-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
/
BoethiusDeTr.htm
2781 lines (2780 loc) · 713 KB
/
BoethiusDeTr.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Thomas Aquinas: On Boethius' De Trinitate: English</title>
<body style="text-align=justify;font-family:" unicode="">
<blockquote>
<center>
<h1>Super Boethium De Trinitate</h1>
<h2>by<br>
Thomas Aquinas</h2>
<h3>Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946)<br>
Questions 5-6, translated by Armand Mauer (Toronto, 1953)</h3>
<hr>
<h3>CONTENTS</h3>
</center>
<p><a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#01">ST. THOMAS' INTRODUCTION</a><br>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#02">BOETHIUS' PREFACE</a>
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#03">St. Thomas' Commentary</a><br>
<p>QUESTION I: Concerning the knowledge of divine things
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#11">Whether the Human Mind in Order to Attain to a Knowledge of Truth Requires a New Illumination of Divine Light</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#12">Whether the Human Mind Can Arrive at an Idea of God</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#13">Whether God Is the First Object Known by the Mind</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#14">Whether the Human Mind Is Capable of Arriving at a Knowledge of the Divine Trinity Through Natural Reason</a>
</ol>QUESTION II: Concerning the manifestation of knowledge of divine truth
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#21">Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Treated of by the Method of Inquiry</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#22">Whether There Can Be Any Science of Divine Truths Which Are Matters of Faith</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#23">Whether in the Science of Faith, Which Is Concerning God, it Is Permissible to Use the Rational Arguments of the Natural Philosophers</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#24">Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Concealed by New and Obscure Words</a>
</ol>LECTIO 1
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#L11">Boethius' Text</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#L12">St. Thomas' Commentary</a>
</ol>QUESTION III: Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Knowledge Possessed by Faith
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#31">Whether Faith Is Necessary for Mankind</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#32">Whether Faith Should Be Distinguished from Religion</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#33">Whether the Christian Religion Is Aptly Called Catholic or Universal</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#34">Whether it Is a True Article of Faith, That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are One God</a>
</ol>QUESTION IV: Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Cause of Plurality
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#41">Whether Otherness Is the Cause of Plurality</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#42">Whether Variety of Accidents Produces Diversity According to Number</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#43">Whether Two Bodies Can Be, or Can Be Conceived of as Being Simultaneously in the Same Place</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#44">Whether Variety of Location Has Any Influence in Effecting Numerical Difference</a>
</ol>LECTIO 2
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#L21">Boethius' Text</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#L22">St. Thomas' Commentary</a>
</ol>QUESTION FIVE: The division of speculative science
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#51">Is Speculative Science Appropriately Divided into these Three Parts: Natural, Mathematical, and Divine?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#52">Does Natural Philosophy Treat of What Exists in Motion and Matter?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#53">Does Mathematics Treat, Without Motion and Matter, of What Exists in Matter?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#54">Does Divine Science Treat of What Exists Without Matter and Motion?</a>
</ol>QUESTION SIX: The methods of speculative science
<ol>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#61">Must we Proceed according to the Mode of Reason in Natural Science, according to the Mode of Learning in Mathematics, and according to the Mode of Intellect in Divine Science?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#62">Should We Entirely Abandon the Imagination in Divine Science?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#63">Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form Itself?</a>
<li>
<a href="BoethiusDeTr.htm#64">Can Our Intellect Behold the Divine Form by Means of Some Speculative Science?</a>
</ol>
<hr>
<a name="01" id="01">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b>Prooemium</b>
<td align="center"><b>ST. THOMAS’ INTRODUCTION</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
<td>Ab initio nativitatis investigabo et ponam in lucem scientiam illius, Sap. 6.
<td>“I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth, and bring the knowledge of her to light” (Wis. 6:24)
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Naturalis mentis humanae intuitus pondere corruptibilis corporis aggravatus in primae veritatis luce, ex qua omnia sunt facile cognoscibilia, defigi non potest. Unde oportet ut secundum naturalis cognitionis progressum ratio a posterioribus in priora deveniat et a creaturis in Deum, Rom. 1: invisibilia ipsius a creatura mundi etc.; Sap. 13: a magnitudine speciei creaturae et cetera. Et hoc est quod dicitur Iob 36: omnes homines vident eum, scilicet Deum, unusquisque intuetur procul.
<td>The natural intuition of the human mind, burdened by the weight of a corruptible body, cannot fix its gaze in the prime light of First Truth, in which all things are easily knowable; whence it must be that, according to the progress of its natural manner of cognition, the reason advances from the things that are posterior to those that are prior, and from creatures to God. “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20) and “For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby” (Wis. 13:5); and this is what is said in Job 36:25: “All men see Him, gazing from afar.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Creaturae enim, per quas naturaliter cognoscitur Deus, in infinitum ab ipso distant. Sed quia in his, quae procul videntur, facile visus decipitur, idcirco ex creaturis in Deum cognoscendum tendentes in errores multiplices inciderunt. Unde dicitur Sap. 14 quod creaturae Dei sunt muscipulae pedibus insipientium et in Psalmo: defecerunt scrutantes scrutinio. Et ideo Deus humano generi aliam tutam viam cognitionis providit, suam notitiam mentibus hominum per fidem infundens. Unde dicitur 1 Cor. 2: quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi spiritus Dei, nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Et hic est spiritus, quo efficimur credentes, 2 Cor. 4: habentes eundem spiritum fidei credimus, propter quod et loquimur.
<td>For creatures, through whom God can be known by the natural light of reason, are at an infinite distance from Him. But since, in those who look at a thing from a great distance, vision may readily be deceived, therefore those striving to attain to a knowledge of God from creatures fell into many errors: wherefore it is said: “The creatures of God are... a snare to the feet of the unwise” (Wis. 14: 11), and: “They have failed in their search” (Ps. 63:7); and therefore God has provided for the human race another safe road of cognition, bestowing upon the minds of men, by faith, a knowledge of Himself. Therefore, it is said: “The things also that are of God no man knows, but the Spirit of God: but to us God has revealed them by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2: 11): and this is the Spirit by whom we are enabled to be believers: “Having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: ‘I believed, for which cause I have spoken’ (Ps. 115: 10); we also believe, for which cause we speak also” (2 Cor. 4:13)
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sicut ergo naturalis cognitionis principium est creaturae notitia a sensu accepta, ita cognitionis desuper datae principium est primae veritatis notitia per fidem infusa. Et hinc est quod diverso ordine hinc inde proceditur. Philosophi enim, qui naturalis cognitionis ordinem sequuntur, praeordinant scientiam de creaturis scientiae divinae, scilicet naturalem metaphysicae. Sed apud theologos proceditur e converso, ut creatoris consideratio considerationem praeveniat creaturae.
<td>Therefore, as the principle of our cognition is naturally the knowledge of created things, obtained by means of the senses, so the principle of supernatural cognition is that knowledge of First Truth conferred upon us, infused by faith; and hence it follows that in advancing one proceeds according to a diverse order. For philosophers, who follow along the way of natural cognition, place knowledge about created things before knowledge about divine things: natural science before metaphysics: but among theologians the procedure is in reverse order, so that study of the Creator comes before that of creatures.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Hunc ergo ordinem secutus Boethius ea quae sunt fidei tractare intendens in ipsa summa rerum origine principium suae considerationis instituit, scilicet Trinitate unius simplicis Dei. Unde ei competunt verba praemissa: ab initio nativitatis et cetera.
<td>This order, therefore, Boethius followed: intending to treat of those things which are of faith, he took as the starting point of his study that highest origin of things, namely, the Trinity of the one, simple God. Whence it is that the above-quoted words are applicable to him: “I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth, and bring the knowledge of her to light.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>In quibus circa praesens opusculum, quod ad Symmachum patricium urbis composuit, tria possunt notari, scilicet materia, modus et finis.
<td>In these words, as regards the present opusculum, which he addressed to Symmachus, a patrician of Rome, three things can be noted: namely, the matter, the mode, and the purpose.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Materia siquidem huius operis est in una divina essentia Trinitas personarum, quae consurgit ex prima nativitate, qua divina sapientia a patre aeternaliter generatur, Prov. 8: nondum erant abyssi, et ego iam concepta eram; in Psalmo: ego hodie genui te.
<td>The matter of this work is the Trinity of Persons in the one, divine Essence, that Trinity which has its source in the primal nativity in which divine wisdom is eternally generated by the Father. “The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived” (Prov. 8:24), and: “This day have I begotten you” (Ps. 2:7)
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quae quidem nativitas initium est cuiuslibet nativitatis alterius, cum ipsa sola sit perfecte naturam capiens generantis; aliae vero omnes imperfectae sunt, secundum quas genitum aut partem substantiae generantis accipit aut substantiae similitudinem. Unde oportet quod a praedicta nativitate omnis alia nativitas per quandam imitationem derivetur, Eph. 3: ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur. Et propter hoc filius dicitur primogenitus omnis creaturae, Col. 1, ut nativitatis origo et imitatio designetur, non eadem generationis ratio. Unde convenienter dicit: ab initio nativitatis; Prov. 8: dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum. Nec solum creaturarum est initium praedicta nativitas, sed etiam spiritus sancti, qui a generante genitoque procedit.
<td>This nativity is the beginning of every other nativity, as it is the only one involving perfect participation in the nature of the generator: but all others are imperfect according as the one generated receives either a part of the substance of the generator, or only a similitude: from this it follows that from the aforesaid nativity, every other is derived by a kind of imitation; and thus: “Of whom all paternity in heaven and in earth is named” (Eph. 3: 15); and on this account the Son,is called the first-born of every creature (Col. 1:15) so that the origin of nativity and its imitation might be designated, but not according to the same meaning of generation; and therefore it is aptly said: “I will seek her out from the beginning of her birth.” “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways” (Prov. 8:22); for not only of creatures is the aforesaid nativity the beginning, but even of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Generator and the Generated.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Per hoc autem quod non dicit: initium nativitatis investigabo, sed ab initio designatur quod in hoc nativitatis initio eius perscrutatio non finitur, sed ab hoc incipiens ad alia procedit.
<td>But in saying this, he does not say: “I will seek out the beginning of nativity,” but “from the beginning” signifies that his search is not limited by initiation of this kind of nativity, but that, beginning from this, he proceeds to others.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Eius namque doctrina in tres partes dividitur. Prima namque est de Trinitate personarum, ex quarum processione omnis alia nativitas vel processio derivatur, in hoc quidem libro, qui prae manibus habetur, quantum ad id quod de Trinitate et unitate sciendum est, in alio vero libro, quem ad Iohannem diaconum Ecclesiae Romanae scribit, de modo praedicandi, quo utimur in personarum Trinitate, qui sic incipit: quaero, an pater.
<td>For his doctrine is divided into three parts. The first part, concerning the Trinity of Persons, from the procession of whom every other nativity and procession are derived, is contained in that book which we possess at hand, so far as anything can be known about the Trinity and Unity. But in another book which he wrote to John, a deacon of the Roman Church, we find what he says about the mode of predication which we employ in the distinction of Persons and unity of essence; and this book begins: “I inquire whether the Father.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secunda vero pars est de processione bonarum creaturarum a Deo bono in libro, qui ad eundem Iohannem conscribitur de hebdomadibus, qui sic incipit: postulas a me.
<td>The second part, which is about the procession of good creatures from a good God, is in a book that is written to the same John (<i>De hebdomadibus</i>), and this begins: “You ask of me.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertia vero pars est de reparatione creaturarum per Christum. Quae quidem in duo dividitur. Primo namque proponitur fides, quam Christus docuit qua iustificamur, in libro qui intitulatur de fide Christiana, qui sic incipit: Christianam fidem. Secundo explanatur, quid de Christo sentiendum sit, quomodo scilicet duae naturae in una persona conveniant, et hoc in libro de duabus naturis in una persona Christi ad Iohannem praedictum conscripto, qui sic incipit: anxie te quidem.
<td>The third part is about the separation of creatures through Christ. This is divided into two parts: For first, there is set forth the faith which Christ taught by which we are justified, in that book entitled <i>De fide Christiana</i>, which begins: “The Christian faith.” In the second part, an explanation is given of what must be held about Christ: namely, how two natures are united in one person. This discussion of the two natures and the one person in Christ is also in a book written to the same John, which begins: “You, indeed, solicitously.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Modus autem de Trinitate tractandi duplex est, ut dicit Augustinus in I de Trinitate, scilicet per auctoritates et per rationes, quem utrumque modum Augustinus complexus est, ut ipsemet dicit.
<td>Now the mode employed in treating of the Trinity is twofold, as St. Augustine says in I <i>De Trinitate</i>, namely, through truths known on the basis of authority, and through those known by reason, both of which modes Augustine combined, as he himself says.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quidam vero sanctorum patrum, ut Ambrosius et Hilarius, alterum tantum modum prosecuti sunt, scilicet per auctoritates. Boethius vero elegit prosequi per alium modum, scilicet per rationes, praesupponens hoc quod ab aliis per auctoritates fuerat prosecutum. Et ideo modus huius operis designatur in hoc quod dicit: investigabo, in quo rationis inquisitio designatur, Eccli. 39: sapientiam, scilicet Trinitatis notitiam, antiquorum, scilicet quam antiqui sola auctoritate asseruerunt, exquiret sapiens, id est ratione investigabit.
<td>Some of the holy Fathers, as Ambrose and Hilary, employed but one mode of explanation: namely, by setting forth those truths founded upon authority. But Boethius chose to proceed according to the other mode; namely, according to reasoned arguments, presupposing what had been concluded by others on the grounds of authority. Hence also the method of his work is indicated in what he says: “I shall investigate”, in which an inquiry of reason is signified. In Sirach 39:1 we read: “Wisdom,” namely, knowledge of the Trinity; “of all the ancients,” that is, which the ancients affirmed solely on the grounds of authority; “the wise man will seek out,” that is, he will investigate by reason.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde in prooemio praemittit: investigatam diutissime quaestionem.
<td>Wherefore, in the preface he speaks of “An investigation carried on for a very long time.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Finis vero huius operis est, ut occulta fidei manifestentur, quantum in via possibile est, Eccli. 24: qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt. Et ideo dicit: ponam in lucem scientiam illius, Iob 28: profunda fluviorum scrutatus est, et abscondita produxit in lucem.
<td>The purpose of this work is: that hidden things may be made manifest, so far as that is possible in this life. “They that explain me shall have life everlasting” (Sirach 24:31); and therefore, he says: “I will bring the knowledge of her to light” (Wis. 6:24). “The depths also of rivers he searched, and hidden things he brought forth to light” (Job 2 8: 11).
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="02" id="02">
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>BOETHIUS’ PREFACE</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Investigatam diutissime quaetionem quantum nostrae mentis igniculum illustrare lux divina dignata est, formatam rationibus litterisque mandatam, offerendam vobis communicandamque curavi, tam vestri cupidus iudicii, quam nostri studiosus inventi.
<td>The problem which has been for so long a time the subject of my investigation—to the extent that the divine light has deigned to enkindle the feeble spark of my mind—now arranged according to a reasoned plan and consigned to writing, I have taken pains to offer and share with you, prompted as much by desire for your judgment as by zeal for my task.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Qua in re quid mihi sit animi, qoties stylo excogitata commendo, tum ex ipsa difficultate materiae, tum ex eo quod viris, idest vobis tantum colloquor, intelligi postest.
<td>In this matter it is possible to understand what my intention is whenever I entrust my thought to pen, both because of the difficulty of the matter and because it is only to you men that I am addressing it.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Neque enim famae iactatione et inanibus vulgi clamoribus excitamur, sed si quis est fructus exterior, hic non potest aliam nisi materiae similem sperare sententiam.
<td>Indeed, I am not prompted by any desire for fame or for empty popular applause; but if there is any exterior reward, it can be no other than to hope for a judgment in keeping with the matter.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quocumque igitur a vobis deieci oculos, partim ignava segnities, partim callidus livor occurit, ut contumeliam videat divinis tractatibus irrogare, qui talibus hominum monstris non agnoscenda hic potius quam conculcanda proiecerim.
<td>For, wherever I have directed my gaze, apart from you, I have encountered, on the one side, stolid indifference or, on the other, sly envy, so that I would appear to offer insult to matters pertaining to divine things by putting them before such monsters of men to be trampled under foot by them rather than to be acknowledged.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Idcirco stylum brevitate contraho et ex intimis sumpta philosophiae disciplinis novorum verborum significationibus velo, ut haec mihi tantum vobisque, si quando ad ea converteritis oculos, colloquantur; ceteros vero ita submovimus, ut qui capere intellectu nequiverint, ad ea etiam legenda videantur indigni.
<td>On this account I restrain my pen by brevity, and truths gleaned from the deepest teachings of philosophy I veil over by the signification of new words, so that they may speak only to me and to you; if you, indeed, will direct your attention to them. But, as for others, I so disregard them that those who are unable to grasp the meaning of my words shall seem unworthy to read them.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sane tantum a nobis oportet quaeri, quantum humanae rationis intuitus ad Deitatis valet celsa conscendere. Nam ceteris quoque artibus idem finis est constitutus, quousque potest via rationis accedere. Neque enim medicina aegris semper affert salutem. Sed nulla erit culpa medentis, si nihil eorum quae fieri oportebat, omiserit: idemque in ceteris.
<td>Only so much ought one require of me as the intuition of human reason can approximate about the sublime truths of the Godhead. For in the case of other arts, the same limit is also established, namely, that which by the way of reason one can attain. Now, medicine does not always effect the cure of the patient. But no blame will be placed upon the physician if he has omitted none of the things which he ought to have done; and the same is true in other matters.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>At quantum haec difficilior quaestio est, tantum facilior debet esse ad veniam. Vobis tamen illus etiam inspiciendum est an ex beati Augustini scriptis semina rationum in nos venientia fructus attulerint.
<td>Moreover, in proportion to the difficulty of a problem, the pardoning of error ought to be the more easily granted. You must also determine this: whether the seeds of speculation, gathered from the writings of the blessed Augustine, have in my work borne fruit.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Nunc de proposita quaestione hinc sumamus initium.
<td>Now, therefore, let us undertake at this point the discussion of the proposed question.
</table>
</blockquote></a> <a name="03" id="03">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>St. Thomas’ Commentary</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Huic ergo operi prooemium praemittit, in quo tria facit. Primo breviter causas operis praelibat, in quo reddit auditorem docilem. Secundo excusationem subiungit, in quo reddit auditorem benevolum, ibi: idcirco stilum et cetera. Tertio ostendit sui operis originem et quasi subiectum esse doctrinam Augustini, ex quo reddit auditorem attentum, ibi: vobis tamen etiam illud inspiciendum et cetera.
<td>To this work the author prefixes a preface, in which he does three things: First, he briefly indicates the causes of the work, in doing which he inclines his hearer to accept what he says. Secondly, he adds an excuse or explanation in which he gains the good will of his hearer, where he says: “I restrain my pen.” In the third place, he points out that the source of his work and, in a certain way, its teaching, is the doctrine of St. Augustine, and in doing this he renders his hearer attentive, when he says: “You must also determine this: whether the seeds of speculation, gathered from the writings of blessed Augustine, have in my work borne fruit.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Proponit autem quattuor causas sui operis in prima parte.
<td>He likewise sets forth in the first part the four causes of his work.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo materialem, cum dicit: investigatam diutissime quaestionem, scilicet de Trinitate personarum unius Dei, in qua et difficultatem materiae insinuat, quae diutina investigatione indiguit, et studii diligentiam, qua ipse eam diutissime investigavit, ut intelligatur investigatam a nobis, quamvis etiam intelligi possit investigatam a pluribus, quia a principio nascentis Ecclesiae haec quaestio ingenia fidelium maxime fatigavit.
<td>1) First, the material cause, when he says: “the problem which has been for so long a time the subject of my investigation,” that is, about the Trinity of Persons of the one God; and in these words he implies both the difficulty of the matter, because he has carried on the investigation for a very long time, and also the diligence of the study with which he has for so long a period investigated it, as “investigation” is understood by us, although it can also be understood to mean investigation by many; because from the beginning of the existence of the Church, this question has especially continued to challenge the cleverest minds of Christians.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secundo tangit causam efficientem: et proximam sive secundariam in hoc quod dicit: quantum mentis nostrae igniculum, et primam sive principalem in hoc quod dicit: illustrare lux divina dignata est.
<td>2) Secondly, he indicates the proximate or secondary efficient cause when he says: “the feeble spark of my mind.” Moreover, he speaks also of the first or principal cause when he adds: “that the divine light has deigned to enkindle.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Proxima siquidem causa huius investigationis fuit intellectus auctoris, qui recte igniculus dicitur. Ignis enim, ut dicit Dionysius 15 c. caelestis hierarchiae, maxime competit ad significandas divinas proprietates, tum ratione subtilitatis, tum ratione luminis, tum ratione virtutis activae per calorem, tum ratione situs et motus.
