less. Therefore goodness differs really from being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de doctrina Christiana, quod inquantum sumus, boni sumus. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 42) that, "inasmuch as we exist we are good."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod bonum et ens sunt idem secundum rem, sed differunt secundum rationem tantum. Quod sic patet. Ratio enim boni in hoc consistit, quod aliquid sit appetibile, unde philosophus, in I Ethic., dicit quod bonum est quod omnia appetunt. Manifestum est autem quod unumquodque est appetibile secundum quod est perfectum, nam omnia appetunt suam perfectionem. Intantum est autem perfectum unumquodque, inquantum est actu, unde manifestum est quod intantum est aliquid bonum, inquantum est ens, esse enim est actualitas omnis rei, ut ex superioribus patet. Unde manifestum est quod bonum et ens sunt idem secundum rem, sed bonum dicit rationem appetibilis, quam non dicit ens. ||I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): "Goodness is what all desire." Now it is clear that a thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual. Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual, as is clear from the foregoing (3, 4; 4, 1). Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet bonum et ens sint idem secundum rem, quia tamen differunt secundum rationem, non eodem modo dicitur aliquid ens simpliciter, et bonum simpliciter. Nam cum ens dicat aliquid proprie esse in actu; actus autem proprie ordinem habeat ad potentiam; secundum hoc simpliciter aliquid dicitur ens, secundum quod primo discernitur ab eo quod est in potentia tantum. Hoc autem est esse substantiale rei uniuscuiusque; unde per suum esse substantiale dicitur unumquodque ens simpliciter. Per actus autem superadditos, dicitur aliquid esse secundum quid, sicut esse album significat esse secundum quid, non enim esse album aufert esse in potentia simpliciter, cum adveniat rei iam praeexistenti in actu. Sed bonum dicit rationem perfecti, quod est appetibile, et per consequens dicit rationem ultimi. Unde id quod est ultimo perfectum, dicitur bonum simpliciter. Quod autem non habet ultimam perfectionem quam debet habere, quamvis habeat aliquam perfectionem inquantum est actu, non tamen dicitur perfectum simpliciter, nec bonum simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Sic ergo secundum primum esse, quod est substantiale, dicitur aliquid ens simpliciter et bonum secundum quid, idest inquantum est ens, secundum vero ultimum actum dicitur aliquid ens secundum quid, et bonum simpliciter. Sic ergo quod dicit Boetius, quod in rebus aliud est quod sunt bona, et aliud quod sunt, referendum est ad esse bonum et ad esse simpliciter, quia secundum primum actum est aliquid ens simpliciter; et secundum ultimum, bonum simpliciter. Et tamen secundum primum actum est quodammodo bonum, et secundum ultimum actum est quodammodo ens. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although goodness and being are the same really, nevertheless since they differ in thought, they are not predicated of a thing absolutely in the same way. Since being properly signifies that something actually is, and actuality properly correlates to potentiality; a thing is, in consequence, said simply to have being, accordingly as it is primarily distinguished from that which is only in potentiality; and this is precisely each thing's substantial being. Hence by its substantial being, everything is said to have being simply; but by any further actuality it is said to have being relatively. Thus to be white implies relative being, for to be white does not take a thing out of simply potential being; because only a thing that actually has being can receive this mode of being. But goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e. substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply. Hence the saying of Boethius (De Hebrom.), "I perceive that in nature the fact that things are good is one thing; that they are is another," is to be referred to a thing's goodness simply, and having being simply. Because, regarded in its primal actuality, a thing simply exists; and regarded in its complete actuality, it is good simply--in such sort that even in its primal actuality, it is in some sort good, and even in its complete actuality, it in some sort has being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum dicitur per informationem, prout accipitur bonum simpliciter, secundum ultimum actum. ||Reply to Objection 2. Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Et similiter dicendum ad tertium, quod bonum dicitur secundum magis et minus, secundum actum supervenientem; puta secundum scientiam vel virtutem. ||Reply to Objection 3. Again, goodness is spoken of as more or less according to a thing's superadded actuality, for example, as to knowledge or virtue.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a2"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonum secundum rationem sit prius quam ens. Ordo enim nominum est secundum ordinem rerum significatarum per nomina. Sed Dionysius, inter alia nomina Dei, prius ponit bonum quam ens, ut patet, in III cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo bonum secundum rationem est prius quam ens. ||Objection 1. It seems that goodness is prior in idea to being. For names are arranged according to the arrangement of the things signified by the names. But Dionysius (Div. Nom. iii) assigned the first place, amongst the other names of God, to His goodness rather than to His being. Therefore in idea goodness is prior to being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, illud est prius secundum rationem, quod ad plura se extendit. Sed bonum ad plura se extendit quam ens, quia, ut dicit Dionysius, V cap. de Div. Nom., bonum se extendit ad existentia et non existentia, ens vero ad existentia tantum. Ergo bonum est prius secundum rationem quam ens. ||Objection 2. Further, that which is the more extensive is prior in idea. But goodness is more extensive than being, because, as Dionysius notes (Div. Nom. v), "goodness extends to things both existing and non-existing; whereas existence extends to existing things alone." Therefore goodness is in idea prior to being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, quod est universalius, est prius secundum rationem. Sed bonum videtur universalius esse quam ens, quia bonum habet rationem appetibilis; quibusdam autem appetibile est ipsum non esse; dicitur enim, Matth. XXVI, de Iuda, bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset et cetera. Ergo bonum est prius quam ens, secundum rationem. ||Objection 3. Further, what is the more universal is prior in idea. But goodness seems to be more universal than being, since goodness has the aspect of desirable; whereas to some non-existence is desirable; for it is said of Judas: "It were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). Therefore in idea goodness is prior to being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, non solum esse est appetibile, sed et vita et sapientia, et multa huiusmodi, et sic videtur quod esse sit quoddam particulare appetibile, et bonum, universale. Bonum ergo simpliciter est prius secundum rationem quam ens. ||Objection 4. Further, not only is existence desirable, but life, knowledge, and many other things besides. Thus it seems that existence is a particular appetible, and goodness a universal appetible. Therefore, absolutely, goodness is prior in idea to being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de causis, quod prima rerum creatarum est esse. ||On the contrary, It is said by Aristotle (De Causis) that "the first of created things is being."