<td>Now the proximate cause of this investigation is, indeed, the intellect of the author, which is rightly termed a spark. “For fire,” as Dionysius says (XV <i>Coel. hier.</i>), “especially serves to signify properties of the divinity: at once by reason of its subtlety, of its light, and also by reason of its place and motion.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quae quidem Deo maxime competunt, in quo est summa simplicitas et immaterialitas, perfecta claritas, omnipotens virtus et altissima sublimitas, Angelis autem mediocriter, sed humanis mentibus infimo modo, quarum propter corpus coniunctum et puritas inquinatur et lux obscuratur et virtus debilitatur et motus in suprema retardatur; unde humanae mentis efficacia recte igniculo comparatur.
<td>These things, in the highest degree, pertain to God, in whom exist the culmination of simplicity and of immateriality, perfect charity, almighty power, and highest majesty. To the angels, “fire” (as indicative of intellect) may be applied in a middle sense, but to human minds, with only a more restricted meaning; for by union with a body, its purity is lessened, its light is obscured, its power weakened, and its upward motion retarded: wherefore the efficacy of the human mind is rightly compared to a spark.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde nec ad huius quaestionis veritatem inquirendam sufficit, nisi divina luce illustrata, et sic divina lux est causa principalis, humana mens causa secundaria.
<td>Hence it would not be able to investigate the truth of this question unless light were cast upon it by the divine light; and thus the divine light is the principal cause; but the human mind, a cause in the secondary order.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertio tangit causam formalem in hoc quod dicit: formatam rationibus, et tangit modum agendi quantum ad tria.
<td>3) Thirdly, he treats of the formal cause when he says: “arranged according to a reasoned plan,” and he indicates the mode of treatment under three headings.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo quantum ad hoc quod argumentando processit; unde dicit: formatam rationibus. Quaestio namque quamdiu probabilibus rationibus sub dubio exagitatur, quasi informis est, nondum ad certitudinem veritatis pertingens, et ideo formata dicitur esse, quando ad eam ratio additur, per quam certitudo de veritate habetur. Et in hoc providit intelligentiae, quia quod credimus, debemus auctoritati, quod intelligimus, rationi, ut Augustinus dicit.
<td>a) First, since he proceeds by argumentation, he therefore says, “arranged according to a reasoned plan.” For a question discussed even over a long period according to probable reasons but still with doubt is, as it were, without form, not yet laying claim to the certitude of truth; and hence it is said to possess form when reasonable proof is added, through which certitude regarding the truth may be attained: in this process, intellect gives us vision of the truth, because what we believe, we owe to authority; but what we understand, we owe to reason, as Augustine says.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secundo in hoc quod non solum verbis disseruit, sed etiam scripto mandavit, unde dicit: litterisque mandatam. In quo providit memoriae.
<td>b) In the second place he discusses the mode of treatment, since he treats of this matter not only in words, but has incorporated it in writing, he says: “I entrust my thought to pen.” In so doing, he has made provision against the weaknesses of memory.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertio in hoc quod non ad praesentes per modum doctrinae, sed ad absentes per modum epistulae conscripsit.
<td>c) Thirdly, since he has written, not after the manner of one imparting doctrine to another present with him, but as to one absent, by means of a letter.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sic enim etiam Aristoteles diversimode libros suos composuit, quosdam quidem ad praesentes, qui ab ipso audiebant - et hi libri dicuntur auditus, sicut dicitur liber de naturali auditu - quosdam autem ad absentes scribens, sicut liber de anima conscriptus esse significatur in I Ethicorum, ubi nominantur exteriores sermones, ut Commentator Graecus ibidem dicit.
<td>Thus Aristotle also composed his books in different ways: some addressed to those who in his presence listened to him, and these books are called <i>Auditus</i>, as one such book is, entitled, <i>De naturali auditu</i>; but certain others he wrote to those absent, as we find in I <i>Ethic</i>. that the books <i>De anima</i> were so written, where the names of discourses addressed to those at a distance are given, as the Greek commentator says.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde sequitur: offerendam vobis quasi maiori ad iudicandum communicandamque curavi quasi socio ad profectum. Et in hoc iudicium requirit; unde sequitur: tam vestri cupidus iudicii quam nostri studiosus inventi. Ex hoc enim quod fuit studiosus ad inveniendum, praedictam quaestionem rationibus formavit; ex hoc vero quod fuit cupidus iudicii Symmachi, ei formatam obtulit.
<td>Accordingly, he adds: “I have taken pains to offer and share with you, prompted by desire for your judgment,” as if addressing an expert and asking his opinion in this matter. Thus, he continues: “prompted as much by desire for your judgment as by zeal for my task.” Because he had been zealous for ascertaining the truth, he had ordered the aforesaid question according to reasonable arguments; and, because he was desirous of the judgment of Symmachus, he presented to him the work thus arranged in orderly fashion.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quarto tangit causam finalem, cum dicit: qua in re quid mihi sit animi, id est quem finem intendam ex supra dicta re, quotiens excogitata animo de praedictis vel quibuscumque aliis stilo commendo, intelligi potest ex duobus, tum ex ipsa difficultate materiae, tum ex eo quod colloquor non multitudini, sed raris, scilicet sapientibus, id est vobis tantummodo.
<td>4) In the fourth place, he refers to the final cause when he says: “What my intention is,” that is, what end I am striving for in regard to the above-mentioned problem: “Whenever I entrust my thought to pen” concerning the aforesaid or certain other matters, “it is possible to understand” for two reasons: “because of the difficulty of the matter” and also, “because it is only to you men that I am addressing it.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Non enim hunc librum scripsit, ut multitudini recitaret, quod quandoque fit propter vulgi favorem, sed tantummodo uni sapienti, unde sequitur: neque enim excitamur, scilicet ad scribendum famae iactatione, id est commendatione, et clamoribus vulgi, sicut poetae recitantes carmina in theatris, inanibus, quia tales clamores frequenter sine ratione sunt. Et sic removit finem inconvenientem et subiungit finem debitum, insinuans quidem finem principalem qui est interior, scilicet perceptio divinae veritatis, et explicans finem secundarium, scilicet iudicium sapientis, unde dicit: sed si quis est fructus exterior, quasi dicat: principaliter quidem me excitat fructus interior, sed si aliquis est exterior, hic non potest aliam sperare sententiam nisi materiae similem, id est convenientem, quasi dicat: non aliud iudicium requiro pro fructu exteriori nisi qui deceat tantam materiam, de qua iudicium concedi non debet ignaviter pigris neque callide invidis, sed solum benevolo sapienti, unde sequitur: quocumque igitur a vobis deieci oculos, scilicet ad quoscumque respexi, non ad vos tantum considerationi meae occurrit, partim, id est in aliquibus, ignava, id est stulta, segnities, id est pigritia, partim livor, id est invidia, callidus, id est astutus ad nocendum, in tantum ut contumeliam videatur irrogare divinis tractatibus, qui haec, scilicet divina, proiecerit, id est inordinate exposuerit, talibus monstris hominum - monstra dicuntur homines qui in corpore humano cor gerunt bestiale, propter peccatum bestiis similes effecti in affectu - non agnoscenda potius quam conculcanda, quia non tam quaerunt cognoscere quam vituperare quaecumque dicuntur, propter invidiam; unde dicitur Matth. 7: nolite sanctum dare et cetera. Alia littera: ne et ego si aliter facerem, videar etc. qui proiecerim et cetera.
<td>This book, therefore, he has not written in order to read it to the many, which would be with hope of popular acclaim, but rather, for one wise man alone; wherefore, he continues: “I am not prompted by any desire for fame or for empty popular applause,” as are the poets who recite their verses before the foolish crowds in the theater, because such applause is often altogether without reason. Thus he puts aside any unworthy end and establishes one that is honorable, implying a principal purpose, which is interior, namely, knowledge of divine truth, and, explicitly pointing out a secondary end, that is, the judgment of a wise man, when he says: “If there is any exterior reward,” as if he would say: It is an interior reward that principally urges me on, but if there is any that is exterior, this can be none other than to wait and to hope for a judgment like to the matter, that is, proportionate to it: By way of exterior return I ask for nothing except what is fitting in a matter of such importance, in regard to which I have stated that a judgment of it should be neither stolidly indifferent nor the bitter one of an envious critic, but only that pronounced in good will by a wise man. Accordingly, he adds: “Wherever I have directed my gaze apart from you, that is, to whomsoever I have looked, except to you alone, I have encountered on the one side, stolid indifference”; that is, lack of comprehension, “on the other side, sly envy,” that is, ill will, sly only in condemnation, so that he who treated of these things, would seem to offer insult to divine treatises, that is, by inordinately explaining them “to such monsters of men.” Men are called monsters who, though in human body, bear within them the heart of a beast, since vice has made them like to beasts in their affections; hence these things “would be trampled under foot by them, rather than acknowledged,” because they do not so much seek to know, but—because of their envy—to revile whatever is said; wherefore, “Give not what is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet” (Matt. 7:6). Therefore, that I should not do otherwise than this, “I restrain my pen by brevity.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Idcirco stilum et cetera. Haec est secunda pars prooemii, in qua subiungit excusationem. Et primo excusat operis difficultatem. Secundo operis imperfectionem, ibi: sed tantum a nobis et cetera. Tangit autem triplicem difficultatem, quam sponte huic operi adhibet.
<td>This is the second part of the preface, in which he adds an explanation of his manner of writing. And first, he explains the difficulty of the task. In the second place, he excuses its imperfection. “Only so much ought one require of me as the intuition of human reason can approximate about the sublime truths of the Godhead. He refers also to a threefold difficulty which purposely he attached to it.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Prima est ex brevitate Scripturae, unde dicit: idcirco stilum brevitate contraho, secundum illud Horatii: brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
<td>The first is by reason of the brevity of his writing; wherefore, he says, “I restrain my pen by brevity,” according to that saying of Horace: “While I labor to be brief, I become obscure.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secunda est ex subtilibus rationibus quas inducit, et hoc est quod dicit: ex intimis disciplinis philosophiae sumpta, quae sunt disciplinae a sensibilibus abstrahentes, quarum principiis et conclusionibus utitur, ut metaphysicae et logicae.
<td>The second arises from the subtlety of the reasoning which he introduces; thus he says: “truths gleaned from the deepest teachings of philosophy,” which are those doctrines abstracted from the senses, the principles and conclusions which metaphysics and logic make use of.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertia est ex novitate verborum, unde dicit: haec, scilicet sumpta, velo significationibus novorum verborum. Quae quidem nova dicuntur vel quantum ad materiam istam, quia alii tractatores huius quaestionis talibus verbis usi non sunt, vel quantum ad eos qui legunt, qui talibus verbis non sunt assueti.
<td>The third difficulty arises from the newness of the words used; wherefore he says: “I veil over by the signification of new words.” These words are called “new” either with reference to the matter, because others treating of this same question did not employ the same vocabulary, or with reference to those who read them, because they are unaccustomed to such terms.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tres autem has difficultates addit quartae, quam supra tetigit, quae est materiae difficultas, ut ea, quae in hoc libro scribuntur, tantum sapientibus colloquatur, qui haec intelligere poterunt, sicut est auctor ipse et ille, ad quem liber conscribitur, alii vero, qui capere intellectu non possunt, a lectione excludantur. Non enim libenter leguntur quae non intelliguntur. Et quia ratio ex praecedentibus connectitur, ideo praemisit: idcirco, quod est nota conclusionis. Littera vero plana est.
<td>These three difficulties he adds to the fourth which he had previously mentioned: that is, the difficulty of the subject; consequently, in regard to those things written in this book, the meaning is clear only to the wise, to such men as the author himself and the one to whom he has addressed it. But others who cannot comprehend it are excluded from the reading of it. For things which are not understood are not read with pleasure. And because his reason for so writing is connected with preceding statements, he introduces it ‘with “therefore,” which is a sign of a conclusion. The meaning is clear.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Deinde cum dicit: sed tantum a nobis quaeri oportet etc., excusat operis defectum, quia scilicet non debet requiri ab eo in hoc opere plus certitudinis quam quantum humana ratio valet ad alta divinitatis conscendere. Quod probat per locum a minori in aliis artibus, in quibus iste finis unicuique artifici constituitur ut tantum faciat, quantum humana ratio sinit. Non enim medicus semper curat, sed si nihil omittat de his quae facere debet, sine culpa erit, et similiter est in aliis artibus. Unde et in hoc opere, ubi est difficillima materia sensum humanae rationis excedens, magis debet auctori venia dari, si non ad perfectam certitudinem quaestionem deducat.
<td>“Only so much ought one require of me as the intuition of human reason can approximate about the sublime truths of the Godhead.” Here he excuses a defect of the work, because, indeed, one ought not demand from him in this task any more certitude than that which the human reason, in mounting up to the divine, is capable of; a position which he justifies by reference to matters of less importance in other arts, in which only such an end is established for each craftsman as he can accomplish, one such as human reason allows. A physician does not always, indeed, effect a cure, but if he omits nothing which he ought to do, he will be without blame; and the same is true in regard to other arts. Therefore in this work, where the matter is difficult, going beyond the experience of human nature, the greater leniency ought to be granted if he does not solve the question with perfect certitude.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Deinde cum dicit: vobis tamen, ostendit, cuius auctoritatem in scribendo sequatur, scilicet Augustini. Non ut ea tantum dicat quae in libro Augustini inveniuntur, sed quia ea quae Augustinus de Trinitate dixit, scilicet quod in absolutis divinae personae conveniunt et in relativis distinguuntur, accipit quasi semina et principia, quibus utitur ad quaestionis difficultatem enodandam. Et sic ipsa veritatis explicatio per multas rationes sunt fructus ex seminibus Augustini in ipso provenientes. Qui autem sint convenientes et uberes, ei, ad quem scribit, inspiciendum committit ad propositam quaestionem accedens.
<td>Then, when he says: “You must also determine this: whether the seeds of speculation, gathered from the writings of the blessed Augustine, have in my work borne fruit,” he adduces whose authority he follows in his work, namely, Augustine. Not that he says only those things that are to be found in the books of Augustine, but because those things which Augustine said regarding the Trinity—namely, that the divine Persons are equal in an absolute sense and are distinguished according to relationships—he accepts as seeds and principles, which he uses in resolving this difficult question; and so this explanation of truth by means of many considerations of reason is the fruit springing forth from those seeds found in the writings of Augustine himself; but whether they are acceptable and productive, he leaves to the judgment of him to whom he writes, thus coming directly to the proposed question.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="11" id="11">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>QUESTION I<br>
Concerning the Knowledge of Divine Things</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Hic duplex quaestio incidit. Prima est de divinorum cognitione, secunda de eorum manifestatione.
<td>Here there occurs a twofold question: concerning the knowledge of divine things, and concerning the manifestation of them.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
Circa primum quaeruntur quattuor.
<ol>
<li>Primo. Utrum mens humana in cognitione veritatis nova illustratione divinae lucis indigeat.
<li>Secundo. Utrum possit ad Dei notitiam pervenire.
<li>Tertio. Utrum Deus sit primum quod a mente cognoscitur.
<li>Quarto. Utrum ad divinae Trinitatis cognitionem pervenire per se sufficiat.
</ol>
<td>
In regard to the first, four things are asked:
<ol>
<li>Whether the human mind in order to attain to a knowledge of truth requires a new illumination of divine light.
<li>Whether it can attain to an idea of God.
<li>Whether God is the first object known by the mind.
<li>Whether the human mind is capable of arriving at a knowledge of the divine Trinity by natural reason.
</ol>
</table>
<hr>
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 1<br>
Whether the Human Mind in Order to Attain to a Knowledge of Truth Requires a New Illumination of Divine Light</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mens humana in cognitione cuiuslibet veritatis indigeat nova illustratione divinae lucis. 2 Cor. 3: non sumus sufficientes cogitare et cetera. Sed perceptio veritatis non potest esse sine cogitatione. Ergo humana mens non potest veritatem aliquam cognoscere, nisi de novo illustretur a Deo.
<td>1. It seems that the human mind in attaining to any knowledge whatever requires a new illumination of divine light. “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor 3:5); but there can be no perception of truth of any kind whatever without thought; therefore the human mind cannot know any truth unless it is illuminated by a new light from God,
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, facilius est ab alio veritatem addiscere quam per se ipsum eam inspicere. Unde qui per se ipsos sciunt praeferuntur illis, qui ab aliis addiscere possunt, in I Ethicorum. Sed homo non potest ab aliis addiscere, nisi mens eius interius doceatur a Deo, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de magistro et Gregorius in homilia Pentecostes. Ergo nec per se ipsum potest aliquis veritatem inspicere, nisi de novo mens eius illustretur a Deo.
<td>2. It is easier to learn any truth from another than to discover it for oneself: wherefore, those who know things by their own efforts are preferred to those who are able to learn from other men, according to I Ethic.; but man is not able to learn from another unless his mind is interiorly taught by God, as Augustine says in his book, <i>De magistro</i>, and Gregory in <i>Hom. Pentec.</i>; therefore neither can anyone discover truth of himself unless his mind is illuminated by God with a new light.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut se habet oculus corporalis ad corpora intuenda, ita se habet intellectus ad intelligibilem veritatem conspiciendam, ut patet in III de anima. Sed oculus corporalis non potest videre corpora nisi illustratione solis materialis superveniente. Ergo nec intellectus humanus potest veritatem inspicere, nisi lumine solis invisibilis, qui est Deus, illustretur.
<td>3. As the eyes of the body are related to corporeal things which they behold, so is the intellect related to the intelligible truth which it perceives, as is evident in III <i>De anima</i>; but the bodily eye cannot see corporeal things unless it is illuminated by the material sun; therefore neither can the intellect behold the truth unless it is illuminated by the light of the invisible sun, which is God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, illi actus in nobis esse dicuntur, ad quos exercendos principia sufficientia in nobis habemus. Sed in nobis non est cognoscere veritatem, cum quandoque multi laborent ad veritatem cognoscendam, qui eam cognoscere nequeunt. Ergo non habemus sufficientia principia in nobis ad veritatem cognoscendam. Ergo oportet ad hoc, quod eam cognoscamus, ab exteriori nos iuvari, et sic idem quod prius.
<td>4. Those acts are said to be in us (as our own) for the exercise of which we possess within ourselves principles that are sufficient; but in us there is not the power to know truth altogether [or absolutely] for there are many who labor to learn the truth and who, nevertheless, are unable to do so; therefore we have not in us sufficient principles for knowing truth and so it must be that to arrive at knowledge of it we require aid from outside ourselves, and so the conclusion is like the foregoing.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, magis dependet operatio mentis humanae a luce divina quam operatio creaturae sensibilis inferioris a luce corporis caelestis. Sed corpora inferiora quamvis habeant formas quae sunt principia naturalium operationum, non tamen possunt operationes suas perficere, nisi lumine solis et stellarum superveniente iuvarentur. Unde dicit Dionysius 4 c. de divinis nominibus quod lumen solis ad generationem visibilium corporum confert et ad vitam ipsa movet et nutrit et auget. Ergo nec menti humanae sufficit ad videndam veritatem naturale lumen, quod est quasi forma ipsius, nisi lumen aliud superveniat, scilicet divinum.
<td>5. The operation of the human mind depends more upon the divine light than does the operation of sensible or inferior beings upon the light of the material heaven; but inferior bodies, although they have forms which are principles of their natural operations, are, nevertheless, incapable of perfecting these operations unless they are aided by the influence of the light of the stars; wherefore Dionysius (<i>De div. nom.</i>, chap. 4) says that the light of the sun contributes to the generation of visible bodies and that it moves them to life and nourishes them and causes them to grow; therefore its natural light, which is, as it were, its form, would not, suffice to make truth visible to the human mind unless another light, namely, the divine, supervened to assist it.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, in omnibus causis ordinatis per se et non secundum accidens effectus non procedit a causa secunda nisi per operationem causae primae, ut patet in libro de causis. Sed mens humana ordinatur sub luce increata ordine essentiali et non accidentali. Ergo operatio mentis quae est eius effectus proprius, scilicet cognitio veritatis, non potest provenire ex ea nisi operante prima luce increata. Eius autem operatio non videtur alia esse nisi illustratio. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>6. In all causes that are ordered to one another essentially, and not accidentally, no effect proceeds from a second cause unless through the operation of a first cause, as is established. in the first proposition of De causis; but the human mind is ordained beneath the uncreated light according to an order that is essential and not accidental; therefore the operation of the human mind which is its proper effect, namely, the cognition of truth, cannot proceed from it unless by reason of the operation of the first uncreated light: its operation, however, seems to indicate nothing other than illumination; therefore, etc.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut se habet voluntas ad bene volendum, ita se habet intellectus ad recte intelligendum. Sed voluntas non potest bene velle, nisi divina gratia adiuvetur, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo nec intellectus potest veritatem intelligere, nisi divina luce illustretur.
<td>7. As the will is related to willing well, so the intellect is related to right understanding: but the will cannot will well unless it is aided by divine grace, as Augustine says; therefore neither can the intellect know the truth unless illuminated by divine light.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, illud, ad quod vires nostrae sufficiunt, irreprehensibiliter nostris viribus ascribimus, sicut currere vel aedificare. Sed reprehensibile est quod aliquis scientiam veritatis suo ascribit ingenio, quin immo iubemur illam Deo ascribere, secundum illud Eccli. ult.: danti mihi sapientiam dabo gloriam. Ergo ad cognoscendam veritatem vires nostrae non sufficiunt. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>8. That for which our powers do not suffice is wrongly ascribed to our strength: but it is reprehensible that anyone should ascribe knowledge of the truth to his own ability, since indeed we are even commanded to ascribe it to God, according to this saying of Sirach 51:23: “To Him that gives me wisdom, will I give glory”; therefore our powers do not suffice for knowledge of truth, and so the conclusion is as before.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra, mens humana illustrata est divinitus lumine naturali, secundum illud Psalmi: signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine. Si ergo hoc lumen, quia creatum est, non sufficit ad veritatem conspiciendam, sed requirit novam illustrationem, pari ratione lumen superadditum non sufficiet, sed indigebit alio lumine, et sic in infinitum, quod numquam compleri potest, et sic impossibile erit cognoscere aliquam veritatem. Ergo oportet stare in primo lumine, ut scilicet mens lumine naturali sine aliquo superaddito possit veritatem videre.
<td><b>Sed contra.</b> The human mind is divinely illuminated by its natural light, according to the saying of Psalm 4:7: “The light of Your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.” Thus, therefore, if this created light is not sufficient for the knowing of truth, but there is required a new illumination, according to the same reasoning this superadded light would not suffice either, but would require still another light, and so on to infinity, which cannot be encompassed; and so it would be impossible to know any truth. Therefore one must stand firm in reliance upon the first light, namely, that the mind by its natural light, without the superaddition of any other, can see the truth.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut visibile in actu sufficiens est ad hoc quod moveat visum, ita intelligibile actu sufficit ad movendum intellectum, si sit proportionatum. Sed mens nostra habet in se unde possit facere intelligibile actu, scilicet intellectum agentem, et tale intelligibile est ei proportionatum. Ergo non indiget aliqua nova illustratione ad hoc quod mens veritatem cognoscat.
<td>Again, as it suffices for what is actually visible that it should he proportionate to the sight in order to move it, so it suffices for what is intelligible that it should be proportionate to the intellect in order to move it: but our mind possesses within itself the power of making things intelligible in act, namely, the active intellect, and what is intelligible is proportionate to it; therefore it does not require another new illumination in order to know truth.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut se habet lux corporalis ad visionem corporalem, ita se habet lux intellectualis ad visionem intellectus. Sed quaelibet lux corporalis quantumcumque sit parva facit aliquid videri corporaliter, ad minus se ipsam. Ergo et lux intelligibilis, quae est menti connaturalis, sufficit ad aliquam veritatem cognoscendam.
<td>Moreover, as corporeal light is related to bodily vision, so is the intellect related to intelligible vision. But any corporeal light at all, even though it is weak, renders something corporeally visible, at least itself; therefore, the light of the intellect also, which is connatural to the mind, suffices for the understanding of some truth.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omnia opera artificialia ex cognitione alicuius veritatis dependent, cum eorum principium sit scientia. Sed quaedam opera artificialia sunt, in quae potest liberum arbitrium per se ipsum secundum Augustinum, ut aedificare domos et huiusmodi. Ergo et in aliquam veritatem cognoscendam sufficit mens sine nova illustratione divina.
<td>Furthermore, all things that are artificially made depend upon the cognition of some truth since the principle of them is knowledge; but it is certain that products of art do exist in which, according to Augustine, the free will is able [to act] by itself, as in building houses and the like; therefore man is sufficiently capable of knowing some truth without a new divine illumination.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod haec est differentia inter virtutes activas et passivas quod passivae non possunt exire in actum propriae operationis, nisi moveantur a suis activis, sicut sensus non sentit, nisi moveatur a sensibili, sed virtutes activae possunt operari sine hoc quod ab alio moveantur, sicut patet in viribus animae vegetabilis. Sed in genere intellectus invenitur duplex potentia: activa, scilicet intellectus agens, et passiva, scilicet intellectus possibilis.
<td><b>Response.</b> It must be said that between potencies that are active and those that are passive there is this difference: passive potencies cannot enter on the act of their proper operation unless they are moved to do so by their own active agents, just as the senses experience no sensation unless moved by some sensible object; but active potencies are capable of operation without being moved by another, as is evident in the case of the potencies of the vegetative soul: but as regards the intellect, a twofold potency is found, an active potency, that is, the active intellect, and a passive potency, that is, the possible intellect.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quidam vero posuerunt quod solus intellectus possibilis erat potentia animae, intellectus vero agens erat quaedam substantia separata. Et haec est opinio Avicennae, secundum quam opinionem sequitur quod anima humana non possit in actum propriae operationis, quae est cognitio veritatis, exire, nisi exteriori lumine illustretur, illius scilicet substantiae separatae, quam dicit intellectum agentem.
<td>Now, there are certain philosophers who maintained that the possible intellect alone is a faculty of the soul, while the active intellect is a separate substance; and this is the opinion of Avicenna. According to this opinion, it follows that the human soul would not be capable of entering upon its proper operation, which is knowledge, unless illuminated by an exterior light, namely, by the light of that separate substance which they call the active intellect.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed quia verba philosophi in III de anima magis videntur sonare quod intellectus agens sit potentia animae et huic etiam auctoritas sacrae Scripturae consonat, quae lumine intelligibili nos insignitos esse profitetur, cui philosophus comparat intellectum agentem, ideo in anima ponitur respectu intelligibilis operationis, quae est cognitio veritatis, et potentia passiva et potentia activa. Unde sicut aliae potentiae activae naturales suis passivis coniunctae sufficiunt ad naturales operationes, ita etiam anima habens in se potentiam activam et passivam sufficit ad perceptionem veritatis.
<td>But because the words of the Philosopher (III <i>De anima</i>) seem to proclaim more convincingly that the active intellect is a potency belonging to the soul—and with this the authority of Scripture agrees, which declares that we are distinguished by that intellectual light to which the Philosopher compares the active intellect—therefore it is held that there is in the soul, fitting it for intelligible operation, that is, for undertaking the cognition of truth, a potency which is active and another which is passive. Wherefore, as some powers which are naturally active, when conjoined with those which are their passive complements, suffice for the carrying on of their natural operations, so also the soul of man, having in itself an active and a passive potency, is sufficient for perception of the truth.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Cum autem quaelibet virtus activa creata finita sit, est eius sufficientia ad determinatos effectus limitata. Unde in alios effectus non potest, nisi nova virtus addatur. Sic ergo sunt quaedam intelligibiles veritates, ad quas se extendit efficacia intellectus agentis, sicut principia quae naturaliter homo cognoscit et ea quae ab his deducuntur; et ad haec cognoscenda non requiritur nova lux intelligibilis, sed sufficit lumen naturaliter inditum.
<td>Since, however, the power of any created thing is but finite, its efficacy will be limited to certain determined effects. Consequently it cannot attain to certain other effects unless new power is added to it; but there are some intelligible truths to which the efficacy of the active intellect does extend, as, for example, those first principles which man naturally knows, and those truths which are deduced from them; and for such knowledge no new light of intelligence is required, but the light with which the mind is naturally endowed suffices.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quaedam vero sunt ad quae praedicta principia non se extendunt, sicut sunt ea quae sunt fidei, facultatem rationis excedentia, et futura contingentia et alia huiusmodi; et haec cognoscere mens humana non potest, nisi divinitus novo lumine illustretur superaddito lumini naturali.
<td>But there are other truths to which the aforesaid first principles do not extend; e.g., the truths of faith and things that exceed the faculty of reason, such as knowledge of future contingent events, and the like; and such things the human mind cannot know unless it is divinely illuminated by a new light, superadded to that which it naturally possesses.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quamvis autem non requiratur novi luminis additio ad cognitionem eorum ad quae ratio naturalis se extendit, requiritur tamen divina operatio. Praeter operationem enim qua Deus rerum instituit naturas, singulis formas et virtutes proprias tribuens, quibus possent suas operationes exercere, operatur etiam in rebus opera providentiae omnium rerum virtutes ad actus proprios dirigendo et movendo. Ita enim universa creatura divinae gubernationi subicitur, sicut instrumenta subduntur gubernationi artificis et qualitates naturales virtutibus animae nutritivae, ut dicitur in II de anima. Unde sicut ex calore naturali sequitur opus digestionis secundum regulam, quam imponit calori vis digestiva, et omnes virtutes inferiorum corporum operantur, secundum quod moventur et diriguntur ex virtutibus corporum caelestium, ita omnes virtutes activae creatae operantur, secundum quod moventur et diriguntur a creatore.
<td>For, although it does not require the addition of new light for knowledge of those things to which reason naturally extends, it does require divine operation: for over and above that operation by which God created the natures of things, giving to each its proper form and ability, by which they are able to exercise their proper operation. He also operates in things the works of Providence, directing and moving the capabilities of all things to their proper acts. For in this way the whole universe of creatures is subject to the divine governance, as instruments are subject to the direction of the workman and as natural qualities are subject to the power of the nutritive soul, as is said in II <i>De anima</i>. Therefore, as the work of digestion is accompanied by a natural heat, according to the measure which the digestive function imposes upon heat, and as all the inferior powers of the body operate according as they are directed and moved by virtue of the heavenly bodies, so all the active created powers are governed and moved by the Creator.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sic ergo in omni cognitione veritatis indiget mens humana divina operatione, sed in naturalibus cognoscendis non indiget nova luce, sed solo motu et directione eius, in aliis autem etiam nova illustratione. Et quia de talibus Boethius hic loquitur, ideo dicit: quantum divina lux et cetera.
<td>Thus, therefore, in all cognition of truth, the human mind requires the divine operation. In the realm of naturally known truths, however, it requires no new light, but only the divine motion and direction; for the knowledge of other (supernatural) truths it needs also a new illumination. And because it is of such things that Boethius speaks, he says: “To the extent that the divine light has deigned to enkindle the feeble spark of my mind.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections.</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quamvis nihil simus sufficientes cogitare ex nobis sine Dei operatione, non tamen oportet quod in qualibet nostra cognitione novum lumen nobis infundatur.
<td>1. Although we are in no way sufficient of ourselves, as from ourselves, to know anything without the operation of God, yet it is not necessary that for every operation of ours a new light should be given to us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod secundum hoc Deus nos interius docet in naturalibus cognitis, quod lumen naturale in nobis causat et ipsum dirigit in veritatem, in aliis vero etiam novum lumen infundendo.
<td>2. In matters of natural cognition God teaches us interiorly in this way: that He is the cause of the natural light which is in us, and He directs it to the truth; but in other (supernatural) matters He further teaches us by the infusion of a new light.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod oculus corporalis ex illustratione solis materialis non consequitur lumen aliquod sibi connaturale, per quod possit facere visibilia in actu, sicut consequitur mens nostra ex illustratione solis increati. Et ideo oculus semper indiget exteriori lumine, non autem mens.
<td>3. The eye of the body, when illuminated by the light of the material sun, does not respond to a light which is in any way natural (i.e., intrinsic) to itself, by means of which it makes things to be actually visible; even as is the case with the mind when it is illuminated by the uncreated Light; and therefore the eye always requires an exterior light, but not the mind.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod lumen intelligibile, ubi est purum sicut in Angelis, sine difficultate omnia cognita naturaliter demonstrat, ita quod in eis est omnia naturalia cognoscere. In nobis autem lumen intelligibile est obumbratum per coniunctionem ad corpus et ad vires corporeas, et ex hoc impeditur, ut non libere possit veritatem etiam naturaliter cognoscibilem inspicere, secundum illud Sap. 10: corpus quod corrumpitur et cetera. Et exinde est quod non est omnino in nobis veritatem cognoscere, scilicet propter impedimenta. Sed unusquisque magis vel minus habet hoc in potestate, secundum quod lumen intelligibile est in ipso purius.
<td>4. Where there is pure light of intellect, as in the angels, it makes evident without difficulty all things known in the natural order, so that in them there is cognition of all objects naturally intelligible to them: in us, however, this light is obscure, being overshadowed as it were by reason of conjunction with the body and with corporeal powers, and on this account it ii hindered so that it cannot freely and naturally behold that truth which is itself knowable, as is said in the Book of Wisdom (9:15): “For the corruptible body is a load upon the soul; and the earthly habitation presses down the mind that muses upon many things.” From this it follows that on account of the impediment (of the body) it is not in our power to know truth altogether in its fullness. But each one possesses more or less the power to know in proportion to the purity of the intellectual light which is in him.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod corpora inferiora, quamvis indigeant ad hoc quod operentur ut moveantur a corporibus caelestibus, non tamen indigent ad proprias operationes efficiendas quod novas formas ab eis recipiant. Et similiter non oportet quod mens humana, quae movetur a Deo ad cognoscendum naturaliter cognita, nova luce perfundatur.
<td>5. Although inferior bodies have need of superior bodies for their operation, to the extent that they must be moved by them; nevertheless, for the perfect accomplishment of their proper functions, they do not need to receive from these superior bodies any new forms, And in like manner it is not necessary that the human mind, which is moved by God, should be endowed with any new light in order to understand those things which are within its natural field of knowledge.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus VIII super Genesim, sicut aer illuminatur a lumine praesente, quod si fuerit absens continuo tenebratur, ita et mens illuminatur a Deo. Et ideo etiam lumen naturale in anima semper Deus causat, non aliud et aliud, sed idem; non enim est causa fieri eius solum, sed etiam esse illius. In hoc ergo continue Deus operatur in mente, quod in ipsa lumen naturale causat et ipsum dirigit, et sic mens non sine operatione causae primae in operationem suam procedit.
<td>6. As Augustine says (VIII <i>Super Gen. ad litteram</i>), as the air is illuminated by the presence of light, but straightway grows dark if the light should be removed, so the mind is illuminated by God, and so also it is God who continually causes the natural light in the soul, not one kind now and another kind at another time, but the same (natural light); for He is the cause not only of its coming to be, but of its continued existence in us. In this way, therefore, God continually operates in the mind since He causes and governs the natural light in it, and thus the mind does not carry on its own function without the operation of the First Cause.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad septimum dicendum quod voluntas numquam potest bene velle sine divino instinctu, potest autem bene velle sine gratiae infusione, sed non meritorie. Et similiter intellectus non potest sine divino motu veritatem quamcumque cognoscere, potest autem sine novi luminis infusione, quamvis non ea quae naturalem cognitionem excedunt.
<td>7. The will never can will the good without divine incitement: nevertheless it can will the good without infusion of grace, though not meritoriously. And likewise the intellect, without divine influence, is incapable of knowing any truth whatever; it can, however, know without infusion of new light, though not those truths which exceed natural cognition.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad octavum dicendum quod eo ipso quod Deus in nobis lumen naturale conservando causat et ipsum dirigit ad videndum, manifestum est quod perceptio veritatis praecipue sibi debet ascribi, sicut operatio artis magis attribuitur artifici quam serrae.
<td>8. From the very fact that God causes the natural light in us by conserving it and directing it to seeing, it is manifest that perception of the truth must be ascribed principally to Him, just as the producing of a work of art is ascribed to the artist rather than to the thing produced.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="12" id="12">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 2<br>
Whether the Human Mind Can Arrive at an Idea of God</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Articulus 2
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus nullo modo possit cognosci a nobis. Illud enim, quod in summo gradu nostrae cognitionis nobis ignotum remanet, nullo modo est a nobis cognoscibile. Sed in perfectissimo gradu nostrae cognitionis Deo non coniungimur nisi quasi ignoto, ut dicit Dionysius 1 c. mysticae theologiae. Ergo Deus nullo modo est a nobis cognoscibilis.
<td>1. It seems that in no way can God be known by us. For that which in the highest degree of our knowledge remains unknown to us, in no manner is knowable: but in the most perfect degree of our cognition we are not united with God, except as with One who is, as it were, unknown, as Dionysius says (<i>Theologia mystica</i>, chap. 1); therefore God is in no way knowable by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omne quod cognoscitur per aliquam formam cognoscitur. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, Deus omnem formam nostri intellectus subterfugit. Ergo nullo modo est a nobis cognoscibilis.
<td>2. Anything that is known is known through some other form; but, as Augustine says, God escapes (by transcending) every form of our intellect; therefore in no way is He knowable by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, cognoscentis et cognoscibilis oportet esse aliquam proportionem, sicut et potentiae cuiuslibet ad suum obiectum. Sed inter intellectum nostrum et Deum nulla potest esse proportio, sicut nec inter finitum et infinitum. Ergo intellectus nullo modo potest Deum cognoscere.
<td>3. Between the knower and the thing known must be some kind of proportion, as in the case of any potency and its object; but between our intellect and God there can be no proportion, as there can be none between the infinite and the finite; therefore our intellect can in no way know God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, cum potentia et actus reducantur in idem genus, utpote quae dividunt omnia genera entis, nulla potentia potest in actum, qui est extra genus suum, sicut sensus non potest cognoscere substantiam intelligibilem. Sed Deus est extra omne genus. Ergo non potest aliquo intellectu cognosci qui sit in aliquo genere. Sed noster intellectus est huiusmodi. Ergo et cetera.
<td>4. Since potency and act are reduced to the same genus, inasmuch as they divide all classes of being, no potency can be in act which is outside its own genus: just as the senses are incapable of knowing intelligible substance; but God is outside every genus; therefore He cannot be known by any intellect that is in a genus; but our intellect is of this kind; therefore, etc.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, remoto primo necesse est omnia consequentia removeri. Sed primum intelligibile est quiditas rei; unde quod quid est dicitur esse obiectum proprium intellectus in III de anima, et quid est est medium demonstrandi an est et omnes alias rei condiciones. Sed de Deo non possumus scire quid est, ut Damascenus dicit. Ergo nihil de illo possumus cognoscere.
<td>5. If that which stands first is done away with, everything consequent upon it is likewise put aside: but what is first intelligible about a thing is its quiddity; hence that which a thing is, is said to be the proper object of the intellect (III <i>De anima</i>); and what is serves as a medium of demonstrating whether it exists, and all the other conditions of the thing. But concerning God, we are unable to know what He is, as Damascene says. Therefore, we can know nothing of God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. 1: invisibilia Dei et cetera.
<td>But on the contrary is the saying of Rom. 1:20: “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: His eternal power also and divinity.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Ier. 10: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur scire et nosse me. Sed hoc esset inanis gloria, nisi eum cognoscere possemus. Ergo Deum cognoscere possumus.
<td>According to Jer. 9:24: “But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me”; but this would be empty glory unless we were able to know Him; therefore we can know God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, nihil diligitur nisi cognitum, ut patet per Augustinum in libro de Trinitate. Sed Deum diligere iubemur. Ergo eum cognoscere possumus; non enim nobis praecipitur impossibile.
<td>Nothing is loved unless it is known, as is evident from Augustine (II <i>De Trinitate</i>); but we are commanded to love God; therefore we are capable of knowing Him, since the impossible is not enjoined by precept.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod dupliciter aliqua res cognoscitur. Uno modo per formam propriam, sicut oculus videt lapidem per speciem lapidis. Alio modo per formam alterius similem sibi, sicut cognoscitur causa per similitudinem effectus et homo per formam suae imaginis.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer: It must be said that there is a twofold way in which anything is known. One manner is through its proper form, as the eye sees a stone through the species of the stone. Another way is through some other form similar to it, as a cause is known through the similitude of its effect, just as man is known through the form of his image.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Per formam autem suam aliquid dupliciter videtur. Uno modo per formam quae est ipsa res, sicut Deus se cognoscit per essentiam suam et etiam Angelus se ipsum. Alio modo per formam quae est ab ipso, sive sit abstracta ab ipso, quando scilicet forma immaterialior est quam res, sicut forma lapidis abstrahitur a lapide; sive sit impressa intelligenti ab eo, utpote quando res est simplicior quam similitudo per quam cognoscitur, sicut Avicenna dicit quod intelligentias cognoscimus per impressiones earum in nobis.
<td>Moreover, through its own form a thing is also known in two ways. One way is the following: when knowledge is through the form which is the thing itself, as with God who eternally knows His own essence, and as an angel knows itself. According to another mode, knowledge is through a form which is other than the thing: either when the form has been abstracted from a thing—in which case the form is more immaterial than the thing itself, as is the form of a stone abstracted from the stone itself— or when the form is impressed on the intellect by a thing, as occurs when the thing is more immaterial than the similitude by which it is known; thus, as Avicenna says, we know intellectual beings through their impression in us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quia igitur intellectus noster secundum statum viae habet determinatam habitudinem ad formas, quae a sensu abstrahuntur, cum comparetur ad phantasmata sicut visus ad colores, ut dicitur in III de anima, non potest ipsum Deum cognoscere in hoc statu per formam quae est essentia sua, sed sic cognoscetur in patria a beatis.