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod ens secundum rationem est prius quam bonum. Ratio enim significata per nomen, est id quod concipit intellectus de re, et significat illud per vocem, illud ergo est prius secundum rationem, quod prius cadit in conceptione intellectus. Primo autem in conceptione intellectus cadit ens, quia secundum hoc unumquodque cognoscibile est, inquantum est actu, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys. Unde ens est proprium obiectum intellectus, et sic est primum intelligibile, sicut sonus est primum audibile. Ita ergo secundum rationem prius est ens quam bonum. ||I answer that, In idea being is prior to goodness. For the meaning signified by the name of a thing is that which the mind conceives of the thing and intends by the word that stands for it. Therefore, that is prior in idea, which is first conceived by the intellect. Now the first thing conceived by the intellect is being; because everything is knowable only inasmuch as it is in actuality. Hence, being is the proper object of the intellect, and is primarily intelligible; as sound is that which is primarily audible. Therefore in idea being is prior to goodness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius determinat de divinis nominibus secundum quod important circa Deum habitudinem causae, nominamus enim Deum, ut ipse dicit, ex creaturis, sicut causam ex effectibus. Bonum autem, cum habeat rationem appetibilis, importat habitudinem causae finalis, cuius causalitas prima est, quia agens non agit nisi propter finem, et ab agente materia movetur ad formam, unde dicitur quod finis est causa causarum. Et sic, in causando, bonum est prius quam ens, sicut finis quam forma, et hac ratione, inter nomina significantia causalitatem divinam, prius ponitur bonum quam ens. Et iterum quia, secundum Platonicos, qui, materiam a privatione non distinguentes, dicebant materiam esse non ens, ad plura se extendit participatio boni quam participatio entis. Nam materia prima participat bonum, cum appetat ipsum (nihil autem appetit nisi simile sibi), non autem participat ens, cum ponatur non ens. Et ideo dicit Dionysius quod bonum extenditur ad non existentia. ||Reply to Objection 1. Dionysius discusses the Divine Names (Div. Nom. i, iii) as implying some causal relation in God; for we name God, as he says, from creatures, as a cause from its effects. But goodness, since it has the aspect of desirable, implies the idea of a final cause, the causality of which is first among causes, since an agent does not act except for some end; and by an agent matter is moved to its form. Hence the end is called the cause of causes. Thus goodness, as a cause, is prior to being, as is the end to the form. Therefore among the names signifying the divine causality, goodness precedes being. Again, according to the Platonists, who, through not distinguishing primary matter from privation, said that matter was non-being, goodness is more extensively participated than being; for primary matter participates in goodness as tending to it, for all seek their like; but it does not participate in being, since it is presumed to be non-being. Therefore Dionysius says that "goodness extends to non-existence" (Div. Nom. v).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Unde patet solutio ad secundum. Vel dicendum quod bonum extenditur ad existentia et non existentia, non secundum praedicationem, sed secundum causalitatem, ut per non existentia intelligamus, non ea simpliciter quae penitus non sunt, sed ea quae sunt in potentia et non in actu, quia bonum habet rationem finis, in quo non solum quiescunt quae sunt in actu, sed ad ipsum etiam ea moventur quae in actu non sunt sed in potentia tantum. Ens autem non importat habitudinem causae nisi formalis tantum, vel inhaerentis vel exemplaris, cuius causalitas non se extendit nisi ad ea quae sunt in actu. ||Reply to Objection 2. The same solution is applied to this objection. Or it may be said that goodness extends to existing and non-existing things, not so far as it can be predicated of them, but so far as it can cause them--if, indeed, by non-existence we understand not simply those things which do not exist, but those which are potential, and not actual. For goodness has the aspect of the end, in which not only actual things find their completion, but also towards which tend even those things which are not actual, but merely potential. Now being implies the habitude of a formal cause only, either inherent or exemplar; and its causality does not extend save to those things which are actual.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod non esse secundum se non est appetibile, sed per accidens, inquantum scilicet ablatio alicuius mali est appetibilis, quod malum quidem aufertur per non esse. Ablatio vero mali non est appetibilis, nisi inquantum per malum privatur quodam esse. Illud igitur quod per se est appetibile, est esse, non esse vero per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet quoddam esse appetitur, quo homo non sustinet privari. Et sic etiam per accidens non esse dicitur bonum. ||Reply to Objection 3. Non-being is desirable, not of itself, but only relatively--i.e. inasmuch as the removal of an evil, which can only be removed by non-being, is desirable. Now the removal of an evil cannot be desirable, except so far as this evil deprives a thing of some being. Therefore being is desirable of itself; and non-being only relatively, inasmuch as one seeks some mode of being of which one cannot bear to be deprived; thus even non-being can be spoken of as relatively good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 2 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod vita et scientia, et alia huiusmodi, sic appetuntur ut sunt in actu, unde in omnibus appetitur quoddam esse. Et sic nihil est appetibile nisi ens, et per consequens nihil est bonum nisi ens. ||Reply to Objection 4. Life, wisdom, and the like, are desirable only so far as they are actual. Hence, in each one of them some sort of being is desired. And thus nothing can be desired except being; and consequently nothing is good except being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a3"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omne ens sit bonum. Bonum enim addit supra ens, ut ex dictis patet. Ea vero quae addunt aliquid supra ens, contrahunt ipsum, sicut substantia, quantitas, qualitas, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo bonum contrahit ens. Non igitur omne ens est bonum. ||Objection 1. It seems that not every being is good. For goodness is something superadded to being, as is clear from 1. But whatever is added to being limits it; as substance, quantity, quality, etc. Therefore goodness limits being. Therefore not every being is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, nullum malum est bonum, Isaiae V, vae qui dicitis malum bonum, et bonum malum. Sed aliquod ens dicitur malum. Ergo non omne ens est bonum. ||Objection 2. Further, no evil is good: "Woe to you that call evil good and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20). But some things are called evil. Therefore not every being is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, bonum habet rationem appetibilis. Sed materia prima non habet rationem appetibilis, sed appetentis tantum. Ergo materia prima non habet rationem boni. Non igitur omne ens est bonum. ||Objection 3. Further, goodness implies desirability. Now primary matter does not imply desirability, but rather that which desires. Therefore primary matter does not contain the formality of goodness. Therefore not every being is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in III Metaphys., quod in mathematicis non est bonum. Sed mathematica sunt quaedam entia, alioquin de eis non esset scientia. Ergo non omne ens est bonum. ||Objection 4. Further, the Philosopher notes (Metaph. iii) that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." But mathematics are entities; otherwise there would be no science of mathematics. Therefore not every being is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra, omne ens quod non est Deus, est Dei creatura. Sed omnis creatura Dei est bona, ut dicitur I ad Tim., IV cap., Deus vero est maxime bonus. Ergo omne ens est bonum. ||On the contrary, Every being that is not God is God's creature. Now every creature of God is good (1 Timothy 4:4): and God is the greatest good. Therefore every being is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod omne ens, inquantum est ens, est bonum. Omne enim ens, inquantum est ens, est in actu, et quodammodo perfectum, quia omnis actus perfectio quaedam est. Perfectum vero habet rationem appetibilis et boni, ut ex dictis patet. Unde sequitur omne ens, inquantum huiusmodi, bonum esse. ||I answer that, Every being, as being, is good. For all being, as