<td>Therefore, since our intellect has, in our present state of wayfaring, a determined relation to forms abstracted from sensible things (since it is dependent upon phantasms in the same way as sight is upon colors, as is said in III <i>De anima</i>), it cannot know God in this life through that form which is His essence; though it is in this way that He is known by the blessed in heaven.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Similitudo etiam quaecumque impressa ab ipso in intellectum humanum non sufficeret ad hoc quod faceret eius essentiam cognosci, cum in infinitum excedat quamlibet formam creatam, ratione cuius intellectui per formas creatas pervius non potest esse Deus, ut Augustinus dicit. Nec etiam in statu huius viae cognoscitur Deus a nobis per formas pure intelligibiles, quae sint aliqua similitudo ipsius propter connaturalitatem intellectus nostri ad phantasmata, ut dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod solummodo per effectus formam cognoscatur.
<td>No similitude, however, of whatever kind impressed by Him upon the human intellect, would suffice to make His essence known, since He infinitely transcends every created form; consequently God cannot be made accessible to the mind through created forms, as Augustine says. Nor, in this present state, can God become known to us even through the species of things which are purely intelligible, which have in a certain way a likeness to Him, because our intellect is connaturally related to phantasms, as has been said. Therefore it remains certain that it is only through the forms of His effects that He is known.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Effectus autem est duplex: quidam, qui adaequatur virtuti suae causae, et per talem effectum cognoscitur plenarie virtus causae, et per consequens quiditas ipsius; alius effectus est, qui deficit a praedicta aequalitate, et per talem effectum non potest comprehendi virtus agentis et per consequens nec essentia eius; sed cognoscitur tantum de causa quod est. Et sic se habet cognitio effectus ut principium ad cognoscendum de causa an est, sicut se habet quiditas ipsius causae, cum per suam formam cognoscitur. Hoc autem modo se habet omnis effectus ad Deum. Et ideo non possumus in statu viae pertingere ad cognoscendum de ipso nisi quia est.
<td>There are, moreover, two kinds of effects: those which adequate the power of a cause, and through such an effect the power of a cause is fully known, and consequently the essence of the cause; and another kind of effect which is not completely equal to its cause. Through this latter kind of effect it is not possible to comprehend the power of the agent, and consequently not its essence either; but regarding the cause it can be known only that it exists. Thus the knowledge of an effect stands as a principle whereby the existence of its cause is known, just as does the quiddity of the cause when it is known through its own form. Now, it is according to this second mode that every effect stands in relation to God; and hence we are not able in this life to attain to any knowledge of Him, except that He is.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et tamen unus cognoscentium quia est alio perfectius cognoscit, quia causa tanto ex effectu perfectius cognoscitur, quanto per effectum magis apprehenditur habitudo causae ad effectum.
<td>Nevertheless, of those knowing that He is, one will know Him more perfectly than another, because a cause is more perfectly understood from its effect the more perfectly the relation of the cause to its effect is apprehended.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Quae quidem habitudo in effectu non pertingente ad aequalitatem suae causae attenditur secundum tria, scilicet secundum progressionem effectus a causa et secundum hoc quod effectus consequitur de similitudine suae causae et secundum hoc quod deficit ab eius perfecta consecutione. Et sic tripliciter mens humana proficit in cognitione Dei, quamvis ad cognoscendum quid est non pertingat, sed an est solum.
<td>And in this relation of an effect not reaching in equality to its cause, three things are noted: namely, the progression of the effect from its cause; secondly, the consequent similitude of the effect to its cause; and thirdly, the failure on the part of the effect to attain to a perfect likeness of its cause. Thus the human mind grows in the knowledge of God, even though it cannot attain to a knowledge of what He is, but only to a knowledge that He is, in three ways.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo, secundum quod perfectius cognoscitur eius efficacia in producendo res. Secundo, prout nobiliorum effectuum causa cognoscitur, qui cum eius similitudinem aliquam gerant, magis eminentiam eius commendant. Tertio in hoc quod magis ac magis cognoscitur elongatus ab omnibus his, quae in effectibus apparent.
<td>Thus, in the first place, God is known as His productiveness and efficacy are more perfectly known. Secondly inasmuch as He is known as the Cause of the nobler of His effects, since those creatures which display being of a higher mode in their resemblance to Him manifest His eminence more than others. In the third place, He is better recognized as differentiated from all those things which appear in His effects.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde dicit Dionysius in libro de divinis nominibus quod cognoscitur ex omnium causa et excessu et ablatione.
<td>Hence, in <i>De divinis nominibus</i>, Dionysius says that God is known inasmuch as He is the cause of all things, by His transcending eminence in comparison to all things, and by denial (of all created imperfection).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>In hoc autem profectu cognitionis maxime iuvatur mens humana, cum lumen eius naturale nova illustratione confortatur; sicut est lumen fidei et doni sapientiae et intellectus, per quod mens in contemplatione supra se elevari dicitur, in quantum cognoscit Deum esse supra omne id, quod naturaliter comprehendit. Sed quia ad eius essentiam videndam penetrare non sufficit, dicitur in se ipsam quodammodo ab excellenti lumine reflecti, et hoc est quod dicitur Gen. 32 super illud: vidi dominum facie ad faciem, in Glossa Gregorii: visus animae, cum in Deum intenditur, immensitatis coruscatione reverberatur.
<td>Moreover, in the attempt to arrive at some knowledge of God, the human mind is greatly assisted when its natural light is fortified by a new illumination: namely, the light of faith and that of the gifts of wisdom and of understanding, by which the mind is elevated above itself in contemplation, inasmuch as it knows God to be above anything which it naturally apprehends. But because even this new light does not suffice to penetrate to a vision of His essence, it is said to be, in a certain way, turned back upon itself by His excellent light; and this is what is said in Gregory’s gloss regarding the statement in Gen. 32:30 (“I have seen God face to face”): “When the vision of the soul is directed to God, it is reflected back upon itself, overwhelmed by the brilliance of His immensity.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundum hoc dicimur in fine nostrae cognitionis Deum tamquam ignotum cognoscere, quia tunc maxime mens in cognitione profecisse invenitur, quando cognoscit eius essentiam esse supra omne quod apprehendere potest in statu viae, et sic quamvis maneat ignotum quid est, scitur tamen quia est.
<td>1. It is answered: God as an unknown is said to be the terminus of our knowledge in the following respect: that the mind is found to be most perfectly in possession of knowledge of God when it is recognized that His essence is above everything that the mind is capable of apprehending in this life; and thus, although what He is remains unknown, yet it is known that He is.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod ex hoc quod Deus omnem formam intellectus subterfugit, apparet quod non potest cognosci quid est, sed solum an est, ut dictum est.
<td>2. It may be said: From the fact that the divine essence escapes any form of our intellect, evidently it is not possible to know what He is, but only that He exists.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod proportio nihil aliud est quam quaedam habitudo duorum ad invicem convenientium in aliquo, secundum hoc quod conveniunt aut differunt. Possunt autem intelligi esse convenientia dupliciter.
<td>3. It is answered: Proportion is nothing other than the mutual relation of two things associated by something in respect to which they either agree or differ. Now, agreement may be of two kinds.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Uno modo ex hoc quod conveniunt in eodem genere quantitatis aut qualitatis, sicut habitudo superficiei ad superficiem aut numeri ad numerum, in quantum unum excedit aliud aut aequatur ei, vel etiam caloris ad calorem, et sic nullo modo potest esse proportio inter Deum et creaturam, cum non conveniant in aliquo genere.
<td>In one way, things may be associated as belonging to the same genus of quantity or quality, as is the relation of one surface to another or of one number to another inasmuch as one excels the other or is equal to it, or even as heat is related to heat; and according to this mode of relation there is no possible proportion between God and creature, since there is no agreement in any genus.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Alio modo possunt intelligi convenientia ita quod conveniant in aliquo ordine, et sic attenditur proportio inter materiam et formam, faciens et factum et alia huiusmodi, et talis proportio requiritur inter potentiam cognoscentem et cognoscibile, cum cognoscibile sit quasi actus potentiae cognoscentis. Et sic etiam est proportio creaturae ad Deum ut causati ad causam et cognoscentis ad cognoscibile, sed propter infinitum excessum creatoris super creaturam non est proportio creaturae ad creatorem, ut recipiat influentiam ipsius secundum totam virtutem eius, neque ut ipsum perfecte cognoscat, sicut ipse se ipsum perfecte cognoscit.
<td>In another way beings are said to be related when they are associated in a certain order; and in this way there is proportion between matter and form, between the maker and the thing made. This also is the kind of proportion required between knower and knowable, since what is knowable is, in a certain way, the act of the knowing power. Such, too, is the proportion of a creature to God: that of caused to its cause, and of knower to the knowable; but according as the excellence of the Creator transcends the creature, there is no proportion of the creature to the Creator which makes it possible to receive from Him an influx proportionate to His complete power, or to know Him perfectly, even as He perfectly knows Himself.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod intellectus et intelligibile sunt unius generis, sicut potentia et actus. Deus autem, quamvis non sit in genere intelligibilium, quasi sub genere comprehensum, utpote generis naturam participans, pertinet tamen ad hoc genus ut principium. Eius etiam effectus non sunt extra genus intelligibilium, unde et hic per effectus et in patria per essentiam cognosci potest. Praeterea, intelligibile videtur magis dici per remotionem quam per positionem. Ex hoc enim est unumquodque intelligibile quod est a materia immune vel separatum. Negationes autem in divinis verificantur, quamvis affirmationes sint incompactae, ut Dionysius dicit 2 c. caelestis hierarchiae.
<td>4. It may be said: The intellect and the intelligible object are of one genus, as potency and act. God, however, although not in the genus of intelligible things, as if comprehended under a genus participating in its nature, nevertheless is related to this genus as its principle. For His effects are not outside every genus of intelligible beings; wherefore even here, He can be known through His effects, and in heaven, through His essence. Moreover, a thing seems to be called “intelligible” more by negation than by, affirmation; for a thing is said to be intelligible inasmuch as it is either immune from matter or separated from it. Hence, negations may be stated in regard to divine things with truth; though affirmations are inadequate in expressing agreement, as Dionysius says (<i>Coel. hier.</i>, chap. 2).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod quando aliquid non cognoscitur per formam suam, sed per effectum suum, forma effectus supplet locum formae ipsius rei; nam ex ipso effectu scitur an causa sit.
<td>
5. It may be answered: When a thing is known, not through its own form, but through an effect, the form of that effect takes the place of the form of the thing itself, and therefore from the effect it is possible to know whether the cause exists.
<hr>
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="13" id="13">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 3<br>
Whether God Is the First Object Known by the Mind</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod primum, quod a mente cognoscitur, sit Deus. Illud enim, in quo omnia alia cognoscuntur et per quod de omnibus quae cognoscimus iudicamus, est primo cognitum a nobis, sicut lux est primo nota oculo quam ea, quae per lucem videntur, et principia intellectui prius quam conclusiones. Sed omnia in prima veritate cognoscuntur et per ipsam de omnibus iudicamus, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de Trinitate et de vera religione. Ergo prima veritas, scilicet Deus, est id quod primo a nobis cognoscitur.
<td>1. It seems that the first object known or perceived by the mind must be God Himself. For, that in which all other things are known and through which we form judgments of what we know from all other things, is the first thing known by us, just as light is known by the eye prior to what is seen by the light; and as principles are understood before conclusions: but all things are known in the First Truth, and through that Truth we judge of all things, as Augustine says in <i>De Trinitate</i> and in <i>De vera religione</i>; therefore the First Truth is first known by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, quando sunt plures causae ordinatae, prima causa prius influit in causatum quam causa secunda et ultimo dimittit ipsum, ut habetur in libro de causis. Sed cum scientia humana sit causata a rebus, scibile vel intelligibile est menti humanae causa intelligendi. Ergo primum intelligibilium primo influet in ipsam. Sed influxus intelligibilis in intellectum, in quantum huiusmodi, est ut intelligatur. Ergo Deus, qui est primum intelligibilium, ab intellectu nostro primo intelligitur.
<td>2. When there are many ordered causes, the influx of the first cause into the thing caused is prior to that of the second cause, and it is the last to leave the effect, as is said in Liber de causis: but since human knowledge is caused by things, the knowable or the intelligible is the cause of the mind’s intellection; therefore the first intelligible is the first to influence it: but the influence of the intelligible on the mind, as such ‘ is that it be understood; therefore God is the first object known by our intellect, since He is the first intelligible.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, in omni cognitione, in qua ea quae sunt priora et simpliciora primo cognoscuntur, id, quod est primum et simplicissimum, primo cognoscitur. Sed in cognitione humana ea, quae prius occurrunt, sunt priora et simpliciora, ut videtur, quia ens est illud quod primo cadit in cognitione humana, ut Avicenna dicit; esse autem est primum inter creata. Ergo cognitioni humanae primo occurrit Deus, qui est simpliciter primum et simplicissimum.
<td>3. In all cognition, in which those things that are prior and simpler are first known, what is first and simplest is known first: but in human cognition. those things that are first experienced are things prior to others and simpler, as is evident, since being is that of which first the human mind forms a concept, as Avicenna says; being, moreover, is first among created things; therefore also, God first comes to the knowledge of the human mind, since He is absolutely first and most simple being.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, finis, qui est ultimus consecutione, est primus in intentione. Sed Deus est ultimus finis humanae voluntatis, ad quem omnes alii fines ordinantur. Ergo est primus in intentione. Sed hoc non potest esse, nisi sit cognitus. Ergo illud quod primo occurrit cognoscendum est Deus.
<td>4. That end which is the last in attainment is the first in intention: but God is the last end of the human will, to whom all other ends are ordained; and He is, therefore, the first in intention. But this could not be unless He were known; therefore God must be the first object of knowledge.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, illud, quod non indiget aliqua praecedenti operatione ad hoc quod circa ipsum sit operatio alicuius operantis, prius cadit sub operatione illius operantis quam hoc quod indiget aliqua operatione alia, sicut lignum iam dolatum prius cadit sub operatione facientis scamnum quam lignum adhuc dolandum. Sed res sensibiles indigent quod abstrahantur a materia per intellectum agentem, antequam intelligantur ab intellectu possibili. Deus autem per se ipsum est maxime a materia separatus. Ergo ipse prius intelligitur ab intellectu possibili quam res sensibiles.
<td>5. That which requires no preliminary preparation in order to be fitted to the need of the workman is the first chosen for his task, rather than that which needs some labor in order to be made ready, just as one making a bench selects wood already cut rather than uncut wood: but sensible things need to be abstracted from matter by the active intellect before they can be understood by the possible intellect. God, on the other hand, is by His very nature altogether separate from matter: therefore He is understood by the possible intellect prior to sensible things.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, naturaliter cognita et quae non possunt intelligi non esse sunt illa quae primo nostrae cognitioni occurrunt. Sed cognitio exsistendi Deum naturaliter est omnibus inserta, ut dicit Damascenus. Nec potest Deus cogitari non esse, ut dicit Anselmus. Ergo Deus est primum quod a nobis cognoscitur.
<td>6. Those things that are naturally known, and that cannot be thought of as non-existing, are what first occur to our cognition: but an idea of the existence of God is naturally implanted in all minds, as Damascene says. Neither is it possible to think of God as non-existent, as Anselm states; therefore God is the first being known by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra, secundum philosophum omnis nostra cognitio a sensu ortum habet. Sed Deus est maxime remotus a sensu. Ergo ipse non est a nobis primo, sed ultimo cognitus.
<td>On the contrary, according to the Philosopher, everything known by us takes its origin from sense knowledge: but God is absolutely remote from sense experience; therefore He is not first known by us, but is known last.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, secundum philosophum ea, quae sunt posteriora secundum naturam, sunt priora quoad nos, et minus nota secundum naturam sunt magis nota quoad nos. Sed creaturae sunt posteriores et minus notae secundum naturam quam ipse Deus. Ergo Deus est posterius notus quoad nos.
<td>Again, according to the Philosopher, those things that are posterior, according to nature, are first known as far as we are concerned; and those things which are less knowable in themselves are better known as far as we are concerned. But created things are posterior and less knowable by nature than is God Himself; therefore, by us, He is known after creatures.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, illud quod promittitur ut ultimum praemium non est primum quod praecedit omnia merita. Sed cognitio Dei promittitur nobis ut ultimum praemium omnis cognitionis et actionis. Ergo Deus non est primo a nobis cognitus.
<td>Again, what is promised as an ultimate reward does not come first, preceding everything done to deserve it: but knowledge of God is promised to us as the ultimate reward of all cognition and action; therefore God is not the first object known by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod primum, quod a mente humana cognoscitur etiam in hac vita, est ipse Deus qui est veritas prima, et per hoc omnia alia cognoscuntur. Sed hoc apparet esse falsum, quia cognoscere Deum per essentiam est hominis beatitudo, unde sequeretur omnem hominem beatum esse.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that it must be said: There are those who declare that the first object known by the human mind even in this life is God Himself, who is first truth and the one through whom all other things are known. But this is evidently false, since to know God through His essence constitutes the beatitude of man; wherefore it would follow that every man would be blessed.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et praeterea, cum in divina essentia omnia quae dicuntur de ipsa sint unum, nullus erraret circa ea, quae de Deo dicuntur, quod experimento patet esse falsum. Et iterum ea, quae sunt primo in cognitione intellectus, oportet esse certissima, unde intellectus certus est se ea intelligere, quod patet in proposito non esse.
<td>Moreover, since in the divine essence all things said of it are one, no one would err in regard to anything he said concerning God—a thing which from experience is evidently false; furthermore, since things first in the comprehension of the intellect ought to be most certainly known, the intellect would be certain that it knew them; but it is clear that this is not the case in the proposition (as to knowing God).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Repugnat etiam haec positio auctoritati Scripturae quae dicit Exodi 3: non videbit me homo et vivet.
<td>This position is also repugnant to the authority of Scripture (Exod. 33:20): “Man shall not see Me and live.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde alii dixerunt quod essentia divina non est primo cognitum a nobis in via, sed influentia lucis ipsius, et secundum hoc Deus est primum quod a nobis cognoscitur.
<td>Hence there are others who say that the divine essence is not the first thing known by us in this life, but the influx of its light is, and in this way God is the first object known by us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed hoc etiam stare non potest, quia prima lux divinitus influxa in mente est lux naturalis per quam constituitur vis intellectiva. Haec autem lux non est primo cognita a mente neque cognitione qua sciatur de ea quid est, cum multa inquisitione indigeat ad cognoscendum quid est intellectus; neque cognitione qua cognoscitur an est, quia intellectum nos habere non percipimus, nisi in quantum percipimus nos intelligere, ut patet per philosophum in IX Ethicorum. Nullus autem intelligit se intelligere, nisi in quantum intelligit aliquod intelligibile. Ex quo patet quod cognitio alicuius intelligibilis praecedit cognitionem qua aliquis cognoscit se intelligere et per consequens cognitionem qua aliquis cognoscit se habere intellectum, et sic influentia lucis intelligibilis naturalis non potest esse primum cognitum a nobis, et multo minus quaelibet alia influentia lucis.
<td>But this claim cannot be held; for the first influx of divine light in the mind is the natural light by which the power of intellectual life is constituted. This light, however, is not at first known by the mind; neither by cognition by which is known what this light is, since much investigation is required to know the essence of the intellect; nor by cognition by which is known whether such a light exists; for we do not perceive that we possess intellect, except inasmuch as we perceive that we understand, as is clear from the Philosopher’s words in IX <i>Ethic</i>. For no one knows that he understands anything, save inasmuch as he understands something intelligible. From this it is evident that cognition of an intelligible object-precedes cognition by which one knows that he himself understands, and consequently precedes the cognition by which he knows that he possesses an intellect; and so the influx of the natural light of intelligence cannot be the first thing known by us; and much less can any other kind of influx of light be the first thing known.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et ideo dicendum est quod primo cognitum homini potest accipi dupliciter: aut secundum ordinem diversarum potentiarum aut secundum ordinem obiectorum in una potentia.
<td>Therefore it must be said that “the first thing known to man” is a phrase which can be understood in two ways: either according to the order of diverse potencies, or according to the order of objects in some one potency.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo quidem modo, cum cognitio intellectus nostri tota derivetur a sensu, illud, quod est cognoscibile a sensu, est prius notum nobis quam illud, quod est cognoscibile ab intellectu, scilicet singulare vel sensibile intelligibili.