being, has actuality and is in some way perfect; since every act implies some sort of perfection; and perfection implies desirability and goodness, as is clear from 1. Hence it follows that every being as such is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantia, quantitas et qualitas, et ea quae sub eis continentur, contrahunt ens applicando ens ad aliquam quidditatem seu naturam. Sic autem non addit aliquid bonum super ens, sed rationem tantum appetibilis et perfectionis, quod convenit ipsi esse in quacumque natura sit. Unde bonum non contrahit ens. ||Reply to Objection 1. Substance, quantity, quality, and everything included in them, limit being by applying it to some essence or nature. Now in this sense, goodness does not add anything to being beyond the aspect of desirability and perfection, which is also proper to being, whatever kind of nature it may be. Hence goodness does not limit being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod nullum ens dicitur malum inquantum est ens, sed inquantum caret quodam esse, sicut homo dicitur malus inquantum caret esse virtutis, et oculus dicitur malus inquantum caret acumine visus. ||Reply to Objection 2. No being can be spoken of as evil, formally as being, but only so far as it lacks being. Thus a man is said to be evil, because he lacks some virtue; and an eye is said to be evil, because it lacks the power to see well.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod materia prima, sicut non est ens nisi in potentia, ita nec bonum nisi in potentia. Licet, secundum Platonicos, dici possit quod materia prima est non ens, propter privationem adiunctam. Sed tamen participat aliquid de bono, scilicet ipsum ordinem vel aptitudinem ad bonum. Et ideo non convenit sibi quod sit appetibile, sed quod appetat. ||Reply to Objection 3. As primary matter has only potential being, so it is only potentially good. Although, according to the Platonists, primary matter may be said to be a non-being on account of the privation attaching to it, nevertheless, it does participate to a certain extent in goodness, viz. by its relation to, or aptitude for, goodness. Consequently, to be desirable is not its property, but to desire.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 3 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod mathematica non subsistunt separata secundum esse, quia si subsisterent, esset in eis bonum, scilicet ipsum esse ipsorum. Sunt autem mathematica separata secundum rationem tantum, prout abstrahuntur a motu et a materia, et sic abstrahuntur a ratione finis, qui habet rationem moventis. Non est autem inconveniens quod in aliquo ente secundum rationem non sit bonum vel ratio boni, cum ratio entis sit prior quam ratio boni, sicut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 4. Mathematical entities do not subsist as realities; because they would be in some sort good if they subsisted; but they have only logical existence, inasmuch as they are abstracted from motion and matter; thus they cannot have the aspect of an end, which itself has the aspect of moving another. Nor is it repugnant that there should be in some logical entity neither goodness nor form of goodness; since the idea of being is prior to the idea of goodness, as was said in the preceding article.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a4"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bonum non habeat rationem causae finalis, sed magis aliarum. Ut enim dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., bonum laudatur ut pulchrum. Sed pulchrum importat rationem causae formalis. Ergo bonum habet rationem causae formalis. ||Objection 1. It seems that goodness has not the aspect of a final cause, but rather of the other causes. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), "Goodness is praised as beauty." But beauty has the aspect of a formal cause. Therefore goodness has the aspect of a formal cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, bonum est diffusivum sui esse, ut ex verbis Dionysii accipitur, quibus dicit quod bonum est ex quo omnia subsistunt et sunt. Sed esse diffusivum importat rationem causae efficientis. Ergo bonum habet rationem causae efficientis. ||Objection 2. Further, goodness is self-diffusive; for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that goodness is that whereby all things subsist, and are. But to be self-giving implies the aspect of an efficient cause. Therefore goodness has the aspect of an efficient cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, dicit Augustinus in I de Doctr. Christ., quod quia Deus bonus est, nos sumus. Sed ex Deo sumus sicut ex causa efficiente. Ergo bonum importat rationem causae efficientis. ||Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 31) that "we exist because God is good." But we owe our existence to God as the efficient cause. Therefore goodness implies the aspect of an efficient cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Physic., quod illud cuius causa est, est sicut finis et bonum aliorum. Bonum ergo habet rationem causae finalis. ||On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Phys. ii) that "that is to be considered as the end and the good of other things, for the sake of which something is." Therefore goodness has the aspect of a final cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, cum bonum sit quod omnia appetunt, hoc autem habet rationem finis; manifestum est quod bonum rationem finis importat. Sed tamen ratio boni praesupponit rationem causae efficientis, et rationem causae formalis. Videmus enim quod id quod est primum in causando, ultimum est in causato, ignis enim primo calefacit quam formam ignis inducat, cum tamen calor in igne consequatur formam substantialem. In causando autem, primum invenitur bonum et finis, qui movet efficientem; secundo, actio efficientis, movens ad formam; tertio advenit forma. Unde e converso esse oportet in causato, quod primum sit ipsa forma, per quam est ens; secundo consideratur in ea virtus effectiva, secundum quod est perfectum in esse (quia unumquodque tunc perfectum est, quando potest sibi simile facere, ut dicit philosophus in IV Meteor.); tertio consequitur ratio boni, per quam in ente perfectio fundatur. ||I answer that, Since goodness is that which all things desire, and since this has the aspect of an end, it is clear that goodness implies the aspect of an end. Nevertheless, the idea of goodness presupposes the idea of an efficient cause, and also of a formal cause. For we see that what is first in causing, is last in the thing caused. Fire, e.g. heats first of all before it reproduces the form of fire; though the heat in the fire follows from its substantial form. Now in causing, goodness and the end come first, both of which move the agent to act; secondly, the action of the agent moving to the form; thirdly, comes the form. Hence in that which is caused the converse ought to take place, so that there should be first, the form whereby it is a being; secondly, we consider in it its effective power, whereby it is perfect in being, for a thing is perfect when it can reproduce its like, as the Philosopher says (Meteor. iv); thirdly, there follows the formality of goodness which is the basic principle of its perfection.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pulchrum et bonum in subiecto quidem sunt idem, quia super eandem rem fundantur, scilicet super formam, et propter hoc, bonum laudatur ut pulchrum. Sed ratione differunt. Nam bonum proprie respicit appetitum, est enim bonum quod omnia appetunt. Et ideo habet rationem finis, nam appetitus est quasi quidam motus ad rem. Pulchrum autem respicit vim cognoscitivam, pulchra enim dicuntur quae visa placent. Unde pulchrum in debita proportione consistit, quia sensus delectatur in rebus debite proportionatis, sicut in sibi similibus; nam et sensus ratio quaedam est, et omnis virtus cognoscitiva. Et quia cognitio fit per assimilationem, similitudo autem respicit formam, pulchrum proprie pertinet ad rationem causae formalis. ||Reply to Objection 1. Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for goodness properly relates to the appetite (goodness being what all things desire); and therefore it has the aspect of an end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful things are those which please when seen. Hence beauty consists in due proportion; for the senses delight in things duly proportioned, as in what is after their own kind--because even sense is a sort of reason, just as is every cognitive faculty. Now since knowledge is by assimilation, and similarity relates to form, beauty properly belongs to the nature of a formal cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum dicitur diffusivum sui esse, eo modo quo finis dicitur movere. ||Reply to Objection 2. Goodness is described as self-diffusive in the sense that an end is said to move.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod quilibet habens voluntatem, dicitur bonus inquantum habet bonam voluntatem, quia per voluntatem utimur omnibus quae in nobis sunt. Unde non dicitur bonus homo, qui habet bonum intellectum, sed qui habet bonam voluntatem. Voluntas autem respicit finem ut obiectum proprium, et sic, quod dicitur, quia Deus est bonus, sumus, refertur ad causam finalem. ||Reply to Objection 3. He who has a will is said to be good, so far as he has a good will; because it is by our will that we employ whatever powers we may have. Hence a man is said to be good, not by his good understanding; but by his good will. Now the will relates to the end as to its proper object. Thus the saying, "we exist because God is good" has reference to the final cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a5"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 arg. 1 </b>Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ratio boni non consistat in modo, specie et ordine. Bonum enim et ens ratione differunt, ut supra dictum est. Sed modus, species et ordo pertinere ad rationem entis videntur, quia, sicut dicitur Sap. XI, omnia in numero, pondere et mensura disposuisti, ad quae tria reducuntur species, modus et ordo, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, IV super Gen. ad litteram, mensura omni rei modum praefigit, et numerus omni rei speciem praebet, et pondus omnem rem ad quietem et stabilitatem trahit. Ergo ratio boni non consistit in modo, specie et ordine. ||Objection 1. It seems that the essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order. For goodness and being differ logically. But mode, species and order seem to belong to the nature of being, for it is written: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight" (Wisdom 11:21). And to these three can be reduced species, mode and order, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 3): "Measure fixes the mode of everything, number gives it its species, and weight gives it rest and stability." Therefore the essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, ipse modus, species et ordo bona quaedam sunt. Si ergo ratio boni consistit in modo, specie et ordine, oportet etiam quod modus habeat modum, speciem et ordinem, et similiter species et ordo. Ergo procederetur in infinitum. ||Objection 2. Further, mode, species and order are themselves good. Therefore if the essence of goodness consists in mode, species and order, then every mode must have its own mode, species and order. The same would be the case with species and order in endless succession.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, malum est privatio modi et speciei et ordinis. Sed malum non tollit totaliter bonum. Ergo ratio boni non consistit in modo, specie et ordine. ||Objection 3. Further, evil is the privation of mode, species and order. But evil is not the total absence of goodness. Therefore the essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, illud in quo consistit ratio boni, non potest dici malum. Sed dicitur malus modus, mala species, malus ordo. Ergo ratio boni non consistit in modo, specie et ordine. ||Objection 4. Further, that wherein consists the essence of goodness cannot be spoken of as evil. Yet we can speak of an evil mode, species and order. Therefore the essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, modus, species et ordo ex pondere, numero et mensura causantur, ut ex auctoritate Augustini inducta patet. Non autem omnia bona habent pondus, numerum et mensuram, dicit enim Ambrosius, in Hexaemeron, quod lucis natura est, ut non in numero, non in pondere, non in mensura creata sit. Non ergo ratio boni consistit in modo, specie et ordine. ||Objection 5. Further, mode, species and order are caused by weight, number and measure, as appears from the quotation from Augustine. But not every good thing has weight, number and measure; for Ambrose says (Hexam. i, 9): "It is of the nature of light not to have been created in number, weight and measure." Therefore the essence of goodness does not consist in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro de natura boni, haec tria, modus, species et ordo, tanquam generalia bona sunt in rebus a Deo factis, et ita, haec tria ubi magna sunt, magna bona sunt; ubi parva, parva bona sunt; ubi nulla, nullum bonum est. Quod non esset, nisi ratio boni in eis consisteret. Ergo ratio boni consistit in modo, specie et ordine. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. iii): "These three--mode, species and order--as common good things, are in everything God has made; thus, where these three abound the things are very good; where they are less, the things are less good; where they do not exist at all, there can be nothing good." But this would not be unless the essence of goodness consisted in them. Therefore the essence of goodness consists in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque dicitur bonum, inquantum est perfectum, sic enim est appetibile, ut supra dictum est. Perfectum autem dicitur, cui nihil deest secundum modum suae perfectionis. Cum autem unumquodque sit id quod est, per suam formam; forma autem praesupponit quaedam, et quaedam ad ipsam ex necessitate consequuntur; ad hoc quod aliquid sit perfectum et bonum, necesse est quod formam habeat, et ea quae praeexiguntur ad eam, et ea quae consequuntur ad ipsam. Praeexigitur autem ad formam determinatio sive commensuratio principiorum, seu materialium, seu efficientium ipsam, et hoc significatur per modum, unde dicitur quod mensura modum praefigit. Ipsa autem forma significatur per speciem, quia per formam unumquodque in specie constituitur. Et propter hoc dicitur quod numerus speciem praebet, quia definitiones significantes speciem sunt sicut numeri, secundum philosophum in VIII Metaphys.; sicut enim unitas addita vel subtracta variat speciem numeri, ita in definitionibus differentia apposita vel subtracta. Ad formam autem consequitur inclinatio ad finem, aut ad actionem, aut ad aliquid huiusmodi, quia unumquodque, inquantum est actu, agit, et tendit in id quod sibi convenit secundum suam formam. Et hoc pertinet ad pondus et ordinem. Unde ratio boni, secundum quod consistit in perfectione, consistit etiam in modo, specie et ordine. ||I answer that, Everything is said to be good so far as it is perfect; for in that way only is it desirable (as shown above 1, 3). Now a thing is said to be perfect if it lacks nothing according to the mode of its perfection. But since everything is what it is by its form (and since the form presupposes certain things, and from the form certain things necessarily follow), in order for a thing to be perfect and good it must have a form, together with all that precedes and follows upon that form. Now the form presupposes determination or commensuration of its principles, whether material or efficient, and this is signified by the mode: hence it is said that the measure marks the mode. But the form itself is signified by the species; for everything is placed in its species by its form. Hence the number is said to give the species, for definitions signifying species are like numbers, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x); for as a unit added to, or taken from a number, changes its species, so a difference added to, or taken from a definition, changes its species. Further, upon the form follows an inclination to the end, or to an action, or something of the sort; for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends towards that which is in accordance with its form; and this belongs to weight and order. Hence the essence of goodness, so far as it consists in perfection, consists also in mode, species and order.