<td>According to the first way, since all the knowledge of our intellect is derived from sense experience, what is made known to us by our senses is known prior to what is known by the intellect; and this is the singular, or the sensible-intelligible.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Alio modo, scilicet secundum alium modum cuilibet potentiae est cognoscibile primo suum proprium obiectum. Cum autem in intellectu humano sit potentia activa et passiva, obiectum potentiae passivae, scilicet intellectus possibilis, erit illud, quod est actum per potentiam activam, scilicet intellectum agentem, quia potentiae passivae debet respondere proprium activum.
<td>According to the other meaning, that is, according to the order of objects in any one potency, the proper object of each potency is what is first knowable by it. Since, however, in the human intellect there is an active potency and a passive one, the object of the passive potency, namely, the possible intellect, will be that which is in act through the active potency, that is, through the active intellect, since to the passive potency there must correspond that which activates it.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Intellectus autem agens non facit intelligibilia formas separatas quae sunt ex se ipsis intelligibiles, sed formas quas abstrahit a phantasmatibus, et ideo huiusmodi sunt, quae primo intellectus noster intelligit. Et inter haec illa sunt priora, quae primo intellectui abstrahenti occurrunt. Haec autem sunt quae plura comprehendunt vel per modum totius universalis vel per modum totius integralis, et ideo magis universalia sunt primo nota intellectui et composita componentibus, ut diffinitum partibus diffinitionis.
<td>The active intellect, however, does not render intelligible separate forms, which are of themselves intelligible, but those forms which it abstracts from phantasms; and hence forms of this latter kind are those which our intellect knows. And among these forms, the ones that first come to be abstracted by the intellect hold the place of priority. These, furthermore, are the forms that comprehend more notes—either after the manner of a total universal or after the manner of an integral whole—therefore the more universal things are first known to the intellect; a composite is known before its component parts, and a definition before the parts of the definition.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et secundum quod quaedam imitatio intellectus est in sensu, qui etiam quodammodo abstracta a materia recipit, etiam apud sensum singularia magis communia sunt primo nota, ut hoc corpus quam hoc animal.
<td>In this respect there is a certain imitation of the intellect found in the sense powers, which also receive as their objects things which in a certain way are abstracted from matter. For even in the case of the senses, singular things of a more general nature are the first known, as “this body” is known sooner than “this animal.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Unde patet quod Deus et aliae substantiae separatae nullo modo possunt esse prima intellecta, sed intelliguntur ex aliis, ut dicitur Rom. 1: invisibilia et cetera.
<td>Thus it is evident that God and other separate substances cannot in any way be the first objects of our intellection, but are understood from other things, as is said in Rom. 1:20: “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex verbis illis Augustini et similibus non est intelligendum quod ipsa veritas increata sit proximum principium, quo cognoscimus et iudicamus, sed quia per lumen, quod est eius similitudo, nobis inditum cognoscimus et iudicamus. Nec hoc lumen habet aliquam efficaciam nisi ex prima luce; sicut in demonstrationibus secunda principia non certificant nisi ex virtute primorum. Nec tamen oportet quod etiam ipsum lumen inditum sit primo a nobis cognitum. Non enim eo alia cognoscimus sicut cognoscibili quod sit medium cognitionis, sed sicut eo quod facit alia esse cognoscibilia. Unde non oportet quod cognoscatur nisi in ipsis cognoscibilibus, sicut lux non oportet quod primo videatur ab oculo nisi in ipso colore illustrato.
<td>1. It may be said: From the words of Augustine and from other similar sayings, it is not to be understood that the uncreated truth itself is the proximate principle by which we know and judge of things, but that through the light conferred upon us, which is a similitude of that truth, we have cognition and judgment. Nor would this light have any efficacy except from the First Light: just as in methods of demonstration second principles would have no certitude unless founded upon the truth of first principles. Nevertheless it should not be thought that even this (natural) light is the first thing known by us. For we do not know other things by means of it, as if it were a medium for cognition of the knowable, but because (as agent) it makes other things knowable. Wherefore it could not itself be known unless it were contained among knowable things; even as light could not be seen by the eye unless manifested in color itself.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod non omnium causarum ordinatarum est influentia unius rationis in ultimum effectum. Unde non oportet quod primum intelligibile hoc modo influat in intellectum nostrum quod intelligatur, sed quod praestet intelligendi virtutem. Vel dicendum quod quamvis Deus sit in ordine intelligibilium primum simpliciter, non tamen est primum in ordine intelligibilium nobis.
<td>2. It may be answered: In the case of a plurality of ordered causes, the influx into the ultimate effect is not always of the same nature. Therefore it need not be that the first intelligible so influence our intellect as to be Himself an object of our knowledge; but it is only necessary that as cause He bestow the power of intellection. Or it may be said that although in the order of intelligible things God is first absolutely, yet He is not first in the order of things that are intelligible to us.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod quamvis illa, quae sunt prima in genere eorum quae intellectus abstrahit a phantasmatibus, sint primo cognita a nobis, ut ens et unum, non tamen oportet quod illa quae sunt prima simpliciter, quae non continentur in ratione proprii obiecti, sicut et ista.
<td>3. It may be said: Although those things which are first in the genus of things abstracted by the intellect from phantasms are first known by us, as ens and unum, nevertheless it does not follow that those which are first absolutely (simpliciter), which are not contained in the genus of any proper object, should be classed with the former [i.e., things abstracted from phantasms].
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod quamvis Deus sit ultimus finis in consecutione et primus in intentione appetitus naturalis, non tamen oportet quod sit primus in cognitione mentis humanae quae ordinatur in finem, sed in cognitione ordinantis, sicut et in aliis quae naturali appetitu tendunt in finem suum. Cognoscitur tamen a principio et intenditur in quadam generalitate, prout mens appetit se bene esse et bene vivere, quod tunc solum est ei, cum Deum habet.
<td>4. Answer is made: Although God is the last end in attainment and first in the intention of the natural appetancy, it is not necessary that He be first in the cognition of the human mind, which is ordained to its end, but first in the mind of the One ordaining it, as is the case in other things which by natural appetancy tend toward their own end. Nevertheless, the end is known from the beginning and intended in a certain general way, inasmuch as the mind desires its own well-being and welfare, which is possible to it only on condition that it (ultimately) possess God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod substantiae separatae quamvis abstractione non indigeant ad hoc quod intelligantur, tamen non sunt intelligibiles per lumen intellectus agentis, unde non primo ab intellectu nostro cognoscuntur. Intelligibile enim per huiusmodi lumen est obiectum intellectus, sicut visibile per lumen corporale est obiectum visus.
<td>5. It may be answered: Although a process of abstraction is not required for the understanding of separate substances, they are not intelligible through the light of the active intellect; wherefore they are not the first objects of knowledge as far as our intellect is concerned.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod Deum esse, quantum est in se, est per se notum, quia sua essentia est suum esse - et hoc modo loquitur Anselmus - non autem nobis qui eius essentiam non videmus.
<td>6. It may be said: The existence of God, considered in itself, is a thing knowable in itself, since His essence is His existence; and in this way Anselm stated the matter.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed tamen eius cognitio nobis innata esse dicitur, in quantum per principia nobis innata de facili percipere possumus Deum esse.
<td>Nevertheless, to us, who do not behold His essence, it is not self-evident that He exists; though cognition of it may be said to be innate inasmuch as it is through principles which are innate in us that we are easily able to perceive that God exists.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="14" id="14">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 4<br>
Whether the Human Mind Is Capable of Arriving at a Knowledge of the Divine Trinity Through Natural Reason</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per rationem naturalem mens ad cognitionem divinae Trinitatis sufficiat. Quidquid enim convenit enti in quantum ens, oportet maxime in primo ente inveniri. Sed Trinitas convenit enti in quantum ens, cum in omnibus entibus inveniatur, eo quod omnia habeant modum, speciem et ordinem, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo naturali ratione sciri potest quod in Deo sit Trinitas.
<td>1. It appears that the human mind is sufficiently capable of attaining to a knowledge of the divine Trinity through natural reason. Whatever belongs to being inasmuch as it is being ought especially to be found in first being: but a trinity does belong to being inasmuch as it is being, since such is found in everything, in this way: that all things have species, mode, and order, as Augustine says; therefore it is possible to know by natural reason that in God there is a Trinity.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, nulla perfectio Deo est subtrahenda. Sed ternarius est numerus perfectionis omnis rei, ut dicitur in I caeli et mundi. Ergo Trinitas Deo est attribuenda, et sic idem quod prius.
<td>2. No perfection can be wanting in God: but three is the number of every perfect thing, as is said in I <i>De coelo et mundo</i>: therefore Trinity must be attributed to God, and thus the conclusion is like that of the previous argument.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omnis inaequalitas ad aequalitatem reducitur priorem sicut multitudo ad unitatem. Sed inter Deum et primum ens creatum est inaequalitas. Ergo oportet praecedere aliquam aequalitatem, quae cum non sit nisi plurium, oportet esse aliquam pluralitatem in divinis.
<td>3. All inequality is reducible to prior equality, as multitude is reducible to unity: but between God and first created being there is inequality; there must, therefore, be some preceding equality, but this could be no other than that of a plurality; therefore there must be some plurality in the Divine Being.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omne aequivocum reducitur ad univocum. Sed exitus creaturae a Deo est aequivocus. Ergo oportet ante hunc ponere processionem univocam, qua Deus procedit a Deo, ex qua Trinitas personarum consequitur.
<td>4. Anything that is equivocal is reducible to what is univocal: but the issuing forth of creatures from God is equivocal; it is needful, therefore, to presume as prior to it a univocal procession, by which God proceeds from God, by reason of which a Trinity of persons ensues.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, nullius boni sine consortio potest esse iucunda possessio. Sed in Deo est ab aeterno iucundissima boni possessio. Ergo habet aeternum consortium, quod non est nisi divinarum personarum, quia nulla creatura est aeterna. Ergo oportet in deitate personas plures ponere.
<td>5. Without companionship, there can be no joy in the possession of any good: but in God there is from all eternity a most joyful possession of good; therefore, He possesses eternal companionship; but this could be no other than the companionship of divine persons, since no creature is eternal. Therefore, it is necessary to suppose a plurality of persons in the Deity.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, quod Deus sit intelligens, ratione naturali haberi potest. Sed ex hoc quod est intelligens sequitur quod verbum concipiat, quia hoc est omni intelligenti commune. Ergo naturali ratione cognosci potest quod sit filii generatio et eadem ratione amoris processio.
<td>6. It is possible to know from natural reason that God is intelligent; but from the fact that He is intelligent it follows that He conceives the Word, since this is common to every intelligence; therefore by natural reason it is possible to know of the generation of the Son and, in the same way, of the procession of love (between Father and Son: the Holy Spirit).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Richardus de sancto Victore dicit in I de Trinitate: credo sine dubio quoniam ad quorumlibet explanationem, quae necesse est esse, non modo probabilia, verum etiam necessaria argumenta non deerunt. Sed Deum esse trinum et unum est necesse, quia est aeternum. Ergo ad hoc sunt etiam rationes necessariae. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>7. Richard of St. Victor in his <i>De Trinitate</i> says: “I believe without any doubt that in the case of whatever things are necessary there cannot be wanting reasons to explain them, not only probable arguments, but necessary ones”; but that God is three and one is a necessary truth, since He is eternal; therefore in proof of this there are necessary arguments of reason, and so the conclusion is as the previous one.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Platonici non habuerunt notitiam de Deo nisi per rationem. Sed ipsi posuerunt ad minus duas personas, scilicet Deum patrem et mentem ab ipso genitam, quae omnium rerum rationes continet, quod nos de filio dicimus. Ergo ratione naturali potest pluralitas personarum cognosci.
<td>8. The Platonists had no knowledge of God except through reason: but they held that there were at least two persons: namely, the Father and the Mind generated by the Father, and this Mind contained the ideas of all things—a truth which we claim in regard to the Son; therefore by natural reason a plurality of persons can be known.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, philosophus dicit in I caeli et mundi: per hunc quidem numerum adhibuimus nos ipsos magnificare Deum creatorem. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>9. The Philosopher at the beginning of <i>De coelo et mundo</i> says: “Through this same number (three) we ourselves are accustomed to call upon God the Creator”; and so the conclusion is the same.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, de Deo nullatenus in statu viae possumus cognoscere quid est, sed solum an est. Cognoscimus autem aliquo modo Deum esse trinum et unum, quia per fidem. Ergo hoc non pertinet ad quid est Dei, sed ad an est. Sed an est de Deo possumus ratione naturali ostendere. Ergo et Deum esse trinum et unum ratione naturali sciri potest.
<td>10. In this life we can in no way know what God is but only that He is: but there is a way in which we know that God is three and one, since we know it by faith; therefore this truth does not pertain to a quidditative knowledge of God, but only to an entitative knowledge. But by natural reason we can know God entitatively; therefore it is possible by natural reason to know that God is three and one.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra, fides est de non apparentibus rationi, ut patet Hebr. 11. Sed Deum esse trinum et unum est articulus fidei. Ergo ad hoc videndum ratio non sufficit.
<td>Faith is of things that are not apparent to reason, as is clear from Heb. 11:1; but that God is three and one is an article of faith; therefore reason does not suffice for knowing this.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omnis ratio naturalis ex primis principiis naturaliter cognitis efficaciam habet. Sed Deum esse trinum et unum non potest deduci ex principiis naturaliter cognitis, quae a sensu accipiuntur, cum in sensibilibus nihil simile inveniatur, ut sint tria supposita unius essentiae. Ergo Deum esse trinum et unum non potest sciri per rationem.
<td>Again, natural reason has its efficacy from first principles of natural cognition: but that God is three and one cannot be deduced from principles naturally known, for these are derived from sense experience, and in sensible things there is found nothing like to three supposita of one essence; therefore God cannot be known as three and one from reason.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit: mihi impossibile est generationis scire secretum, mens deficit, vox silet non solum mea, sed et Angelorum. Ergo ratio naturalis non sufficit ad cognoscendam generationem divinam, et per consequens nec Trinitatem personarum.
<td>Moreover, according to the words of Ambrose: “It is impossible for anyone to know the secret of generation; the mind fails; the voice is silent; not only mine, but even that of the angels”; therefore natural reason does not suffice for knowledge of divine generation, and consequently for knowledge of the Trinity of persons.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod Deum esse trinum et unum est solum creditum, et nullo modo potest demonstrative probari, quamvis ad hoc aliquales rationes non necessariae nec multum probabiles nisi credenti haberi possint. Quod patet ex hoc quod Deum non cognoscimus in statu viae nisi ex effectibus, ut ex praedictis patere potest. Et ideo naturali ratione de Deo cognoscere non possumus nisi hoc quod percipitur de ipso ex habitudine effectuum ad ipsum, sicut illa quae designant causalitatem ipsius et eminentiam super causata et quae removent ab ipso imperfectas condiciones effectuum. Trinitas autem personarum non potest percipi ex ipsa causalitate divina, cum causalitas sit communis toti Trinitati. Nec etiam dicitur secundum remotionem. Unde nullo modo demonstrative probari potest Deum esse trinum et unum.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that the truth that God is three and one is altogether a matter of faith; and in no way can it be demonstratively proved. For, although certain reasons can be found (by way of demonstration <i>ad hoc</i>), they are not necessary, or even very probable except to one who believes it. This is evident from the fact that in this life we know God only from His effects, as previous statements have proved. Hence, according to natural cognition, we can know nothing of God except what we can derive concerning Him from viewing the relationship of effects to Him. Thus there are things that designate His causality and His eminence over creatures and that deny in Him any of the imperfections found in effects. The existence of a Trinity of persons, however, cannot be perceived from a consideration of divine causality, since causality is common to the whole Trinity. Nor can it be known from His lacking any imperfection. Therefore in no way can it be demonstratively proved that God is three and one.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea, quae in creaturis sunt plura, in Deo sunt unum secundum rem. Et ideo quamvis in quolibet ente creato inveniatur aliqua Trinitas, ex hoc tamen non potest necessario concludi quod in Deo sint aliqua tria nisi secundum rationem, et haec pluralitas non sufficit ad personarum distinctionem.
<td>1. It may be said: Those things which are many among created beings are in fact one in God: and therefore, although in every creature there is found a certain kind of trinity, it cannot be necessarily concluded from this that there is such a trinity in God, except logically, and this kind of plurality is not sufficient to prove a distinction of persons.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod perfectio ternarii invenitur in Deo etiam secundum essentiae unitatem, non quod ipsa essentia numeretur, sed quia virtute continet omnis numeri perfectionem, ut dicitur in arithmetica Boethii.
<td>2. It may be answered: The perfection of the number three is found in God according even to the unity of His essence, not because His essence is subject to numeration, but because in it there is contained virtually the perfection of every number, as is said in the <i>Arithmetica</i> of Boethius.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam remota distinctione personarum est aequalitas in divinis, secundum quod eius potentia suae sapientiae adaequatur. Vel potest dici quod in aequalitate est duo considerare, scilicet pluralitatem suppositorum, inter quae attenditur relatio, et unitatem quantitatis quae est ratio aequalitatis. Reductio ergo inaequalitatis ad aequalitatem non fit ratione pluralitatis suppositorum, sed ratione causae, quia sicut unitas est causa aequalitatis, ita inaequalitatis causa est pluralitas. Et ideo oportet quod causa aequalitatis sit ante causam inaequalitatis, non quod ante quaelibet inaequalia sint aliqua aequalia. Alias oporteret in ordine numerorum esse aliquid ante unitatem et dualitatem, quae sunt inaequalia, vel in ipsa unitate inveniri pluralitatem.
<td>3. It may be said: Apart from any distinction of persons, there is equality in the Divinity, inasmuch as Its wisdom is equal to Its power. Or it can be said that in regard to equality there are two points of consideration, namely, plurality of supposita, among whom equality exists, and unity of quantity, which is the cause of equality. The reduction of inequality to equality, therefore, does not occur by reason of the plurality of supposita, but by reason of the cause; for just as unity is the cause of equality, so inequality is the cause of plurality. Hence it must be that the cause of equality precedes the cause of inequality, but not that any kind of inequality is preceded by some kind of equality: otherwise it would be necessary in an order of numbers that there should be something before unity and duality, which are unequals; or that in unity itself there should be found plurality.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod quamvis omne aequivocum reducatur ad univocum, non tamen oportet quod generatio aequivoca reducatur ad generationem univocam, sed ad generans quod est in se univocum. In rebus enim naturalibus videmus quod generationes aequivocae sunt priores generationibus univocis, eo quod causae aequivocae habent influentiam supra totam speciem, non autem causae univocae, sed solum supra unum individuum, unde sunt quasi instrumenta causarum aequivocarum, sicut corpora inferiora corporum caelestium.
<td>4. It must be said: Although anything equivocal is reducible to what is univocal, it is not necessary that equivocal generation should be reduced to univocal generation, but that it should be reduced to a generator which is univocal in itself. Now, in natural things we see that equivocal generations are prior to univocal because equivocal causes have an influx extending to the total species, whereas univocal causes have not, their influence extending only to one individual; and thus they are quasi-instruments of equivocal causes, just as inferior bodies are of superior.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod ex hoc homo non potest habere vitam iucundam sine consortio, quia non habet in se unde sibi quantum ad omnia sufficiat. Et propter hoc animalia, quae habent in se singula, unde sibi sufficiant, consortium vitae non requirunt, sed sunt solitaria. Deus autem maxime est sibi sufficiens, unde remota distinctione personarum adhuc manet in eo summa iucunditas.
<td>5. It is answered: It is not possible for man to have a joyous life without companionship because he has not within himself that which makes him all-sufficient; whereas, for the same reason, animals that are self-sufficient require no association with others for preservation of life, but are solitaries. God, however, is supremely self-sufficient; wherefore, even though there were no distinction of persons, infinite joy would still be His.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod in Deo idem est intelligens et intellectum, et ideo non oportet quod ex hoc quod intelligit ponatur in ipso aliquid conceptum realiter distinctum ab ipso, sicut est in nobis. Trinitas autem personarum requirit realem distinctionem.
<td>6. It may be said: In God, intellect and object of intellect are the same; and therefore, from the fact that He is intelligent, it need not be supposed that in Him there is any concept really distinct from Himself, as is the case with us: Trinity of persons, however, requires real distinction.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad septimum dicendum quod intellectus illius verbi apparet ex hoc quod sequitur: quamvis contingat nostram industriam latere. Omnia ergo necessaria in se ipsis sunt vel per se ipsa nota vel per alia cognoscibilia, non tamen oportet quod ita sit quoad nos. Unde non possumus ad omnia necessaria probanda secundum nostram industriam rationem necessariam invenire.