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ista tria non consequuntur ens, nisi inquantum est perfectum, et secundum hoc est bonum. ||Reply to Objection 1. These three only follow upon being, so far as it is perfect, and according to this perfection is it good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod modus, species et ordo eo modo dicuntur bona, sicut et entia, non quia ipsa sint quasi subsistentia, sed quia eis alia sunt et entia et bona. Unde non oportet quod ipsa habeant aliqua alia, quibus sint bona. Non enim sic dicuntur bona, quasi formaliter aliis sint bona; sed quia ipsis formaliter aliqua sunt bona; sicut albedo non dicitur ens quia ipsa aliquo sit, sed quia ipsa aliquid est secundum quid, scilicet album. ||Reply to Objection 2. Mode, species and order are said to be good, and to be beings, not as though they themselves were subsistences, but because it is through them that other things are both beings and good. Hence they have no need of other things whereby they are good: for they are spoken of as good, not as though formally constituted so by something else, but as formally constituting others good: thus whiteness is not said to be a being as though it were by anything else; but because, by it, something else has accidental being, as an object that is white.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod quodlibet esse est secundum formam aliquam, unde secundum quodlibet esse rei, consequuntur ipsam modus, species et ordo, sicut homo habet speciem, modum et ordinem, inquantum est homo; et similiter inquantum est albus, habet similiter modum, speciem et ordinem; et inquantum est virtuosus, et inquantum est sciens, et secundum omnia quae de ipso dicuntur. Malum autem privat quodam esse, sicut caecitas privat esse visus, unde non tollit omnem modum, speciem et ordinem; sed solum modum, speciem et ordinem quae consequuntur esse visus. ||Reply to Objection 3. Every being is due to some form. Hence, according to every being of a thing is its mode, species, order. Thus, a man has a mode, species and order as he is white, virtuous, learned and so on; according to everything predicated of him. But evil deprives a thing of some sort of being, as blindness deprives us of that being which is sight; yet it does not destroy every mode, species and order, but only such as follow upon the being of sight.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de natura boni, omnis modus, inquantum modus, bonus est (et sic potest dici de specie et ordine), sed malus modus, vel mala species, vel malus ordo, aut ideo dicuntur quia minora sunt quam esse debuerunt; aut quia non his rebus accommodantur, quibus accommodanda sunt; ut ideo dicantur mala, quia sunt aliena et incongrua. ||Reply to Objection 4. Augustine says (De Nat. Boni. xxiii), "Every mode, as mode, is good" (and the same can be said of species and order). "But an evil mode, species and order are so called as being less than they ought to be, or as not belonging to that which they ought to belong. Therefore they are called evil, because they are out of place and incongruous."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 5 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod natura lucis dicitur esse sine numero et pondere et mensura, non simpliciter, sed per comparationem ad corporalia, quia virtus lucis ad omnia corporalia se extendit, inquantum est qualitas activa primi corporis alterantis, scilicet caeli. ||Reply to Objection 5. The nature of light is spoken of as being without number, weight and measure, not absolutely, but in comparison with corporeal things, because the power of light extends to all corporeal things; inasmuch as it is an active quality of the first body that causes change, i.e. the heavens.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q5a6"><b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 arg. 1 </b>Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienter dividatur bonum per honestum, utile et delectabile. Bonum enim, sicut dicit philosophus in I Ethic., dividitur per decem praedicamenta. Honestum autem, utile et delectabile inveniri possunt in uno praedicamento. Ergo non convenienter per haec dividitur bonum. ||Objection 1. It seems that goodness is not rightly divided into the virtuous, the useful and the pleasant. For goodness is divided by the ten predicaments, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i). But the virtuous, the useful and the pleasant can be found under one predicament. Therefore goodness is not rightly divided by them. ["Bonum honestum" is the virtuous good considered as fitting. (cf. II-II, 141, 3; II-II, 145)]
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omnis divisio fit per opposita. Sed haec tria non videntur esse opposita, nam honesta sunt delectabilia, nullumque inhonestum est utile (quod tamen oportet, si divisio fieret per opposita, ut opponerentur honestum et utile), ut etiam dicit Tullius, in libro de officiis. Ergo praedicta divisio non est conveniens. ||Objection 2. Further, every division is made by opposites. But these three do not seem to be opposites; for the virtuous is pleasing, and no wickedness is useful; whereas this ought to be the case if the division were made by opposites, for then the virtuous and the useful would be opposed; and Tully speaks of this (De Offic. ii). Therefore this division is incorrect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, ubi unum propter alterum, ibi unum tantum est. Sed utile non est bonum nisi propter delectabile vel honestum. Ergo non debet utile dividi contra delectabile et honestum. ||Objection 3. Further, where one thing is on account of another, there is only one thing. But the useful is not goodness, except so far as it is pleasing and virtuous. Therefore the useful ought not to divided against the pleasant and the virtuous.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Ambrosius, in libro de officiis, utitur ista divisione boni. ||On the contrary, Ambrose makes use of this division of goodness (De Offic. i, 9)
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod haec divisio proprie videtur esse boni humani. Si tamen altius et communius rationem boni consideremus, invenitur haec divisio proprie competere bono, secundum quod bonum est. Nam bonum est aliquid, inquantum est appetibile, et terminus motus appetitus. Cuius quidem motus terminatio considerari potest ex consideratione motus corporis naturalis. Terminatur autem motus corporis naturalis, simpliciter quidem ad ultimum; secundum quid autem etiam ad medium, per quod itur ad ultimum quod terminat motum, et dicitur aliquis terminus motus, inquantum aliquam partem motus terminat. Id autem quod est ultimus terminus motus, potest accipi dupliciter, vel ipsa res in quam tenditur, utpote locus vel forma; vel quies in re illa. Sic ergo in motu appetitus, id quod est appetibile terminans motum appetitus secundum quid, ut medium per quod tenditur in aliud, vocatur utile. Id autem quod appetitur ut ultimum, terminans totaliter motum appetitus, sicut quaedam res in quam per se appetitus tendit, vocatur honestum, quia honestum dicitur quod per se desideratur. Id autem quod terminat motum appetitus ut quies in re desiderata, est delectatio. ||I answer that, This division properly concerns human goodness. But if we consider the nature of goodness from a higher and more universal point of view, we shall find that this division properly concerns goodness as such. For everything is good so far as it is desirable, and is a term of the movement of the appetite; the term of whose movement can be seen from a consideration of the movement of a natural body. Now the movement of a natural body is terminated by the end absolutely; and relatively by the means through which it comes to the end, where the movement ceases; so a thing is called a term of movement, so far as it terminates any part of that movement. Now the ultimate term of movement can be taken in two ways, either as the thing itself towards which it tends, e.g. a place or form; or a state of rest in that thing. Thus, in the movement of the appetite, the thing desired that terminates the movement of the appetite relatively, as a means by which something tends towards another, is called the useful; but that sought after as the last thing absolutely terminating the movement of the appetite, as a thing towards which for its own sake the appetite tends, is called the virtuous; for the virtuous is that which is desired for its own sake; but that which terminates the movement of the appetite in the form of rest in the thing desired, is called the pleasant.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum, inquantum est idem subiecto cum ente, dividitur per decem praedicamenta, sed secundum propriam rationem, competit sibi ista divisio. ||Reply to Objection 1. Goodness, so far as it is identical with being, is divided by the ten predicaments. But this division belongs to it according to its proper formality.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod haec divisio non est per oppositas res, sed per oppositas rationes. Dicuntur tamen illa proprie delectabilia, quae nullam habent aliam rationem appetibilitatis nisi delectationem, cum aliquando sint et noxia et inhonesta. Utilia vero dicuntur, quae non habent in se unde desiderentur; sed desiderantur solum ut sunt ducentia in alterum, sicut sumptio medicinae amarae. Honesta vero dicuntur, quae in seipsis habent unde desiderentur. ||Reply to Objection 2. This division is not by opposite things; but by opposite aspects. Now those things are called pleasing which have no other formality under which they are desirable except the pleasant, being sometimes hurtful and contrary to virtue. Whereas the useful applies to such as have nothing desirable in themselves, but are desired only as helpful to something further, as the taking of bitter medicine; while the virtuous is predicated of such as are desirable in themselves.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 5 a. 6 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum non dividitur in ista tria sicut univocum aequaliter de his praedicatum, sed sicut analogum, quod praedicatur secundum prius et posterius. Per prius enim praedicatur de honesto; et secundario de delectabili; tertio de utili. ||Reply to Objection 3. Goodness is not divided into these three as something univocal to be predicated equally of them all; but as something analogical to be predicated of them according to priority and posteriority. Hence it is predicated chiefly of the virtuous; then of the pleasant; and lastly of the useful.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 pr. </b>Deinde quaeritur de bonitate Dei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum esse bonum conveniat Deo. Secundo, utrum Deus sit summum bonum. Tertio, utrum ipse solus sit bonus per suam essentiam. Quarto, utrum omnia sint bona bonitate divina. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q6a1"><b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse bonum non conveniat Deo. Ratio enim boni consistit in modo, specie et ordine. Haec autem non videntur Deo convenire, cum Deus immensus sit, et ad aliquid non ordinetur. Ergo esse bonum non convenit Deo. ||Objection 1. It seems that to be good does not belong to God. For goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to God; since God is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, bonum est quod omnia appetunt. Sed Deum non omnia appetunt, quia non omnia cognoscunt ipsum, nihil autem appetitur nisi notum. Ergo esse bonum non convenit Deo. ||Objection 2. Further, the good is what all things desire. But all things do not desire God, because all things do not know Him; and nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not belong to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur Thren. III, bonus est dominus sperantibus in eum, animae quaerenti illum. ||On the contrary, It is written (Lamentations 3:25): "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod bonum esse praecipue Deo convenit. Bonum enim aliquid est, secundum quod est appetibile. Unumquodque autem appetit suam perfectionem. Perfectio autem et forma effectus est quaedam similitudo agentis, cum omne agens agat sibi simile. Unde ipsum agens est appetibile, et habet rationem boni, hoc enim est quod de ipso appetitur, ut eius similitudo participetur. Cum ergo Deus sit prima causa effectiva omnium, manifestum est quod sibi competit ratio boni et appetibilis. Unde Dionysius, in libro de Div. Nom., attribuit bonum Deo sicut primae causae efficienti, dicens quod bonus dicitur Deus, sicut ex quo omnia subsistunt. ||I answer that, To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod habere modum, speciem et ordinem, pertinet ad rationem boni causati. Sed bonum in Deo est sicut in causa, unde ad eum pertinet imponere aliis modum, speciem et ordinem. Unde ista tria sunt in Deo sicut in causa. ||Reply to Objection 1. To have mode, species and order belongs to the essence of caused good; but good is in God as in its cause, and hence it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others; wherefore these three things are in God as in their cause.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod omnia, appetendo proprias perfectiones, appetunt ipsum Deum, inquantum perfectiones omnium rerum sunt quaedam similitudines divini esse, ut ex dictis patet. Et sic eorum quae Deum appetunt, quaedam cognoscunt ipsum secundum seipsum, quod est proprium creaturae rationalis. Quaedam vero cognoscunt aliquas participationes suae bonitatis, quod etiam extenditur usque ad cognitionem sensibilem. Quaedam vero appetitum naturalem habent absque cognitione, utpote inclinata ad suos fines ab alio superiori cognoscente. ||Reply to Objection 2. All things, by desiring their own perfection, desire God Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said above (4, 3). And so of those things which desire God, some know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know some participation of His goodness, and this belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher intelligence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q6a2"><b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit summum bonum. Summum enim bonum addit aliquid supra bonum, alioquin omni bono conveniret. Sed omne quod se habet ex additione ad aliquid, est compositum. Ergo summum bonum est compositum. Sed Deus est summe simplex, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo Deus non est summum bonum. ||Objection 1. It seems that God is not the supreme good. For the supreme good adds something to good; otherwise it would belong to every good. But everything which is an addition to anything else is a compound thing: therefore the supreme good is a compound. But God is supremely simple; as was shown above (3, 7). Therefore God is not the supreme good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, bonum est quod omnia appetunt, ut dicit philosophus. Sed nihil aliud est quod omnia appetunt, nisi solus Deus, qui est finis omnium. Ergo nihil aliud est bonum nisi Deus. Quod etiam videtur per id quod dicitur Matth. XIX, nemo bonus nisi solus Deus. Sed summum dicitur in comparatione aliorum; sicut summum calidum in comparatione ad omnia calida. Ergo Deus non potest dici summum bonum. ||Objection 2. Further, "Good is what all desire," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 1). Now what all desire is nothing but God, Who is the end of all things: therefore there is no other good but God. This appears also from what is said (Luke 18:19): "None is good but God alone." But we use the word supreme in comparison with others, as e.g. supreme heat is used in comparison with all other heats. Therefore God cannot be called the supreme good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, summum comparationem importat. Sed quae non sunt unius generis, non sunt comparabilia; sicut dulcedo inconvenienter dicitur maior vel minor quam linea. Cum igitur Deus non sit in eodem genere cum aliis bonis, ut ex superioribus patet, videtur quod Deus non possit dici summum bonum respectu eorum. ||Objection 3. Further, supreme implies comparison. But things not in the same genus are not comparable; as, sweetness is not properly greater or less than a line. Therefore, since God is not in the same genus as other good things, as appears above (3, 5; 4, 3) it seems that God cannot be called the supreme good in relation to others.