<td>7. It may be answered: Understanding of this passage is clarified by that which follows: “Although they (these truths) are of such kind as to escape all our endeavors.” All things that are necessary in themselves, therefore, are either known in themselves or are knowable through other things: yet not in such a way that they are necessarily apparent to us. Therefore we cannot, even as a result of all our industry, discover necessary arguments of reason sufficient to prove all necessary truths.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad octavum dicendum quod Platonicorum positio nihil facit ad propositum secundum rei veritatem, quamvis videatur facere secundum verba. Non enim posuerunt Platonici quod illa mens esset eiusdem essentiae cum Deo patre, sed quod esset quaedam alia substantia separata ab ipso procedens, et tertiam ponebant animam mundi, ut patet per Macrobium. Et quia omnes substantias separatas deos nominabant, inde est quod has dicebant tres deos, ut dicit Augustinus X de civitate Dei. Quia tamen non ponebant aliquid spiritui sancto simile, sicut patri et filio - anima enim mundi non est nexus aliorum duorum secundum eos, sicut spiritus sanctus patris et filii - ideo dicuntur in tertio signo defecisse, id est in cognitione tertiae personae. Vel dicendum, sicut communiter dicitur, quod cognoverunt duas personas quantum ad appropriata potentiae et sapientiae, non quantum ad propria. Bonitas autem, quae spiritui sancto appropriatur, maxime respicit effectus quos illi non cognoverunt.
<td>8. It may be said: The position of the Platonists affords no argument as regards the truth of this matter, even though it appears to do so according to words. For they did not hold that this Mind was of the same essence with God the Father, but that it was another substance proceeding from the first, and separate; and they also supposed that there was a third substance, the Soul-of-the-World, as is evidenced by Macrobius. And because all these separate substances they called “gods,” it came about that they called upon or spoke of three gods, as Augustine says in <i>De civitate Dei</i> (chap. 10); because they did not hold that there was anything like to the Holy Ghost, as there was to the Father and the Son. For the Soul-of-the-World is not the nexus of the other two, according to their doctrine, as is the Holy Spirit between the Father and the Son; therefore they are said to have lacked the third sign, that is, knowledge of the Third Person. Or it may be said, as the more common explanation has it, that they knew two persons according to the things appropriated to power and wisdom, but not according to the things proper to them. But goodness, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit especially, has as its effects things which they did not know.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad nonum dicendum quod Aristoteles non intendit dicere quod Deus esset magnificandus ut trinus et unus, sed quia ternario sacrificiorum et orationum ab antiquis honorabatur propter ternarii numeri perfectionem.
<td>9. It may be said: Aristotle did not have any intention of saying that God should be worshiped as three in one, but that He was honored by the ancients by the number three in their sacrifices and prayers because of the perfection of three as a number.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad decimum dicendum quod omnia, quae in Deo sunt, sunt una eius simplex essentia, sed ea, quae in ipso sunt unum, in intellectu nostro sunt multa, et propter hoc intellectus noster potest apprehendere unum istorum sine altero. Inde est quod in statu viae de nullo eorum possumus cognoscere quid est, sed solum an est, et contingit quod cognoscatur, an est unum eorum et non alterum; sicut si aliquis cognosceret, an sit sapientia in Deo, non autem an in ipso sit omnipotentia. Et similiter potest ratione naturali sciri an Deus sit, non tamen an sit trinus et unus.
<td>10. It may be answered: All things in God are of one, simple essence; but those things that in Him are one, are many in our intellect, and on this account our intellect can apprehend one of these things without the other. Therefore in this life we are able to understand the quiddity of none of these things, but only their existence; and thus it happens that one of them may be known to exist and not another: just as one might know that there is ‘ wisdom in God, but not know that there is also omnipotence; and likewise it is possible, by natural reason to know that God exists, but not that He is a Trinity, and one God.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="21" id="21">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b>Quaestio 2, Prooemium<br>
Deinde quaeritur de manifestatione divinae cognitionis.</b>
<td align="center"><b>QUESTION II<br>
Concerning the Manifestation of Knowledge of Divine Truth</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
Et circa hoc quaeruntur quattuor.
<ol>
<li>Primo. Utrum divina liceat investigando tractare.
<li>Secundo. Utrum de divinis possit esse aliqua scientia.
<li>Tertio. Utrum in scientia fidei quae est de Deo liceat rationibus philosophicis et auctoritatibus uti.
<li>Quarto. Utrum sint obscuris et novis verbis divina velanda.
</ol>
<td>
Here four questions are proposed:
<ol>
<li>Whether divine truths ought to be treated of by the method of inquiry.
<li>Whether there can be any science of divine truths which are founded upon faith.
<li>Whether in the science of faith, which is concerning God, it is permissible to employ arguments of the natural philosophers.
<li>Whether divine truths ought to be veiled by new and obscure words.
</ol>
<p align="center"><b>Article 1<br>
Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Treated of by the Method of Inquiry</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Articulus 1
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divina investigare non liceat argumentando. Eccli. 3: altiora te ne quaesieris, et fortiora te ne scrutatus fueris. Sed divina maxime sunt homine altiora, et praecipue ea quae fidei sunt. Ergo huiusmodi scrutari non licet.
<td>1. It seems that it is not permissible to investigate divine things by the arguments of reason. In Sirach 3:22, it is said: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee”; but divine truths are, in a special way, too high for man, and particularly those truths which are of faith; therefore it is not permissible to inquire into them.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, poena non infertur nisi pro culpa. Sed, sicut dicitur Prov. 25, perscrutator maiestatis opprimetur a gloria. Ergo perscrutari ea quae ad divinam maiestatem pertinent est illicitum.
<td>2. Punishment is not inflicted except for some fault; but, as it is said in Prov. 25:27, “He that is a searcher of majesty shall be overwhelmed by glory”; therefore, it is not right to search out those things which pertain to divine majesty.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit: tolle argumenta, ubi fides quaeritur. Sed in divinis, et maxime circa Trinitatem, praecipue requiritur fides. Ergo in hac materia non licet per argumenta veritatem investigare.
<td>3. Ambrose says: “Abandon arguments where faith is sought.” But in regard to divine truths, especially those concerned with the Trinity, faith is required; therefore in this matter it is not permissible to inquire into truth by arguments of reason.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit de generatione divina loquens: scrutari non licet mysteria superna; licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Ergo eadem ratione nihil eorum quae ad Trinitatem pertinent licet argumentis investigare.
<td>4. Ambrose, in speaking of divine generation, says: “Supernal mysteries are not to be scrutinized: one may know that the Son was begotten; but how He was begotten should not be analyzed.” Accordingly, for the same reason it is not permissible to make rational investigation of those truths which pertain to the Trinity.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut dicit Gregorius in homilia octavae Paschae, fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum. Sed malum est meritum fidei evacuare. Ergo non licet rationibus de his quae sunt fidei perscrutari.
<td>5. Gregory in his Homily for Easter (chap. 8) says: “Faith has no merit where human reason affords proof”; but it is wrong to lose the merit of faith; therefore it is not right to investigate matters of faith according to methods of reason.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omnis honorificentia Deo debetur. Sed secreta per silentium honorificantur; unde dicit Dionysius in fine caelestis hierarchiae: super nos secretum silentio honorificantes. Et huic consonat quod dicitur in Psalmo secundum litteram Hieronymi: tibi silet laus, Deus, id est ipsum silentium est laus tua. Ergo debemus a perscrutatione divinorum silere.
<td>6. All honor ought to be given to God: but divine mysteries are honored by silence; wherefore Dionysius says at the close of Coel. hier.: “Honoring by silence the hidden truth which is above us”; and with this there agrees what is said in Psalm 64, according to the text of Jerome: “Praise grows silent before You, O God,” that is, silence itself is Your praise, O God; therefore we ought to refrain ourselves in silence from searching into divine truths.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, nullus movetur ad infinitum, ut philosophus dicit in I caeli et mundi, quia omnis motus est propter consecutionem finis, qui non invenitur in infinito. Sed Deus in infinitum distat a nobis. Cum ergo perscrutatio sit quidam rationis motus in id quod perscrutatur, videtur quod divina perscrutari non debeamus.
<td>7. No one is moved to infinity, as the Philosopher says in I <i>De Coelo et mundo</i>, because all motion is on account of the attaining of an end [terminus], which is not to be found in infinity; but God is infinitely distant from us. Since, therefore, investigation is a kind of motion of reason toward that which is being searched out, it appears that divine truths ought not to be investigated.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra est quod dicitur 1 Petr. 3: parati semper ad satisfactionem omni poscenti vos rationem de ea quae in vobis est fide. Sed hoc non potest esse, nisi ea quae sunt fidei argumentis perscrutentur. Ergo perscrutatio per argumenta de his quae sunt fidei est necessaria.
<td>On the other hand, it is said (1 Pet. 3:15): “Being ready always to satisfy everyone that asks you a reason of that (faith and) hope which is in you”; but this could not be done unless we inquired reasonably into those things which are matters of faith; therefore investigation according to methods of reason into the truths of faith is necessary.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, ut dicitur Tit. 1, ad episcopum requiritur, ut sit potens exhortari in doctrina sana et contradicentes revincere. Sed contradicentes fidei non possunt repelli nisi argumentis. Ergo in his quae sunt fidei argumentis oportet uti.
<td>Again as is said in Titus 1:9, it pertains to a bishop that he be capable of exhorting in sound doctrine and of overcoming those contradicting it: but he cannot do this without use of argumentation; therefore one ought to employ the arguments of reason in matters of faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in I de Trinitate: adiuvante domino Deo nostro suscipiamus et eam quam flagitant rationem quod Trinitas sit unus Deus. Ergo rationibus de Trinitate potest homo perscrutari.
<td>Again Augustine says in I <i>De Trinitate</i>: “With the help of God our Lord, we shall begin to discuss according to reason that for which they [our adversaries] seek explanation: that the Trinity is one God.” Therefore man can inquire about the Trinity according to methods of reason.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Augustinus contra Felicianum: quia non nimis inconvenienter duo ista discernis, cum ratione praemissa etiam testimonia non omittis, fateor secuturum quod ipse probaveris, scilicet quod rationibus et auctoritatibus utar. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>Also Augustine says in his argument against Felician: “Since without too much disagreement you recognize these two things—since you do not disregard the foregoing argument and the word of authority—I present the matter to follow in such a way that you yourself may accept it as proof”; that is, I shall make use of arguments from reason and authority; and thus the conclusion is like the previous one.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod cum perfectio hominis consistat in coniunctione ad Deum, oportet quod homo ex omnibus quae in ipso sunt, quantum possibile est, ad divina annitatur, ut intellectus contemplationi et ratio inquisitioni divinorum vacet, secundum illud Psalmi: mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est. Et ideo philosophus in X Ethicorum excludit dictum quorundam qui dicebant quod homo non debeat se intromittere de rebus divinis, sed solum de humanis, sic dicens: oportet autem non secundum suadentes humana sapere hominem entem neque mortalia mortalem, sed in quantum contingit immortale facere et omnia facere ad vivere secundum optimum eorum quae in ipso.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that it must be said that, since the perfection of man consists in his union with God, it is right that man, by all the means which are in his power and in so far as he is able, mount up to and strive to attain to divine truths, so that his intellect may take delight in contemplation and his reason in the investigation of things of God, according to the saying of Ps. 72:28, “It is good for me to adhere to my God.” Hence also the Philosopher in X <i>Ethic.</i> opposes the saying of those who maintained that man ought not concern himself about divine things, but only about such as are human, saying: “One ought to be wise in regard to man, however, not according to those treating of human affairs alone, as a mortal knowing only mortal things; but, inasmuch as it is fitting for a mortal man to do so, he ought to do all things according to the best of those powers that are in him.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tripliciter tamen contingit in hoc peccare.
<td>In a threefold manner, however, it is possible for man to err on this point:
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo ex praesumptione qua scilicet aliquis sic ea scrutatur quasi ea perfecte comprehensurus, et horum praesumptio arguitur Iob 12: forsitan vestigia Dei comprehendes et omnipotentem usque ad perfectum reperies? Et Hilarius dicit: ne te inseras in illud secretum et arcanum inopinabilis nativitatis; ne te immergas, summam intelligentiae comprehendere praesumens, sed intellige incomprehensibilia esse.
<td>First, by presumption, since one might enter upon such investigation as if he could attain a perfect comprehension, and it is this kind of presumption that is denounced in Job 11:7: “Do you think you can comprehend the steps of God, and find out the Almighty perfectly?” And Hilary says: “Do not involve yourself in the hiddenness and mystery of this inconceivable nativity; do not overwhelm yourself, presuming to comprehend the loftiest of intelligible things, but understand that it is incomprehensible.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secundo ex hoc quod in his quae sunt fidei ratio praecedit fidem, non fides rationem, dum scilicet aliquis hoc solum vult credere quod ratione potest invenire, cum debeat esse e converso; unde Hilarius: credendo incipe, scilicet inquire, percurre, persiste.
<td>In the second place, error arises if, in matters of faith, reason has precedence of faith and not faith of reason, to the point that one would be willing to believe only what he could know by reason, when the converse ought to be the case: wherefore Hilary says: “While believing [in a spirit of faith], inquire, discuss, carry through your speculation.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertio ultra modum suae capacitatis ad divinorum perscrutationem se ingerendo, unde dicitur Rom. 12: non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad sobrietatem, unicuique sicut Deus divisit mensuram fidei. Non enim omnes eandem mensuram sunt consecuti, unde aliquid est ultra modum unius quod non est ultra modum alterius.
<td>In a third way error results from undertaking an inquiry into divine things which are beyond one’s capacity. Wherefore it is said in Rom. 12:3, “Not to be more wise than it behooves to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety and according as God hath divided to every one the measure of faith.” All men, indeed, have not been accorded the same measure; wherefore a thing is beyond the capacity of one which is not beyond that of another.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa dicuntur homine altiora quae capacitatem eius excedunt, non quae sunt digniora secundum naturam; quia his quae sunt digniora, quanto homo magis servato suo modo intendit, tanto magis perficitur. Sed si etiam in minimis considerandis aliquis modum suae capacitatis excedat, de facili incidit in errorem; unde Glossa ibidem dicit: haeretici duobus modis fiunt, scilicet cum de creatore vel de creaturis ultra modum intendentes in errores incidunt et a veritate recedunt.
<td>1. It may be said: Those things are said to be too high for man which exceed his capacity, no those things which are of greater dignity according to nature: for the more man fixes his gaze upon things loftier by nature, in accordance with his capacity, the more it is to his advantage; but in the consideration of things which in the least exceed his capacity, he easily falls into error. Therefore the gloss on this same passage says: “Heretics are produced in two ways: namely, when men, beyond their proper capacity entering upon inquiry concerning the Creator or creatures fall into errors and depart from the truth.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod perscrutari est quasi ad finem scrutari. Hoc autem illicitum et praesumptuosum est, ut aliquis sic scrutetur divina quasi ad finem comprehensionis perventurus.
<td>2. Answer may be made: To search out is, as it were, to press one’s investigation to the very end; but this would be unlawful and presumptuous if one should so investigate divine truths as though he could attain to complete comprehension as his goal.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod ubi quaeritur fides, argumenta tolluntur quae fidei adversantur et eam praecedere conantur, non illa quae ipsam modo debito sequuntur.
<td>3. It is answered: Where faith is sought for, those arguments which are in opposition to faith and those which seek to have precedence over it are cast aside, but not those which in due manner follow it.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod non licet hoc modo scrutari superna mysteria, ut ad eorum comprehensionem intentio habeatur, quod patet ex hoc quod sequitur: licet scire quod natus sit, non licet discutere quomodo natus sit. Ille enim modum nativitatis discutit, qui quaerit scire quid sit illa nativitas, cum de divinis possimus scire quia sunt, non quid sunt.
<td>4. It may be said: It is not lawful in this world to inquire into divine mysteries in such a way that one would have the intention of comprehending them, as is evident from the words that follow: “It is lawful to know that He was begotten,” etc. For he undertakes an unlawful mode of inquiry who seeks to know what the nature of this nativity is, since in regard to divine things we are able to know what they are not, but not what they are.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod duplex est humana ratio. Una demonstrativa cogens intellectum ad consensum, et talis ratio non potest haberi de his quae fidei sunt, sed potest haberi ad evacuandum ea quae fidem esse impossibilem asserunt. Quamvis enim ea quae sunt fidei demonstrari non possint, non tamen possunt demonstrative improbari. Si autem talis ratio ad probanda ea quae sunt fidei induceretur, evacuaretur meritum fidei, quia iam assentire his non esset voluntarium, sed necessarium.
<td>5. It may be answered: Human reasoning may be spoken of in two ways: in one way, it may be regarded as demonstrative, forcing the intellect to believe; and this kind of reasoning cannot be possessed in regard to those truths which are of faith; but it is possible to possess this kind of reasoning in refuting those arguments which would destroy faith or assert the impossible. For, although reason cannot demonstrate those things which are of faith, neither can these same truths be demonstratively disproved. Moreover, if this kind of reason could lead to a proving of those things which are of faith, it would deprive man of the merit of faith, because then assent would not be voluntary, but necessary.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ratio autem persuasoria sumpta ex aliquibus similitudinibus ad ea quae sunt fidei inducta non evacuat fidei rationem; quia non facit ea esse apparentia, cum non fiat resolutio in prima principia quae intellectu videntur. Nec iterum meritum fidei evacuat, quia non cogit intellectum ad consensum, unde assensus remanet voluntarius.
<td>Persuasive reasoning, however, derived from certain likenesses to those things which are set forth by faith does not void the meaning of faith, since it does not make these truths to be apparent, for there can be no resolution of them to those first principles discernable by the intellect. Nor does it take away the merit of faith, because it does not force the intellect to comprehend truth, but assent remains voluntary.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod Deus honoratur silentio, non quod nihil de ipso dicatur vel inquiratur, sed quia quidquid de ipso dicamus vel inquiramus, intelligimus nos ab eius comprehensione defecisse, unde dicitur Eccli. 43: glorificantes dominum quantumcumque potueritis, supervalebit adhuc.
<td>6. It may be said: God is honored by silence, but not in such a way that we may say nothing of Him or make no inquiries about Him, but, inasmuch as we understand that we lack ability to comprehend Him. Wherefore in Sirach 43: 32-34, “Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for He will yet far exceed, and His magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exit Him as much as you can: for He is above all praise. When you exalt Him put forth all your strength, and be not weary: for you can never go far enough.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad septimum dicendum quod cum Deus in infinitum a creatura distet, nulla creatura movetur in Deum, ut ipsi adaequetur vel recipiendo ab ipso vel cognoscendo ipsum. Hoc ergo, quod in infinitum a creatura distat, non est terminus motus creaturae. Sed quaelibet creatura movetur ad hoc quod Deo assimiletur plus et plus quantum potest. Et sic etiam humana mens semper debet moveri ad cognoscendum de Deo plus et plus secundum modum suum. Unde dicit Hilarius: qui pie infinita persequitur, etsi non contingat aliquando, tamen semper proficiet prodeundo.
<td>7. Answer may be made: Since God is infinitely distant from creatures, no creature is so moved unto God as to be made His equal, either in receiving from Him or in knowing Him. Therefore, by reason of the fact that God is infinitely distant from creatures, there is no terminus to the motion of creatures; but every creature is moved to this: that he may be more and more like to God, so far as this is possible, and so also the human mind ought always be moved more and more to a knowledge of God, according to the measure that is proper to it. Therefore Hilary says: “He who in pious spirit undertakes the infinite, even though he can in no wise attain it, nevertheless profits by advancing.”
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="22" id="22">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 2<br>
Whether There Can Be Any Science of Divine Truths Which Are Matters of Faith</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Articulus 2
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod de divinis quae fidei subsunt scientia esse non possit. Sapientia enim contra scientiam dividitur. Sed sapientia est divinorum. Non ergo scientia.
<td>1. it appears that there can be no science of those divine truths which are matters of faith. For wisdom is distinguished from science; but wisdom treats of divine truths; therefore science cannot do so.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, ut dicitur in I posteriorum, in qualibet scientia oportet de subiecto praesupponere quid est. Sed de Deo nullo modo possumus scire quid est, ut dicit Damascenus. Ergo de Deo non potest esse scientia.
<td>2. As is said in I <i>Poster.</i>, in every science one must suppose a quidditative knowledge of the subject; but in regard to God, it is impossible for us to know in any way what He is, as Damascene says; therefore it is not possible to possess any science of God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, cuiuslibet scientiae est partes et passiones sui subiecti considerare. Sed Deus, cum sit forma simplex, nec partes habet in quas dividatur nec passionibus aliquibus subici potest. Ergo de Deo non potest esse scientia.
<td>3. It pertains to every science to consider the parts and passive potencies of its subject; but, since God is simple form [absolute act], He has not any parts that can be distinguished, nor in Him can there be any passive potencies; therefore there can be no science about God.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, in qualibet scientia ratio praecedit assensum. Demonstratio enim facit in scientiis scibilibus assentire. Sed in his quae fidei sunt oportet esse e converso, scilicet quod assensus fidei praecedat rationem, ut dictum est. Ergo de divinis praecipue quae fide capiuntur non potest esse scientia.