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, I de Trin., quod Trinitas divinarum personarum est summum bonum, quod purgatissimis mentibus cernitur. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. ii) that, the Trinity of the divine persons is "the supreme good, discerned by purified minds."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Deus est summum bonum simpliciter, et non solum in aliquo genere vel ordine rerum. Sic enim bonum Deo attribuitur, ut dictum est, inquantum omnes perfectiones desideratae effluunt ab eo, sicut a prima causa. Non autem effluunt ab eo sicut ab agente univoco, ut ex superioribus patet, sed sicut ab agente quod non convenit cum suis effectibus, neque in ratione speciei, nec in ratione generis. Similitudo autem effectus in causa quidem univoca invenitur uniformiter, in causa autem aequivoca invenitur excellentius, sicut calor excellentiori modo est in sole quam in igne. Sic ergo oportet quod cum bonum sit in Deo sicut in prima causa omnium non univoca, quod sit in eo excellentissimo modo. Et propter hoc dicitur summum bonum. ||I answer that, God is the supreme good simply, and not only as existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to God, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause. They do not, however, flow from Him as from a univocal agent, as shown above (4, 2); but as from an agent which does not agree with its effects either in species or genus. Now the likeness of an effect in the univocal cause is found uniformly; but in the equivocal cause it is found more excellently, as, heat is in the sun more excellently than it is in fire. Therefore as good is in God as in the first, but not the univocal, cause of all things, it must be in Him in a most excellent way; and therefore He is called the supreme good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod summum bonum addit super bonum, non rem aliquam absolutam, sed relationem tantum. Relatio autem qua aliquid de Deo dicitur relative ad creaturas, non est realiter in Deo, sed in creatura; in Deo vero secundum rationem; sicut scibile relative dicitur ad scientiam, non quia ad ipsam referatur, sed quia scientia refertur ad ipsum. Et sic non oportet quod in summo bono sit aliqua compositio, sed solum quod alia deficiant ab ipso. ||Reply to Objection 1. The supreme good does not add to good any absolute thing, but only a relation. Now a relation of God to creatures, is not a reality in God, but in the creature; for it is in God in our idea only: as, what is knowable is so called with relation to knowledge, not that it depends on knowledge, but because knowledge depends on it. Thus it is not necessary that there should be composition in the supreme good, but only that other things are deficient in comparison with it.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum dicitur bonum est quod omnia appetunt, non sic intelligitur quasi unumquodque bonum ab omnibus appetatur, sed quia quidquid appetitur, rationem boni habet. Quod autem dicitur, nemo bonus nisi solus Deus, intelligitur de bono per essentiam, ut post dicetur. ||Reply to Objection 2. When we say that good is what all desire, it is not to be understood that every kind of good thing is desired by all; but that whatever is desired has the nature of good. And when it is said, "None is good but God alone," this is to be understood of essential goodness, as will be explained in the next article.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae non sunt in eodem genere, si quidem sint in diversis generibus contenta, nullo modo comparabilia sunt. De Deo autem negatur esse in eodem genere cum aliis bonis, non quod ipse sit in quodam alio genere; sed quia ipse est extra genus, et principium omnis generis. Et sic comparatur ad alia per excessum. Et huiusmodi comparationem importat summum bonum. ||Reply to Objection 3. Things not of the same genus are in no way comparable to each other if indeed they are in different genera. Now we say that God is not in the same genus with other good things; not that He is any other genus, but that He is outside genus, and is the principle of every genus; and thus He is compared to others by excess, and it is this kind of comparison the supreme good implies.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q6a3"><b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse bonum per essentiam non sit proprium Dei. Sicut enim unum convertitur cum ente, ita et bonum, ut supra habitum est. Sed omne ens est unum per suam essentiam, ut patet per philosophum in IV Metaphys. Ergo omne ens est bonum per suam essentiam. ||Objection 1. It seems that to be essentially good does not belong to God alone. For as "one" is convertible with "being," so is "good"; as we said above (5, 1). But every being is one essentially, as appears from the Philosopher (Metaph. iv); therefore every being is good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, si bonum est quod omnia appetunt, cum ipsum esse sit desideratum ab omnibus, ipsum esse cuiuslibet rei est eius bonum. Sed quaelibet res est ens per suam essentiam. Ergo quaelibet res est bona per suam essentiam. ||Objection 2. Further, if good is what all things desire, since being itself is desired by all, then the being of each thing is its good. But everything is a being essentially; therefore every being is good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, omnis res per suam bonitatem est bona. Si igitur aliqua res est quae non sit bona per suam essentiam, oportebit quod eius bonitas non sit sua essentia. Illa ergo bonitas, cum sit ens quoddam, oportet quod sit bona, et si quidem alia bonitate, iterum de illa bonitate quaeretur. Aut ergo erit procedere in infinitum, aut venire ad aliquam bonitatem quae non erit bona per aliam bonitatem. Eadem ergo ratione standum est in primo. Res igitur quaelibet est bona per suam essentiam. ||Objection 3. Further, everything is good by its own goodness. Therefore if there is anything which is not good essentially, it is necessary to say that its goodness is not its own essence. Therefore its goodness, since it is a being, must be good; and if it is good by some other goodness, the same question applies to that goodness also; therefore we must either proceed to infinity, or come to some goodness which is not good by any other goodness. Therefore the first supposition holds good. Therefore everything is good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Boetius, in libro de Hebdomad., quod alia omnia a Deo sunt bona per participationem. Non igitur per essentiam. ||On the contrary, Boethius says (De Hebdom.), that "all things but God are good by participation." Therefore they are not good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod solus Deus est bonus per suam essentiam. Unumquodque enim dicitur bonum, secundum quod est perfectum. Perfectio autem alicuius rei triplex est. Prima quidem, secundum quod in suo esse constituitur. Secunda vero, prout ei aliqua accidentia superadduntur, ad suam perfectam operationem necessaria. Tertia vero perfectio alicuius est per hoc, quod aliquid aliud attingit sicut finem. Utpote prima perfectio ignis consistit in esse, quod habet per suam formam substantialem, secunda vero eius perfectio consistit in caliditate, levitate et siccitate, et huiusmodi, tertia vero perfectio eius est secundum quod in loco suo quiescit. Haec autem triplex perfectio nulli creato competit secundum suam essentiam, sed soli Deo, cuius solius essentia est suum esse; et cui non adveniunt aliqua accidentia; sed quae de aliis dicuntur accidentaliter, sibi conveniunt essentialiter, ut esse potentem, sapientem, et huiusmodi, sicut ex dictis patet. Ipse etiam ad nihil aliud ordinatur sicut ad finem, sed ipse est ultimus finis omnium rerum. Unde manifestum est quod solus Deus habet omnimodam perfectionem secundum suam essentiam. Et ideo ipse solus est bonus per suam essentiam. ||I answer that, God alone is good essentially. For everything is called good according to its perfection. Now perfection of a thing is threefold: first, according to the constitution of its own being; secondly, in respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its perfect operation; thirdly, perfection consists in the attaining to something else as the end. Thus, for instance, the first perfection of fire consists in its existence, which