<td>4. In any science, reason precedes assent, for it is demonstration which in the sciences makes one assent to what is knowable; but in regard to those truths which are of faith, the converse ought to prevail, namely, assent on account of faith ought to precede reason, as has been said; therefore, of divine truths, especially of those which are known by faith, there can be no science.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, omnis scientia procedit ex principiis per se notis, quae quisque probat audita, aut ex principiis quae ab his fidem habent. Sed articuli fidei, qui sunt prima principia in fide, non sunt huiusmodi, quia neque sunt per se nota neque ad principia per se nota resolvi possunt demonstrative, ut dictum est. Ergo de divinis quae fide tenentur non potest esse scientia.
<td>5. Every science proceeds from self-evident principles which every man accepts upon first hearing, or from principles in which he has faith because of those first principles; but the articles of faith which are first principles in matters of faith, are not principles of this same kind, since they are not <i>per se nota</i> nor can they be resolved by demonstration to those that are, as has been said; therefore, there can be no science of divine truths held by faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, fides est de non apparentibus. Sed scientia est de apparentibus, quia per scientiam apparent ea quae in scientia traduntur. Ergo de divinis quae fide tenentur non potest esse scientia.
<td>6. Faith is not of those things that are apparent: but science is of things that are apparent, because through science those things that are treated of come to be clearly seen; therefore, concerning divine truths that are held by faith there can be no science.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, cuiuslibet scientiae principium est intellectus, quia ex intellectu principiorum venitur in scientiam conclusionum. Sed in his, quae sunt fidei, intellectus non est principium, sed finis, quia, ut dicitur Is. 7, nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Ergo de divinis quae fidei sunt non potest esse scientia.
<td>7. Understanding is the principle of every science, because from the intellection of principles one comes to scientific knowledge of conclusions: but in those things that are of faith, intellection is not the beginning, but the end, for, as is said in Is. 7:9, “If you will not believe, you shall not understand”; therefore there can be no science of divine truths held by faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit XII de Trinitate: huic scientiae tribuo illud tantum quo fides saluberrima, quae ad veram beatitudinem ducit, gignitur, defenditur, roboratur. Ergo de his quae sunt fidei est scientia.
<td>But on the contrary is what Augustine says in XII <i>De Trinitate</i>: “To that science only do I attribute any value by which faith is well served, which leads to, produces, defends, and strengthens happiness”; therefore there is a science of the truths of faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, hoc idem videtur per hoc quod dicitur Sap. 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum, quod de alia intelligi non potest nisi de ea qua sancti ab impiis discernuntur, quae est scientia fidei.
<td>Also, Wis. 10:10: “She gave him the science of the saints”, that is, of the truths of faith, because no other science can be here meant except that by which saints are distinguished from sinners, which is the science of faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, apostolus de cognitione fidelium loquens 1 Cor. 8 dicit: sed non omnium est scientia, et sic idem quod prius.
<td>Also the Apostle in speaking of the knowledge of the faithful says in 1 Cor. 8:7: “But there is not knowledge in everyone,” and thus we come to the same conclusion as before.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod cum ratio scientiae consistat in hoc quod ex aliquibus notis alia necessario concludantur, hoc autem de divinis contingat, constat quod de divinis potest esse scientia.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that, since the essence of science consists in this, that from things known a knowledge of things previously unknown is derived, and this may occur in relation to divine truths, evidently there can be a science of divine things.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed divinorum notitia dupliciter potest aestimari. Uno modo ex parte nostra, et sic nobis cognoscibilia non sunt nisi per res creatas, quarum cognitionem a sensu accipimus. Alio modo ex natura ipsorum, et sic ipsa sunt ex seipsis maxime cognoscibilia, et quamvis secundum modum suum non cognoscantur a nobis, tamen a Deo cognoscuntur et a beatis secundum modum suum.
<td>But knowledge of divine truths can be thought of in two ways. In one way, as on our part, such truths are not knowable except from created things, of which we have a knowledge derived from sense experience. In another way, on the part of the nature of these things themselves, they are, in themselves, most knowable; and although they are not known by us according to their essences, they are known by God and by the blessed according to their proper mode;
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et secundum hoc de divinis duplex scientia habetur. Una secundum modum nostrum, qui sensibilium principia accipit ad notificandum divina, et sic de divinis philosophi scientiam tradiderunt, philosophiam primam scientiam divinam dicentes. Alia secundum modum ipsorum divinorum, ut ipsa divina secundum se ipsa capiantur, quae quidem perfecte in statu viae nobis est impossibilis, sed fit nobis in statu viae quaedam illius cognitionis participatio et assimilatio ad cognitionem divinam, in quantum per fidem nobis infusam inhaeremus ipsi primae veritati propter se ipsam.
<td>and so science of divine things must be considered in a twofold manner. One is according to our mode of knowledge, in which knowledge of sensible things serves as the principle for coming to a knowledge of divine; and it was in this way that the philosophers handed down a traditional science of divine things, calling first philosophy a divine science. The other mode is according to that of divine things themselves as they are understood in themselves. This is, indeed, a mode of knowledge which we cannot possess perfectly in this life; but there is for us, even in this life, a certain participation and assimilation to such a cognition of divine truth, inasmuch as through the faith which is infused into our souls we adhere to the very First Truth on account of Itself.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Et sicut Deus ex hoc, quod cognoscit se, cognoscit alia modo suo, id est simplici intuitu, non discurrendo, ita nos ex his, quae per fidem capimus primae veritati adhaerendo, venimus in cognitionem aliorum secundum modum nostrum discurrendo de principiis ad conclusiones, ut sic ipsa, quae fide tenemus, sint nobis quasi principia in hac scientia et alia sint quasi conclusiones. Ex quo patet quod haec scientia est altior illa scientia divina, quam philosophi tradiderunt, cum ex altioribus procedat principiis.
<td>And as God, since He knows Himself, knows in a way that is His own, that is, by simple intuition, not by discursive thought, so we, from those truths that we possess in adhering to First Truth, come to a knowledge of other truths, according to our own mode of cognition, namely, by proceeding from principles to conclusions. Wherefore, those truths that we hold in the first place by faith are for us, as it were, first principles in this science, and the other truths to which we attain are quasi-conclusions. From this it is evident that this science is of a higher order than that which the philosophers traditionally termed divine, since it proceeds from higher principles.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sapientia non dividitur contra scientiam, sicut oppositum contra suum oppositum, sed quia se habet ex additione ad scientiam. Est enim sapientia, ut dicit philosophus in VI Ethicorum, caput omnium scientiarum, regulans omnes alias in quantum de altissimis principiis est; propter quod etiam dea scientiarum dicitur in principio metaphysicae et multo magis haec quae non solum de altissimis, sed ex altissimis est. Sapientis autem est ordinare, et ideo ista scientia altissima, quae omnes alias regulat et ordinat, sapientia dicitur, sicut in artibus mechanicis sapientes dicimus illos qui alios regulant, ut architectores; scientiae vero nomen aliis inferioribus relinquitur. Et secundum hoc scientia dividitur contra sapientiam sicut proprium contra diffinitionem.
<td>1. It may be said: Wisdom is not distinguished from science as opposed to it, but as related to science by adding to it. For wisdom is, indeed, as the Philosopher says in VI <i>Ethic.</i>, the head of all the sciences, regulating all others inasmuch as it treats of highest principles: on this account it is also called “the goddess of sciences” in I <i>Metaph.</i>; and much more is this true of that wisdom which is not only about highest principles, but from highest principles. Moreover, the function of wisdom is to order, and therefore this highest science, which orders and rules all others, is called wisdom; just as in mechanical arts we call those men wise who direct others, as the architects: but the name of “science” is also left to others that are inferior, and accordingly science is distinguished from wisdom as a property from a definition (i.e., as properties flow necessarily from an essence, so do the other sciences from wisdom).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quando causae cognoscuntur per suos effectus, effectus cognitio supplet locum cognitionis quiditatis causae, quae requiritur in illis scientiis quae sunt de rebus quae per se ipsas cognosci possunt; et sic non oportet ad hoc quod de divinis scientiam habeamus, quod praesciatur de eo quid est. Vel potest dici quod hoc ipsum quod scimus de eo quid non est supplet locum in scientia divina cognitionis quid est; quia sicut per quid est distinguitur res ab aliis, ita per hoc quod scitur quid non est.
<td>2. It may be said: As has been previously declared, since causes are known through their effects, the knowledge of an effect substitutes for the quidditative knowledge of the cause; this is necessarily required in those sciences treating of things that cannot be known through themselves: thus, for us to have a science of divine things, it is not necessary that we first have a quidditative knowledge of God. Or, again, it can be said that what we know God is not, takes the place, in divine science, of a cognition of what He is: for as one thing is distinguished from others by what it is, so God is here known by that which He is not.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod partes subiecti in scientia non solum sunt intelligendae partes subiectivae vel integrales, sed partes subiecti dicuntur omnia illa quorum cognitio requiritur ad cognitionem subiecti, cum omnia huiusmodi non tractentur in scientia, nisi in quantum habent ordinem ad subiectum. Passiones etiam dicuntur quaecumque de aliquo probari possunt, sive negationes sive habitudines ad aliquas res. Et talia multa de Deo probari possunt et ex principiis naturaliter notis et ex principiis fidei.
<td>3. It may be answered: In science the parts of a subject are not to be understood only as subjective or integral parts; but the parts of a subject are all those things of which knowledge is required in order to have cognition of the subject, since all things of this sort are not dealt with in a co-science except inasmuch as they are related to the subject. Those also are called passive potencies which can be proved in regard to anything, whether they are negations or relations to other things. And many such things can be proved in regard to God, both from naturally known principles and from principles of faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod in qualibet scientia sunt aliqua quasi principia et aliqua quasi conclusiones. Ratio ergo quae inducitur in scientiis praecedit assensum conclusionum, sed sequitur assensum principiorum, cum ex eis procedat. Articuli autem fidei in hac scientia non sunt quasi conclusiones, sed quasi principia quae etiam defenduntur ab impugnantibus, sicut philosophus in IV metaphysicae disputat contra negantes principia, et manifestantur per aliquas similitudines, sicut principia naturaliter nota per inductionem, non autem ratione demonstrativa probantur.
<td>4. It may be answered: In any science whatever there are certain things that serve as principles, and others as conclusions. Hence the reasoning process set forth in the sciences precedes the assent given to a conclusion, but follows upon assent to principles, since it proceeds from them. Now, it is true that the articles of faith are in this science rather principles than conclusions, but they must be defended against those opposing them, as the Philosopher (IV <i>Metaph.</i>) proves against those denying first principles: for they may be made clearer of understanding by certain similitudes, by inducing results of opposing naturally known principles, but they cannot be proved by demonstrative reasoning.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod etiam in scientiis humanitus traditis sunt quaedam principia in quibusdam earum quae non sunt omnibus nota, sed oportet ea supponere a superioribus scientiis, sicut in scientiis subalternatis supponuntur et creduntur aliqua a scientiis superioribus, et illa non sunt per se nota nisi superioribus scientibus. Et hoc modo se habent articuli fidei, qui sunt principia huius scientiae, ad cognitionem divinam, quia ea quae sunt per se nota in scientia, quam Deus habet de se ipso, supponuntur in scientia nostra et creduntur ei nobis haec indicanti per suos nuntios, sicut medicus credit physico quattuor esse elementa.
<td>5. It must be said: Even in those sciences handed down to us by human tradition, there are certain principles in some of them which are not universally known, but which presuppose truths derived from a higher science, just as in subordinate sciences certain things taken from superior sciences are assumed and believed to be true; and truths of this kind are not per se nota except in the higher sciences. This is the case with the articles of faith; for they are principles of that science leading to knowledge of divine things, since those truths which are <i>per se nota</i> in the knowledge which God has of Himself, are presupposed in our science; and He is believed as the one manifesting these truths to us through His messengers, even as the doctor believes from the word of the physicist that there are four elements.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod apparentia scientiae procedit ex apparentia principiorum; quoniam scientia non facit apparere principia, sed ex hoc, quod apparent principia, facit apparere conclusiones. Et per hunc modum scientia, de qua loquimur, non facit apparere ea de quibus est fides, sed ex eis facit apparere alia per modum quo de primis certitudo habetur.
<td>6. Answer is made: The evident truths of a science proceed from the evident truth of principles. Wherefore a science does not make clear the truth of its principles, but makes clear that of its conclusions: and in this same way the science of which we now speak does not make evident the things of which we have faith, but on the basis of them, it makes other things evident with the same certitude as that belonging to their first principles.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad septimum dicendum quod cuiuslibet scientiae principium est intellectus semper quidem primum, sed non semper proximum, immo aliquando est fides proximum principium scientiae. Sicut patet in scientiis subalternatis, quia earum conclusiones sicut ex proximo principio procedunt ex fide eorum quae supponuntur a superiori scientia, sed sicut a principio primo ab intellectu superioris scientis, qui de his creditis certitudinem per intellectum habet. Et similiter huius scientiae principium proximum est fides, sed primum est intellectus divinus, cui nos credimus, sed finis fidei est nobis, ut perveniamus ad intelligendum quae credimus, sicut si inferior sciens addiscat superioris scientis scientiam, et tunc fient et intellecta vel scita, quae prius erant tantummodo credita.
<td>7. It may be said: Understanding is always the first principle of any science, but not always the proximate principle; rather, it is often faith which is the proximate principle of a science, as is evident in the case of the subordinate sciences; since their conclusions proceed from faith in truths accepted on the authority of a superior science as from a proximate principle, but from the understanding of scientists in the superior field who have intellectual certitude of these created truths as from their ultimate principle. So likewise the proximate principle of this divine science is faith, but the first principle is the divine intellect to the revelation of which we give the assent of faith; but faith is in us that we may attain to an understanding of those things we believe; in the same way that a scientist in an inferior field, if he should gain knowledge of a higher, would then possess understanding and science of truths which previously were accepted only on faith.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="23" id="23">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 3<br>
Whether in the Science of Faith, Which Is Concerning God, it Is Permissible to Use the Rational Arguments of the Natural Philosophers</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Articulus 3
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in his quae sunt fidei non liceat philosophicis rationibus uti. 1 Cor. 1: non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, non in sapientia verbi, Glossa: in doctrina philosophorum. Et super illud: ubi inquisitor huius saeculi? Dicit Glossa: inquisitor est qui naturae secreta rimatur, tales non recipit Deus inter praedicatores. Et super illud 2 c.: sermo meus et praedicatio mea fuit non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, dicit Glossa: etsi persuasibilia fuerunt verba mea, non tamen per humanam sapientiam, ut verba pseudoapostolorum.
<td>1. It seems that in regard to those truths that are of faith it is not right to employ the rational arguments of the natural philosophers, for, according to 1 Cor. 1:17, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not wisdom of speech”; that is, “in the doctrine of the philosophers,” as the gloss says. And concerning the line (1 Cor. 1:20), “Where is the disputer of this world?” the gloss says: “The disputer is he who searches into the secrets of nature; such men God does not accept as preachers.” And on the line (1 Cor. 2:4), “And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom,” the gloss says: “Although the words were persuasive, they were not so because of human wisdom, as is the word of pseudo-apostles.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ex quibus omnibus videtur quod in his quae sunt fidei non liceat rationibus philosophicis uti.
<td>From all these lines it is evident that in matters of faith it is not lawful to employ philosophical reasoning.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Is. 15 super illud: nocte vastata est Ar, dicit Glossa: Ar, id est adversarius, scilicet scientia saecularis, quae adversaria est Deo. Ergo scientia saeculari in his quae Dei sunt uti non debemus.
<td>2. On that line (Is. 15:1), “Because in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste,” the gloss says: “Ar, that is, the adversary, namely, secular science, which is the adversary of God”; therefore, etc.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit: sacramentum fidei a philosophicis argumentis est liberum. Ergo ubi de fide agitur, philosophorum rationibus et dictis uti non licet.
<td>3. Ambrose says: “The deepest mysteries of faith are free from the reasonings of the philosophers”; therefore, when a matter of faith is dealt with, the reasonings and words of the philosophers ought not to be used.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Hieronymus refert in epistula ad Eustochium virginem se in visione verberatum divino iudicio fuisse pro eo quod in libris legerat Ciceronis, et qui astabant precabantur ut veniam tribueret adolescentiae, exacturus deinde cruciatum, si gentilium libros aliquando legisset; unde obtestans nomen Dei clamavit: domine, si umquam habuero saeculares codices, si legero, te negavi. Si ergo non licet in eis studere et legere, multo minus licet eis in divinis tractatibus uti.
<td>4. Jerome relates in a letter to Eustochium that in vision he was beaten, according to divine justice, because he had read the books of Cicero, and that those standing by besought that leniency might be granted on account of his youth, and that afterward the extreme penalty should be exacted if he read again the books of the Gentiles; wherefore, calling upon the name of God, he exclaimed: “If ever I shall possess secular books, if ever I read them, I shall have denied You”; therefore it is not lawful to use them in treating of divine things.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, saecularis sapientia frequenter in Scriptura per aquam significatur, sapientia vero divina per vinum. Sed Is. 1 vituperabuntur caupones aquam vino miscentes. Ergo vituperandi sunt doctores qui sacrae doctrinae philosophica documenta admiscent.
<td>5. In Scripture, secular wisdom is often represented by water, but divine wisdom by wine. Now, according to Is., chap. 1, the innkeepers are upbraided for mixing water with wine; therefore the doctors are blameworthy for their mingling of philosophical doctrine with sacred Scripture.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut dicit Hieronymus in Glossa Osee 2, cum haereticis nec nomina debemus habere communia. Sed haeretici utuntur ad fidei corruptionem philosophicis documentis, ut habetur in Glossa Prov. 7 et Is. 15. Ergo Catholici eis in suis tractatibus uti non debent.
<td>6. Jerome says, in his gloss on Hosea, chap. 2, “With heretics we ought not to have even names in common.” But heretics use the arguments of philosophers to destroy faith, as is maintained in the gloss on Prov., chap, 7 and Is., chap. 15; therefore Catholics ought not to use such in their discussions.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, sicut quaelibet scientia habet principia propria, ita et sacra doctrina, scilicet articulos fidei. Sed in aliis scientiis non recte proceditur, si assumantur alterius scientiae principia, sed oportet in unaquaque ex propriis principiis procedere, secundum doctrinam philosophi in I posteriorum. Ergo nec in sacra doctrina recte proceditur, si quis ex documentis philosophorum procedit.
<td>7. Every science has its proper principles, and thus also sacred doctrine has those that belong to it, namely, the articles of faith; but in other sciences the process is not valid if principles are taken from a different science, but each ought to proceed from its own principles, according to the teaching of the Philosopher (I <i>Poster.</i>); therefore the method is not permissible in sacred doctrine.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, si alicuius doctrina in aliquo repudiatur, eius auctoritas invalida est ad aliquid confirmandum; unde dicit Augustinus quod si in sacra Scriptura concesserimus aliquid esse falsitatis, peribit eius auctoritas ad fidei confirmationem. Sed sacra doctrina in multis doctrinam philosophorum repudiat, quia in multis errasse inveniuntur. Ergo eorum auctoritas non est efficax ad aliquid confirmandum.
<td>8. If the doctrine of anyone is repudiated in any respect, the authority of his teaching will not be valid in proving anything; wherefore Augustine says that, if in sacred doctrine we discover some falsity, the authority of that teaching is destroyed for confirming anything in regard to faith; but sacred doctrine repudiates the doctrine of the philosophers in many ways, because many errors are found among them; therefore their authority has no efficacy in proving anything (regarding sacred doctrine).
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra est quod apostolus Tit. 1 Epimenidis poetae versiculo usus est dicens: Cretenses semper mendaces, malae bestiae, ventres pigri, et 1 Cor. 15 verbis Menandri: corrumpunt bonos mores colloquia prava, et Athenis usus est verbis Arati: ipsius, scilicet Dei, et genus sumus, ut habetur Act. 17. Ergo et aliis divinae Scripturae doctoribus licet philosophicis argumentis uti.
<td>But on the contrary, the Apostle (Titus 1: 12) makes use of a verse from the poet Epimenides, saying, “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts,” etc.; and (1 Cor. 15:33) he employs the words of Menander: “Evil communications corrupt good manners”; and in Acts 17:28 are the words of Aratus, “For we are also his (i.e., God’s) offspring.” Therefore it is licit for other doctors of divine Scripture also to make use of the arguments of the philosophers.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Hieronymus in epistula ad magnum urbis Romae oratorem enumeratis pluribus sacrae Scripturae doctoribus ut Basilio, Gregorio et quibusdam aliis subiungit: qui omnes in tantum philosophorum doctrinis atque sententiis suos referserunt libros, ut nescias, quid in eis primum mirari debeas, utrum eruditionem saeculi vel scientiam Scripturarum. Quod non fecissent, si non licuisset vel inutile fuisset.
<td>Again, Jerome, in a letter to Magnus, a famous orator of Rome, having enumerated many doctors of Scripture, such as Basil and Gregory, adds: “All these have so intermingled in their books the teachings and the sayings of the philosophers that one knows not which to admire first in them, their secular erudition or their knowledge of the Scriptures.” But this they would not have done had such been illicit or useless.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Hieronymus in epistula ad Pammachium de dormitione Paulinae: si adamaveris mulierem captivam, id est sapientiam saecularem, et eius pulchritudine captus fueris, decalva eam, et illecebras crinium atque ornamenta verborum cum tenacibus unguibus seca, lava eam prophetali nitro, et requiescens cum illa dicito: sinistra eius sub capite meo, et dextera illius amplexabitur me, et multos tibi captiva fetus dabit, ac de Moabitide efficietur tibi Israelites. Ergo fructuosum est ut aliquis sapientia saeculari utatur.
<td>Also Jerome in a letter to Pammachius about the death of Paula says: you have become enamored of the captive woman, secular wisdom, and captivated by her beauty, cut her hair and her finger nails, cut away the enticement of her tresses and the adornments of her words, bathe her with prophetic niter, and, lying with her, say: ‘His left hand under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me’ (Cant. 8:3), and many children will the captive woman give to you, and from the Moabite, Israelites will be born to you.” Therefore with fruitful results some make use of secular wisdom.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in II de Trinitate: non ero segnis ad inquirendam substantiam Dei sive per Scripturam sive per creaturam. Sed cognitio de creaturis in philosophia proponitur. Ergo non est inconveniens quod aliquis in sacra doctrina rationibus philosophicis utatur.
<td>Again Augustine (II <i>De Trinitate</i>) says: “I shall not be without zeal in seeking out knowledge of God, whether through Scripture or creatures”; but knowledge of God through creatures is given in philosophy; therefore it is not unfitting that in sacred doctrine one should make use of philosophical reasoning.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Augustinus in II de doctrina Christiana: philosophi autem qui dicuntur si qua forte vera et fidei nostrae accomoda dixerunt, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis tamquam iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda. Et sic idem quod prius.
<td>Again Augustine (Book II, <i>De doctrina Christiana</i>) says: “If the philosophers have by chance uttered truths helpful to our faith, they are not only not to be feared, but rather those truths ought to be taken from them as from unjust possessors and used to our advantage.” Thus the conclusion is as before.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Daniel 1 super illud: proposuit autem Daniel etc., dicit Glossa: si quis imperitus mathematicae artis contra mathematicos scribat aut expers philosophiae contra philosophos agat, quis etiam ridendus vel ridendo non rideat? Sed oportet quandoque doctorem sacrae Scripturae contra philosophos agere. Ergo oportet eum philosophia uti.
<td>Also on the saying in Dan. 1:8, “But Daniel purposed in his heart,” the gloss says: “If anyone ignorant of mathematics should write in opposition to the mathematicians, or knowing nothing of philosophy should argue against the philosophers, would he not be derided?” But doctors of sacred Scripture must at times argue with philosophers; therefore it is needful that they make use of philosophy.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod dona gratiarum hoc modo naturae adduntur quod eam non tollunt, sed magis perficiunt; unde et lumen fidei, quod nobis gratis infunditur, non destruit lumen naturalis rationis divinitus nobis inditum. Et quamvis lumen naturale mentis humanae sit insufficiens ad manifestationem eorum quae manifestantur per fidem, tamen impossibile est quod ea, quae per fidem traduntur nobis divinitus, sint contraria his quae sunt per naturam nobis indita. Oporteret enim alterum esse falsum; et cum utrumque sit nobis a Deo, Deus nobis esset auctor falsitatis, quod est impossibile. Sed magis cum in imperfectis inveniatur aliqua imitatio perfectorum, in ipsis, quae per naturalem rationem cognoscuntur, sunt quaedam similitudines eorum quae per fidem sunt tradita.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that it must be said that gifts of grace are added to those of nature in such a way that they do not destroy the latter, but rather perfect them; wherefore also the light of faith, which is gratuitously infused into our minds, does not destroy the natural light of cognition, which is in us by nature. For although the natural light of the human mind is insufficient to reveal those truths revealed by faith, yet it is impossible that those things which God has manifested to us by faith should be contrary to those which are evident to us by natural knowledge. In this case one would necessarily be false: and since both kinds of truth are from God, God would be the author of error, a thing which is impossible. Rather, since in imperfect things there is found some imitation of the perfect, though the image is deficient, in those things known by natural reason there are certain similitudes of the truths revealed by faith.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sicut autem sacra doctrina fundatur supra lumen fidei, ita philosophia fundatur supra lumen naturale rationis; unde impossibile est quod ea, quae sunt philosophiae, sint contraria his quae sunt fidei, sed deficiunt ab eis. Continent tamen aliquas eorum similitudines et quaedam ad ea praeambula, sicut natura praeambula est ad gratiam.
<td>Now, as sacred doctrine is founded upon the light of faith, so philosophy depends upon the light of natural reason; wherefore it is impossible that philosophical truths are contrary to those that are of faith; but they are deficient as compared to them. Nevertheless they incorporate some similitudes of those higher truths, and some things that are preparatory for them, just as nature is the preamble to grace.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Si quid autem in dictis philosophorum invenitur contrarium fidei, hoc non est philosophia, sed magis philosophiae abusus ex defectu rationis. Et ideo possibile est ex principiis philosophiae huiusmodi errorem refellere vel ostendendo omnino esse impossibile vel ostendendo non esse necessarium. Sicut enim ea quae sunt fidei non possunt demonstrative probari, ita quaedam contraria eis non possunt demonstrative ostendi esse falsa, sed potest ostendi ea non esse necessaria.
<td>If, however, anything is found in the teachings of the philosophers contrary to faith, this error does not properly belong to philosophy, but is due to an abuse of philosophy owing to the insufficiency of reason. Therefore also it is possible from the principles of philosophy to refute an error of this kind, either by showing it to be altogether impossible, or not to be necessary. For just as those things which are of faith cannot be demonstratively proved, so certain things contrary to them cannot be demonstratively shown to be false, but they can be shown not to be necessary.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sic ergo in sacra doctrina philosophia possumus tripliciter uti.
<td>Thus, in sacred doctrine we are able to make a threefold use of philosophy:
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Primo ad demonstrandum ea quae sunt praeambula fidei, quae necesse est in fide scire, ut ea quae naturalibus rationibus de Deo probantur, ut Deum esse, Deum esse unum et alia huiusmodi vel de Deo vel de creaturis in philosophia probata, quae fides supponit.
<td>1. First, to demonstrate those truths that are preambles of faith and that have a necessary place in the science of faith. Such are the truths about God that can be proved by natural reason—that God exists, that God is one; such truths about God or about His creatures, subject to philosophical proof, faith presupposes.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secundo ad notificandum per aliquas similitudines ea quae sunt fidei, sicut Augustinus in libro de Trinitate utitur multis similitudinibus ex doctrinis philosophicis sumptis ad manifestandum Trinitatem.
<td>2. Secondly, to give a clearer notion, by certain similitudes, of the truths of faith, as Augustine in his book, <i>De Trinitate</i>, employed any comparisons taken from the teachings of the philosophers to aid understanding of the Trinity.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tertio ad resistendum his quae contra fidem dicuntur sive ostendendo ea esse falsa sive ostendendo ea non esse necessaria.
<td>3. In the third place, to resist those who speak against the faith, either by showing that their statements are false, or by showing that they are not necessarily true.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Tamen utentes philosophia in sacra doctrina possunt dupliciter errare.
<td>Nevertheless, in the use of philosophy in sacred Scripture, there can be a twofold error:
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Uno modo in hoc quod utantur his quae sunt contra fidem, quae non sunt philosophiae, sed corruptio vel abusus eius, sicut Origenes fecit.
<td>In one way, by using doctrines contrary to faith, which are not truths of philosophy, but rather error, or abuse of philosophy, as Origen did.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Alio modo, ut ea quae sunt fidei includantur sub metis philosophiae, ut scilicet si aliquis credere nolit nisi quod per philosophiam haberi potest, cum e converso philosophia sit ad metas fidei redigenda, secundum illud apostoli 2 Cor. 10: in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.
<td>In another way, by using them in such manner as to include under the measure of philosophy truths of faith, as if one should be willing to believe nothing except what could be held by philosophic reasoning; when, on the contrary, philosophy should be subject to the measure of faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:5), “Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Answers to objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex omnibus verbis illis ostenditur quod doctrina philosophorum non sit utendum quasi principali, ut scilicet propter eam veritas fidei credatur; non tamen removetur, quin ea possint uti sacri doctores quasi secundaria. Unde ibidem super illud: perdam sapientiam sapientum, dicit Glossa: non ideo hoc dicit ut veritatis intelligentia possit a Deo reprobari, sed quia eorum prudentia reprobatur, qui in sua eruditione confidunt.
<td>1. It may be said: From all these words it is shown that philosophical doctrine ought not to be used as if it had first place, as if on account of it one believed by faith; nevertheless the fact is not disproved that doctors of sacred learning may employ philosophy, as it were, secondarily. Wherefore, on the saying (1 Cor. 1:19), “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” the gloss adds: “This he does not say because the understanding of truth can be worthy of God’s anger, but because the false prudence of those who trusted in their erudition is worthy of reproof.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ut tamen totum quod est fidei non humanae potentiae aut sapientiae tribueretur, sed Deo, voluit Deus ut primitiva apostolorum praedicatio esset in infirmitate et simplicitate, cui tamen postea potentia et saecularis sapientia superveniens ostendit per victoriam fidei mundum esse Deo subiectum et quantum ad potentiam et quantum ad sapientiam.
<td>Nevertheless, in order that all that is of faith might be attributed not to human power or wisdom but to God, God willed that the primitive preaching of the apostles should be in infirmity and simplicity; though, on the other hand, with the later advent of power and secular wisdom, He manifested by the victory of the faith that the world is subject to God as much by wisdom as by power.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad secundum dicendum quod sapientia saecularis dicitur esse contraria Deo quantum ad eius abusum, sicut ea haeretici abutuntur, non quantum ad eius veritatem.
<td>2. It may be said: Secular wisdom is said to be contrary to God in so far as it is an abuse of wisdom (i.e., erroneous) as when heretics abuse it, but not in so far as it is true.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum fidei pro tanto dicitur liberum a philosophicis argumentis, quia sub metis philosophiae non coartatur, ut dictum est.
<td>3. It may be answered: The sacred deposit of the truth of faith is said to be free from philosophical doctrine inasmuch as it is not confined by the limits of philosophy.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum dicendum quod Hieronymus adeo afficiebatur ad gentilium libros quod sacram Scripturam quodammodo contemnebat; unde ipsemet ibidem dicit: si quando in memet reversus prophetas legere coepissem, sermo horrebat incultus. Et hoc esse reprehensibile nullus ambigit.
<td>4. It may be said: Jerome was so influenced by certain books of the Gentiles that he contemned, in a way, sacred Scripture: wherefore he himself says: “If I began to read it while turning over the words of the Prophets in my own mind, their crude expression filled me with distaste.” And no one will deny that such was reprehensible.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quintum dicendum quod ex tropicis locutionibus non est sumenda argumentatio, ut dicit Magister 11 distinctione III sententiarum, et Dionysius dicit in epistula ad Titum quod symbolica theologia non est argumentativa, et praecipue cum illa expositio non sit alicuius auctoris. Et tamen potest dici quod quando alterum duorum transit in dominium alterius, non reputatur mixtio, sed quando utrumque a sua natura alteratur. Unde illi, qui utuntur philosophicis documentis in sacra doctrina redigendo in obsequium fidei, non miscent aquam vino, sed aquam convertunt in vinum.
<td>5. It may be said: No conclusive argument can be drawn from figurative speech, as the Master (Peter Lombard) says. Dionysius also says in his letter to Titus that symbolic theology has no weight of proof, especially when such interprets no authority. Nevertheless it can be said that When one of two things passes into the nature of another, the product is not considered a mixture except when the nature of both is altered. Wherefore those who use philosophical doctrines in sacred Scripture in such a way as to subject them to the service of faith, do not mix water with wine, but change water into wine.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad sextum dicendum quod Hieronymus loquitur de illis nominibus quae ab haereticis sunt inventa accomoda suis erroribus. Philosophicae autem disciplinae non sunt tales, immo earum abusus solum in errorem ducit, et ideo non sunt propter hoc vitandae.
<td>6. It may be said: Jerome is speaking of those arguments that were invented by heretics to give support to their errors; but such doctrines do not belong to philosophy; rather they lead only to error; and consequently on their account the truths of philosophy ought not be shunned.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad septimum dicendum quod scientiae quae habent ordinem ad invicem hoc modo se habent quod una potest uti principiis alterius, sicut scientiae posteriores utuntur principiis scientiarum priorum, sive sint superiores sive inferiores; unde metaphysica, quae est omnibus superior, utitur his quae in aliis scientiis sunt probata. Et similiter theologia, cum omnes aliae scientiae sint huic quasi famulantes et praeambulae in via generationis, quamvis sint dignitate posteriores, potest uti principiis omnium aliarum scientiarum.
<td>7. Answer may be made: Sciences which are ordered to one another are so related that one can use the principles of another, just as posterior sciences can use the principles of prior sciences, whether they are superior or inferior: wherefore metaphysics, which is superior in dignity to all, uses truths that have been proved in other sciences. And in like manner theology—Although all other sciences are related to it in the order of generation, as serving it and as preambles to it—can make use of the principles of all the others, even if they are posterior to it in dignity.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad octavum dicendum quod in quantum sacra doctrina utitur philosophicis documentis propter se, non recipit ea propter auctoritatem dicentium, sed propter rationem dictorum, unde quaedam bene dicta accipit et alia respuit. Sed quando utitur eis propter alios refellendos, utitur eis, in quantum sunt in auctoritatem illis qui refelluntur, quia testimonium ab adversariis est efficacius.
<td>8. It may be said: Inasmuch as sacred doctrine makes use of the teachings of philosophy for their own sake, it does not accept them on account of the authority of those who taught them, but on account of the reasonableness of the doctrine; wherefore it accepts truth well said and rejects other things: but when it uses these doctrines to refute certain errors, it uses them inasmuch as their authority is esteemed by those whose refutation is desired, because the testimony of an adversary has in that case greater weight.
</table>
<hr></a> <a name="24" id="24">
<table cellpadding="12">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b>Article 4<br>
Whether Divine Truths Ought to Be Concealed by New and Obscure Words</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Articulus 4
<td><b>Objections</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divina in scientia fidei non sunt obscuritate verborum velanda, quia, ut dicitur Prov. 14, doctrina prudentium facilis. Ergo sine obscuritate verborum proponi debet.
<td>1. It seems that in the science of faith divine truths ought not to be veiled over by obscurity of words, for it is said in Prov. 14:6, “The learning of the wise is easy.” Therefore these truths ought to be presented without obscurity of words.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Eccli. 4: ne abscondas sapientiam in decore eius; et Prov. 11: qui abscondit frumenta, Glossa: praedicationis, maledicetur in populis. Ergo verba sacrae doctrinae non sunt velanda.
<td>2. According to Sirach 4:28, “Hide not thy wisdom in her beauty,” and Prov. 11:26, “He that hides up corn (the gloss says that preaching is here meant) shall be cursed among the people.” Therefore the words of sacred doctrine ought not to be hidden.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Matth. 10: quod dico vobis in tenebris, Glossa: in mysterio, dicite in lumine, Glossa: aperte. Ergo obscura fidei sunt magis reseranda quam occultanda difficultate verborum.
<td>3. The text of Matt. 10:27, “That which I tell you in the dark (gloss, in mystery) speak ye in the light (gloss, openly).” Therefore the obscure truths of faith ought to be made more manifest, rather than hidden by the difficulties of words.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, doctores fidei sunt sapientibus et insipientibus debitores, ut patet Rom. 1. Ergo taliter debent loqui, ut a magnis et a parvis intelligantur, id est sine obscuritate verborum.
<td>4. The doctors of truths of faith are debtors to wise and unwise, as is evident from Rom. 1:14: therefore they ought so to speak that they may be understood by great and small, that is, without obscurity of words.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Sap. 7 dicitur: quam sine fictione didici et sine invidia communico. Sed ille qui eam occultat, non eam communicat. Ergo videtur invidiae reus.
<td>5. Wis. 7:13, “Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy”; but those who hide do not, communicate; therefore they seem guilty of envy.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit IV de doctrina Christiana: expositores sacrae Scripturae non ita loqui debent, tamquam se ipsos exponendos proponant, sed in omnibus sermonibus suis primitus ac maxime ut intelligantur elaborent ea perspicuitate dicendi, ut multum tardus sit qui non intelligit.
<td>6. Augustine in IV <i>De doctrina Christiana</i> says: “Those explaining sacred Scripture ought not to speak in such a way that they themselves need explanation as of the same authority; but in all their sermons they ought to strive primarily and especially to be understood, and to declare these truths with as much clarity as possible so that he would be very dull who would not comprehend them.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>
<td><b>Sed contra</b>
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. 7: nolite sanctum dare canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ubi dicit Glossa: res absconsa avidius quaeritur, celata venerabilius conspicitur, diu quaesita carius tenetur. Cum ergo sacra documenta expediat summa veneratione intueri, videtur quod non debeant publicari, sed obscure tradi.
<td>But on the contrary is that which is said in Matt, 7:6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs,” on which the gloss comments: “A hidden thing is more eagerly sought for, a thing concealed appears more worthy of veneration, that which is a long time sought for is held more dear.” Since, therefore, sacred writings ought to be regarded with the greatest veneration, it seems that it is expedient they be discussed with obscurity of speech.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, Dionysius dicit 1 c. ecclesiasticae hierarchiae: omnem sanctam laudem non tradas alteri praeter aeque ordinatos tibi deiformes, id est divinas laudes, quibus omnia sacra documenta complectitur, non tradas nisi tibi similibus. Sed si verbis conspicuis scriberentur, omnibus paterent. Ergo secreta fidei sunt verborum obscuritate velanda.
<td>Again, Dionysius (I <i>Eccles. hier.</i>) says: “Do not reveal to another every holy thing in praise of God, except those forms of praise generally ordained; that is, those divine rites by which all the sacraments are surrounded should not be revealed except to those like yourself”; but if they were written in conspicuous words, they would be apparent to all; therefore the secrets of faith are to be concealed by obscuring words.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Praeterea, ad hoc est quod dicitur Luc. 8: vobis, id est perfectis, datum est nosse mysterium regni Dei, id est intelligentiam Scripturarum, ut patet per Glossam, ceteris autem in parabolis. Ergo oportet aliqua verborum obscuritate a multitudine occultari.
<td>Also it is said in Luke 8:10, “To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God” (that is, to have understanding of the Scriptures, as is evident from the gloss); “but to the rest in parables.” Therefore one ought by obscurity in speech conceal sacred truths from the multitude.
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Responsio. Dicendum quod verba docentis ita debent esse moderata ut proficiant, non noceant audienti. Quaedam autem sunt quae audita nemini nocent, sicut ea quae omnes scire tenentur; et talia non sunt occultanda, sed manifeste omnibus proponenda. Quaedam vero sunt quae proposita manifeste auditoribus nocent; quod quidem contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, si arcana fidei infidelibus fidem abhorrentibus denudentur. Eis enim venirent in derisum; et propter hoc dominus dicit Matth. 7: nolite sanctum dare canibus; et Dionysius dicit c. 2 caelestis hierarchiae: quae sancta sunt circumtegens ex immunda multitudine tamquam uniformia custodi.
<td><b>Response.</b> I answer that the words of a teacher ought to be so moderated that they result to the profit and not to the detriment of the one hearing him. Now, there are certain things which on being heard harm no one, as are the truths which all are held responsible to know: and such ought not to be hidden but openly proposed to all. But there are others which, if openly presented, cause harm in those hearing them; and this can occur for two reasons: in one way, if the secret truths of faith are revealed to infidels who oppose the faith and so come to be derided by them. On this account it is said in Matt. 7:6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs.” And Dionysius (II <i>Coel. hierar.</i>) says, “Listen reverently to these words, to this doctrine given for our instruction by the divinity of divinities, and hide these holy teachings in your minds, shielding them from the unclean multitude so that you may keep them as uniform as possible.”
<tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
<td>Secundo, quando aliqua subtilia rudibus proponuntur, ex quibus perfecte non comprehensis materiam sumunt errandi; unde apostolus dicit 1 Cor. 3: ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, sed tamquam parvulis in Christo lac potum vobis dedi, non escam. Unde Exodi 22 super illud: si quis aperuerit cisternam etc., dicit Glossa Gregorii: qui in sacro eloquio iam alta intelligit, sublimes sensus coram non capientibus per silentium tegat, ne per scandalum interius aut fidelem parvulum aut infidelem, qui credere potuisset, interimat. Haec ergo ab his, quibus nocent, occultanda sunt.