it has through its own substantial form; its secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is to rest in its own place. This triple perfection belongs to no creature by its own essence; it belongs to God only, in Whom alone essence is existence; in Whom there are no accidents; since whatever belongs to others accidentally belongs to Him essentially; as, to be powerful, wise and the like, as appears from what is stated above (3, 6); and He is not directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the last end of all things. Hence it is manifest that God alone has every kind of perfection by His own essence; therefore He Himself alone is good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unum non importat rationem perfectionis, sed indivisionis tantum, quae unicuique rei competit secundum suam essentiam. Simplicium autem essentiae sunt indivisae et actu et potentia, compositorum vero essentiae sunt indivisae secundum actum tantum. Et ideo oportet quod quaelibet res sit una per suam essentiam, non autem bona, ut ostensum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. "One" does not include the idea of perfection, but only of indivision, which belongs to everything according to its own essence. Now the essences of simple things are undivided both actually and potentially, but the essences of compounds are undivided only actually; and therefore everything must be one essentially, but not good essentially, as was shown above.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet unumquodque sit bonum inquantum habet esse, tamen essentia rei creatae non est ipsum esse, et ideo non sequitur quod res creata sit bona per suam essentiam. ||Reply to Objection 2. Although everything is good in that it has being, yet the essence of a creature is not very being; and therefore it does not follow that a creature is good essentially.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod bonitas rei creatae non est ipsa eius essentia, sed aliquid superadditum; vel ipsum esse eius, vel aliqua perfectio superaddita, vel ordo ad finem. Ipsa tamen bonitas sic superaddita dicitur bona sicut et ens, hac autem ratione dicitur ens, quia ea est aliquid, non quia ipsa aliquo alio sit. Unde hac ratione dicitur bona, quia ea est aliquid bonum, non quia ipsa habeat aliquam aliam bonitatem, qua sit bona. ||Reply to Objection 3. The goodness of a creature is not its very essence, but something superadded; it is either its existence, or some added perfection, or the order to its end. Still, the goodness itself thus added is good, just as it is being. But for this reason is it called being because by it something has being, not because it itself has being through something else: hence for this reason is it called good because by it something is good, and not because it itself has some other goodness whereby it is good.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q6a4"><b>IЄ q. 6 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnia sint bona bonitate divina. Dicit enim Augustinus, VII de Trin., bonum hoc et bonum illud, tolle hoc et tolle illud, et vide ipsum bonum, si potes, ita Deum videbis, non alio bono bonum, sed bonum omnis boni. Sed unumquodque est bonum suo bono. Ergo unumquodque est bonum ipso bono quod est Deus. ||Objection 1. It seems that all things are good by the divine goodness. For Augustine says (De Trin. viii), "This and that are good; take away this and that, and see good itself if thou canst; and so thou shalt see God, good not by any other good, but the good of every good." But everything is good by its own good; therefore everything is good by that very good which is God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, sicut dicit Boetius, in libro de Hebdomad., omnia dicuntur bona inquantum ordinantur ad Deum, et hoc ratione bonitatis divinae. Ergo omnia sunt bona bonitate divina. ||Objection 2. Further, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), all things are called good, accordingly as they are directed to God, and this is by reason of the divine goodness; therefore all things are good by the divine goodness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod omnia sunt bona inquantum sunt. Sed non dicuntur omnia entia per esse divinum, sed per esse proprium. Ergo non omnia sunt bona bonitate divina, sed bonitate propria. ||On the contrary, All things are good, inasmuch as they have being. But they are not called beings through the divine being, but through their own being; therefore all things are not good by the divine goodness, but by their own goodness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod nihil prohibet in his quae relationem important, aliquid ab extrinseco denominari; sicut aliquid denominatur locatum a loco, et mensuratum a mensura. Circa vero ea quae absolute dicuntur, diversa fuit opinio. Plato enim posuit omnium rerum species separatas; et quod ab eis individua denominantur, quasi species separatas participando; ut puta quod Socrates dicitur homo secundum ideam hominis separatam. Et sicut ponebat ideam hominis et equi separatam, quam vocabat per se hominem et per se equum, ita ponebat ideam entis et ideam unius separatam, quam dicebat per se ens et per se unum, et eius participatione unumquodque dicitur ens vel unum. Hoc autem quod est per se bonum et per se unum, ponebat esse summum Deum, a quo omnia dicuntur bona per modum participationis. Et quamvis haec opinio irrationabilis videatur quantum ad hoc, quod ponebat species rerum naturalium separatas per se subsistentes, ut Aristoteles multipliciter probat; tamen hoc absolute verum est, quod est aliquod unum per essentiam suam bonum, quod dicimus Deum, ut ex superioribus patet. Huic etiam sententiae concordat Aristoteles. A primo igitur per suam essentiam ente et bono, unumquodque potest dici bonum et ens, inquantum participat ipsum per modum cuiusdam assimilationis, licet remote et deficienter, ut ex superioribus patet. Sic ergo unumquodque dicitur bonum bonitate divina, sicut primo principio exemplari, effectivo et finali totius bonitatis. Nihilominus tamen unumquodque dicitur bonum similitudine divinae bonitatis sibi inhaerente, quae est formaliter sua bonitas denominans ipsum. Et sic est bonitas una omnium; et etiam multae bonitates. ||I answer that, As regards relative things, we must admit extrinsic denomination; as, a thing is denominated "placed" from "place," and "measured" from "measure." But as regards absolute things opinions differ. Plato held the existence of separate ideas (84, 4) of all things, and that individuals were denominated by them as participating in the separate ideas; for instance, that Socrates is called man according to the separate idea of man. Now just as he laid down separate ideas of man and horse which he called absolute man and absolute horse, so likewise he laid down separate ideas of "being" and of "one," and these he called absolute being and absolute oneness; and by participation of these, everything was called "being" or "one"; and what was thus absolute being and absolute one, he said was the supreme good. And because good is convertible with being, as one is also; he called God the absolute good, from whom all things are called good by way of participation. Although this opinion appears to be unreasonable in affirming separate ideas of natural things as subsisting of themselves--as Aristotle argues in many ways--still, it is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God, as appears from what is shown above (2, 3), and Aristotle agrees with this. Hence from the first being, essentially such, and good, everything can be called good and a being, inasmuch as it participates in it by way of a certain assimilation which is far removed and defective; as appears from the above (4, 3). Everything is therefore called good from the divine goodness, as from the first exemplary effective and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it, which is formally its own goodness, whereby it is denominated good. And so of all things there is one goodness, and yet many goodnesses.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 6 a. 4 ad arg. </b>Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. ||This is a sufficient Reply to the Objections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
